Kennedy 0 #1 January 1, 2012 [URL "http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Ndaa"]google: NDAA[/url] Wikipedia: NDAA 2012 I think this is a horrible law, I think it's unconstitutional, and I've decided to vote against any politician who voted for it congressman, senator, and president. I hope it'll be struck down by SCOTUS, but I don't have a lot of faith in the courts at the moment. (Greenies, please feel free to have a heavy hand in this thread, a la SOPA thread)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 January 1, 2012 Your first link is busted - extra http in there.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #3 January 1, 2012 Last night while Obama was vacationing in Hawaii the NDAA was passed , on a holiday weekend in secrecy . We the people must forget our political differences...We have lost our fourth and fifth amendment rights. Do you realize that the FBI can write a warrant , bust down your door and arrest you. Whats more , you cannot tell any one , not even your priest...Judge Napolitano has said so... This was an act of treason... This was done by both parties....Here is my biggest fear folks... Obama now has the power and money to fund the GOP war monger's war for what i believe to be, the bankers for Israel . No war time president has ever lost an election and Obama is a traitor . i do not put it past him to start a war before the next election...“A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!” Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #4 January 1, 2012 QuoteNo war time president has ever lost an election When you said that a few days ago, someone pointed out Bush,Sr's loss of the 1992 election to you. Why do you ignore that, just to repeat your talking point? If truth don't ail ya, look at it from strictly a marketing perspective: commercials that flop generally get pulled off the air by their sponsors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #5 January 1, 2012 I did not coin that phrase... Does that change the fact that you have lost you fourth and fifth amendment rights ? nope does that change the fact that this was done the same way they passed the Federal reserve ? nope war is coming..that is my prediction... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 January 1, 2012 I think he's talking about a war time President losing an election while engaged in a war at the time of the election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #7 January 1, 2012 Quote I think he's talking about a war time President losing an election while engaged in a war at the time of the election. Thank you for correcting my error..both of you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #8 January 1, 2012 OK, I'll answer on thread topic. I agree it's unconstitutional and dangerous. But I predict that at least 4 SCOTUS justices, if it gets that far, will vote to uphold it. As to hostilities with Iran coming... yes, I see the familiar warning signs. The US has always had to have its boogey-man to justify the bloated military industrial complex that diverts money away from, for example, the universal national health coverage that every other modern, industrialized country in the world has. WE have a massive military; we have to USE it, goddammit! In fairness, it's not like the Iranians aren't double-dog daring us to use it against them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16377185 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #9 January 1, 2012 Quote OK, I'll answer on thread topic. I agree it's unconstitutional and dangerous. But I predict that at least 4 SCOTUS justices, if it gets that far, will vote to uphold it. As to hostilities with Iran coming... yes, I see the familiar warning signs. The US has always had to have its boogey-man to justify the bloated military industrial complex that diverts money away from, for example, the universal national health coverage that every other modern, industrialized country in the world has. WE have a massive military; we have to USE it, goddammit! In fairness, it's not like the Iranians aren't double-dog daring us to use it against them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16377185 here is the problem...What most of you do not understand....we are more than broke...let me explain. During the bail outs ...the secret bankers who own the federal reserve printed 16 trillion dollars in secret. the 16 trillion dollars was used to prop up the banks...the money failed...they are printing more to try again... War will bankrupt the system. Here comes another problem...M.F. Global Anyone in the stock market should watch this The bankruptcy of M.F. Global, changed the laws in favor of Morgan Stanley ...Romney's tenth highest donor. http://youtu.be/18A698QQex0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #10 January 1, 2012 QuoteI agree it's unconstitutional and dangerous. But I predict that at least 4 SCOTUS justices, if it gets that far, will vote to uphold it. One more point to this particular point. This is the reason why, all other things being equal, I vote for Democratic presidents: because presidents appoint SCOTUS justices, most of whom are with us for decades. And execrable, Constitution- and liberty-savaging laws like this one, the Patriot Act, etc., etc. are far more likely to be upheld by Justices appointed by Republican presidents, and rejected by Justices appointed by Democratic presidents. To people who think it doesn't much matter which party's person gets to be president, this is an example of why it really does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #12 January 1, 2012 I find it humorous that Obama ran for President criticizing Bush's policy of detaining terrorist prisoners indefinitely, but now that HE is president, he signs a law making it legal for him to do the same thing that he priviously criticized... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #13 January 2, 2012 Quote Quote I agree it's unconstitutional and dangerous. But I predict that at least 4 SCOTUS justices, if it gets that far, will vote to uphold it. One more point to this particular point. This is the reason why, all other things being equal, I vote for Democratic presidents: because presidents appoint SCOTUS justices, most of whom are with us for decades. And execrable, Constitution- and liberty-savaging laws like this one, the Patriot Act, etc., etc. are far more likely to be upheld by Justices appointed by Republican presidents, and rejected by Justices appointed by Democratic presidents. To people who think it doesn't much matter which party's person gets to be president, this is an example of why it really does. Which is why I think the whole SC sham sucks. Since when did party politics drive decisions on constitutional issues? Well, yes...since day 1. The U. S. constitution is nothing more than toilet paper to be wiped and re-used by the next ass in control.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #14 January 2, 2012 QuoteI find it humorous that Obama ran for President criticizing Bush's policy of detaining terrorist prisoners indefinitely, but now that HE is president, he signs a law making it legal for him to do the same thing that he priviously criticized... When Obama criticized Bush, it was about the detention of foreign prisoners. The NDAA law that Obama just signed now makes it legal to detain American citizens without a lawyer, and without trial, forever. This is much, much worse. The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Bill of Rights are now destroyed.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #15 January 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteI agree it's unconstitutional and dangerous. But I predict that at least 4 SCOTUS justices, if it gets that far, will vote to uphold it. One more point to this particular point. This is the reason why, all other things being equal, I vote for Democratic presidents: because presidents appoint SCOTUS justices, most of whom are with us for decades. And execrable, Constitution- and liberty-savaging laws like this one, the Patriot Act, etc., etc. are far more likely to be upheld by Justices appointed by Republican presidents, and rejected by Justices appointed by Democratic presidents. To people who think it doesn't much matter which party's person gets to be president, this is an example of why it really does. So your point isn't that you like Dem-appointed justices (VERY prone to be activist and legislate from the bench), but that you are just MORE fearful of Rep-appointed justices (considered to uphold laws you don't like). So I'm not clear yet - Do you want justices the uphold the actual law (where constitutional) and contain their authority to exactly that? or do you just want activist justices provided they are only activist toward your bias? I think it's really telling when potential justices are being interviewed - regardless of party, as soon as a judge makes a statement like "I have political views, BUT, as a justice that doesn't matter, I uphold and interpret the laws as written and will not let my personal views bias that judgment" those are the judges that those congressmen try to kick out - they are scared of them. it's real shame I really liked when Roberts had to remind the senators that justices don't write laws. The very people interviewing wrote laws and they didn't even know it. edit: i only wrote this because you choose to make it about party. Kennedy wrote it correctly - he thinks it's unconstitutional and hopes the justices agree. and he'll not vote for congressmen that aren't aligned with it. he gets it. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #16 January 3, 2012 QuoteI find it humorous that Obama ran for President criticizing Bush's policy of detaining terrorist prisoners indefinitely, but now that HE is president, he signs a law making it legal for him to do the same thing that he priviously criticized... Not just doing the same thing, but expanding it. I hear this is very popular in DC...witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dannydan 0 #17 January 3, 2012 so at what point does the Patriots water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrannts.... ? The majority of citizens in ALL the forums i visit don't have the the balls collectively muchless individually that OUR founding fathers had. Our nations 2nd revolution should of happened about 1914ish imho Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #18 January 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteI find it humorous that Obama ran for President criticizing Bush's policy of detaining terrorist prisoners indefinitely, but now that HE is president, he signs a law making it legal for him to do the same thing that he priviously criticized... Not just doing the same thing, but expanding it. And isn't it also humorous how the liberals who squawked so loudly against Bush's Patriot Act, now sit as meek and quietly as little mice, without so much as a squeak in objection, when a president from their own party does it. It would seem that it's not really liberty that they care about, but rather just power for their own party. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #19 January 4, 2012 QuoteAnd isn't it also humorous how the liberals who squawked so loudly against Bush's Patriot Act, now sit as meek and quietly as little mice, without so much as a squeak in objection, On the contrary, support for the 2012 NDAA is somewhere between 2% and 9%, depending on which poll you believe. I don't think this act by the President will go un-noticed in this year's election.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #20 January 4, 2012 (reply not directed to anybody specifically - I wish I could post without replying to the person immediately above...) Bear with me, not being entirely familiar with your process... If I understand this legislation correctly, wasn't it necessary to be signed before the end of the year to maintain your DoD funding commitments? And the stuff that has people concerned was added as a rider to the bill? If so, did the rider's author's possibly paint the process into a corner to get their legislation through? And if that's the case, was it signed possibly to keep your soldiers pay cheques rolling in, with the possible hope that the courts will eventually rule the rider's portions unconstitutional? Any corrections to my admittedly simplistic interpretation would be welcome. Thanks. John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #21 January 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI find it humorous that Obama ran for President criticizing Bush's policy of detaining terrorist prisoners indefinitely, but now that HE is president, he signs a law making it legal for him to do the same thing that he priviously criticized... Not just doing the same thing, but expanding it. And isn't it also humorous how the liberals who squawked so loudly against Bush's Patriot Act, now sit as meek and quietly as little mice, without so much as a squeak in objection, when a president from their own party does it. It would seem that it's not really liberty that they care about, but rather just power for their own party. What is sad John is that you find the denigration of your rights humorous just because the other side looks bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #22 January 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteAnd isn't it also humorous how the liberals who squawked so loudly against Bush's Patriot Act, now sit as meek and quietly as little mice, without so much as a squeak in objection, when a president from their own party does it. It would seem that it's not really liberty that they care about, but rather just power for their own party. What is sad John is that you find the denigration of your rights humorous just because the other side looks bad. It's not the loss of human rights that I find humorous, it's the response of the liberals to that loss that is humorous. It would seem, according to them, that the loss of human rights is only a horrible thing if it's done by a republican, and is not even worth complaining about if done by a democrat. So like I said, those kind of folks don't really seem to care about human rights, but rather, only in acquiring the power themselves to control others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #23 January 4, 2012 While that sort of nonsense is common in most parliamentary bodies, including US Senate and House of Congress, the short answer is no, that's not what happened here. President Obama had plenty of time to let congress know what he would and wouldn't sign. In fact, he did exactly that. He didn't demand the fascist sections be removed. He simply required that the executive branch hold the power to deny basic rights indefinitely, rather than the military.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charlie5 0 #24 January 4, 2012 Now that's some change I can believe in.The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #25 January 4, 2012 I privately received a really good overview of the differences in the process between Appropriations and Authorizations from another contributor. Thanks to you as well for fleshing it out a bit for me. I learned something today, and that's always good. John Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites