Political Cartoons

The problem with Paul is that he'll be even more stonewalled by congress than Obama was.

This is some Bullshit.

From:

red-pill.livejournal.com

can you bring a roe v wade style case? or petion the court on the basis that if your rights are violeted by this act then you would be totaly unable to redress it? how was the retraction of habus corps changled during the civil war...

From:

Its a good question. I'm not enough of a historian to answer it.

I assume UK jurisprudence has evolved somewhat in the last 230 years, as this is about a reaction against the British Empire, after all.

From:

red-pill.livejournal.com

british jurisprudence is slightly crazy. we've got levels upon levels of acts to deal with. becous theres no consitution, the courts offten have to messure one act aginst anther. i think EU law has presitense, but i could be wrong. also, the courts get to interprite the law, witch is offten vaguely writen by idiots, and have sometimes changed a law compleatly becous the langue is so soft. and once they've said it, its stuck. even if its a realy obtuse reading. not that i mind. rock on law lords! :D

From:

red-pill.livejournal.com

Due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the court is limited in its powers of judicial review, unlike the constitutional courts of some other countries. This means that it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.[3] However it can overturn secondary legislation if, for example, that legislation is found to be ultra vires of the powers in primary legislation allowing it to be made. Furthermore, under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court may make a declaration of incompatibility which means that it believes that the legislation subject to the declaration is incompatible with one of the rights of the European Convention on Human Rights and such a declaration can apply equally to primary and secondary legislation. The legislation is not overturned by the declaration but powers under section 10 of the act are triggered to allow ministers to amend the legislation by statutory instrument to remove the incompatibility.[4]

From:

I thought of this in the shower for some reason.

About 2,600 American men died of testicular cancer between 2002 and 2008, We could safely round that up to 3,000 for 2011.

About 2,000 American men died on 9-11 due to the terrorist efforts to get us to destroy ourselves

How should we shred the constitution to protect Americans from testicular cancer?

Sources: http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/ and http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+united+states

Maybe I'm being silly. maybe the long pain of cancer is different that the sudden pain of being mangled or injured and knowing you're going to die.

So here's traffic fatalities.

Between 2002 and 2009, over 327,000 American men women and children were killed because they were between the curb lines in our traffic system. That's over 100 times as many as were killed on 9-11.

In 2001, 42,196 Americans were killed in traffic. On the average, 115 Americans died that day of traffic accidents.

The stats for heart failure would probably show more Americans died that way that day than in NYC, DC or PA.

How should we shred the constitution to preserve our "federally mandated right" to be free of these things?

I'm not saying this to dishonor or trivialize those who were brutally killed that bad Tuesday. I'm saying this because they have been used as pawns in a dangerous power grab by the federal government that now allows the disappearance of American Citizens on the un-appealable pretense that we are terrorists.

Who judges whether I am a terrorist? They do. On what evidence? Actual terrorism, or protesting, or writing my discontent with their actions on an internet message board. Do you think they are going to use their new baronial powers wisely? Maybe at first, but there is absolutely nothing stopping them from going full Pinochet on us.

There's security through obscurity, of course. But they are getting better and better at seeing all the data, all the time. We let them, so we could be "safe". Once the eye of Sauron has you, though, there is little reason for them to let go until it pleases them. They may as well be British Wardens.

From:

From:

soliloquy76.livejournal.com

As soon as Obama signs this nonsense, he loses my vote.

From:

I'll vote for him if he's running against Gingrich or Romney, but I will vote for Paul if he wins the GOP nomination.

From:

laviemoderne.livejournal.com

I'm voting for this guy.

From:

foolsguinea.livejournal.com

Yeah.

From:

drivebyluna.livejournal.com

I kinda wanted to reach through the monitor and kiss him. He spoke to my rage.

From:

I am honestly not worried about this bill at all.

From:

"In sum, there is simply no question that (the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012) codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1).

There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2).

The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detention even U.S. citizens without a trial."

~ Glenn Greenwald
FRIDAY, DEC 16, 2011 3:56 AM PACIFIC STANDARD TIME
http://tinyurl.com/d7xex3b

From:

I'm still not worried about this bill at all. I have Reasons. :)

From:

Please tell me them!

I want to stop worrying. Please fill me in. ♥

From:

I don't think my reasons will stop you worrying. :(

Reasoning #1: Every time you have a bill like this pass, people are always screaming about how it result in fascist police states or FEMA putting you in camps and so on. The last time I recall a similar situation to this was when USNORTHCOM () was created. Lots of ranting and raving about how it would violate Posse Comitatus, they would be deployed against civilians for just about anything, and yadda yadda. It didn't happen; court cases on the subject ensured it wouldn't. The same will probably happen here.

Reasoning #2: If it does go pear-shaped, I'll be happy about it. I personally believe it needs to get WORSE before it gets better. I think we need full-on dystopia to kick it into gear for Americans - and the best way to do that is to enact everything the conservative base wants. And the base? LOVES THIS. The social conservatives fantasize that all the non-Christians or pro-choicers or what not will be Gitmoed. The fiscal conservatives masturbate over the thought of Romanian torture camps full of Occupiers, members of Greenpeace, or anyone who opposes business. None of the conservatives think it'll be used against them; they believe they'll always be in power.

That, to me, is a Good Thing. It'll help WORSE. Once there is enough WORSE, we can make it BETTER.

From:

#2: But so many people will die. Women, and children. Poor people. Disabled people. Good people. The most vulnerable, those most willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, will die. And the spoiled and sociopathic will remain, because they're willing to step all over anyone they want to get ahead. Good, vulnerable people are dying already but they're not dying at as fast a rate as they would if got really REALLY bad. It's already bad, but really REALLY bad means so many dead people.

It makes me want to cry. Damn it, you were right. Your reasons didn't work.

From:

#1: Your USNORTHCOM link just brought me back to the original post. Plus, our courts are real shit right now.

From:

Sorry. Here's the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Northern_Command).

From:

You just wiki-linked me?

I AM DISAPPOINT.

From:

Here's an example of the crazy, then. (http://www.911truth.ch/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1500)

From:

It's InfoWars, Alex Jones' site, on a 911truth forum. Yeah, that's no good.

While we're on the subject of paranoia, this also distresses me: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/05/occupy-london-police-terrorism-document

Edited Date: 2011-12-17 01:38 am (UTC)

From:

I can understand why it distresses you.
But does it surprise you?

From:

Yes and no. I'm both an optimist and a realist. I live in a strange, strange land.

I also like this quote a lot:

“Optimism is a strategy for making a better future. Because unless you believe that the future can be better, it’s unlikely you will step up and take responsibility for making it so. If you assume that there’s no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, there are opportunities to change things, there’s a chance you may contribute to making a better world. The choice is yours.”
― Noam Chomsky

Kinda my mindset.

From:

madscience.livejournal.com

#1: So your reasoning is that because some genuinely crazy people may have cried wolf about USNORTHCOM, the ACLU and other staid watchdog organizations that have called foul on the NDAA must be crying wolf, too? That's neither logical nor reassuring.

#2: If you sincerely believe that, why don't you pick up a rifle and kick it off?

From:

#1: I recall the ACLU and other watchdog organizations going off about USNORTHCOM too.

#2: That would be against the law, so no.

From:

madscience.livejournal.com

#1: The ACLU didn't "go off" like the crazies did about death camps and stuff. They said USNORTHCOM may be illegal. Which it probably is.

#2: That's not a valid excuse for anything. Especially not when "the law" in question is the enemy's law.

From: