Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 120

Thread: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

  1. #31
    Official Troll Array title="The Patriot is a name known to all"> The Patriot's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,306

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by suitanim View Post
    Bottom line here is that just as we are legitimately seeing a US recovery, and we are on the brink of something remarkable vis-a-vis a new era in US energy dominance and a resurgence in US manufacturing, and I'd hate to see it ruined by a dopey tax-and-spend President who finds his way back into the office simply because the GOP is fractured by a tiny sliver of whiny losers who would rather blow the whole thing up rather than accept the fact that they lost. Badly.

    Paul himself has all but officially thrown in the towel (link at the end). Nobody voted for him, so it's over. Trying to weasel into power via cheap procedural tricks or strong-arm tactics isn't helpful, and it could be rather harmful. I'm mindful of the fact that when things are very bad, it breeds malcontent and malfeasance...we've seen that with the OWS scumbags (who, after attempting to blow up a bridge, are now domestic terrorists in my book). There's no reason for the few million rabid Paul followers to head down the same destructive path. Especially when things appear to be getting a whole lot better. It'd be a shame for us to have a half-assed resurgence and for Hopey to get credit for it in spite of all the harm he did and how many roadblocks he threw up to stop it just because of petty infighting and sour grapes, when we have a real chance here to see a really strong domestic energy and manufacturing position from the US under Romney. Hopefully Paul announces something that calls off his attack dogs soon. Hopefully, they'll listen...

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...GlvbnM-;_ylv=3
    The economy is obviously the most important issue right now, but maybe the Republican party wouldn't be dealing with this rebellious faction if the GOP didn't continue to be on the wrong side of domestic issues regarding constitutional liberties. Do you honestly feel safer now that the government can listen to anyone's phone calls? or now that the military can "indefinitely detain" American citizens without a warrant or trial? I bet if Romney came out vehemently against these two gross expansions of government, he'd significantly deflate the Ron Paul rebellion. But... he won't. He won't even lie (like Obama found it easy to do in his campaign) because the GOP has its own agenda, and it only involves shrinking government where it most conveniences them.

  2. #32
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Patriot View Post
    The economy is obviously the most important issue right now, but maybe the Republican party wouldn't be dealing with this rebellious faction if the GOP didn't continue to be on the wrong side of domestic issues regarding constitutional liberties. Do you honestly feel safer now that the government can listen to anyone's phone calls? or now that the military can "indefinitely detain" American citizens without a warrant or trial? I bet if Romney came out vehemently against these two gross expansions of government, he'd significantly deflate the Ron Paul rebellion. But... he won't. He won't even lie (like Obama found it easy to do in his campaign) because the GOP has its own agenda, and it only involves shrinking government where it most conveniences them.
    It's difficult for me to take this argument seriously when the Democrat's not only willingly went right along with, but in many cases, they've actually EXPANDED these same policies under Obama. The bottom line here is that, like in many things in the US now, everyone is super special, and no one can stand to lose...this is just a petulant and childish temper-tantrum en masse...these guys won't quit unless their candidate, whom practically nobody voted for, can still win, even though he already lost.
    Fire Goodell

  3. #33
    The voice of reason Array title="GoSlash27 has a reputation beyond repute"> GoSlash27's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowegia
    Posts
    6,034

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    I bet if Romney came out vehemently against these two gross expansions of government, he'd significantly deflate the Ron Paul rebellion.
    I'd agree if he could convince them he's serious, but of course he's not and they'd see through it. Don't sweat Suit; it's pretty evident who's being "petulant and childish" here.
    "You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland

  4. #34
    Official Troll Array title="The Patriot is a name known to all"> The Patriot's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,306

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by suitanim View Post
    It's difficult for me to take this argument seriously when the Democrat's not only willingly went right along with, but in many cases, they've actually EXPANDED these same policies under Obama. The bottom line here is that, like in many things in the US now, everyone is super special, and no one can stand to lose...this is just a petulant and childish temper-tantrum en masse...these guys won't quit unless their candidate, whom practically nobody voted for, can still win, even though he already lost.
    I'm not contesting that at all. I was focusing on GOP vs Ron Paul.

  5. #35
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Patriot View Post
    I'm not contesting that at all. I was focusing on GOP vs Ron Paul.
    Romney is not the GOP...that's sort of the point. Neither is Ron Paul, which is REALLY the point. No candidate will perfectly fulfill every voters wishes and desires...it requires compromise, and compromise is something the Paul sheeples are NOT willing to engage in. Which will, of course, ultimately be their downfall...I just hope the collateral damage they cause as they fall is on the smallish side...

    Regardless, I'm hoping that if people pay attention, this will galvanize the real GOP and get them focused on the real task at hand.
    Fire Goodell

  6. #36
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by suitanim View Post
    Romney is not the GOP...that's sort of the point. Neither is Ron Paul, which is REALLY the point. No candidate will perfectly fulfill every voters wishes and desires...it requires compromise, and compromise is something the Paul sheeples are NOT willing to engage in. Which will, of course, ultimately be their downfall...I just hope the collateral damage they cause as they fall is on the smallish side...

    Regardless, I'm hoping that if people pay attention, this will galvanize the real GOP and get them focused on the real task at hand.
    So we ignore liberty for a the possibility of a little economic boost. Sweet. As long as more people have jobs, screw the constitution. I'm not sure why we should have to be a compromise when both should be obvious goals for the next president.

    Of course no candidate is ever going to be perfect, I don't even think Paul is perfect in all his ideals, but shouldn't we be drawing the line somewhere when it comes to allowing our gov't to bastardize the constitution?

    And yes, I know Obama is screwing both the economy and the constitution....I just don't feel comfortable with 'compromising' my feelings on constitutional liberties.

    Call my vote wasted all you want, but there are men and women who died, and who are still dying, that gave me the right to use my vote however I see fit. No amount of bullying or ridicule can change that.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Array title="smokin3000gt has a reputation beyond repute"> smokin3000gt's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    3,364

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    So we ignore liberty for a the possibility of a little economic boost. Sweet. As long as more people have jobs, screw the constitution. I'm not sure why we should have to be a compromise when both should be obvious goals for the next president.

    Of course no candidate is ever going to be perfect, I don't even think Paul is perfect in all his ideals, but shouldn't we be drawing the line somewhere when it comes to allowing our gov't to bastardize the constitution?

    And yes, I know Obama is screwing both the economy and the constitution....I just don't feel comfortable with 'compromising' my feelings on constitutional liberties.

    Call my vote wasted all you want, but there are men and women who died, and who are still dying, that gave me the right to use my vote however I see fit. No amount of bullying or ridicule can change that.
    You have the right to vote however you want and if you want to throw it away go ahead, but then when Hopey gets re-elected you can kiss the constitution AND economy good-bye. What good does that do? You can go around saying you voted for RP for real ''change'' but it won't change the fact that we're marching off the edge of a cliff. I hope you like everything Obama has done because the only reason he hasn't been more radical and hand-outy is because he has to worry about winning his second term. Just wait until you see what comes next when the worry of re-election is gone. I will take my chances with someone fit to lead VS someone who has no business leading an Easter Egg hunt let alone a country (Obama of course). But hey, at lease you guys showed him by voting RP!
    Quote Originally Posted by 86WARD View Post
    Tomlin is that good.



    PATRIOTS**

    BUNGLES
    Steelers - 18 Bengals - 16 #0in25 #anotherseasonBungled




    HTG ¤-

  8. #38
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by smokin3000gt View Post
    You have the right to vote however you want and if you want to throw it away go ahead, but then when Hopey gets re-elected you can kiss the constitution AND economy good-bye. What good does that do? You can go around saying you voted for RP for real ''change'' but it won't change the fact that we're marching off the edge of a cliff. I hope you like everything Obama has done because the only reason he hasn't been more radical and hand-outy is because he has to worry about winning his second term. Just wait until you see what comes next when the worry of re-election is gone. I will take my chances with someone fit to lead VS someone who has no business leading an Easter Egg hunt let alone a country (Obama of course). But hey, at lease you guys showed him by voting RP!
    That's the reason I've begun to get involved, directly, in my local and state politics, and have friends who are similarly doing so.

    If people want to vote for Romney, that's their choice, and I'm not going to sit around and bash anyone for doing so. If he gets more votes than Obama, that means more people wanted him. If Obama gets more votes, that means less people want Romney. It's as simple as that. You can blame 3rd party candidates and people who vote for them all you want, but telling people they're just wasting their votes is wrong in so many ways. What's the point of allowing 3rd party candidates or opposing candidates in the same party to run anyway if people just feel bullied or ridiculed into voting for the popular Dem. or Rep.? Might as well just have the media hand us our candidates and call it a day. Then we can all just sit back and vote for the lesser of two evils each time and watch both sides strip us of our freedoms. Sounds fun!

    Not that I like bringing up Bush or anything, but all this rhetoric about our nation being utterly destroyed because of one man sounds WAY too familiar. It's all we heard about Bush and Republicans before Obama, and it's just more of the same now. The majority of the problems lie in Congress.

    I've said my peace though, and no one's going to change the others mind it seems. Nothing against anyone at all for speaking their mind, but I'm going to use my right to vote for the candidate who I think will do the best job.

  9. #39
    The voice of reason Array title="GoSlash27 has a reputation beyond repute"> GoSlash27's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowegia
    Posts
    6,034

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Might as well just have the media hand us our candidates and call it a day. Then we can all just sit back and vote for the lesser of two evils each time and watch both sides strip us of our freedoms. Sounds fun!
    Isn't that exactly what we've *been* doing for the last 40 years?
    "You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland

  10. #40
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    This is all well and good, each to his own and all that, but why attempt to destroy the GOP in the process of pouting about not being to win? Why not take your 4% of the vote and go form your own party............oh.............wait..........
    Fire Goodell

  11. #41
    Senior Member Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute"> zulater's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fair Hill Md.
    Posts
    15,903

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Just curious. Exactly what Constitutional rights and personal freedoms am I putting at risk by supporting Romney?
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

  12. #42
    The voice of reason Array title="GoSlash27 has a reputation beyond repute"> GoSlash27's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Iowegia
    Posts
    6,034

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by suitanim View Post
    This is all well and good, each to his own and all that, but why attempt to destroy the GOP in the process of pouting about not being to win? Why not take your 4% of the vote and go form your own party............oh.............wait..........
    They're not trying to destroy it. They're taking it over.
    "You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland

  13. #43
    Senior Member Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute"> zulater's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fair Hill Md.
    Posts
    15,903

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by GoSlash27 View Post
    They're not trying to destroy it. They're taking it over.

    Even if it's against the wishes of the majority? You know what's better for us than what we do, and you'll see to it that we "embrace" your ways no matter what tactics need to be employed in order to do so?

    So how was Suit's Hitler analogy out of order again?
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

  14. #44
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by zulater View Post
    Just curious. Exactly what Constitutional rights and personal freedoms am I putting at risk by supporting Romney?
    I don't know about any new ones, but I know he's publicly supported NDAA, CISPA, ACTA, the TSA, The Patriot Act, he probably supports the unmanned drones being used in our own country as well (I'm not 100% on that one).

    So far he just supports rights that have already been taken away, but that kind of suggests that he'd be open to taking away more, doesn't it?

  15. #45
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by suitanim View Post
    This is all well and good, each to his own and all that, but why attempt to destroy the GOP in the process of pouting about not being to win? Why not take your 4% of the vote and go form your own party............oh.............wait..........
    I do consider myself a member of the Libertarian Party. I only registered Republican this year so I could vote in our states primaries. That's what many of his supporters had to do.

    I am not trying to destroy the GOP, so I don't know why you're asking me that directly. I'd like to see the GOP become truly conservative, but I'm in no way trying to destroy it.

  16. #46
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    It's almost always in times of trouble and unrest that these kinds of coups by tiny minorities take place, and they usually involve heavy doses of propaganda, demagoguery and a "divide and conquer" mentality. From what I'm hearing, because I'm not as outraged as "real patriots" like the TEA party zealots and libertarians over things like the Patriot Act, I guess I also sacrifice my ability to make decisions at all, and instead should let them make them all for me...

    Wait....I thought this was about liberty? Oh, it IS about liberty! The liberty of the very few to decide what's best for the rest of us...

    I'm not real sure how this differs from any of the same things these pseudo-libertarians are trying to protect us from, these "threats" from both sides of the aisle. Isn't it always this way? Small groups of like-minded individuals deciding that they know best how to save the rest of us from ourselves?

    I'm sorry, but no matter what the group calls themselves, or what their original aim is, or how far right or left their ideology resides, the axiom is almost always the same: scratch a revolutionary, and underneath you'll find a closeted aristocrat. You're just swapping out one group of elite for another. And what are we REALLY looking at here, other than a small group of self-professed "elite" trying to wrest control of something that isn't theirs (and the popular vote in the primaries made that clear) away from other via procedural tricks and strong-arm tactics in order to promote their own self-interests, all in the name of promoting the greater good?
    Fire Goodell

  17. #47
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    I just want to see our gov't run by competent people who will uphold the constitution. I'm not trying to tell you how to think, act, or vote. If you're not worried about them, fine...you're choice. I am though. You seem pretty content with the way things work right now, and again...your choice. I won't stop you.

    I guess I also sacrifice my ability to make decisions at all, and instead should let them make them all for me...
    If you are not watchful, you may be saying this about your own gov't one day. But from your other statements, I guess it's just a small coup that feels this way, and we should just keep it to ourselves.

  18. #48
    Senior Member Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute"> zulater's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fair Hill Md.
    Posts
    15,903

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    I do consider myself a member of the Libertarian Party. I only registered Republican this year so I could vote in our states primaries. That's what many of his supporters had to do.

    I am not trying to destroy the GOP, so I don't know why you're asking me that directly. I'd like to see the GOP become truly conservative, but I'm in no way trying to destroy it.
    With very very few exceptions the Patriot Act doesn't deny law abiding American citizens the right's to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we're guaranteed.

    I would analogize it to drunk driving checkpoints. I can see where a Libertarian might see this as a violation of your basic rights. But the founding fathers had no way of envisioning the devastation that a drunk driver could bring about. And the fact is if you're sober and operating your vehicle in a responsible manner you have nothing to fear from these check points. You might even unknowingly have your's or your loved ones life saved by getting a drunk driver off the road.

    Anyway the Patriot act covers things the founding fathers had no way to envision. If an occasional minor inconvenience to a law abiding citizen can prevent a Mall from being blown up by terrorists at Christmas that's a trade off I can easily accept.
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

  19. #49
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by zulater View Post
    With very very few exceptions the Patriot Act doesn't deny law abiding American citizens the right's to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we're guaranteed.

    I would analogize it to drunk driving checkpoints. I can see where a Libertarian might see this as a violation of your basic rights. But the founding fathers had no way of envisioning the devastation that a drunk driver could bring about. And the fact is if you're sober and operating your vehicle in a responsible manner you have nothing to fear from these check points. You might even unknowingly have your's or your loved ones life saved by getting a drunk driver off the road.

    Anyway the Patriot act covers things the founding fathers had no way to envision. If an occasional minor inconvenience to a law abiding citizen can prevent a Mall from being blown up by terrorists at Christmas that's a trade off I can easily accept.
    What about NDAA? Which gives the president authority to indefinitely imprison an American citizen, without charge or trial, if they are suspected of any kind of terrorism, or association with terrorism (those are just the basic outlines, so far). Obama signed it into law and Romney stated during a debate that he is for it and thinks it's necessary. Where does it all stop?

    This basic quote still stands, if you give up freedoms for security you gain neither freedom nor security.

  20. #50
    Senior Member Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute"> zulater's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fair Hill Md.
    Posts
    15,903

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    What about NDAA? Which gives the president authority to indefinitely imprison an American citizen, without charge or trial, if they are suspected of any kind of terrorism, or association with terrorism (those are just the basic outlines, so far). Obama signed it into law and Romney stated during a debate that he is for it and thinks it's necessary. Where does it all stop?

    This basic quote still stands, if you give up freedoms for security you gain neither freedom nor security.
    We have a free press. I can guarantee you that's not changing anytime soon. And as long as that free press is in existence NDAA will not be abused by a sitting President against innocent American citizens.

    And the quote while clever in it's time doesn't deal with the world's harsh realities. If a pedophile moves into your neighborhood kinda nice to know that isn't it Mom?

    But oh my God! He served his time, how dare we violate his rights!

    Better he rape and possibly kill another couple kids than endanger our overall freedom!

    Take your little quote, put it in a capsule and give it to the grieving parents of the victimized child. I'm sure they'll feel much better as a result.
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

  21. #51
    Senior Member Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute"> zulater's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fair Hill Md.
    Posts
    15,903

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Benjamin Wittes at the Lawfare Blog has written a terrific explainer on what the NDAA does, and does not do.

    Key point rebutting the contention that the indefinite detention provisions apply to United States citizens:

    Section 1022 purports not merely to authorize but to require military custody for a subset of those who are subject to detention under Section 1021. In particular, it requires that the military hold “a covered person” pending disposition under the law of war if that person is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda” and is participating in an attack against the United States or its coalition partners. The president is allowed to waive this requirement for national security reasons. The provision exempts U.S. citizens entirely, and it applies to lawful permanent resident aliens for conduct within the United States to whatever extent the Constitution permits. It requires the administration to promulgate procedures to make sure its requirements do not interfere with basic law enforcement functions in counterterrorism cases. And it insists that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.”

    And this point regarding Guantanamo Bay facilities:

    Sections 1026 and 1027 prevent the use of federal funds for building detention facilities in the United States or transferring Guantanamo detainees to domestic facilities or releasing them into the United States. It effectively continues a congressional policy of preventing more Article III criminal trials of Guantanamo detainees and preventing the construction of alternative facilities that would enable President Obama to fulfill his promise to shutter Guantanamo.

    I have argued for a very long time that Congress, not the President, was responsible for the failure to close Guantanamo, mostly to deaf ears. This bill passed with a huge bipartisan majority in both houses, so I'm unsure how anyone but Congress can own this now.

    Wittes has more on that later in the post:

    Yes. The NDAA does three things that make it impossible, at least during fiscal year 2012, for President Obama to fulfill his promise to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. It forbids him to spend any money readying an alternative site to house detainees in the United States. It forbids transfers of detainees to the United States. And it makes it difficult–though a little less difficult than it is under the current spending restrictions–to transfer detainees to third countries. To close Guantanamo, the administration would have to transfer a bunch of detainees to other countries, and it would have to move a bunch of other detainees to some alternative facility. So as long as these restrictions exist in U.S. law, Guantanamo is going nowhere.

    These restrictions, it is worth noting, are already in current law. So while they are (in our opinion) bad ideas, they are by no means new the NDAA.

    Finally, there is this bit which should actually please civil libertarians. It was added as part of the negotiation after the President's veto threat:

    Section 1024 of the bill, as we’ve noted, requires that people subject to long-term military detention in circumstances not already subject to habeas corpus review–think the Detention Facility in Parwan, Afghanistan–henceforth shall have the right to a military lawyer and a proceeding before a military judge in order to contest the government’s factual basis for believing them to be subject to detention. This is an extraordinary and novel development. Detainees in Afghanistan currently have access to the Detainee Review Board process, which as described in this article already provide a relatively robust screening mechanism, particularly compared to years past. The DRB process does not include lawyers and judges, however, and human rights advocacy groups have criticized them on this ground. Requiring lawyers and judges to staff out the screening process is a pretty remarkable shift in the direction of accomodating those concerns.

    This is the most cogent explanation of the counterterrorism provisions in the NDAA (which covers far, far more than this) I've seen.

    As far as the politics go, when both houses of Congress have passed it with a veto-proof majority, I doubt there will be a veto forthcoming. The President could sign it and add a signing statement to the more troubling provisions. While this would certainly get some criticism from the right wing given his criticism of President Bush's use of signing statements, a signing statement would offer some clarity and political cover for signing a bill that had no hope of having a veto sustained. But whether or not he decides to go that route, it's worth reading and bookmarking Witte's post for reference, because the misinformation is flying around the Internet in a swarm right now. Ron Paul supporters, in particular, seem to be spreading mountains of misinformation. But that's a story for another post.

    http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/con...tion-provision
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

  22. #52
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    I just want to see our gov't run by competent people who will uphold the constitution. I'm not trying to tell you how to think, act, or vote. If you're not worried about them, fine...you're choice. I am though. You seem pretty content with the way things work right now, and again...your choice. I won't stop you.



    If you are not watchful, you may be saying this about your own gov't one day. But from your other statements, I guess it's just a small coup that feels this way, and we should just keep it to ourselves.
    PLEASE don't lecture me about my government. I've been political since the mid-80's, and I've already had my little teenage crush on the whole Ron Paul, libertarian thing. I grew out of that phase a long time ago...

    Also, who do you think is more competent to run our government, a Doctor who has had like 2 pieces of legislature passed in his entire tenure in DC, or a guy who built a successful business from scratch, than ran the Olympics, than managed a state for 4 years?
    Fire Goodell

  23. #53
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by suitanim View Post
    PLEASE don't lecture me about my government. I've been political since the mid-80's, and I've already had my little teenage crush on the whole Ron Paul, libertarian thing. I grew out of that phase a long time ago...

    Also, who do you think is more competent to run our government, a Doctor who has had like 2 pieces of legislature passed in his entire tenure in DC, or a guy who built a successful business from scratch, than ran the Olympics, than managed a state for 4 years?
    No one's trying to lecture you, suit. So you can just calm down on that. You do what you want, and think what you want. That's basically all I've been telling you. You just keep coming back with little jabs attempting to belittle my own position.

    Be mindful of your gov't, don't be mindful of your gov't...how you go about that isn't up to me.

    I think Paul is more competent and has a much better plan to get the country out of debt. If I didn't think he was more competent, I wouldn't want to vote for him. I don't see the fact that he's barely had any legislature passed by Congress as a focal point. I've read most of the legislature he's written, and agree with much of it. If you don't agree with me, that's your CHOICE.

  24. #54
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by zulater View Post
    We have a free press. I can guarantee you that's not changing anytime soon. And as long as that free press is in existence NDAA will not be abused by a sitting President against innocent American citizens.

    And the quote while clever in it's time doesn't deal with the world's harsh realities. If a pedophile moves into your neighborhood kinda nice to know that isn't it Mom?

    But oh my God! He served his time, how dare we violate his rights!

    Better he rape and possibly kill another couple kids than endanger our overall freedom!

    Take your little quote, put it in a capsule and give it to the grieving parents of the victimized child. I'm sure they'll feel much better as a result.
    Nice attempt at a heart-string pulling comparison. Those are people who have been charged and convicted in a court of law, but you are comparing them to people who can be detained for life w/o charge or trial. Ok.

    You're the one who asked about what constitutional rights Romney supports taking away, and I told you. You're rebuttal has basically been, but we need them taken away for our own good. If that's how you feel, fine, but why even ask that question in the first place if the answer doesn't mean anything to you?

  25. #55
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Again, this is all just going to go around in circles with no real point, and I'd rather not sit here and have my views basically ridiculed. These are ugly ways for debates to go.

  26. #56
    Senior Member Array title="smokin3000gt has a reputation beyond repute"> smokin3000gt's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    3,364

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by suitanim View Post
    PLEASE don't lecture me about my government. I've been political since the mid-80's, and I've already had my little teenage crush on the whole Ron Paul, libertarian thing. I grew out of that phase a long time ago...

    Also, who do you think is more competent to run our government, a Doctor who has had like 2 pieces of legislature passed in his entire tenure in DC, or a guy who built a successful business from scratch, than ran the Olympics, than managed a state for 4 years?

    BUT the things he says sounds good and just make sense! Sure he's never done anything that would make us think he can run a country but we all know that POTUS is 70% saying what everyone wants to hear,15% golf , and 15% vacations , and 0% leadership or ability! /sarcasm

    You know, this whole RP thing is reminding me more and more of Hopey when he was running for President. No experience or qualifications, everything just sounds good, and vote for me because I'm not that guy (who coincidentally said all the same things 4 years previous).
    Quote Originally Posted by 86WARD View Post
    Tomlin is that good.



    PATRIOTS**

    BUNGLES
    Steelers - 18 Bengals - 16 #0in25 #anotherseasonBungled




    HTG ¤-

  27. #57
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    Again, this is all just going to go around in circles with no real point, and I'd rather not sit here and have my views basically ridiculed. These are ugly ways for debates to go.
    That's just it...and exactly why I put whatshishead on ignore. YOUR views are to be admired and respected, but others that disagree with you, well, if they disagree, they just don't UNDERSTAND like you do. Like that ridiculous debate over the constitution, where I was told that my INTERPRETATION was 100% wrong, while another INTERPRETATION (which actually only differed a very little bit, and BOTH views had historical backers who were no less than the actual AUTHORS THEMSELVES) was 100% right.

    No compromise equals no compromise...and nothing gets done. I'd rather see a realistic system ran by pragmatic centrists that accomplishes SOMETHING rather than radicals from the far ends of the spectrum getting mired in the mud of doing nothing because ONLY THEY are right and the rest of us all have to go to Hell.

    Retarded.

    This country became the greatest in history because of compromise, not because of stubborn insistence on only one way of doing or seeing things.
    Fire Goodell

  28. #58
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Quote Originally Posted by suitanim View Post
    That's just it...and exactly why I put whatshishead on ignore. YOUR views are to be admired and respected, but others that disagree with you, well, if they disagree, they just don't UNDERSTAND like you do. Like that ridiculous debate over the constitution, where I was told that my INTERPRETATION was 100% wrong, while another INTERPRETATION (which actually only differed a very little bit, and BOTH views had historical backers who were no less than the actual AUTHORS THEMSELVES) was 100% right.

    No compromise equals no compromise...and nothing gets done. I'd rather see a realistic system ran by pragmatic centrists that accomplishes SOMETHING rather than radicals from the far ends of the spectrum getting mired in the mud of doing nothing because ONLY THEY are right and the rest of us all have to go to Hell.

    Retarded.

    This country became the greatest in history because of compromise, not because of stubborn insistence on only one way of doing or seeing things.
    I will agree with you there, especially your last sentence.

    Is it ok if my way of compromising is saying please vote for Rand in '16?

    I get your point about wanting someone who at least accomplishes something. My view in terms of what Paul hasn't been able to accomplish though is that it wasn't really up to him completely. I like his views and the things he's proposed, but you can't fault him for others not voting with him. I think things he's proposed were the best for the country (not all, but most), and he knows the system so he's not some kind of greenhorn like Obama. That's why I feel he's most competent.

    I'd never FORCE my views on someone else (or I at least try not too...I think we all do a bit of 'forcing' in one way or another). I'll share them, and then it's up to the other person(s) to decide if they agree. Best I can do is hope that people see things the way I do, but that's pretty much true for anyone in any kind of debate format. I'm not for the RP supporters who get in someone else's face and scream at them...you'll never get anything accomplished that way. Best is to just gather up like minded people, spread your views and work within your own gov't, and hope that you can change things for the better. That's what I feel the majority of RP supporters are doing...it's just the more radical ones get the better press coverage. It may not be something you agree with, but I'd like to see a major shift in our gov't to become much more fiscally conservative (moreso than most conservatives want it to be). Paul (both Ron and Rand) bring us that, along with a desire for constitutional liberties. There's just not much in there for me to not like or want to vote for.

    That's it for me today though, I have to somehow drag myself away from the PC and get something done today lol.

  29. #59
    Klaatu barada nikto Array title="suitanim has a brilliant future"> suitanim's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    The opposite is happening in the GOP right now. The few, having lost, and lost legitimately, are trying to illegitimately usurp power.

    I have a problem with that.
    Fire Goodell

  30. #60
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: Ron Paul Supporters Embarrassing Themselves, Party...

    Ok, had a bit of time, and want to address this.

    Quote Originally Posted by zulater View Post
    Benjamin Wittes at the Lawfare Blog has written a terrific explainer on what the NDAA does, and does not do.

    Key point rebutting the contention that the indefinite detention provisions apply to United States citizens:

    Section 1022 purports not merely to authorize but to require military custody for a subset of those who are subject to detention under Section 1021. In particular, it requires that the military hold “a covered person” pending disposition under the law of war if that person is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda” and is participating in an attack against the United States or its coalition partners. The president is allowed to waive this requirement for national security reasons. The provision exempts U.S. citizens entirely, and it applies to lawful permanent resident aliens for conduct within the United States to whatever extent the Constitution permits. It requires the administration to promulgate procedures to make sure its requirements do not interfere with basic law enforcement functions in counterterrorism cases. And it insists that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.”
    This provision does not exempt US citizens.

    §1021: (a) Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force . . . includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons . . . pending disposition under the law of war.

    Comment: The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is the resolution passed in the wake of 9/11 authorizing the President to fight terrorism. The National Defense Authorization Act is sometimes justified as mere clarification of the AUMF.

    (b) . . A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

    Comment: This provision includes people accused of certain terror-related crimes. Fine— but it does not exempt U.S. citizens or legal aliens with U.S. territory. Thus, far, it appears they can be “detain[ed] . . . pending disposition under the law of war.” But what does that mean?

    c) . . The disposition of a person under the law of war . . may include the following:
    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. . .


    Comment: This clarifies that the government may detain anyone so charged “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” Apologists for the law point out that it permits other dispositions “under the law of war,” including civilian trial. But the point is that the law does not require those other dispositions. The administration can simply decide to detain you “without trial until the end of hostilities.”

    (d) . . . Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    Comment: This is a basis for the argument that all Congress is really doing is clarifying the AUMF. But this is cold comfort, because the position of the Obama administration is that the AUMF always authorized rounding up citizen-suspects and holding them without trial!

    (e) . . . Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

    Comment: This provision is sometimes touted as protecting citizens because it preserves existing Supreme Court decisions. The problem is that, as yet, there are no Supreme Court decisions that squarely provide the full measure of habeas corpus protection to citizens or legal aliens accused within our borders. This is true because neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has had the audacity to round up U.S. citizens without our borders and hold them indefinitely without trial.

    Here are the principal Supreme Court decisions the law preserves:

    (1) A post-Civil War case (Ex Parte Milligan) saying a citizen non-combatant incarcerated outside the theater of war is entitled to habeas corpus. (This holding doesn’t help those accused of being combatants.)

    (2) The World War II-era Quirin decision that permitted President Roosevelt to detain, try in a secret military hearing, and execute a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. territory and accused of being a German spy. Obviously, this decision—which is widely acknowledged to be egregious—offers no protection against the National Defense Authorization Act.

    (3) The 2004 Hamdi case, which says that a U.S. citizen captured bearing arms in the war theater is NOT entitled to habeas corpus. He is entitled only to a minimal military hearing without a jury and without many of the traditional due process protections.. (Some apologists for the National Defense Authorization Act are claiming the Hamdi case granted a right of habeas corpus; this claim is flatly wrong.)

    (4) The 2008 Boumedienne decision, which held that alien Guantanamo detainees are entitled to habeas corpus and a civilian hearing to show that they were non-combatants.

    Obviously, none of these prior holdings addresses the habeas corpus rights of a U.S. citizen or legal alien apprehended within the U.S. and charged with being an enemy combatant. So there is no Supreme Court case providing the necessary protection preserved by the law’s provision that “existing law or authorities” are preserved.

    § 1022: (b) (1) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    (2) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.


    Comment: This section says that the administration is not REQUIRED to keep a U.S. citizen or legal resident alien in indefinite military custody. But it does not prevent the administration from doing so.


    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012...ary-potential/

    Furthermore...The final version of the bill provides, in sub-section(e), that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law.

    Senate Declines to Clarify Rights of American Qaeda Suspects Arrested in U.S.
    By CHARLIE SAVAGE
    Published: December 1, 2011

    WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday decided to leave unanswered a momentous question about constitutional rights in the war against Al Qaeda: whether government officials have the power to arrest people inside the United States and hold them in military custody indefinitely and without a trial.

    After a passionate debate over a detainee-related provision in a major defense bill, the lawmakers decided not to make clearer the current law about the rights of Americans suspected of being terrorists. Instead, they voted 99 to 1 to say the bill does not affect “existing law” about people arrested inside the United States.

    “We make clear that whatever the law is, it is unaffected by this language in our bill,” said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who helped shape the detainee-related sections of the bill with Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    The disputed provision would bolster the authorization enacted by Congress a decade ago to use military force against the perpetrators of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. It says the government may imprison suspected members of Al Qaeda or its allies in indefinite military custody.

    Because the section includes no exception for suspects arrested domestically, the provision prompted a debate about whether it would change the law by empowering the government, for the first time, to lawfully arrest people inside the United States and hold them indefinitely in military custody, or whether it would change nothing because the government has that power already.

    The debate brought new attention to the ambiguous aftermath of one of the most sweeping claims of executive power made by the Bush administration after Sept. 11: that the government can hold citizens without a trial by accusing them of being terrorists.

    One of the proponents of making no exceptions for Americans, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said it would be “crazy” to exempt Qaeda suspects who are Americans and are arrested inside the country from battlefield-style detention. He argued that, to stop other attacks, they must be interrogated without the protections of the civilian criminal justice system.

    Citizens who are suspected of joining Al Qaeda are opening themselves up “to imprisonment and death,” Mr. Graham said, adding, “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’ ”

    But Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said citizen terrorism suspects should retain their “fundamental civil liberties” in order to protect the founding principles of the United States.

    “I think at a bare minimum, that means we will not allow U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, regardless of what label we happen to apply to them,” he said.

    Before voting to leave current law unchanged, the Senate rejected, 55 to 45, a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to instead say that Americans are exempt from detention under the 2001 authorization to use military force.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us...n-us.html?_r=1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •