78 replies to this topic

[VoodooLou Kerensky]

The CIA has been doing just this thing for quite some time. If your just now realizing that; Welcome to being no longer Blissfully Ignorant. One of the largest travesties of recent times is the admission that the Terrorists Won. "How did the Terrorists win?" you say? Easily. The Goal of Terrorism is for who ever is being Terrorized to change their day to day activities. Hence the TSA. 'Whoever gives up freedoms in the name of security deserves neither.'-Benjamin Franklin

[Tyzh]

Catamount, on 24 January 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

You'll have to forgive my assumption that people don't intentionally construct non-sequitur arguments.

I think I just fell in love.

[Miles Tails Prower]

Listless Nomad, on 24 January 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

That video lost credibility when it used the theme from Skyrim to back it. If you want to talk about grown up topics - don't use videogame music.

I couldn't even listen to the video once I heard the Skyrim theme come on. I literally dropped my forehead into my palm propped up on my seat.

Edited by Miles Tails Prower, 24 January 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Listless Nomad, on 24 January 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

That video lost credibility when it used the theme from Skyrim to back it. If you want to talk about grown up topics - don't use videogame music.

PS - the original video you posted called for the overthrow of the government so...have fun stormin da castle!!

It was a person talking about his opinion which I agree with. And OMG he used video game music it must be stupid /sarcasm.

reply to PS- and? Is it so wrong to be discontent with a corrupt government which no longer cares about the people which it is meant to represent? Is it wrong to wish for true reform and be willing to stand up for your beliefs?

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison.

[Stone Profit]

Vulpesveritas, on 24 January 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

It was a person talking about his opinion which I agree with. And OMG he used video game music it must be stupid /sarcasm.

reply to PS- and? Is it so wrong to be discontent with a corrupt government which no longer cares about the people which it is meant to represent? Is it wrong to wish for true reform and be willing to stand up for your beliefs?

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison.

I didn't see him say it was stupid in any way, just that grown up topics deserve the respect of not putting cheesy video game music behind.

[Belial]

I took this seriously when I first heard about it... until I took the trouble to read the new NDAA, (yes, the entire damn thing up until the really relevant part so I was sure I didn't miss anything leading up to it). I can only say "ditto" to the posts that have pointed out that:

1) The bill is nothing new in itself

2) It clearly states that civilians are not subject to military trial/punishment

3) You have to be seriously messing up to even be considered a threat anyway

4) The general media is still taken to be 100% truth by the same people who say it's lying to us

5) Anonymous is currently one of the biggest sources of fearmongering out there

Here's an additional thought: if I go about my daily life, which involves working, playing guitar, video games, and reading science fiction, I seriously doubt this bill would strip any of my rights anyway. Last I checked, the government leaves me the hell alone. I've never even been asked to step aside at airport security, and I travel quite often. I don't see how rights are being taken away when the various laws and bills only go after people who want to cause outright destruction and anarchy.

In any case, Americans need to wake up and realize that, despite our country's flaws, we still have a much better life than a lot of the rest of the world. If people want to cry foul on human rights, they need to first visit the parts of the world where human rights are not only nonexistent, they are actively oppressed.

[Miles Tails Prower]

When you're relying on video game music to enhance the dramatic effect of your "speech" ON the subject of national matters, yeah it kind of gives off the impression that you're a person whose grip on reality is shaky at best.

[Listless Nomad]

Vulpesveritas, on 24 January 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

It was a person talking about his opinion which I agree with. And OMG he used video game music it must be stupid /sarcasm.

reply to PS- and? Is it so wrong to be discontent with a corrupt government which no longer cares about the people which it is meant to represent? Is it wrong to wish for true reform and be willing to stand up for your beliefs?

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison.

I did not comment on the validity of the content of the video, or your right to agree with it. What I said was merely that it lost credibility. If you want to be taken seriously, don't set it to videogame music. The content of that video could have been the most truthful - earth shattering content to ever be spoken. Set it to video game music and watch people laugh. Look me up the next time anyone from the government makes a declaration backed by the HALO theme.

And no - there is nothing wrong with being dissatisfied with the government, or voicing your objections. That is the beauty of this nation. What I have a problem with is sedition and intending to overthrow that government. Our system isnt perfect, and it isnt without its drawbacks. But its a hell of a lot better than anything anonymous would create and I'd defend against any attack to the death. You couch your statements under the guise of honor and standing up for yourself. Yet at every opportunity to dispute the content of this argument or the provision - you decline. Videos by anonymous are one thing - all we ask is you make up your own mind based on logic. If you have, wonderful - but do not follow anonymous blindly. You speak of protesting and standing up for yourself. They speak of rebellion. There is a difference and while protesting is a worthy cause - what are you protesting? What conflict do you have that has not been explained here?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Look I can quote things too! I very much doubt you'd get such freedoms from a government overthrown by people believing in FEMA death camps.

Ps thanks Stone Profit, Belial, and Miles Tails Power for the back up

Edited by Listless Nomad, 24 January 2012 - 08:01 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Belial, on 24 January 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

I took this seriously when I first heard about it... until I took the trouble to read the new NDAA, (yes, the entire damn thing up until the really relevant part so I was sure I didn't miss anything leading up to it). I can only say "ditto" to the posts that have pointed out that:

1) The bill is nothing new in itself

2) It clearly states that civilians are not subject to military trial/punishment

3) You have to be seriously messing up to even be considered a threat anyway

4) The general media is still taken to be 100% truth by the same people who say it's lying to us

5) Anonymous is currently one of the biggest sources of fearmongering out there

Here's an additional thought: if I go about my daily life, which involves working, playing guitar, video games, and reading science fiction, I seriously doubt this bill would strip any of my rights anyway. Last I checked, the government leaves me the hell alone. I've never even been asked to step aside at airport security, and I travel quite often. I don't see how rights are being taken away when the various laws and bills only go after people who want to cause outright destruction and anarchy.

In any case, Americans need to wake up and realize that, despite our country's flaws, we still have a much better life than a lot of the rest of the world. If people want to cry foul on human rights, they need to first visit the parts of the world where human rights are not only nonexistent, they are actively oppressed.

ookay it says that military powers are "not required" to imprison US citizens who are suspected. (NDAA section 1031 subsection B2) which means they can if they want to. And the EEA hr 3166 more or less states that any one called a suspect is automatically a terrorist, without proof that a subject is guilty of being such, and will be treated therefore as a hostile foreigner. If imprisoned, you have no right to habeous corpus, no right to due process, and no right to ask why you are being imprisoned.

[Belial]

Anonymous loses credibility because it plays into people's fears- the very tactic it accuses the government of doing. The instant I see a spark of hypocrisy, the intelligent part of my brain (ie, all of it) goes and finds something better to do. It helps that what they say is half-informed, and their supposed methods of "rebellion" would cause far more damage than anything. Yet Anonymous has all the right answers, and people eat it up like a spider with a web full of flies.

[Listless Nomad]

So let me ask this Vulpes, and then I will bid this thread a fond farewell for now.

If this is real, and the government is everywhere and anyone can be a target for imprisonment - I ask this. Are you, deep down inside - afraid of the US Government? Afraid that based on exposing them and their evil - of agreeing to protest against it (and thus risk being belligerent) - of joining with a group that called for the active overthrow of the current US government - that you will be imprisoned and held for standing up for what you believe in. If honestly, deep down inside, you fear that your actions today and on February 3rd will risk your imprisonment - then I can find no fault with your argument and wish you well.

If however, you do not fear this government- if you do not feel that your actions here would warrant their attention - why do you protest? For a future evil that may or may not come to pass? Some other reason? If you truely believe in all of this I will argue against you no longer. If there is some doubt in your mind, however, I ask that we stop this pointless arguing as none of us knows the truth - including anonymous.

Edited by Listless Nomad, 24 January 2012 - 08:15 PM.

[Miles Tails Prower]

Vulpesveritas, on 24 January 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

ookay it says that military powers are "not required" to imprison US citizens who are suspected. (NDAA section 1031 subsection B2) which means they can if they want to. And the EEA hr 3166 more or less states that any one called a suspect is automatically a terrorist, without proof that a subject is guilty of being such, and will be treated therefore as a hostile foreigner. If imprisoned, you have no right to habeous corpus, no right to due process, and no right to ask why you are being imprisoned.

The point is that it is an option.

When you have the option to do something, you do not necessarily use that option. In the way of governments, you have to(most of the time) follow laws. So you increase your options by allowing greater action to be taken in the event that you need to do something more serious.

You crack open the employee hand book(which contains all the rules and regulations for an employee and corrective actions/penalties/etc) for your average commercial franchise and you will generally see that they are allowed to terminate an employee for 2 warnings of the same nature within a 30 day period. It's a pretty harsh thing to do, and they rarely do it, the point is that it is an option in case they need to do it.

If you don't have that option, and all the sudden you really need to do something about a serious event, well too bad. Now you have to work around all these laws, or put laws in place, in the mean time the damage is already done.

Edited by Miles Tails Prower, 24 January 2012 - 08:16 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Listless Nomad, on 24 January 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

So let me ask this Vulpes, and then I will bid this thread a fond farewell for now.

If this is real, and the government is everywhere and anyone can be a target for imprisonment - I ask this. Are you, deep down inside - afraid of the US Government? Afraid that based on exposing them and their evil - of agreeing to protest against it (and thus risk being belligerent) - of joining with a group that called for the active overthrow of the current US government - that you will be imprisoned and held for standing up for what you believe in. If honestly, deep down inside, you fear that your actions today and on February 3rd will risk your imprisonment - then I can find no fault with your argument and wish you well.

If however, you do not fear this government- if you do not feel that your actions here would warrant their attention - why do you protest? For a future evil that may or may not come to pass? Some other reason? If you truely believe in all of this I will argue against you no longer. If there is some doubt in your mind, however, I ask that we stop this pointless arguing as none of us knows the truth - including anonymous.

I would rather not risk even the barest chance that a future leader might set this nation into a living hell, or that a massacre of the people might happen. And it is true that no one knows the truth that will happen in the future, but it is in my mind that the best option is to remove the probability that such actions should have the ability to come to pass in the first place.

[Belial]

Vulpesveritas, on 24 January 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

ookay it says that military powers are "not required" to imprison US citizens who are suspected. (NDAA section 1031 subsection B2) which means they can if they want to. And the EEA hr 3166 more or less states that any one called a suspect is automatically a terrorist, without proof that a subject is guilty of being such, and will be treated therefore as a hostile foreigner. If imprisoned, you have no right to habeous corpus, no right to due process, and no right to ask why you are being imprisoned.

While I will agree with this, I still don't see the military calling out joe-schmoe on the street and accusing him of being a terrorist. The overall powers may be liberally described but I really, really do *not* see the government spending wasting its time arresting civilians at random.

Now yes, yes, I see the overall point. Government collects evidence in secret, arrests said "suspect," suspending due process and all related rights. I gladly disagree with such tactics, but unless I'm horribly missing something, then there is one very simple solution to all this:

Don't give the authorities any reason to suspect you.

Will the government kill my right to habeus corpus if I get arrested? Well, I won't have to worry about that if I simply stay out of trouble. I don't know exactly what the government is looking for in a terrorist suspect, but I highly doubt that a 22-year-old college kid with a penchant for sci-fi and heavy metal fits the bill.

Edited by Belial, 24 January 2012 - 08:23 PM.

[Blackfire1]

This is nothing knew. I fought this version of the NDAA since its inception back in march.
Your all WAY too late to do anything about it.

Our only hope is Ron Paul. The NDAA can be made forfeit. But everyone signed it. SO we have to wait for a new president.

Exspect people who support obamas re-election to go missing. He has that kind of power now.

Go google sovereign citizen and ignore the FBI's definition. These poor people are as risk. :\

Edited by Blackfire1, 24 January 2012 - 08:25 PM.

[Listless Nomad]

Belial, on 24 January 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

While I will agree with this, I still don't see the military calling out joe-schmoe on the street and accusing him of being a terrorist. The overall powers may be liberally described but I really, really do *not* see the government spending wasting its time arresting civilians at random.

As my final two cents - I restate my argument. There is little reason for the US to attack and imprison dissidents, as opposed to dictatorships or single party governments, due to the very fluidity of our own government. We do not need to overthrow the government - because it overthrows itself every few years. Any reason to repress a political activist would be removed in max 8 years. It makes no sense here.

Vulpesveritas, on 24 January 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

I would rather not risk even the barest chance that a future leader might set this nation into a living hell, or that a massacre of the people might happen. And it is true that no one knows the truth that will happen in the future, but it is in my mind that the best option is to remove the probability that such actions should have the ability to come to pass in the first place.

A fair and noble response. I do believe that you are a Patriot Vulpes - and I applaud your fervor. It is merely my opinion that your fervor (in this case) is wasted on a phantom. I was pleased when SOPA and PIPA were struck down. I can see the grim future when some of these provisions could be abused or distorted to horrific purpose. I am a Patriot as well, and have faith that the people of my government are (while greedy and selfish) at heart good, and do care about this nation. I believe that there are those willing to defend against injustices such as you describe. I believe that there are sufficient safeguards to prevent what you describe. I have made my case in numerous areas of this thread - as you have made yours. I end now by saying I wish you well on the 3rd, look forward to seeing you in MWO, and bid you a pleasant night. I pray that I am right and you are wrong, and such a horrible future never comes to pass. Until that time, happy hunting and good luck - but don't overthrow the government.

Edited by Listless Nomad, 24 January 2012 - 08:27 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Belial, on 24 January 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

While I will agree with this, I still don't see the military calling out joe-schmoe on the street and accusing him of being a terrorist. The overall powers may be liberally described but I really, really do *not* see the government spending wasting its time arresting civilians at random.

Now yes, yes, I see the overall point. Government collects evidence in secret, arrests said "suspect," suspending due process and all related rights. I gladly disagree with such tactics, but unless I'm horribly missing something, then there is one very simple solution to all this:

Don't give the authorities any reason to suspect you.

Will the government kill my right to habeus corpus if I get arrested? Well, I won't have to worry about that if I simply stay out of trouble. I don't know exactly what the government is looking for in a terrorist suspect, but I highly doubt that a 22-yeard-old college kid with a penchant for sci-fi and heavy metal fits the bill.

But that very notion is to give a sense of oppression in itself- It gives the government a way to make it so the people may be afraid to protest. to disagree with government actions. In essence, it gives the government a road towards absolute control. Hence my analogy of the frog in the pot earlier. Therefore the best course of action is to stop it before it can come into effect in the first place.

Me for example, I'm highly vocal against all of this, and the fact that I have talked with a number of people about it, might just put a big sign on my head saying 'get this guy to shut up' because of what I believe and that I am willing to speak up about it. Who knows. So I will stand up against this bill. And if it should go through, and protests fail, I pray that the government will not misuse this bill.

[Miles Tails Prower]

Vulpesveritas, on 24 January 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

So I will stand up against this bill. And if it should go through, and protests fail, I pray that the government will not misuse this bill.

That's a well said conclusion. That's all anyone can do, unless the nation comes to blows.

Edited by Miles Tails Prower, 24 January 2012 - 08:28 PM.

[Belial]

Safe to say that we're all Patriots here-- evidenced by our collective caring nature about what happens to this country.

By now the same points have been repeated and we have managed to keep it civil. A singular conclusion has been reached.

Mods, may I ask that this thread get locked now, before it does eventually get trolled and while we're on a good note?

Vulpesveritas, on 24 January 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

But that very notion is to give a sense of oppression in itself- It gives the government a way to make it so the people may be afraid to protest. to disagree with government actions. In essence, it gives the government a road towards absolute control. Hence my analogy of the frog in the pot earlier. Therefore the best course of action is to stop it before it can come into effect in the first place.

Me for example, I'm highly vocal against all of this, and the fact that I have talked with a number of people about it, might just put a big sign on my head saying 'get this guy to shut up' because of what I believe and that I am willing to speak up about it. Who knows. So I will stand up against this bill. And if it should go through, and protests fail, I pray that the government will not misuse this bill.

Well, I still don't think you're in any danger, Others have spoken out against the gov't in the past, a lot more vehemently than you, and they still have their heads on their shoulders.