united states country starts off 2012 with a bang

[mizerydearia]

update: See the third post for more resources.

[1713578779]

1713578779

[1713578779]

1713578779

[1713578779]

1713578779

[1713578779]

1713578779

[notme]

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]

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=3909

Perhaps 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 here

reddit 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 yet
aclu article
alex jones video
al jazeera article
the arizona republic: no mention yet
associated press article
bay news 9: no mention yet
bbc world news: no mention yet
bloomberg article
chicago sun-times: no mention yet
chicago tribune article
chicagoland television: no mention yet
cleveland plain dealer: no mention yet
cnbc: no mention yet
cnn: no mention yet
contra costa times: no mention yet
the dallas morning news: no mention yet
denver post: no mention
detroit free press: no mention yet
examiner article
fox news: no mention yet
herald tribune: no mention yet
hln: no mention yet
houston chronicle: no mention yet
huffington post article
khou: no mention yet
kotv: news on 6: no mention yet
kthv: today's thv: no mention yet
ktvb: no mention yet
kvue: no mention yet
kwtv: news on 9: no mention yet
los angeles times article
msnbc: no mention yet
necn: new england cable news: no mention yet
news channel 8: no mention yet
the philadelphia inquirer: no mention yet
news12: no mention yet
news14 carolina: no mention yet
new york post: no mention yet
the new york times article (No mention of the specific bill by name: NDAA or National Defense Authorization Act)
newsday: no mention yet
nwcn: northwest cable news: no mention yet
ny daily news: no mention yet
ny1: no mention yet
the oregonian: no mention yet
pbs: no mention yet
philadelphia daily news: no mention yet
rt: russia today: no mention yet
salon article
the san diego union-tribune: no mention yet
san francisco chronicle: no mention yet
san jose mercury news: no mention yet
the seattle times: no mention yet
the star-ledger: no mention yet
think progress article (3643+ reddit comments)
pcnc: pittsburgh cable news channel (also wpxi): no mention yet
star tribune: no mention yet
tampa bay times: no mention yet
usa today article
the wall street journal: no mention yet
the washington post article
wfaa: no mention yet
wwltv: no mention yet
ynn: austin: no mention yet
ynn: buffalo: no mention yet
ynn: capital region: no mention yet
ynn: central new york: no mention yet
ynn: rochester: no mention yet

I 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." - AsABlackMan

TL: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]

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]

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]

EDIT: Your list in Post #3 keeps getting longer! SETTLE DOWN!!!

* mizerydearia chuckles

[smickles]

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

So, then, that part of the legislation wasn't signed into law?

[notme]

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

So, then, that part of the legislation wasn't signed into law?

Correct.

[smickles]

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

So, then, that part of the legislation wasn't signed into law?

Correct.

So, then, would you consider the OP "fearmongering"?

[notme]

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

So, 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]

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]

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]

Personally? I'm proud to be CANADIAN!

[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.

[mizerydearia]

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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]

These are the Texas Representatives votes on the NDAA

[Phinnaeus Gage]

These are the Texas Representatives votes on the NDAA

It amazes me to read 31 nut cases refusing to follow the crowd.

[RandyFolds]

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]

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)