Oh my god. They've done it. This takes all rights away. - by Outlooker
Shayde on 2/10/2006 at 06:33
Quote Posted by Renegen
Just chill and convert your money into gold.
Go team South Africa \0/
Haegan on 2/10/2006 at 13:32
ttlg???........In agreement???.....Impossible!
fett on 2/10/2006 at 14:54
I think this bill is so utterly frightening and fucked up that it would be almost impossible for anyone to be in favor of it - at least here.
I'm probably wrong. :(
WingedKagouti on 2/10/2006 at 15:35
Quote Posted by fett
I think this bill is so utterly frightening and fucked up that it would be almost impossible for anyone to be in favor of it - at least here.
I'm probably wrong. :(
I've seen people in agreement with it because either a) it's an American Law and thus Fair And Just or b) they had yet to read the vagueness of the scope (usually followed up with: "But the limitations can probably be found elsewhere").
Paz on 2/10/2006 at 15:42
But here's the thing I'm not getting. I'm entirely with demagogue when he says:
Quote Posted by demagogue
Since this bill doesn't allow detainees to bring habeus petitions in civil (that is, non-military) courts to challenge their detention (e.g., as arbitrary), and that right has already been clearly established by the Supreme Court in Hamdan, I can't help but seeing this new law also being overturned by the Supreme Court and brought yet again back to Congress to patch up the holes.
But I think everybody knew that from the beginning, so the whole thing to my eyes is blatantly political and entirely meaningless aside from its proximity to mid-term elections.
I recall that you American chaps have this magic piece of paper which ensures people get rights and liberty and stuff, which, combined with your Supreme Court, should result in this bill getting the reaction "lol no" before it gets anywhere ... right?
Therefore, I would also go along with his second point that this is blatantly political. Everyone behind it knows that it can never go through, so it's just a show of ... and this is where I get confused .. a show of what? Is it an attempt to get more votes? If so, who the hell are they targetting with this grandstanding?
It's scary enough that you've got some political bods who might consider this bill as sensible, but it's even MORE worrying if any of those bods think "hey, this is what the public will want!" and even
MORE concerning again if some sections of the public are thinking "hmm, yes it is!"
Is it just a classic political blunder, or what? WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, POLITICIANS DON'T NORMALLY DREAM UP CRAP THAT NO-ONE WILL LIKE.
Aerothorn on 2/10/2006 at 15:49
The point of the bill is not to show anything by voting for it - it's to show things by NOT voting for it. The Republicans brought this to vote in the hope that all the democrats would vote against it, so in the next campaign election they could run attack ads saying the Dems were 'soft on terrorists'. That's generally the way the Republicans play and the Dems are fucking stupid for being pussys and letting them do it.
BTW, pavlovscat, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. Know your urban legends:)(
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp)
Swiss Mercenary on 2/10/2006 at 17:39
Quote Posted by Paz
But here's the thing I'm not getting. I'm entirely with demagogue when he says:
I recall that you American chaps have this magic piece of paper which ensures people get rights and liberty and stuff, which, combined with your Supreme Court, should result in this bill getting the reaction "lol no" before it gets anywhere ... right?
And then Bush will ignore it, like he has... Oh, a hell of a lot of other SCOTUS rulings.
The guy thinks he's on a mission from God. Rule of law doesn't apply to him.
Pyrian on 2/10/2006 at 20:21
Remember, this bill is for legalizing what they're already doing and have already done.
Tonamel on 2/10/2006 at 20:36
Quote Posted by Paz
Is it just a classic political blunder, or what? WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, POLITICIANS DON'T NORMALLY DREAM UP CRAP THAT NO-ONE WILL LIKE.
Here's my completely unfounded reasoning:
The republicans want to lose the midterm elections, because they feel the best way to keep the presidency is to have someone else to blame the state of the country on in '08. A campaign strategy of "Lookit waht the democrat congress did! They're awful!" is a whole lot easier than "Even though we run everything, it's not our fault, honest!"
pavlovscat on 2/10/2006 at 22:17
Yep, I've seen the justification before. I should have known somebody would call me out on that one. Gore actually used "create" which means to bring into existence. Invent means to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment. You're right, the words are not synonymous, but they are related in meaning. He couldn't have "invented" the internet because one must be capable of independent thought to invent. As for creating it, that is purely preposterous as well. The roots of the internet pre-date Gore's support of it. Either way, he's a goof who needs a better speech writer. If he had said that he supported the development of the internet, I'd have no arguement. But, supporting an entity is a far reach from creating (or inventing) said entity. No matter which of the words he used, his statement was still ill-chosen.
BTW~ Thanks for making me think. It's good for me.
