Next best thing for the US (and perhaps the world)

[Ghogiel]

S.1867 happened under Obama's watch iirc.

 

Long story short: a section of this states that if the government declares one of it's citizens to be an enemy (at war with), they get to violate his/hers constitutional rights, ie due process and can in fact just disappear me/murder me. I am fairly sure me being a dissenter is not enough to bring this into effect, but any active participation to, let's say, bring down the government for example, which is imo within my rights, wouldn't fly very far before the army can be/is used and squishes me like a bug. I don't even need to be one of the armed or part of the violent part of the upheaval, I can be merely an associate

 

imo it is a conflict of interest. The government has basically tried to protect itself from any sort of potential uprising of it's own citizens who may try to over throw it, allowing it to, legally, use the military to squash it. Most important and relevant part to the topic is that it gives itself powers to violate your constitutional rights under a slightly dubious condition. The condition of war, which is thrown about on all sorts of things these days and doesn't mean a declaration of by congress, ie war on terror, war on drugs, etc.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Ghogiel

[colourwheel]

S.1867 happened under Obama's watch iirc.

 

Long story short: a section of this states that if the government declares one of it's citizens to be an enemy (at war with), they get to violate his/hers constitutional rights, ie due process and can in fact just disappear me/murder me. I am fairly sure me being a dissenter is not enough to bring this into effect, but any active participation to, let's say, bring down the government for example, which is imo within my rights, wouldn't fly very far before the army can be/is used and squishes me like a bug. I don't even need to be one of the armed or part of the violent part of the upheaval, I can be merely an associate

 

imo it is a conflict of interest. The government has basically tried to protect itself from any sort of potential uprising of it's own citizens who may try to over throw it, allowing it to, legally, use the military to squash it. Most important and relevant part to the topic is that it gives itself powers to violate your constitutional rights under a slightly dubious condition. The condition of war, which is thrown about on all sorts of things these days and doesn't mean a declaration of by congress, ie war on terror, war on drugs, etc.

 

That bill was crafted in secret by Senators John McCain (republican) and Carl Levin (democrate).

 

I have no idea why that bill passed. In a time of war or a huge uprising any Pressident can just declare martial law. I really dont see this lasting long. it will most likely go to the supreme court soon.

 

This peice of legislation might have passed under Obama's watch yet its hardly even a democratic peice of legisation.

Edited September 26, 2012 by colourwheel

[Syco21]

Neither candidate is better than the other, both will wage war on the constitution and no matter how much I may dislike one or the other, I absolutely will not consent to the continued degradation of our rights.

 

I would have to disagree with this statement. Since Obama has been in office the constitution has not been changed to taking away rights or freedoms from me or anyone else.

They don't have to change the constitution to wage war on it. They simply have to ignore it, pass laws that rape the bill of rights and be done with it.

 

There is the example provided by Ghogiel, but then there is also H.R. 347 which attacks the right to freedom of speech. These are just two examples, there are many more.

 

S.1867 happened under Obama's watch iirc.

 

Long story short: a section of this states that if the government declares one of it's citizens to be an enemy (at war with), they get to violate his/hers constitutional rights, ie due process and can in fact just disappear me/murder me. I am fairly sure me being a dissenter is not enough to bring this into effect, but any active participation to, let's say, bring down the government for example, which is imo within my rights, wouldn't fly very far before the army can be/is used and squishes me like a bug. I don't even need to be one of the armed or part of the violent part of the upheaval, I can be merely an associate

 

imo it is a conflict of interest. The government has basically tried to protect itself from any sort of potential uprising of it's own citizens who may try to over throw it, allowing it to, legally, use the military to squash it. Most important and relevant part to the topic is that it gives itself powers to violate your constitutional rights under a slightly dubious condition. The condition of war, which is thrown about on all sorts of things these days and doesn't mean a declaration of by congress, ie war on terror, war on drugs, etc.

 

That bill was crafted in secret by Senators John McCain (republican) and Carl Levin (democrate).

 

I have no idea why that bill passed. In a time of war or a huge uprising any Pressident can just declare martial law. I really dont see this lasting long. it will most likely go to the supreme court soon.

 

This peice of legislation might have passed under Obama's watch yet its hardly even a democratic peice of legisation.

So you admit that a Democrat co-authored the bill, but deny the Democrat responsibility or Obama's failure to veto?

 

BTW 48 Democrats to 44 Republicans and 1 independent voted for S. 1867. 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 1 Independent voted against S. 1867. Sounds like a Democrat bill to me.

 

But I don't play the blame game. If I were to foolishly blame the Democrats because they had 4 more people vote for S. 1867 I'd be foolishly ignoring the 44 Republican votes it got. Which would accomplish nothing.

[colourwheel]

I think you are missing the big picture here.

 

legislation like this gets passed all the time that step all over the constitution yet most the time it doesn't last very long once it reaches the courts if it is unconstitutional. Since Obama took office a lot of people only seem to fucus on anything negative regaurdless if it really has any relavent effect to them personally. If you look at bush's pressidency It's a bit laughable in comparision to what has gone on in washinton yet there was never a huge uproar over it. Even Clinton has let stuff pass that was very questionable yet there was no huge controversy over it.

 

To totally give up on our government would not solve anything infact it would make things worst.

 

Voting for a thrid party canidate would not change much just because you don't want either major parties in office. When it comes down to it, even if a third party canidate would win preissident it would be highly unlikely that congress and senate would cooperate any more than oppisitional parties would cooperate together.

 

Lets be honest here too... are you really worried congress or the pressident is going to declare you an enemy of war?

 

I sometime just want to laugh when watching youtube videos of people getting upset over legisation that gets passed complaining about it and talking like its the end of the world and telling people to stock up on food and water and guns.

 

then going back later the legisation they got so upset about was either thrown out by the courts later or amended to the point that is corrected to fit basic constitutional rights.

 

One huge problem in america is not very many people will actually know our basic constitutional rights before jumping to apocalyptic conclussions. Anything and everything can be and will be changed if it violates any constitutional rights.

Edited September 26, 2012 by colourwheel

[Syco21]

I think you are missing the big picture here.

 

legislation like this gets passed all the time that step all over the constitution yet most the time it doesn't last very long once it reaches the courts if it is unconstitutional. Since Obama took office a lot of people only seem to fucus on anything negative regaurdless if it really has any relavent effect to them personally. If you look at bush's pressidency It's a bit laughable in comparision to what has gone on in washinton yet there was never a huge uproar over it. Even Clinton has let stuff pass that was very questionable yet there was no huge controversy over it.

So because something happens all the time, I should just let it slide? Because Clinton did this or that, it's cool? I was 6 when Clinton was elected, I was 10 when he was reelected, I was 14 when he left office and Bush was elected. I was just barely 18 when Bush was reelected.

 

But this is even worse than just being a piss poor excuse for piss poor behavior. You're stating that you expect your representatives to assault our rights and that it's okay when they do because the courts may or may not overthrow it a decade down the line. Yes, a decade. Because that's how long it takes for things to move through the courts. But then there are other issues as well. The laws must be brought before the courts to begin with, in order to do that, you must have standing. Which means your rights must have been violated. Once you aquire standing, you must then have the funds and ability to take up through the courts. It isn't cheap, it costs millions of dollars to get an issue before the Supreme Court and that's counting the cost you will pay on a personal level.

 

You may not expect your politicians to care, or worse, may not expect them to read legislation before voting on it. But I absolutely do and will not under any circumstance support someone that will not read proposed legislation or take a stand against rights abuses. I will no consent.

 

To totally give up on our government would not solve anything infact it would make things worst.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are my government, they are representatives of those that vote for them. They are not my representatives. If I were to give up on the government, I would arm myself and fight it or move out to the middle of nowhere and live on a compound. Not continue to vote for who I think is best for the office they run for. This is a strawman argument.

 

Voting for a thrid party canidate would not change much just because you don't want either major parties in office. When it comes down to it, even if a third party canidate would win preissident it would be highly unlikely that congress and senate would cooperate any more than oppisitional parties would cooperate together.

I don't want Republicans or Democrats in either the House or Senate and will vote for the candidate most worthy of that position as long as there is a worthy candidate. In the event know one on the ballot is worth voting for, I will not vote. Again, I will not consent to the abuse this country faces.

 

But this is a discussion about the presidency, not Congress or the Senate.

 

Lets be honest here too... are you really worried congress or the pressident is going to declare you an enemy of war?

The government has already declared me a potential terrorist. They have already marked hundreds of thousands of Americans as terrorists. Or are you forgetting about the no fly list?

 

I'll forgive you for being unaware of the FBI's hilariously insane "You Might Be A Terrorist If" flyers. Not many people know about them because they don't get much news coverage.Things that might make you a terrorist according to the FBI? Paying with cash, interest in remote controlled airplanes, concerned about people not reading your private emails over your shoulder at Starbucks, using multiple cellphones etc etc.

 

I don't worry the government is going to consider me a threat. I'm fairly certain I'm already on a bunch of lists. What did I do? I own a gun, I have MREs, I occasionally buy food for the month, I support rights for gun owners. I support open carry. I have family members involved with local militias.

 

I sometime just want to laugh when watching youtube videos of people getting upset over legisation that gets passed complaining about it and talking like its the end of the world and telling people to stock up on food and water and guns.

I ain't tellin anyone to prepare for the end of the world. But ya know what? It doesn't hurt. There's always the risk of a disaster or maybe civil unrest that plagues only a few areas. Things like Katrina, or the fire that ravaged my county this time last year, or the LA Riots.

 

You can laugh at those that prepare for times of emergency, but should you ever find yourself in an emergency you're going to wish you hadn't.

 

One huge problem in america is not very many people will actually know our basic constitutional rights before jumping to apocalyptic conclussions. Anything and everything can be and will be changed if it violates any constitutional rights.

Except the PARTIOT Act, except HR 347 which was actually an upgrade to a pre-existing law. Except anyone that dies can't get their life back because the court said it was wrong. Except those people who lose years upon years of their life. Except those that find themselves in indefinite detention without lawyers and without due process can't take the matter before the courts nor can anyone else for them because they don't have legal standing or power of attorney.

 

It seems to me your argument is this: Our rights have been violated in the past, so it doesn't matter if they get violated again. The courts will probably overturn unconstitutional laws. Well my rights aren't being violated, so I don't care.

 

Seems to me you are making up excuses to ignore the gravity of the situation. No, it's not the end of the world. But why should it be for us to stand up and say no more? Why should we wait until we're on the precipice of disaster/all out tyranny before we say "ya know what? Maybe it was a bad idea to keep voting for Democrats or Republicans?"

 

There are better candidates running for office, and they are only unelectable as long as people like you refuse to vote for them.

[colourwheel]

@syco21

 

So because something happens all the time, I should just let it slide? Because Clinton did this or that, it's cool? I was 6 when Clinton was elected, I was 10 when he was reelected, I was 14 when he left office and Bush was elected. I was just barely 18 when Bush was reelected.

 

This is how politics have been for almost over a century this is what i ment about the bigger picture. And no It doesnt make me feel good about things, but what exactly do you expect me or anyone else to do about it?

 

Once you aquire standing, you must then have the funds and ability to take up through the courts. It isn't cheap, it costs millions of dollars to get an issue before the Supreme Court and that's counting the cost you will pay on a personal level.

 

Millions of dollars? Lets be realistic here and bring into prospective our countries military budget. Millions of dollars is nothing to our government. The court systems is part of our government and i am glad for it to exist.

 

You may not expect your politicians to care, or worse, may not expect them to read legislation before voting on it. But I absolutely do and will not under any circumstance support someone that will not read proposed legislation or take a stand against rights abuses. I will no consent.

 

Concidering you said you were 14 when bush left office you will eventually vote for someone some day who will let legisation pass that would probably make you sick. Its happened to me before and it happens to everyone. Thats just poiltics. If you endup feeling so ill hearted about a polititian you voted for doing something you didnt like you simply just dont try to re-elect them the next term.

 

To totally give up on our government would not solve anything infact it would make things worst.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are my government, they are representatives of those that vote for them. They are not my representatives.

 

But this is where you are wrong. Historically the Republican and Democratic parties have basically held our government for over a century. You might not have voted for the people in power but you participated in the outcome of who eventually wins for office. These people who you did not vote for still have to repressent you. And if they don't then you need to write your congressman and become more active about it than just complaining about how broken the government is on a forum. Atleast try to get your message out to them if anything.

 

There are better candidates running for office, and they are only unelectable as long as people like you refuse to vote for them.

 

Like who is better? and why?

Edited September 27, 2012 by colourwheel

[Syco21]

This is how politics have been for almost over a century this is what i ment about the bigger picture. And no It doesnt make me feel good about things, but what exactly do you expect me or anyone else to do about it?

How about stop voting for the same parties that put us in this mess in the first place? It really is that simple.

 

Millions of dollars? Lets be realistic here and bring into prospective our countries military budget. Millions of dallars is nothing to our government. The court systems is part of our government and i am glad for it to exist.

For one thing, our country doesn't really need to spend any more money than it already is. And for another, I wasn't talking about the cost to the tax payers. I was talking about the cost to the plaintiff/defendant. For you or I to bring a case before SCOTUS, it'll cost us, the individual, millions in lawyers fees. I am being realistic when I say I don't have several million dollars to pay for a lawyer to spend the next 5-10 years representing me so that I can take my case before SCOTUS. Do you? I also don't have 5-10+ years to sit behind bars while my case works its way up through the courts.

 

Concidering you said you were 14 when bush left office you will eventually vote for someone some day who will let legisation pass that would probably make you sick. Its happened to me before and it happens to everyone. Thats just poiltics. If you endup feeling so ill hearted about a polititian you voted for doing something you didnt like you simply just dont try to re-elect them the next term.

In correct, I said that I was 14 when Bush took office. If I vote for someone and they turn out to be just another Bush or Clinton or Obama or Romney, then I'll simply learn my lesson and vote for someone else. I wont feel sick, I'll just learn that person isn't someone I want in office and when the next election comes, I'll vote for someone else.

 

But this is where you are wrong. Historically the Republican and Democratic parties have basically held our government for over a century. You might not have voted for the people in power but you participated in the outcome of who eventually wins for office. These people who you did not vote for still have to repressent you. And if they don't then you need to write your congressman and become more active about it than just complaining about how broken the government is on a forum. Atleast try to get your message out to them if anything.

Yeah, the Republicans and Democrats have controlled the government for a long time. That still doesn't make them the government. And no, they do not represent me, this is why I will not vote for them. Because I know that once they take office, it will not be me they are representing, it'll be special interest.

 

As far as mailing/calling, who says I don't? You're making assumptions where you shouldn't. I'm also not complaining, I'm pointing out that both groups have done a lot to take away our rights and freedoms in a debate about who is best suited for the presidency.

 

Like who is better?

Gary Johnson. I may not share many of his views. For example I support universal healthcare, whereas he does not. But we do have bigger issues at the moment. After those are addressed, we can come back to the other things.

[colourwheel]

This is how politics have been for almost over a century this is what i ment about the bigger picture. And no It doesnt make me feel good about things, but what exactly do you expect me or anyone else to do about it?

How about stop voting for the same parties that put us in this mess in the first place? It really is that simple.

 

Back in mid 90's i voted for ross perot (independent). After i saw how well clinton was doing to the economy I voted for clinton's 2nd term. After clinton i ended up voting of Bush then Obama...

 

Voting for a 3rd party canidate never wins and the problem most the time with 3rd party canidates is they only focus on one thing or two things and nothing else. Any promisses they make are no different than anything any other major party canidate promisses. And most of the time the promisses third party canidates make are totally unrealistic an completely not even possible to accomplish in the time frame of the "four years" every thrid party canidates atleast asks for.

 

Millions of dollars? Lets be realistic here and bring into prospective our countries military budget. Millions of dallars is nothing to our government. The court systems is part of our government and i am glad for it to exist.

For one thing, our country doesn't really need to spend any more money than it already is. And for another, I wasn't talking about the cost to the tax payers. I was talking about the cost to the plaintiff/defendant. For you or I to bring a case before SCOTUS, it'll cost us, the individual, millions in lawyers fees. I am being realistic when I say I don't have several million dollars to pay for a lawyer to spend the next 5-10 years representing me so that I can take my case before SCOTUS. Do you? I also don't have 5-10+ years to sit behind bars while my case works its way up through the courts.

 

I will agree our country doesn't really need to spend any more money than it already does. But you talking about tax payer money just for millions of dollars when our military budget makes the amount of a millions dollar of tax payer money for Supreme Court cases look like fractions of a penny in cost. and legislation law cases does not come out of peoples personal income. It comes out of tax payer money.

 

also sorry for that minor mistake about being 14...

 

But this is where you are wrong. Historically the Republican and Democratic parties have basically held our government for over a century. You might not have voted for the people in power but you participated in the outcome of who eventually wins for office. These people who you did not vote for still have to repressent you. And if they don't then you need to write your congressman and become more active about it than just complaining about how broken the government is on a forum. Atleast try to get your message out to them if anything.

Yeah, the Republicans and Democrats have controlled the government for a long time. That still doesn't make them the government. And no, they do not represent me, this is why I will not vote for them. Because I know that once they take office, it will not be me they are representing, it'll be special interest.

 

As far as mailing/calling, who says I don't? You're making assumptions where you shouldn't. I'm also not complaining, I'm pointing out that both groups have done a lot to take away our rights and freedoms in a debate about who is best suited for the presidency.

 

I would have to disagree with you again even if you think your congressman doesn't repressent you... they actually do. It is really up to you what you decided to do to relay your messages to them.

 

I was not really making any assumptions but I was more trying to remind you that it is your government and its good if you do try to communicate with your congressman. but from my perspective it did seem more like complaining more than anything else. If I was wrong I am sorry again.

 

 

Like who is better?

Gary Johnson. I may not share many of his views. For example I support universal healthcare, whereas he does not. But we do have bigger issues at the moment. After those are addressed, we can come back to the other things.

 

Gary Johnson? Sure his "promisses" seem really great but totally unrealistic for only 4 years that he is asking for. Any third party canidate that makes promisses beyond any realistic time frame is not a top chioce in my mind. How can a person take us out of debt if he cant even calculate his promisses don't add up in any realistic time frame. Just getting all of our military out of every part of the world is totally unrealistic in just 4 years . The world is more complicated than that.

Edited September 27, 2012 by colourwheel

[Ghogiel]

The world is more complicated than that.

But the practicalities of actually getting out of occupied countries in 4 years is totally feasible. The US could in fact literally just pack up and leave. It's not that hard really.

[colourwheel]

The world is more complicated than that.

But the practicalities of actually getting out of occupied countries in 4 years is totally feasible. The US could in fact literally just pack up and leave. It's not that hard really.

 

If its so easy to leave a place then why the heck is our military still in places like Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc... to me 4 years seems pretty unrealistic if something that happened over a half a century ago we seem to still be occupying. Just to move out of occupied countries would cost multi billion of dollars today.

Edited September 27, 2012 by colourwheel