Obama signs NDAA 2013

[=sw=warlord]

I'm surprised no one posted this.
Obama has signed in the NDAA 2013 bill as law which enables the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial and extends the militaries powers to detain citizens under military Marshall.
Despite Obama having concerns about the bill, he still signed it marking his place in the line up to what could ultimately become a serious form of fascism.:smith:
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-ndaa-detention-president-288


(http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-ndaa-detention-president-288)oh and i forgot to mention gitmo got a extension to its funding.
Congratulations, USA is now on the list of places never to venture and I'll be warning people away from visiting.

[Higuy]

Fuck.

"although he promised with that year’s signing statement that his administration would not abuse that privilege."

Right, becuase the goverment keeps so many other promises too!

[=sw=warlord]

Oh yeah, one other thing, by 2020 the government expects 30,000 drones to be flying over US cities.
How a Orwellian the future looks....

[Patrickssj6]

http://youtu.be/FHHJF2cUwyY?t=49s

[DarkHalo003]

I gave up believing in the government when I realized I had no real power, not mentioning how fucking stupid half of the country is and how the other half realizes it requires too much for them to do anything. Yup.

[Bobblehob]

You tards voted for him...

[Zeph]

You know, this is just an extension of what they've already been doing. Police/military overreach will continue on just like always. There's never been anything to stop them before and there never will be. Laws only provide repercussion for when they're caught doing so.

[DarkHalo003]

I wasn't 18 then. :iamafag:
^

[Warsaw]

You tards voted for him...

I sure as hell didn't.

[Patrickssj6]

You tards voted for him...
Next time I'll vote instead for the sucessor who introduced all this.

[Donut]

well theres always a 3rd party, right guys?

....right? :ohdear:

[Sanctus]

Except most of them are nuts

[=sw=warlord]

<----------------

You tards voted for him...
Yes, the British guy voted for an American president.
Makes so much sense!

[Nero]

Voting for democrat or republican wouldn't have made any difference. Most people were reluctant to vote republican, because they were and are the ones that love these kinds of things. Sadly Dem's are only a butts sniff away from the same views.

[TVTyrant]

The Democratic party is full moderately wealthy liars and hypocrites. The Republican party is made up of the mega wealthy and all the idiots who choose to fall under their control. Pick your poison.

[Sanctus]

It's not like we would have faired any better with Romney. He would have signed it too. And all of the Libertarians wanted to legalize drugs. Not just marijuana, I mean all of the drugs.

[Donut]

^still not quite seeing why legalizing drugs would be a bad thing. or well, worse than it already is now. make it legal to sell with a lisence, then tax the sellers. put the money toward rehab programs for people that are currently addicted. that would probably make a significant dent in gang violence too.

[=sw=warlord]

People are addicted to taboo, remove the taboo and people will lose their interest.

[TVTyrant]

It's not like we would have faired any better with Romney. He would have signed it too. And all of the Libertarians wanted to legalize drugs. Not just marijuana, I mean all of the drugs.
Romney was the worst candidate to run since I have been alive. Bob fucking Dole was a better politician.

[Warsaw]

People are addicted to taboo, remove the taboo and people will lose their interest.

Sounds like a plan. And, the government can make money while people loose their interest.

[=sw=warlord]

Sounds like a plan. And, the government can make money while people loose their interest.
Or the government could make money by doing their jobs instead of planning to attack its investors peasants.

[Sanctus]

I get the concept behind the fact that because it's taboo, then it's more interesting. But that isn't the main draw. Users wanna get high, not make a statement. I get how prohibition was a dumb move by the government, crime got worse, prices of alcohol went up and as a result crime bosses raked in the cash. However, legalizing everything from marijuana to methamphetamine is a dangerous decision in my opinion.

[Donut]

i can totally see where youre coming from with that. id be concerned about people more openly abusing the stuff and more people getting hooked on it. at the same time though, it would basically eliminate drug trafficking and make a big impact on drug related gang violence. it would also cut down on the number of people in prison and people who repeatedly go back to prison for those things. prison reform would be a hell of a lot easier once you get the people out of there who keep going back because of dealing.

im looking at it like this: cigarettes and alcohol have terrible effects on people, yet theyre legal. shit, even a lot of perscription medication is addictive with ridiculous side effects. so whats the deal with drugs like cocaine? what is fundamentally different between alcohol and cocaine that makes one legal and the other not?
on top of that, do the benefits of legalizing everything outweigh the risks of making it more readily available?

[Sanctus]

Answering your question: I honestly do not think so. I just don't see the strategy in eliminating crime and surplus jail populations by.... making illegal things legal. You could also eliminate the problem of murder by making murder illegal. A hyperbole of a theory, but a parallel stream of logic.

[TVTyrant]

If we stopped giving prison time to people who commit small time drug crimes, our prison rates would be severely lowered. It's estimated that the majority of people in the U.S. prison system are in there for possession of one illegal substance or another. Prison is for the violent and dangerous, not for the guys with drug problems. But the corporate interests don't see it that way so our penal system remains as archaic as ever. For God's sake, we only made sodomy laws unconstitutional 10 years ago.

[brencard]

Is that for real, what's going on with this administration? After Obamacare another burden for us. According to the Associated Press, some families that are unable to afford the family healthcare plans offered by their employers will be excluded from receiving public assistance to help them pay for a policy from a private insurance carrier. They will therefore then have to pay the same penalty as those who have decided to opt out of the federal healthcare (http://personalmoneynetwork.com/moneyblog/2013/02/01/obamacare-glitch/) program.

[Patrickssj6]

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/123/620/Oh-boy-here-we-go.jpg

[Jelly]

http://i.imgur.com/1zTzJMy.jpg

[Cortexian]

I like how yo think your (most) governments aren't completely corrupt. The head of whatever country has very little power, since without backers there's no one to fund you and influence others to fund you. So yeah, actual people in office are usually just controlled by other people who either have lots of money or lots of guns (see: military generally gets whatever the fuck they want out of whatever the fuck government they want).
quality freelancer post 2013™