Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

"The U.S. Government now officially considers people who "make numerous references to the Constitution" to be "potential terrorists".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0810551718

This policy arose from the numerous organization who decided to send Bush an early Christmas present- thousands of copies of the US Constitution. They hoped he might actually read one- the were wrong. Instead, anyone who defends the Constitution against the federal government "should be monitored as potentially murderous and fanatical terrorists...and should be considered mentally unstable...and must be medicated on a compulsory basis with lethal and untested, but very profitable, psychiatric medications."

So we're looking at punishment/imprisonment for anyone who speaks out against the government. I'm sure Ron Paul will have a few things to say about this, if the government doesn't label him a terrorist.

What has become of this country? The Constitution is supposed to protect our natural rights, yet now it's considered terrorist material. If we try to protest the government with it, we'll get thrown in jail and put on psychiatric drugs. Why is the government so afraid of protesters?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" -Thomas Jefferson

sadly, Wynni, your opinion will never be heard on the maddened left-wing of the internet.

Seriously, for some reason, there seem to be no Bush supporters on the interwebs, ever, except for the occasional person, who has an extremely good argument that is buried in approximately 3 seconds of "No ur dum bush sux lol."

Hopefully, (yeah right) this won't turn into another "My friend doesn't like Bush, so I don't, but I'll pretend I have a unique opinion not brought about by peer pressure and constant media whipping."

Of course being president is a tough job. There are a lot of stresses, worries, and risks. He hasn't done a horrible job, but I believe several of his choices weren't so bright.

Having 9/11 occur just as his presidency began was very hard, and I believe it changed his motives. Bush is pushing for more protection for our citizens. While that is certainly not a bad thing, we have to give up our security and privacy for it to happen. This is my main argument against the Bush administration. It's not entirely the federal governments fault- the people haven't been vocal enough, or just don't care.

"Any society who would trade liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both"- Benjamin Franklin.

I won't pretend even for a minute that I could do a better job than Bush. There are things going on behind the scenes that we, as American citizens, never have to deal with. And these same things are incredibly hard decisions that the federal government has to make. But trading our liberty for security is not something that I can sit by and watch.

I think the reason for all the Bush-haters on the web is because said group consists not only of left-wingers in America but also an awfully lot of people outside America. Not only left-wingers but also people from the other end. It probably doesn't help that the Republican party is the most right-winged party in the world. I mean, the right-wing party I support looks like a social democratic party in comparison.

I don't live in the USA, so I'm quite aware that I have neither the right nor the knowledge you have to say anything. What I will say is that where I live, the government makes plenty of decisions that are unpopular, but necessary to keep our country afloat. While my government has yet to introduce something as controversial as the Patriot Act, things are so beaten down and strict here that no one might actually do anything other than protest weakly if such a thing came to pass. It's not that bad, of course, and almost everyone here is used to it.

But this is a thread about the American government, so I'll stop my ranting.

The brochure sounds like it is attempting to arrest dissidents. It seems like the government knows that the constitution might be used against it to challenge both it and its policies, so it has made the first move and prevented that from openly happening.

I agree with Wynni. When an attack does happen on U.S. soil, who will the populace blame? An administration needs support if any of its policies are to be successful, but the populace has already given up the administration as a failure and are now giving it even more trouble. At the risk of sounding like a fascist, communist, and all sorts of other derogatory terms, I have to say that one of the biggest reasons why there might be so many problems with every single little move the government makes would be the idea of free speech.

Free speech is a basic right. But when it allows people to criticize every move an establishment takes, it causes a lot of extra friction that the administration has to pull through first in order to succeed. An administration needs the support of those who elected it, not masses of nine-year-olds on the internet labeling President Bush as a loser, or gay, or whatever. Add to that the fact that it is now 'cool' to profess your dislike of the administration, and it is a wonder if anything will ever be achieved by the Bush administration.

What I'm saying is that the Bush administration might be ham-handed and blind, but there's no need to go around tying its hands and readying the noose as well.

I might be terribly wrong, and I'm sorry if I am, but that's how it looks to me from here. Forgive me, I'm only sixteen. :wink:

Unfortunately, most people just can't, or won't, see things from a different perspective, so we end up with a majority of people in the far wings, but few people who are willing to compromise on the important issues.

Even though I know that people like Al Gore and Michael Moore exaggerate their claims, I believe it's necessary to get things started. If someone says that global warming will raise the water lever a foot or so over the next two or three years, most people would ignore it. But at the same time, someone tells you that in that time, it will rise enough to create hundreds of millions of refugees worldwide, people are more likely to try and do something about it. If it proves to have been sensationalist, so be it. Better safe than sorry.

Getting back on topic, I don't blame Bush completely for the current situation, but he's not completely blameless here. He's not the cause maybe, but I honestly feel that Bush is unfit to be President. I'm not saying I could do better, 'cause I'm just as unfit to be President as Bush is (excluding the fact that I can't legally be President anyways), but surely there must be a more apt person to take his place. I'm probably biased though, since I can't bring myself to like someone who would veto a bill that would provide health-care for children by putting a tax on cigarettes.

I think I'm still a bit off topic. Hmph.

If you have to exaggerate to warn people about global warming, by all means do it. I myself live on a minute island, on a piece of land a fifteen-minute walk to the beach which would be flooded if the water rose just a bit. While I'm not really worried that the world will just roll over and die, after Al Gore I realized I was actually taking some of the steps he mentioned. Plastic bags and all that.

So essentially the same basic rights that helped stabalise a country just coming out of a civil war are now to be associated with the same kind of people who would fire on thier own countrymen, set explosives off in crowded public areas and fly Boeing 700 series aircraft into centers of international commerce?

I think I will make that move to Alert.....get some geographical distance away from these crazy people.

Yeash, between this and the whole Iran situation, America's on the fast track to causing WW3...I mean, if America and Iran get into a tussle, Russia's gonna be on Iran's side, and unless Bush starts it, then we'll have at least a couple countries on our side, like the UK, and Australia if we're lucky...And, what's left of Iraq might help out, except they'll have problems of their own if they side with us, so more likely they'll be with Iran. Hm...Pakistan's always been with us, right? Let's see...which side do y'all think China'll choose? Oh dear, if they stand against us, we'll be doubly screwed.....Well, good luck y'all. I plan on being nowhere near america when the nukes start falling on us^^

Somni :cry:

I'm far from political, and I think it shows, but I think Wynni has a quite valid point here. Even if they have a semi-justified reason, harassing the administration isn't going to help their case any, though I don't really think it warrants the label of 'terrorist' per say.

I don't have any real opinion on this, but I feel it should at least be mentioned while on the topic of terrorism:
The USA itself demonstrated that large-scale terrorism can be effective, through the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are arguably two of the greatest single acts of terrorism in our history, and likely the most successful acts of terrorism ever performed.

Acts of war during wartime do not equal terrorism. The bombs were dropped on Japan to end a violent war that would have killed millions more had it gone on any longer.