I'm basing it off of O HEY THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED BEFORE.

Japanese Americans during WWII? Yeah, tell me exactly what changed from now and then? What's stopping the US government from doing the exact same thing?

Meanwhile in Switzerland...

brb packing my bags and moving

Wow that is a really, really good point.

Quote from TiKels

Quote from Sacrieur

Japanese Americans during WWII? Yeah, tell me exactly what changed from now and then?

Wow that is a really, really good point.

The only thing is George W. Bush explicitly said we won't repeat it during the actions stemming from the September 11^th "terrorist" attacks. So any problem we have other than that, expect no change.

Side note: It's interesting what we consider "terrorism" these days. I personally consider all of Congress and the President "terrorists", because there's nothing scarier than what our own government has done to particular groups of citizens.

Usa tortures people who are thought to be terrorist... all legal becuase they do it in Guatemala bay

AMERICA!

Gotta love the day school become 1984 with cams everywhere and when students get arrested and brainwashed for complaining.

Well... time to pack my bags and move to Canada.

Man, I love the paragraph heading in there:

You people are incredibly misguided.

Am I happy that the ambiguous line in question was popped into the law, and then it went through the senate? No.

But articles like the one in OP do two things - it enrages the people who want to be enraged, and it makes people like me tune it out. Moreover, that top picture? That doesn't make any sense. On one sign someone wants to end the fed, and on another, someone wants more jobs created. But in order for the government to do anything in the job market, they'd have to take more control of it - therefore expanding the reach of the federal government. Its a bunch of slogans meant to confuse and upset whoever looks at it, so that everyone thinks they're fighting for something useful while it is really quite haphazard.

As for the links in the later post by aristocrat...

calling a teacher cute - I think it was right to suspend the child for it. Truly. After the previous lawsuits between students and teachers, which side does the law typically side on? The one of the students.

choking and punching in the groin - as a point of anecdotal evidence, my boyfriend was suspended for a day because someone egged him into a fight, the other boy threw a punch, my boyfriend didn't react, and he still got a suspension. This isn't anything new. Frankly two wrongs don't make a right.

burping thing - while very strange, I must wonder what else is going on. The most alarming part of the article is that they made him strip down in front of five adults when he was carrying $200. There is another issue here that the article isn't covering - who was involved with what, why was he stripped, what were the pretext?

actually, that's true of any article you read. The days of neutral news are over. And unless you're willing to take the time to thoroughly investigate every story you shouldn't waste your time posting.

Guantanamo bay, you mean?

Also, I thought that place was getting disbanded... but from further research it looks like not.

Well, Harper is fucking up the country pretty well too. We're fairly close to, if not already, a totalitarian government right now.

wut. That seems a bit extreme. If that were the case, I doubt you'd be on your adventure right now.

When it says "FED" it doesn't mean federal government, it means the Federal Reserve Bank, which is (apparently) a privately run organisation.

I found this to be interesting: http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/federal-reserve-system

Ron Paul wrote a book about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_the_Fed

payne, being so far over to the socialist (almost communist) left has a rather slanted view of what constitutes a totalitarian government.

I probably should have known that Fed was referring to the Federal Reserve Bank. I'll accept the egg on my face.

I can't tell if you are trolling or have the equivalent IQ of an average Skyrim NPC.

Is it because I disagreed with you, or is there something else you'd like to say?

Quote from Tempz

Usa tortures people who are thought to be terrorist... all legal becuase they do it in Guatemala bay

Quote from TiKels

Quote from Tempz

Usa tortures people who are thought to be terrorist... all legal becuase they do it in Guatemala bay

Guantanamo bay, you mean?

Beat me to it. Tempz, you missed the point of my post. What constitutes terrorism is all in the eyes of the observer, and any observer has bias. You hear about September 11^th, right? Al-Qaeda hijacks several airplanes, flies them into key business and political buildings of your country. You're pissed, and want some revenge, right? Well, let's take a look at why they did it; that's where bias and propaganda-based government comes in.

Popular American view: A bunch of radical Muslims (giving all Muslims a bad rep, when mainstream Islam is more peaceful than Christianity) decided to pick on Big Brother, through a dirty tactic like stealing planes and flying them into buildings to satiate their blood lust. While we were over there, it was kind of a "don't mind if I do" rationale to take over Saddam's regime and replace it with a Democracy, for which the real reason hasn't been given as far as I know. Since we killed the leader of Al-Qaeda, we're now leaving, slowly. Sorta. We need to keep the peace in our new baby Democracy, right? And so the story ends.

Al-Qaeda's reasoning: America is playing Big Brother, supporting Israel (our little baby nation, by the way) despite the atrocities it's committing in nearby Gaza Strip and West Bank. So, what does Bin Laden decide is best, try to argue against American support in Israel, like several other political nations frequently have (to little effect; we still turn a blind eye to what our baby nation does), or lash out as only a nonpolitical organization can? Moreover, their targets are extremely symbolic: They attack one government building, attempt to hit another, and two international financial buildings. They don't want to kill Americans (if they did they'd just spend money at McDonald's; it's doing a fine job itself) as much as they want to reduce American foreign power. Did they expect us to unseat a dictator and establish a Democracy, while we were there? Probably not, or they would've had reservations about attacking. They wanted to eliminate the Big Brother factor and let the Middle East's politics be sided out by the Middle East.

Am I saying it's right to kill so many people? No. Am I saying that they shouldn't be so blindly labelled terrorists? Yes. Take some time to get to know exactly what's going on in any situation, and you may find more rationale behind the "terrorist" organization's actions than our own.

Quote from Aristocrat

Quote from Fire_Kame

Largely bull

I can't tell if you are trolling or have the equivalent IQ of an average Skyrim NPC.

Trolling, always trolling.

The official position is, and will always remain so, that it was to bring Democracy to Iraq.

The real reason is oil. Firstly, that due to years of mis-management the unproduced Iraqi oil fields are the largest untapped reserves in the Middle East and the largest remaining conventional oil fields in the world. Secondly that Saddam was trying to set up his own oil market where oil wouldn't be traded in US dollars. At the moment the US enjoys itself as the world's reserve currency by virtue of all international oil supply contracts being denominated in US dollars. This requires foreign countries to buy US dollars in order to buy oil, which ensures high demand for US dollars and allows the US to rack up the kind of debt that they have. Once the petrodollar hegemony is broken, the US dollar is going to drop like a rock to what represents its true value.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9698.htm

You sound like a 12 year old who recently discovered the internet. The petrodollar hegemony? Jesus Christ that is a retarded theory.

lol