Fantastic.
It's this sort of bull#### cynicism which has allowed this bill to get to the stage it's at.
This is a bill which
1) American citizens can be detained without evidence or trial.
2) The US military can perform the functions of investigation or attack on US citizens.
I agree that this is quite concerning, but displaying your concern by making a thread showing off a video of some random dude wearing a mask is not going to be seen as terribly credible...
__________________
Quote:
Somewhere Leon Trotsky is an Oilers fan, because who better demonstrates his philosophy of the permanent revolution?
lol Keep living under a rock man.
If you need confirmation this bill exists and what is written into it, there's a) a NY times article on the last page
b) an online version of the bill you can read youself
I agree that this is quite concerning, but displaying your concern by making a thread showing off a video of some random dude wearing a mask is not going to be seen as terribly credible...
It's anonymous, the largest and most diverse hacker network in the world.
People will attack them for stupidity, but they have some of the most advanced hackers in the entire world at their disposal.
Cole, you probably should have posted something like the New York times article first before an Anonymous video. That's the kind of thing that people will jump on you for around here.
That said, I wouldn't discount Anonymous either. They are responsible for a number of DDOS attacks against major companies in their recent history.
lol Keep living under a rock man.
If you need confirmation this bill exists and what is written into it, there's a) a NY times article on the last page
b) an online version of the bill you can read youself
I'm not denying it exists. Holy christ, can you read? I'm mocking you for linking a damn Anonymous youtube clip on what should be an admittedly serious issue. Linking that clip is a big red flag that you are not to be taken seriously. This is me not taking you seriously.
I'm not denying it exists. Holy christ, can you read? I'm mocking you for linking a damn Anonymous youtube clip on what should be an admittedly serious issue. Linking that clip is a big red flag that you are not to be taken seriously. This is me not taking you seriously.
It gets the point across a lot easier then a NY times article, and it's not like this is band of idiots. They're a group which have done some serious damage over the years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner
Maybe this will drive it home. This is Obama's reaction when the bill is presented to him for signature.
And if the support in congress was so strong, an executive decision won't even matter
I think you meant "I just saw a scary video and I can't sleep."
Honestly dude, I don't care about your mocking.
I did what I wanted to do and that was get the word out.
If you don't agree with how it was done, it really couldn't matter to me.
p.s.
2/3 of Congress nullifies a presidential veto.
Honestly dude, I don't care about your mocking.
I did what I wanted to do and that was get the word out.
If you don't agree with how it was done, it really couldn't matter to me.
p.s.
2/3 of Congress nullifies a presidential veto.
This has been reported by: The New York Times, CBC, Forbes, Reuters, C-SPAN, The Huffington Post, The Associated Press...but holy ****, Anon made video??? OMG OMG OMG
4% of presidential vetoes have been overriden in US history. Obama's only used the veto twice, and has not been overridden.
The Following User Says Thank You to TurnedTheCorner For This Useful Post:
This has been reported by: The New York Times, CBC, Forbes, Reuters, C-SPAN, The Huffington Post, The Associated Press...but holy ****, Anon made video??? OMG OMG OMG
4% of presidential vetoes have been overriden in US history. Obama's only used the veto twice, and has not been overridden.
Yes, because it's plastered all over the media like something of this magnitude should be, right? No, it's barely even been mentioned by the major American news stations.
And if congress voted 93-7 in favour of this bill, where does that leave Obama's veto? Overridden.
I can't believe this is the argument you would choose to have over a matter this serious.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cole436 For This Useful Post:
Right, because the Democrat party whips would never spring into action and ensure that they got enough votes to ensure the president's veto stood heading into an election year. Not when they hold 57 senate seats and only need to swing 27 votes. That is inconceivable. Never mind that the Democratic whip in the House of Reps would likely ensure it would not reach the Senate for a override.
In conclusion:
Last edited by TurnedTheCorner; 12-08-2011 at 01:37 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TurnedTheCorner For This Useful Post:
Right, because the Democrat party whips would never spring into action and ensure that they got enough votes to ensure the president's veto stood heading into an election year.
In conclusion:
The Dems are leading this as well as the Republicans!
It's PASSED congress. This is not something that is pending, it's done!
The only reason Obama would veto this is that he doesn't want Congress to codify, under *their* authority, that which the President has been doing on executive authority for the past decade (that we know of). Whether this law gets blessed with "His" signature or not, the police state is already here, and has been for at least a decade.
On the bright side, at least the American populace is armed, which is more than we can say for Canadians.
The Dems are leading this as well as the Republicans!
It's PASSED congress. This is not something that is pending, it's done!
Yes. I was discussing the veto. You know, the thing that hasn't happened yet, that you were insisting would be a forgone conclusion? Do try and keep up.
The Following User Says Thank You to TurnedTheCorner For This Useful Post:
The only reason Obama would veto this is that he doesn't want Congress to codify, under *their* authority, that which the President has been doing on executive authority for the past decade (that we know of). Whether this law gets blessed with "His" signature or not, the police state is already here, and has been for at least a decade.
On the bright side, at least the American populace is armed, which is more than we can say for Canadians.
I don't think you get it - Anonymous posted a video. DUDE. ANONYMOUS.
