The US president can now detain its citizens indefinitely and without trial.

Jack Wade wrote:

It's the goddamn terrorists' fault.

And you know who the terrorists blame???? :*e*:

BTW - the red thread colour is annoying. Can we change it?

[quote="j7wild"]welcome to 2012!!

this is going to become the norm!!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/dhs-officers-armed-with-semiautomatics-set-up-unannounced-id-checkpoint.html[/quote]

But Alex Jones is a nut-job. Apologies to his fans however. He does deliver a good rant, on the radio conspiracy-shows.

And in no way like Alex Jones off The One Show who is a tit of an entirely different nature.

GeneralGogol wrote:

It does indeed seem like conditioning people to accept living in a police state.

If you watch Jon Stewart's Daily Show or Stephen Colbert's THE COLBERT REPORT, you can pretty much guess what their personal feelings are on certain issues and people based upon the way they present their show. I would venture to guess that after watching last night's episode of THE COLBERT REPORT, Stephen Colbert was not particularly happy with President Obama's decision to sign this law. He mocked the president repeatedly during this bit on the show, which doesn't happen very often (Colbert and Stewart are left-leaning Democrats, but I love Colbert anyway and have since I first saw him on STRANGERS WITH CANDY). What was particularly interesting was how his audience responded to Colbert's sketch: either they weren't really aware of the new legislation, they weren't used to having Colbert make fun of President Obama, or the topic was uncomfortable and they didn't know how to respond, because there was very tepid, but polite, laughter.

I plan to escape from the U.S. (metaphorically speaking) sometime down the line, regardless of who is President, because the country is going to hell in a hand-basket and a second civil war is likely to occur within the next 20-40 years. I'm looking at moving to places like Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Idaho, Maine, Vermont, maybe Nova Scotia or even Norway. The moochers, the takers, the riff raff....the ...the undesirables....they've taken over both coasts, the South, and the Southwest.

Stewart, I characterize as an enthusiastic tub-thumping liberal, who really wants to make the "vision" work, but alas is also one of those rare, smart and somewhat humble liberals, who knows it's all a pipedream; but still he champions the utopian-vision, as it gives him something to get excited about and have some fun with...as opposed to many of his peers, who aren't bright enough or humble enough to get it, so instead look for people to blame for their failures: The "only-if-it-were-done-right" crowd.

Colbert on the other hand, I would suggest is essentially conservative - only a reluctant liberal. He plays along, but he knows its snake-oil that's being sold. He's really an infiltrator of the liberal ranks, but because he's so outrageous, funny and popular, they need to believe he is one of their own. Colbert plays the game expertly. He's as liberal as he can safely be and still respect himself. He only gargles the kool-aid. He doesn't swallow. But sometimes his true-self comes out and he spits the kool-aid right out, temporarily confusing the drones.

As a result both Stewart and Colbert are quite watchable. Neither fall into what David Mamet calls the "brain-dead" liberal category.

Some younger voters will make their decision this year based on what Colbert and Stewart feed to them.

It's so fucking disturbing, and no different than all of the shitheads who drink the Limbaugh Kool-Aid.

If only IQ tests could administered to determine who can and cannot vote.

I don't know about that. I agree Stewart is visibly liberal, but Limbaugh says so many head-scratching things that I can't tell if he's just trolling or if he really has fallen off the deep end.

But yes -- in a perfect world, none of those three should be sources of "news."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tklZr6cKXdQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/top-rights-defender-suing-obama-over-ndaa-fascism

I can't believe how little publicity this bill is getting. Obama just signed away the constitution and there's hardly a mutter, but Coke changes the color of its cans and there's practically riots in the streets. On some level I think we all deserve what's coming.

Edit: On a more humorous note haha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1lZMTCqf8&feature=related

Drax wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/top-rights-defender-suing-obama-over-ndaa-fascism

I can't believe how little publicity this bill is getting. Obama just signed away the constitution and there's hardly a mutter, but Coke changes the color of its cans and there's practically riots in the streets. On some level I think we all deserve what's coming.

Edit: On a more humorous note haha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1lZMTCqf8&feature=related

that's because the Media is controlled by the Democrats and Liberals and Socialists.

Just look at the Presidential Campaign coverage: it's all about Romney and Gingrich and Santorum but Ron Paul is hardly ever mentioned, why?

Because Obama wants Romney and Gingrich and Santorum to be nominated for the GOP.

They have no chance winning against Obama.

But if the Media was to focus on the TRUTH and talk about Ron Paul and what he stands for and he was to get the vote for the GOP nomination, Obama will not have a chance to get reelected!!

So the strategy is to mention Ron Paul as little as possible in the media and at the same time, make him look like a bag person so he will quietly go away!!

Pardon my ignorance but if the media's democratic/socialist/liberal where does it put Fox News? Aren't they against those three brushstrokes or are they cunninginly one of the three in disguise.

Oh and tits, etc.

j7wild wrote:

that's because the Media is controlled by the Democrats and Liberals and Socialists.

Tell that to the most watched news source in the U.S.: Fox.

And this crap about the media being owned and swayed by the left is laughable. Apart from the talking heads (and Fox News), no reputable news source is swayed by politics. If they were to be, the reporters and editors would be fired on the spot. I know it's hard for some people outside of the media to believe, but at any ethical media establishment, there's zero tolerance for bias unless your job is to be biased (e.g., Olbermann, O'Reilly, etc.).

Quote :

Just look at the Presidential Campaign coverage: it's all about Romney and Gingrich and Santorum but Ron Paul is hardly ever mentioned, why?

Because Obama wants Romney and Gingrich and Santorum to be nominated for the GOP.

They have no chance winning against Obama.

Huh? Paul has less of a chance than Romney or Gingrich, despite your paranoid theory about the media, because he's not conservative enough.

If Obama "wanted" any Republican candidate to get the nomination, he wouldn't choose Romney, who, according to virtually every poll, is running neck-and-neck with him.

Quote :

But if the Media was to focus on the TRUTH and talk about Ron Paul and what he stands for and he was to get the vote for the GOP nomination, Obama will not have a chance to get reelected!!

Right. The media should be controlled by more people like j7. The world's first 24/7 news network chock full of George W. Bush and tits.

Jack Wade wrote:

j7wild wrote:

that's because the Media is controlled by the Democrats and Liberals and Socialists.

Tell that to the most watched news source in the U.S.: Fox.

And this crap about the media being owned and swayed by the left is laughable. Apart from the talking heads (and Fox News), no reputable news source is swayed by politics.

I'd say the BBC is qualified in my country, though it still presents itself as an unbiased news source. It's that two-facedness that gets me more than anything else.

Jack Wade wrote:

Huh? Paul has less of a chance than Romney or Gingrich, despite your paranoid theory about the media, because he's not conservative enough.

That's bollocks.

Hilly wrote:

Pardon my ignorance but if the media's democratic/socialist/liberal where does it put Fox News? Aren't they against those three brushstrokes or are they cunninginly one of the three in disguise.

Fox is pretty much the sole right wing news channel in a sea of big-government lefties. That's one of the reasons why the witchunt against Murdoch and co. (fueled by papers such as the Guardian) was so unrelenting. Purge out the last remaining voice of dissent.

Sharky wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

Huh? Paul has less of a chance than Romney or Gingrich, despite your paranoid theory about the media, because he's not conservative enough.

That's bollocks.

From a certain point of view, it's true. Paul is only in line with existing conservative dogma in certain segments of his platform, and it's the places where he diverges with that dogma that would inevitably keep Paul from carrying the election.

To speak to the broader conversation, I've heard quite a bit about Ron Paul in the election coverage I've encountered, and his influence on the shape of the campaign trail is pretty significant; he's had a huge effect on the language used by the would-be Republican candidates.

Alternative media is the way to go.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

Huh? Paul has less of a chance than Romney or Gingrich, despite your paranoid theory about the media, because he's not conservative enough.

That's bollocks.

From a certain point of view, it's true. Paul is only in line with existing conservative dogma in certain segments of his platform, and it's the places where he diverges with that dogma that would inevitably keep Paul from carrying the election.

He's definitely no hardcore social conservative, but he's very right libertarian in the economic/fiscal side - which is where I place greater importance. That's pretty much the opposite of the conservative dogma I've heard from Romney, Gringrich, Bachmann etc. Pro-life, immigration, anti-drugs, anti-gay marriage, "family focused" and all the usual punchlines, but compared to Obama on matters such as big government, property rights, taxation etc. there's not much of a difference.

Sharky wrote:

He's definitely no hardcore social conservative, but he's very right libertarian in the economic/fiscal side - which is where I place greater importance.

Well, the question wasn't what *you* personally find likeable, but what the conservative American electorate would abide.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

He's definitely no hardcore social conservative, but he's very right libertarian in the economic/fiscal side - which is where I place greater importance.

Well, the question wasn't what *you* personally find likeable, but what the conservative American electorate would abide.

Frankly I have no idea.

Jack Wade wrote:

no reputable news source is swayed by politics. If they were to be, the reporters and editors would be fired on the spot. I know it's hard for some people outside of the media to believe, but at any ethical media establishment, there's zero tolerance for bias unless your job is to be biased (e.g., Olbermann, O'Reilly, etc.).

What the hell are you talking about? :affraid: Wade your youthful naivete is showing. All newsrooms are biased. News directors and editors set the editorial tone and the writers, producers, anchors proceed accordingly. Some happily march along, others resist as far as they can get away with. I can take any news story under the sun and effortlessly put a slant on it, yet still pass it off as "objective". There is no such thing as the unbiased newswriter/presenter. In fact so-called objective journalism is quite sneaky because the gullible viewer lapping it all up, things it's objective because its packaged that way.

The O'Reilly's, Olbermans of the world at least are so in your face, there is no doubt where they are coming from.
If you really want to push public opinion, participate in presenting the "objective" news.

Sharky wrote:

Frankly I have no idea.

Well, I think it's fairly clear at this point that Ron Paul wouldn't fly with the majority of the American conservative electorate, largely because he doesn't hold the majority of positions that the conservative electorate deems important. He's too much of an odd duck.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Frankly I have no idea.

Well, I think it's fairly clear at this point that Ron Paul wouldn't fly with the majority of the American conservative electorate, largely because he doesn't hold the majority of positions that the conservative electorate deems important. He's too much of an odd duck.

Ron Paul's in a catch-22. He can't really win the GOP over with major compromises, and if he leads the Libertarian Party, he still won't stand a chance due to the two party monopoly. In other words, he's attached to another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around an axis. Screwed.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Frankly I have no idea.

Well, I think it's fairly clear at this point that Ron Paul wouldn't fly with the majority of the American conservative electorate, largely because he doesn't hold the majority of positions that the conservative electorate deems important. He's too much of an odd duck.

And what makes him an odd duck are his libertarian leanings. He's not socially conservative, but that aside he doesn't seem to take much interest in foreign policy. Conservatives do love his smaller government leanings but he's too much of a wildcard on other files. Anyway I think Romney is a slam-dunk. There is an influential conservative school of thought that says Obama must be defeated for the good of the country. Ann Coulter for example, is aggressively pushing Romney, freely admiting he would not be her best conservative choice in a less critical election. The Obama-must-be-stopped-at-all-costs movement will likely pull the Party around Romney.

Personally I think Obama is dead in the water. I think anyone can beat him. When push comes to shove, I think a lot of independant voters are going to be afraid to put an X beside his name. Greece and the sovereign debt that is crippling Europe, scares the hell out of us over here and Obama's big government ways look to be leading us down the same path, if its not already too late. :shock: