Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Federal Judge Rules Against NDAA

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 13, 2012, 10:56 a.m. EST by john23 (-272)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

133 Comments

133 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

This is the best news I've heard all year. Once again the judicial branch saves us from the executive and legislative branches overreach.

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (4650) 2 years ago

Excellent.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

now if we can get that ruling to apply to all humans

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well it could apply to all humans if the US constitution applied all humans.

So, that's not difficult we just have to to take over the world!

Arm the Drones. Begin the invasions posthaste. We will impose our constitution to protect all humans if we have to kill every last one of you.

And may God have mercy on your soul.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

""thick head"? unfair criticism. I never said the said the govt was my friend. Have you lost all sense of reality! You hurl dishonest accusations because you can't debate the truth. Your position doesn't hold up to the truth. You ignore the real architects of this violation because you are a partisan republican trying to deflect blame to the party fighting it! You're a joke. LMFAO!"

You're the one hurling dishonest partisan hackery...as hchc stated the truth:

"Levin specifically states that Obama's adminstration asked for the removal of the part that would exclude Americans."

Or if you want more proof:

http://www.businessinsider.com/unbelievable-obama-administration-has-already-appealed-ndaa-ruling-2012-9

It hurts when you realize that your side is just as corrupt as the other

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I've already stated I protest against the dems failure in supporting this conservative policy!

If we disagree it is on repub responsibility in creating this problem I don't know if we disagree because you (& your friend HC) are ignoring these facts.

It is your neglect to address these republicans failures that gives them a pass and betrays your republican partisanship!

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Walk it off VQ...walk it off...truth is painful sometimes...breath in and out...let the sun shine where it may.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LMFAO!

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28121) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Awesome - one more step in the right direction. Lets get the insanity under control.

[-] 2 points by Theonetruething (2) 2 years ago

Well, most of this forum seems to be focused on repub/ dem blame launching; exactly what they want. There is no 2 party system, it's all good cop bad cop distraction tactics to make us believe we still have a choice. The only party is the Corporate Banker party. My questions around this issue are more to the tune of " what does this ruling mean? ". Will this injunction affect next years NDAA ?? Which by the way already contain the indefinite detention provisions, or does it only apply to the 2012 law? Does anyone know how that works ? And by the way, the current administration has already filed an appeal in record time; one day after the ruling.so it's probably going to the supreme court. I've talked to some hard core Obama supporters who think this is purposefully done by the administration so it can get shot down at the highest level, though I think that at best this is hopeful thinking and probably very naive.

[-] 2 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Challenge Executive Order 12333 which was created under Reagan in 1981. This EO is the foundation for the entire police state and places economic policy under national security. Remove it and you remove the American versions of the SS.

Challenge it in the Supreme court.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

most of this forum is not focused on repub/ dem

this injunction means prisoners may have to be released

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3835) 2 years ago

Yaaaaaaay!!!!!!!!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"We try them. Review the evidence. Find them guilty. Then we hang them."

Sounds like Stalin speaking. The most brutal punishment that the primitive mind can conceive. Exactly the kind of thought process we are fighting against.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

What do you have planned for a quarter of the U.S population?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"I'm going to herd them north, all the way to SaraBou's house"

Then what?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Yesterday, Judge Katherine Forrest–a recent Obama appointee–permanently enjoined (prevented) enforcement of a portion of the National Defense Authorization Act, stating that the law “impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protections to meet the requirements of due process.”

The NDAA has 5000 sections and one section authorizes the government to detain persons–without charge or trial–including U.S. citizens, who “substantially support” Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or their “associated forces.”

This is the only part the judge ruled on.

Other sections included food & protection for our troops

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Well of course. Section 1021 is the only section the lawsuit was based on. When people say they oppose the NDAA, I think that is simply a shorthand way of referring to the indefinite detention provisions of section 1021.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

pardon my being specific
I don't eat chicken
raw chicken

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well that is good news.

And since I believe Pres Obama does not support this Repub crafted constitutional violation, is it possible they have presented a weak case? And Maybe will not appeal?

I have to look for a link so Trevormnemonic sees it!

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

pretty sure has veto power....doesn't he?

[-] 2 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

I agree. A leader needs courage. It's an insult to hold the position of president of the most powerful country in the world and pander like a bitch to the political circus.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

He also needs more than 1/3 votes to defeat an overturn of a veto. Or have you forgotten?

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

The process by which each chamber of Congress votes on a bill vetoed by the President. To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Historically, Congress has overridden fewer than ten percent of all presidential vetoes.

A leader needs courage. Without it, you can be no more successful at defending the people from tyranny than it would be to throw cotton candy at tyrants. Pandering is for lawyers... oops, thats a hot button isn't it?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

the bill passed overwhelmingly. There was no hope of a successful veto. Courage of course, but also brains.

Can you count?. Courage doesn't change math boss.

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

So you know the path history would have taken if it was vetoed? Dude, you may be many things but a soothsayer is not one of them. The veto of that bill would have drawn media attention it didn't receive before passing in to law. In fact, the media cycle completely ignored it's passage until after it was law. No sunlight, no public discourse. Those are some pretty heavy factors to add into an alternate history.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Whatever. the repub created indef detention power has NOT been used by this Pres.

He put up a weak to nonexistent fight against the court case. So he has another opportunity to battle the republicans on this issue.

You are so vehemently against Pres Obama on this issue, when he is the one fighting it.

How come you have nothing to say about Repub Rep King who wrote it?

Are you a republican partisan?

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Wooooooeee there bud-dy. You were doing so good. Now you revert to the Stigmas once again. I'll let you cool off for a while. I don't need politicians or parties to have an opinion or to voice it. If you like one or the other, fine. Vote for them, as damn well you should. But don't hang their dung around my neck.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well answer the question.

You haven't mentioned the republican part in this. Do you even know who wrote it?

You pretend you are non partisan but you got much attacks for the dem president fighting against indef detention and none for the repubs who created the problem.

Why?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I like to help out the mascot every now and then.

Here are the Dems throwing Obama under the bus....but that doesnt stop you. Facts dont matter. Winning is all that matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0PdDGqK0S4

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

More name calling = weak arguments. Please refrain.

You link to an old click showing the dem effort to repeal therepub written indef detention.?

Give it up. I signed that petition & called my congresspeople. Didn't help.

The only thing that stop republican created civil rights violation was that Pres Obama has refused to use the power (with the signing statement he used), And of course that the admin put up no defense in the court case that was found in our favor. Thanks to the Dem appointed Judge here in Brooklyn.

So how come you don't mention:

  • Repubs created the policy in 2002.

  • Repubs are the only onewho've ever used it!

  • Repubs wrote the indef detention section in NDAA.

  • Repubs in the House defeated the Dem attempt to repeal it this past may.

  • Pres Obama has not used this repub created violation.

You neglect to mention these facts and only ever focus on Pres Obamas failure because you are a partisan Republican, You call me names because you know I will challenge your partisanship with the truth.

Please refrain from the schoolyard name calling. If you can't debate in a civil respectful way using substance, just admit defeat like an adult.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

So you have no arguement. Got it. Thanks.

Looks like another supporter here is calling you out on your crap.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And you refuse to blame the real criminals regarding indef detention.

You ignore repub actions on this because you are a republican partisan!

Your silence is deafening! You and your friend Johnie. Both of you give repubs a pass because you are partisan republicans!

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Please explain your interpretation of the video.

Or would that be against the campaign rules?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Old crap. Who cares! Doesn't change all the facts you continue to ignore!

Repubs created the policy in 2002

Repubs wrote the law

Repubs defeated dems attempt at repeal in May 2012.

Repubs arethe only ones to use it

Pres Obama never has, (never will!)

Pres Obama purposly put no case up against it.

Dem appointed judge threw out the repub policy/law.

Explain that republican boy!

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Levin specifically states that Obama's adminstration asked for the removal of the part that would exclude Americans.

The government is not your friend dude. Get it through your thick head.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"thick head"? unfair criticism. I never said the said the govt was my friend.

Have you lost all sense of reality! You hurl dishonest accusations because you can't debate the truth. Your position doesn't hold up to the truth.

You ignore the real architects of this violation because you are a partisan republican trying to deflect blame to the party fighting it!

You're a joke. LMFAO!

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ok Mascot, let me break this down for you.

I blame ALL of em. Especially the guy at the top. I dont give a shit if its Bush, McCain, or RomBomba. I dont care.

My expectations arent swayed based on the silly little letter on the end of their names.

The corporations dont care what letter their name has at the end of it. In the grand scheme of this economy, it doesnt matter. I dont care either, they are complacent.

So why do you care so much?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am against these violations and the drone bombings and I KNOW that we must protest them all AND the roots ofthese problems.

That you never mention! The fear mongering created by republicans after the 9/11 attacks! This is the key to ending all these problems. We must change that atmosphere and declare thewar on terror over. Ifwe can do that all these problems will be easily repealed.

So if you pretend the repubs ain't involved and never put the blame where it belongs, nothing will change,. And you appear to not really wanna change anything, you just want to attack one party.

Which is all you do. So clearly you are a partisan republican.

Get it? right wing boy!

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

I don't mention parties. I mention policies. I mention actions. I mention practices. I don't talk party or politician. Separating governance from political celebrity is a long hard road and will take intense levels of self control just to catch yourself from playing into the celebrity, let alone recognize when others are engaging in it. Why political celebrity? It's the core of the political theater we are given for viewing while they commence to fucking us behind closed doors. Get past the celebrity and you can focus on the policy. So no, I won't answer those types of questions.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh you are more evolved than me!

Conveniently you are able to use the term leader as you did earlier referring to the Pres failure to veto the republican crafted indef detention.

Perhaps you can use the term leader for those that created the problem and fight against us when we attempt to repeal it (by us & we I'm referring to the progressives who are against the policy)

Perhaps one more level of evolution is required for you. I mean you don't seem to have any problem criticizing the man fighting the policy. Maybe you can expand your criticism to the others involved.

[-] 2 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Wait, what? :D That was weak, man. If you're going to make an emotional appeal, you have to build up. Maybe even over a few comments. You can't just slap that on the table and expect that nobody can see it.

--

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (10105) 4 minutes ago

I ain't never seen you before. Don't know your blog, don't wanna. You ain't got the balls to criticize republicans but have no problem criticizing Pres Obama.

You won't even speak up for the people who's vote is being taken away because you don't want to offend republicans.

You're afraid of republicans on this site. Why would I be interested in your blog.?

I'm interested in people who have the balls to challenge people, paries, & policies that hurt the 99%.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No emotional appeal just proposing you are afraid to criticize repubs while you feel free to criticize Pres Obama.

And you just avoided the question.

Man up. Don't be an insect. You wanna help the 99%. Let's attack the policy and the people/party behind it. Don't be afraid.

[-] 2 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

If you want my partisan views, read my blog. As I said, I'm not getting into party politics on this forum.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yes. Convenient you are only able to say just enough to criticise the President. No one else.

I understand. Your superior evolution isn't quite fair. but there it is.

Good luck to you in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Yes. Convenient you are only able to say just enough to criticise the President. No one else. I understand. Your superior evolution doesn't quite fair. but there it is. Good luck to you in all your good efforts.

That is not an answer to any question, that is your convenient excuse. Everyone here knows where my blog is and where I stand, you can cut the pretending.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I ain't never seen you before. Don't know your blog, don't wanna. You ain't got the balls to criticize republicans but have no problem criticizing Pres Obama.

You won't even speak up for the people who's vote is being taken away because you don't want to offend republicans.

You're afraid of republicans on this site. Why would I be interested in your blog.?

I'm interested in people who have the balls to challenge people, paries, & policies that hurt the 99%.

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Indeed, It would be an assumption as you recognized. As I said, further down this thread you can read my exchange with schooz if you really need my position on the subject.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (10112) 1 minute ago

the indef detention language was created by republicans, the voter suppression efforts are being perpetrated by republicans against the 99%.

Your silence on the republicans responsibility on these important anti 99% policies might be construed as support for republicans.

You said "I disagree with your position on policy" What position do we disagree on.?

I'm against indef detention and voter suppression. You support these things?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh you can't explain you're comment that you disagree with my position on policy? I gotta search the thread?

Why?

Why can't you be honest and answer yes or no? Why the games? distractions? Is this some kinda joke?

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

yeah sure. just because millions of minorities & elderly are having their voting rights taken away no reason to speak up about that. Gotta remember we don't want to upset the republican----- oops I mean the ones who may not be named. lol

Well, I know you see me responding to the user shooz about this. I'll just let you read that while you cool your jets.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

My jets are just fine boss. Why do you think I'm angry.? Because we disagree?

It's allowed. Can't we disagree. and not suggest the other has lost control. I haven't attempted to distract from the point by suggesting anything of you.

Just stick to the point or are you too evolved for that.? lol

[-] -1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

It totally was an emotional appeal. "If you're a real man..."

It's a false association. You're linking pure argument of issues to a social association by party. I disagree with your position on policy, I therefore oppose your favored political party at least, and your favored political figure at most. Thereby supplanting the emotional connection hard-line partisans have over the argument I make. It's an unwarranted expansion of the argument to sidetrack from the issue . If we follow the path of this inserted nonsense, at the end of the argument the original issue is no longer present, only partisan bickering.

I'm not really sure why you think I would see it differently now than I did the other day. Right now, it isn't strangling the forum, but I'm still calling it what it is.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (10112) 2 minutes ago

No emotional appeal just proposing you are afraid to criticize repubs while you feel free to criticize Pres Obama.

And you just avoided the question.

Man up. Don't be an insect. You wanna help the 99%. Let's attack the policy and the people/party behind it. Don't be afraid.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

the indef detention language was created by republicans, the voter suppression efforts are being perpetrated by republicans against the 99%.

Your silence on the republicans responsibility on these important anti 99% policies might be construed as support for republicans.

You said "I disagree with your position on policy" What position do we disagree on.?

I'm against indef detention and voter suppression. You support these things?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What do you mention when it comes to voter suppression?

It gets kind of hard to avoid who's doing it.

[-] 2 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Do you see me commenting on it? Their is a time and place for partisan acknowledgement. There are also people better suited than I for playing that role.

My counter question: Is it not possible to debate any policy without the partisanship?

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

So just ignore it then?

How is that useful?

I think voter suppression is a nasty business that needs to be addressed.

How do you deal with it without mentioning the perpetrators?

Tip toe through the tulips?

I'm too old for that.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Why pretend one party is not light years better than the other when it comes to the 99%.

Is this some kind of game?. There are 2 parties in power. we must get that power back. We can't mention who has the power and their position on the policies that affect us.?

What are we in 4th grade? "the ones who shall go nameless"? LMFAO

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

1.) So you think the readers here are stupid. I C. 2.) You have my sympathies, I'm retired, but you shouldn't pretend that you do read them. 3.)I have no idea what you are responding to. It's just vague. 4.) Actually they have been for over 10 months now. then as now. I guess that was when you were at work? 5.) I'm an MMT fan. You want links? It would do away with the FED too, or at least re purpose it.

I can see like your friend VQ, you're getting frustrated. I'll let you cool off while you think about how awesome it is to be considered an elderly, a wise person, yet so petulant.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'm not frustrated at all.

You just aren't able to respond clearly to anything at all.

Will there be insults soon? Or was that what calling me VQs friend was supposed to be about, along with what ensued?

No, you've been clear as mud about almost everything else.

Me thinks it's you who's frustrated.

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Why do you think it's necessary to repeat what I say? We don't get paid by the posted word here. And in your answer to my question, you said you would pretty much ignore any commentary, as you thought it was done to death. Not so. I posted one today that fell so fast, it got 0 comments.. Too much bitching about perceived "partisanship" and the pint system. No, when the (R)epelican'ts are guilty of such things, it needs to be brought out...................Here..........on this forum. It's not there's a shortage of folks pointing out their exceptions to Obama. I don't see you rebuking them, just the folks that don't care for (R)epelican't behaviors. Plus some vague shit about the FED.

  1. So everyone reading can see what I'm responding to.
  2. I didn't see your post, I work for a living.
  3. Yes, it does, it has, and I did not object to those threads.
  4. I don't rebuke the repubs because it was not them that was strangling the forum for the last 3 weeks.
  5. The commentary on the Fed may have been less than detailed but they always included detailed articles or a link to a blog posting with details. It's not top secret. The Fed's actions are in broad daylight for anyone willing to look and learn.
[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

The repeating is really confusing for me. It's messing with my twinkling. ;)

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

1.) So you think the readers here are stupid. I C.

2.) You have my sympathies, I'm retired, but you shouldn't pretend that you do read them.

3.)I have no idea what you are responding to. It's just vague.

4.) Actually they have been for over 10 months now. then as now. I guess that was when you were at work?

5.) I'm an MMT fan. You want links? It would do away with the FED too, or at least re purpose it.

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

So just ignore it then? How is that useful? I think voter suppression is a nasty business that needs to be addressed. How do you deal with it without mentioning the perpetrators? Tip toe through the tulips? I'm too old for that.

Have I countered any argument on threads about voter suppression? Seems to me they have ample responses. The forum is fairly level today but for me issue over the last bit was that partisanship was dominating the forum. If I were a person of absolutes, I would be a party guy. I'm obviously not. There is room for everyone, but for a while that was not true on this forum. Like I said, today it's been pretty level from what I see.

If I had to comment on voter suppression, I would say they are committing felony voter suppression. I say arrest their asses for it. No partisanship required. But, because it is a party centered issue, I leave it be because it's not the case I'm trying to make.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

yeah sure. just because millions of minorities & elderly are having their voting rights taken away no reason to speak up about that.

Gotta remember we don't want to upset the republican----- oops I mean the ones who may not be named. lol

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Why do you think it's necessary to repeat what I say?

We don't get paid by the posted word here.

And in your answer to my question, you said you would pretty much ignore any commentary, as you thought it was done to death.

Not so.

I posted one today that fell so fast, it got 0 comments..

Too much bitching about perceived "partisanship" and the pint system.

No, when the (R)epelican'ts are guilty of such things, it needs to be brought out...................Here..........on this forum.

It's not there's a shortage of folks pointing out their exceptions to Obama.

I don't see you rebuking them, just the folks that don't care for (R)epelican't behaviors.

Plus some vague shit about the FED.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

There are a couple of people here that are reading your posts and are quite amused.

Im a Republican. Thats hysterical.

Perhaps you are the Republican?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Registered independent. I don't ignore republican responsibility on these problems.

You do!

I've expressed my disappointment with dems, And protested against them.

You only attack dems/Pres Obama. You never acknowledge the real repub roots to these problems.

That's what betrays your republican partisanship.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The real root are Dems AND Reps. Countless tyrannical, fascist legislation with bipartisan signings.

I dont see a whole bunch of Republican cheerleaders here. Or I would be setting them straight too.

Occupy has fought a coopting by the Dems since the beginning. You should understand that by now.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't give a shit that OWS has fought against dem co opting.

I care about change that will improve the lives of the 99%.! Occupy can take care of themselves. Personally I think they are mainly concerned about improving the lives of the 99%, but whatever that is their problem.

"countless tyrannical, fascist legislation" is ALWAYS conservative policies, ALWAYS conservative written, ALWAYS conservative majority votes.

I am more angry with the dems who have always betrayed progressive principles, & caved in to support these conservative obscenities for fear of being labeled weak on terror/defense, or bought off by 1% plutocrats.

I expect it from repubs who are too far gone for hope. But Dems can be dragged back from the right and made to serve the 99%. They do support OWS. They do make up the progressive caucus (no repubs) They have embraced our terminology.

With the right pressure they can be co opted. We must replace cons w/ Progressives.

Of course I suggest this only until the anarchists get the new ground up, horizontal, direct democracy system off the ground.

How's that comin along?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

veto power yes- vetoing 4999 sections - mostly supporting our troops ? to get rid of that one section ? realize Obama is not an all powerful king maybe he even knew the judge ( he appointed ) would chuck it.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

That's wishful thinking. If obama vetoed the bill and told the american people what the disputed provision allowed and the reps were pushing it this would have moved the whole debate in the dems favor. Obama is smart enough to know that. Therefore I have to come to the conclusion he supported the provision. Why else did he do a quiet signing of the bill on new years eve.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28121) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Piss off more people? You gotta admit - we need to get more people pissed off at the government - pissed off and taking action - getting involved.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah but this isn't just some random provision...it would be like someone taking away your freedom of speech and slipping it into a bill and then saying "well there were so many things in the bill....he couldn't veto it for just this one little section on freedom of speech." These are the foundational principles of the country we're talking about....right to a trial by jury...innocent until proven guilty....they aren't just small random things going into a bill.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

Or curbing the right to peacefully assemble. Wait, the gov't has already done that.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

He has not used the power. Why would he do that if he supported it?

He put up no defense in court. Why would he do that if he supported it.?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

If you look at recent history both dem and reps have been slowly turning the country into a police state. The reps are the crazy branch the dems can point to and say at least we aren't that crazy. I thi.k of the parties as the 1 percents carrot and stick. As for not defending the provision they realized they went too far and are hoping to spin the fact that he signed it in the first place.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

White House is not spinning anything. They are keeping very quiet on this because they recognize their failure.

I have much more anger and disappointment for Dems who have once again caved in to vote for this conservative policy. We MUST protest this violation against all pols, especially repubs who created and have been the only ones to use it.

Yeah both parties are guilty of the slide to a police state. But to be fair we must acknowledge that repubs exploited the 9/11 attacks and forced all these conservative policies through and spineless dems caved for fear of being labeled weak on terrorism.

To undo this debacle we must end the fear mongering, endless war on terror that justifies all these violations as well as the excessive military action (drone attacks).

If we aren't focusing our outrage at the disease of fear being used against us, and focus only on the actions of dems/Obama then we are simply engaging in partisan attacks.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"Therefore I have to come to the conclusion he supported the provision." And his signing statement condemning this section does not factor into your math?
Or is everything Obama does bad?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

No it doesn't factor in at all. If I buy a gun and give it to someone I'm sure will commit murder then I'm responsible for that persons death.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And if you totally disable the gun before you give it to him?
[ FYI - I'm not happy this was signed - I believe a functioning government required the bill be signed - I did not read it all, but I did read a few of the sections ]

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

I never thought you supported it.

If you disable the gun the gun then you are only guilty ofbad judgement. If on the other hand your neighbors complain and the authorities take the gun away that doesn't give you the right to pretend you never bought the gun in the first place.

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

BAM! Exactly! Nailed It! and many other affirmative compliments....

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

Thx. It sure was a suprise to see how many people responded to this comment.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

yeah...don't think so

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LOL. Can't veto the defense bill successfully right? But you know that already.

The important thing is even though he signed the defense budget that included the republican crafted indef detention he has never used the power, & he has put up a weak to no defense in the court case against indef detention.

So when the Dems attempt to repeal the indef detention again like they did in may maybe the people will protest and create the pressure necessary to defeat the republican efforts to include it again.

Are you with us?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

You'e missing the point VQ...i couldn't give a rats @ss if he never uses it....even if he's elected in his second term. It opens up pandora's box for every other president who comes after him. What if someone like Mitt steps in next...would you be comfortable with him or some "teabagger" as you put it with these types of powers? What if some day your views are considered "terrorist" in nature because you don't conform to the conventional politics....this is where the danger lies.

Oh, and i'm pretty sure obama has assassinated american citizens without a trial. So i would completely trust the fact that he would never use something like detaining someone without a trial....but that is besides the point.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It matters that he has not used it Absolutely! It matters if a repub gets in power because of course I know they will use the power. They created and have been using it since 2002. They created the indef detention law. So of course it matters if they get in! (And I don't tea bagger, I leave the name calling to your type)

You just pretend that the guy fighting it, and has never used it is the only one responsible for it.

We must protest this violation against all pols, especially the repubs who created and used it!. If we neglect that and leave the repubs out of the complaint then we aren't really protesting it, we are just attacking the guy who is fighting it.

Grow the protests of this violation. Make sure the repubs feel their jobs are on the line. If not you're just spinning your wheels and engaging in partisan attacks.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I didn't say it didn't matter if he uses it. I said I don't care if he doesn't...that doesn't make it ok that it's on the books.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You don't care that he doesn't use it? Why not? It matters. If uses it like your republicans that would be bad!

Republicans created the policy! No matter? Republicans wrote the damn thing! That's Ok? Republicans used it. No complaints from you?

But the guy/party whose against it, fought it, never used, pledged to never use it & pledged to end it. That is where you direct your complaint?

You don't think that is clearly transparent?

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

The fact that he doesn't use it doesn't make it ok, like you're claiming. This is wrong if the next 20 presidents don't use it.

"But the guy/party whose against it, fought it, never used, pledged to never use it & pledged to end it. That is where you direct your complaint?"

He's the guy that said he would protect our constitutional rights....that's why he was elected....i'd say your right to a trial by jury is pretty central to that theme....he didn't fight it. No, the republicans who put this in the bill are a disgusting excuse for human beings....but when you're the boss and have the power to get rid of it and don't....it falls on your shoulders.

And like i said before VQ...he's the first president to assassinate american citizens...and suddenly there would be no way in the world he would merely detain someone?? Give me a break....no i don't trust him with these powers...or any president who follows.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

He is not the 1st President to assassinate American citizens. It's just that your knowledge doesn't go beyond your anti Obama partisanship.

Bush & Pres before killed thousands. Are you joking.?

I'm against this violation too! I've protested it, signed petitions and will continue. Our difference is you pretend repubs are innocent when they created it and are the only ones who used it!

You wanna give me a defense of Al Awlaki too?. You support him because he held an American passport?

Gimme a break! I'm gonna worry about the piece of shit that used his own son as a human shield?

Why haven't you answered the obvious republican responsibility for this violation.? You continue to ignore their part & give them a pass because you are clearly a republican partisan.

[-] 2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Al awlaki didn't use his son as a human shield. His son was killed at a barbecue by a drone attack. This is that terrorist you speak of giving a minute speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-jf462h_Is

But it doesn't MATTER if he was a horrible guy or not...that's not the point of the issue. The heart of the matter is your rights have been stripped away from you. You are no longer innocent until proven guilty...you are guilty when government tells you you are and there's not a damn thing you can do to prove your innocent because they can ship you off to some detention facility for the rest of your life....or assasinate you.

"Bush & Pres before killed thousands. Are you joking.?"

I think you're talking about killing people in general...which i agree with....the sanctions on iraq killed 500,000 people....atrocious...along with iraq war/afghanistan and on and on...yes republican presidents were invovled in these things along w/ democratic ones. We've been assassinating other countries citizens for decades.. What i'm talking about is assassinating AMERICAN citizens without any due process. Obama is the first to do this....assassinate american citizens.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

UNTRUE! We've been killing American citizens without trial for decades.

I am against the republican created indef detention. I have protested against this Pres and all pols. I have signed petitions and will again.

The difference between you and I is that I do not ignore the republican guilt in this matter!

  • Repubs created the policy 10 years ago,

  • Repubs wrote the law,

  • Repubs defeated dem efforts to repeal,

  • Repubs are the only ones to use it,

  • Repubs created the fear mongering when they exploited the 9/11 attacks.

  • Dem appointed judge threw it out!

  • Pres Obama has never used it

  • Pres Obama put up no defense in the case

To ignore these facts and direct your outrage against the dems and away from repubs reflects not your desire for change but your desire to perpetrate a partisan political attack campaign.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I'm not directing my outrage against the dems you partisan hack....get that through your head. I could care less if bush was still in office when this was passed....i'd be singing the same tune. That's the difference between you and me.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I ain't callin you a republican because you disagree with me! In fact I thought we agreed that the Indef detention was wrong.

We agree.

Maybe we disagree that the republicans and their policies areat the roots of these problems. Is that what you are saying?. I can't say you disagree with me on that. Because you have IGNORED those facts.

So it ain't that we disagree that leads me to call you a republican.

It is your neglect at recognizing the real criminals in regards to this indef detention violation.

It is because you have IGNORED the truth about republicans that your republican partisanship is betrayed.

What do we disagree on?. I thought we agreed. Repeal indef detention! I don't know what you are talkin about.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

But again you neglect to address the real facts on this outrageous violation.

Instead you resort to school yard name calling. "hack"? Please. I've stated clearly my disappointment with dem weakness in standing up to these conservative policies.

You ignore you republican guilt. Never even acknowledge the facts.

This is what betrays your republican partisanship.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I swear man...in your head any time anyone disagrees with you its because they're republican....stop making stuff up...i'm not republican. I was just as vocal about republican issues during the bush admin...patriot act much??? What i don't do is try to lesten the political impact of negative policy changes when a particular party is in office...like you do.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Please provide a link to Presidents openly assasinating US citizens.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Thanx. I'm not so good with evidence/links

[-] -3 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

US citizens....being the key words

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You've added "openly". Why? Is clandestine assassination of American citizens ok?

And what about non American civilians? Is that ok with you also?

Are you defining this outrage just narrow enough to capture the one terrorist that Pres Obama killed and you defend?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Clandstine assasinations have been going on for quite some time. Just look at murdered presidents.

Open assasination is a whole new territory. The president of the USA assasinating citizens and not hiding from it is new territory.

Im sorry you cannot see this. I voted for Obama. Too bad you arent as dissapointed, because otherwise its going to get worse. Wake the fuck up.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

OWS began because of the corruption illustrated by thecrashthat therepubs created. the wars and civil rights that repubs created. You continually give them a pass and even now state "repub guilt goes without saying" As long as you don't say you won't change it.

As long as you stay quiet about repub responsibility your just attacking dems and being a partisan republican.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The crash was caused by the Feds easy money policies, which were puppeted by Dems and REps alike.

I will say that Bush was the lead puppet though, and his Ownership Society plan was nothing more than putting the idiot out in front of the camera to sell it.

Credit cards, student loans, mortgages and refinances. All due to monetary policy, of which both are responsible.

And like I said, usually the Dems fault goes without saying too, except with you and couple others. The only difference between now and 2002 is that its a Dem in the whitehouse instead of a Repub.

So does my silence on Nazis mean that I endorse them? Because that is the logic you are using. The only reason I'll attack the Nazis is if some clown on here is defending them. Otherwise it goes without saying that they suck. OR at least it should.

The situation with Dems is similar. Occupiers just get tired of people on the outside assuming its a Get out the Republicans movement when indeed it is much deeper and smarter than that.

Discuss this stuff next time you go down there. Spend a few days/nights. Figure out what Im talking about.

Or keep being the mascot. Its up to you.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You've only attacked Pres Obama.!

You don't even address or recognize the republican guilt in regards to indef detention.

You ain't fair at all. You give your repubs a pass cause you are a partisan repub.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The rights guilt in this should go without saying. And so should the lefts. Its does with most people I know.

The reason you see people on here slamming Obama so much is because A) He's the fuckin current president and B) There are a handful of people here who refuse to call him out on his bullshit.

So we end up in this constant mode of trying to prove to people why OWS came about....The system is broken. Everyone is useless. Economics dont matter, as just proven by QE3.

I usually dont have to debate the current adminstrations corruption with people I know because it goes without saying.

Of course there are the die hards, that will always favor one over the other. The problem is they are only helping a broken system at this point.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

your not a simpleton. You know it isn't one man responsible for out current problems & you know history didn't begin with this Pres term.

You pretend that repubs aren't guilty for creating this obscenity and that is why you hve no credibility and that is what betrays yourrepublican partisanship.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I put both parties on equal footing. Its been split almost 50/50 in congress for the last 35 years. They are BOTH guilty.

The difference between me and you is that I dont cut one slack because I voted for em. I hold them all equally accountable. No one is special. No one gets special treatment.

Judge them on their votes. And their voting record fuckin sucks.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Need help little boy? Gonna gang up again? typical bullies.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You defeat yourself just fine. Just like America.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

NAZI'S" What are you talkin about? Our problems are all the result of conservative policies! Nazis are not related. Dems failure is only that they betrayed progressive principles and supported the conservative policies.

What do nazis have to with anything.? You're just trying to change the subject right? Nazis and repubs are pretty close is that what you are gettin at. They both hate jews. gays, blacks, latinos and treat women like property. Is that what your gettin at?

Thet're both right wing wackos. Is that what you mean? Isthat why you don't criticize the nazis? cause they are right wing wackos like your repubs?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Is anyone else reading this guys posts?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't believe a word of your claims of progressive positions.

Your dishonesty in ignoring the republican responsibility regarding the indef detention violations has eliminated any credibility you might have had.

You should vote 3rd party. Even though I don't believe a word you say I hope you are doing that.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You dont have to believe me, it really doesnt matter.

I have posted the disgusting 93-7 vote on this thing in the Senate constantly. If you cant get it through your head that I dispise the Republicans as much as the Democrats, then you are not looking objectively at it.

If Romney wins, then it will be him on blast for signing things. Until then, its the people with the pens, and Obama is the leader. So fuck em.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You sound like a republican to me boss!

So you're gonna vote justice party?

Great idea! Definitely you should vote justice party!

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ya, republicans are definitely pro gay rights, end the wars, end the fed, pro choice, and former Dem campaigners.

Assumptions like that are why you are the Mascot.

What else you got?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I disagree! You did NOT vote for Pres Obama. LOL!

So clandestine is ok? But transparency is bad? You live in bizarro world.

Transparency is better so that the American people can have the debate. In fact it is the best way to end it. Isn't that why this Pres is doing it in the open? So that we can debate it and end it.

Why hasn't the drone debate taken place.? You have any idea? Do you care?

Well we have been shell shocked into submission by republican exploitation of the 9/11 attacks using FEAR MONGERING!

You understand that concept? End the fear mongering and people will wake up.

Attack one party and not the one who created this situation and you are clearly just on a partisan political campaign against one party, and not interested in real change.

I've already said I'm disappointed with Pres Obama and the dems when they support your republican/conservative policies. That doesn't mean I pretend the repubs didn't create all these problems.

When you and the rest of America wake up things can improve. but only if we protest for the progressive change that will benefit the 99% and replace pro 1% war mongering conservatives with pro 99% peace lovin progressives.

"it's the only way to be sure"

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

Do you even realize what the fuck you are saying. Bama is murdering citizens so we can stop murdering citizens. You sound just like a blind republican trying to defend forcing a rape victim to have their rapists child.

By the way, you're candidate obama is busy appealing the ruling against indefinate detention while you are trying to whore OWS out to the democrats.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

So you are calling me a liar in my vote for Obama?

"Transparency is better so that the American people can have the debate. In fact it is the best way to end it. Isn't that why this Pres is doing it in the open? So that we can debate it and end it."

Holy shit. You know what, me and you are not on the same level. Go back to the campaign office and get working. Im done with you for the time being. Thanks for showing the world that OWS accepts even the most blind of people.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So still to the end nothing about your republican guilt in the roots of these problems.

As always. Every time we converse. It is the same thing. You ignore the same facts.

You ain't kiddin anyone. You are a republican partisan.!

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Actually we just got Justice Party registered in Fl as a minor party. So Im not a dem anymore.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

twinkle ☼☺☼☺☼ twinkle.. ☼..☼ ..T W I N K L E
☼☼ twinkle.. ☼..☼ ..tWiNkLe TWINKLE
☼°○oΟ ☼°○oΟ☺ ☼ twinkle.. ☼..☼ .. T-W-I-N-K-L-E ☼☺

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Good meeting you yesterday.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

OH! was that you?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Me and my Girlfriend. A

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

OH- I thought that was you and a very well spoken gentleman

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Thx. I try.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Yay! Judge Katherine Forrest is a shero.