jared8783

iTrader: (2)

There is a bill that has been introduced to give the military legal authority to take action against "terrorists", more specifically domestic terrorists
edit: Basically this bill will make US soil part of the battlefield so the government can take these actions against US citizens on US soil


Keeping in mind that the Patriot Act defines terrorism as
"(5) the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that—
‘‘(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are
a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or
of any State;"
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ubl056.107.pdf
seriously now aren't there a **** ton of people in prision that dont have anything remotely to do with terrorism that would quite literally fit this definition perfectly?

Ok yeah you could say something reasonable like "oh no they would never target anyone who wasn't truly a terrorist" and i would say to you, Is this not a system prime for abuse? Was this country not founded with keeping the system as least abusable as possible? Not to mention that this is a direct conflict of our constitutional right to due process.

redturbomiata

iTrader: (5)

excessive speed could fall under that? Your under arrest for domestic terrorism, for going 85 in a 55. wtf?

soviet

iTrader: (10)

terrorizing the streets, aw yeah

falcon

iTrader: (13)

I forsee a civil war in the USA's near future.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Why does the white house treat illegal aliens better than citizens? If you run accross the board and get caught, the white house protects you "from states", and now we have this. Policies and lows like this are why I forgo reproductive rights, my atheist purity, and whatever else the GOP stands for and vote for them because I fear for my personal safety when it comes to the Democrats.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

I hear that they are voting on the military action against us citizens on us soil thing on monday
but dont quote me

the ACLU has set something up to make it easy to contact your representatives if you do so wish
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocac...subsrc=fixNDAA

and Hustler when it comes to "terrorism" i see no difference between repub and dem
though i do lean more repub than dem
the only party who is clear, upfront, and honest are the libertarians
and we have one running as a repub
while i dont think he will win it actually looks like he has a chance

Seefo

iTrader: (5)

how long until its 1984 again?

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

Well it looks like they are still in the process of shaping the bill with amendments

i have tried linking others to the bill on thomas.loc.gov and for some reason that wont work so if you want to read the bill for yourself just google national defense act S 1867 and you will find it

though here is a link to the status of the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&
it looks like they are still shaping the bill with amendments and what not

here is another rather informative video on this topic
idk why the title on the video is talking about martial law as this law has little if anything to do with martial law.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Okay Hustler, I found it necessary to call you out on this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1119473.html

I'm linking to Huffpo to make it clear how insane this statement is. Two republicans voted against it, 16 Democrats voted for it (Well, two republicans voted for and 16 dems voted against an amendment that would have killed what people in here have a problem with specifically.). The democrats that voted for it are having the leftist voters call for their blood, see even Huffpolol calling out the dem votes. At best, this bill and the associated bullshit can be called bipartisan. At worst, it's a Republican clusterfuck considering this has widespread GOP support (See previous numbers as for proof), with scattered Dem support.

****, Obama's said flat out he's going to veto it if they don't strip it of the language people are bitching about in here. Where's the props for Obama on that, guys? Or is it because he's a "demoncrat"?

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

Obama also promised to bring the troops home first thing when he got into office
he said we could take that to the bank

I am in no way defending bush here but
Obama called bush unpatriotic and irresponsible for adding 4 tril in debt in 8 years, more than any previous president
Obama matched bush's 4tril in 2.5 years

Props WILL be given to Obama if such a veto is made
not until
I am not capable of taking a sellout, lying, politicians promises seriously

Seefo

iTrader: (5)

the problem is, language is just that, language. Whats the difference between forest thinning and opening up national parks for logging? Nothing, but the language is different.

I don't know the bill in particular, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just change the language rather than the bill.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Two points: First, I only supported Obama due to some very specific promises that he made, of which he promptly broke when he hit office. But the same could be said for every presidential candidate that's been elected for the past...2 decades? Obama's a disappointment, but so was Bush. ...Ironically, I also supported Bush for some promises he made, but he broke when he took office as I think about it. Perhaps I should start supporting the candidate that I don't want in office? It couldn't turn out any worse.

Secondly, considering Bushes final budgetary year is the highest deficit we've ever ran (2009, remember, the budget is passed the previous year*), and it was "only" 1.4trillion...I find it extremely hard to believe Obama's budgets in '10 and '11 were 2 trillion or more a year. People would be harping about those being "record-setting years" instead of 2009 being the biggest deficit ever. This argument is inherently fallacious, as you are repeating something someone else told you, and it started based on a "lie via omission" (I've gone off on these on another thread, I'll save the angst here) that someone started harping on to score political points. It's a classical political half-truth in America - yeah, there's a grain of truth in it. Obama -was- president in 2009, and the 2009 budget set records, but the 2009 budget was budgeted in 2008 by the Bush admin. Same as the 2000 Bush budget was budgeted by Clinton in 1999. The current years budget is done in the previous year.

* Although I'm being disingenuous myself here as certain supplemental and emergency spending was Obama's - but Obama's contribution to the deficit for that is attributed at between 100 to 140 billion vs. the Bush budgets ~1.3trillion - ~1/10th of the deficit in 2009. Even if you add the supplemental and emergency spending from 2009 to the '10 and '11 budgets, Obama hasn't came close to Bush's deficit after 8 years as you claim.

So, you are tired of all of our politicians, regardless of their political affiliation? Hell, I'm in the same boat as you then.

Seefo

iTrader: (5)

Regardless, Obama, or McCain, or Bush, or Kerry, or whoever the ****...we would still be in the same place we are now.

They are all the same. democrat, republican, whatever. We haven't had a real president in a while.

We need revolution!
#OccupyWhiteHouse
#OccupyCongress

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

^Mothertrucking THIS

JasonC SBB

Big mistake. You should always check voting records, and the group behind him. The vast majority of presidential candidates since about 1910 have been vetted by various factions of the Establishment.

JasonC SBB

A lot of people feel this way, and yet when the time comes to vote, by some twisted logic the media has conditioned them to believe, they will support one of the mainstream candidates of the Demopublican party, because "voting for Ron Paul / Gary Johnson" is "a vote for the other guy". And then we get same old, same old.

Is anyone here who is sick of the same old ****, gonna register Republican and vote for Ron Paul?
Or are you gonna whine and bitch and then vote for McRomPerryCain because he's "the lesser evil"?
Don't you see that that is exactly how the media gets you to vote for a Republicrat?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I'm voting for Ron Paul this election, Jason.

JasonC SBB

Good for you.

IMO it is very important for Ron Paul to get a lot of votes in the PRIMARIES - (the Republican nomination). Even if he doesn't win, getting him in the top 3 of the nomination will help spread his message:



In several "closed" states you have to register Republican EARLY to be able to vote in the primaries.

Look up your state here:
http://forum.grasscity.com/us-presid...l#post10708184


http://www.facebook.com/bluerepublican
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-..._b_897405.html

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

yeah jason i saw a statistic somewhere of a poll result
i wish i would have saved the link
but for the last election it was something like 70% of Ron Paul supporters didn't even vote for him because they didn't think he could win

yup
im votin for him

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

it passed
12-1-11
93-7

sec 1044 makes this exempt from the freedom of information act
so basically they can take people off the street
and they are allowed to be secretive about it

the white house apparently renewed its threat to veto it
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...f2afd82ee878c7
lets see if that happens
i somehow doubt it will
but will be greatful if it does