mizerydearia (OP)
|
|
January 01, 2012, 03:48:25 PM Last edit: January 01, 2012, 07:44:53 PM by mizerydearia |
|
update: See the third post for more resources.
|
|
|
|
notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 01, 2012, 03:56:46 PM |
|
Settle down. The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation." ...
More here: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-signs-defense-bill-with-serious-reservations/1
|
|
|
|
mizerydearia (OP)
|
|
January 01, 2012, 04:29:47 PM Last edit: January 01, 2012, 11:35:57 PM by mizerydearia |
|
Settle down. heh, settle down? In what way does a simple post with a single image implicate the status of being or not being settled? Also see https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3909Perhaps in custom of some of my previous posts, if I had created a new thread with like 100 images and perhaps flashing and colored text and marquees and stuff, then it would be more easily recognizable that there is some unsettledness in which one or more others could respond suggestively to settle down. However, a single image relative to a particular topic to trigger "settle down" response seems perhaps considerate of that the mere idea of promoting or spreading awareness of the particular topic, message or idea is implicative of that something is wrong and thus the existence behind it (me) must 'settle down.' Now that I have responded to your 'settle down' with the previous message, perhaps a kind of 'settle down' type of statement may seem more appropriate as it is related to a kind of defensiveness that may be unnecessary. But, the initial 'settle down' suggestion seems unnecessary also. So, I welcome others to promote and encourage more 'settle down'ness in the case that this topic is hijacked (by the person that started it) from the initial topic of discussion to a discussion about settling down and other related ideas. tl;dr: I've been unsettled before, but as of my original post, that is not one of those times. Settle herereddit discussion of image in original post In addition to the image in the first post, which was the content I stumbled upon initially bringing this information to my attention, and I redistributed it to others such as by creating this thread, I also am openly including reference to additional sources and coverage of this information (and exposing the media participants that are not covering or have any mention of it) so that there is no bias expressed. Note that I'm merely referencing contents created by others and am organizing them into a centralized location, but particularly starting off with a single introductory image (which again is not preferred over any other, but is merely the first encounter I had experienced as a human that surfs the Internet randomly looking for new and interesting things, maybe sharing them if they are worthy.) abc news: no mention yetaclu articlealex jones videoal jazeera articlethe arizona republic: no mention yetassociated press articlebay news 9: no mention yetbbc world news: no mention yetbloomberg articlechicago sun-times: no mention yetchicago tribune articlechicagoland television: no mention yetcleveland plain dealer: no mention yetcnbc: no mention yetcnn: no mention yetcontra costa times: no mention yetthe dallas morning news: no mention yetdenver post: no mentiondetroit free press: no mention yetexaminer articlefox news: no mention yetherald tribune: no mention yethln: no mention yethouston chronicle: no mention yethuffington post articlekhou: no mention yetkotv: news on 6: no mention yetkthv: today's thv: no mention yetktvb: no mention yetkvue: no mention yetkwtv: news on 9: no mention yetlos angeles times articlemsnbc: no mention yetnecn: new england cable news: no mention yetnews channel 8: no mention yetthe philadelphia inquirer: no mention yetnews12: no mention yetnews14 carolina: no mention yetnew york post: no mention yetthe new york times article (No mention of the specific bill by name: NDAA or National Defense Authorization Act) newsday: no mention yetnwcn: northwest cable news: no mention yetny daily news: no mention yetny1: no mention yetthe oregonian: no mention yetpbs: no mention yetphiladelphia daily news: no mention yetrt: russia today: no mention yetsalon articlethe san diego union-tribune: no mention yetsan francisco chronicle: no mention yetsan jose mercury news: no mention yetthe seattle times: no mention yetthe star-ledger: no mention yetthink progress article ( 3643+ reddit comments) pcnc: pittsburgh cable news channel (also wpxi): no mention yetstar tribune: no mention yettampa bay times: no mention yetusa today articlethe wall street journal: no mention yetthe washington post articlewfaa: no mention yetwwltv: no mention yetynn: austin: no mention yetynn: buffalo: no mention yetynn: capital region: no mention yetynn: central new york: no mention yetynn: rochester: no mention yetI like how some of the mainstream media news sources have no mention yet of NDAA being signed into law but still have some results referencing NDAA from weeks ago.
" I've been reading NDAA (H.R 1540) and here are the actual facts" - Reg717
TL;DR - My opinion is that this bill is not as increasingly invasive as folks make it out to be. Instead it's a continuation of past policy which is invasive such as the Patriot Act. NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed
" The 14 Senators who voted against NDAA. All the rest should be tried for treason." - AsABlackManTL:DR: NDAA doesn't take away your due process rights, nor does it allow for indefinite detention of citizens without due process. How do I know? As a black man, I make it my business to know when/how the government does its arresting. Due process is a constitutional right, and cannot be abrogated or changed by statute. I also read the fucking bill.
|
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
January 01, 2012, 05:34:37 PM |
|
Now that that's settled I, for one, appreciate you starting this thread and bringing this needed awareness to my, now our, attention.
~Bruno~
|
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
January 01, 2012, 05:48:15 PM |
|
I've noticed you've been updating Post #3, hence opting to not quote it. I just watched the Alex Jones video. Here's my comment: Thanks for starting my New Year off with this bad start! Keep up the good fight, mizerydearia. ~Bruno~ EDIT: Your list in Post #3 keeps getting longer! SETTLE DOWN!!!
|
|
|
|
mizerydearia (OP)
|
|
January 01, 2012, 05:52:25 PM |
|
EDIT: Your list in Post #3 keeps getting longer! SETTLE DOWN!!! * mizerydearia chuckles
|
|
|
|
smickles
|
|
January 01, 2012, 05:56:06 PM |
|
Settle down. The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation." ...
More here: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-signs-defense-bill-with-serious-reservations/1So, then, that part of the legislation wasn't signed into law?
|
|
|
|
notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 01, 2012, 06:00:53 PM |
|
Settle down. The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation." ...
More here: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-signs-defense-bill-with-serious-reservations/1So, then, that part of the legislation wasn't signed into law? Correct.
|
|
|
|
smickles
|
|
January 01, 2012, 06:15:14 PM |
|
Settle down. The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation." ...
More here: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-signs-defense-bill-with-serious-reservations/1So, then, that part of the legislation wasn't signed into law? Correct. So, then, would you consider the OP "fearmongering"?
|
|
|
|
notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 01, 2012, 06:18:50 PM |
|
Settle down. The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation." ...
More here: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-signs-defense-bill-with-serious-reservations/1So, then, that part of the legislation wasn't signed into law? Correct. So, then, would you consider the OP "fearmongering"? I consider it crying wolf. There will be great challenges to our liberties in the coming years... if you keep crying wolf, no one will believe it when the actually strip away our due process rights.
|
|
|
|
mizerydearia (OP)
|
|
January 01, 2012, 07:00:41 PM |
|
My first encounter with this topic was based on the image referenced in the first post. As can be seen in third post I have expanded to account for a multitude of sources of information. The topic of the thread is also not so opinionated or biased other than merely establishing the consideration that the prevalence, importance or value of the particular event is of significance more so than perhaps other contents or events, thus 'bang.'
|
|
|
|
notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 01, 2012, 07:15:44 PM |
|
My first encounter with this topic was based on the image referenced in the first post. As can be seen in third post I have expanded to account for a multitude of sources of information. The topic of the thread is also not so opinionated or biased other than merely establishing the consideration that the prevalence, importance or value of the particular event is of significance more so than perhaps other contents or events, thus 'bang.'
That image is very misleading. Not only is the information inaccurate, it pins the bill on Obama. The truth is, Obama refused to sign into law the provisions that authorized the detention of US citizens, forcing congress to remove them. Perhaps it would be good to verify information before repeating it?
|
|
|
|
mc_lovin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
www.bitcointrading.com
|
|
January 01, 2012, 07:19:41 PM |
|
Personally? I'm proud to be CANADIAN!
|
|
|
|
mizerydearia (OP)
|
|
January 01, 2012, 07:42:24 PM Last edit: January 01, 2012, 08:33:36 PM by mizerydearia |
|
My first encounter with this topic was based on the image referenced in the first post. As can be seen in third post I have expanded to account for a multitude of sources of information. The topic of the thread is also not so opinionated or biased other than merely establishing the consideration that the prevalence, importance or value of the particular event is of significance more so than perhaps other contents or events, thus 'bang.'
That image is very misleading. Not only is the information inaccurate, it pins the bill on Obama. The truth is, Obama refused to sign into law the provisions that authorized the detention of US citizens, forcing congress to remove them. Perhaps it would be good to verify information before repeating it? I'm not so sure. As you can see in the third post, I am repeating ALL THE INFORMATIONS relative to this issue, particularly, one informative post per resource (particularly covering yesterday's event involving Barack Obama's signing NDAA bill), and particularly focusing on the major resources, including those that that are considered biased, corrupted, evil media organizations. I am fairly certain there is at least some misinformation. For those that are concerned about the original post as being misinformation, thanks for participating to clarify it and to those that provide factual informations or analyses so that everyone can benefit from being more aware of true facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
January 01, 2012, 11:21:50 PM |
|
think progress article ( 3639, and counting, reddit comments) Fixed!“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.” Translated: This does not mean that further administrations will not authorize this shit that I just signed into law. In fact, you can count on them into doing so. Thank you very much. I'm going to have another beer now to celebrate the New Year, then I'm going to fuck the holy shit out of my old lady, an important family tradition, one which adds value to our relationship.
|
|
|
|
mizerydearia (OP)
|
|
January 01, 2012, 11:43:11 PM |
|
These are the Texas Representatives votes on the NDAA
|
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
January 02, 2012, 12:19:16 AM |
|
These are the Texas Representatives votes on the NDAA It amazes me to read 31 nut cases refusing to follow the crowd.
|
|
|
|
RandyFolds
|
|
January 02, 2012, 01:43:14 AM |
|
I consider it crying wolf. There will be great challenges to our liberties in the coming years... if you keep crying wolf, no one will believe it when the actually strip away our due process rights.
This... The patriot act already covers this shit anyways...it's just bolstering the expired portions. On a side note, how was the list of coverage created? It seems like it would require thousands and thousands of hours of reading transcripts and publications, not just googling shit.
|
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
January 02, 2012, 03:52:26 AM |
|
I consider it crying wolf. There will be great challenges to our liberties in the coming years... if you keep crying wolf, no one will believe it when the actually strip away our due process rights.
This... The patriot act already covers this shit anyways...it's just bolstering the expired portions. On a side note, how was the list of coverage created? It seems like it would require thousands and thousands of hours of reading transcripts and publications, not just googling shit. I'm not sure how mizerydearia did it, but I would have gone to each site and search NDAA, checking the date of the latest article. Upon seeing none, I would have considered that they haven't published anything yet. (or something like that, I would have done)
|
|
|
|
|