UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-02-2011, 03:37 PM   #1
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Oh look, even more bullshit brought to you by the legislative branch

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/01/143029...b-defense-bill

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-m...ameful-2011-12

Didn't know if this should go in debate or not, but I suppose it's a topic that could be discussed. From the second article:

Quote:
The broadcast media's ignorance and unwillingness to cover the National Defense Authorization Act, a radical piece of legislation which outrageously redefines the US homeland as a "battlefield" and makes US citizens subject to military apprehension and detainment for life without access to a trial or attorney, is unacceptable.
Motherfucker, it's like they're trying to get their 9% approval rating to become a 1%. Are you kidding me?

Discuss, I guess.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 03:42 PM   #2
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
the National Defense Authorization Act, a radical piece of legislation which outrageously redefines the US homeland as a "battlefield" and makes US citizens subject to military apprehension and detainment for life without access to a trial or attorney
On the one extreme: every single member of Congress -- even the innocent collaterals -- should be barred from serving in a legislative capacity for life if this is true.

On the other, bare fucking minimum extreme: every single co-signer of this NDAA should be barred from serving in a legislative capacity for life, period, Game Over.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 03:44 PM   #3
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
Canada is starting to look really nice right about now.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 03:53 PM   #4
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
This is getting out of hand, everything they're doing... when do we know is the time to actually go "That's it, I'm moving out, I want no part in any of this shit"? It shouldn't have to come to that!
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 04:05 PM   #5
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
This is getting out of hand, everything they're doing... when do we know is the time to actually go "That's it, I'm moving out, I want no part in any of this shit"? It shouldn't have to come to that!
When Obama stays president. That is when we get the fuck out.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 04:09 PM   #6
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
When Obama stays president. That is when we get the fuck out.
It's not Obama that's the problem, it's Congress and Senate. All of them. All 535 of them need to be thrown out. Besides, I'd love to know who you'd have as an alternative to Obama at this point
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 04:27 PM   #7
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
93-7? It looks like vetoing this bill isn't gonna do shit.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 04:32 PM   #8
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
It's not Obama that's the problem, it's Congress and Senate. All of them. All 535 of them need to be thrown out. Besides, I'd love to know who you'd have as an alternative to Obama at this point
*points at self*
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 05:32 PM   #9
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
*points at self*
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 05:56 PM   #10
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
God Save Us.

I wasn't expecting such a turn of events to occur so suddenly, but I've been suspecting something of the nature for quite some time now.

I am now quite scared..

In the second article:
Quote:
Also read Sen. Lindsey Graham's chilling defense of the offending provision in this bill, calling to make the homeland a "battlefield." Has anyone told these guys that Osama bin Laden and his deputies are dead? Those still alive are running from drone strikes on a daily basis. So who exactly are we fighting against? Are you protecting us from a handful of (almost entirely peaceful) college kids at the Occupy protests? If so, martial law and throwing out 200+ years of basic civil rights seems rather excessive.
Not just Occupiers, but TEA Partiers as well. We've already been accused of being terrorists in the media. (I disagree with the "almost entirely peaceful" comment about the occupiers, but, in context it's irrelevant, we ALL have to stand up against this, nonviolent and violent alike.)

If this Bill Passes, I'm declaring war on all it's supporters and enforcers. They want a battlefield here? They can have it, and I will fight for my Homeland.


Thankfully, I've only heard about it passing in the Senate, Conservatives hold the House of Representatives, and I doubt they'll let this monstrosity through. (If they do... We have reached the Apocalypse, and we're all doomed anyway.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
[If] Obama stays president. That is when we get the fuck out.
Agree with you here. I'm confident he will not win though, and Conservatives will sweep the Senate, hopefully to entirely repeal some of this terrible legislation we've gotten, and may get later before the elections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
It's not Obama that's the problem, it's Congress and Senate. All of them. All 535 of them need to be thrown out. Besides, I'd love to know who you'd have as an alternative to Obama at this point
It's both of them, Obama and the Senate. Democrats holding the majority there, and the RINOS following them. Everyone there needs to be forced out, physically if need be, but hopefully 2012 elections will do that for us, and hopefully our replacements are conservative enough to know government's proper place.

As for the alternative, are conservatives really that much worse then Obama? Are we really going to destroy the country, and everyone in it, if we get in power? Even the Most Obscure" Right Wing" among us? How are we not a good alternative?
I'd vote for any one of them over Obama any day, and every day after that. I would just rather get the "Best" of them first, so our course off the cliff can be totally reversed, instead of simply slowed down.


Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
*points at self*
Unfortunately, you don't fit the qualifications in the Constitution, but even so, I'd vote for you over Obama.


I'd hate to see the only option of freedom being rebellion and revolt, but if we're going to end up in a police state, under the guise that certain views are "terrorist sympathetic," and persons need to be held against Constitutional Rights, Rebellion (which will then be known as terrorism), will be the only option.. And it will be the Height of True Patriotism, a commitment to our country as founded, and not, as it is.


So,
Everyone who is old enough, Vote in 2012, and vote these naive, or (hopefully not) deliberately scheming career politicians out!
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 06:02 PM   #11
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post


Unfortunately, you don't fit the qualifications in the Constitution, but even so, I'd vote for you over Obama.

Not sure if good thing, or bad thing.

Code:
PRESIDENTIAL SUPPORTERS: 

1/150,000,000
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 06:39 PM   #12
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Being inadequate, and knowing you're inadequate, but striving to be the best you can, is the best attitude for someone in power to have (unfortunately it doesn't win elections..).
So, good thing of course.

Where'd you come across that quote?
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 06:53 PM   #13
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Not just Occupiers, but TEA Partiers as well. We've already been accused of being terrorists in the media. (I disagree with the "almost entirely peaceful" comment about the occupiers, but, in context it's irrelevant, we ALL have to stand up against this, nonviolent and violent alike.)
Tea partiers were accused a few times a very long time ago by the likes of one or two MSNBC hosts. Certainly some of them would be targeted as well, and I don't want to burst your bubble, but Occupiers are getting it a lot harder now because they aren't going away and have surprisingly enough to everyone, managed to actually hold position in their respective cities for two months and two weeks now. Which is insane. And it's becoming a problem for law enforcement and politics. This is why multiple cities tried to coordinate an eviction all at once two weeks ago, and failed. They're gaining attention from everyone and they don't like it, so they're trying to shut them down.

Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if I was, I'd almost have to question the timing of this bill with the desperation to shut down the occupy movement. I really want to say that's just crazy talk, and it's stupid to think such things, but with the state of fucked if I know going on lately in this country with the bajillion fucking things they're trying to do, I can't say that finding out such a motive like this would surprise me in the least.


Quote:
Thankfully, I've only heard about it passing in the Senate, Conservatives hold the House of Representatives, and I doubt they'll let this monstrosity through. (If they do... We have reached the Apocalypse, and we're all doomed anyway.)
Quote:
It's both of them, Obama and the Senate. Democrats holding the majority there, and the RINOS following them.
It's not. Obama already came out and said he would veto it all simply because of the indefinite military detention part. He and those who follow him closest are actually against this bill, which I must say I'm happy for, but it still grinds my gears that this is happening. I am upset once again that I have to do this and make me look partisan, but none of this looks good for the Republicans. As you can see here on senate.gov, an amendment to the bill, which would take out all of the horrible things about detention without trial and about detaining americans indefintely, was proposed. Calculating it out shows that 96% republicans voted against the amendment of the bill , 72% of democrats voted for the amendment. I'm really not trying to be partisan about this, like I said, fuck, I'd be happy to side with the republicans if the roles were reversed, but that unfortunately isn't the case.

Quote:
As for the alternative, are conservatives really that much worse then Obama? Are we really going to destroy the country, and everyone in it, if we get in power? Even the Most Obscure" Right Wing" among us? How are we not a good alternative?
I'd vote for any one of them over Obama any day, and every day after that. I would just rather get the "Best" of them first, so our course off the cliff can be totally reversed, instead of simply slowed down.
I'm not a fan of Obama, but none of the shit that has happened lately is his fault. He's barely involved if at all. The internet censoring (which he said he'd veto, too), the declaring tomato paste and it's extension of pizza a vegetable because lobbyists, this, all of this craziness in general, why do you think congress has a 9% approval rating? Everything that has been happening has been happening under the legislative branch. All of them, democrats and republicans, are showing that they are horrible. And even if there are a few who aren't, I don't fucking care at this point, guilty by association. They are literally trying to fuck this country in half.

I'll finish with this, a quote from Lindsey Graham, who, yes, is a RINO (but definitely not a dem, but somewhere in between), in regards to the bill:

Quote:
"The enemy is all over the world. Here at home. And when people take up arms against the United States and [are] captured within the United States, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.

"They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. "They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us."
This man has lost it and is wiping his ass with the constitution. I really don't know what else to say.

EDIT: Let me throw in here that Sen. Thomas Harken (IA), Rand Paul (KY), Thomas Coburn (OK), Jeff Merkley (OR), Ron Wyden (OR), Mike Lee (UT), and Bernard Sanders (VT) all deserve a round of fucking applause for being cool as fuck and not voting in favor of the bill in the first place. It depresses me to think they are the only ones though.

Last edited by deoxys; 12-02-2011 at 07:03 PM.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 08:24 PM   #14
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Tea partiers were accused a few times a very long time ago by the likes of one or two MSNBC hosts. Certainly some of them would be targeted as well, and I don't want to burst your bubble, but Occupiers are getting it a lot harder now because they aren't going away and have surprisingly enough to everyone, managed to actually hold position in their respective cities for two months and two weeks now. Which is insane. And it's becoming a problem for law enforcement and politics. This is why multiple cities tried to coordinate an eviction all at once two weeks ago, and failed. They're gaining attention from everyone and they don't like it, so they're trying to shut them down.
Oh, I'm not saying I'm important in that matter, for any reason, I was just calling attention to the fact that, peaceful US citizens have been considered terrorists before, and conservatives usually get the brunt of these allegations. This bill would allow dissenters, such as us, to be "taken care off." And just because we don't make front page news anymore, or are as active as the occupiers in protests, doesn't mean we've ceased to exist. Mostly We're biding our time for the elections to sweep out the democrat majorities.

As far as I'm aware, most democrat politicians have embraced the Occupiers, and refused to shut them down. So there must be some other reason why they'd want to stop them now. I don't disagree however that some people may want to shut them down because of their voicing opinion.

Quote:
Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if I was, I'd almost have to question the timing of this bill with the desperation to shut down the occupy movement. I really want to say that's just crazy talk, and it's stupid to think such things, but with the state of fucked if I know going on lately in this country with the bajillion fucking things they're trying to do, I can't say that finding out such a motive like this would surprise me in the least.
Well, you may not be willing to admit to conspiracy theories, but I am, and I'm not afraid of doing so. Not all conspiracies have to be "centrally organized" to be conspiracy either. While I don't think this is specific to the Occupiers, I do believe it is intended on the part of the author, against the US Citizen as a way to enhance Government Power over us, and ensure continued control through the ages.




Quote:
It's not. Obama already came out and said he would veto it all simply because of the indefinite military detention part. He and those who follow him closest are actually against this bill, which I must say I'm happy for, but it still grinds my gears that this is happening. I am upset once again that I have to do this and make me look partisan, but none of this looks good for the Republicans. As you can see here on senate.gov, an amendment to the bill, which would take out all of the horrible things about detention without trial and about detaining americans indefintely, was proposed. Calculating it out shows that 96% republicans voted against the amendment of the bill , 72% of democrats voted for the amendment. I'm really not trying to be partisan about this, like I said, fuck, I'd be happy to side with the republicans if the roles were reversed, but that unfortunately isn't the case.
Well, on that part, Bravo Obama. Even though he's proposed numerous other bits of legislation that would limit the rights and liberties of Americans. It definitely IS the senate, in this case, but I'm not going to withhold blame from Obama, because they all play political games. He's the Head of the democrat party, and the President of the United States. He should be doing more to dissuade against the bill if he feels that strongly about it, besides just threatening a veto. He certainly doesn't have trouble calling press conferences to promote jobs bills, if he were to levy that same power to educate us better on the bill, that would certainly improve my view of him, especially since even with the veto, the bill can be passed anyway, so he can get a free publicity pass if he secretly supports it.

I'm not opposed to the concept of the bill, giving greater ability to catch terrorists, but the wording is entirely off, and much to vague. Personally I also think we'd be fine without the bill entirely.
The less Congress legislates, the better. So, stop calling them to session!


Quote:
I'm not a fan of Obama, but none of the shit that has happened lately is his fault. He's barely involved if at all. The internet censoring (which he said he'd veto, too), the declaring tomato paste and it's extension of pizza a vegetable because lobbyists, this, all of this craziness in general, why do you think congress has a 9% approval rating? Everything that has been happening has been happening under the legislative branch. All of them, democrats and republicans, are showing that they are horrible. And even if there are a few who aren't, I don't fucking care at this point, guilty by association. They are literally trying to fuck this country in half.
IMO, regarding that, Obama is guilty by omission. He's president of the United States, he has the power to influence Congressional decision, the visibility as the Public Figurehead of the government to educate the American Public about the Absolute Ridiculousness that's occurring in Congress, and the responsibility to Lead the Country and Congress down a set track, be it right or wrong. He's done none of those things as president, and now all he's really caring now about is his re-election.
Congress is mostly to blame yes, but Obama is in the best position right now in the world to do something about it, and he's not.

Quote:
I'll finish with this, a quote from Lindsey Graham, who, yes, is a RINO (but definitely not a dem, but somewhere in between), in regards to the bill:

Quote: "The enemy is all over the world. Here at home. And when people take up arms against the United States and [are] captured within the United States, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.

"They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. "They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us."

This man has lost it and is wiping his ass with the constitution. I really don't know what else to say.
I agree that terrorists do not deserve certain specialized treatment, such as Noncitizens who are clearly terrorists being read Miranda Rights on the Battlefield.
US Citizens DO have rights, God-given, as well as Government granted, and these need to be respected, ALWAYS.
However, any United States Citizen, who have been convicted of a Terrorist act against the US, or any act that is intentionally harmful to the US or it's citizens, after having been given all their legal rights, is by definition a Traitor and an enemy to their country, and should be treated as such.

I couldn't care less how long you detain them or how terribly you interrogate them, as long as they have been provably convicted of their treachery or terrorist act beforehand.

The only exception I can accept for a Citizen accused of Terrorism, is humane detainment until, and during, their rightfully "speedy" trial. Afterwards, let them go if innocent, or detain them indefinitely if guilty. It's that simple.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 08:32 PM   #15
Lonely Cubone
Gee, Brain...
 
Lonely Cubone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,103
Send a message via MSN to Lonely Cubone
Okay, now I won't claim to be an expert on American politics, but what the fuck?
Lonely Cubone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 08:33 PM   #16
DaveTheFishGuy
Primordial Fishbeast
 
DaveTheFishGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,258
Send a message via Skype™ to DaveTheFishGuy
Relicanth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonely Cubone View Post
Okay, now I won't claim to be an expert on American politics, but what the fuck?
Joining Elsie in the 'Totally lost' camp.

If you guys were still in the Empire it'd be simpler, dammit.
DaveTheFishGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 08:43 PM   #17
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTheFishGuy View Post


Joining Elsie in the 'Totally lost' camp.

If you guys were still in the Empire it'd be simpler, dammit.
At this point, I would probably ask you for passage to England.

You know what the saddest thing about this is? Most of America has no idea that a law that BLATANTLY violates their Constitutional right is being passed through Senate right this moment.

Sickening.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 11:10 PM   #18
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Mostly We're biding our time for the elections to sweep out the democrat majorities.
You mean the majority that doesn't exist? There are 242 Republicans in Congress right now, and 192 Democrats, a huge marginal difference. The Senate has 53 Dems and 47 Repubs. A slight upperhand for the Dems for sure, but not by much. Also wanting to have a single party rule a country is a bad thing for either side. Every opinion should be allowed to be heard, and a single party ruling would basically mean certain ideas and thoughts would never be heard without being immediately shamed and voted against, or something like that.

Quote:
As far as I'm aware, most democrat politicians have embraced the Occupiers, and refused to shut them down. So there must be some other reason why they'd want to stop them now. I don't disagree however that some people may want to shut them down because of their voicing opinion.
That's not true, I would link it if I could find it, but I read an article the other day where a few democrats were verbally destroying Occupiers, calling them names and such like dirty hippies or some such, not to mention a lot of democrats feel the movement is a nuisance. Why do you think Obama has stayed silent on the police brutality and the movement in general? All he's said was when it first started happening that 'their anger is understandable' and 'we need to fix things' etc etc. But I wish the notion that it's just democrats that support or embrace the movement would stop. In fact, another article I recently read was discussing how some smaller tea party groups are merging with their local occupy protests around the country and finding common ground so they can protest the same things.

Quote:
Well, on that part, Bravo Obama. Even though he's proposed numerous other bits of legislation that would limit the rights and liberties of Americans. It definitely IS the senate, in this case, but I'm not going to withhold blame from Obama, because they all play political games. He's the Head of the democrat party, and the President of the United States. He should be doing more to dissuade against the bill if he feels that strongly about it, besides just threatening a veto. He certainly doesn't have trouble calling press conferences to promote jobs bills, if he were to levy that same power to educate us better on the bill, that would certainly improve my view of him, especially since even with the veto, the bill can be passed anyway, so he can get a free publicity pass if he secretly supports it.
He doesn't secretly support it, that's for sure. I agree there is more that he could do, such as call a small conference explaining the dangers of the bill and then proceeding to ask Americans to call their representative and tell them to revise it or such, but he might also be waiting to veto it and then make a statement that he vetoed it, here's why he vetoed it, and that senate is going to try to pass it through again anyway. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that's what winds up happening, but that is kind of irresponsible because the bill should be shut down ASAP.



Quote:
IMO, regarding that, Obama is guilty by omission. He's president of the United States, he has the power to influence Congressional decision, the visibility as the Public Figurehead of the government to educate the American Public about the Absolute Ridiculousness that's occurring in Congress, and the responsibility to Lead the Country and Congress down a set track, be it right or wrong. He's done none of those things as president, and now all he's really caring now about is his re-election.
Congress is mostly to blame yes, but Obama is in the best position right now in the world to do something about it, and he's not.
I never thought I'd see myself defending Obama this heavily, and no offense, but your opinion is wrong. Believe it or not, even as president he does not have that much power to influence members of Congress or Senate, and you and I both know he especially doesn't have any power over anything any of the conservatives and republicans do. Bipartisan teamwork between a president, any president, and the opposite party never works. It didn't work for Bush, it didn't work for Clinton, and it especially doesn't work for Obama because of the amount of disgust the Republican party has for him. If you look over voting history of the congress throughout Obama's term, you will find a lot of Republicans who have come out and blatantly said something along the lines of 'If Obama is for it, I'm against it.' I've heard a lot of Republicans say that, just as I heard back in the day a handful of Democrats say the same for Bush.

When a President does work with congressmen or senators, the best he can really do is to give them a phone call and say "Look, I really need you to vote for/against this, and if you do, I'll help you out with your campaign/I'll publicly promote your idea of a bill you want passed/I'll buy you a pony". That's about all. If you're curious to ever find out more about that process from staff points of view, as well as from the congressmen and senators, Frontline has had a few really good specials with interviews of those who've worked directly for and under the President and have seen first hand how hard it is. It's not simple at all, but I think I'm reaching the rambling limit and I've probably made my point. So, TL;DR - The President, as powerful as he is, is very limited on getting congress or senate to do something he disagrees with, especially if they're from the opposing party.

Now again, keep in mind there are 242 Republicans in Congress right now, and 192 Democrats. That's a whopping 50 more, which is a huge margin, essentially ensuring the Republicans get whatever outcome they want.

Quote:
The only exception I can accept for a Citizen accused of Terrorism, is humane detainment until, and during, their rightfully "speedy" trial. Afterwards, let them go if innocent, or detain them indefinitely if guilty. It's that simple.
See: Bradley Manning. The thing he may or may not have done, potential espionage/treason (not terrorism), is completely up for debate, but he's been rotting in solitary confinement for over a year now without a trial, which, as a veteran and citizen to this country he deserves. He's essentially been in jail for a year without a court ruling.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 11:21 PM   #19
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTheFishGuy View Post


Joining Elsie in the 'Totally lost' camp.

If you guys were still in the Empire it'd be simpler, dammit.
Not sure how lost you are, so...

In Non-Amurikan' Layman's Terms, it's like this - Our version of Parliament is attempting to make it a law that our own military can come and detain/arrest any American they want IN THE COUNTRY for however long they want, without a court trial to find them guilty. Which, by the way, 'right to a fair trial' is an American right written in the Constitution, the backbone of our law making process.

Now, this was argued as "This will help stop american terrorists here at home!", but even then, every single citizen is allowed the right to a fair trial. All of us, terrorist or not, no exceptions. The law is the law, and should be treated as such without any exceptions. If this new thing becomes a law, this shits all over that right and could possibly be considered illegal because of it. But even if it is, there is a chance nothing will be done about it.

I hope that helps... if not, I'll try to make it simpler
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2011, 04:13 AM   #20
Lonely Cubone
Gee, Brain...
 
Lonely Cubone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,103
Send a message via MSN to Lonely Cubone
Er, I think I understood, my reaction was just based on sheer surprise. I believe the UK Terrorism Act has similar provisions (inb4 Kush) but limited to 28 days detention...I believe it was 42 for a while but that lapsed, and Blair tried to get it up to 90 but there was massive resistance and it failed. Indefinite is...scary.
Lonely Cubone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2011, 04:56 AM   #21
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonely Cubone View Post
Er, I think I understood, my reaction was just based on sheer surprise. I believe the UK Terrorism Act has similar provisions (inb4 Kush) but limited to 28 days detention...I believe it was 42 for a while but that lapsed, and Blair tried to get it up to 90 but there was massive resistance and it failed. Indefinite is...scary.
brought to you by crackpot Senators. *hic*
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2011, 07:39 AM   #22
Char
Banned
 
Char's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Patches made this cool Charmander pumpkin
Posts: 1,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus View Post
Canada is starting to look really nice right about now.
Char is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2011, 11:23 AM   #23
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
You mean the majority that doesn't exist? There are 242 Republicans in Congress right now, and 192 Democrats, a huge marginal difference. The Senate has 53 Dems and 47 Repubs. A slight upperhand for the Dems for sure, but not by much. Also wanting to have a single party rule a country is a bad thing for either side. Every opinion should be allowed to be heard, and a single party ruling would basically mean certain ideas and thoughts would never be heard without being immediately shamed and voted against, or something like that.
Democrats controlled entirely both houses, the last two years of Bush, and the first two years of Obama, so everything that happened during that time is their fault, even if every single Republican voted against those things, they'd get passed anyway. It doesn't matter how large the majority is, there no "slight upper hand" when it comes to a majorty rule. If it's over 50%, that party controls that house, and can push through any bill they like, and with a President that agrees, it becomes Law. 2/3rds majority is needed only to overturn the president

Republicans won a sweeping majority in the House of Representatives just recently. This is the reason for the deadlock that's been occurring lately, and the reason for the now overwhelming difference in numbers, as you've reported. Each party controls a different house of congress however, each with different, and incompatible, ideologies. Being as the majority of America they represent voted for them, this is right and proper.
Things will only get done, by the founder's design, when the country is unified in the outcome, and votes a particular "ideological majority" into the Congress, which in 2012, is likely to be conservative, Aka Republican.



Quote:
That's not true, I would link it if I could find it, but I read an article the other day where a few democrats were verbally destroying Occupiers, calling them names and such like dirty hippies or some such, not to mention a lot of democrats feel the movement is a nuisance. Why do you think Obama has stayed silent on the police brutality and the movement in general? All he's said was when it first started happening that 'their anger is understandable' and 'we need to fix things' etc etc. But I wish the notion that it's just democrats that support or embrace the movement would stop. In fact, another article I recently read was discussing how some smaller tea party groups are merging with their local occupy protests around the country and finding common ground so they can protest the same things.
It has been true, at least when the movement first started, many Democrats embraced them, said good things about them, came out in support of them, etc.
Obama has also said, that the Occupiers were the Reason he ran for president.
Of course, most of those who had embraced them, are seemingly now trying to distance themselves from it, which is quite curious.
Now, I'm not doing to disagree and say that some TEA partiers have not joined with Occupy Wall Street, but overall, there are apparent differences between the two groups, some of which I'd think are insurmountable, though there may be some common ground to be found, but I'm still rather suspect of these people being a genuine grass roots movement. (some may be, others most likely not.)



Quote:
He doesn't secretly support it, that's for sure. I agree there is more that he could do, such as call a small conference explaining the dangers of the bill and then proceeding to ask Americans to call their representative and tell them to revise it or such, but he might also be waiting to veto it and then make a statement that he vetoed it, here's why he vetoed it, and that senate is going to try to pass it through again anyway. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that's what winds up happening, but that is kind of irresponsible because the bill should be shut down ASAP.
I never said he did, I said it's not impossible, and IF he did, he could veto it as a political maneuver, and still be safe in having it's passage.

Whatever he does, at least we can both agree that he hasn't done enough.





Quote:
I never thought I'd see myself defending Obama this heavily, and no offense, but your opinion is wrong. Believe it or not, even as president he does not have that much power to influence members of Congress or Senate, and you and I both know he especially doesn't have any power over anything any of the conservatives and republicans do. Bipartisan teamwork between a president, any president, and the opposite party never works. It didn't work for Bush, it didn't work for Clinton, and it especially doesn't work for Obama because of the amount of disgust the Republican party has for him. If you look over voting history of the congress throughout Obama's term, you will find a lot of Republicans who have come out and blatantly said something along the lines of 'If Obama is for it, I'm against it.' I've heard a lot of Republicans say that, just as I heard back in the day a handful of Democrats say the same for Bush.
When a President does work with congressmen or senators, the best he can really do is to give them a phone call and say "Look, I really need you to vote for/against this, and if you do, I'll help you out with your campaign/I'll publicly promote your idea of a bill you want passed/I'll buy you a pony". That's about all. If you're curious to ever find out more about that process from staff points of view, as well as from the congressmen and senators, Frontline has had a few really good specials with interviews of those who've worked directly for and under the President and have seen first hand how hard it is. It's not simple at all, but I think I'm reaching the rambling limit and I've probably made my point. So, TL;DR - The President, as powerful as he is, is very limited on getting congress or senate to do something he disagrees with, especially if they're from the opposing party.
He does not have power to move them himself, correct. Though, he seemed to be doing quite a bit to try and forge support for his Jobs bill. And under normal circumstances that would have been plenty to get it passed too.
Spoiler: show
The problem was, anyone who actually read the bill, could tell it was nothing like he was claiming, and anyone who knew economics could tell it was seriously detrimental to America and the economy

The bipartisian approach can do nothing where there are deep ideological divides like there are between Liberals and Conservatives, any "compromise" is just one party caving to the other's demands (Usually Republicans caving to stalwart unmovable liberals, unfortunately). However, where there is a good idea that doesn't touch those ideological lines, both sides will naturally vote the same (Like the Plain Writing Act)

"if X is for it, I'm against it," while good, seems really just to be an easy cop out from having to read the bills. Obama has shown through his own proposed bills, that his interests are not in America's interest, though, so being against anything he's for, will generally be the right path most of the time.


Quote:
Now again, keep in mind there are 242 Republicans in Congress right now, and 192 Democrats. That's a whopping 50 more, which is a huge margin, essentially ensuring the Republicans get whatever outcome they want.
Wrong. It does not ensure Republicans get whatever they want, because congress is divided into two houses, and Republicans only have the whopping Majority in the Lower House. It takes both houses to pass a bill. Democrats, though the margin is slim, still have the majority in the Senate, which allows them to block anything the Republican controlled House sends to them. And since Republicans control the House, anything the Democrats in the senate send them, can also be blocked. Nothing gets done. Neither side gets whatever they want.

This is entirely by design of our Founding Fathers. When the Citizens are divided as we are, Congress can get nothing done. And since elections are staggered, it requires us Citizens to think long and hard on what direction we want the country to take. Once we have made a series of well thought out, unified decisions at the voting box, one view will overrule the other in the Congress (Party Majority Rule over both Houses for instance), and things will start getting done again.
Spoiler: show
Though, originally, Senators were supposed to be picked by State Governors, to act on the behalf of the state. I guess that was changed as we transitioned into a Bureaucratic Supernational Government Over the People And the States instead of By the People Of the States...

Support States Rights!!




Quote:
See: Bradley Manning. The thing he may or may not have done, potential espionage/treason (not terrorism), is completely up for debate, but he's been rotting in solitary confinement for over a year now without a trial, which, as a veteran and citizen to this country he deserves. He's essentially been in jail for a year without a court ruling.
Well, I disagree with this decision, and believe he should get his rightfully "Speedy" trial, traitor or not. If he is a traitor, he can rot afterwards though.

Last edited by unownmew; 12-03-2011 at 04:33 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2011, 08:13 PM   #24
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
Just have to weigh the pros and cons of staying in the states with legislation like this and the uncertain nature of changing countries. You might want to consider Australia!

BORKED
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB.
Muyotwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2011, 10:56 PM   #25
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
On the one extreme: every single member of Congress -- even the innocent collaterals -- should be barred from serving in a legislative capacity for life if this is true.

On the other, bare fucking minimum extreme: every single co-signer of this NDAA should be barred from serving in a legislative capacity for life, period, Game Over.
Thank god for Judicial.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.