H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

Pred · 11-03-2007, 10:25 AM

Ya know Troy, I've got 210 replies, and over 6000 views on another forum, all disagree with you, that this is something to ignore and not worry about. I'm almost wondering if the thought of me being right, is so terrible to you, that you will disagree with me on anything and everything. True, as of right now this bill does nothing. However, if it were passed, the wording of this bill is so vague that it basically states that anyone who disagrees with our government, any website that has content we do not approve of, or anyone wanting general change in Washington, is a domestic terrorist. I can't understand how someone like yourself can be so blind. But, oh well. One of these days, you'll say to yourself that I was right all this time. Now, believe me, I hope that day never comes, because we all know what that will mean. But I'm pretty sure it's coming much quicker then you think.

troy2000 · 11-03-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pred

Ya know Troy, I've got 210 replies, and over 6000 views on another forum, all disagree with you, that this is something to ignore and not worry about. I'm almost wondering if the thought of me being right, is so terrible to you, that you will disagree with me on anything and everything. True, as of right now this bill does nothing. However, if it were passed, the wording of this bill is so vague that it basically states that anyone who disagrees with our government, any website that has content we do not approve of, or anyone wanting general change in Washington, is a domestic terrorist. I can't understand how someone like yourself can be so blind. But, oh well. One of these days, you'll say to yourself that I was right all this time. Now, believe me, I hope that day never comes, because we all know what that will mean. But I'm pretty sure it's coming much quicker then you think.

All 6000 views agree with you, Pred? I think not. Most of them probably wonder what you're getting so hysterical about. And I'm betting that anyone who agrees with you also never bothered to actually read the bill.

I asked you questions point by point, and you have no answers. All you have is a knee-jerk hostility toward any kind of governmental authority whatsoever.

The entire thrust of the bill concerns committing violent acts, or promoting or advocating violence. It doesn't say a damn word about simply disagreeing with the government, wanting change, etc.

Frankly, I don't think it's possible for them to be more clear. What part of the word "violence" do you think is vague and subject to misinterpretation?

You aren't just wrong, Pred. you aren't even making sense...

Pred · 11-03-2007, 04:10 PM

Don't know, but all 200+ replies agree with me. I honestly feel sorry for you Troy, seems in your old age, brain damage is already starting to set in. This bill is wrong, and each person who votes yes is guilty of treason. BUT, you keep telling yourself your right and I'm wrong. If that makes you feel better, a littler safer, by all means continue. Again, I hope I'm wrong, and am overreacting. Sadly, I'm sure I'm not.

troy2000 · 11-03-2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pred

Don't know, but all 200+ replies agree with me. I honestly feel sorry for you Troy, seems in your old age, brain damage is already starting to set in. This bill is wrong, and each person who votes yes is guilty of treason. BUT, you keep telling yourself your right and I'm wrong. If that makes you feel better, a littler safer, by all means continue. Again, I hope I'm wrong, and am overreacting. Sadly, I'm sure I'm not.

Yep, that's it; my brain has finally gone soft. I guess it was to be expected at the ripe old age of 58...

I'm so brain-dead I think there's a chance that 404 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives aren't traitors who should be removed from office. And that when the Senate passes it also and the President signs it, they won't be doing it because they're traitors.

I have Alzheimer's so bad, I actually believe scumbag homegrown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Steve Gadahn are the enemy, not the people we elect to Congress.

Heaven forbid we should actually try to stop the murderers who want to kill us in the name of Allah, or stop the "Patriots" who love our country and the Constitution so much they want to blow us up and shoot their friends and neighbors to prove their patriotism.

And of course, the most convincing evidence of my senility is that I actually went and read the bill myself, instead of letting professional rabble rousers tell me what I should think. Sheesh! my brain must look like sponge cake...

Pred · 11-03-2007, 08:56 PM

Bah, whatever old man. I'm going back to playing CoD4. I've got better things to do then try and talk sense into the elderly who are way past their... never mind, this won't end well.

troy2000 · 11-03-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pred

Bah, whatever old man. I'm going back to playing CoD4. I've got better things to do then try and talk sense into the elderly who are way past their... never mind, this won't end well.

Pred · 11-03-2007, 09:24 PM

Truthfully, I see it one way, you see it another. And yes, I have read the bill. Might as well leave it at that.

troy2000 · 11-03-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pred

Truthfully, I see it one way, you see it another. And yes, I have read the bill. Might as well leave it at that.

Don't get me wrong, Pred. When Congress gets around to actually passing laws instead of just forming study groups, I'll be paying close attention.

But I see nothing wrong with studying the problem. Adam Gadahn, the American Al Queda spokesman, was raised on a goat farm about twenty miles from my home. And there are people posting on the internet right now who still think Timothy McVeigh was a hero.

Suppose a Muslim cleric tells his American congregation that it's their duty to Allah to kill infidels, and that anyone who blows himself up in a subway or hospital will wind up in Paradise. Is that constitutionally-protected free speech?

SPOCAHP ANAR · 11-04-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy2000

Suppose a Muslim cleric tells his American congregation that it's their duty to Allah to kill infidels, and that anyone who blows himself up in a subway or hospital will wind up in Paradise. Is that constitutionally-protected free speech?

Isn't it though? How is that different from anyone on here saying they are going to shoot the ATF if they come to their house to confiscate their guns because they are constitutionally protected or abortion doctors should be shot and killed? They have the right to say that and they also have the right to an attorney should they be prosecuted for when one of their whacked out hate filled members walk into Wahsington General and go kaplooey.

troy2000 · 11-04-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPOCAHP ANAR

Isn't it though? How is that different from anyone on here saying they are going to shoot the ATF if they come to their house to confiscate their guns because they are constitutionally protected or abortion doctors should be shot and killed? They have the right to say that and they also have the right to an attorney should they be prosecuted for when one of their whacked out hate filled members walk into Wahsington General and go kaplooey.

It isn't necessarily protected free speech. There are lines that can be crossed, and it's a thin one sometimes between just saying something should happen vs talking someone into going ahead and doing it.

If a cleric is actively telling his congregation it's their God-given duty to go kill people, it's conspiracy to commit murder in my opinion. And most likely in the law's eyes, too.

If you don't think so, check out the gang members who've been convicted of murder while they were in prison, because they told their buddies on the outside someone should go whack a witness against them.

I doubt anyone on here will be arrested for hypothetically saying he'd shoot an ATF agent who came to his door for his guns. But if he actually does it, I'm willing to bet his posts will be introduced as evidence of premeditation.

And if he says he's planning to go out looking for one to shoot, I'd say there's a very good chance someone in the BATF skims this site often enough that they will come to his house--in full force with warrants.

Same with talking about killing abortion doctors, or anyone else for that matter. There's a line to be crossed between hoping it'll happen and actively encouraging someone to do it.

Rave · 11-04-2007, 09:53 AM

Well,I 'spect that there is a lot of talk and rhetoric going on that we just don't hear about,and the word infidel is used by others than muslums also.
But what the heck,it don't matter more than a hill o' beans.
Actions speak louder than words,but are harder to take back or deny!

troy2000 · 11-04-2007, 10:28 AM

Don't you get all reasonable and relaxed on me now Rave, y'hear? You're gonna have us worried to death that you're sick.

Rave · 11-05-2007, 05:18 PM

Ya' never know!

Deersniper · 11-06-2007, 12:31 PM

I'll have to agree with BRG3. Those six that voted against it should be rewarded by being re-elected. They have put these EO's in place for when the masses wake up to what they have been doing to us and do something about it. We should use these laws against the very people who made it. They are fulfilling what terrorism means. Scaring a population into tyranny.

Well · 12-02-2007, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy2000

All 6000 views agree with you, Pred? I think not. Most of them probably wonder what you're getting so hysterical about. And I'm betting that anyone who agrees with you also never bothered to actually read the bill.

I asked you questions point by point, and you have no answers. All you have is a knee-jerk hostility toward any kind of governmental authority whatsoever.

The entire thrust of the bill concerns committing violent acts, or promoting or advocating violence. It doesn't say a damn word about simply disagreeing with the government, wanting change, etc.

Frankly, I don't think it's possible for them to be more clear. What part of the word "violence" do you think is vague and subject to misinterpretation?

You aren't just wrong, Pred. you aren't even making sense...

As foolish as bret sounds. He is right in the sense that the wording is entirely vague. It doesnt say violence. it says The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives

key word here is force not violence. We all know what using violence will do. However the vague word "force" could be anything. It is up to to them to intrepret what force it when the time comes.

troy2000 · 12-02-2007, 06:15 AM

Well, every law has to be interpreted. They aren't computer programs which automatically produce the desired result. Read the laws about murder: terms such as self-defense, lying in wait and premeditated all have to be interpreted; you can't write a definition of any word or phrase airtight enough to cover every situation, or we wouldn't need judges and juries.

I don't consider the word force to be any more vague than the word violence. They've each been around long enough to have a huge body of legal precedent concerning their use in our legal system.

And common sense should tell us that our entire government isn't composed of "traitors." Even Joe McCarthy didn't think over 400 members of the House of Representatives were Commies...

Windwalker · 12-02-2007, 08:15 AM

We already have laws in place against terrorism, either foreign or domestic, so this law was not needed and depending on who interprets the terms "planned use or threatened use" could easily violate our right of free speech. Wake up people and vote the supporters of this bill out of office. These supporters seem to fall into one of four categories, those who don't know the existing laws and will not look them up, those who are not upholding our Constitution after swearing to do so in their oath of office, those who seem unable to understand the term Constitutional Rights, and those who don't care as long as it furthers an adgenda that they are supporting. They are not representing the people so the people must vote them out of office. Thanks Pred for keeping us informed.

troy2000 · 12-02-2007, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windwalker

We already have laws in place against terrorism, either foreign or domestic, so this law was not needed and depending on who interprets the terms "planned use or threatened use" could easily violate our right of free speech. Wake up people and vote the supporters of this bill out of office. These supporters seem to fall into one of four categories, those who don't know the existing laws and will not look them up, those who are not upholding our Constitution after swearing to do so in their oath of office, those who seem unable to understand the term Constitutional Rights, and those who don't care as long as it furthers an adgenda that they are supporting. They are not representing the people so the people must vote them out of office. Thanks Pred for keeping us informed.

First of all, this isn't a law, in the sense you're using the term. It sets up a study, and lays out what's to be studied. When they get the results back, maybe then they'll try to write a law.

I don't know about you, Windwalker, but it pissed me off when Timothy McVeigh blew up all those people in Oklahoma. And I'm also not thrilled that Adam Gahdan, the kid who grew up on a goat farm down the road from where I live, is running around with Al Queda and making videotapes for them.

Congress has my permission to look at scumbags like them and see what can be done about them, and I don't automatically think they're going to look at me instead. Why should they?

If you're going to freak out and assume that every law Congress passes is done because they're out to get us, why do we elect them at all? Why are you so convinced the entire country is dumb enough to vote people from their own Congressional districts into office who are traitors?

I don't believe the average American is that stupid, and I don't believe the people they vote into office are that evil. Sheesh, people. Have a little faith in your own country, its people, and the form of government the Founding Fathers gave us...

With all its faults, we live in the greatest country on Earth. If its citizens were as lazy and stupid, and its government as evil and corrupt, as some of you believe, I'd have to have been a damn fool to ever wear its uniform and fight for it.

SPOCAHP ANAR · 12-02-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy2000

First of all, this isn't a law, in the sense you're using the term. It sets up a study, and lays out what's to be studied. When they get the results back, maybe then they'll try to write a law..

But why do they need a bill to set up a study? Is our government that inept that they can't look into terrorst activities unless they have a bill signed by the president saying they can.

This is the job of the Director of the FBI and CIA and of course HOMELAND SECURITY. If there truly is a need or desire to do this then they have the authority to look into these things and present their findings to the president and then to proceeed with the course of action the BOSS wants.

You are a hard man to figure Troy; you call Bush coersive and a blatant civil rights violator and and then you nonchalantly turn your head when something like this comes along.

Windwalker · 12-02-2007, 11:08 AM

Yes Troy, I was very upset when the Oklahoma City bombing took place. I also saw the television picture of the foreign looking man in the pickup wanted for questioning before this clip was pulled off the air. It would be nice to know why. You are right, I should have used the term "study" instead of "law", but the opportunity for abuse of interpretation is still there. No Troy, I do not believe these Representatives are voting the will of their constituents. I think that many just don't vote because they don't think their vote will make a difference. This is a crucial time and if everyone will vote it will make a difference. If everyone votes we will know what the will of the people actually is.

11-04-2007, 09:53 AM	#51
Rave Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tampa Posts: 8,386	Well,I 'spect that there is a lot of talk and rhetoric going on that we just don't hear about,and the word infidel is used by others than muslums also. But what the heck,it don't matter more than a hill o' beans. Actions speak louder than words,but are harder to take back or deny! __________________ Better days are comeing! .

11-05-2007, 05:18 PM	#53
Rave Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tampa Posts: 8,386	Ya' never know! __________________ Better days are comeing! .

11-06-2007, 12:31 PM	#54
Deersniper Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 3,559	Home grown I'll have to agree with BRG3. Those six that voted against it should be rewarded by being re-elected. They have put these EO's in place for when the masses wake up to what they have been doing to us and do something about it. We should use these laws against the very people who made it. They are fulfilling what terrorism means. Scaring a population into tyranny.

12-02-2007, 06:15 AM	#56
troy2000 Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 14,554	Well, every law has to be interpreted. They aren't computer programs which automatically produce the desired result. Read the laws about murder: terms such as self-defense, lying in wait and premeditated all have to be interpreted; you can't write a definition of any word or phrase airtight enough to cover every situation, or we wouldn't need judges and juries. I don't consider the word force to be any more vague than the word violence. They've each been around long enough to have a huge body of legal precedent concerning their use in our legal system. And common sense should tell us that our entire government isn't composed of "traitors." Even Joe McCarthy didn't think over 400 members of the House of Representatives were Commies... Last edited by troy2000; 12-02-2007 at 06:21 AM.

11-03-2007, 10:25 AM	#41
Pred Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Kentucky Posts: 3,866 Blog Entries: 3	Ya know Troy, I've got 210 replies, and over 6000 views on another forum, all disagree with you, that this is something to ignore and not worry about. I'm almost wondering if the thought of me being right, is so terrible to you, that you will disagree with me on anything and everything. True, as of right now this bill does nothing. However, if it were passed, the wording of this bill is so vague that it basically states that anyone who disagrees with our government, any website that has content we do not approve of, or anyone wanting general change in Washington, is a domestic terrorist. I can't understand how someone like yourself can be so blind. But, oh well. One of these days, you'll say to yourself that I was right all this time. Now, believe me, I hope that day never comes, because we all know what that will mean. But I'm pretty sure it's coming much quicker then you think.

11-03-2007, 04:10 PM	#43
Pred Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Kentucky Posts: 3,866 Blog Entries: 3	Don't know, but all 200+ replies agree with me. I honestly feel sorry for you Troy, seems in your old age, brain damage is already starting to set in. This bill is wrong, and each person who votes yes is guilty of treason. BUT, you keep telling yourself your right and I'm wrong. If that makes you feel better, a littler safer, by all means continue. Again, I hope I'm wrong, and am overreacting. Sadly, I'm sure I'm not.

11-03-2007, 08:56 PM	#45
Pred Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Kentucky Posts: 3,866 Blog Entries: 3	Bah, whatever old man. I'm going back to playing CoD4. I've got better things to do then try and talk sense into the elderly who are way past their... never mind, this won't end well.

11-03-2007, 09:24 PM	#47
Pred Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Kentucky Posts: 3,866 Blog Entries: 3	Truthfully, I see it one way, you see it another. And yes, I have read the bill. Might as well leave it at that.

11-04-2007, 10:28 AM	#52
troy2000 Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 14,554	Don't you get all reasonable and relaxed on me now Rave, y'hear? You're gonna have us worried to death that you're sick.

12-02-2007, 08:15 AM	#57
Windwalker Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 6,020	We already have laws in place against terrorism, either foreign or domestic, so this law was not needed and depending on who interprets the terms "planned use or threatened use" could easily violate our right of free speech. Wake up people and vote the supporters of this bill out of office. These supporters seem to fall into one of four categories, those who don't know the existing laws and will not look them up, those who are not upholding our Constitution after swearing to do so in their oath of office, those who seem unable to understand the term Constitutional Rights, and those who don't care as long as it furthers an adgenda that they are supporting. They are not representing the people so the people must vote them out of office. Thanks Pred for keeping us informed.

12-02-2007, 11:08 AM	#60
Windwalker Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 6,020	Yes Troy, I was very upset when the Oklahoma City bombing took place. I also saw the television picture of the foreign looking man in the pickup wanted for questioning before this clip was pulled off the air. It would be nice to know why. You are right, I should have used the term "study" instead of "law", but the opportunity for abuse of interpretation is still there. No Troy, I do not believe these Representatives are voting the will of their constituents. I think that many just don't vote because they don't think their vote will make a difference. This is a crucial time and if everyone will vote it will make a difference. If everyone votes we will know what the will of the people actually is.