National Defence Authorization Act

[Dourak]

Gosh, could someone explain me WHY they did it ?
And why american people don't react in front of this ?

(And if someone can explain me why baggels got a hole, can be great either ...)

[BlueCross]

*cough*

[Dourak]

I love you. 

[BlueCross]

I love you. 

That's fine, but I'm pretty sure you don't have the requisite body parts to take this relationship further.

[Hoopy Frood]

Gosh, could someone explain me WHY they did it ?
And why american people don't react in front of this ?

(And if someone can explain me why baggels got a hole, can be great either ...)

Why they did which part specifically? The detention parts?

[Brugdor]

Gosh, could someone explain me WHY they did it ?
And why american people don't react in front of this ?

(And if someone can explain me why baggels got a hole, can be great either ...)

Why they did which part specifically? The detention parts?

I'm assuming that's what he meant. As to why people weren't up in arms about it I'd say that most people here still probably don't even know about it. The mainstream news covered it up for the most part. Both parties were behind it so one party wasn't trying to get the word out and getting any headlines up about it. A handful of politicians spoke out against it but the news pretty much ignored them.

As to why it was put in there, it's not difficult to see really. Between the Tea Party and Occupy movements the two parties realize they have a lot of very angry and motivated people here now. I fully believe that the new detention rules are setup to quell any sort of uprising that threatens the Republicratic grip on this country. They say "terrorist" to try to make us think it's for foreigners living here but the Tea Party was referred to repeatedly as terrorists by certain politicians and the media. The Occupy movement could just as easily be smeared that way. 

[Dourak]

That's what I thought.

[BlueCross]

Gosh, could someone explain me WHY they did it ?
And why american people don't react in front of this ?

(And if someone can explain me why baggels got a hole, can be great either ...)

Why they did which part specifically? The detention parts?

I'm assuming that's what he meant. As to why people weren't up in arms about it I'd say that most people here still probably don't even know about it. The mainstream news covered it up for the most part. Both parties were behind it so one party wasn't trying to get the word out and getting any headlines up about it. A handful of politicians spoke out against it but the news pretty much ignored them.

As to why it was put in there, it's not difficult to see really. Between the Tea Party and Occupy movements the two parties realize they have a lot of very angry and motivated people here now. I fully believe that the new detention rules are setup to quell any sort of uprising that threatens the Republicratic grip on this country. They say "terrorist" to try to make us think it's for foreigners living here but the Tea Party was referred to repeatedly as terrorists by certain politicians and the media. The Occupy movement could just as easily be smeared that way.

I was going to let this go but I just can't.

The mainstream news covered it up for the most part.
You really believe that news is 'covering up' stories for some political purposes?  Ludicrous.

I fully believe that the new detention rules are setup to quell any sort of uprising that threatens the Republicratic grip on this country.
Another 'anti-Republican' plot, obviously.  Obviously not.

the Tea Party was referred to repeatedly as terrorists by certain politicians and the media.
I have never heard anyone refer to the Tea Party as terrorists, much less repeatedly.  And yet another jab at the media.


Newt Gingrichisms and paranoia at its finest.

[KMD]

When confronting foreigners who wonder why we let stupid laws (rest assured, there are many and we know) take effect I can only say this....

   We, Americans just don't want to be concerned directly with monitoring every law that goes through congress, even major ones. Obviously I can't speak for everyone. And to avoid being blue-crossed i'm not going to pretend like I know the logic behind it, but I think most law abiding middle class and working class citizens in the U.S. would agree.

   In my opinion, it's just that we trust  representative democracy a lot. Enough that when we directly elect local representatives, we hope that they have enough common sense and understanding of the general  population to try to prevent stupid-ass laws.

In short, we prefer to handle our personal problems and trust the elected officials to be sensible about lawmaking. The law system in the U.S. is pretty damn complex. And after all its their job. We don't want to have monitor everything and do their job for them.

Unfortunately it seems to be failing us with more frequency recently, it seems.

TL&DR: Demcracy is awesome! Or, "Don't you worry about blank! Let me worry about blank!"

Edit: Sorry about all the big words.

Also, to answer your question why we don't react: Read above. If laws go through the process we usually just trust they're for our benefit.

[KMD]

To add to the fire.

I was going to let this go but I just can't.

The mainstream news covered it up for the most part.
You really believe that news is 'covering up' stories for some political purposes?  Ludicrous.


You're right. They just had some um, more important things to cover.

I fully believe that the new detention rules are setup to quell any sort of uprising that threatens the Republicratic grip on this country.
Another 'anti-Republican' plot, obviously.  Obviously not.

In response, most proponents say that the law is meant for terrorists hiding abroad. Which makes sense. However, It also applies to U.S. citizens, which sounds like a recipe for disaster. 

the Tea Party was referred to repeatedly as terrorists by certain politicians and the media.
I have never heard anyone refer to the Tea Party as terrorists, much less repeatedly.  And yet another jab at the media.

They're Freedom Fighters :snicker:


Newt Gingrichisms and paranoia at its finest.

[Brugdor]

Gosh, could someone explain me WHY they did it ?
And why american people don't react in front of this ?

(And if someone can explain me why baggels got a hole, can be great either ...)

Why they did which part specifically? The detention parts?

I'm assuming that's what he meant. As to why people weren't up in arms about it I'd say that most people here still probably don't even know about it. The mainstream news covered it up for the most part. Both parties were behind it so one party wasn't trying to get the word out and getting any headlines up about it. A handful of politicians spoke out against it but the news pretty much ignored them.

As to why it was put in there, it's not difficult to see really. Between the Tea Party and Occupy movements the two parties realize they have a lot of very angry and motivated people here now. I fully believe that the new detention rules are setup to quell any sort of uprising that threatens the Republicratic grip on this country. They say "terrorist" to try to make us think it's for foreigners living here but the Tea Party was referred to repeatedly as terrorists by certain politicians and the media. The Occupy movement could just as easily be smeared that way.

I was going to let this go but I just can't.

The mainstream news covered it up for the most part.
You really believe that news is 'covering up' stories for some political purposes?  Ludicrous.

I fully believe that the new detention rules are setup to quell any sort of uprising that threatens the Republicratic grip on this country.
Another 'anti-Republican' plot, obviously.  Obviously not.

the Tea Party was referred to repeatedly as terrorists by certain politicians and the media.
I have never heard anyone refer to the Tea Party as terrorists, much less repeatedly.  And yet another jab at the media.


Newt Gingrichisms and paranoia at its finest.

The mainstream news is owned by corporate America. The people who actually run the country. Of course they covered up a story about the fed essentially doing away with an amendment to the Constitution. Go back and try to find the deluge of articles and TV news stories that should have covered the bill before it was passed. You'll find stuff at places like Hotair or DailyKos but not much of anything from CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc.

Republicratic = Republican/Democrat. Essentially the same party with essentially the same goals as far as control of the citizens goes. Obama has pretty much carried on every Bush policy that Democrats were screaming about for 8 years. He's even expanded on some of them.

The Tea Party "terrorist" thing was during the budget debate when the elected Tea Party politicians were "holding the country hostage" by demanding a cut in spending. Egads! The horror!

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/08/02/congressman-doyle-talks-about-his-tea-party-terrorists-remarks/

Congressman Doyle and VP Biden both reportedly compared the TP to terrorists. There were others (Pelosi too I think) but I'm not going to bother looking them all up. A GIS for "Tea Party Terrorists" should be enough.

Edit - Here's another example. An op-ed on Politico "The tea party's terrorist tactics" http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60202.html 

[Hatchetman]

They call them terrorists because their audience wants to hear it, not because the government considers protesting to be terrorism.

The only news I watch is the 6pm news on KOMO Washington and they didn't breathe a word about it. It's not uncommon. And the comedy central news heads are off again this week, so the general level of political news people who don't actively seek political news is pretty low.

My real issue is the original version of the act that passed had provisions that excluded citizens and legal residents, and that was removed. While the rest of it seems fairly directed at people working for or to aid actual terrorists, not what talking heads call terrorists, the change of that part of it seems weird.

[Brugdor]

They call them terrorists because their audience wants to hear it, not because the government considers protesting to be terrorism.

The only news I watch is the 6pm news on KOMO Washington and they didn't breathe a word about it. It's not uncommon. And the comedy central news heads are off again this week, so the general level of political news people who don't actively seek political news is pretty low.

My real issue is the original version of the act that passed had provisions that excluded citizens and legal residents, and that was removed. While the rest of it seems fairly directed at people working for or to aid actual terrorists, not what talking heads call terrorists, the change of that part of it seems weird.

The VP of the United States and a Democratic Congressman are hardly "talking heads". Both referred to the Tea Party as terrorists. As I said, I'm pretty sure there were more politicians that used that rhetoric about Tea Party. All of it coming after the Giffords shooting when there was a call for civility because of the false belief that aggressive rhetoric caused the shooting.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/4/tea-party-democratic-attacks-prove-we-won-debate/

Here's another one -

Former Obama administration economist Steven Rattner called the GOP’s bargaining tactics “a form of economic terrorism.”

“I imagine these tea party guys are like strapped with dynamite standing in the middle of Times Square at rush hour and saying, ‘Either you do it my way, or we are going to blow you up, ourselves up and the whole country up with us,’ ” Mr. Rattner said.

And those on the media from the opposite side just parroted it of course.

For the record, I'm pro-Tea Party and pro-Occupy. It's about time people got off their duffs and threw a fit over what these parties are doing to our country. My only issue with the TP is they should have gone full third party. I hope that the Occupy movement isn't absorbed by the Democrats as the TP was by the Republicans.