StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm not too sure it would get passed by Congress, but why would they care? They're not the ones that could be searched, detained, and arrested under the act.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I'm not too sure it would get passed by Congress, but why would they care? They're not the ones that could be searched, detained, and arrested under the act.

Didn't you know that there's nothing in the Constitution saying the congressmen have to obey laws?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I'm not too sure it would get passed by Congress, but why would they care? They're not the ones that could be searched, detained, and arrested under the act.

Um, because they think this is utter shite, just like everyone here? They are human, after all.

Fuck Asscroft. He's a Fundie Fascist of the highest order. When he was Governor of Missouri, he actually banned DRINKING and DANCING!!! IN AMERICA?!?! WTF????

If Bush loses in 2004, the best part about it will be JA getting tossed out of Washington on his self-righteous, meddling, Christian ass.

You know he used taxpayers' money to cover up that statue of a woman with bare breasts? A FUCKING GRECO-ROMAN STATUE. Why, such things are....

*Muffled sounds as black helicopters arrive to take UltraViolence83 away for "interrogation"*

All this begs the question: what DRIVES Ashcroft to try to pass such legislation?

The problem is that electronic surveillance is effectively borderless.

Say hello to ECHELON going public.

Shinova wrote:All this begs the question: what DRIVES Ashcroft to try to pass such legislation?

Like I said, he's a Fundie Fascist. He's one of many Christian American politicians who don't believe in the separation of church and state. He'd love to turn our country into a Christian Theocracy. If that were ever to happen, we'd be much more of a threat to the world than those Muslims. *shudder*

On a slightly related note, I'd have to say I miss the Cold War. I don't like American autonomy of military power. I don't agree with all these cries of imperialism because of our position on Iraq, but that doesn't mean we won't go down a very dark path one day if someone else in the world doesn't have the muscle to say "hey, wait a minute". If Fundie Christianity were to increase its hold on future generations of Americans, we could easily end up with a President like Asscroft.

*standing on guard, waiting for the Thought Police to take me away*

My gut feeling tells me we're not going to see Ashcroft after 2004. Even among Republicans, he's not well liked. He was basically a political apointee who got shoved into a situation he wasn't competent to handle after 9/11. Bush made some pretty good cabinet apointments, but Asscroft is definitely out of his league. He should have been made Secretary of Agriculture or something.

Captain Kruger wrote:

Shinova wrote:All this begs the question: what DRIVES Ashcroft to try to pass such legislation?

Like I said, he's a Fundie Fascist. He's one of many Christian American politicians who don't believe in the separation of church and state. He'd love to turn our country into a Christian Theocracy. If that were ever to happen, we'd be much more of a threat to the world than those Muslims. *shudder*

Now I don't agree with the Patriot Act or the Total Information Agency, or any of this other stuff thats been coming out of the Bush administration. However, to suggest that Ashcroft specifically is doing it because hes a 'christian fundy' is simply stupid, I hope you're joking.

On a slightly related note, I'd have to say I miss the Cold War. I don't like American autonomy of military power. I don't agree with all these cries of imperialism because of our position on Iraq, but that doesn't mean we won't go down a very dark path one day if someone else in the world doesn't have the muscle to say "hey, wait a minute". If Fundie Christianity were to increase its hold on future generations of Americans, we could easily end up with a President like Asscroft.

You miss a bunch of mass murdering tyrannical brutes? What is that? Why its the last bit of crediability you had just flushing down the drain

RedImperator wrote:My gut feeling tells me we're not going to see Ashcroft after 2004. Even among Republicans, he's not well liked. He was basically a political apointee who got shoved into a situation he wasn't competent to handle after 9/11. Bush made some pretty good cabinet apointments, but Asscroft is definitely out of his league. He should have been made Secretary of Agriculture or something.

Ashcroft has definately been a disappointment. From the very first when he didn't contest his seat in Missouri after a dead man stole it to the first rumblings of vast new government powers he's not done a single thing right.

Falcon wrote:

RedImperator wrote:My gut feeling tells me we're not going to see Ashcroft after 2004. Even among Republicans, he's not well liked. He was basically a political apointee who got shoved into a situation he wasn't competent to handle after 9/11. Bush made some pretty good cabinet apointments, but Asscroft is definitely out of his league. He should have been made Secretary of Agriculture or something.

Ashcroft has definately been a disappointment. From the very first when he didn't contest his seat in Missouri after a dead man stole it to the first rumblings of vast new government powers he's not done a single thing right.

"Disappointment" implies that you actually had positive expectations of him. Everyone knew he was a fucking fascist asshole when Shrub appointed him. Frankly, this is exactly what I expected from him and this administration. The second I saw the World Trade Center burning on TV, I saw the Constitutions guarantees of freedom go up in flames along with them.

As for Asscroft's religious influence on this particular bill, I don't really see a whole lot. I guess it could be argued that he believes, "Well since God is watching everyone 24 hours a day, so can we," but that's a bit extreme. Aside from that, he'd probably be pushing a bill to share intelligence with the Almighty.

Time for me to learn a new language...

Did you read Red Imperator's post? Yay, we're saved from the evil Asscroft.

Durandal wrote:

Falcon wrote:

RedImperator wrote:My gut feeling tells me we're not going to see Ashcroft after 2004. Even among Republicans, he's not well liked. He was basically a political apointee who got shoved into a situation he wasn't competent to handle after 9/11. Bush made some pretty good cabinet apointments, but Asscroft is definitely out of his league. He should have been made Secretary of Agriculture or something.

Ashcroft has definately been a disappointment. From the very first when he didn't contest his seat in Missouri after a dead man stole it to the first rumblings of vast new government powers he's not done a single thing right.

"Disappointment" implies that you actually had positive expectations of him. Everyone knew he was a fucking fascist asshole when Shrub appointed him. Frankly, this is exactly what I expected from him and this administration. The second I saw the World Trade Center burning on TV, I saw the Constitutions guarantees of freedom go up in flames along with them.

As for Asscroft's religious influence on this particular bill, I don't really see a whole lot. I guess it could be argued that he believes, "Well since God is watching everyone 24 hours a day, so can we," but that's a bit extreme. Aside from that, he'd probably be pushing a bill to share intelligence with the Almighty.

Unfortunately the exact same thing, or worse, would have happened with the biggest left wing scumbag in office. They are always wanting to do that kind of stuff without cause, just imagine if they actually had an excuse for a change! (if you want examples just look a the camera systems the proposed, the national ID program, etc...)

Falcon wrote:Unfortunately the exact same thing, or worse, would have happened with the biggest left wing scumbag in office. They are always wanting to do that kind of stuff without cause, just imagine if they actually had an excuse for a change! (if you want examples just look a the camera systems the proposed, the national ID program, etc...)

Who gives a fuck about a national ID system or cameras in public places? We're talking about a government which has just given itself the power to MAKE UNDESIRABLES DISAPPEAR INDEFINITELY without due process, formal charges, a trial by a jury of their peers, or even the need to publicize their identities! They can ERASE you if this bill goes through.

The only people who freak out about a national ID system are the fundie idiots who think it's some kind of sign of the apocalypse. You've already got a social insurance number; there is ALREADY a national ID system in place. As for cameras in public places, I don't have a problem with that either. They're called PUBLIC places for a reason, folks. It's the intrusions into private property that bother me (and which this government is pushing for), not to mention the systematic dismantling of individual rights to things like due process, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

The biggest problem I had with the previous administration was the Clipper chip stupidity. They never tried anything as asinine as what we've seen from Asscroft.

I've got a problem with public cameras. Street cameras anyway. They cost money, don't work well to deter crime, and the mostly white cops would rather focus in on that "suspicious" black man or the hot blonde with the miniskirt instead of doing their job properly.* Besides, the idea someone is invisibly staring at me walking down the street creeps the fuck out of me.

But, I'm just naturally paranoid about the government.

*I remember getting alot of that information from ACLU.org, forget where the rest came from.

UltraViolence83 wrote:I've got a problem with public cameras. Street cameras anyway. They cost money, don't work well to deter crime, and the mostly white cops would rather focus in on that "suspicious" black man or the hot blonde with the miniskirt instead of doing their job properly.*

Sounds like mere conjecture to me. In Wal-Mart, they are highly effective despite all of the same potential problems. Why would these same problems suddenly become crippling for street cams?

Besides, the idea someone is invisibly staring at me walking down the street creeps the fuck out of me.

Too bad for you most banks and many stores have cameras pointed at the street already, and they'll gladly hand over their tapes to law enforcement upon request.

But, I'm just naturally paranoid about the government.

Everyone should be, but you have to focus your paranoia on the things that matter, not worrying about silly stuff like cops watching you on the street where hundreds of people can see you already.

Falcon wrote:Unfortunately the exact same thing, or worse, would have happened with the biggest left wing scumbag in office. They are always wanting to do that kind of stuff without cause, just imagine if they actually had an excuse for a change! (if you want examples just look a the camera systems the proposed, the national ID program, etc...)

You'd have to actually have an explanation for that claim other than vague mumblings if you want to be taken seriously.

You complain about cameras, let me ask you, what the hell is there to complain about? If you have a lot of surveillance cameras around, it doesn't mean that there's somebody watching the view they give on some monitor 24/7. That's a ridiculous idea. Do you have any idea of how much manpower that would take for even a small city, manpower that law enforcement could use much better on the street in uniform, or in investigation of crimes already committed. No, what the camera system does is enable the gathering of evidence if a crime is committed within its field of view. That's all it's good for practically. The Feds won't use them to follow the movements of normal citizens, and if they have cause to have surveillance on someone, it's easier to do the oldfashioned way in almost all cases. I know there are law enforcement people on this board, any comments would be welcome as to whether I'm right or not.

Falcon, you also complain about a national ID program, i.e. the ID card. I have yet to hear a single logical reason as to how this would lead to a police state. You'r driver's license is an ID available to the law enforcement agencies. Your credit card can be used to ID you. There's a whole ot of ways you can be ID'd and I haven't heard complaints about those. SSN is another one. Tell me, how exactly will having a nationally standardised ID card with a photo, which you are not required to carry around with you (and which has the additional benefit of not being easily forged), going to lead to a police state? I'd really like to know, because I live in a country where our far right wing people look like the far left wing of American Congress and Senate, we've got a national ID system based on an SSN and ID cards like I described above, complete with a bar code and all, and we have no police state, in fact we have more freedoms in some respects than you do and as much freedoms otherwise (except for the gun issue). What I can tell you is the benefits of having that ID: you can use it anywhere you need to ID yourself (e.g. bank, different government offices and agencies, when buying alcohol if you look too young despite your age etc), without needing to carry around a passport or something like that.

Alternatively, one can use the driver's license, which has exactly the same info on it (name, SSN, date of birth, photo, signature, nationality, authority who issued the card, date of issue, date of expiration (if applicable) and barcode). Same thing with my sickness insurance card, which allows me to get a discount on prescription medicines (part of the health care system here). Any one of those, ID card, driver's license or the SI card can be used as a valid ID, and it affects life not at all, except to make it easier. You're not required to carry any of them around at any time other than when you go someplace where there is a real need to ensure that you really are you (e.g. when you go to a bank and want to get money from your account, they'll ask you for ID, because they can't just take your word for it).

Bottom line: National ID does not lead to a police state. The info contained on those cards is (here at least) in the civil registry that keeps track of how many people are born, names and so forth, and the only time information ends up in police records if you become a suspect, witness or victim of crime, or if you are detained. If you were detained without cause, no big deal, there won't be a permanent record. Now do I get some actual reasons from you, or are you going to just start spewing right wing invective and bluster again? Your pathetic attempt to compare a few surveillance cameras and a national ID scheme to what the Bush administration has already done and is trying to do is nothing but mud-slinging.

Edi

AdmiralKanos wrote:Sounds like mere conjecture to me. In Wal-Mart, they are highly effective despite all of the same potential problems. Why would these same problems suddenly become crippling for street cams?

I don't know. I heard England is having problems with them.

Too bad for you most banks and many stores have cameras pointed at the street already, and they'll gladly hand over their tapes to law enforcement upon request.

I don't mind that. Stupid criminals deserve to be caught.

Everyone should be, but you have to focus your paranoia on the things that matter, not worrying about silly stuff like cops watching you on the street where hundreds of people can see you already.

Good point. I tend to worry about really fucking stupid things. It's a personality quirk or something. Uber-paranoia is usually associated with my anxiety attacks.

Edi, you must understand American politics. To people outside the states, it seems incomprehensible that a Republican will respond to any criticism of a sitting Republican government by attacking an historical Democratic government. The word "red herring" leaps to mind immediately.

But in the States, their political spectrum is highly polarized, and when someone criticizes a Republican government, it is often assumed that he must be a Democrat. So the "you're doing it too!" argument is trotted out.

Of course, this is not a logical defense by any means. The validity of a criticism is not affected by attacking its author's perceived political leanings, nor is the behaviour of a government mitigated by attacks upon the previous government, irrespective of whether the charges are correct. But that's how political debates work in America.

Shinova wrote:All this begs the question: what DRIVES Ashcroft to try to pass such legislation?

He's a Republican. Nothing more needs to be said; they're all fascist shithooks.

I must say that the prospect of White Vans plying the streets of the United States has a certain charm to it considering that American policy gleefully encouraged similar practices elsewhere within the American empire. Asscroft's wishlist is perhaps the ultimate vengeance the Disappeared could hope for; reaching from beyond the grave to return the terror to the 'land of the free' that encouraged their executions.

AdmiralKanos wrote:Edi, you must understand American politics. To people outside the states, it seems incomprehensible that a Republican will respond to any criticism of a sitting Republican government by attacking an historical Democratic government. The word "red herring" leaps to mind immediately.

But in the States, their political spectrum is highly polarized, and when someone criticizes a Republican government, it is often assumed that he must be a Democrat. So the "you're doing it too!" argument is trotted out.

Of course, this is not a logical defense by any means. The validity of a criticism is not affected by attacking its author's perceived political leanings, nor is the behaviour of a government mitigated by attacks upon the previous government, irrespective of whether the charges are correct. But that's how political debates work in America.

*wry grin*
I've noticed. Believe me, this isn't the first time I've tried to hammer this exact same thing through thick American right wing skulls, though it is the first time on SDnet. Both sides of their political debate spend more time slinging mud and red herrings than doing something constructive, which is why it's easier to just lay the smackdown on them once to hammer in the facts and then keep asking "Yes, but do you actually have a point amid that ranting and would you like to address the issues raised?" Doing that a few times when they repeat the same stuff tends to drive the mindless drones up the wall or cause them to spontaneously combust (which is especially gratifying in a strictly but fairly moderated environment... ), and also usually elicits some good responses from those who actually like to address the issues. There's usually enough on every board that it's worthwhile.

Edi

Enlightenment wrote:

Shinova wrote:All this begs the question: what DRIVES Ashcroft to try to pass such legislation?

He's a Republican. Nothing more needs to be said; they're all fascist shithooks.

You're a communard basing your argument on an unsupported proposal which was picked up by an unreputable news agency and hasn't be confirmed. Nothing more need be said.

Enlightenment wrote:He's a Republican. Nothing more needs to be said; they're all fascist shithooks.

Not all Republicans are "fascist shithooks," mind you. To call all of them that would be to call all Democrats "Lying Bleeding Heart Communists." I tend to stay down the middle on the political spectrum but these days I seem to be more on the right side lately.

(I'm not bipartisan I just harbor some conservative views like pro-gun. I'm only pro-gun because I can't stand anti-gun nuts.)