I'm surprised and NOT happy with this...

Steel said:
if thats true about Patriot Act II, then i guess they are removing our freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of opinons, etc... (according to the first amendment)
You can take a look at this: http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/downloads/Story_01_020703_Doc_1.pdf (it is pdf so you will need to use acrobat to view) 87 pages.

I can highlight several points for you to look at to save lot of time from reading 87 pages:


ABC News said:
This new one, Patriot Act II, they are going to give Bush the right to declare any American citizen a "enemy combatant" arbitrarily. And then take away your citizenship. This will give the government the power to literally strip any American of citizenship if Bush says you're an enemy combatant, ie: political opponent of the government.

National Post said:
You can read the entire 87-page draft here (it's pdf so download the arcobat before click it). Constitutional watchdog Nat Hentoff has called it "the most radical government plan in our history to remove from Americans their liberties under the Bill of Rights." Some of DSEA's more draconian provisions:



Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist." As Hentoff wrote in the Feb. 28 Village Voice: "Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But -- and read this carefully from the new bill -- 'the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.'" (Italics Hentoff's.)


Legal permanent residents (like, say, my French wife), could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases. As the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its long brief against the DSEA, "Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War."


The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year. "Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused," Wired News reported March 31. "People with 'flawed' DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government."


Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone's Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant.


The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime. Or, as Hentoff put it, "for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted."


Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds -- even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong -- would be granted immunity. "Such immunity," the ACLU contended, "could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft's Operation TIPS."


Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders.


Federal "consent decrees" limiting local law enforcement agencies' abilities to spy on citizens in their jurisdiction would be rolled back. As Howard Simon, executive director of Florida's ACLU, noted in a March 19 column in the Sarasota Herald Tribune: "The restrictions on political surveillance were hard-fought victories for civil liberties during the 1970s."


American citizens could be subject to secret surveillance by their own government on behalf of foreign countries, including dictatorships.


The death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new offenses.


And many of PATRIOT I's "sunset provisions" -- stipulating that the expanded new enforcement powers would be rescinded in 2005 -- would be erased from the books, cementing Ashcroft's rushed legislation in the law books. As UPI noted March 10, "These sunset provisions were a concession to critics of the bill in Congress."


I wouldn't be writing this article today had an alarmed Justice Department staffer not leaked the draft to the Center for Public Integrity in early February. Ashcroft, up to that point, had repeatedly refused to even discuss what his lawyers might be cooking up. But if 10,000 residents of Los Angeles had been vaporized by a "suitcase nuke" in late January, it is reasonable to assume that the then-secret proposal would have been speed-delivered for a congressional vote, even though Congress has not so far participated in drafting the legislation (which is, after all, its Constitutional role).

As a result of the leak, and the ensuing bad press, opposition to the measure has had time to gather momentum before the first bomb was dropped on Saddam's bunker. Some of the criticism has originated from the right side of the political spectrum -- a March 17 open letter to Congress was signed not only by the ACLU and People for the American Way, but the cultural-conservative think tank Free Congress Foundation, the Gun Owners of America, the American Conservative Union, and more.

One does not have to believe that Ashcroft is a Constitution-shredding ghoul to find these measures alarming, improper and possibly illegal. Glancing over the list above, and at the other DSEA literature, I can see multiple ways in which a Fed with a grudge could legally ruin my life. Removing checks and balances on law enforcement assumes perfect behavior on the part of the police.

Safeguarding civil liberties is an unpopular project in the most placid of times. Since Sept. 11, the Bush Administration has shown that it will push the envelope on nearly every restriction it considers to be impeding its prosecution of the war on terrorism. This single-minded drive requires extreme vigilance, before the fog of war becomes toxic.

As I said, fact/truth tend to be strange than fiction. I was hoping that if Kerry wins, he will reform the PATRIOT Act to give us more privacy rights but unfortunately that Bush won so we will lose more pirvacy rights in future.
 
Reba said:
I have the transcripts. Can you please pinpoint where this statement about slavery is mentioned?
Certainly, here it is:

Bush said:
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
That's what we puzzled about it. Why did he pointed out about that?


Reba said:
How is it that no one else in the press noticed such an amazing statement by the President? Would not this kind of statement make headline news? I have heard no one else mention it. Even Kerry did not dispute it? Very strange.
No, no. Sorry if I somehow didn't explain clear. Bush didn't say that, some republicans did have that talks with other republicans in Florida. They actually want to reinstate slavery in Florida, not sure about other states. Let's stop from here, it is not clear and unconfirmed information. That's why no one bother to announce or tell to media about it. I was brought it up because of Bush's odd statements and gay marriage ban leads to something else. I was not supposed to talk about it until it is confirmed. That's my mistake.


Reba said:
Who is "posing" as Republicans? Why would they be discussing slavery in Florida? That makes no sense at all.
Democrats. Again, that is entirely unclear, they briefly mentioned that republicans was talking about reinstate the slavery in Florida. That's quite unclear. As I said before, you don't have to believe me. I just told you as what I (we) recieved from them. No more or less than that. There are quite several democrats who posed as republicans to access their informations and such as 'informants'. I am more than sure that republicans posed as democrats and access our informations as well. That's common for politic games.

Reba said:
If this has really been suggested, how come Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have not objected? Are they down with that?
Good question. Perhaps it was silly talks by republicans? I don't know. We don't know. For sure, I know we will find out immediately whenever it gets surface again. As I explained above, I was not supposed to brought it up. That's my mistake. So let's stop from here.
 
Take a look at this Exit Poll for National (whole US)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html


then look at "Vote by Ages"

You can see that more Seniors over 60's voted for Bush while less voted for Kerry.. sure no problems next 4 yrs. those seniors will be dying as time goes by..

I can see that more 18-29 voted for Kerry than Bush so later in 4 Years that base will grow since those teenagers of Parents who supported/Voted Kerry will become of legal age to vote in next Presidential Election in 2008 then Democrats will come back..

look at next "Vote by Income"

Now you know why... "$200,00 or More" wants that Bush Tax Cuts!!! that's why they are voting for Bush instead of Kerry. You can see it is so Polarized in the Income classes!

If Bush never brought up the Tax Cut for Riches then those will be voting for Kerry anyway!! Clever of Karl Rove eh... I bet he wanted Tax Cut so he can stay wealthy.. .eh..

And those who are Union members voted for Kerry more than Bush.. I guess Bush don't care about Union.. and probably wants to wipe out Union and make everyone work individually... ?

and those who had no college degree voted for Bush more than Kerry. as for College graduate it is tie.. what's up with that?

"Vote by Ideology" it is heavy Conservative that voted for Bush more than other two (Moderate and Liberal) that show that Bush has gone after the FAR RIGHT than moderate! Kerry has the most Moderate voters than Conservative and has most Liberal voters than Bush.

Only 11% never voted before ( I am one of them) while 89% has voted before only by 3% difference between candidates.

oh yeah look at "White Evangelical/born Again?" I am pissed off that it is 0% Because last night I saw the numbers that showed huge percentage in favor of Bush.. now it is 0% why is it scrubbed??

Those who went to church more than weekly voted for Bush more than Kerry. And those never went to church voted for Kerry more than Bush. That show something that those voter who voted for Bush wants to abolish separation of church and state. Remember Bush wanted Faith-Based Initiatives only got squashed by public and democrats..

More Singles voted for Kerry than Bush while those Married voted for Bush over Kerry.

Most Gun Owners voted for Bush that's why Bush didn't renew the ban. because Bush wanted the endorsement of NRA which they did later on few days before election began...

Those Bush Voters already made up mine long before that than those who made up mind "today" or few days before... While those decided "Today" and "last week" more than those who did "before that" that shows that those undecided saw whole things up to the day of elections knew Bush is not worth it and voted for Kerry.


Finally I can't believe those Bush voters!! They care about Terrorist, Moral Values and Taxes than Economy/Jobs and Health Care!!! while Kerry Voters care about Economy/Jobs, Iraq AND Education!

That show true color of Bush voters that they DON'T CARE about Iraq war ..."oh let those soldiers do the dirty work for us and if they die oh well!"

about the job handling.. both camp are extremely divided bush voter approved Bush and Kerry voter disapproved Bush.

Look at "Most Important Quality" Bush don't care if Bush is intelligent oh is that because Bush has people around him like Karl Rove, Rice, Rumsfield etc to do dirty work for him?? sheesh! and Bush voter wanted someone with Religious faith!! sheesh.. I am not looking for someone with religious faith.. I want someone with cares about people, will bring change and intelligent! That's why most of us Kerry called Bush a moron!!!

you see "How things are going for U.S. in Iraq shows ()% those Bush voters are not living in reality!!

I am sick at those Exit Poll ... ugh....
anyway read the rest of exit poll in that url above...
 
Steel said:
if thats true about Patriot Act II, then i guess they are removing our freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of opinons, etc... (according to the first amendment)
It already has begun.

Read this news:

FBI Raids Home Of Animal Rights Activists

Animal rights activists tell NBC 10 that the FBI targeted their home last week.

Armed anti-terrorism agents with the FBI's joint-terrorism task force raided the West Philadelphia home.

"I think that the agents with guns and dogs in a house for a group called Hugs for Puppies is pretty much overkill," said Kate Zaidan.

The agents entered the home with guns. They got seven people out of bed and made them leave the home.

"A guy with a gun comes in my room and tells me to get dressed and come downstairs so they can search through my belongings," said Jason Fults.

Fults and Zaidan are two of several environmental and antiwar activists who live in the house. They say the agents were looking for Nick Cooney.

More ... http://www.nbc10.com/news/3889434/detail.html


Notice my bold comment? That's possible reason why feds has raided their home. If under PATRIOT Act II, it is illegal to be a antiwar activitst. That's what I mean about fascism. Freedom is indeed diminishing.
 
Last edited:
Magatsu said:
It already has begun.

Read this news:

FBI Raids Home Of Animal Rights Activists

Animal rights activists tell NBC 10 that the FBI targeted their home last week.

Armed anti-terrorism agents with the FBI's joint-terrorism task force raided the West Philadelphia home.

"I think that the agents with guns and dogs in a house for a group called Hugs for Puppies is pretty much overkill," said Kate Zaidan.

The agents entered the home with guns. They got seven people out of bed and made them leave the home.

"A guy with a gun comes in my room and tells me to get dressed and come downstairs so they can search through my belongings," said Jason Fults.

Fults and Zaidan are two of several environmental and antiwar activists who live in the house. They say the agents were looking for Nick Cooney.

More ... http://www.nbc10.com/news/3889434/detail.html


Notice my bold comment? That's possible reason why feds has raided their home. If under PATRIOT Act II, it is illegal to be a antiwar activitst. That's what I mean about fascism. Freedom is indeed diminishing.
I think it should be illegal to have any kind of activist. There are a lot of activists who get carried away and would do anything to prove their point. I've seen animal-rights activists vandalize buildings just to get their point across. :crazy:
 
True that but it does not mean that FBI can raid their home for no reasons or without giving any reasons why they did that.

But.. not all activists who get carried away.. Governments or Business are no better either, does it mean that governments/Business have the rights to get carried away with us? Good example, corporations already dumped the lead in our water system few months ago, they definitely got carried away with it...
 
Last edited:
Brian said:
OK. I have voted against giving the homosexual community that rights, but don't call me narrow-minded, fascist, etc. I do have several homosexual relatives and friends. One of my homosexual friends told me earlier today he voted against it, he believes only men and women should have that rights. I'm pretty sure some other of these people voted against that!


Tell me what ur real good reason that you do not agree with gay marriage? (beside it is a sin).

Have you realized that they are people just like us? Some people are forgetting that, it's so sad.:(
 
cheri

Sorry dont mean to be rude it is morally wrong you know thta god didnt create women and women or men or men he create adam and eve they re opposite sex,period i dont care if theyre humans asa long as whats right or wrong,you have children you do the best as you can when he is ready he is giong to take you. not man & man or woman or woman thatz is bs. :wtf:
 
harleymn said:
Sorry dont mean to be rude it is morally wrong you know thta god didnt create women and women or men or men he create adam and eve they re opposite sex,period i dont care if theyre humans asa long as whats right or wrong,you have children you do the best as you can when he is ready he is giong to take you. not man & man or woman or woman thatz is bs. :wtf:


You have a way of cross examing me every posts I made in some threads. :ugh: Let me tell you one thing everyone sins even you have sin, therefore you not perfect either are the ones who are gay or lesbians. Remember the bible says we are not to judge, only God does the judging.

you have children you do the best as you can when he is ready he is giong to take you.

I don't understand your line. :confused:
 
As for the gay/lesbian labels/issues, I think its pretty much semantics; if it comes to pass that there won't be gay marriages in the usual sense of the word, "marriage", then there will be civil unions of those people with all the rights and benefits that go along with traditional marriages.
 
My theory

I aint move anywhere. I am stay here in the desert of North America bulit with great city and mighty nation which is my destiny and fate! I acknowledged how they wanted to having a rights.. you should notice that they stolen the rights away from the man and woman. As long as they took the civil rights away from Black community. they try to have powerful over them.. God forbid! they want to be equal with black folks civil rights and parent [man and woman] 's right. like saying don't associte with unnature people with unnatural mentals... stay separate from them. God will punish them into hand of their enemies on the end of world come soon.. But i don't know when! when beast and his beasts rise out from dirty sea and knew when their time is coming soon..
 
eternity said:
What can we do about it? Im glad that Bush won the election.
Bush hasn't won yet!! Election is not over.. Final vote tally will reach Senate House for final vote to approve the outcome... sometime in Dec. Official announcement will be given to public who the presidential will be officially be... Bush has till Jan 20 to leave the white house unless he is declared winner of 2nd term presidency.

that recent declaration was a "unofficial declaration" of winning the election.. just like Nascar race. when it is over, it give you "unofficial result" till few days then final official result is given.


For clear on how electoral college work: http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/relatedarticles/45764.php

Of course, we have done our part in election that is to cast a vote. Keep in mind, you are voting for electors not president! then Electors will vote either current president or candidate. anyway that voting part is over.. but not election itself yet. :D
 
Last edited:
That's laughable when I read this thread... especially fictionous slavery tales. Liberals are all out war against Bush and Republicans... I am really sure sure that Liberals are getting real dirty in political games for 2006 and 2008 elections.

Live long Conservatives and prosper!
 
Reduas said:
That's laughable when I read this thread... especially fictionous slavery tales. Liberals are all out war against Bush and Republicans... I am really sure sure that Liberals are getting real dirty in political games for 2006 and 2008 elections.

Live long Conservatives and prosper!

Liberals are just stepping down to Conservatives levels, if thats the case. I haven't seen Liberals pull many dirty tricks down to the level, although I would not doubt there are some.

What do you call the Swift Vote veterans ads back in the 2004 election? Did you know the person who organized these ads was a very good friend, and business partner with Karl Rove? And none of the vets who appeared in these campaign ads were even in the same platoon as John Kerry.

Look at some of the acts George W. Bush did to his own partymate in the 2000 South Carolina primary election. Complain all you'd like about the Democratic party playing dirty tricks, also be aware of the tricks your own party has done.

But with a user title of "Nuke Terrorist' Homeland," its really hard to take what you have to say seriously. I would not be surprised if this is actually just Ravensteve1961 with just a different name.

http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522
 
who's Ravensteve1961? I have no idea about him.

Actually bartcopnation.com is really a liberal site.

As anonymous quote said "If you are a liberal, you would never agree with conservatives' truths." Very true...
 
Canada here I come!

Not to upset you eternity but i completely disagree with you!
If ur happy Bush won the election you must be overjoyed about the gas prices!
 
Back
Top