Topic: Anyone hear about this new bill (US Law)?

[Thaddeus]

Oh and something I would also like to add: The first step to becoming a dictatorship is disarming the general public.

Seeing as Bush, despite a lot of political criticism allowed the '93 Clinton assault weapons ban to expire, I don't see how that ties into his master scheme of dictating the American people.

There may be hundreds of millions of firearms in the United States. There may be as many guns as people -- the numbers aren't exactly known, but if there was some kind of takeover I know for a fact the government would be met with heavy resistance. The number of armed citizens greatly outnumber soldiers, police officers, etc..

One could argue that Clinton's policies were more uncosntitutional and a greater threat to our democracy than anything George W. Bush has done.

It's something to contemplate.

[Thaddeus]

In Reply To #29

Well, Thaddeus, the only reason I brought this one up was because of the lopsided vote in the House.

It's a great topic and I applaud you for bringing it up. It's something that should be discussed and brought out into the open. I just think people may be overreacting to it.

[edit]: And not to excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, but there are other countries whose leaders are a lot worse than Bush, and have policies that are a greater threat to their people (and world peace). I think of Hugo Chavez, the president of Pakistan, and even Vladimir Putin as an example of someone who goes out of his way to repress the rights of his people.

Hell, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government hangs 16-year-old girls in the street from cranebooms because they had premarital sex.

All of those countries are way ahead of the U.S. in contention to become "the next Nazi Germany."

[The Last Belmont]

This bill hasn't even been passed yet. I think we are all getting ahead of ourselves. Lots of absurd, unconstitutional bills are brought up that always get shot down. Those that manage to slip through are typically undone by the next administration. It's nothing really new in American politics. It happens. Media sensationalism and political groups on both sides love to blow these things way out of proportion.

Bush is history in a matter of months, and the Democrats will have the White House again. And if it's a Republican president, it will probably be Guliani or Romney, both of whom are just as if not more liberal than any of the frontrunner Democratic candidates.

The United States is in no danger of becoming a dictatorship anytime soon.

Nobody is being touchy anymore than some are being paranoid, or sensationalist.

agreed that's what checks and balances are for and comparing the US to a communist country is really a faulty argument, cuz communism in nature is the exact polar opposite of democracy. Checks and balances will keep bush from overstepping his bounds, we have about as much chance of becoming a dictatorship as england does.

So, let's say, a year he's out. The bill will be in place, if it's passed. If he doesn't abuse it, the next leader may abuse that power too. And if not that one, then someone eventually will. The USA is fucked.

If it's passed, how the hell are the people going to get rid of it? Any disagreement with the government could be seen as an act of aggression. You break the law.

Arguing and patriotic pride aside, this could mean a lot of problems if this bill is passed. You don't give people that much power and not expect them to abuse it.

uh that doesn't make any sense, we have congress and the supreme court to keep the executive branch in line, I don't like the new bill but don't worry about it, our country hasn't lasted this long because we're lucky. If Congress feels in the (if the bill is ratified) that it gives the president too much power and he starts abusing it, they'll get rid of it, or the supreme court will rule it unconstitutional. And the president doesn't really have that much power he has to run just about every major decision by Congress before he does it.

[DoctaMario]

A Democrat in the White House will be just as bad if its Hillary Clinton. She and Giuliani are as frightening as Bush is in my eyes, and they're part of the same group of people who want to take over everything and oppress everyone.

People keep comparing the US to Nazi Germany because we're on the slippery slope towards being a police state and having that kind of dictatorship. All this witch hunting going on with Muslim and Arabic people here in this country is disgusting and this bill would only make it worse. Did you know that the government now considers playing PAINTBALL a "tactical training exercise?" Read that article about the Fort Dix Six in the latest issue of Time.

Fact is, this country's been on a downward spiral since the first Bush was in power and unless someone like Ron Paul gets elected, I don't see that slide ending any time soon. Bush has stolen a lot of power for the Executive Branch of the Govt. because Congress is asleep at the wheel and has basically done nothing to stop him.

The United States is the world's biggest supporter of terrorism, and has been for many many years. Not Saddam, not Musharreff, but the US. Bush and Co. are the worst terrorists to hit the globe in a long time. That, and we spend an ABSURD amount of money to fund Israel, another terrorist state. We aren't hated "because of our freedom," we're hated because we fund and carry out terrorist acts on international soil, and because we lie, cheat, and steal from other countries in the name of "business." Like someone once said, "America doesn't have friends, it has interests."

The "War On Terror

[Thaddeus]

Bush in his 8-year term isn't half the terrorist Saddam was in his 30 years of power. Saddam did indeed have ties to terrorism. He actively funded the families of Palestanian suicide bombers by holding mass telethons.

When he staged his coup in the 1970's he had his political rivals all dragged out into the parking lot and shot dead. Saddam gassed an entire village killing some 5000 Kurdish men, women, children. This is common knowledge. I could go on and on listing Saddam's artocities and human rights violations.

You think water-boarding is bad? Look at the techniques of Uday Hussein:




And his Fedayeen:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/30/sprj.irq.torture.tape/

"On the tape, what appear to be Fedayeen Saddam members and Republican Guard troops are shown administering cruel punishments, including chopping off fingers, cutting off tongues, breaking a wrist with a heavy stick, and throwing people off a multi-story building.

Also depicted is a beheading by sword, which takes several attempts to complete."

The "War On Terror™" is like the War On Drugs: It's a war with no clear enemy, a war that cannot be won. It could go on for years, decades, even centuries and still be happening. We aren't chasing Osama anymore and he supposedly was the one responsible for 9/11. Why not? There's never been any clear tie between Saddam and any terrorist activity and anyone who thinks there is is kidding themselves. This is a war predicated on making a lot money for a few people and oppressing the masses, nothing more, nothing less.

Supposedly?

The world can defeat Islamic facism the way it defeated Nazi facism, because, Al-Qaeda, with their increasingly small numbers and 1950's-era small-arms Soviet weaponry, are not as

[Slayer]

In Reply To #35

By your  tone, I'm assuming you think water-boarding, which as far as my knowledge has been recognized by the Geneva Conventions as torture, is a reasonable practice for America to use. Yeah, you know something? You're right.  Let's show those terrorists just how much they changed America by using interrogation practices of the same nature as they do.  Let's condone the same violence that we condemn terrorist for using.  Also, lets pretend I'm not being sarcastic.
Additionally, the War on Terror is not called "The War on Al-Queda" for a reason; its war on terrorism in all forms.  Terrorism is an idea; you can't kill an idea.  However, we can, and must, get Al Queda, since if we don't, it will send a poor message about how America deals with its enemies. 
Concerning how I think we should deal with terrorists, by all means, they must be dealt with.  But calling war on a form of attack is like calling a war on thievery; you can arrest thieves, but you can never destroy thievery itself.

[Thaddeus]

agreed that's what checks and balances are for and comparing the US to a communist country is really a faulty argument, cuz communism in nature is the exact polar opposite of democracy. Checks and balances will keep bush from overstepping his bounds, we have about as much chance of becoming a dictatorship as england does.

uh that doesn't make any sense, we have congress and the supreme court to keep the executive branch in line, I don't like the new bill but don't worry about it, our country hasn't lasted this long because we're lucky. If Congress feels in the (if the bill is ratified) that it gives the president too much power and he starts abusing it, they'll get rid of it, or the supreme court will rule it unconstitutional. And the president doesn't really have that much power he has to run just about every major decision by Congress before he does it.

Oh I agree with that.

And that would be funny to see G.W. try and pull a Saddam Hussein-style coup and take Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, etc., out into the parking lot.

Ridiculous.

[Thaddeus]

In Reply To #35

By your

[Slayer]

Naw, I mean the occasional waterboarding cannot be compared to lopping people's heads off or throwing them off 3 story buildings. 

I have to side with John McCain on the issue of waterboarding. It is torture and anyone who does it should be charged with warcrimes.

[edit] If I had my way Bush would be impeached for the direction in which he has taken our country.

He is a shitty president, but an Adolf Hitler he is not.

My bad, I took your tone the wrong way. I apologize for making such an assumption

[Thaddeus]

It's OK -- I should have re-read my comments. It did look like I am pro-waterboarding and you were in the right to call me on that.

And I agree with DoctaMario about Ron Paul. I think he is what this country needs (someone who will follow the Constitution exactly).

[Thaddeus]

Additionally, the War on Terror is not called "The War on Al-Queda" for a reason; its war on terrorism in all forms.

[A vicar in a tutu]

Even if Bush passed this law, I believe it won't be permanent.
Many other presidents have suspended some of our rights and have been reissued to us; such as the Habeas Corpus and some other stuff..
But Bush is still a fag.

[Kale]

In Reply To #42

Possibly... but whos to know what'll happen at a later date.

but the main reason I posted this post was to say: Nice end to your post.

[The Last Belmont]

Even if Bush passed this law, I believe it won't be permanent.

I ono man, it'll really depend on alot of things, income tax was supposed to be temporary and the constitution had to be rewritten when it was instated and we're still waiting for the government to get rid of it.

[DoctaMario]

In Reply To #44

The Income Tax amendment is actually unconstitutional, but that's a whole other topic.