calfoxwc Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 So, Heck, still think it's enough to just attack me personally to diffuse my criticism of Obamao? Here's a clue for you, Heck. Rachel Maddow is no member of the "right wing conspiracy" ! She isn't a Republican. She isn't on Fox News. She's a bigtime lib MSNBC Obamao criticizer now. She's more honest than you are, Heck. She can handle the truth. And, it's about the "detaining Americans for whatever cause" bill.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Actually even though we all know that Maddow is a left wing loon I'd say she's not as partisan as many others. I think she's more an ideologue then a democrat. Actually I'm fine with that legislation. And I am amused at the presidents attempt to worm his way around signing it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 So, Heck, still think it's enough to just attack me personally to diffuse my criticism of Obamao? Here's a clue for you, Heck. Rachel Maddow is no member of the "right wing conspiracy" ! She isn't a Republican. She isn't on Fox News. She's a bigtime lib MSNBC Obamao criticizer now. She's more honest than you are, Heck. She can handle the truth. And, it's about the "detaining Americans for whatever cause" bill.... Cal, I agree with you here. Biggest piece of bullshit I've ever seen politically in my life. Why is there not outrage, it's nuts. Petition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 Suspend habeas corpus and enact martial law? By Chris Powell Published: Monday, December 12, 2011 1:40 PM EST Americans seem ready to forfeit their most basic civil liberty -- actually, all their civil liberties -- without a whimper. By a vote of 93-7 the Senate this month approved a military appropriations bill empowering the government to designate any U.S. citizen within the country as a terrorist and to have the military hold him indefinitely without trial and without the right to habeas corpus, the right to be brought before a court for a judgment on the legality of one's imprisonment. In effect the legislation is a declaration of martial law throughout the country. The bill still has to be reconciled by a conference committee with a different version passed by the House of Representatives. But even Connecticut U.S. Rep. Joseph D. Courtney, a liberal Democrat and a member of the committee, plans to support the martial law provision and expects it to be enacted. Courtney, who used to be a lawyer, cites as consolation the money contained in the bill for Connecticut military contractors, tens of millions of dollars for jet fighter engines manufactured by the Pratt & Whitney division of United Technologies Corp. in East Hartford and for nuclear submarines made by the Electric Boat division of General Dynamics in Groton. * At least Connecticut’s junior senator, Richard Blumenthal, was one of 38 senators who voted to try to remove the martial law provision from the bill. Connecticut’s senior senator, Joseph I. Lieberman, who also used to be a lawyer but now is the Senate’s foremost advocate of perpetual imperial war, voted for martial law. The Constitution prohibits suspension of the right of habeas corpus "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." While habeas corpus was suspended in certain circumstances during the Civil War, there is no rebellion or invasion now and no impairment of the criminal-justice system, and the mere danger of terrorism does not constitute rebellion or invasion. President Obama is threatening to veto the legislation but not so much for its suspension of habeas corpus. Rather, the bill is objectionable to the president because it would prevent the government from transferring terrorism suspects from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to installations in the United States, even for trial. If the bill becomes law the president and his successors will gain dictatorial power, the power exercised by the worst tyrants in history -- Hitler, Stalin, and Mao -- the power to kidnap anyone off the street or out of his own home and lock him away incommunicado forever. The president will be able to do that even to members of Congress themselves, and while it would suit them right for enacting such an abomination, Americans better rise up and stop it if they don't want the country to slip into totalitarianism as Germany did in similar circumstances in 1933. First the German people were demoralized and deprived of economic security by hyperinflation and depression. Then they were frightened into submission by the burning of the parliament building in Berlin, which was opportunistically depicted by the National Socialist-dominated coalition government as Communist Party terrorism and used as the pretext for a proclamation, issued the next day, suspending all civil liberties, including, specifically, habeas corpus. Three weeks later the Nazis persuaded parliament to surrender its power through the infamous Enabling Act, allowing the Nazi chancellor to rule by decree. He did so for 12 more years. Eventually one of those decrees was the "Night and Fog" decree, under which people across Europe simply disappeared, never to be seen again. Americans may have some vague awareness of the horror perpetrated by Germany back then. But do they have any idea of how closely they are following the Germans in what led to it? Our politicians don't seem to have any idea. Republicans who scream about the supposed oppressiveness of a government that would require everyone to have medical insurance are rushing to give that government the power to make people disappear. And Democrats who chafe at the government's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage are ready to forfeit the longest-established and most substantial liberties because a free society can never eliminate the danger that someone can plant a bomb somewhere -- though a totalitarian society can't eliminate it either. No amount of military contracting in Connecticut can be worth even a day without due process of law. The purpose of military contracting is to protect the country, and without due process of law the country will not be worth protecting. ----- Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 I'm with Maddow on this one. How the two of us being against Obama singing this bill somehow vindicates your vile and moronic opinions, well, I have no idea. But I've long since given up trying to understand how you don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 Let's be honest guys. I sincerely doubt that there would be this much outrage from the right had the bill been signed by Bush. Nor do I doubt that the left would be a hell of a lot more angry. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 I'm with Maddow on this one. How the two of us being against Obama singing this bill somehow vindicates your vile and moronic opinions, well, I have no idea. But I've long since given up trying to understand how you don't think. Heck what the heck do you mean? Signing this bill strips AMERICAN citizens of OUR rights, not "terrorists" taken from other countries. I do not buy into the "martial law" bullshit the paranoid Alex Jones listeners like Bunker do here, but this is a blatant disreguard of the Bill of Rights and is most definitively wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 Heck what the heck do you mean? Signing this bill strips AMERICAN citizens of OUR rights, not "terrorists" taken from other countries. I do not buy into the "martial law" bullshit the paranoid Alex Jones listeners like Bunker do here, but this is a blatant disreguard of the Bill of Rights and is most definitively wrong. That's what I'm saying. I'm with Maddow on this one, though I didn't watch the clip. This, to me, is simply unconstitutional, and I hope it's addressed by Congress separately, though I wouldn't count on it. We'll see. I'm glad the president basically said "I'm not going to use this power" but it's now law for anyone else to use in the future. And for all of those so angry at Obama over all of this, where were you when Bush was indefinitely detaining - and some would argue torturing - Jose Padilla, an American citizen, and for years? Oh, yeah. I was the one raising that issue back then, and you guys were defending it. Now that Obama's signed a law saying a president can do something similar, you guys are talking about the end of the Bill of Rights. And then lecturing me about partisanship and inconsistency. Classic. PS - Steve, would you like me to amass all the liberals who are speaking out against the president on this provision? Just because you aren't aware of them that dpesn't mean they don't exist. I've been reading stuff about this issue for weeks, and the complaints were raised almost entirely by liberal pundits and scholars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 Don't bother Heck. I'm sure that's where he lions share of dissent came from. What I say is that had it been Bush or Cheney people like Maddow would be screaming a lot louder. And even if you, sir, couldn't help yourself but to try to mitigate the situation. And as much as I like to see the guy attacked I really don't have a problem with this. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 I'm with Maddow on this one. How the two of us being against Obama singing this bill somehow vindicates your vile and moronic opinions, well, I have no idea. But I've long since given up trying to understand how you don't think. Are you saying people who state their opinions are morons because they haven't been cloned via heck? Well if any truth be told, I have never been in favor of the patriot act let alone this new law. We no longer can hold up the "Bill of Rights" and say that we are a FREE Nation. Where is the protection that seems to bring millions of people to the states who are seeking refuge from tyrants across the world? I suppose gun confiscation will be the next item on the AGENDA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 I fully support the bill and President Obama and I am also looking forward to additional measures to be taken in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 Don't bother Heck. I'm sure that's where he lions share of dissent came from. What I say is that had it been Bush or Cheney people like Maddow would be screaming a lot louder. WSS You've really got to start asking yourself if this is a point worth making 15 times a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 You've really got to start asking yourself if this is a point worth making 15 times a week. As long as it's still true.... And as long as you keep denying it... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 What a treat for us. Steve thinks partisanship exists. Also that water is wet, and egg salad smells bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 >>That's what I'm saying. I'm with Maddow on this one, though I didn't watch the clip.>> Have you watched the clip yet, Heck? If so, what did you think RE: her detail, documentation, etc. If you haven't, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 Whether its Obama, Bush Jr,Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan its all the same. All of them have been consolidating power and reducing executive/government accountability to the public. In that regard they are all the same and all motivated to stay in position with the most power and least chance of personal repercussions. I Hate this and cant for the life of me understand the lack of outrage.... This at this point is not about party politics, this is about how we fundamentally define the basic axioms of who we are as a society. They are tearing down the values and protections that this country was founded on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 So, you agree with me and Maddow that Obamao is a hypocrite, and the evidence is right there. The bigger problem is, Obamao's disregard for the law. He won't enforce the marriage act. He illegally just recently recess appointed three people with NO recess occuring. The Dems did the same maneuver, opening and closing sessions and not recessing, to stop Bush. Bush listened to the legal opinions that those appts. could not be legal. Clinton's attorneys said the same thing to him. But Obamao doesn't care - he went ahead and defied the law. That makes him a dirtbag who relies on the Dem maj in the Senate to keep him safe from legal consequences. We already posted about the dirtbag intentional flow of weapons to Mexico. It's a gigantic scandal. He already slammed the decision of the Supreme Court in his state of the union address..........no president in my lifetime, maybe ever, has EVER done that. But over the top arrogant marxist nutjobs do. So, when a president openly violates the law, his "word" is fine by Heck when Obamao says "yeah, but I won't do it.".... Truth is.... Obamao himself insisted that that language for detaining Americans.... be put into the bill. That's true, and behind the scenes. We're in big, big trouble. Martial law is the only way for Obamao to accomplish his anti gun ownership, anti capitalist, anti-republic, anti-American, anti-business bigotry. That is what hardcore marxists do. They lie to get into office, then they create a giant "crisis" so they can rule without any opposition. I said Obamao is a freakin hypocrite, and now Maddow sees the light. Thanks for joining the party, Heck, when you really had no choice, and no flimsy dishonest rationalization at your beck and call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 >>That's what I'm saying. I'm with Maddow on this one, though I didn't watch the clip.>> Have you watched the clip yet, Heck? If so, what did you think RE: her detail, documentation, etc. If you haven't, why not? Because I follow this stuff pretty closely. I know what the issues are. But Rachel is great. I'm sure she laid out the case well. I'll watch it at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 Yep. Heck admits I am great, by reference. If I was so wrong, Heck, how is it that Maddow, and now you, agree with me? eh? Obamao IS a hypocritical, lying dirtbag. that is what Maddow just DIDN'T say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 By the way, I just watched the clip and I think she's wrong about some things, and skirting the reality of the legal issues for the sake of purity. As in, what happens when you can't bring evidence to trial because the evidence was obtained through torture? That's what Obama's talking about. That's what everyone knows has been coming down the pike. Well, in our system, that evidence is inadmissible. So what do you do with people who are sworn enemies of the country, who still pose a threat, but you can't bring to a trial? Well, you obviously can't release them. So you have to create some sort of new framework that jibes with the Constitution. And that's what they're doing. The more odious provisions of the new legislation have to do with indefinitely detaining American citizens caught on American soil, in my opinion, and not the ones Maddow is talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 The point of the matter is, the fraudulent posturing by Obamao before, and his actions afterwards. On the 2nd Amendment. On closing Gitmo. On going civilian trials for terrorists. Only three terrorists were ever waterboarded, btw, at Gitmo.. That's a bogus issue to defend Obamao with. That leaves hundreds of terrorists who he wanted to treat differently, for the sake of politics. Once in office, the difference with Obamao is huge. No Americans have been "tortured" for evidence. Now that Obamao is in the WH, he sees things as they are, not as he fraudulently portrayed them before the election, for strictly gaining political office and power purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 Cal, of course it was all about winning the election. Closing Gitmo was a stupid idea. I don't suppose anybody in government thought that was going to happen. I basically agreed with heck and the president on signing this bill. Just the same way that I support the patriot act. We live in times in which tough measures sometimes need to be taken. The rest of the world doesn't play by the pollyanna rules that the united states imposes upon itself. However I would also like to point out that just because you are an american citizen on American soil does not mean that you can't be an enemy combatant. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 I was all for closing Gitmo, and still am. But it was something the Republicans - and some Democrats - blocked the president from doing. Incidentally, George Bush and John McCain were also in favor of closing that prison. So the idea that this was some sort of pretend cause for the election is just crap. Those prisoners aren't superhuman and if they were held in Supermax in Colorado (like a bunch of other terrorists are) from the start no one would have known the difference, or cared. But once people take sides, there's no reasoning with them. And I don't agree with signing this bill, Steve. It's somewhat better that Obama issued the signing statement saying he's not going to use that power, but he's also signing a law that says the next president can, mostly because they changed it at the last minute so that it's basically the president's call when it comes to American citizens. They can be tried in military courts and detained indefinitely if the executive branch says so. This, to me, is not Constitutional. Even if you're suspected of being an enemy combatant, you're still an American citizen. And when you're picked up on American soil you're afforded your rights to due process. It's spelled out right there in the Constitution. And it's not just civil libertarians and ACLU types who didn't like this bill. Many in the FBI, CIA, and law enforcement spoke out against it. They think it's going to make it harder to do their job because the suspects are mandated into the military justice system rather than the civilian system everyone is used to using, and has served us just fine for a couple centuries. I know you're not a big fan of the Constitution, and like to dispense with its provisions routinely. We've been over lots of those. And I always enjoy how you talk about government ineptitude and waste and fraud and corruption 98% of the time, but when it comes time to trust the government to lock up all the right people (despite the reality that we often don't) you'd like to trust their competency completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 Well, as long is bam bam says he won't really enforce it.... sheesh. Anyway the constitution and the Bible are the 2 most over quoted and under adhered to documents in the world. Not much more than a slogan. But please don't let that dampen the excitement you get from the tale of the cherry tree or the silver dollar across the Potomac. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 And oh no! Bush and McCain? I better change my tune pronto!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 The Constitution is nothing more than a slogan? Embrace that inner crank. It's in full bloom now. Also, you've broken out that cherry tree line 2-3 times now. Lords knows what you think it says, or what it has to do with the Constitution, but congratulations. (Why can I not stop talking to you? It confounds me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 The Constitution is nothing more than a slogan? Embrace that inner crank. It's in full bloom now. Also, you've broken out that cherry tree line 2-3 times now. Lords knows what you think it says, or what it has to do with the Constitution, but congratulations. (Why can I not stop talking to you? It confounds me.) Who knows why? "I suppose we could go where in 2 hours diane store cycle analysis but ya gotta admit this is leo sis is there. " Just for fun I'm leaving the voice to text intact. I'll go upstairs and type it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I have no idea what that meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Heck translation: "what? what???? I can't think, but I know it all. I don't understand, because I haven't read it in my bosses' notes to me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I have no idea what that meant. It simply meant this: I was in the studio and replied using the speech to text feature of this phone. I thought it was funny the way it messed up the words so I just posted it as it came out for laughs. That's all. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.