jared8783

iTrader: (2)

Rand Paul voted against it
http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/R...8.html?ref=128

instead of listing all those who betrayed us i will list those who have stood by us
Coburn (R-OK)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)

JasonC SBB

Why was the Senate hell bent on passing this turd anyway?

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

because they want more power to do whatever they want
take out political enemies or whatever
who knows
certainly not actual terrorist
considering the definition of a terrorist according to the patriot act it is clearly a law prime for abuse

what i am wondering is why would these men not want more power?

hustler

iTrader: (6)

So, when is "owning a firearm" going to get me prosecuted with this law?

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

who said anything about owning a firearm?
it is when you commit any crime that could be considered dangerous to human life that one could legally consider you a terrorist

and since these new powers are exempt from the freedom of information act then what is to stop them from abusing their power and detaining someone who hasn't fit the legal definition of a terrorist

oh i almost forgot
the reason this is being made into a big deal is because there will be NO PROSECUTION
so no your not gonna get prosecuted
just simply locked away til they feel like lettin ya out
that is if they ever feel like it

Seefo

iTrader: (5)

when terrorist is defined as anyone causing fear or disturbance to the population, it can be as easy as walking with one on your hip.

He doesn't need to threaten anyone with it.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

i think this is a definition that the vast majority of us could agree that our law should use to define terrorism


The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-d...o-obamas-desk/

Looks like they as passing a law that allows the us govt to imprision you indefinitely if they subjectively decide you are an "enemy"

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

blaen99 be sure to check out brains link ^^
it now seems obama no longer intends (that is if he even did in the first place) on vetoing this

i heard lars larson on the radio the other day talking saying to someone that only four americans have met this definition before
he said he had an expert,former prosecuter talk about it on his show
here is the clip
http://soundcloud.com/thelarslarsons...ccarthy-on-the
he says only four americans in ten years fit the definition of enemy combatant
and not all terrorists fit the definition

first of all lars
can you seriously clarify something like this in 1:09? wtf
second i can't take anyone seriously when they don't reference specific sections of the bill

i skimmed the bill but did not find it
when i get some time i will look some more but from what i understand the definition of enemy combatant is somewhere else
but first i gotta look at the bill and see if it truly only applies to enemy combatants
and if being a domestic terrorist according to sec.802 of the patriot act makes you an enemy combatant
then yeah this bill is fucked up

and regardless of everything i just typed
even if the definition is extremely as it is claimed to be
it is still in direct violation of the constitution
and that is disgusting

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Yeah, don't start me on that.

Intellectually, I know there's no point in Obama veto'ing it except for political theatre purposes due to how many votes it passed in the Senate (92-7 IIRC?!?), so...

But emotionally it's like "EFF YOU OBAMA". Ugh.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

one thing congress cna always agree on is how to **** you.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

well it is official now
obama has signed the law
one more thing we can add to his list of lies
imo this is one of the worst ones

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

i like this guy
his attitude is hilarious
and he usually has a very good point
and he is a big RP supporter

1slowna

iTrader: (1)

Actually the NDAA is null and void, not that this will keep them from using it. Any law or act which opposes the constitution or the bill of rights is null and void. This has been won in supreme court over and over and over.

redturbomiata

iTrader: (5)

i propose we all move to canada, and start a massive canadian miata club.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Technically isn't this already a Canadian miata club?

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

not saying you are wrong
but there are obviously other things that violate the constitution that are in place

patriot act

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

Well apparently some states are fightin back on this NDAA pile of crap
here is an article about what virginia did about it

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...tes-join-fight