It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HR-1528 Sensenbrunner Taking Away Your Rights !!! Take Action Now

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
To force neighbors to rat each other out like NAZIs shows just how horrible the US is becoming.


Can somebody please shoot this guy?
.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by slank]



I know how you feel. And I know that you were just joking when you suggested that someone should shoot and kill Sensenbrunner.

I have been following this guy Sensenbrunner in the news for a while now, he is a NAZI. His vision of America is a lot like Nazi Germany. He wants Chip implants, Patriot Act, This Law, Repeal the 2 election rule for presidents, ... basically any new law that you don't agree is best for the country has come from his office.

We need to wake the people up in Wisconsin and get them to elect some one else... anyone else! please! Someone call Jesse "The Mind" Ventura!




posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I feel so bad for you Americans at times. It must feel very frightening knowing there are those out there that will rat you because they are doing the right thing because the government told them so.

If for no other reason the way Bush has split, and continued to build divides, amoung the American people is horrible. But ultimately a country gets the leader they deserve....

Heck I'm stuck with PM Martin, but I think they have learned their lesson after the fire-arms registry and Cannibus laws, the only enforcable laws are that which the majority agrees with. If it is 51-49 or there abouts it will never work - unless you frighten the people in giving up their rights and hope that the years of television and quick spots has shortened their memory so as not to remember all the lies, screw ups and just generally treasonous behaviour towards the American population.

I wish I could find that quote from I think gobbeals? ABout how no one wants to go to war, and that is why you have to use fear to control them.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I think the governent is gaining control (Do they not already?) through the Paitriat act, the enforcing of this new act against the war on drugs, and the Varichip.

The government lets us become dependant opon the world technology as well as other people doing things for them, so that when the government truly wants us to do something, instead of enforcing it with SMG's and tanks while destroying there own land (9/11?) they would rather take away what we value most or make us grow so much by it that it is absolutly nessasary (In our minds) to live:
Relative =
Transportaion =
Cars =
Oil (Big taxing)

In my classes not many people know how to fold there clothes or cook. (13-14)
Of coarse this may submit to Civil War, who wants to be ruled in this manner?
Encoraging the disasembaly of our economy and our familys is a false action to eliminate the drugs of our nation.
*Things allready seem hard to keep a family much rather to destroy it.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Responsiblity and accountablity are two sides to the same coin. That coin is called freedom, and without both sides the coin can not exist. When someone tries to take either your responsiblity, or your accountablity, what they are really doing is taking your freedom.

It is a subtle linguistic trick the majority either don't seem to notice or be aware of. War against Terror? How is Iraq involved in Terror when in a comparison Saddam comes away ahead of Bush in terms of who he has dealt with. But most will hear War against Terror, Terror is bad, therefore this war must be fought.

IMO, they named the Patriot act for the same effect. People make the connection with Patriot and good, and therefor will never question it, because it would be unpatriotic.

It was like his connections with OBL and Saddam, he never mentioned one without the other, then it comes as a surprized that many Americans thought that Saddam and Iraq was involved in 911.

Marketers and advertisers have known about the trainablity of humans for decades and have honed their skills very well. Sadly it is just recently comeing to the attention of the general population and we are ill equipped to deal with what is in effect a propagaqnda war against the population.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   
`(d) As used in this section, the term `in or near the presence of a person' means within visual sight of such person, within any dwelling, automobile or other vehicle, or boat, in which such person is present, or within 500 feet of such person.'.

So let me get this strait, if you are in a house, and there is a road by your house, and there is a kid in a car going down that road, 500 feet down the road, your still liable?? WTF

That applies to just about anyone that lives within 500 feet of a road, other houses, or even a river.

How do these people get away with putting wording like this in bills? To me, this is bill is 10x scarier that the patriot act

And you know anyone in congress that has anything to say against this bill will be chastisied for wanting kids to do drugs or being pro-drug or some crap like that.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wgatenson
To me, this is bill is 10x scarier that the patriot act



Me too! And this bill will pass, because like you said... anyone that doesn't vote yes will be publicly humiliated by asserting that it is ok for children to do drugs.

Any one can be arrested under this law and thrown in jail for 2 years ... manadatory just for knowing someone who smokes a little reefer.

This isn't my America, and if this bill passes... then i think its time to consider "Oh Canada" for my new national anthem.

Write to your Congressman/Woman in opposition of this law... Thats the only way.

Congress Will Pass it, because Sensenbrunner is a big shot and knows how to play politics.

You Are America's Only Hope. Please Write The Letter!



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
.
This bill makes proximity a crime.

If you sell or use drugs it is a crime anyway,

but now if you do it withing 500 feet of a minor or even worse an incompetent person it jumps the charges up several nothches.

500 feet is a block away. Who else thinks this is absurd?

Do you know what is happening 3 houses away? How about 5?

It doesn't say something sensible like in the same household or residence, just a blanket 500 feet. does that include 10 floors above you too? That is 500 feet so i guess so.

It also makes it a crime just to know that materials will be distributed to a minor or incompetent person. Not intent to distribute, just knowlege of someone else's intent.

Um, can you say Thought Police ?

Where do you draw the line between suspect and know?

If someone holds a gun to your head while they sell it to a minor,
you are guilty just for knowing according to this law.

second guessing people ?

but worse than knowing it says

knowing or having reason to know
. What the 'H' does that mean? does that mean 'should have known'? The government is going to second guess what people should have figured out.
Hey, how about the government 'should have known' a 911 attack was coming based on the information they already had.
Its ok for the government to be stupid, but criminals are held to a higher standard?

also

. . . or providing drug paraphernalia
is a crime. So if you give or sell you nephew a tobacco pipe and he doesn't use the legal drug, tobacco in it but some weed instead, you would have commited a crime.

I don't believe in the drug laws. Especially in light of the legal hypocracy of tobacco and alcohol. I don't have a problem keeping it away from minors,
But detest when it is used vitriolically to score political morality points.

This law uses children as a foil for caustic social bigotry.
Like Saddam used innocent civilians to make his sick society look like the victim.
.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Well....technically, if you know someone is dealing drugs, whether it's next door or halfway across town, what THEY are doing is illegal - and if you know, but don't report, it could be considered a crime as it is.

So - is that a big difference?

It's already a crime to deal - whether it's next door, or in the next town. Whether we have a responsibility to report the crime, is really the argument, isn't it?

Now, I realise that people are wary of "snitch" laws - and generally, it's good to retain a healthy skepticism of such laws. But along the same lines are "good samaritan" laws; if you see someone being raped, for example, you're expected to at the very least, call the police and report it - perhaps this is a matter of choice though, and should not be subject to legislation.

Quebec is one example of this. France has a very similar notion (the link covers this, but refers particularly to the death of Princess Di - ignore that part if you want). Perhaps the infamous Kitty Genovese case is a better example of what can happen if witnesses choose not to act when a crime is being committed.

It doesn't seem unreasonable (to me) to "expect" a citizen to report certain crimes; perhaps the real question relates to which types of crimes "should" or "should not" be covered by these laws?



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
IMO there is a big difference between acting responsibly in the name of humanity - like when you see someone being raped or beaten up or mugged - you as a human should step in to try and stop it - but how do you make that required? You simply can not legislate morality.

What about just calling the cops? Like crap. Where I live there is a guy walking the streets and he has already stabbed two people - you think he'd think twice about doing it to you or your kids or parents should you rat him out? The police are obviously incapable either by themselfs or the court system, but the end is the same for the person who is being required to put themself's in a position of danger not because 'they' feel it is worthwhile, but because the state says they have to?

Quite apart from that, isn't there an old addage that says that unjest laws must be ignored, that right and wrong, and the laws have nothing in comman other than one persons, or a group of peoples, view of right and wrong? Was slavery right even when there was a law allowing it?



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I have bad news!

I have been following this new bill since the beginning... It looks like word of mouth and internet campaigns against this ad are failing.

A recent search has lead to the discovery that only 450 websites make mention of the new Bill. It looks like this bill will infact become a law, because our society is civilly ignorant.

aolsearch.aol.com...

You! If you agree with me, that this law violates the 8th amendment Then PLEASE write your Congressman NOW!!!

For a List of Congressman and their Mailing Address and Office Telephone numbers please click on the link below.

www.visi.com...

Do a search for "HR 1528" & "Template Letter" if you do not want to write you own letter.

please, i am begging you. we need your help. tell someone else about this bill, and see what they think if you are not sure.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join