TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Brazil tit for tat visa policy.
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Brazil tit for tat visa policy.

From http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz...1/04/2003086356

Now I don't profess to be a genius but the judge who made this ruling in Brazil must be the biggest idiot in his (rationale), these were his words in regards to the new U.S. visa policy "I consider the act itself absolutely brutal, an attack on human rights, a violation of human dignity, xenophobic and as bad as the worst horrors sponsored by the Nazis," Judge Julier Sebastiao wrote of the US measures, in his decision ordering Brazilian authorities to fingerprint and photograph all US visitors. What is ironic is that he ordered the same brutal, xenophobic, Nazi, inhumane and undignified policy to be put in place by Brazil for U.S. tourists. Anyone see the ironic stupidity. Scary that this is a sitting judge who attacks such a policy and then institutes one himself, how genius Its not so much the ruling he made but to attack the U.S. policy and then to initiate the same policy seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

For its part the State Department has stated that it is the sovereign right of Brazil to implement their own policies for foreign visitors, and the U.S. has no plans to discuss the matter with Brazil.

P.S. why should the "evil" USA be too concerned about foreigners who stop visiting after all according to many of them we have a police state, right. Besides why come to such an undemocratic, bullying, tyranical nation that violates the rights of its citizens I'm in such fear daring to speak about my oppressive government My point for mentioning this is note to those who don't like the visa policy, don't come to America its the easiest solution and that's the fact of the matter. People don't like the U.S. telling them how to run their societies then don't tell us how to protect ourselves from those who would love nothing else than to cause another attack at all cost. One can never be unweary against evil. If another attack occurs the first to say I told you so would be the same critics now babbling on about violation of rights because it takes an extra few minutes at the already stressful airports.

I do think the US visa policy to Brazil is quiet stupid.

But I think Brazil's reply to Brazil is even stupider. Brazil has no real terrorist threat from the USA, all they are doing by imposing such restrictions on Americans is shooting their tourist industry, and hence their whole economy in the foot.


These policies are sure to hav huge economic fallout for Brazil, a nation which can't and shouldn't endure many economic fallouts at this time, all in all this policy is plan dumb.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I do think the US visa policy to Brazil is quiet stupid. But I think Brazil's reply to Brazil is even stupider. Brazil has no real terrorist threat from the USA, all they are doing by imposing such restrictions on Americans is shooting their tourist industry, and hence their whole economy in the foot.

Well, I don't think that the US has any immediate threat from Brazil either. Besides, the people who are excluded from this law are the citizens from the EU countries, and I believe that all the 11.9. pilots were citizens of US or one of the EU members. Anyway, it's kinda funny what they did.

Every nation certainly has the right to implement these policies if they feel so against U.S. citizens travelling abroad. I guess it comes down to the idea of "put up or shut up" If I go to Brazil, China, Turkey or wherever and they do this to me I have no problem as long as it is a secured policy. I have no choice but to follow it to enter the country if I desire to. My beef was with the usual complaints of Bush being Hitler, racist, xenophobic, blablabla by the usual suspects, but everyone has their opinion. Let's not forget that the terrorists utilized the nice free advantages of access to America when they came here, no more I say.

actually now that I saw an article on it (mind you from BBC world) it doesn't seem as bad as I though. The check takes about 15 sec, and is done at the port of entery (not in the application for visa as I had intitially thought)

They are basically fingerprinting and taking pics of everyone on a visa.... so this goes for everyone except US citizens.

The only problem I have with this policy is just that.. the exception. It seems completely pointless to have this new secure net to verify the person is who he says he is if you exclude US citizens from the same check when they leave and re-enter their country.

Any dumb idiot will just tell you they'll start coming in with forged US passports, or greencards.

Its called Reciprocity... I learned it in International Law... he isn't stupid... he is playing politics like any good Latin American in any form of Government...

quote:

Originally posted by NYGblue Its called Reciprocity... I learned it in International Law... he isn't stupid... he is playing politics like any good Latin American in any form of Government...

I think you missed my point, I stated that it wasn't the policy, Brazil can ban all Americans from coming to Copocabana, Ipanema, Guanabara and Leblon for all I care, my point was if the policy on the part of the U.S. is so repulsive then why subject others to such policies that you lay claim to being so draconian according to this particular judge's ruling for application of the polaroid and fingerprint policy. Think about it, his basis for application looks like crap, instead he should say this is reciprocal and get it over with. Besides some people in Brazil are laughing at it, all those American (terrorists) oops tourists coming down there to destroy Brazil, That is some bad politics on that judge's part because I can guarantee you that far more Americans visit Brazil than the other way around after all they have the sunshine right there already, its not like America needs Brazilian visitors to maintain or strenghten the South Florida economy. Oh well like I said earlier to each their own,

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan I think you missed my point, I stated that it wasn't the policy, Brazil can ban all Americans from coming to Copocabana, Ipanema, Guanabara and Leblon for all I care, my point was if the policy on the part of the U.S. is so repulsive then why subject others to such policies that you lay claim to being so draconian according to this particular judge's ruling for application of the polaroid and fingerprint policy. Think about it, his basis for application looks like crap, instead he should say this is reciprocal and get it over with. Besides some people in Brazil are laughing at it, all those American (terrorists) oops tourists coming down there to destroy Brazil, That is some bad politics on that judge's part because I can guarantee you that far more Americans visit Brazil than the other way around after all they have the sunshine right there already, its not like America needs Brazilian visitors to maintain the South Florida economy. Oh well like I said earlier to each their own,

Naw I got your point... its still politics... nothing more, nothing less... rhetoric so to speak... what you say is completely right and logical... but politics is never logical.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan I think you missed my point, I stated that it wasn't the policy, Brazil can ban all Americans from coming to Copocabana, Ipanema, Guanabara and Leblon for all I care, my point was if the policy on the part of the U.S. is so repulsive then why subject others to such policies that you lay claim to being so draconian according to this particular judge's ruling for application of the polaroid and fingerprint policy. Think about it, his basis for application looks like crap, instead he should say this is reciprocal and get it over with. Besides some people in Brazil are laughing at it, all those American (terrorists) oops tourists coming down there to destroy Brazil, That is some bad politics on that judge's part because I can guarantee you that far more Americans visit Brazil than the other way around after all they have the sunshine right there already, its not like America needs Brazilian visitors to maintain or strenghten the South Florida economy. Oh well like I said earlier to each their own,

You reasoning may be correct, but your attitude (and the US's attitude) is completely incorrect. Would you think terrorists are coming to the US using a palestinian, pakistani, afghan etc passport?
Of course not, they use the free travel passports (europe, etc).

This is an attack on civil rights as far as i'm concerned. I'm not affected by it, living in a EU country, but if i was, i would be very pissed off.

Anyway, we have this thing around here, it is called "National Identity Card". It has your complete name, parents name, fingerprint, marital status, date and place of birth, residence and height, and your signature, w/ a picture and a unique number. You are obligated to carry it around and show it to police officers when they request it.
When the card is made, all of your elements are incorporated in a government database, except the fingeprint.
It is a much safer, fast and complete way to identify yourself when requested. It is recognized internationally and endorsed by the European Union. It is much better than using any other kind of ID, or getting your picture and fingerprint taken when you visit a foreign country.

quote:

Originally posted by borron Anyway, we have this thing around here, it is called "National Identity Card". It has your complete name, parents name, fingerprint, marital status, date and place of birth, residence and height, and your signature, w/ a picture and a unique number. You are obligated to carry it around and show it to police officers when they request it. When the card is made, all of your elements are incorporated in a government database, except the fingeprint. It is a much safer, fast and complete way to identify yourself when requested. It is recognized internationally and endorsed by the European Union. It is much better than using any other kind of ID, or getting your picture and fingerprint taken when you visit a foreign country.

Well, we already require this thing called a passport. And if we're adding someone's fingerprint to the file when they come through immigration, it's already a more complete record than the national identity card. Plus, we're getting a current picture too.

As for the US, we will probably have a national ID card someday, but we don't have the same uses for it as other nations. You don't have to produce an ID to a police officer on the spot. They need to accuse you of something. And most transactions with the federal government are done with our "social security" number, which facilitates national tracking.

The first articles are showing up on the web from foreigners who had to go through the system, and reporters who interviewed them. The 15-second process was actually far easier than most people thought. I think a lot of people had the impression that they would be sat down in a room, and made to put their hand on an ink pad or something. Plus, the introductory program that was operating at one airport has already caught 21 people.

The passport is always required, regardless of which nation you come from and to which you are travelling (except between EU countries).

Anyway, i'm not saying the system is innefective or anything, nor i'm saying that the data will be used "to spy on us", but i'm against it as a principle.

BTW, Brazil's response was quite courageus and well done. There's an irony here, don't you people think that brazilian authorities want to caught american criminals, they just want to piss you off. And it seems they've accomplished that.

I just mentioned the NI card because i've read around that most americans are against it. Is this true?

Oh, and when i said that of the police, OF COURSE you are not obligated to show them, unless you're accused of something, or in a traffic accident or something like that. Do you think the police wanders around asking people for their NI cards?

everytime I go through american immigration, the idiots staffing the area interpret the rules a different way. with such an ineffective procedure in place the chances of something as simple and publicised as fingerprinting on arrival is not going to stop a single serious terrorist threat. and of course terrorists only discuss their plans when queueing for the toilet on board the planes. All of this is hype to keep people afraid without doing anything to stop real terrorism.

quote:

Originally posted by tubby everytime I go through american immigration, the idiots staffing the area interpret the rules a different way. with such an ineffective procedure in place the chances of something as simple and publicised as fingerprinting on arrival is not going to stop a single serious terrorist threat. and of course terrorists only discuss their plans when queueing for the toilet on board the planes. All of this is hype to keep people afraid without doing anything to stop real terrorism.

(Since Americans seem to be so idotic)In the words of the French Interior Secretary Nicolas Sarkozy, "it is better to have too much security and be criticised than too little and criticised" Don't worry tubby soon(by October) all visa waiver visitors from Europe and Australia will need a biometric(unique photo and fingerprint) passport issued by their own individual nation to visit America. Funny to see how many people are complaining when it comes to visiting the "Police State"

you're missing the point of my post. your immigration service (not to mention the security checks) cannot even administer the old regulations properly. It varies between every immigration officer, suggesting no-one, or very few, have any grasp of the real rules. if i was a terrorist I would be very confident of getting through regardless on new laws. security checks are equally random over there. I never get a decent check, despite my travel plans often meeting the criteria that most countries have for illegal activities, and a history in explosives. i get checked over in many places a lot more stringently than in USA.
as for the biometric data, that's only going to be on new passports. when mine comes up for renewal in another 7 years, then i might be worried. i doubt any government will force their people to pay for new passports if their existing one is still valid.

NYCtrancefan:

You joke about america being a police state. It's funny how blind you are to your actual rights freedoms being removed. Perhaps you should have a little peak at the patriot act. Yes, the USA is clearly not a police state, but you did loose a lot of privacy that you once had. Your hollowed untouchable constition has been shat on, what's next(the corner stone on which your nation is built)? You say people shouldn't visit america if they think it's a police state. Are you really so foolish that you'd want that? Would you rather your national deficit be 2 trillion rather than 1 trillion? You're living in a nation making enemies faster than friends. You make yourself look stupider than you need to by defending your nations abyssmal foreign policy.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan (Since Americans seem to be so idotic)In the words of the French Interior Secretary Nicolas Sarkozy, "it is better to have too much security and be criticised than too little and criticised" Don't worry tubby soon(by October) all visa waiver visitors from Europe and Australia will need a biometric(unique photo and fingerprint) passport issued by their own individual nation to visit America. Funny to see how many people are complaining when it comes to visiting the "Police State"

Regardless of my opinion of the US as the most dangerous nation for peace in the world today (together with his little friend, Israel) and as a general bully and oppressor of smaller nations, i'm not stupid.

I know the US is currently the center of economics and politics in the world. It is the world's most powerful nation, with the most powerful army, the most powerful economics and the most powerful political force. So of course i criticize the US, but that won't refrain me from visiting you (however, if i had to pass through that check, i would think twice).

And many people, like me, criticize the US, but still need to go there to do business for example. But i wouldn't live there. It's still a great country, but ruled by cowboys.

But remember this: Germany was twice the most powerful country in the world in the last century, and you know what happened then. I'm not saying that the US compares in any way politically or that you will start a world war. But you are burying yourselves in the ground, making enemies in every part of the world. Your so called friends will only be friends while you're powerful.

Big powerful imperialist nations come and go, that's why i gave the Germany example. China is growing rapidly and in a few years (20+) will be much more powerful than the US. If for some reason the US starts losing power/money/army then you will start to suffer the consequences of your obnoxious forein policy.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe NYCtrancefan: You joke about america being a police state. It's funny how blind you are to your actual rights freedoms being removed. Perhaps you should have a little peak at the patriot act. Yes, the USA is clearly not a police state, but you did loose a lot of privacy that you once had. Your hollowed untouchable constition has been shat on, what's next(the corner stone on which your nation is built)? You say people shouldn't visit america if they think it's a police state. Are you really so foolish that you'd want that? Would you rather your national deficit be 2 trillion rather than 1 trillion? You're living in a nation making enemies faster than friends. You make yourself look stupider than you need to by defending your nations abyssmal foreign policy.

Failsafe I will do my best to respectfully respond to your statements. I would like for you to name me one freedom as an American that I once had that I have lost, demonstrate to me exactly where the constitution has been dumped on, and staying away from America is indeed the best retaliation for those who cannot stand America and its horrific airport security policies. America is not in the business of making friends at the expense of its security and when I hear someone say a statement like America is making enemies faster than friends, it is usually based on a personal bias in the individual in relation to America that demonstrates itself in those particular words when used in a discussion. Not only that but you seem to be have confused the issues since when is O'Hare, LAX and JFK airports not in America, frame your commentary and response to me within the contexts of America's policy on documenting those who visit this nation through a 15sec process, I never once, not once defended America's "FOREIGN" policy. Show me where I defended America's foreign policy. Its funny how blind you are to having even an ounce of objective words in relation to the U.S. on this subject, instead utilizing generic phrases, factless assumptions and America is hated rhetoric that has been heard time and time again. Yet ironic how many people still visit the U.S. (and they aren't all businessmen) despite our oppressive government, according to you they should all be staying away from the nation with an abyssmal foreign policy

quote:

Originally posted by borron Regardless of my opinion of the US as the most dangerous nation for peace in the world today (together with his little friend, Israel) and as a general bully and oppressor of smaller nations, i'm not stupid. I know the US is currently the center of economics and politics in the world. It is the world's most powerful nation, with the most powerful army, the most powerful economics and the most powerful political force. So of course i criticize the US, but that won't refrain me from visiting you (however, if i had to pass through that check, i would think twice). And many people, like me, criticize the US, but still need to go there to do business for example. But i wouldn't live there. It's still a great country, but ruled by cowboys. But remember this: Germany was twice the most powerful country in the world in the last century, and you know what happened then. I'm not saying that the US compares in any way politically or that you will start a world war. But you are burying yourselves in the ground, making enemies in every part of the world. Your so called friends will only be friends while you're powerful. Big powerful imperialist nations come and go, that's why i gave the Germany example. China is growing rapidly and in a few years (20+) will be much more powerful than the US. If for some reason the US starts losing power/money/army then you will start to suffer the consequences of your obnoxious forein policy.

Once again this was not a foreign policy subject per say since this affects those who wish to gain entry to the U.S once on its soil. Answer this though borron How could the U.S. become weaker when you combine its current place in the world with Israel and thereby the Jewish secret body that exists only to maintain its world domination over the populous of Earth by proxy through American imperialism I am not ignorant of America's foreign policy history. Hence you think it was twisted I studied it with some pretty liberal ex hippie, draft dodger college professors might I add, who forced me to engage in such materials as Dr. Strangelove and derided the government at every chance.

I will take stock in one thing that unlike the Germany of Otto von Bismarck and Hitler or the clear imperialists overtones of Europe dating back to Portugal arriving with missionaries on the Gold Coast or modern day Ghana, to spread Christianity and then begin the slave trade that was started on the island of Madeira until it extended to Brazil(do they teach that in Portuguese schools by the way) or the British in India, the Germans in Namibia, the Europeans dividing up Africa, unlike all these true imperialists were, America is a democracy and thanks to our system of governance with the Executive, Legislative and Judicial bodies, George W. Bush has his limits that even he can't overstep when he eliminates one of those bodies of government or tries to then I'll scream bloody murder. Many of these "enemies" of the U.S. such as Iran's leadership, the Islamic extremists and the newfound European solidarity operate with differing interests of hatred, you can't please everyone. If people want to talk about exclusively U.S. foreign policy there are plenty of discussions on this forum about it, this topic however wasn't one.

Here's your freedoms which have been erroded. It's funny that you accuse me of not being objective. Ever thought about opening your eyes to America changing around you?


Freedom of association: The government may monitor religious and political groups without evidence of criminal activity.


Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.


Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to aid terrorism investigation.


Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians, telecommunication company officials and anyone else who reveals they have received a subpoena for records related to the terrorism investigation.


Right to legal representation: The government may monitor penal communications between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.


Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.


Freedom of information: The government has closed once-public immigration hearings, secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist requests for public records under the Freedom of Information Act.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan I will take stock in one thing that unlike the Germany of Otto von Bismarck and Hitler or the clear imperialists overtones of Europe dating back to Portugal arriving with missionaries on the Gold Coast or modern day Ghana, to spread Christianity and then begin the slave trade that was started on the island of Madeira until it extended to Brazil(do they teach that in Portuguese schools by the way) or the British in India, the Germans in Namibia, the Europeans dividing up Africa, unlike all these true imperialists were, America is a democracy and thanks to our system of governance with the Executive, Legislative and Judicial bodies, George W. Bush has his limits that even he can't overstep when he eliminates one of those bodies of government or tries to then I'll scream bloody murder. Many of these "enemies" of the U.S. such as Iran's leadership, the Islamic extremists and the newfound European solidarity operate with differing interests of hatred, you can't please everyone. If people want to talk about exclusively U.S. foreign policy there are plenty of discussions on this forum about it, this topic however wasn't one.

Of course they teach us that in school, in fact, they teach us history from our roots from the celts up to modern history.
What do they teach you in school? Pilgrims, cowboys, 1st 2nd ww, korean war, vietnam, iraq? Do they teach you "op. desert fox" in school? Here they do.

Of course the european past is filled with blood, and my predecessors were part of that. But unlike the US, our recent history isn't. Think of that.

BTW, what do you think of Guantanamo? Sure the prisioners there have freedom of speech, right of legal representation, all of the above
Oh, and it is american soil.

If you're fine with living with your liberties strangled, then it's your problem. If i was an american i would be a left-wing activist i'm sure.
Anyway, i enjoy very much living in my little, kind of second-world country. We have no terrorists groups, no foreign enemies, low crime rates and an excelent climate Our greatest battle is the liberalization of the abortion!

I do not support Guantanamo Bay at all, I feel that those who are there should be dealt with in a judicial manner that entitles them to know exactly what are their charges for being held and given fair representation for any charges against them. On the other hand I don't feel it is purposeful for the U.S. to maintain Guantanamo to serve as more cannon fodder for the critics, I have always contended that the high ranking detainees should be dealt with and the rest sent back to their respective nations.

The thing that I see is that everyone around the world has some knowledge of American society via BBC Radio or Radio France International in developing world countries, via television in the respective nations around the world and via other media sources internet included. It seems that many are left with the impression that you are kidnapped off the streets of America taken into detention and never heard from again, every word that George Bush mentions is published all over the international media outlets. I know this because I examine newspapers and Internet Broadcasts from around the world such as DW-TV(Germany), CBC and CTV(Canada), Radio Netherland, Radio Sweden, NRK Forsida (Norway), etc,etc. Everyday there is a negative reflecting newstory on America in some of these outlets, negative in the aspect that it has a point of view to get across, such as what do you make of Bush's policy on immigration, or his announcement of a Mission to Mars or is the U.S. government right to spend money on space research. All of these things seem so slanted to reflect a particular viewpoint, George Bush cannot serve more than two terms and eventually him and his administration will be out of power, I take heed in knowing that I still live in a nation that offers opportunities that nowhere else can, I say this as an immigrant to America.

NYCtrancefan: Shall assume your failure to address the post regarding the removal of American freeoms means you have now seen the light?

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe Here's your freedoms which have been erroded. It's funny that you accuse me of not being objective. Ever thought about opening your eyes to America changing around you? Freedom of association: The government may monitor religious and political groups without evidence of criminal activity. Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to aid terrorism investigation. Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians, telecommunication company officials and anyone else who reveals they have received a subpoena for records related to the terrorism investigation. Right to legal representation: The government may monitor penal communications between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes. Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. Freedom of information: The government has closed once-public immigration hearings, secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist requests for public records under the Freedom of Information Act.

Let us assume Failsafe that what you say is indeed correct for all of these new measures, I feel very confident that as an American I have the judicial system and the Supreme Court as well as the different civil liberties organizations that are committed to ensuring that the rights of Americans are protected even in the most dubious of circumstances, case and point Jose Padilla (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2037444.stm)

In a landmark victory for constitutional protections and the separation of powers in the post-9/11 era, a panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling barring the president from declaring a U.S. citizen an �enemy combatant� without congressional authorization (key point). In a decision likely to influence another case on enemy combatants before the Supreme Court case, the federal appeals court ordered the government to release U.S. citizen Jose Padilla from military custody in thirty days, with the option of transferring Padilla to civilian authorities for a criminal trial. The ruling marks a growing judicial backlash against unfettered presidential authority during a period of war. The ruling couldn�t have come at a better time. With controversy over the status of Guantanamo detainees and the PATRIOT Act growing to a feverish pitch, it�s about time the Constitution gained a voice, and an arm strong enough to back it up.

Maybe it is because I like the majority of Americans have not gotten myself into trouble linked to terrorism that I do not see the bigger picture. In application of these rules to regular criminal defendants and even the few Americans linked to terrorism, George Bush will run into a brick wall from the Supreme Court on the issue of detaining someone without representation for an extended period of time. Utlimately I feel even our Supreme Court will rule that the detainees @ Guantanamo must be represented in some form.

It is because of our system of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch of governance that I feel confident in this nation. It may not be perfect but it has worked for generations righting wrongs in innumerable facets of American society, it will not fail now because of one leader because even he cannot alter the Constitution for his own purposes

So the supreme court ruled in favour for jose. How does that have any effect on the actual changes to your laws? The supreme court and the ACLU have failed to protect the constituion from the patriot act have they not?

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe So the supreme court ruled in favour for jose. How does that have any effect on the actual changes to your laws? The supreme court and the ACLU have failed to protect the constituion from the patriot act have they not?

My point is that if the most allegedly treacherous Americans linked to something such as terrorism can be afforded judicial protections under the law then something must be right somewhere.

There is one thing I should mention do you notice in the post on the Patriot Act laws, each one states the government 'may' not necessarily can engage in such behaviour. Your assertion that the Supreme Court and the ACLU have failed to protect the constitution from the Patriot Act is shortsighted because should an American citizen be subject to such actions then certainly they have the recourse to seek representation from these particular bodies (all U.S. courts) on the matter at hand that would instigate such behaviour on the part of the government, its called fair Justice. I guarantee you a case will come up that tests the legality of the Patriot Act. It oftens happens in these kinds of situations.

You seem to talk up the Bush administration more than is necessary in that there exists a U.S. Congress-to fulfill the mandate of Americans and a Judiciary-to protect those mandates. It is not the first time that America has dealt with overarching Executive policies in its history and it won't be the last. These policies must be kept in their limited perspective. I doubt the government is wiretapping my phone and waiting for me to go protest at a rally so as to arrest me, without any legal recourse on my individual part, think about it

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.