Herr Wozzeck Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Looks like Bush signed an executive order to do extra surveillance. Your thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superbus Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Who cares about Bush? Every surveillance programme that Bush put into place has been validated and defended by the Obama administration. Every promise of further transparency into the government has been obliterated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Kommissar Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Obama doesn't necessarily have the political pull to kill everything Chimpy the Dumber did, particularly with an economic crisis that he and his want to handle in a certain way. That's not to say it isn't disappointing, or that it doesn't bear continued, close scrutiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quanta Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Obama doesn't necessarily have the political pull to kill everything Chimpy the Dumber did, particularly with an economic crisis that he and his want to handle in a certain way. Are you joking? Both the Senate and House are democratic and he's very popular. Bush on the other hand sure as hell wasn't and still isn't. He doesn't undo this sort of stuff because he heads the executive branch. Not to fucking mention, it was an executive order. I'm pretty sure that implies he could easily undo it without even bothering with Congress. Every promise of further transparency into the government has been obliterated. True, although it was very predictable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metal Rabbit Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I'm not intentionally defending the act, but I have the opinion that in times of war you have to violate natural rights to protect people. This act was signed because of 9/11... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 WHAT WAR?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 WHATWAR?! QUICK, CHUCK ALL OUR RESTRICTIONS OUT THE WINDOW MAN! But seriously, it's an unfortunate thing, but I don't know if anyone's going to be changing it in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crystal Shards Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I'm not intentionally defending the act, but I have the opinion that in times of war you have to violate natural rights to protect people. This act was signed because of 9/11... "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metal Rabbit Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 They also said the role of government has to change to fit the needs of the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crystal Shards Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) They also said the role of government has to change to fit the needs of the people. Your point? Edited July 14, 2009 by Crystal Shards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GKSB Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Your point? If you aren't for your government 100% you hate America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 UNAMERICAN ACTIVITIES MAKE UNCLE SAM SAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 9/11 was a terrorist attack, not an act of war. Bush made it into a war, fighting an idea. A idea. Which is absurd. The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are more of hunts than actual wars like WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. I see no justification for this pile of s**t. And whoever thinks it's unpatriotic to question the government needs to stop talking. This is a government by the people, for the people, and if the persons we elected into office to represent us and our needs are failing to do the jobs we put them them there to do, then we need to find a way to make sure our voices are heard in our government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolDeath Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 If you aren't for your government 100% you hate America. Maybe they live in one of the anti-America parts of the country durr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superbus Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 True, although it was very predictable.Never said it wasn't predictable. But I want the "Obama is a beacon of hope and bunnies and rainbows!" people to remember this shit.I'm not intentionally defending the act, but I have the opinion that in times of war you have to violate natural rights to protect people. This act was signed because of 9/11...Stop. Stop right there. Do you know what you're saying?You're saying that the government can violate rights to protect us.So what you're saying is that the government can hurt it's people to "protect" them. Last time I checked a history book, that's exactly how America became a country: England was violating our rights, we told them to go fuck themselves. Now, you're saying that hey, since we got attacked, our rights are meaningless? By that front, the internment of thousands upon thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War II was A-OK. As long as we're "safe", right? Crystal basically quoted what I was going to: if you sacrifice liberty for safety, you deserve neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) But I want the "Obama is a beacon of hope and bunnies and rainbows!" people to remember this shit. They're going to remain as blind as they were when they saw HOPE posters. Edited July 15, 2009 by Celice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
California Mountain Snake Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 I'm not intentionally defending the act, but I have the opinion that in times of war you have to violate natural rights to protect people. This act was signed because of 9/11... The only reason government exists is to safeguard the natural rights of the people who empower it. Read some fucking Locke of GTFO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyosua Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin Quote for truth. They also said the role of government has to change to fit the needs of the people. The fact they said that does not in any way nullify the truth that is that quote. They did not intend what you are stating, to be taken in that manner. Never said it wasn't predictable. But I want the "Obama is a beacon of hope and bunnies and rainbows!" people to remember this shit.Stop. Stop right there. Do you know what you're saying? You're saying that the government can violate rights to protect us.So what you're saying is that the government can hurt it's people to "protect" them. Last time I checked a history book, that's exactly how America became a country: England was violating our rights, we told them to go fuck themselves. Now, you're saying that hey, since we got attacked, our rights are meaningless? By that front, the internment of thousands upon thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War II was A-OK. As long as we're "safe", right? Crystal basically quoted what I was going to: if you sacrifice liberty for safety, you deserve neither. Well one could always start another revolution Personally though, I just think the leadership in this country and the pool of people the leaders here are pulled from needs to change. I was hoping the Obama administration would become the beginning of that, but it looks like that didn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Most Presidents are nothing more than idols anyways. To expect change to actually surmount because of them isn't exactly the best way of thinking. Corporate bills, however, are. I mean, just look at those lobbyist profits, especially in the recent debacle over unbiased Internet use (see: freepress.net) :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.