Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/national-defense-authorization-act_n_1123167.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
Fuck you.

Sincerely,
People Who Don't Want the United States to Become a Police State


Thoughts, FUBU?

Obama should grant the bill a one year probationary period in which it must be evaluated for effectiveness. After the one year probationary period, Senate will hold a vote to extend it or cancel it. Obama will have all legislators that voted in favor of the bill held without bail or charges in a maximum security facility. Supporting this bill is one step below state sponsored terrorism anyway, and maybe after a year in solitary to consider the ramifications of the bill they may vote to not extend it.

If unbelievably socially backwards legislation can be passed as a kneejerk measure to fight a 'WAR ON A CONCEPT™' then I see no reason that we can't have an equally oppressive clause that allows for people in favor of the bill to be imprisoned.


If we're going to be arresting and detaining citizens without charges indefinitely like a police state would, we might as well go all the way and start having political prisoners locked up.




lol. $662 billion dollars. holy fuck. 'defense spending'. lol.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

yeah not a fan of that bill. hope it fails.

The more I read about it from different sides, the less scary it becomes. Not because it lays out a way for the government to take away your rights, but because the government can and does already do everything the legislation describes. If you're accused of terrorism and you're an American citizen you're going to get picked up and held for however long they want, they do that now, this isn't going to change anything.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Yes, but up until now the government had to jump through hoops to justify suspending habeas corpus for no legitimate reason. Now it's simply "NDAA, bro" and the feds are legally off the hook. The same applies to wiretapping and other unwarranted forms of surveillance before and after the Patriot Act.

While what Dvergar said is true, I'm more annoyed that the Senate so overwhelmingly voted for what's basically a reaffirmation of powers no one should have. The disconnect between Congress and reality gets more and more apparent each time something important comes up.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/occupy-congress-on-jan-17-largest-occupy-protest-ever/2011/12/02/gIQAAGLgKO_blog.html

This makes me happy.

I'm on board.

I wonder if all this depressing shit is just becoming more clear as you get older, start paying attention and comprehend it; or if someone flipped a switch in 2000 for the US to go full retard. If you flee back your homeland, take me with you.

o. a bill to make everyone's life better in the US? VOTE NO. I'm almost hoping we get a republican president in '12 just so the senate stops trolling and passes bills that anyone with a fucking brain would vote for.

Drominar, Petrous, Chronowrench

Amazing.

Not only did they write a shitty law, they blew a boatload of money in the process.

Also, Iran having a nuclear weapon will probably save us lives an money. Seriously.

Though Iran's progress to a nuclear weapon might be another story, considering how muzzle-ready many of 'us' are.

I'd say you're early by a year. 9-11 sparked the removal of citizen's rights, but it's continued on unrelated platforms with 'corporations = people' and 'money = speech'.

Armed revolt is the only thing that will change the government at this point, and people have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that non-violence is the only way that they won't even entertain the thought.

Dvergar /
Quisling

You seem to be operating under the assumption that armed revolt wouldn't be immediately crushed by well-armed police backed by the strongest military in the world. No matter how noble it may be in principle, violent uprising is far from possible in practice in the modern first world. Even when one takes the military out of the equation, does it really seem probable that the media would even bother covering the events in a neutral or (FSM forbid) positive light? Face it, whoever goes against the corporate-funded government is undoubtedly going to be labeled as a terrorist by virtually every major news source, and the set of ideals held by that person or group will become a sort of societal taboo, thus perpetuating the concept that different equals bad.

Now factor the military back into the equation and you've got an unwinnable war against corruption. Libya's revolution succeeded --- or at least has so far --- because of NATO's assistance of the rebels and a large chunk of the Libyan army's (which as a whole was fairly ineffective, anyway) defection to the side of the NTC. In the case of an American uprising, that wouldn't likely be the case. After all, NATO's member countries would be absolutely fucked economically if the US had to set up yet another post-revolution economy, and the US military itself is comprised of mostly either blind patriots or the financially desperate. Couple blind patriotism with the media's inevitable portrayal of the "fringe group" waging war from the inside, and compare the salaries given by the hypothetical rebel "army" and the colossus that is the US defense budget. The choice for most soldiers would be clear, so defection wouldn't be much of a problem.

So while it may indeed be the righteous path to take, who's to say that it isn't littered with landmines that'll blow your dick off?

Remember the Civil War? That wasn't immediately crushed.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

To be fair, I wouldn't consider colonial america to be a first world nation.

There would be a lot more conscientious objectors if the states called their troops down on their citizens, i'd imagine. It would be interesting, but I don't see anything that will unseat the corporate overlords from rule without shots being fired. Which is tragic, to say the least.

The Civil War was a clash of two separate regions, though. The Occupy movement and any potential violent fringe groups spawned by it are spread throughout the country, so unless those willing to break from the Union cluster around a particular region, it's going to be virtually impossible for the movement as a collective to fight against an impossibly strong military that's armed by corporations.



Relative to the rest of the world at the time, it sure as hell was. And even though the Wallersteinian approach to the world-systems theory didn't come into existence until the mid-to-late 20th century, it's still valid to say that when compared to 18th century Britain, France, Spain, or Holland, America wasn't that far off. We may have been far more interested in agriculture than production, sure, but we were by no means living in squalor so long as the Crown took care of our living expenses.