Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on November 04, 2006, 09:32:26 AM
-
do not cut-n-paste
For more information on this proposed regulation, see http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf."
http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3023
I think these things become inevitiable when you have one massive federal department with such a huge mandate.
-
Land of the regulated and home of the restricted.
-
Next: Build a wall to keep the people in.
-
Remember, DHS is pronounced Department of State Security.
Overheard in the airport...
ACHTUNG! PAPERS PLEASE! DO NOT CRITICIZE THE SS! VERBAL STATEMENTS ARE CONSIDERED VIOLATIONS! ACHTUNG!
-
Viking,
You're right, because so many people are leaving... :huh
-
It's a metaphor. Not to be taken literally.
-
Not to be overly dramatic, but societies crumble from the inside out. Then a foreign invader topples it.
I'm not sure whether to brush up on my Canadian history, or to practice my spanish.
-
I still like it here :aok
-
Originally posted by Viking
Next: Build a wall to keep the people in.
like on the mexican border maybe?
-
The pdf link is broken. The article was long on accusation innuendo and very very short on any information. They even claim an 18 year old native born American was denied entry back into the US but gave no name or reason for the refusal as well as no date or location. Sounded very much like an "I have a friend of a friend of a cousin of the uncle who actually heard about it" situation.
It would be nice if there was a recognized newsx source for this story too.
-
I shouldn't have included the period.
http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf
-
The scary part is a change in administration will leave these restrictive laws then remove other rights, such as bearing arms, which is a direct path to the proverbial 'police state'. All the while, one side blaming the other for the current state of affairs in the name of protecting us from outsiders or ourselves. I always wondered about the reasoning of a political party passing laws to prevent people from posessing weapons because they can hurt themselves or others but at the same time promoting killing unborn children to allow an individuals choice. I have to wonder how many of these rulings are consitutional?
Regards,
Malta
-
ya cheech marin documented a similar incident. oh the horror.
-
yep... you got one party asking for more power over your lives and the other one that is doing everything in it's power to disarm us...
The old one two punch..
Personaly.. I think disarming is the knockout punch. So long as we keep electing republicans we can fight em when they come up with new "security" ideas... if the democrats get in we are screwed.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So long as we keep electing republicans we can fight em when they come up with new "security" ideas
Yeah...but no one does. Every time something like this happens and no one protests or relects the people that institure it, it gives the people in power tacit approval to keep on eroding rights.