It's odd that you would "REALLY agree with" something that's so wrong.;-)
The most egregious statement it makes is entirely false: the U.S. has not, in any way, criminalized public dissent. That statement is indefensible, unless it means "criminalized" sociologically, instead of a legally.
As to secret tribunals and "shooting first" (pre-emptive strikes?), these are nothing new to the 226-year history of the USA. Secret tribunals are rare, but not illegal, and not new. And pre-emptive strikes to prevent
Political Ad (Score:2)
The most egregious statement it makes is entirely false: the U.S. has not, in any way, criminalized public dissent. That statement is indefensible, unless it means "criminalized" sociologically, instead of a legally.
As to secret tribunals and "shooting first" (pre-emptive strikes?), these are nothing new to the 226-year history of the USA. Secret tribunals are rare, but not illegal, and not new. And pre-emptive strikes to prevent
Re:Political Ad (Score:1)
I agree. Self-loathing is so British!