The H's 1955 is going to be voted in if were not careful, so vote no on this act PLZ. I know none of you want it into office seresously!

It takes away our first ammendment completly...
We cant say the president can suck a dick...or were takin into custody...and this is all true. Contact you board of officials and ask them, they'll tell you. And vote no on it.

oops, I accedently put this in the gnome forums, can you move it to Ross club?

Aaand... how is that? What does it do?

I'd like to see the exact wording of this document.

ok well, when I have time tommarro, I'll get it for you, but it's basically where we cant talk smack about the president, or were a "terrorist"

my friend posted the link in a message on myspace. All I know is it's the CA government website. but im tired, ima jump off right now and sleep @.@

Forgive me for being skeptical; I hear people all the time, stating that we have full and complete freedom, in every way (i.e. "It's a free country, I can do whatever I want"). Which, if you know anything about government, isn't true. There ARE limitations to freedom, and rightly so. Thus, limitations on certain things may or may not be considered a Constitutional restriction. It really just depends.

Certainly, there are a LOT more technicalities to it, so I tend to ingore someone just flipping out saying, "OMG they're taking away our rights." Basically, I'd like to know the details, so I can judge for myself whether this seems just or not.

Here's the resolution that he's referring to. I'll read it later and reply further.

thnx again Vaskal, sry I was tired last night @.@
I didn't want to go look for it.

WTF IS THIS this is section b part 1 of the SEC. 899C. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE.

violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important

What they consider important...F THAT. What the hell will they consider important. That is bull crap

I think Iv'e seen enough, if you notice the last section...
To protect the cival liberties that made me laugh so fn hard

No offense but... do you understand anything it's saying? Or are you reacting without any sort of critical thought, just saying "I HAET TEH GOVEMENT"?

Hmm, I fail to see the harm in this resolution. It does two things; it creates a temporary committee and a more permanent "Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism."

The committee that would be formed by it, should it pass, is merely an investigative body whose sole purpose is to determine threats from homegrown terrorism and recommend ways to deal with it. It would only exist for 18 months and have no real power other than to gather information from existing government agencies. The reports are even to be made public, minus anything that would hinder national security (which applies to any and every government document released to the public).

The Center of blah blah blah is merely a university-based study group that would work together with international counterparts to learn more about homegrown terrorism, how to detect it and how to prevent it.


Both bodies would be bound by the following, per the resolution:
"Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents."

If you're going to be outspoken about politics, please take the time and effort to understand what you're commenting on. Being politically informed also means being politically responsible. Don't be the boy who cried wolf. The US government is far from perfect, but it's far more kind to its citizens than most governments. The fact that so many people can speak out against it from within is solid evidence of that, as well as the fact that anyone can access material such as this resolution before it's even passed. If you're truly concerned about it, please study it and, if you're still concerned, contact your representative in the US House of Representatives.

Vaskal's pretty much clarified. It's just a commission group set up to investigate and prevent possible "violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence".

To be honest, everything they're even allowed to suspect in the first place is all stuff we're not legally allowed to say anyway. You can still say "president can suck a dick" if you please. Saying that isn't going to make anyone suspect that you're a possible terrorist. However, discussing ways you could kill him could be, and already is, illegal.

The commission is even assigned by a VERY wide range of executives and legislators of very contrasting opinion. Therefore, the commission is sure not to be partisan in any form, and isn't going to attempt to take away your 1st Amendment rights. You're safe. Also:

*Seconded* ^^;;

Freedom of speach (wether in america or anywhere else) is allready limited, Every day we are manipulated. I'm not going to even begin to pretend to understand American politics, as im from the UK. But as an observer ive noticed alot of people jumping on the hate bush bandwaggon, And alot of it is well justified... as in the Iraq war and other discrepancies. Though recently people just seem to be hating him for the fact of hating him, I mean if anyone is in power they are going to be hated, sometimes for well justified reasons, other times for not quite as justified reasons. If you hate bush then i believe that you should have solid points other than "the iraq war" or "the oil hunt"

Personally i hate bush because he's trigger happy, and i personally dont feel safe with him at the helm of the worlds largest superpower. But hey, At least i hated bush before it was cool ;)

Hah, well... the bandwagon thing isn't anything new, that's for sure.

There've always been those who are critical of their governments. This isn't a problem; however, these people are closely tailed by those who are too lazy to think on their own and simply eat everything the aforementioned people feed them.

Basically, there will ALWAYS be people who get a kick out of thinking they hate the government and acting like they know about real issues, when they clearly don't. People like to sound smart, and knowing politics is a great way to do that.

The funny part about it is, though, is to anyone who actually knows anything about politics or anything of the sort, it is terribly evident when others are acting like they know. Hah.

Heh, i agree with you there Ayesuku, I remember a few weeks back i was walking past a couple of kids in deep conversation about the government, the typical Anti government angst loving teenager stereotype kids. They started talking about how bush was on an oil hunt, and the Iraq was folly. so i joined in on the conversation asking them if they disliked anything else about the president, and the only thing they could think of was "Well he looks like a dick".

Saying you know about politics is a great way to feign intelligence, but the sad truth is, the people who actually do know about politics are greatly out numbered by the Manipulated general public, who get a kick out of talking bullshit.

People are only manipulated on politics in the US if they allow themselves to be. It takes very little effort, though a fair bit of time, to stay informed. By "informed" I mean looking at raw facts and drawing one's own conclusions, not just listening to what others say. It would be great if people would just pick a few topics they were passionate about and keep up to date, and politically active in some form, on them. Keeping up with all political topics would be impossible.

It would also help if we had more government representatives like a state House rep where I live who sends out occasional letters to his constituents about what the hot issues currently are, his stance on them and what he plans to do in regards to them.

I don't know much about American polotics but they sound very complicated and I don't know much about how Bush operates but I know I wouldn't like him to run Australia.

I am very happy with the Australian government at the moment. John Howard the old Prime Minister has retired and a new awesome one got voted in hehe.

This guy Kevin Rudd who I think is a top bloke is a lot younger, a lot more well informed with the people and he's more of an average fun loving guy like all Australian's.

Thats why when he visited a local strip club just before election time, it only caused his votes to go up because to strip clubs, Australians say YES!

Just a few notes about teh Bush hating. Some updates as of late November, for those of you who dont live in the US or dont watch the news.

* More than 70 percent of the cells created by al Qaeda in Iraq have been dismantled, with vast amounts of money and arms seized from terrorists and insurgents. The so-called Islamic State in Iraq, set up by al Qaeda in parts of four provinces, has collapsed.

* Iraqis who'd sought temporary refuge in neighboring countries are returning home in large numbers - 1,000 a day returning from Syria alone.

* Thanks to mediation by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Shiite coalition, the three groups that had withdrawn from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government are expected to return to the fold.

* The British forces' handover of Basra to Iraqi authorities was completed without a hitch; Iraq's second largest city is rapidly returning to normal.

* Iraq's national currency, the dinar, is trading at its highest level since 1990 against the Iranian rial, the Kuwaiti dinar and the US dollar.

And lets not forget the breakthrough in stem cell research. That made Bush look very good.

The funny part is, Democrats are running out of things to slam Bush on because everything he's said is slowly coming true.

But anyway...the commission is nothing to worry about...unless you ARE a terrorist.

It's your ability to allow yourself to admit being wrong that enables everything to work the way it's meant to. Of course, with party politics, that's not feasible.

Majority of politicians (I'm talking 98% here) are far too afraid to step outside the boundaries of the statements of their party--as if one person could fully believe in and agree with EVERY point one vague group of people makes (They can't). Because of this, politics is more about who's absolutely right, and who's absolutely wrong(Also a ridiculous notion).

They're able to convince members of each group that the other group is simply full of evil, mindless people, and will forever be so; thus, you must hate them, disagree with them, and keep arguing with them, even though it may be obvious that you're wrong.

So, votes from most citizens and politicians aren't based on that individual's personal opinion, but rather what their party thinks. After all, loyalty to your political party should clearly outweigh your own voice and your loyalty to your country. [/sarcasm]

I'm just going to steer clear of the major messes of the "Bush-hating" argument. I could write a freakin book on how irresponsible he, his supporters and his opponents have been. The one thing I will say is that if people learned to work together and compromise in government, and to actually admit when their "opposition" did something good, things would be far better all over the place. Heck, just throw out the whole idea of a person being your opposition and see them as someone who is there for a reason, listen to their reason, and when you disagree, work together to create a solution rather than just throwing blame.

My wife and I were just talking about how early elections in the US had the person with the most votes as president and the second most as vice president. This generally meant that the president and vice president would be from different political parties and would be forced to work together to get anything accomplished.

Well, in reality, the vice president doesn't have much power. In fact, the vice president has one of the most useless positions in government. It's basically a position that names the president if anything should happen to the original president.

Also, many presidential candidates actually choose someone that's far different than they are. They do this because they can reach out and earn the votes of people they would never have the votes of otherwise. They call it "balancing the ticket."

Another little fact: The fathers of America NEVER wanted party politics. They knew what it would do. It didn't exist at first, and they were praying it wouldn't show itself. Unfortunately, it did. And now we have what we have.

Hard to say the founders of the US government didn't want party politics when they're the ones who started it up here. They never agreed with each other, so they split into factions, ran against each other with hateful campaigns and thus began what's led to what we have today. Heck, they didn't even want democracy at first; they offered George Washington kingship over the country. Only after he refused did they consider some form of a republic. Their first attempt was a failure, and they eventually had to write a whole new Constitution to replace the original Articles of Confederation.

As for how powerful the VP is, it's really up to the VP. Just as there are strong and weak presidents, there are strong and weak vice presidents. Most stay in the background, but that doesn't mean they aren't doing anything. Ever since the presidential nominees started choosing their own VP's, the VP usually has taken on the role of an adviser, though there have been a few exceptions. The exceptions, such as Al Gore, have almost always used their influence to push a single topic. In Gore's case, it was the environment.

Violent Radicalization in this country can be from anyone saying they hate the president to a friendly strike. This government over reacts over everything, and no one can argue that fact. I mean just last month some guy was shot when a cop thought he had a gun...it turned out to be a hair brush. The guy didn't even start to pose a threat, he was just J walking...

Over reaction or taking percasions? I say over reaction...and btw, the cop was innocent...even tho the guy died @.@

Cops usually during strikes, start the fights between the people, they usually get paranoid and do something stupid. Like that video with that african american, he was on strike, the cop said something to him, and the man called the cop a fucker.
The cop started to beat the hell out of him with his night stick. And his parnter came over and started in on it to.

What im getting at is...if I went up to the president and called him a fuckin faggot and he should drop dead. they would probibly lock me up for it. Now no threat was intended. But hell that would be considerd a terrorist threat...It's happend so many times in this country already. So whan I said what I did in my first post, I was getting at the fact, they think anything would be a threat to this country, even a 16 year old with a hair brush.


And Aza, you know at first he didn't want the stem cell reaserch...but it's funny now that it's worked so well, bush takes all the credit. haha...and also bush put a stop to part cloning, which would probibly save millions if it were completed.

oh and btw, you know the terrorsim that this country keeps talking about, isn't the same thing as the word terrorism you look up in the dictionary. It's a totally differant word. Torrorism, is someone who threats without doing. Thats what is says in the dictionary I read, so if you can find something that tells me diff than plz show me.

OH and good news!!! Rudy isn't going to be elected! =] but Ron Paul doesn't look so good either =[
Remember...VOTE RON PAUL! even tho it doesn't matter =\

God damn I hate Ron Paul...

I found a source to back my statements, if you'd like to take a look.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages...nard-gerald.htm


Primarily, the section that directly refers to my point is:

If you go on to read, it'll basically explain how parties came to be.


And kingtard... I'm really sorry to say, but you're just spouting random and unsupported frustrations about things that I'm not convinced you know nearly enough about. Is it wrong to disagree or be upset with your government? No; critical thinking is the accountability that the Constitution requires from the people to keep the country running properly. BUT: It requires a well-educated critic to be of any positive use in that way.

Please, read the document. Consider what it says. Don't simply look at a sentence with the state of mind telling you "this is dumb." If you'd read it, you would understand exactly what it's telling you. It's NOT taking away your rights. At all.

This is wrong. You can say you hate anyone. It's not going to do anything. It's not going to cause a commission to look at you as a terrorist.

This is really a completely different discussion. You can't blame the federal government based on the actions of a police officer.

Yes, and no. You call him a faggot, and there's not much they can do about it other than remove you from his presence. You say he should drop dead, you better believe they're gonna lock you up. That can EASILY be taken as a threat, whether you meant it to be or not. YOU are responsible for that action, and YOU will be the one to suffer for it.

...I'm not completely sure what you're trying to say with this. Even if their definition was different than that of a dictionary, that really doesn't cause a problem. Everyone knows exactly what they mean by terrorism. IN FACT.... yes. If you look at this document, you'll see a list of their OWN definitions, so that you know EXACTLY what they mean by the terms they use. So... I don't really see the validity of your point.




*big breath* Hah. =P

You make the assumption that nobody can argue that the government overreacts far too often. I beg to differ.

First, though, your example of the police officer killing a guy with a comb is irrelevant because police work for local governments, not the federal. Completely different systems. I only caught a little of the news story and don't know much about it, but what I'm guessing happened is either the guy who got shot pointed the thing at the officer while the officer was too far away to know what it was or reached into a pocket to pull it out while being confronted by the officer. Any time somebody points an object at an officer or goes for something in their pocket while being questioned by the police, they are trained to assume it's a weapon. This is for their own protection. As for your accusations of police starting fights, yes, it happens, but the far more common scenario is that the police diffuse situations before they escalate into something worse. A few bad apples here and there are unavoidable; don't judge the millions of officers who protect you, including those who have died to protect complete strangers, because there have been a very few high profile stories of officers who have snapped under the pressure of their jobs. It's a complete disgrace and dishonor to those who serve and protect. Millions of emergency calls are placed every day; we hear stories of police brutality approximately one to three times a year. Even assuming there are some cases we don't hear about, not very many could escape the scrutiny of the media today. Do the math, and please show some respect to the men and women who are willing to die for even those who don't appreciate them.

As for your example of insulting the president and telling him to drop dead to his face, yes, that is illegal. Telling someone to drop dead IS a death threat by law, regardless of the intention. Doing so to an elected government official is potentially a felony. The Secret Service has to take every threat against the president, no matter how seemingly harmless, very seriously. Would you rather they blew off stuff like that, grew complacent and then a president get assassinated because of it? I'm not just talking about Bush, but any president, past, present or future. It's not like they're going to lock you away for the rest of your life for it if they find you were just an angry citizen mouthing off, but they would most likely do a full background check on you and investigate whether or not you truly do pose a real threat.

If the US government overreacted any significant portion of the time, at least 50% of the news stories you hear about every day wouldn't be happening. Strikes happen all the time, protests go on nearly every day of the year in multiple cities about one issue or another, the media is constantly berating the government and the people in it and popular blogs and other easily traceable information outlets express many hateful things about the government all the time. Are any of these things stopped by the US government? Nope. Will the resolution this topic is about change that? Nope.

Heck, the morons who report the news often tell people just how criminals and terrorists could exploit weaknesses in different systems, or even how they can build weapons with readily available substances. Hell, the government even lost a case against a newspaper that published instructions on how to build a detonator for a nuclear weapon. And who made the decision that it was covered under freedom of speech and not protected under national security? A branch of that very same government. Personally, I think there should be more stringent laws against crap like that. They far too often tell anyone who's listening how to break into vehicles or homes; my wife was recently a victim of a car stereo thief who probably learned how to get into the vehicle by watching the news. I also still remember when the media gave step-by-step instructions on how the bomb that blew up in Oklahoma City was built, and how anyone could go to Lowe's or Home Depot and buy everything they needed to build the same type of bomb without any special knowledge of explosives, chemistry or anything else. What did the government do about that? Nothing. And there's a classic case of underreacting, which happens far more often than overreacting. Overreacting is usually what the public does.

On a final note, the definition of terrorism includes both the threat and use of violence, not just the threat of it. Sure, each dictionary will have its own wording, but that is how the word is defined and used in the English language, based upon multiple reference sources.

Vaskal, I know not all police over react, hell I know alot that are really good people. But some police are corrupt and do over react alot. And when they do, it's usually just a week off for them, and the person they herrased usually goes to court and has to pay a fine, + their hospital bill.

Now, again, what I was getting at about the president. If you go to presidential hearings, you cant speak up and say you hate president bush, or say that you think that 9/11 was an inside job done my our government...yes it's happend before...you know what happend to those people that said that? Pepper spray and hand cuffs...is that over reacting? or is that possible threat? I can even link videos to you about how they did this stuff. Now I ask you, would they need to hide anything about 9/11? why would they pepperspray then handcuff a member of the media, for asking questions?

And about how you think that our freedoms should be limited. It's like Benjermin Franklin said: Better to live in danger will full freedom than to have no freedom and limited saftey. Because the government cant protect us from everything. I mean the internet has millions of websites you can go to, to learn how to build a bomb.

And yes like I said, if you can tell me the real definitoin of terrorism, then thnx. Im not sure if thats a real one. But if you notice that most people used terrorism as a false threat to take our liberties away. I mean look at Rudy Guiliani, he uses 9/11 as an excuse to get what he wants, still today. It's an over used word that has been said so many times just to put fear into the people today. And it's really starting to piss me off.

If you guys want, you can watch a video, that shows tons of evidence that basically everything were fed is a bunch of crap. Vaskal, you might be interested in this, since you seem to love politics. But Im telling you this video is sick, it made me throw up. It doesn't have anything nasty about it, but...just like...it talks about how religon is basically an astrology story, and it proves it with concrete evidence. Im not sure I can post it on here, but I will anyways, if I get in trouble for advertising then oh well.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=55...earch&plindex=0

theres the url, im not going to put it in any special writing or anything, just copy and past it.

kingtard.... you're still not making any real valid points. You're just making random statements about how you hate the government. Please stay on topic.

Also:

Okay... this just makes me angry. Seriously. Do you even know the difference between our country and an anarchy? Some liberties MUST be given up for safety. NO, I'm not talking about your 1st amendment rights. I'm talking about free rights to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you want. Which, it seems, is the only thing you're going to be satisfied with. This includes your "right to murder", your "right to cause suffering" and all sorts of things. Don't you understand?

There's a saying created to explain what your rights are in this country. "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose." This means you have the right to do anything you like, until it infringes on the rights of another. Until it interferes with the lives of others. THAT is how far your rights go in America. EQUAL RIGHTS. You have no right to do things that hurt other people or put them at any sort of risk. If you did, that means they would have those rights as well. That would be called anarchy.

You want anarchy? Then move to an anarchist country. Live there for two weeks. You'll be BEGGING to come back--if you're still alive. Which, quite frankly, isn't likely.



You have two choices: Live the rest of your life in ignorance, simply stating "I HAET TEH GOVERNMENT" because you think it's cool, or you can educate yourself in this subject and contribute to real issues in society. PLEASE, before you post any more, PLEASE take this into serious consideration. For your sake, not mine.

Mod Edit: Please do not pseudo-mod by telling someone else to stay on topic. Thank you.

hey, now I know why they dont make a political section...cuz people take statements up the ass, If I pissed you off, then im sry lol. But if you were in my position you would hate it to, cuz well, im dirt poor. And the government treats us like shit. Thats why most of the poor population hates the government. And the reason why im random in what I say, is because alot is going through my head, and Im thinking about what to put down, but not thinking about how im doing it. I do it alot. But still, I still recemend watching zeitgeist, it's an awsome movie. I say close this down, cuz like the admins were saying, people will get pissed with topics like this, and it seems Ayesuku got pissed, and im just going to stop posting here so I dont get anyone else pissed.

I, personally, got the feeling that Ayesuku was speaking with a pretty level head and was merely trying to get you to understand him in the only way that seemed to work. This has been running fairly smoothly so far, and I see no reason to be a nazi and close it.

Speaking of which, the topic will be closed, if at all, when we decide... not when you decide. Instead of backseat moderating just say you're finished debating it.

I'd have to say, I was more concerned about getting my point across than griping at you. So even though I may have been aggravated, I didn't write any of that out of anger, and stand by what I said.

Anywho... yes, there are issues. The government and the law aren't perfect, and they never will be. Issues like this are fleeting; they come and they go, and it'll always be that way so long as this country exists in the sense that it does. Frankly, the only way it could become anything near perfect would be to reform the basis of the government, which will almost definitely never happen. So the best anyone can do is try to deal with the issues we have, and hopefully we'll do it effectively.


(Crap, post count's over 200 now. @.@)

Blah, too much to reply to, so I'll just get picky again :-P

kingtard, you call yourself poor. However, if you're accessing the internet on a regular basis, have food on your table every day, have heat in the winter, have clean water, have education and, if you're posting here, obviously have a way to play video games, you're not poor. You may have less money than most Americans, you may not be able to get everything you want, but compared to the vast majority of people who live on this planet, you are not poor. And you can thank the US government for that. It's not perfect by any means, but it does work.

It honestly sounds like you have alot of frustration with something, and the government is what you choose to vent it all at. I'm curious if the government has ever done anything to you or anyone you know to cause it to be the target of your anger. Have you stopped to think about all the good things the US government does? Try looking for those things as well, not just the bad. Government, after all, is a huge and does many things. Surely you can't see everything as bad. It's also constantly changing as the people within and without change, so what's bad now will very likely change within a few years. Also, is there any form of government you would prefer? If so, why?

Ayesuku, what happened to your post count? It's at -9,998, lol.

BustaMom

actually, the internet I go on is at school...I do have internet at my house, but it's the cheap kind. The 12 dollers a month thing. And yes I am poor, if you knew my life you would know, but I wasn't using that for sympothy, I was merly stating, if you notice, most of the rich people in this world have there heads in the clouds, not caring what goes on in this country, hell some are even helping bring it down. But if you notice, it's always the mostly the lower class people who stand up for them selfs.