drrnage E ih unarEy Group: Members
Joined: Jul 5, 2006
What this President, he is not alone in this, and what the bill allows for are two completely different things. He signed it.
On the note of lies, i.e. logical fallacy, he lies in his speeches an average of 9.3 lies per minute.
We have put up with this sort of behavior in government for far too long.
I agree that more accountability is needed for each branch of government.
The biggest problem with the bill is that it circumvents the powers of the court altogether and that alone makes it an outrage. If you continue to reroute authority of the people whom have delegated powers of their own, justice, to the executive branch then the republic, not a democracy either, suffers much and continues to suffer until it eventually will suffer all of what it considers in principal and point of fact survival and fact.
The government using data collected from corporations, because they have no way to do so legally using their own agencies is an added outrage, that compounds the real issues, to this process of government forms decline into something else.
The bill allows for the imperial fascism to root itself with corporate vs public espionage to become so intertwined that the only result possible becomes an imperial corporate fascist state headed up by a dictator with nearly unlimited world power. This has been entirely already made the truth when in violation of his powers Obama was President of the UN during his presidency. This bill just makes his "authority" able to discount the U.S. Constitution entirely.
How so on this last statement?
Easy cheese, if you look at it closely you will see that the parameters for what makes someone arrest and detain able are things that are part of the procedure of finding so called terrorists. The parameters are not listed and rely on the methods of previous and existing standards used by police agencies. The MIAC report for instance which in and of itself has declared more than once in its regular publications that,"Those that declare anything about the U.S. Constitution or the Constitutions of any state are potential terrorists. Anyone with a Ron Paul sticker on their car is a potential terrorist.
"Potential Terrorist", is listed in the bill because it allows for complete discrimination without due process. The word and whim of those of position.
You know what that is?
That is a direct violation of the oaths of every person that signed that bill, because of the oaths they take to uphold the documents that state, set up and allow their offices. Thus, sedition and treason. The statements about Ron Paul are also a direct violation of the electoral process amongst several other federal offenses. There are many other things as well such as, VETERANS, FIREARM OWNERSHIP and many other such things.
Any one of these things make anyone a "potential terrorist", according to the parameters in use today by law enforcement. The might as well add the ability to defend against foreign and domestic takeover of government by the paymasters behind the scenes, undoubtedly. After all, they already included the people that take the oath to defend against that sort of takeover as being potential terrorists.
When a bill is written it has to work in accordance with the laws and processes already in place, else you find yourselves in such a position.
Rand Paul even stated that he would not sign it because it was blatantly seditious and treasonous. His dad taught him never to sign such a bill and look, they try and through Ron on the fire as well thinking no one the wiser.
Really doesn't leave much to wonder why over 70 percent of the US Military are Ron Paul supporters that have announced that he is the only one to vote for....
...now, does it?
This post has been edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy on Saturday, Mar 10 2012, 06:20
Wilderness of Mirrors Group: The Connection
Joined: Feb 14, 2011
I think much of the rest of your statement has been covered elsewhere in the topic, and I'm sure that Ivirding will respond (and based on much of the discussion amongst legal practitioners and members of the military, I'm not entirely sure many of the statements you make are accurate in the slightest- more sensationalist hyperbole than realistic practice, but I digress), can I just respond to this one?
QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Saturday, Mar 10 2012, 07:09)
Really doesn't leave much to wonder why over 70 percent of the US Military are Ron Paul supporters that have announced that he is the only one to vote for....
This has been covered elsewhere and I'm pretty sure that it's complete rubbish. There are approximately 3 million active or reservist service personnel in the US, plus another million or so civilian military employees working in the DoD and its various off-shoots. There are 21.8 million veterans (as of 2010) in the US; combined with active service personnel that makes up around 10% of the entire US population; now the views shared by members of the military are generally held by veterans too- once a soldier, always a soldier- so you can quite realistically estimate that if RP is supported by 70% of current service personnel, then he's going to receive a roughly similar amount of support from veterans- that's only logical.
If 10% of the potential electorate is made up of armed forces personnel, then it would be logical to assume that 10% of those eligible to vote in the 2012 republican primaries would be serving or ex-military personnel (the real figure is likely to be a bit higher if anything because, historically, the Republican party has had a friendlier relationship with the military hierarchy than the Democrats have). With Ron Paul only averaging approximately 9% of the vote, that leads to two possible outcomes- either Ron Paul is nowhere near as popular amongst the military as people like to claim he is, or he's about as popular as Saddam Hussein everywhere else.
I love UAVs Group: Andolini Mafia Family
Joined: Nov 6, 2008
Your post is mostly sensationalist nonsense, but I'll address a few things.
Sivis more than took care of the military support for Paul part, but regardless I have a few things to add onto it - Ron Paul is not supported by the intelligence community, nor is he supported by military officers. Officers and members of the intelligence community, people who are educated and understand how politics and foreign policy work, recognize that he is a complete lunatic. Go look up his support amongst enlisted personnel vs. officers, you'll confirm what I said.
He signed it and added a signing statement stating that it will not be enforced upon US citizens, infact, as the court held in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, it is unconstitutional to use it that way, and the court will step in should it be enforced upon US citizens. Your concerns are certainly noted, but they are unfounded.
QUOTE
The biggest problem with the bill is that it circumvents the powers of the court altogether and that alone makes it an outrage. If you continue to reroute authority of the people whom have delegated powers of their own, justice, to the executive branch then the republic, not a democracy either, suffers much and continues to suffer until it eventually will suffer all of what it considers in principal and point of fact survival and fact.
How exactly does it do that? Could you show me specific parts of it (you don't have to quote the sections, but at least tell me some provisions which you think circumvent the power of the other branches) that do that? I only ask because I don't really see much in there that does that. You have to understand that, when Congress passes a bill like this, they cede a lot of their authority to the President. For example, say Congress passes a bill calling for the abolishing of 4 cabinet departments, and charges the President to come up with one new department to take the job of the abolished 4. It might say "The President shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this bill". What that says it that, we the Congress, are telling the President he can erase those agencies and replace them with a new one, all within his purview. The same occurs with this bill; congress cedes what authority it has on these matters to the executive by passing it. As for the judiciary, you have a point. I'm actually currently in the process of writing a paper on the constitutionality of the Protect America Act and its successor, the FISA Amendments Act. One of the points I make clearly is that the bill is inherently unconstitutional because it circumvents the FISA courts by allowing the AG and the DNI to grant search warrants. That is an example of a branch of government being circumvented. Not sure I see such an occurrence in this NDAA.
QUOTE
Easy cheese, if you look at it closely you will see that the parameters for what makes someone arrest and detain able are things that are part of the procedure of finding so called terrorists. The parameters are not listed and rely on the methods of previous and existing standards used by police agencies. The MIAC report for instance which in and of itself has declared more than once in its regular publications that,"Those that declare anything about the U.S. Constitution or the Constitutions of any state are potential terrorists. Anyone with a Ron Paul sticker on their car is a potential terrorist.
I've read the MIAC report as well as the entire OIA report from DHS about right wing extremism. Read them yourself instead of reading little snipits from your Ron Paul/anti federal reserve conspiracy websites. Ron Paul does not appear in either report, and the word constitution appears only when talking about DC v. Heller and the fact that right wing conspiracy groups advocate that Obama is trying to suspend the constitution. That's it. Please find me the respective report you're talking about. Also, keep in mind if it does exist, MIAC is not an official government agency.
QUOTE
That is a direct violation of the oaths of every person that signed that bill, because of the oaths they take to uphold the documents that state, set up and allow their offices. Thus, sedition and treason. The statements about Ron Paul are also a direct violation of the electoral process amongst several other federal offenses. There are many other things as well such as, VETERANS, FIREARM OWNERSHIP and many other such things.
That's just nonsense. That means that anytime a Congressperson or Senator voted for a bill, or a President signed one, that was later ruled unconstitutional, he/she is guilty of treason? Are you out of your mind? The Line Item Veto Act was declared unconstitutional; does that mean the whole House and Senate are treasonous? Bill Clinton treasonous? What about the various members of Congress who were founding fathers, as well as George Washington himself, the signer of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which was the first bill ever declared unconstitutional; are they treasonous? Really, come on man.
This post has been edited by Irviding on Sunday, Mar 11 2012, 08:02
drrnage E ih unarEy Group: Members
Joined: Jul 5, 2006
QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Mar 11 2012, 03:00)
Your post is mostly sensationalist nonsense, but I'll address a few things.
You start your post with the use of, Appeal to Ridicule, a logical fallacy.
Then you expect me to hold any respect for what else you have to say?
Really?
No, I will continue as I have been without recognizing those whom use lies to manipulate and then beg that I show them things which allow for more and more use of logical fallacy and play the Inquisitor Approach, which denies everything against them and pokes holes with lies and deceptive angles to prevent the most basic, honest logic from being able to present itself.
Such methods have convicted bologna sandwiches of murder.
-------Yet, I'm glad to see you hear me out. The Congressional Pass on things is not over yet and it is doubtful whether they truly realize what they have done, and those that do could care less until they get their due payment......More on that in a bit.
Sure, I could point of fact and walk you through the mess. Yet the funny thing to me is that you REALLY have no idea to whom you are speaking, and currently I like it that way.
--------side rant------related only as a question of accountability and demonstration of the character of those in positions of power in our country from the executive branch side of things, with two hands in the air, like a level for weight on both hands of a scale, and an serious eyebrow raised at Congress as well. (If they are this uncertain of powers given and permission, then the NDAA is worse than ever expected.)
More recently, Obama was quoted, on record, saying that he would do whatever he deemed necessary with US Citizens and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
But I digress, because he has said that several times before
Of course, that is not as bad as what else went on last week with Congress and the US Military.
But....Is it?
It is one and the same. This is all just a small part of moving toward the goal of very speciic individuals.
The S 1867 bill is to be used, and has already started being used, exactly as I have said.
Go ahead and roll your eyes, that is what the unsuspecting public so often does at times like this. Although, I am attempting to leave another option for the understanding of those largely unaware.
-------
But don't worry, there is so much that the majority don't know about things and the what of it.
Take The President for instance.
Not to mention that a very influential man died in February, right before he was to come out with video of Obama at Communists meetings on schedule of March 1st, along with complete descriptions of what was being planned for the USA.
Coincidence?
Yeah, right!
QUOTE
QUOTE
That is a direct violation of the oaths of every person that signed that bill, because of the oaths they take to uphold the documents that state, set up and allow their offices. Thus, sedition and treason. The statements about Ron Paul are also a direct violation of the electoral process amongst several other federal offenses. There are many other things as well such as, VETERANS, FIREARM OWNERSHIP and many other such things.
That's just nonsense. That means that anytime a Congressperson or Senator voted for a bill, or a President signed one, that was later ruled unconstitutional, he/she is guilty of treason? Are you out of your mind? The Line Item Veto Act was declared unconstitutional; does that mean the whole House and Senate are treasonous? Bill Clinton treasonous? What about the various members of Congress who were founding fathers, as well as George Washington himself, the signer of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which was the first bill ever declared [/quot]unconstitutional; are they treasonous? Really, come on man.
The bill is far worse that Unconstitutional, it is AntiConstitution, because of the process accepted by US law enforcement for investigating "potential terrorists" has allowed for anyone that cites the US Constitution to be considered a threat on merit.
It is completely freaking backwards!
Heavily edited.
This post has been edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy on Tuesday, Mar 13 2012, 00:46
♣ ♦You Shouldn't Have Done That™♠ ♥ Group: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2011
QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Tuesday, Mar 13 2012, 00:20)
The bill is far worse that Unconstitutional, it is AntiConstitution, because of the process accepted by US law enforcement for investigating "potential terrorists" has allowed for anyone that cites the US Constitution to be considered a threat on merit.
It is completely freaking backwards!
Technically, if the bill is unconstitutional, we have the right to overthrow the government and reform. Just know that the Union of Shyguy Socialist Republics will prevail.
On a more serious note, this is a violation of basic human rights, and is unacceptable. We are being run by idiots, and the only people campaigning to replace these idiots are even worse. The only people I would vote for are Obama and Ron Paul, and Ron Paul is just in it for the inspiration. I would seriously suggest a rebellion against this league of retards called the American government before they set the world on fire. You can't trust republicans anyways, all they will do is start oil wars and drop nukes. It's just like 2004, there is nobody to vote for, so we will have to vote for the least retarded canidate. Hopefully the Democratic Primaries aren't this horrible.
Wilderness of Mirrors Group: The Connection
Joined: Feb 14, 2011
QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Tuesday, Mar 27 2012, 07:45)
QUOTE (HolyGrenadeFrenzy @ Tuesday, Mar 13 2012, 00:20)
The bill is far worse that Unconstitutional, it is AntiConstitution, because of the process accepted by US law enforcement for investigating "potential terrorists" has allowed for anyone that cites the US Constitution to be considered a threat on merit.
It is completely freaking backwards!
Technically, if the bill is unconstitutional, we have the right to overthrow the government and reform. Just know that the Union of Shyguy Socialist Republics will prevail.
On a more serious note, this is a violation of basic human rights, and is unacceptable. We are being run by idiots, and the only people campaigning to replace these idiots are even worse. The only people I would vote for are Obama and Ron Paul, and Ron Paul is just in it for the inspiration. I would seriously suggest a rebellion against this league of retards called the American government before they set the world on fire. You can't trust republicans anyways, all they will do is start oil wars and drop nukes. It's just like 2004, there is nobody to vote for, so we will have to vote for the least retarded canidate. Hopefully the Democratic Primaries aren't this horrible.
[Supreme]
Please demonstrate when a Republican has "dropped nukes" in the last 50 years. In fact, the only US president to rubber-stamp the tactical or strategic use of nuclear weapons, Harry Truman, was a democrat. Also, whilst I agree on one level with regards to violation of human rights if it was proposing indefinite detention of civilian non combatants, it sort of isn't. A detention is not indefinite if you have clauses indicating time limits, even if these are fluid.
Ron Paul is not supported by the intelligence community, nor is he supported by military officers. Officers and members of the intelligence community, people who are educated and understand how politics and foreign policy work, recognize that he is a complete lunatic. Go look up his support amongst enlisted personnel vs. officers, you'll confirm what I said.
Your avatar shows you support someone that equates rape with possession of marijuana. Someone that thinks the new testament should be a mandatory part of the curriculum in the public schooling system.
You're right though. Ron Paul is a lunatic. Rick Santorum is not.
Wilderness of Mirrors Group: The Connection
Joined: Feb 14, 2011
QUOTE (MarkC9 @ Wednesday, Apr 4 2012, 15:28)
Your avatar shows you support someone that equates rape with possession of marijuana. Someone that thinks the new testament should be a mandatory part of the curriculum in the public schooling system.
You're right though. Ron Paul is a lunatic. Rick Santorum is not.
drrnage E ih unarEy Group: Members
Joined: Jul 5, 2006
I choose this for the theme-song for such matters.
out in the open they aint gonna hide police state upon us prepare to collide theyre gonna keep you down step on your neck cant move no more the weapon of their choosing is censorship and war and i can see the line up now everyone is just partisan you see one side claims victory but its just a zero sum liberty and freedom in quotations spray painted on the wall verbalized explosion we will come back some day if your ideas are suspect now your in contempt report to the committee no one is exempt and the zealots and crusaders they cant justify with threats and intimidation designed to terrify
liberty and freedom in quotations spray painted on the wall verbalized explosion we will come back some day
-Thread locked due to HGF's pointless spamming. Next time, if you are going to disappear for three months, don;t announce your return with such stupidity-
This post has been edited by sivispacem on Sunday, Jun 24 2012, 00:07
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
