No, seriously, how about you quit trying to stroke your e-penis and look at this objectively for a moment? You're honestly not worried in the slightest that anyone even suspected of plotting violent acts (which is wonderfully vague in itself) can immediately have everything taken away from them without so much as a hint of proof? Come on, think about it a little. There's no definition given of what you need to be doing in order to be considered a 'threat'. So, in terms of potential power granted, this isn't really too far away from being a legal dictatorship: anyone who those in power deem as being a threat can effectively be declared an enemy and ruined, with no need for any evidence whatsoever.
I'm not saying that the US government will use this act for its potentially more nefarious applications if it's passed. And I hate stupid conspiracy theories as much as the next person; I'm not trying to suggest that if this act is passed, the US will immediately collapse into tyranny. But I think we ought to have learned by now that acts like this just shouldn't be passed. The potential for abuse is just far too great. I normally shy away from topics like this, but even I can see that this is just an absolutely awful, and potentially extremely dangerous, proposition.
No, Melody (whoever you are, and how you have mod after only being here a few month is beyond me, but whatever), I'm not worried about that. You know why?
Because I'm not some activist dumbass that spouts off at the mouth about "bringing down the machine" or "stopping the war mongers" or some propagandist bullshit like that.
I'm not for the war (not particularly against it, either), but I'm not about to go to a rally and scream for impeachment.
I'm sure this won't pass through congress anyways. That's what checks and balances are supposed to be for.
Michael Ballack, he scores free-kicks.
He's got black hair, and he's german.
Michael Ballack, trains in paddocks.
in his spare time, HE FARMS HADDOCKS!
Watch me play Super C, guys!!
Why the change?