Obama the Dictator WTF?????

[kevbone]

So will they now have to teach kids about the FOUR branches of government in High School. Or will that even be pointless as the kangaroo court will be different from week to week?

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQLwGSq0FqQ

[KirkW]

Yeah, that "hope and change" thing didn't end up living up to the the marketing.

[kevbone]

Yeah, that "hope and change" thing didn't end up living up to the the marketing.

 

Sure didn't.

[Crux]

Bone, you are so full of crap. That wasn't Obama speaking in the video. It was Newt Gingrich, wearing the dried panty choad costume that he scraped off the big rotting ass of Obama's mama. Get your fucking facts straight, umkay?

 

Now, before I before I become uncivil in my demeanor, can we get back to talking about how the Republicons don't have any decent candidates running for the presidency?

 

[rob]

Well, at least he's not Ron Paul

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yeah, that "hope and change" thing didn't end up living up to the the marketing.

 

Who's "McSame" now?

 

 

[sobo]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQLwGSq0FqQ

WOW! I don't have words.

 

Velcome to Amerika, Comrades...

[minx]

ugggh!

 

i'm hoping for some change in the car or jacket pocket so i can buy some lunch *sigh*

 

[kevbone]

 

can we get back to talking about how the Republicons don't have any decent candidates running for the presidency?

 

Ron Paul baby!!!!!!

[Pete_H]

Doesn't this apply to people outside the U.S. where due process doesn't come into play? Shouldn't foreign terrorists captured on foreign soil be the equivalent of uniformed enemy combatants? Will there not be judicial review of each matter?

[Crux]

 

The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil

[kevbone]

Shouldn't foreign terrorists captured on foreign soil be the equivalent of uniformed enemy combatants? Will there not be judicial review of each matter?

 

No because a uniformed enemy combatants is just that.....uniformed. It is clear who they are fighting for. Were under the USA version is you just have to have brown skin. Who the hell decides who is a terrorist and who is not?

[kevbone]

Who decides who will be a threat? Such crap.

 

 

[video:youtube]

[ivan]

Ron Paul baby!!!!!!

'cuz texans are known the world over for their superior brand of justice?

 

i teach a 4th branch of government: the media

[Pete_H]

Shouldn't foreign terrorists captured on foreign soil be the equivalent of uniformed enemy combatants? Will there not be judicial review of each matter?

 

No because a uniformed enemy combatants is just that.....uniformed. It is clear who they are fighting for. Were under the USA version is you just have to have brown skin. Who the hell decides who is a terrorist and who is not?

 

So our enemies can avoid detention simply by "playing dirty," i.e. not wearing a uniform and being a terrorist?

 

Who decides who is and isn't a terrorist? Not an easy job, but at least this proposal by Obama allows for judicial oversight, which, for me, at least passes a basic test of fairness.

[Pete_H]

The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil

 

That is bullshit though. Anyone in America, U.S. citizen or not, gets due process and detention and accusations should be held to a stricter standard.

[Pete_H]

I agree with the basic premise of this proposal. I don't know all the details.

 

This commentator talks about punishing people for crimes they haven't already committed.

 

In WWII we didn't send back German prisoners before the end of the war for fear they would get back to the military and continue to fight against us. Essentialy, because they might "commit a crime" in the future.

 

I don't see much difference here.

[rob]

I agree with the basic premise of this proposal. I don't know all the details.

 

This commentator talks about punishing people for crimes they haven't already committed.

 

In WWII we didn't send back German prisoners before the end of the war for fear they would get back to the military and continue to fight against us. Essentialy, because they might "commit a crime" in the future.

 

I don't see much difference here.

 

I tend to be with you. The video bone linked doesn't really seem to say what Maddow says it says. I'd like to see more specifics.

[olyclimber]

PLUS HE'S A SOCIALIST NAZI COMMUNIST

[olyclimber]

WE'LL ALL BE GOOSE STEPPING TO THE BREAD LINES DEATH PANELS SOON, YOU'LL SEE.

[Doug]

I dunno, I think he's proven himself to be like any politician; I'm thinking this is his campaigning for the far right vote......

[Fairweather]

I agree with the basic premise of this proposal. I don't know all the details.

 

This commentator talks about punishing people for crimes they haven't already committed.

 

In WWII we didn't send back German prisoners before the end of the war for fear they would get back to the military and continue to fight against us. Essentialy, because they might "commit a crime" in the future.

 

I don't see much difference here.

 

A formally "declared war" (WWII) versus a vague premise (WOT).

[Crux]

The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil

That is bullshit though. Anyone in America, U.S. citizen or not, gets due process and detention and accusations should be held to a stricter standard.

You are correct. From my updated view of several legal and political evaluations of the so-called Indefinite Detention Bill, (which is an apparent misnomer for Sections 1031 and 1032 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act) it doesn't change anything. First, much of what people fear to be in the "bill" are things that would be trumped by the Constitution's due process provisions, as you assert. Second, wording added (maybe at the eleventh hour) to Section 1032 clarify that indefinite detention does not apply to American citizens nor to aliens who hold a green card, nor does it allow military intervention on domestic soil. Differences of opinion on this can be and are now being resolved by competent legal interpretation of Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDDA sent today to Obama for signing; such resolution will naturally be lost on the willfully misinformed, but there's nothing new in that either.

 

Now, from a political perspective, credible assessors of the bill can rationally differ in their comparative approval -- or disapproval -- of the bill, which includes said Sections 1031 and 1032. To the point here, the bill (2012 NDAA) does nothing to negate provisions of the Patriot Act and subsequent, related court decisions. But neither does the bill advance an agenda of depriving Americans of their rights. Regardless, the fearful hysteria spewed from both the Left and the Right today in reaction to the bill is likely to continue for some time, albeit slowing to a dribble from the lips of the willfully misinformed. Meanwhile, the main purpose of the bill, which is a matter of meeting the unique Constitutional requirement that military spending be re-authorized by law every two years, may continue to be obscured by the various riders attached as well as the fearful reaction by concerned citizens who would presently dub the bill the "Indefinite Detentions Bill" rather than thinking, "Hey, shit! There goes another $1 trillion a year to the military industrial complex! Hey shit! Why not just fuck me in the ass with the goddamn business end of a toilet plunger?!"

 

Myself, I've slept on it, what is set and settled in Sections 1031 and 1032, as well as the hundreds (thousands?) of pages of actual military spending provisions. And now, naturally, I awaken to the feeling of a forcibly dilated asshole. For the politics of the NDAA, that's all I have to say now. And for whatever it was I said this morning about Obama's mama, I hope nobody passed it on. If you did, please add that he's always had my vote.

 

My cents. Time for the ride to work now.

[billcoe]

Ya all run around screaming "HOPE AND CHANGE". Now we've got the "CHANGE" and no one is happy. No ya all are looking to change back.

 

IMO, the only way to reduce the morass and this kind of continual pressure from big government is to reduce the size of it. That's what I'm hoping for - less government. I think that the only way to make it happen is to try and give them less money and the best way to do that is to vote for those who want that to happen.

[rob]

IMO, the only way to reduce the morass and this kind of continual pressure from big government is to reduce the size of it. That's what I'm hoping for - less government. I think that the only way to make it happen is to try and give them less money and the best way to do that is to vote for those who want that to happen.

 

You're right. That's why we should elect Ron Paul and disband the EPA. We can let people prosecute environmental damage in the personal liability courts.

 

only the bone could think that was a good idea.