[Phyrexius]

Never give up, NEVER surrender...

[Cruzandercerberus]

The entire "Tea Party" movement is irrelevent for the following reason.

As soon as anyone is elected to the position, they WILL conform to the party line or face a well-funded challenger in the primaries in the next election. If they play ball with the party, they will be rewarded with a permanent job due to completely gerrymandered districts. The idea that these people will be ideological independent and subvert their own careers to do so is naive. If they don't play ball, their character will be assassinated (see Dem congressmen who resigned due to "gay" rumors after opposing Obamacare) and they will be asked to resign by the party and someone who toes the party line will be put in their place.

Much ado about absolutely nothing.

[Cruzandercerberus]

Also people have been getting themselves arrested with picket signs for decades. It happens daily in Washington D.C.

I assure you not a single fuck was given that day.

[Kenshiro]

I saw that too man. That's fucked. Finally Phyrexius says something useful.

OBAMA MUST BE STOPPED!

[MrReinhardt]

might as well give him posting privelages in flame wars since every one of his threads ends up there.

[Keylime]

Does this dick wipe seriously have nothing better to do with his time? This poor excuse of a shit stain might get a better response if fagrexius actually typed something.

[-Kaine-]

Abuse of power.. as usual.. .-.

[Keylime]

-Kaine-, on 19 September 2010 - 12:37 PM, said:

Abuse of power.. as usual.. .-.

No, abuse of power is that anti-sedition act that is on the floor of Congress. Look up Bill S. 3081.

The shit fagrexius posts is just people QQ over how good they have it.

[firefeng]

Keylime, on 19 September 2010 - 09:10 PM, said:

No, abuse of power is that anti-sedition act that is on the floor of Congress. Look up Bill S. 3081.

That's some scary shit. Grand Lord Savior Obama would never sign that into law, would he?!

[treelo]

Funny, I thought they did all that already.

[firefeng]

They did, a little bit. But now we know they have a taste for authoritarianism. Hide your guns and your mobile vagina platfor--err, women! The gubmints out to get us! It's not like the U.S. forsook its founding principles months (days?) after its creation!

[treelo]

So essentially it's institutionalising current practice, giving conspiracy fuckwits like that guy above one less thing to write about.

I fail to see the downside. Unless anyone here apart from the aforementioned fuckwit is a terrorist as well.

NB: I use the term terrorist very loosely.

This post has been edited by treelo: 20 September 2010 - 03:20 PM

[firefeng]

Since I can just move to Alaska and become a hermit that lives by my own rules if I so desire, I fail to see the downside of this future law aside from the openly crass violation to an individual's civil rights.

treelo said:

NB: I use the term terrorist very loosely.

That's okay. So, too, does the bill in discussion.

This post has been edited by firefeng: 20 September 2010 - 03:53 PM

[Keylime]

I suppose I'd be labeled a terrorist because I fully support a violent over throw of the US government.

See you at the git-mo folks!

[treelo]

Quote

That's okay. So, too, does the bill in discussion.

Quote

(2) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVIDUALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES- The regulations required by this subsection shall include criteria for designating an individual as a high-value detainee based on the following:

(E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

What's wrong with that? I mean, you trust Obama... don't you?

I was actually much more interested in the section above that. Apparently they want to base their judgements of whether or not the "terrorist" is worthy of being held/interrogated/tor... err, I already said interrogated didn't I? Damn... Anyway, the group responsible for dealing with high value targets not only decides if the vic... terrorist is a terrorist or not, they also then decide if they're high value. Of course, they have to tort... interrogate them first to find out, but they only have two days to do it.

Essentially it's just a loophole for sections of the Geneva Convention dealing with treatment of non-combatants. What could possibly be wrong with that?

This post has been edited by treelo: 20 September 2010 - 04:28 PM

[Tikki]

The dudes a retard. Was that handled right? No idea.

This post has been edited by Tikki: 25 September 2010 - 03:01 PM

[Keylime]

treelo, on 20 September 2010 - 04:26 PM, said:

What's wrong with that? I mean, you trust Obama... don't you?

I was actually much more interested in the section above that. Apparently they want to base their judgements of whether or not the "terrorist" is worthy of being held/interrogated/tor... err, I already said interrogated didn't I? Damn... Anyway, the group responsible for dealing with high value targets not only decides if the vic... terrorist is a terrorist or not, they also then decide if they're high value. Of course, they have to tort... interrogate them first to find out, but they only have two days to do it.

Essentially it's just a loophole for sections of the Geneva Convention dealing with treatment of non-combatants. What could possibly be wrong with that?

I don't trust any public official. Not to sound too paranoid, but they are only out for themselves.