Very powerful.

[tvashtarkatena]

And all this time I thought you were just being coy.

 

Nope...I had no idea. Next time please introduce yourself. I would have liked to meet you.

 

You really hurt my feelings. Send me a pair of Dynafit bindings for Christmas and all is forgiven.

[minx]

oh nooooooo.....j_b made committed the most heinous of cc.com sins! he misspelled! he's going to have to do 10 hail marys, 10 "____ is aid" 10 pagetops and make at least 45 neutrino references and wrestle with TTK and Fairweather in jello until one of them agrees to have a beer with kevbone

 

Had a beer with Kevbone last Thur nite. He had a beer, anyway. Come to think of it, we were never formally introduced. Too bad...he has so much to share.

 

so how was the jello wrestling?

[billcoe]

I grew up in a libertarian household, back when Paul was on the libertarian ticket every year. I had to live surrounded by his bullshit. He was a crazy fucker back then, and he's still a crazy fucker.

Now the "crazy fucker" is going off on the constitution again. How F**ing whack is that? We don't need no stinkeen constitution or no stinkeen liberty:-) That's no way to get elected boy! Crazy talk.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/201335-rep-paul-says-defense-bill-assures-descent-into-totalitarianism

 

"Rep. Paul says defense bill assures ‘descent into totalitarianism’

By Jonathan Easley - 12/26/11 09:25 AM ET

 

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country’s “slip into tyranny” and virtually assures “our descent into totalitarianism.”

 

“The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty,” Paul, the libertarian congressman, said Monday in a weekly phone message to supporters. “To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.”

 

The NDAA is the nearly $670 billion defense spending bill that covers the military budget and funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

One controversial provision mandates the detention of terror suspects and reaffirms the administration’s authority to detain those suspected of having ties to terrorist organizations.

 

“The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning,” Paul continued. “It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal council. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.”

 

“It is no longer limited to members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of substantially supporting such groups or associated forces,” Paul continued. “How closely associated, and what constitutes substantial support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or suppose a political candidate? Are all donors of that candidate or supporters of that candidate now suspects and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?”

 

The White House initially threatened to veto the NDAA because of the detainee language, saying it would tie the hands of law enforcement officials. But the administration dropped the veto threat before the bill passed the House, as the bill’s supporters argued that there were sufficient waivers.

 

“The president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law,” Paul said. “That should chill all of us to our cores.”

 

“The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.”

 

There's some wack crazy shit, eh? Next he'll be ranting on Guantanamo or borrowing huge sums to expand the continuous wars for empire?

 

Wacky

[ivan]

if the law is in fact at odds w/ the constitution, won't the courts end up throwing it out?

[kevbone]

if the law is in fact at odds w/ the constitution, won't the courts end up throwing it out?

 

We hope so but after seeing what they did with Citizens United I have lost all faith.

[kevbone]

I grew up in a libertarian household, back when Paul was on the libertarian ticket every year. I had to live surrounded by his bullshit. He was a crazy fucker back then, and he's still a crazy fucker.

Now the "crazy fucker" is going off on the constitution again. How F**ing whack is that? We don't need no stinkeen constitution or no stinkeen liberty:-) That's no way to get elected boy! Crazy talk.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/201335-rep-paul-says-defense-bill-assures-descent-into-totalitarianism

 

"Rep. Paul says defense bill assures ‘descent into totalitarianism’

By Jonathan Easley - 12/26/11 09:25 AM ET

 

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country’s “slip into tyranny” and virtually assures “our descent into totalitarianism.”

 

“The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty,” Paul, the libertarian congressman, said Monday in a weekly phone message to supporters. “To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.”

 

The NDAA is the nearly $670 billion defense spending bill that covers the military budget and funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

One controversial provision mandates the detention of terror suspects and reaffirms the administration’s authority to detain those suspected of having ties to terrorist organizations.

 

“The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning,” Paul continued. “It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal council. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.”

 

“It is no longer limited to members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of substantially supporting such groups or associated forces,” Paul continued. “How closely associated, and what constitutes substantial support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or suppose a political candidate? Are all donors of that candidate or supporters of that candidate now suspects and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?”

 

The White House initially threatened to veto the NDAA because of the detainee language, saying it would tie the hands of law enforcement officials. But the administration dropped the veto threat before the bill passed the House, as the bill’s supporters argued that there were sufficient waivers.

 

“The president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law,” Paul said. “That should chill all of us to our cores.”

 

“The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.”

 

There's some wack crazy shit, eh? Next he'll be ranting on Guantanamo or borrowing huge sums to expand the continuous wars for empire?

 

Wacky

 

Really scary stuff. Of course Ron Paul is kooky right?

[rob]

And all it will cost is is the EPA! Whatta deal.

[rob]

if the law is in fact at odds w/ the constitution, won't the courts end up throwing it out?

 

We hope so but after seeing what they did with Citizens United I have lost all faith.

 

Of course, Bone doesn't even know that Ron Paul supports the Citizens United decision.

 

Why do you allow yourself to be fooled so easily by politicians, Bone? First, you let yourself get fooled by Obama, and now you're doing it all over again with Paul.

[kevbone]

And Obama supports the Patriot Act....we just cant win can we?

[kevbone]

if the law is in fact at odds w/ the constitution, won't the courts end up throwing it out?

 

We hope so but after seeing what they did with Citizens United I have lost all faith.

 

Of course, Bone doesn't even know that Ron Paul supports the Citizens United decision.

 

Why do you allow yourself to be fooled so easily by politicians, Bone? First, you let yourself get fooled by Obama, and now you're doing it all over again with Paul.

 

Nice edit.

 

 

Fools are as fools do.

[rob]

And Obama supports the Patriot Act....we just cant win can we?

 

Nah, recognizing that your political choice is "expedient" but "not perfect" is a good first step, bone. It's your seemingly religious devotion to Ron Paul, and your seeming refusal to accept ANY negative criticism of him that bothers me.

[kevbone]

And Obama supports the Patriot Act....we just cant win can we?

 

Nah, recognizing that your political choice is "expedient" but "not perfect" is a good first step, bone. It's your seemingly religious devotion to Ron Paul, and your seeming refusal to accept ANY negative criticism of him that bothers me.

 

How so? I don't think he is god (like you do of Obama), he is just a man who says things I agree with more than the other guy? How is that different than your guy?

[kevbone]

[video:youtube]

[billcoe]

if the law is in fact at odds w/ the constitution, won't the courts end up throwing it out?

 

No. Although you can write to your congressman or someone who cares. Well, ask Pat how long the ACLU has been trying to get into court over the federal government "monitoring" ...lets call it what it is, warrantless surveillance, the recording of all phone calls in the US. All of your phone calls are recorded and checked. All. The internet is watched with equal zeal. Warrantless surveillance via computers, looking for the boogieman and the terrorists, criminals. If we aren't one I suppose we really shouldn't care if the feds hang out in your closet or your bedroom. Record our phone calls and read our email.

 

Is that violation of privacy and generally accepted to be violating the constitution?

 

Yes, pretty much by unanimous agreement.

 

Is it still going on?

 

I think so.

 

Does the ACLU, with deep pockets and plentiful skilled lawyers have the right to take it to court to have it looked at and stopped? No. The courts say they do not have standing. You can have your politician do something about it.

 

 

Last I heard, since the article I linked the ACLU had refiled the case and it had been tossed out again.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=27371

 

"The American Civil Liberties Union's Steven Shapiro is one of the best lawyers in the United States. Still, he was flat wrong when he told the New York Times that a federal appeals court's July 6 dismissal of the ACLU's challenge to the Bush administration's now-defunct Terrorist Surveillance Program "deprives Americans of any ability to challenge the illegal surveillance of their telephone calls and emails."

 

No, no, no. The ruling by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the plaintiffs--the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), journalist Christopher Hitchens, et al.--do not have standing to sue does not deprive Americans of the ability to challenge the warrantless surveillance of al Qaeda's wartime communications into and out of the United States. It deprives them of the ability to challenge the program in court. They can challenge it through political channels--and already have done so successfully. Bowing to criticism, the administration eliminated the program, at least in its most controversial form, early this year."

 

So the "program" was "eliminated" but the NSA still records every call. So it goes.

[rob]

And Obama supports the Patriot Act....we just cant win can we?

 

Nah, recognizing that your political choice is "expedient" but "not perfect" is a good first step, bone. It's your seemingly religious devotion to Ron Paul, and your seeming refusal to accept ANY negative criticism of him that bothers me.

 

How so? I don't think he is god (like you do of Obama), he is just a man who says things I agree with more than the other guy? How is that different than your guy?

 

I'm curious why you think I like Obama so much, especially when I criticize him so much. Your reading comprehension sucks, bone. You should stop smoking as much pot.

 

Meanwhile, you and Bill pretty much offer up a rebuttal to any single criticism posted about Paul. I'd LOVE you hear you say something negative about him. Are you capable?

 

That's why the two are different. I don't actually like Obama. I think he's a piece of shit politician, just like the rest of them (including Paul). Meanwhile, you think Paul is going to single-handedly save America, or something.

Edited December 27, 2011 by rob

[kevbone]

I'd LOVE you hear you say something negative about him.

 

I bet you would.

[rob]

I'd LOVE you hear you say something negative about him.

 

I bet you would.

 

I really would. My respect for you would increase exponentially. I have a hard time respecting religions, be it Christianity or Ron Paul.

[billcoe]

.....you and Bill pretty much offer up a rebuttal to any single criticism posted about Paul. I'd LOVE you hear you say something negative about him. Are you capable?

 

That's why the two are different. I don't actually like Obama. I think he's a piece of shit politician, just like the rest of them (including Paul). Meanwhile, you think Paul is going to single-handedly save America, or something.

 

Rob, I have all kinds of negative shit to say about Paul. Don't have time to list them, but if you buy me a beer:-) ........ However, he remains the only candidate addressing what I consider some the largest unaddressed major issues facing our country into the future. The relationship between citizens and government, our forigon policy, the government being able to pass laws abrogating the constitution and our history. Those were huge issues along those lines developing with the Bush administration that I thought Obama would do better at than Grandpa Simpson. Since McCain didn't address them in his campaign, and Barack is a constitutional scholar and was "community activist" and all, many of us most likely assumed he'd address some or all of them. He has not. In fact it appears that Obama has pressed his foot to the Bush big business/big government/totalitarianism craziness accelerator and is taking the country faster down the road to totalitarianism/fascism than Bush and his big business cronies.

 

Frankly, it's disturbing that all of the candidates except Ron Paul accept this BS.

[kevbone]

[video:youtube]

[j_b]

Keep on ignoring that Ron Paul lies about his knowing the nasty propaganda that was published under his name for the better part of 2 decades (as if being a tool of the far right without his knowledge wouldn't be damning to his competence).

 

Ron Paul is a classic demagogue who'll identify correctly some of the pressing issues (AHitler too was right about the role of the WW1 victors in keeping Germans under their boots) to better propose doing more of what brought us where we are today (privatization of the public domain, deregulation and disenfranchising of the 99%). Before you tell me that Paul would be non-interventionist, remember that he gave a blank check to GWB on Afghanistan.

[j_b]

[video:youtube]

 

You do realize RPaul is against public financing of elections? Right?

[kevbone]

 

You do realize RPaul is against public financing of elections? Right?

 

Show me.

[j_b]

No. You show me when Paul has opposed the GOP's attempts at destroying what's left of public financing of fed elections. You show me when Paul turned down soft money and accepted matching funds. Then, you'll have to explain to me how come he isn't on the public record on this critical issue.

[kevbone]

I don't hear any of the candidates talking about public financing.

[j_b]

Not true. Obama clearly said that he was for keeping public funding of presidential elections.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/12/obama-keep-public-funding-of-presidential-elections/1