Dear God.

[CopperCoatedCandy]

Tell me, regardless of your political allegiance, that you can read this without getting sick to your stomach.

Bush and his administration are fascist pigs. Remember the time when I said that the loss of the 4th amendment would eventually lead to a loss of the 1st? It's happened.

[URL="http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html[/URL]

Disgusting.

[Teh Infernal Zombine]

Even though I?m not american, that disgusted me!

[Hastings]

How naive are you? all leaders do similiar.

Do you even know the definition of Fascist? Bush is by no means a great president, but he is not a fascist. Using such terms destract from their real meaning, and makes REAL facsists look better. Go google hugo chavez or fidel castro. Or any number of middle eastern leaders and then tell me how bad you have it in america.

[cheese]

How about the fact that theres a socialist movement in america? Everyone wants the government to provide everything for them. Last time I checked, that's socialism.

Michael Moore even says in his new movie that Cuba has cheaper health care, but forgot to mention it's a lot worse than USA's. You know it's also cheaper to get a sex change in Thailand if anyone's interested.

Clinton took away federal aid to impoverished families and stole from the white house. Was involved in a scandal until everyone else involved mysteriously died. He also started the idea of Sadam having weapons of mass destruction.

Kerry could have beaten Bush in 2004 but he decided to side with corporate America instead. The old, true Democracy no longer exists. Gore could have done it in 2000 but he ran a crappy campaign.

Democrats in the white house in 2008 but who will it be? Theres 8 of em and none of em are actually good. You have clinton who already believes she is president. You have edwards who pays 400 bucks for a haircut because it's from a friend and enters everytime because he can afford it. It's going to be interesting.

If the Democrats do win, you can expect a lot of funding to be cut from homeland security and the iraq situation to change somewhat. Even though a lot of democrats voted FOR and then AGAINST the war, now they'll be in some sort of quagmire where they aren't sure when to withdraw, despite their promises to withdraw. It'll be easier for the US to be attacked due to lessesened homeland security, but that won't be an issue because I'm sure the biggest issues will be gay marriage and abortion.

[Teh Infernal Zombine]

How naive are you? all leaders do similiar.

Do you even know the definition of Fascist? Bush is by no means a great president, but he is not a fascist. Using such terms destract from their real meaning, and makes REAL facsists look better. Go google hugo chavez or fidel castro. Or any number of middle eastern leaders and then tell me how bad you have it in america.

I don?t think that it?s THAT that hurts the most.

I think it?s Americas image as the most free country in the world, and that free speech is everywhere. But the truth is different, so it seems.

[cheese]

free speech provided it does not offend anyone else is what it is now.

It's really limited free speech.

[Hastings]

Yes, politcal correctness runs amok. If you are a powerfull group, or a minority you can say anything, if you are neither than you better hold your tongue in many a case.

[cheese]

Wait and see what becomes of it in 2008. It's going to be bizzare.

I wanna run for office, even though the stress is phenominal.

[WatchMaker]

People don't deserve the right to free speech, because only 5% even know what the hell they are talking about, where as the other 95% only quote what they've heard in movies and papers. To be honest, I would love to live in a country of mutes.

There's a saying that goes like "Best to be called a fool and remain silent, than to speak and remove all doubt."

[CopperCoatedCandy]

I'll tell you what will happen. Hillary will win the nomination, then lose the election. Then, we will be stuck with another conservative who is just as evil as Bush but smarter. Perhaps even one of the conservatives with anti-gun policies, how's that for a double whammy?

And just because America has is better than a lot of countries certainly doesn't mean we have to deliberately make it worse. I'm sick of people saying "Oh other countries don't have as good of civil liberties" as if that makes it all better when we lose one of our own. And no, this type of thing rarely happens in America. I have never heard of nonviolent protesters being treated in such a way, at least in the US.


Oh, and.
fasc-ist
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Even if he doesn't fit the exact definition of fascist, his policies are in many ways authoritarian

Looks like we're on the road to 1984

[frikazoyd]

Free speech wasn't created so any citizen can say what he wanted. Free speech, for the most part, is way more important for the press than for us. If the press maintains free speech, they can report freely without fear of repercussions from the powers in office.

That's not to say free speech isn't important for every single citizen. It is. But it is more important that the press remains free, and reports the news as clearly as they can.

The only problem is that now, the news is censored by its advertisers, the public doesn't consume it anyway, and nobody cites anything anymore. There wasn't ONE source in the original post's link. How do I know it is accurate?

[Hastings]

With Clintonian policies and other democratic party ideals mirroring europe and other socilist idealisms, yes we are on our way to 1984, of that there is no doubt.

[CopperCoatedCandy]

Care to elaborate?

Last time I checked, Bush was the one spying on people, torturing people, locking them up indefinitely, and waging endless wars.

Use Google to find if things without sources are accurate.

Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

[cheese]

''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''

Is how Madison originally introduced it on 6/8/1789 but it was then altered by a committee using some of Madison's notes to this:

"The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.''

Then, the Senate rewrote it to:

''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''

At a conference the final language was then determined.

With regard to the press though... W. Blackstone says quite a good bit. He says that the press should have freedom to publish what they want but they should be careful of what they publish. He writes that if they publish stuff which is offensive they should be punished according to the law and that it's absolutely neccessary in order to maintain social stability. I highlighted the parts I refer to.

''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.''

Thus you have freedom of the press as long as it is not destructive or offensive. So total freedom of the press was not something that was wanted back then either since it was seen as a threat to society. This nation was founded on the idea that if you did not like something about it, you could do something about it. A government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Oh and here's my source http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#f1

[Hastings]

Ya know you seem to think that bush is the cuase of everything? I suppose you are also a Truther and think he orchestrasted 9/11?

Maybe he invented Aids too? or perhaps he is the reason that cancer has not been cured yet?

He may not be a great president but he is not "evil".

And please, we had the torture argument before, if you cant bring more to the table, dont bring it up.

All prior presidents have spy programs as well, and does it really scare you that the current administration is tapping the phones of suspected muslim terrorists?

Locking terroists up indefinatly is because they cant be treated as soldiers for the sake of political correctness. If you really want them treated as soldiers then they will be summarily executed for murdering people. Thats perfectly fine with me, but I doubt it is with you since you seem to value their lives over the lives or people with worth.

[cheese]

Care to elaborate?

Last time I checked, Bush was the one spying on people, torturing people, locking them up indefinitely, and waging endless wars.

Use Google to find if things without sources are accurate.

Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

How bout you find out why all the democrats blame Ralph Nader for losing them the 2000 election?

Why was Ralph Nader not allowed to Debate even though he had a ticket to go to the debate for 2000? None of the other 3rd party canidates were allowed into the area either. The reason, because the presidential debates are privately owned the Democratic and Republican Committees and funded by corporations.

Why do they have areas for democrats at republican rallies? Because democrats go there to slander and say terrible things like you are and cause trouble. No one enjoys them being there and no one likes them being there. Since they can't stop them from being there, they might as well just put them all in one area so that at least everyone else can not be annoyed.

It's like that time that those people decided to come into the funeral mass and protest that soldier's funeral because they were against the war in Iraq. They interrupted a church service of a dead soldier because they didn't like the war in Iraq. They ferverently believed they were doing the right thing but all they did was just cause more people to be upset and more trauma to the family.

Bush is spying on us. So what. What do I have to hide? It's only if they hear key phrases or words that they actually start recording. Wiretaps are done on suspicious persons anyway, not just you. You know the number of people who died on 9/11 is still more than the number of soldiers who died in Iraq? Also on that day, a lot of things happened which people can't explain which caused people not to get to work and because of that a lot less people didn't die.

You know there was a soldier who got back from Iraq and was killed by an illegal alien who couldn't drive. Yet he had a license because Maryland is one of the few states which issues licenses to illegals. You probably support immigration because Bush doesn't.

You know Alqueda actually wants a democratic whitehouse in 2008 because they know it'll mean that they will get a break in the war and it'll be a lot easier for them to sneak into our country.

Imagine if we cut our homeland security, stopped all border security funding, used that money instead for things like health insurance for everything, 15% of the people who don't even have it would rather use the money for things like flat screen tvs. Then after awhile something really terrible happens and a bunch of people die, something like what would have happened in London only worse. Everyone blames bush because he started Iraq.

Remember the S.S. Cole? That ship that was blown up by terrorists and Clinton said if it was the last thing he'd do, it would be to find the people responsible? He never did anything. He set free one of the guys responsible for 9/11 and then got busy embarassing his family on public television. The whole US was too busy wondering what kind of stain was on her dress to even care about the whole massacre going on in Africa. Millions died and all the US could care about was the Ken Starr report.

Now after Clinton, you democrats just say how awesome Clinton was and how terrible Bush was. The current president has to deal with what the president before him has done. Clinton was riding on George Bush I's successes and now his son is struggling through Clinton's mistakes. It'll be interesting to see who has to deal with these ones.

Say Democrats do get the whitehouse. They end Iraq and Iran becomes a problem and they form a coalition with North Korea and Pakistan. Suddenly we have a very deadly alliance and we're short on friends who will come to aid. A lot of countries despise the United States because of our media and of our actions. This country doesn't like itself and the media shows it everyday. Patriotism only exists when someone causes us to bleed.

We've got more everything. We have more fat people, we do well in the olympics, we have superior weaponry, we have a huge army, anything you want you can buy here. People move to our country to take our money back to their country because 5 American dollars is what they make in a week back there. If you should go to Cuba and say you don't like Castro, you're killed. At least you don't have that in the U.S.. You can say you hate bush and people here don't even delete your posts.

[CopperCoatedCandy]

Ya know you seem to think that bush is the cuase of everything? I suppose you are also a Truther and think he orchestrasted 9/11?

Maybe he invented Aids too? or perhaps he is the reason that cancer has not been cured yet?

Exactly what bodily orifice are you pulling this stuff out of?

He may not be a great president but he is not "evil".

Yes, he is evil. Perhaps not quite so evil as Hitler or Andrew Jackson, but evil nonetheless.

And please, we had the torture argument before, if you cant bring more to the table, dont bring it up.

You said that he (and/or the rest of his administration) aren't responsible for the Orwellian direction the country is traveling in, so I figured perhaps your memory needed refreshment on the subject. The fact of the matter is this: the current administration is responsible, and they are the spark that I believe will ignite the fire that will be an authoritarian American police state.


All prior presidents have spy programs as well, and does it really scare you that the current administration is tapping the phones of suspected muslim terrorists?

Although none of them aimed quite so close to home (the vast majority of previous spy operations were targeted at foreign threats, in countries not protected by the now-defunct 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution), and none of them with such a wide margin for abuse. What happens when they stop tapping the phones of suspected terrorists and start tapping yours? What happens when the average Joe Blow is labeled a 'terrorist' because he thinks freely and gets thrown away forever to Guantanamo? What happens then? Will people continue to say "Well, our security is more important than our freedoms" as the faceless cop snaps on a latex glove? Watch what you say, because Big Brother is watching you.

Locking terroists up indefinatly is because they cant be treated as soldiers for the sake of political correctness. If you really want them treated as soldiers then they will be summarily executed for murdering people. Thats perfectly fine with me, but I doubt it is with you since you seem to value their lives over the lives or people with worth.

Aren't you opposed to political correctness? And no, I don't particularly value the lives of people who take potshots at our troops. Rather, I value our country in the eyes of it's people and the rest of the world. Because, not only is raising the middle finger and telling the rest of the world to F*ck off not right, it's also not very smart. I also am worried that the wrong people might be sent there (by accident or otherwise). No, I don't particularly value their lives, and if, by trial, they were sentenced to death, that doesn't bother me in the least. I value a nation's written word (see Geneva Convention), and I value, as an American, my country's honor. But hey, other people do worse things, so that makes it okay, right?

[cheese]

Have you seen how we compare to the rest of the world in how we monitor our nation? London has cameras everywhere and Britain has the power to lock up anyone for an indefinite amount of time just because they are suspect to doing something.

If you've ever heard of the 1993 movie "In the Name of the Father" it's a true story about an Irish family that was wrongly imprisoned by British police because they were believed to be involved with the IRA bombing but there was no evidence against them. They were held in prison for 15 years for a crime they did not commit.

You should also know that during times of rebellion and war, habeus corpus can be suspended. That's been around for well over a hundred years. Lincoln suspended it just after the shots at Fort Sumter.

[CopperCoatedCandy]

How bout you find out why all the democrats blame Ralph Nader for losing them the 2000 election?

Why was Ralph Nader not allowed to Debate even though he had a ticket to go to the debate for 2000? None of the other 3rd party canidates were allowed into the area either. The reason, because the presidential debates are privately owned the Democratic and Republican Committees and funded by corporations.

Yes, Democrats aren't perfect, but they are infinitely more in the interests of the average Joe. I'd take Nader as a president over nearly any democrat any day of the week. He has spent most of his life fighting corporations in the interests of the average citizen and the environment. The sad truth is, though, that all he ever succeeds in doing these days is splitting the vote and allowing republicans to win. Thus, once I can vote (I'm currently 14), I will vote democrat.


Why do they have areas for democrats at republican rallies? Because democrats go there to slander and say terrible things like you are and cause trouble. No one enjoys them being there and no one likes them being there. Since they can't stop them from being there, they might as well just put them all in one area so that at least everyone else can not be annoyed.

Well, the thing is, that everybody else is annoyed when somebody in power who has vies that aren't in touch with theirs can be unchallenged. It is also protected by the constitution. To tell you the truth, I would much rather have right-wing protesters bothering me at some political rally then have then caged up, unable to voice their opinions. I would expect right-wing people to share this feeling. And if the protesters are locked up, why aren't the supporters? Because their opinions are just as annoying.


It's like that time that those people decided to come into the funeral mass and protest that soldier's funeral because they were against the war in Iraq. They interrupted a church service of a dead soldier because they didn't like the war in Iraq. They ferverently believed they were doing the right thing but all they did was just cause more people to be upset and more trauma to the family.

I believe you are mistaken, that protest was undertaken by members if the Westboro Baptist Church, a right wing hate group/religious cult. Legislation was passed against such protests, and that I support.

Bush is spying on us. So what. What do I have to hide? It's only if they hear key phrases or words that they actually start recording. Wiretaps are done on suspicious persons anyway, not just you. You know the number of people who died on 9/11 is still more than the number of soldiers who died in Iraq? Also on that day, a lot of things happened which people can't explain which caused people not to get to work and because of that a lot less people didn't die.

So, it is a violation of a constitutional right. Just because I have nothing to doesn't mean I should allow the government to spy, search, and seize whatever they want. Read my previous post.



You know there was a soldier who got back from Iraq and was killed by an illegal alien who couldn't drive. Yet he had a license because Maryland is one of the few states which issues licenses to illegals. You probably support immigration because Bush doesn't.

What does any of this have to do with immigration? And no, I support LEGAL immigration. I say we seal off the border, then give citizenship for everybody who is already in.

You know Alqueda actually wants a democratic whitehouse in 2008 because they know it'll mean that they will get a break in the war and it'll be a lot easier for them to sneak into our country.

Hmmm, that's interesting, because I would have to assume that the war in Iraq is getting them a hell of a lot of recruits. and, It never ceases to amaze me how many people still don't know that Bin Laden and Saddam's regime were enemies.

Imagine if we cut our homeland security, stopped all border security funding, used that money instead for things like health insurance for everything, 15% of the people who don't even have it would rather use the money for things like flat screen tvs. Then after awhile something really terrible happens and a bunch of people die, something like what would have happened in London only worse. Everyone blames bush because he started Iraq.

First off, border security is important, and keep homeland security. But how about we cut the military budget (most of which is simply wasted anyway) a little bit? It's as if you think that increased security is capable of achieving anything other than infiltrating hippie groups anyway (see Peace Fresno).

Remember the S.S. Cole? That ship that was blown up by terrorists and Clinton said if it was the last thing he'd do, it would be to find the people responsible? He never did anything. He set free one of the guys responsible for 9/11 and then got busy embarassing his family on public television. The whole US was too busy wondering what kind of stain was on her dress to even care about the whole massacre going on in Africa. Millions died and all the US could care about was the Ken Starr report.

So did Bush get right to work correcting these mistakes before 9/11? I think not. Have you ever heard of Somalia? Clinton went over there in a humanitarian effort, only to have 18 soldiers killed. And what has Bush done in Africa?

Now after Clinton, you democrats just say how awesome Clinton was and how terrible Bush was. The current president has to deal with what the president before him has done. Clinton was riding on George Bush I's successes and now his son is struggling through Clinton's mistakes. It'll be interesting to see who has to deal with these ones.

I doubt Clinton was a great president, but he's a hell of a lot better than Bush. At least Clinton cared about the middle class.

Say Democrats do get the whitehouse. They end Iraq and Iran becomes a problem and they form a coalition with North Korea and Pakistan. Suddenly we have a very deadly alliance and we're short on friends who will come to aid. A lot of countries despise the United States because of our media and of our actions. This country doesn't like itself and the media shows it everyday. Patriotism only exists when someone causes us to bleed.

Why would we ally with North Korea and Pakistan? And Iran is just as, if not more likely to become a problem while we are still in Iraq.

We've got more everything. We have more fat people, we do well in the olympics, we have superior weaponry, we have a huge army, anything you want you can buy here. People move to our country to take our money back to their country because 5 American dollars is what they make in a week back there. If you should go to Cuba and say you don't like Castro, you're killed. At least you don't have that in the U.S.. You can say you hate bush and people here don't even delete your posts.

Once again, just because some other countries have it worse doesn't mean we have to make it worse for ourselves. Why doesn't anyone realize this? And I don't see why you are making immigration reform points.

[CopperCoatedCandy]

Have you seen how we compare to the rest of the world in how we monitor our nation? London has cameras everywhere and Britain has the power to lock up anyone for an indefinite amount of time just because they are suspect to doing something.

If you've ever heard of the 1993 movie "In the Name of the Father" it's a true story about an Irish family that was wrongly imprisoned by British police because they were believed to be involved with the IRA bombing but there was no evidence against them. They were held in prison for 15 years for a crime they did not commit.

You should also know that during times of rebellion and war, habeus corpus can be suspended. That's been around for well over a hundred years. Lincoln suspended it just after the shots at Fort Sumter.

For the millionth time, why do you continue to say that it's okay for us to lose our liberties just because other places have it worse?

Sorry for the double post.

[Wizard]

So did Bush get right to work correcting these mistakes before 9/11? I think not. Have you ever heard of Somalia? Clinton went over there in a humanitarian effort, only to have 18 soldiers killed. And what has Bush done in Africa?Although, America's intervention in Somalia was greatly criticized by both the world and the media.

Also, people shouldn't sacrifice their civil liberties for safety. Of course everyone feels the need to be safe, but for the love of any deity or item you hold dearly, fight for a common ground between governments and citizens, seperate state from religion even (that still needs to be done, religion should have no place in any type of political party. Parties are to represent the people, not dieties. The Seperation of Church and State is still an on going battle in America. Also I'm not bashing religion, I'm just saying it has no place in a political atmosphear, anyways moving on).

Because I don't want to get into a whole friking debate I'll say this. The only way for people to stand up for their rights and not have their liberties away is to obviously be politically aware. "Well it doesn't concern me" doesn't cut it in Corperate America. Companies care about their dollars first and the citizens second, politicians should care about the citizens first and not their pocket. Citizens themselves need to establish and be aware at the fact that the level of corruption runs deep within the system. As they say, power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

[frikazoyd]

I would like to point out that, according to CopperCoatedCandy's source, the first observed use of a "free speech zone" was at the 1988 Democratic National Convention.

I don't like it, but unfortunately the Courts (the big problem in this country, if you ask me) decided they are okay because "the government may regulate the time, place, and manner?but not content?of expression"

I would also like to point out that while these zones are definitely "cages", they are NOT silencing zones, so I feel that Candy's counterpoint of people in the cages being "silenced" is not accurate.

I still don't like them. But I find it ironic that Candy hates it and points it out as a problem with the Bush administration when, in fact, it is a problem with the American Government on the whole (BOTH majority parties, the Republicans for adopting it and the Democrats for setting the precedence).

[cheese]

For the millionth time, why do you continue to say that it's okay for us to lose our liberties just because other places have it worse?

Sorry for the double post.

I meant that maybe you should see how bad they have it in Britain, the country that we left a little over 200 years ago. I'm not saying it's rationale for losing liberties. And as for losing liberties, I think that if anything American's are allowed to do way too many things.

There used to be codes of moral conduct that were instituted back in the 18th century, but thats no longer an issue. Also what about the US policy of isolationism that used to exist up until WWI?

Back in the 19th century for women to display the calf of their leg was considered scandalous.

I have a suspicion that CCC is a bit upset about a lot of things like Waco as well.

[Scruffy]

I meant that maybe you should see how bad they have it in Britain,

Care to explain that?

[cheese]

Britain welcomed tons of immigrants, some of whom are muslims sympathetic to Alqeada. There have been attacks by Islamic terrorists living in London, recently there were the professors who tried to set off a bomb at the airport and previously the students with cellphone bombs on the subway. These Britain based terrorist attacks are higher because in Britain, there are safe havens for these Islamic terrorists where they can easily blend in with other non-radicals. In the US, radical Islamic muslims are usually looked down upon by their brethren and usually only lash out due to left wing press.

Britain is starting to pay for welcoming in so many immigrants. It's a good thing they have cameras watching every corner of London. Otherwise crime and terror based attacks would be higher.

[Scruffy]

Well if you look at it Britain has done pretty well terrorist attack wise, compared to other countries, the ones we've suffered are extremely small. So i dont think the fact we allow so many immigrants into Britain is a bad thing, an from an economic point of view immigrants are great an by actually having them here we've probably covered most if not all the costs of damages caused by the attacks so far.

an whose to say that these attacks wouldnt of happened anyway even if we hadnt allowed so many people in?

[CopperCoatedCandy]

I would like to point out that, according to CopperCoatedCandy's source, the first observed use of a "free speech zone" was at the 1988 Democratic National Convention.

Actually, it said that the first use was in the sixties and seventies for Vietnam protests. Yea, they did use it, which is equally as f*cked up as when Bush does it. The only problem is that Bush uses it way more often, nearly everywhere he goes.

I don't like it, but unfortunately the Courts (the big problem in this country, if you ask me) decided they are okay because "the government may regulate the time, place, and manner?but not content?of expression"

Which is ridiculous. It's a wonder they haven't said that it's illegal to protest anywhere but the Las Vegas Desert.

I would also like to point out that while these zones are definitely "cages", they are NOT silencing zones, so I feel that Candy's counterpoint of people in the cages being "silenced" is not accurate.

Trouble is, when these people are in these cages, they can only share their opinions with people who agree with them. Reporters aren't allowed in, and protesters aren't allowed out. The entire purpose of protesting is to get you opinion on a subject out to everyone, and this cannot be achieved in these things.

I still don't like them. But I find it ironic that Candy hates it and points it out as a problem with the Bush administration when, in fact, it is a problem with the American Government on the whole (BOTH majority parties, the Republicans for adopting it and the Democrats for setting the precedence).


Well, I hate it altogether, including the time the Democrats used it. It's just so messed up, I just don't understand why people seem so bent on pissing away liberties for security's sake. People always say "I don't have anything to hide" so what, that shouldn't mean that uncle sam can search me any time he pleases. "Well, the protest cages are for security" First off, these things probably are not imposed with security in mind. Even if they were, freedom sure beats the h*ll out of security. I don't care who uses it, it's ridiculous no matter what. "Well, some people died in a terrorist attack, were their lives worth it for this 'freedom?" You're d*mned right they were. I wonder how many brave soldiers have died for our liberties only for us to piss them away. Must be something like a slap in the face.

[Kazuya86]

omg...:dry:

[Hastings]

Britain welcomed tons of immigrants, some of whom are muslims sympathetic to Alqeada.
I think you will find that most of them are sympathetic, many even out right supportive. Al Qeada is pure islam, so to be against most of its ideals is to be apostate (heretic). Apostates are routinely killed in both non muslim, and muslim countries. Yes thats right, there are honour killings in non-muslim countres. This is exactly why you see so few muslims denouncing terror. Bin Laden and his men are doing EXACTLY what is says to do in the Koran, and are doing EXACTLY what muhamed did. (Kill, rape, murder, torture, etc)

There have been attacks by Islamic terrorists living in London, recently there were the professors (Ed: Breaks the BS that muslim terorists are all poor doesnt it?) who tried to set off a bomb at the airport and previously the students with cellphone bombs on the subway. These Britain based terrorist attacks are higher because in Britain, there are safe havens for these Islamic terrorists where they can easily blend in with other non-radicals. In the US, radical Islamic muslims are usually looked down upon by their brethren and usually only lash out due to left wing press.

You are correct in that Britian ( and most of europe, especially in the muslim east europe) is a safe haven for terror. Unless you are a white christian/jewish terrorist, you are mostly safe from the authorities and the people (whom are scared ????less, or too naive to see the problem). Terrorists in the USA are looked down upon by their brethren,not because they dissagree with them, but they are seen as jumping the gun. There are not enough muslims in the USA yet for them to be comfortable with terror attacks from their own mosques, though you will see the occasional "sudden Jihad syndrom" from a fervent follower after a good friday sermon. Friday is their sunday, so they do a lot of protesting and attacks on fridays all across the globe. Once a country gets near 10% muslim, or even many times just 5%, the attacks begin from homegrown and homeborn terrorists. There is no coincidence that Islam is a major factor in the majority of wars and conflicts over the past 1000 (and many before that years.
Another reason they dont do much is because the current climate in the USA would cause very severe repercussions from the government and the people. Both from law enforcement, and from your average citizen who is fed up. They dont fear that in Europe so they attack when they feel like they can. They know that most, if not all their demands will be met if not when they attack, but soon after in some way. Once we give in enough as the brits and other European nations do, we will have the same problem. Silence in this matter is the same as walking up to one and asking him to kill you. You are an infidel. Your life means nothing.

Britain is starting to pay for welcoming in so many immigrants. It's a good thing they have cameras watching every corner of London. Otherwise crime and terror based attacks would be higher.

Yes they are, in so many ways. Not just terrorism. Their multiculturist extremism has taken so much out a once proud continent. Europe died with auchwitz. They lost all honour, and self worth with that war and the attrocities commited. Now they let the world walk over them with thier heads in the sand. Sad really.

I wouldn't say its good to have so many cameras set up (1984 anyone?), but they will be usefull for when the intifada in britain begins. Riots will occcur like what happened in france for the past 2 summers. Its only a matter of time.

Oh yes, my chidlren will inherit a world worse than what my Grandparents fought for in ww2. All because people dont want to take action, and frown on those that do.

[CopperCoatedCandy]

you still never explained how you think it's the left that's making the place more authoritarian

[Scruffy]

You are correct in that Britian ( and most of europe, especially in the muslim east europe) is a safe haven for terror. Unless you are a white christian/jewish terrorist, you are mostly safe from the authorities and the people (whom are scared ????less, or too naive to see the problem).


Another reason they dont do much is because the current climate in the USA would cause very severe repercussions from the government and the people. Both from law enforcement, and from your average citizen who is fed up. They dont fear that in Europe so they attack when they feel like they can. They know that most, if not all their demands will be met if not when they attack, but soon after in some way. Once we give in enough as the brits and other European nations do, we will have the same problem. Silence in this matter is the same as walking up to one and asking him to kill you. You are an infidel. Your life means nothing.


Okay just because British people dont whine an cry as much as Americans do about terrorism does not mean we are naive or scared, we just get on with it.

"Once we give in enough as the brits and other European nations do"

Yeah we havent given up at all, the fact is America has just overreacted. Since 911 America has handled terrorism terribly. The strongest country in the world has become a paranoid mess an has risen to the bait shown to it. They terrorised you an you become terrorised, in england we just take it, an deal with it without freaking out an shouting about it all the time.


Yes they are, in so many ways. Not just terrorism. Their multiculturist extremism has taken so much out a once proud continent. Europe died with auchwitz. They lost all honour, and self worth with that war and the attrocities commited. Now they let the world walk over them with thier heads in the sand. Sad really.

Oh yes, my chidlren will inherit a world worse than what my Grandparents fought for in ww2. All because people dont want to take action, and frown on those that do.

Hastings , we lost our pride an honour? we let the world walk over us? what are you talking about!

Just because Europes becoming more multicultural doesnt mean we've lost any of our pride. An yeah that whole England helping America invade Iraq cause we're allies thing remember that? is that not honourable?

An plus who are you to talk? America hasnt had a scrap of honour in a long time.

Unfortunatly im not gonna be at a computer for a week which so its a shame im gonna miss out on all the fun

[Hastings]

Okay just because British people dont whine an cry as much as Americans do about terrorism does not mean we are naive or scared, we just get on with it.

"Once we give in enough as the brits and other European nations do"

Yeah we havent given up at all, the fact is America has just overreacted. Since 911 America has handled terrorism terribly. The strongest country in the world has become a paranoid mess an has risen to the bait shown to it. They terrorised you an you become terrorised, in england we just take it, an deal with it without freaking out an shouting about it all the time.

I do beleive you misunderstand the threat. We lost Thousands in 9/11, and have lost hundreds more in the past 30+ years. Your getting on with it means you do nothing about it. Doing nothing isnt dealing with a problem. Infact, terrorists love it when you dont do anything. Letting them fester and grow is what they want. Like a cancer they get inside and spread. Without treatment the problem gets worse untill very incasive procedures must be attempted. That or the patient dies.

Paranoid? Yes I suppose in some ways. We dont welcome our islamic masters like europe does. We dont care to submit to their wills. Did you know thats what islam means? Submission. Its quite telling about their entire way of life. They enslave all they touch.

What has Europe done to handle terorism? Oh I guess they gave billions to the middle east. Paying "jizya" to your masters only works so long. The occasional troop dies defending ideals that europe mostly seems to only honour in ceremony. only. Sure some people and agencies do thei jobs and protect a proud european people, but with the majority not having their heart where it should be, who long can these people survive against an onslaught from their own people and the enemy? Not long.



Hastings , we lost our pride an honour? we let the world walk over us? what are you talking about!

Just because Europes becoming more multicultural doesnt mean we've lost any of our pride. An yeah that whole England helping America invade Iraq cause we're allies thing remember that? is that not honourable?

Yes you have lost your honour, you protect that which doesnt deserve protecting, and openly criticize that which your founding fathers would attack in defence of your lands. Winston Churchill is be spinning in his grave. Similiarly I am sure that Charles Martel is spinning in his grave in france as well. Both of those men understood the threat so many years ago.


An plus who are you to talk? America hasnt had a scrap of honour in a long time.

Unfortunatly im not gonna be at a computer for a week which so its a shame im gonna miss out on all the fun

We whom go to the aid of any nation that needs it , regardless if they are enemy or not. We whom fight to preserve democracy, to fight against communism. We whom fight to keep the next generation alive, to keep them from having to listen to over lords from the east, be they muslim or communist, or other. We have honour, you just done understand that protecting ideals is honourable. Fighting and dieing for peace, for love, for life, for freedom, dor our ideals, and for our honour, that is honourable.

Our honour is waning though, under the heavy attacks of traitors in the senate and house. Many whom are democrats in name only, and sociaist in practice, and republicans whom wish to make a quick buck. We face the same problem you do, apologists, traitors, lieers, back stabbers, and chamberlains.

There will not be "peace in our time", unless the collective traitors in the USA and europe are booted out and we deal with the problem at hand.

If not, then WWII was fought for nothing, the cold War was for naught, and any men that died in defence of their country for nothing. Atleast the nazis and communists would fight for what they viewed as right. They would die like men.

[CopperCoatedCandy]

I do beleive you misunderstand the threat. We lost Thousands in 9/11, and have lost hundreds more in the past 30+ years. Your getting on with it means you do nothing about it. Doing nothing isnt dealing with a problem. Infact, terrorists love it when you dont do anything. Letting them fester and grow is what they want. Like a cancer they get inside and spread. Without treatment the problem gets worse untill very incasive procedures must be attempted. That or the patient dies.

Not necessarily. I doubt with all sincerity that terrorists blow themselves up along with innocent people because they like the current western attitudes. Think about it, who goes "I'm gonna go kill a bunch of people so that they can keep their policies the same. No, sometimes you have to get revenge for terrorist attacks (9/11 was one of these occasions) but other times revenge is either impossible or not worth it. The main thing though, is that no matter what, you can't just play into their hands and sacrifice the things that make your country so desirable to so many people (I'm talking about the U.S. as I am not familiar with Europe). And you can't just go about war-mongering and using your country's fear for political and monetary gain.

Paranoid? Yes I suppose in some ways. We dont welcome our islamic masters like europe does. We dont care to submit to their wills. Did you know thats what islam means? Submission. Its quite telling about their entire way of life. They enslave all they touch.

You also can't go around telling everybody that your ideas, your religion, and your culture are better than everyone else's, otherwise you're doing the same thing the people you hate are doing. If the way you do things is the best way for you, that's fantastic, but I'm sure most Muslims feel the same way about Christianity and/or democracy (see Iraqi insurgency). That's why we shouldn't stick your nose in other people's business. Why doesn't our country stop worrying so much about killing people, put some of the military budget into universal healthcare, and start worrying about making people better.

We whom go to the aid of any nation that needs it , regardless if they are enemy or not. We whom fight to preserve democracy, to fight against communism. We whom fight to keep the next generation alive, to keep them from having to listen to over lords from the east, be they muslim or communist, or other. We have honour, you just done understand that protecting ideals is honourable. Fighting and dieing for peace, for love, for life, for freedom, dor our ideals, and for our honour, that is honourable.

Going to the aid of a nation is fine, but why fight (in foreign countries) about political doctrine? As long as it isn't invading your country, why? all the any country needs for peace is to not go around the rest of the world forcing your ideology on others. Hell, even promote your ideology, give people the facts and let them decide. There is never any need to force democracy, or communism, or whatever religion you practice or political policy on anyone, ever.

Our honour is waning though, under the heavy attacks of traitors in the senate and house. Many whom are democrats in name only, and sociaist in practice, and republicans whom wish to make a quick buck. We face the same problem you do, apologists, traitors, lieers, back stabbers, and chamberlains.

There will not be "peace in our time", unless the collective traitors in the USA and europe are booted out and we deal with the problem at hand.

Amen to that. So many politicians are so far out of tune with the people's interests it's disgusting.

If not, then WWII was fought for nothing, the cold War was for naught, and any men that died in defence of their country for nothing. Atleast the nazis and communists would fight for what they viewed as right. They would die like men.

Fight in defense when you're attacked, but never just because you disagree with somebody else. Why cause such an immense amount of suffering for such petty disputes?

[Hastings]

Not necessarily. I doubt with all sincerity that terrorists blow themselves up along with innocent people because they like the current western attitudes. Think about it, who goes "I'm gonna go kill a bunch of people so that they can keep their policies the same. No, sometimes you have to get revenge for terrorist attacks (9/11 was one of these occasions) but other times revenge is either impossible or not worth it. The main thing though, is that no matter what, you can't just play into their hands and sacrifice the things that make your country so desirable to so many people (I'm talking about the U.S. as I am not familiar with Europe). And you can't just go about war-mongering and using your country's fear for political and monetary gain. [quote]

Its only so much revenge. Justice is also involved. That and stoppign the problem. Ill flat out say we cant fix the problem without a lot of people dieing. Peopel cant stomach that, so we have to contain it. People will die that way too, probably more, but, even though people hate atrition deaths, they will stomach this because they dont think in any other way but numbers. The other alternative is do nothing, and have the same death results. Rock and hard place.


[quote]
You also can't go around telling everybody that your ideas, your religion, and your culture are better than everyone else's, otherwise you're doing the same thing the people you hate are doing. If the way you do things is the best way for you, that's fantastic, but I'm sure most Muslims feel the same way about Christianity and/or democracy (see Iraqi insurgency). That's why we shouldn't stick your nose in other people's business. Why doesn't our country stop worrying so much about killing people, put some of the military budget into universal healthcare, and start worrying about making people better.

Any culture and religion is better than islam. I dont say the lightly. More people have died at the sword of islam than any other ideology on the planet past and present. Also the Iraqi insurgency is more than 50% foreign. Most fighters are from saudi arabia, and the bombs are coming in from syria and iran. One wonders just how differant it (Iraq) would be if Saudi arabia, Iran, and syria were not at war with us?

Universal health care is an entirely differant subject, but I can understand your point of view from this perspective and it is a valid point, though I dont agree with a health care system I can see how you would feel that the money is being wasted where it could be used in a more intelligent manner. In truth if we paid politicians less we could easily have a health care system. There should be caps on salary and gifts. Every excess should go strait to government systems such as health, and child care.



Going to the aid of a nation is fine, but why fight (in foreign countries) about political doctrine? As long as it isn't invading your country, why? all the any country needs for peace is to not go around the rest of the world forcing your ideology on others. Hell, even promote your ideology, give people the facts and let them decide. There is never any need to force democracy, or communism, or whatever religion you practice or political policy on anyone, ever.

I dont think Iraq was about pushing democracy, or oil, or a number of things. I think it was about ALL of those things. Far to complex to really state in a forum topic. People will be talking about it for decades to come. While I dont think Saddam was an immediate threat, I think that he should have been taken out. From there we should have just left. As mentioned above the other nations intervened to push it into a civil war. The people (politiicans and citizens) cant stomach fighting those that cause the problems in a real way, so the situation in Iraq is what it is.


Amen to that. So many politicians are so far out of tune with the people's interests it's disgusting.

While we dont agree on a lot, this is an ideal that we should all be siding on. Traitors to our nation must be thrown out. Be it a president, senator, diplomat, or speaker, etc. They should be severly punished, and all their dealings looked into. All possesions siezed and sold off to repair the damage they cause in some way.



Fight in defense when you're attacked, but never just because you disagree with somebody else. Why cause such an immense amount of suffering for such petty disputes?

This I suppose needs to be defined on what people think as petty. Others would find the slightest offence worth drawing a weapon for. Others would accept anything till the last few minutes. I think that the best defence is an offence. But if the offence harms your defence, then whats the point? Battles must be picked, and once picked executed without politics allowed to destroy the actions. The world learned this with Vietnam, and has again made a similiar mistake in Iraq. Politicians and the media should not be allowed to skew wars but alas they do for their sides. Now we come back to the traitors again.

Perhaps cleaning house is in order before we get involved anywhere and do anything else.

[cheese]

Less talking, more acting.

[Hastings]

Yeah if only if it were that easy. :(
Far too many people are apathetic in these situations.

[Teh Infernal Zombine]

Here in Denmark we call it Couch-Vouchers or something like that.

[cheese]

I tried to join the army memorial day weekend. I got a 90/100 on my ASVAB test.

[frikazoyd]

I tried to join the army memorial day weekend. I got a 90/100 on my ASVAB test.

My school *MADE* us take the ASVAB when I was a Junior in High School. The stupid military recruiters would NOT leave me alone after taking it.

[BOOM HEADSHOT]

care to explain what that test is to some of us?

[frikazoyd]

care to explain what that test is to some of us?

It's a standardized test you have to take to join any military branch here in America. It's not a hard test at all, and one of the many things it does is try and identify what types of useful applications you will have in a given branch. For instance, they give you a decoding section and a "speed math" section with several easy math questions to test mental speed, a mechanics section to test your spatial reasoning skills, a deeper math section to test your analytical skills, and so on.

You have to make a certain score to get in the military (it is fairly low), and higher scores are better for getting into branches with different applications. The US Air Force, for example, requires slightly higher scores. The Navy requires high scores as well I believe, and the Army and Marines have lower requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Aptitude_Battery

EDIT: And apparently upon reading this, they did away with the two speed reasoning sections I mentioned in 2002.

[Hastings]

I had a friend give my number to the recruiters when he wa trying to join the marines. They caled me everyso often because of that. Some of them can be a pain, and others can be really nice about it.

I really hate it when they call because I have no intention of joining, but I know that it is their job, and for that I am glad that they are doing it.

Sometimes I do find my self reconsidering though.

[JK-]

I guess it's yet another American thingy that no one else knows about <.<

Edit: Nevermind, just didn't see the last page before now :0

[Kazuya86]

Maybe the recruiters just wanted to talk

[Hastings]

No its because they get yelled at if they do not recruit a certain quota of people a month. I think they also get bonuses based on that similiar to commission.

From what I hear it can be a stressfull environment if your superiors are asshats., though probably not as stressfull as getting shot at :P

They are nice people though, just doing their jobs and serving the country.

[cheese]

First choice is 11-B, which is infantry.

[lordLoss]

Maybe the British army should do stuff like that, as we have about 200,000 troops in total, and 60,000 in the Territorial Army. Or maybe conscription :ninja: .