Patriot Act Game Pokes Fun at Government 350
The Miami Herald is reporting that a new game based on Monopoly is taking a crack at Patriot Act and what creator Michael Kabbash describes as the curtailed freedom that has resulted. From the article: "The object of the game is not to amass the most money or real estate, but to be the last player to retain civil liberties. 'I've had people complain to me that when they play, nobody wins. They say "We're all in Guantanamo and nobody has any civil liberties left," he said. 'I'm like "Yeah, that's the point."'"
Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing to see here, move alone.
(or something to the effect) But a quick reload showed that "The Man" did not in fact supress the story.
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Funny)
Priceless (Score:4, Funny)
I'm downloading this right now...looking forward to playing it with the in-laws next Sunday.
Here's one of the 'Homeland Security' cards:
Absolutely priceless.
Re:Priceless (Score:4, Funny)
You commy filth piss me off... *gets a whisper from an aid in the ear* Oh... I mean, you TERRORIST filth piss me off...
Re:Priceless (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Priceless (Score:4, Insightful)
I am a counter example (Score:5, Insightful)
But honestly, how many people griping about Bush/Ashcroft today thought that Clinton/Reno were A-OK?
I for one, dislike them both (see here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org] for just a few recent posts predating this thread, to substantiate my claim...google should turn up more, back to the Clinton years, when Marc Rich and the Gubernatorial pardons of attractive women roused my ire). But whenever you attempt to level a rational criticism of a politician you discover that you will be instantly labeled a partisan, and the substance of your point dismissed.
Which leads me to a conclusion: attacks on politicians are frequently non-partisan (especially during primaries, when the parties eat their own to impress the masses) but defenses of them are almost always partisan. This includes the sort of "why don't you criticize this guy instead" defense going on here. It's my firm belief that reasonable people of both parties (for what it's worth, I happen to be a Republican) are appalled at the sort of shenanigans that get pulled by the leaders of both parties, but that the highly partisan yahoos always jump to the defense when their side's in power.
What Bush is doing is wrong, and frankly he should be in jail. The fact that Clinton may well deserve the next cell over is not an excuse, it's an example of how bad the problem realy is.
--MarkusQ
Re:Priceless (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I thought Clinton bad enough that I wanted Bush to win in 2000. Horrible mistake. I ever bought his lies about the war enough tat I tepidly supported it.
But by 2004, I was volunterring for Kerry.
Why? Mostly because of Ashcroft and Gauntanamo and Abu Ghraib.
Let me state that again: in 2000 I was disgusted with Clinton and happy to see a Republican President. Never again.
In the five years Bush has been in office, I've seen our Constitution shredded, Madison's checks-and-balances blown away, a disastrous war and obscene war profiteering, growth of the Police State eclipsed only by massive deficits and new entitlement programs and corporate welfare and corruption, the destruction of an American city while Bush literally strummed a guitar, and the dismantling of government-funded science in favor of corporations and religious nuts.
Maybe you still don't get it: I shared most of your so-called conservative values: I was for small government, against nation-building, for lower taxes (during the Clinton years I had a good job, you see), against Washington corruption. I saw Dubya as a breath of fresh air.
It's not me who has changed. It's the Republican Party. They control all three branches of government, and yes taxes are lower, but the deficit is now nine billion dollars, government's gotten bigger and more corrupt, and it's listening into phone calls without getting warrants.
Now I see Dubya and most of the rest of the Republican Party as a threat to the future of this country.
Damned right I thought Clinton and Reno were wrong. But your Dubya's a total and unmitigated disaster on all fronts. Now I'd welcome Clinton back in a heartbeat, and so would half of my conservative friends.
Re:Priceless (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. I am not, and never have been a Democat. I was neutral and I didn't pay much attention to politics. I considered them all Republicrats and equally currupt. Back in the 2000 election I didn't see much difference between Bush and Gore and didn't vote and didn't much care who won. As for the Supreme COurt ruling on the election, I figured it may as well have been a damn coin toss, and didn't much care.
It is Bush that has had DRAWN my attaention and criticism. I would never have accepted Bush's crap from Clinton or anyone.
Bush's approval rating is about 36, with some major polls pegging it at 33% and 34%. You cannot hit the low to mid 30's based on partisan politics. You cannot hit that dismal level without losing virtually the entire middle PLUS pissing off and losing a signifigant percentage of your own party. The criticisms of Bush are coming from the Left, coming from the Middle, signifigantly and increasingly coming from the Right.
Anyone dismissing the criticism of Bush as partisan is themselves guilty of partisan bias.
-
Re:Priceless (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, what an insightful, well-researched, and thought-provoking website. I went to the main page [whatreallyhappened.com] to see what other conspiracies had been covered up by the US government, and once I scrolled past the obviously legitimate banner ads for Ephedra, Viagra, and penny stocks, I found all sorts of op-ed diatribes based on shaky and unverifiable claims.
WTC 7 was not slated for demolition. It was not wired with explosives. It caught on fire, burned from the inside out, and collapsed. TLC (a reputable media outlet, unlike the whacko nutjob websites that come up with you search for "WTC 7 collapse") mentioned the collapse of WTC 7 in their documentary about why the towers collapsed. Officials were surprised and disturbed that buildling 7 collapsed, seemingly on its own, and learned a lot from the experience. The events revealed that conventional construction wisdom wasn't as reliable as builders had assumed, and they learned principles which they used to improve the safety of other buildings.
If, as you and all these other Area-51 crazies assert, WTC 7 was deliberately razed, you haven't answered "why?" I also love some of the other peer links that come up when "researching" your claims, like this gem: "Come on folks, no planes hit the World Trade Center on 9/11/01." [media-criticism.com]
Demolition experts immediately went on record as saying that such a collapse as a result of an airliner strike was flatly impossible,
If they're "on record," then link to it. Who are these "experts," and how exactly did they acquire their "expert" knowledge on the dynamics of airliner strikes on large skyscrapers, given that it's never happened before?
With respect to your crazytalk regarding the attack on the Pentagon, you demonstrate the classic flaws of a conspiracy theorist. That is, you ask the wrong questions, make the wrong assumptions, and ignore obvious counter evidence.
For example, evidence supporting the truth is overwhelming, undeniable, and readily available. If there really was no "Flight 77", then what do you make of this list of victims [cnn.com]? The passengers and crew of American Airlines Flight 77? Are these fake names? Why not call up some of the family members and see if these people actually existed? Google them. Locate addresses and co-workers. Where did all these people go, if Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Are all their family members in on the conspiracy, and perpetuating a lie?
Also, simply research the flight plans for that day. FAA flight plans are public record. See if Flight 77 actually existed. Or dig up the tax records for American Airlines and see if they actually owned a 757 with the registration number matching the one that "allegedly" hit the Pentagon. Where did that massive airplane go, if not the Pentagon?
As for your ridiculous claims that there was no fire, there most certainly and obviously was. It penetrated several layers deep into the rings of the Pentagon. Media and photographers could only photograph the outside. Or are you surprised that large amounts of media members were denied access to the flaming, chaotic top-secret inner rings of the Pentagon in the middle of a massive terrorist attack on the US?
Finally, let me also address this assumption that many people make regarding impact holes. People seem to think that an airplane should punch right through walls. The truth is, airplanes are actually light, fragile tubes of thin metal. Take a piece of paper and roll it up like a paper towel tube. Now smash it down onto the top of your desk. Did it go through? Did it even lea
Re:Priceless (Score:4, Insightful)
Because in the documentary [...], [Larry Silverstein] made the following statement: "'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
I'm not disputing that he said that (although I suspect he said "pull out," not "pull it"). But it is YOU and the website that are making the completely unsupported assumption that "pull it" means "demolish." In fact, when you read it in context, such an assumption doesn't even make sense. Why would he justify proactively demolishing it by saying "we've had such a terrible loss of life" already? Why not just evacuate to save lives, and wait and see if the building can be salvaged when the fire burns itself out? How would evacuating and then deliberately blowing it up save any lives? Don't you see? It makes no sense.
If that in fact is true, than it's the third steel-framed building to ever collapse from fire, the first two being WTC 1 and 2. The simple fact is: steel-framed buildings don't collapse from fire. Period.
You're illustrating my point for me exactly. This is exactly why the building architects were so surprised by the fact that they did collapse from fire. Everybody thought that was impossible. The steel frames of the buildings were coated with insulating foam to prevent exactly this scenario from playing out. But what they hadn't counted on was the fact that the buildings' ages and poor maintenance would effectively erase the safety built into the design. Again, I cite the documentary Why The Towers Fell [amazon.com] for a very thorough and insightful explanation of how things transpired on that fateful day.
And the reason that those 3 buildings were the first 3 steel-framed buildings ever to collapse from fire is because they were all designed the same flawed way (as have been many more since then that thankfully haven't had massive fires to test them).
The towers were designed to constantly withstand wind pressures equal to 30 times the energy of the airliner impacts.
Quit with the red herring. The "energy of the airliner impacts" had nothing to do with it. It was the heat from the fire that brought down the buildings. The buildings did withstand the impact of the airliners, just as they should have.
In July of 1945 a B-52 bomber, lost in heavy fog, crashed into the Empire State Building.
First of all, it was a B-25, not a B-52. The B-52 hadn't even been invented yet, and is a MUCH bigger airplane. The B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building was 53 feet long with a wingspan of 67 feet. The airliners that crashed into the twin towers were roughly 3 times as long with double the wingspan. Plus, the airliners were fully loaded with fuel for a cross-continent journey, whereas the little B-25 bomber was on its way home, and thus had relatively little fuel on board.
Oops. Guess you forgot about that part, eh? But let's not get bogged down in facts. Please, continue on.
[Where are all the people who were supposedly on the non-existent AA flight 77?]
I just love it when people throw this up as an 'argument'. Their bodies have not been found, and they never will be.
That's your answer? They existed, but they've simply vanished? All at the same time? Without anybody noticing? They were secretly diverted somewhere else and killed off in the name of freedom? I'm going to need a little more explanation than that, please. Who ordered this? Who were the people who carried it out? Why would American Airlines pilots and US military service men and women kidnap and murder innocent American citizens? A conspiracy this big would requi
Re:Priceless (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would all these people play along, when in many cases, it meant their own deaths? These are not top-secret, covert, CIA/NSA/FBI/military operatives we're talking about. I could maybe buy that those guys would play along and keep quiet in the name of "patriotism." But why the airline execs? The air traffic controllers? Why wouldn't someone have come forward with a story supporting your crazy assertions?
Download location (Score:5, Informative)
Live action version (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like a diverting way to spend an evening. My question though: I've heard some talk of there being a MMRT/LA* version and I was wondering if anyone had any information on how to opt out?
--MarkusQ
* Massively Multi -Player Real Time / Live Action
Mourning a genre (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mourning a genre (Score:2)
Re:Mourning a genre (Score:2)
Anyone who plans on releasing a shareware game should seriously consider the Mac side of things, as we are probably the only group of users who can be counted on to keep a shareware developer solvent.
Re:Mourning a genre (Score:2)
Re:Mourning a genre (Score:2)
Could I trouble you for an ETA and the knowledge of wether or not it will be a Universal Binary? From what I've seen, I pretty much plan on buying it the first second it's available.
Re:Mourning a genre (Score:2)
There is no point in making a political sim where your hand is forced every step of the way.
The first one to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The first one to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The first one to say... (Score:2)
Police State, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're curious, you can see the game here. [mtu.edu]
Re:Police State, anyone? (Score:2)
For the love of Pete... (Score:2, Redundant)
I've been hearing about this for five years or so now, but it's always this vague "oh no they're taking our civil liberties". No one ever actually states the real problem.
When did it become so difficult to actually inform the people, rather than just spout the equivalent of sensationalist headlines? It's hard to be worried about the PA when I haven't been affected by it at all and no one who tells me I should worry can tel
Re:For the love of Pete... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, for instance, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are pretty soundly trashed by the PATRIOT Act.
The surveillance powers granted are in direct circumvention of the Fourth Amendment, whereby a judge must be asked for a warrant for law enforcement to conduct any action against a citizen. The argument against is that informing the "Terrorists" of what is going to be searched/siezed in advance (which is what the Constitution requires) is inexpedient. The problem being that, if you're not a terrorist, you're pretty much screwed and have no recourse because any warrants issued (if they were issued at all -- see the National Wiretapping problem) were issued in secrecy and to talk about them is a crime according to other sections of the PATRIOT Act.
The Fifth Amendment is violated because the actions law enforcement takes deprive you of due process. You're not allowed to see the "evidence" against you until you've been exported to Egypt for "questioning" and returned.
Basically: the whole reason the Fourth and Fifth Amendments exist -- to protect citizens against overreaching Executive law enforcement powers -- is trampled by the PATRIOT Act.
Please see: The Bill of Rights [state.gov]
Re:For the love of Pete... (Score:2, Interesting)
Article VI. states:
The framers apparently understood that the purpose of government is to uphold the innate rights and freedoms of mankind. Hamilton said:
Re:For the love of Pete... (Score:3)
Yeah, sure, but as long as the goverment has the law enforcement and weaponry to back itself up, there's not too much you can do about it. Who wants to go to jail for standing up for themselves? Or end up on a no-fly list? Since nobody can even talk about your being jailed, your cause sends out little if no message (boy doesn't this sound like part of the master plan?) Not too many on the whole. There have been huge demonstr
Re:For the love of Pete... (Score:2)
I've sat down and read large sections of the act at various times since it was enacted; between the intense legalese and constant references to other laws, it's hard to make sense of most of it. I guess what I'm looking for is somewhere that can show me specifically what has changed with the
Re:For the love of Pete... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For the love of Pete... (Score:2, Insightful)
The rights to privacy and due process, for example, are directly threatened. The PA circumvents many of the traditional checks against government, especially in the so-called "sneak and peek" provisions. Politicians and pundits who support the PA frame it as if law enforcement already knows who's guilty and who's innocent, and the guilty clearly deserve no civil liberties. Skeptics believe (like the majority here on slash
Re:For the love of Pete... (Score:2)
Indeed many (most) of us think the damage a corrupt government can do to the country vastly exceed anything a "terrorist" could ever do.
Never forget that fighting terrorists is easy while fighting a corrupt government is hard. If you speak out against a corrupt enough government, they merely need to -decide- to label you a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer to shu
Re:For the love of Pete... (Score:3, Informative)
Offtopic, but (Score:2)
Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
I always give a great deal of respect and support and love to people who try to keep an eye on the government, and even more when they have a sense of humour about it. The reality of the situation, for all citizens, is kinda like a parent trying to keep an eye on a really mischevious kid who likes to steal your stuff and money and beat up other kids, but instead of an unruly pubescent child, you have an army of secret agents and powermongers to try and keep from running amok.
Bad (Score:2)
I.e., instead of games I should get pure propaganda.
And not even that, but some nerd's unilateral lopsided own One True Way in which everyone should think. Forget about thinking for yourself, let Mr Game Designer tell you exactly what you should think about economics, politics, ecology, etc. Never mind that he isn't actually q
Re:Bad (Score:2)
Right. I actually think the Master of Orion games are the best "political" games yet made. There's real political content in them --- they can be seen as a lesson in realist foreign policy --- but they don't shove it in your face and they're fun to play. Their "galactic future" setting allows them to stay metaphorical and avoid propagandizing about today's politics.
Re:Bad (Score:2)
Re:Bad (Score:2)
Just because you don't go to college doesn't mean you have no useful opinions.
But then again I don't have a Ph.D. so my opinion must not be correct.
In any case some political games could be fun.
Some maybe not. Imagine playing Candyland with a dentist spin.
It all depends on what you want.
Of course I am biased on my opinion of our unread, by Congress that is, USAPATRIOT act.
I also think it may not be fun to play all the time but it
REDACTED (Score:4, Funny)
I must've missed the memo... (Score:5, Insightful)
When they become Civil Priviledges, I'm running for the hills.
Re:I must've missed the memo... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you hate America so much? (Score:3, Funny)
Nobody Seems to Mind! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nuance (Score:4, Informative)
Well that's really clever. Next I'll be making the game Nuance, where if you're an individual or a labor union or an activist of any type, you automatically win, and if you're a corporation or the government or a capitalist then you automatically lose.
At least games will be shorter than his droning crap.
Predictable. (Score:2, Insightful)
1. This story has been out for a while, but
2. This story trashes the Patriot Act, thus it gets an automatic berth.
Here's an idea: instead of making board games, why don't you vote out your Senators and Congressmen? While you were busy making funny little downloadable games, they re-authorized it.
I'm not a fan of the Patriot Act myself, but for christ's sake - quit acting like little bitches and do something productive with
I like the idea, but... (Score:3, Informative)
Can't a professional designer learn to spell?
How about Yay for raising public awareness? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the most troubling things about the current situation is that your average Joe Sixpack has no idea how far the current administration has gone in their efforts to decieve them and strip away their inalienable rights. Once they're properly appraised of the situation, they're usually pretty damned mad about it.
Getting the word out is one of the most important ways we can fight this assault on our liberty. The people in power thrive on ignorance. Anything that deprives them of that is positive.
I'd like to add one more thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the "sound bite" media that's really doing us in. And "they", the media, are doing it because that's where the money is. There's no profit in being rational, careful, insightful, and just using common sense. Sensationalism has overtaken the media. Trying to get the issues past that, well, is impossible. Let's face it, folks want the sensationlized version. They want to feel superior to the "stupid" people who have a different opinion from theirs.
Re:I'd like to add one more thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd like to add one more thing... (Score:2)
Re:I'd like to add one more thing... (Score:2)
Really? I would have thought that the correct response was to engage them in dialogue, do what you can to change their mind through reason and respect, and then move on (perhaps to communicating your ideals to the rest of your neighbors, in order to ensure that your opponent's propaganda does not go unopposed).
You obvio
Re:I'd like to add one more thing... (Score:2)
Re:I'd like to add one more thing... (Score:2)
Modern day American political parties irritate me. I get the choose between some nuts who think tha
Re:I'd like to add one more thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
You sound like a Democrat [google.com], then.
Seriously, if a conservative says that, and doesn't act that way, then he is not a conservative. Hence, Bush, and much of the GOP Congress, is not conservative. They do some conservative things, but a conservative would never be in favor of No Child Left Behind, for example.
The problem is that most people think social conservatives -- of which Bush is one -- is the same thing
Re:I'd like to add one more thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'd like to add one more thing... (Score:2)
Re:I'd like to add one more thing... (Score:2)
The Bush administration is a disgrace, and the Republican Party has lost it's way. It's like Bush is the new pope, and it's scary what's happening in this country.
Re:I'd like to add one more thing... (Score:2)
"... beyond the hyperpole and mindless rhetoric, I usually see some common ground - a big swath of it."
Absolutely, like the so-called domestic spying controversy. Everyone really wants the same thing. We all want the Government to have the powers to detect and prevent scumbags from killing us without having the ability to abuse those powers to infringe on the rights of citizens. But I don't see any desire, on either political side, to refine and define those powers. They all just want to continue the rheto
Not a waste (Score:5, Insightful)
What's more beneficial to the bottom line of a popular movement -- one individual sending a letter, or one individual getting two people to send a letter? Or how about one individual making 1,000 people 0.2% more likely to write a letter?
Few people want to talk about civil liberties at the water cooler during their afternoon break. This game is interesting enough to be water-cooler fodder, which is a good thing -- raise awareness of the issue.
Well, here's why I don't like it (Score:2)
And for what? Chances are that anyone who actually plays something this monumentally stupid and non-fun is already doing it for the preaching part, so it's all just preaching to the choir. You won't get too many _normal_ people playing an idiotically designed game where every step is a 50% "game over, you got sent to prison" chance
Re:Not a waste (Score:2, Insightful)
I did. Didn't work. Don't see that changing.
Re:Not a waste (Score:2)
You can't expect a politician to vote the way you want without letting them know, with a loud voice (i.e., with the support of many others) that their status is dependent upon how they vote on legislation -- which you point out. However, you
Re:Yay for wasting time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yay for wasting time... (Score:3, Insightful)
That you are aware of. It's hard to realize you are having an effect when there is no tangible evidence handed to you.
Just as important as educating the voting public is attempting to affect the decisions of our lawmakers. It does no good to educate the public if none of the public is telling the lawmakers how we want them to vote.
Removing someone from office because we didn't like their dec
This is how you affect the system (Score:4, Interesting)
Petitions are nice, but the real way to raise awareness is to go to the people, not the politicians. If a game like this can raise awareness, more power to it. At the very least, it made some newspapers, and now Slashdot.
So don't dismiss it so quickly: I would say the creator of this game has already done more than you to bring about change. Awareness is important.
Re:This is how you affect the system (Score:2)
BTW, I've received non-generic responses from several legislators -- particularly on the local level, but heck, Sen. Bill Bradley called me at home to discuss a letter I'd written him (ages ago, of course). Plus, it was one of the first political letters I'd written.
And some of those local politicians may eventually move up the chain -- so building a relati
Re:This is how you affect the system (Score:2)
Re:This is how you affect the system (Score:3, Interesting)
This game, IMHO, is just like the concerts of the 60's. A fun way to pa
...and you know this how...? (Score:2)
On the other hand, I don't see the game lasting long as it probably infringes on varying aspects of monopoly...
Infringement (Score:2)
http://www.antimonopoly.com/ [antimonopoly.com] for the story.
Re:Yay for wasting time... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yay for wasting time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Brooks responded that you can't fight a dictator by getting up on a soap box. Dictators are, by nature, natural spell-binders, and you'll never outdebate them. But what you can do and what works is to make them look ridiculous.
So, in this case you paint the administration as a bunch of goose stepping blockheads who are besotted with fascism. It's not the way our system is supposed to work, but it's the way politics works.
Re:Yay for wasting time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Those representatives are in gerrymandered "safe districts." They don't have to care, they're the government.
Your line of reasoning rang a bell (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, we're losing all our civil liberties but some guy is still free to openly criticize the government without fear of the FBI showing up on his doorstep.
Your line of reasoning rang a bell. Where did I hear it before? Oh yeah, I remember:
You are confusing "going away" with "gone"; just because at sunset there is still more than enough light to read by, you can not conclude that daylight is not going away, and should not draw comfort from the fact that it isn't as dark as it is somewhere else on the planet.--MarkusQ
Re:Your line of reasoning rang a bell (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: people respond drastically to sudden changes, but it's very easy to make those same changes over a longer period of time and have little reaction. Now I'd hope most world citizens are smarter than the abovementioned frog, but it still works in principle. Consider Sony: they moved in way too aggressively with the rootkit, and it massively backfired. If they'd attempted a much more subtle approach, they'd have probably gotten away with it.
"We've still got more rights than China" (etc) just doesn't cut it for me. I don't care whether we're the best or the worst. I couldn't care less about our relative position. Guess what, my cafeteria food is better than it was at middle school, but it still sucks. Likewise, I may be a bit free-er to blog than the Chinese, but that doesn't mean me saying the wrong thing isn't going to result on a rather unpleasant knock on the door.
Maybe non-slashdotters don't care about the Constitution being shat upon by the administrations (not just Bush is to blame here, though he's definately worse than most, though IMO the last couple elections were lesser-of-two-evils even if the stronger may have won, and further IMO the two-party political system is the worst thing in the history of democracy), but every non-techie friend I've talked to on the matter is totally clueless, whereas /. and forums seem to be much more aware of what's going on. Maybe it's the international input, rather than just the biased local media. So many fail to realize that while Fox is obviously hardcore right-wing, all American news sources - however poilitically 'fair' they are - have a pro-America bias. I don't mean to bring up a touchy subject, but stop griping over American deaths in the War on Iraq while we're going 50:1. Forgot about that part, didn't you, American media?
I've gone a bit OT I suppose. My original point remains, though - slowly removing rights doesn't get noticed by the masses, even if removing exactly the same rights overnight would cause rioting. Go back to just before the '01 elections and see if Bush would have been elected knowing he'd be wiretapping citizens and using terrorism as a reason. I don't want to throw too much bias into this post, but it seems strange to me that people who are predominantly more religious appear to be more concerned by terrorism - I'd figure they'd be a lot less freaked out by potential death (be it from terrorism or being run over by a steamroller).
People who don't want to be spied on, for one. (Score:2)
Bush wants this, because the curent wiretap rules allow him to spy for days before getting the warrant. The only reason I can think of for Bush not using this system is that he doesn't want anyone finding out that he is spying on people who are not a threat.
I smell a filthy no-login Freeper!
Re:Your line of reasoning rang a bell (Score:3, Interesting)
To answer your question directly, however, right now they are going after the Muslims (if the story of Jose Padilla doesn't outrage you, you
Re:Your line of reasoning rang a bell (Score:2)
What's wrong with this? I can tell you a lovely story about a guy whose ex-gf got support from him, despite having far lower costs for raising the child - that, in itself? fine - not so fine was her handing the child to grandma every friday, and taking his cheque on down to the travel agent and booking a flight interstate every weekend to the guy she met on the net. I'm not so sure the purpose of child sup
Re:This is America... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahem. [wikipedia.org]
Or did you just mean not recently?
Re:This is America... (Score:2)
I guess I could say that first they came for the Communists, and I said nothing, because they were actively working as spies and traitors to bring my country under the domination of a spectacularly hateful totalitarian regime of epic proportions.
Might as well give me the "first they came for..." sermon on account of a rabid dog.
Plus, any formulation that equates Communists a
Re:This is America... (Score:2)
Sh!t.... they can still refuse entry into the US for persons who support anarchism!
Re game
Sh!t.... they should still be playing Nuclear War! Fun game, and quite often everyone loses!
In fact, I view this game as similar to NucWar; the former was released in 1964. Just after the Cuban Missle Crisis.
Hopefully, this game will get respect similar to NucWar. NucWar has been played in nuclear subs, missle silos and "places that don't officially exist".. maybe this game will get the same respec
Re:This is America... (Score:5, Insightful)
They haven't come for the Jews.
No. But they've come for the Muslims [masnet.org]
They haven't come for the Communists.
No. Because it's profitable to ignore them. [bbc.co.uk]
They haven't come for the trade unionists.
No. Because they no longer matter. [lostamericanjobs.com]
And they haven't come for you.
They won't bother because we don't matter. [blackboxvoting.com]
Re:This is America... (Score:2)
Re:We're doomed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh! Got a law passed. Haha, no you can't criticize us! Good job paying attention to China.
An old idiom goes, you don't have to be better than someone else to make it, you have to be the best. So no, what's going on in China is important, but you have to ALWAYS look and see what is going on here.
And there are far more civil liberties than "The right to free speech"
Re:We're doomed! (Score:2)
Re:We're doomed! (Score:2, Informative)
The 6th Amendment. [cato.org]
Re:We're doomed! (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, The Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Every power the government claims for itself that is not mentioned in the Constitution is one that has been stripped from the States and the People respectively.
Others mentioned the no-fly list. People claim that I have no right to fly (see also: 9th Amendment), I claim that the United States has no right to prevent me from flying. If you fin
Blah Blah (Score:2, Funny)
Yea, yea. Blah blah. Go felate Karl Rove some more you overstuffed NASCAR inbred. Bush could be standing in front of you biting off the heads off small children and you'd still get down on your knee
Re:We're doomed! (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't until the court stepped in and slapped him down that some of this changed.
At which point it was quickly made clear that the judiciary is the tool of evil leftist terrorists. This has resulted in people ranging from terrorist right wingers to elected lawmakers calling for the judiciary to be either outright collapsed, or made a pawn subject to the whims of the Congress (in fact, right wing terrorists even publicly called for the Supreme Court justices to be assassinated). This call has been furthered in relation to preventing them from exercising the power to rule on cases involving discrimination against gays, and in relation to cases such as Terri Schiavo's where it was determined that there was no grounds for the government to interfere in the legal rights of Mr. Schiavo.
Furthermore, please note that George W. Bush is yet another individual "elected" to the presidency against the will of the people.
On top of all that, Mr. Bush has authorized the NSA to go ahead and secretly wiretap, with no public access to information, anybody he deems requires wiretapping. Mr. Bush requires no justification, as there's nobody to stop him.
But, don't worry. I'm sure that's not really that bad, and that it's just a matter of things being "blown out of proportion".
Re:We're doomed! (Score:2, Informative)
Don't forget that the only reason Congre
Re:We're doomed! (Score:3, Insightful)
I was with you until you pulled out the not-really-quotes. Dude's a loser, but close-enough-to-half of us voted for him. Just cause your side lost doesn't mean the other guys cheated. Sometimes, stupid people hold the majority. Hell, MOST times.
Re:We're doomed! (Score:2)
Re:We're doomed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Moderate, or respond? RESPOND!
You do know that american idol was taken directly from a EUROPEAN TV SHOW called pop idol?
Trying to call the american public 'stupid', along with saying that somehow the abuse of power commited by certain individuals in the US governemnt is to be blamed on the general public shows me all I need to know about your line of reasoning. Otherwise, can you support your argument with something other than straw? Using the phrase 'some people say', or 'some believe', and then countering with your own statement, is a horribly wrongly overused style of debate. You may have heard of it, its called setting up a 'straw man'. The only purpose of which is to knock down, making you look like you are actually debating something.
You believe leaders to be god like figures who are destined to rule over the 'unwashed masses' who dont know any better.
Blowing things out of proportion? warrantless wiretaps, detainment wihtout legal representation, arrest without being informed of your crimes, media used for propaganda, and now PHYSICAL warantless searches as well. Exactly at what point do you think it would be appropriate to stand up for yourself? When the boot is already on your neck?
I hate to tell you, but you ARE necessarily defending what the government is doing. Saying you are 'not necessarily' defending it is to soften your language to fool yourself into believing your own words. Unfortunately, subjective thought matters little to objective reality. Looks like you fooled someone else beside yourself though, as you were marked as 'insightful'. I wonder if it was one of those guilty, stupid, uncaring americans who modded you as such? Maybe it was one of those 'enlightened' Europeans who are smarter because they made 'pop idol' a smash hit in europe first?
Believe it or not, you are advocating fascism. Stop trying to put makeup on a pig and telling me it is beautiful.
Re:We're doomed! (Score:2, Funny)
Actually the origin was in New Zealand with a program called Popstars [wikipedia.org] on which pop idol was based, then american idol followed.
For reference, we in New Zealand are very very sorry.
-Qyiet
Re:We're doomed! (Score:2)
Re:stupid nerds (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't need a license from Hasbro (Score:2)
http://www.antimonopoly.com/ [antimonopoly.com]
Board game - for now... (Score:2)