Is this for real?

Discussion in 'What's On Your Mind?' started by Elizabeth Conley, Nov 27, 2011.

  1. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    As I've posted before, Glenn Greenwald has been one of the most outspoken critics in the country, of this law and of the evisceration of our rights in general, for years. But then he's a liberal, so perhaps you should be afraid.
  2. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Right. You have to have standing.
  3. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Way to go Montana! I wish this were possible in every state of the union.

    Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate

  4. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    it'll be interesting to see if this gets any traction.
  5. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    That's great! What are the other States with the recall provision based on oath of office?

    Meanwhile, (rather than spew bile at those who can't bring themselves to vote for the only candidate for President that is as concerned as we are about NDAA), I'll only excerpt from a statement in TheHill:
    But golly what a kook, huh? Can't possibly get elected... blah, blah, blah... (if you repeat BS often enough)...
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  6. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Ron Paul is great on civil liberties issues - he always has been. I've been reading his stuff for almost the entire last decade. It's some of his other positions that make him questionable.
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  7. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    State, local, and federal (11)

  8. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    It's real now, signed 12/31/11.
    May none of us have standing under misuse of its provisions in the coming new year/s.
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  9. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

  10. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    In reading the NY Times this morning, I picked up on this:

    I noticed that the article Elizabeth linked to addressed my concern with the above quote:

  11. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    He told Congress he would veto it if they didn't rewrite it to grant the Executive complete power. That's it. He wanted more power, not less. He wanted no checks on his power. This deluded notion that some so-called progressives still have that he wanted to veto it on principle is horse (expletive deleted).
    Elizabeth Conley and barbell like this.
  12. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Obama Crowned Himself on New Year's Eve
    By David Swanson
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  13. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Law professor Jonathan Turley has an opinion piece about the signing in The Guardian.

    The NDAA's historic assault on American liberty

    One of Obama's excuses for signing the bill is that he signed it to keep funding for the troops.

    Turley says:

    Read more at the link.
    Lisa Simeone, Mike and barbell like this.
  14. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, a thousand times YES.

    The one thing I've found disheartening above and beyond all else in the past 10 years is the seemingly-absent willingness of people to stand on principle. Until TUG was formed, Slashdot was the only place where I would hear people talking about actually making sacrifices to effect ideological or sociopolitical change, and that was mostly in the context of RIAA/MPAA boycotts (e.g. don't pirate an album you want in order to avoid buying it, but simply do without it instead; piracy legitimizes their claims whereas boycott leaves them nowhere but penniless).

    Everyone talks about "TSA patdowns are wrong, we should profile like Israel!" "TSA scanners are wrong, use dogs!" "TSA patting down grandma is wrong, just single out Muslims!"

    Nobody outside of TUG seems to hit on the crux of the issue, which is "Violations of civil liberties are wrong, TSA is essentially destroying the American way of life in the name of saving it."

    Is principle that uncommon these days? I mean, I'm 28 years old - my naive childhood years are long gone but I wouldn't say I'm old either. Nevertheless, it seems like there were "good old days" when people were willing to take a stand because of what meant something to them versus what was practical or convenient. Am I thinking of pre-/post-NINE ELEVEN here or is it just the nostalgia filter?
  15. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    CW, it's the nostalgia filter.

    Look at the history of this country -- the red scare of the '50s, McCarthyism that saw people actually jailed for their beliefs, or their purported beliefs. People lost their jobs, were blacklisted.

    And before that, to World War I -- people were beaten up on the streets -- this happened in this country -- and jailed -- just for speaking out against the war. Eugene Debs was in jail for years. For speech. For speaking out on behalf of peace.

    And the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Obscene. Yet it went on.

    The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 -- awful legislation, at a time when the "founding principles" of this country were still ringing in people's heads.

    There are always sheeple and always principled people, obviously always more of the former than of the latter. It was ever thus, and it will ever be thus. Doesn't make it any less frustrating.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  16. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    CW, I would recommend "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis. He saw the dangers of fascism in 1935, for good reason. His book is just as relevant today.
  17. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    For Ron Paul fans (and Ron Paul) critics, fyi:

    Matt Stoller: Why Ron Paul Challenges Liberals


Share This Page