Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: NDAA 2012: Obama Uses New Year's Eve As Cover To Usher In Fourth Reich Amerika

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 1, 2012, 2:38 a.m. EST by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The last day of 2011 was also the last day of representative democracy in America, as Corporate Fascist Puppet President Barack Obama chose the New Year's Eve holiday to sign the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (H.R.1540) into law:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-12/pdf/CREC-2011-12-12-pt1-PgH8356-5.pdf

Little if any mention of this quiet coup was made in our corporate-controlled television news, so if you were busy celebrating, updating your Fakebook page or keeping up with the Kardashians, here's the 411:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/317046

Along with signing NDAA, Obama released a Presidential Signing Statement in which he assured "Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

That sounds reassuring, but it doesn't mean much. "Presidential Signing Statements" are political documents that have no Constitutional basis and do not modify the laws to which they refer. In these Orwellian times, Obama's empty promise that we have nothing to worry about should warn us that in fact we have plenty to worry about.

No more Left. No more Right. Time to Unite. Stand and Fight!

VVV PR (vvvpr@vvvpr.com|@vvvpr) http://VeritasVirtualVengeance.com

91 Comments

91 Comments


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

And half the population will still vote for Obama or Romney. Disgusting.

[-] 1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT OF THE LAST 14 U.S. PRESIDENTS, 7 HAVE BEEN DEMOCRATS AND 7 HAVE BEEN REPUBLICANS.

Our Kleptocracy-controlled media focuses on America's two-year election cycles as if who wins or loses in the swinging of the pendulum was a matter of life or death, when in fact even at the Presidential level it makes no more difference than the outcomes of Monday Night Football, American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, Hillbilly Handfishing or the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor. U.S. elections are staged primarily to give Sheeple the illusion of control so they will (a) vent their frustrations and expend their energy, emotions and resources supporting or attacking the Puppet on the Left hand or the Puppet on the Right, and consequently (b) never recognize and challenge the common omnipotent Puppetmaster.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Here here..

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I'll try this again, since my posts about this on this thread, purely informational, were inexplicably deleted.

Signing statements have the power to nullify implementation of a law. By directing all agencies on the executive branch to disregard a law's enforcement based on constitutional grounds, those agencies, bound to follow the orders of the administration, do not enforce or apply the law.

Although signing statements are controversial (and were especially so during the last administration) they have been used since the presidency of James Madison.

While they do not carry the full weight of law, they have de facto force of law until the unlikely event that they would be overturned by the supreme court.

With his signing statement of this spending bill, with NDAA attached to it by Republicans, Obama made the law utterly toothless. Without the ability of any agency to enforce it, it has the effect of NDAA not existing at all.

Fear-mongering does NOT further the cause of OWS.

Censoring these comments only demonstrates an agenda of fear-mongering taking precedence over simple fact.

[-] 2 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

Obama, or any president would still have the power to ignore the presidential signing statement? The Commander in Chief? All three branches have shown their inclination to err on the $ide of less freedom and more idiocy.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

He had no choice but to sign the overall legislation. THe signing statement buys time until the next election when the NDAA can be repealed or modified

If another president in the future decides to go against the signing statement (something virtually unprecedented in American history) enforcement will be on HIS head, not Obama's.

If you want to lay blame, do so at the feet of the real culprits of the legislation: the Republitards that folded it cynically into a spending bill that had to be signed.

[-] 1 points by monkeywrencher (8) 2 years ago

He absolutely had a choice. With regard to his veto of the Army Appropriations Act of 1880, which had Posse Comitatus attached to it, this is what President Rutherford B. Hayes said: "The bill provides in the usual form the appropriations required for the support of the Army during the next fiscal year. If it contained no other provisions, it would receive my prompt approval. It includes, however, further legislation, which, attached, as it is, to appropriations which are requisite for the efficient performance of some of the most necessary duties of the Government, involves questions of the gravest character...This section is, however, not presented to me as a separate and independent measure, but is, as has been stated, attached to the bill making the usual annual appropriations for the support of the Army... This is altogether foreign to the purpose of an ‘Army appropriations bill.'" I'm quite aware that Hayes was opposed to Posse Comitatus, the important part is that he was also aware that it is wholly inappropriate to use an Army Appropriations Act as a vehicle for making vital changes to laws of our land that should be subject to independent congressional authorization, and if Obama truly was offended by the language in our 2012 NDAA he would have had plenty of ground to stand on in vetoing it on that principle alone. The passage of the spending bill was never in jeopardy, signing statements bear no legal force, I also recall Obama directing his Justice Department not to enforce certain other laws and after reading several California newspapers, that direction appears to be worthless as well. The greater danger with regard to the signing statement is that it leaves the door open for a future administration to use this newly granted fiat at will. He had over 800 years of history dating back to the Magna Carta behind him should he have chosen to exercise his obligation to defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights by not allowing this bill to cross his desk.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

The president is as guilty as can be. He didn't have to sign it, but he did because he agreed with it, as did 93 senators.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

If he agreed with it, he would not have written the signing statement that renders its enforcement impossible.

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Signing statements are purely political documents that have no power to render ANYTHING impossible. Stop posting your pro-regime lies, poser.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

But can't Obama rescind the signing statement at any time he desires, without the Supreme Court? And can't the next president (after Obama enact anything in that law that he or she chooses? Ultimately, wouldn't it be better not to have a law that gives a future president the powers that this law provides. You are assuming that Obama will win re-election and assuming that the next president won't take advantage of this law. He should have vetoed the law, plan and simple and I bet that if a poll were taken, the people of the U.S. would agree.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

If or when the signing statement is rescinded (virtually unheard of in all of American history), the bill itself has protections for citizens built in. The scenario is so unlikely you might as well be worried about a comet hitting the earth.

I'll say it again: this is a BAD bill. So was the Patriot Act, which this effectively extends. But the sky is not falling.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

"Signing statements have the power to nullify implementation of a law."

BULLSHIT! Signing statements have no "legal" power whatsover, and I'll wager you know that. The only "power" they have is that which any other purely political document has, and that's the power of persuasion - normally used to make Sheeple swallow shit they shouldn't.

Have signing statements been used with effect by many presidents before Bushbama? Yes. And so has toilet paper.

As for your "fear mongering" implication, you must be trippin...

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You are simply mistaken. Signing statements determine how and even if legislation is enacted.

Have signing statements been used with effect before Obama? You bet! Look at his predecessor's record. They work and they work well. that's why they are used.

Signing statements may have no legitimate legal foundation, but in the real world, they have, since Reagan, been used to effectively clip the wings of legislation.

Learn a little bit about them before making your sky is falling predictions.

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

I do my homework before I post. You on the other hand have been throwing the same flawed arguments at this thread all day, hoping no one would notice.

You are either a plant for the regime or a pseudo-intellectual pitching a hissy fit for getting caught spreading manure. Maybe both...

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You clearly didn't do your homework well enough. You bring up legal validity of signing statements. But you don't understand their effectiveness, legalism notwithstanding.

Valid legally or not, they enjoy DE FACTO legal force. they have the desired effect IN THE REAL WORlD, rather than in theory.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

There you go, talking in meaningless circles again. If I was President and wanted to rip off your head so I could shit down your pro-regime throat, the fact that I had previously penned a signing statement assuring you I wouldn't do so would pose no legal deterrent. Signing statements are non-binding political propaganda that may or may not reflect administration policy as of a point in time, and nothing more.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You are simply wrong. They have the force of law. They may be non-binding on a future administration, but they are binding on THIS administration's enforcement arms. Unless and until Obama is no longer in office, the law with NOT be enforced. Period.

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

You are obviously a pro-regime plant. Take your spin elsewhere, chump.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Pro-regime? Hardly. I have been a staunch supporter of OWS from day 1.

I just don't like hyperbole and fear-mongering based on emotion rather than fact. I think it does the movement more harm than good.

If you want to be effective in opposing something, you need to be accurate in what you're opposing. Otherwise, you wind up just spinning your wheels, fighting battles than don't exist.

I don't like his signing this law any more than you do. But I'm not afraid of it, since I know how signing statements work in practice rather than in theory.

[-] 1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

In this thread I see no hyperbole or fear-mongering from us, but I see a shitload of incessant half-truths, spin and outright lies from you.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

If you don't understand what a signing statement does to legislation, that's your ignorance, not my lies.

Since you clearly don't understand it, your fear of this law is understandable, if misplaced. But your sounding a frenetic alarm based on it is not.

That you are tied to your fear only shows that you are invested in it rather than the truth.

[-] 1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

"The recent use of presidential signing statements to functionally amend legislation passed by Congress remains controversial and is arguably not within the scope of powers granted to the president by the Constitution. The other less controversial uses of signing statements are legitimate, can be defended under the Constitution and can be useful in the long-term administration of our laws. Like any other power, however, the power of presidential signing statements can be abused."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/signing_2.htm

There. Now F**K OFF, Quisling...

[-] 1 points by LongDaysnight (354) 2 years ago

Don't be stupid a signing statement has no power, if you like i can give my issuing statement soon.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yet bound up in your quote is the FACT that signing statements functionally amend legislation. I am NOT (for the umtheenth time) arguing for their legality, but their functionality.

Try to learn to read.

Look, was the War in Vietnam legal? NO. Congress did not, as required by law, declare war. Was it still fought and did it still kill a million and a half people? Yes. It had no force of law, but it had force.

Was the invasion of Grenada legal? NO. See above. Did it kill a few hundred Cubans and Grenadans? Yes. It had no force of law, but it had force.

Was the first Gulf War in Iraq legal? NO. See above. You know the result.

Was the second War in iraq Legal. NO. See above.

You keep arguing legality and constitutionality. But that's not always the mechanism by which things work in practice in Washington. Singing statements are an example of the way things actually work, constitution or no constitution. They work IN REALITY.

And just because you are being told about a fact (that you don't understand or want to understand) is no reason to start insulting and cursing. It only shows your desperate clinging to the fear and rage you want to spread, irrationally.

[-] 1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

What's getting spread here is doubletalk, not fear. And the one spreading it is YOU, poser, not me. To get things back on topic:

Obama has filed his NDAA Signing Statement. Here is mine:

Americans must not be distracted by Corporate Fascist Puppet Barack Obama saying "my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens" in his signing statement for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (H.R.1540). Presidential "signing statements" are political propaganda with no Constitutional basis. A President who breaches a signing statement covenant faces no more consequences than any other corrupt politician who renegs on a promise. By signing NDAA and attempting to give its unconstitutional provisions the force of law, Barack Hussein Obama became complicit with all of the bought-and-paid-for U.S. Senators and Representatives who voted for this bill, and along with them should be charged with Seditious Conspiracy under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 Section 2384. Unless and until these vermin are arrested, charged and removed from office, I will no longer consider the government they infest to be legitimate. Nor will I respect any ruling to the contrary from a judicial system that grants rights of citizenship to corporate entities that treat settlements and penalties for criminal conduct as costs of doing business with no concerns about incarceration or execution to deter their illegal, immoral or unethical conduct.

No more Left. No more Right. Time to Unite. Stand and Fight!

IronBoltBruce

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Your cutting and pasting skills are exemplary. So are your unfounded accusations of me.

Your rhetoric is passionate. And utterly meaningless.

"I will no longer consider the government they infest to be legitimate."

I've felt this way ever since Reagan. But I still have to pay my taxes.

By the way, in terms of the law itself , section 1022 subsection a paragraph 2 identifies the prerequisite that the subject's detainment be authorized in section 1021, which expressly excludes US citizens. Section 1021 also excludes all resident aliens of the US. And I quote, "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." (Page 362 of the bill).

Keep up the fear mongering and name calling and adolescent proclamations. You seem to enjoy it. Indignation can be fun. Since you seem to love melodrama, you could could even sing a song to the tune of New York, New York: "Start spreading the fear.... I'm pissed off today......I gonna make a stink of it, for all to hear....." and so on. (You can sing it as Liza Minelli or Frank Sinatra. Either one will do.)

In the meantime I will be watching carefully to see what comes of this hateful and misguided legislation that betrays the principles of this country and hurts its reputation abroad, and will join the protesters at the barricades the instant this should actually mean one fucking thing.

[-] -1 points by GreedKilIs (29) 2 years ago

Tell em Bruce, he must work for obama's re-election crew. Nobody is buying his shit.

[-] 2 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Bushbama has issued his NDAA Signing Statement:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

Here is mine:

Americans must not be distracted by Corporate Fascist Puppet Barack Obama saying "my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens" in his signing statement for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (H.R.1540). Presidential "signing statements" are political propaganda with no Constitutional basis. A President who breaches a signing statement covenant faces no more consequences than any other corrupt politician who renegs on a promise. By signing NDAA and attempting to give its unconstitutional provisions the force of law, Barack Hussein Obama became complicit with all of the bought-and-paid-for U.S. Senators and Representatives who voted for this bill, and along with them should be charged with Seditious Conspiracy under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 Section 2384. Unless and until these vermin are arrested, charged and removed from office, I will no longer consider the government they infest to be legitimate. Nor will I respect any ruling to the contrary from a judicial system that grants rights of citizenship to corporate entities that treat settlements and penalties for criminal conduct as costs of doing business with no concerns about incarceration or execution to deter their illegal, immoral or unethical conduct.

No more Left. No more Right. Time to Unite. Stand and Fight!

IronBoltBruce

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ndaa-2012-obama-uses-new-years-eve-as-cover-to-ush/

Related Image:

http://lancewig.com/sites/default/files/enslaved.jpg

[-] 3 points by skittleskattle (10) from New York, NY 2 years ago

He was likely smashed off his ass when he signed that bill.

[-] 1 points by kevvss (1) 2 years ago

Please spread the word, as the mainstream news sources are obviously not going to! Make a youtube video, tell your friends, write your senators, and share my video if you are not able to make your own. I implore Americans not to take the NDAA, EEA, SOPA or The Protect IP Act lightly! http://youtu.be/6H3ukZa_Ffs

[-] 1 points by occupiedwithOWS2311 (4) 2 years ago

Can anyone be so kind as to direct to me to where I can find the actual law or the bill that Obama signed? I am having a difficult time tracking it down. I have found many different versions of the bill in the Library of Congress and the one I found which was passed by the House and the Senate does not appear to apply to U.S. citizens. Also, I am not sure, but I think once a bill becomes law it is becomes classified (not secret, but categorized) into U.S. code, and thus I don't know where to look for it. I could really use some help here as I know something fishy is going on with all the misdirection and I want wake up those around me, but I know I want to be able to show them the law and let them do their own research. Any suggestions or guidance would be amazing.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 2 years ago

:::::NDAA LIBERTY:::::

http://maxkeiser.com/2012/01/02/ndaa-liberty/

(((Power to the Peaceful)))

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

First the Transition. Then the Peace.

[-] 1 points by reckoning (53) 2 years ago

And OWS still supports Obama!! lol!!!!!!!

Go ahead vote for that scumbag!

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

He is done

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

But who holds the whip hand? Obama or the military? This was a military coup, folks.

[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 2 years ago

The Nazis were socialists, they heavily taxed the rich. Barack Obama is just a mainstream democrat politician. Whom would he put in a detention camp? Not the japs again.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

The German Nazis were FASCISTS, not SOCIALISTS. Their "National Socialist" party title was Orwellian doublespeak, same as the totalitarian Communist Chinese calling themselves the "Peoples Republic" of China. Obama is a Democrat, yes, but they answer to the same corporate masters as the Republicans. You have much to learn, Grasshopper...

[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 2 years ago

That was because Stalin had a monopoly on socialism. They taxed the riched, they created cohesion in society by blaming scapegoats, they did Keynesian policies and prepared the economy for war. Stalinists are not much different.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Stalin was a dictator. Stalin's Russia was totalitarian. Words like "socialism" had only Orwellian meanings in that context.

[-] 1 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 2 years ago

Yes, and he defined what socialism was supposed to be. So his enemy, other dictators, where supposed to be fascists. Fascism then became a replacement slogan for imperialism in communist theory.

From Lenin's perspective Imperialism was defined as a stage of capitalism in which supranational governance and global capital merge. But Lenin died in 1922. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

Today we call it globalisation.

Fascism originally only mean the Italian neoromantic socialist youth movement around Mussolini which seized power after WWI.

What liberals like Mises then argued was that socialism leads to excessive state powers. That ideology emerged in a time when businesses didn't claim to support a pro-market approach.

Modern socialism is libertarian.

A position of classic socialism was is concept as an explicitly internationalist movement. Today global capitalism is internationalist. Socialism needs cohesion and solidarity within the group that adopts it. That's why socialism in Sweden is a natural expression of the people.

When you play divide and conquer, mix peoples and ignore ethnic divisions it gets very difficult to create the natural solidarity needed to back a socialist state. The National Socialists tried to create cohesion by excluding the jews as a scapegoat. A very sad story.

Still, how to build cohesion within society as the condition for collective action?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by AussieMick (3) 2 years ago

Obama reportedly threatened to veto the bill if it didn't have the power to indefinitely detain American citizens. If he really wanted to "clarify" that he would never do that then why not simply refuse to sign any bill that allows it? Even if it was overruled it would still demonstrate that he TRIED to avoid this power being given to himself (and Newt Gingrich when he becomes President in 13).

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT OF THE LAST 14 U.S. PRESIDENTS, 7 HAVE BEEN DEMOCRATS AND 7 HAVE BEEN REPUBLICANS.

Our Kleptocracy-controlled media focuses on America's two-year election cycles as if who wins or loses in the swinging of the pendulum was a matter of life or death, when in fact even at the Presidential level it makes no more difference than the outcomes of Monday Night Football, American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, Hillbilly Handfishing or the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor. U.S. elections are staged primarily to give Sheeple the illusion of control so they will (a) vent their frustrations and expend their energy, emotions and resources supporting or attacking the Puppet on the Left hand or the Puppet on the Right, and consequently (b) never recognize and challenge the common omnipotent Puppetmaster.

[-] 1 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 2 years ago

RIGHT ON! NO MORE UNIPARTY Inc We the People are NOT the enemy! There are alternatives to Uniparty Inc., and yes, we really do need to get on the ball about rigged voting/counting machines!

Happy New Year my fellow US Citizens, who can be detained by the military, indefinitely, and without a single charge if our Government and our President say so.

"Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude and perseverance. Let us remember that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom," it is a very serious consideration ... that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." ~ Samuel Adams

With that "controversial" "NDAA-Let's throw Americans in Guantanamo" business officially behind us as the Obot signed that bill w/ an Obot disclaimer that legally means absolutely nothing, the Obot starts 2012 fresh. How many women and children can he kill this year? Well, with Iran looming, it could be a bumper year for the Obot. He signed the bill with a Signing Statement that don't mean shit! New Year 2012: Obama Starts off Fresh! (and his signing statement is bullshit!)":
http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-year-2012-obama-starts-off-fresh.html

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Will ACLU Take the NDAA Bull by the Horns, or Just Milk the Cow?

This week the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) set up a new NDAA pledge page that reads as follows:

"He signed it. We'll fight it.

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. It contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.

The dangerous new law can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. He signed it. Now, we have to fight it wherever we can and for as long as it takes.

Sign the ACLU's pledge to fight worldwide indefinite detention for as long as it takes."

http://tinyurl.com/76zzr57

I have not signed it ... yet. I suspect that once I do, I'll start receiving an indefinite stream of donation requests, all assuring me the money will go to fight the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA. I suspect that the ACLU may be gearing up to milk the NDAA issue for donations just as they have the USA Patriot Act, which a decade after passage and despite their efforts is still on the books:

http://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-act

I don't mind the ACLU milking issues so long as they're actually making a difference on those issues. But I don't see that their efforts made much of a difference with respect to the Patriot Act. And when I asked them yesterday "What, specifically, is the ACLU going to do to defeat the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA 2012?" their answer was this:

"We are extremely active on this issue and are strategizing our best options in moving forward."

I find that answer very disappointing. The ACLU had more than enough time to "strategize" about NDAA before Obama signed it, and they should have been ready to spring into action once he did. I have recommended an effective course of action for the ACLU, which includes charging Barack Hussein Obama and all of the U.S. Senators and Representatives who voted for NDAA 2012 with Seditious Conspiracy under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 Section 2384:

http://tinyurl.com/8yamv4c

Whether they follow that recommendation or not, whatever the ACLU intends to do about NDAA they better do quick. And if they want my support, they better be doing a helluva lot more than just building donor lists from online petition drives that otherwise accomplish nothing:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/internet.asp

NO MORE LEFT. NO MORE RIGHT. TIME TO UNITE. STAND AND FIGHT!

IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://vvvpr.com | @vvvpr )

Related Image:

http://ironboltbruce.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/aclu_ndaa_cash_cow.jpg

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Par (27) 2 years ago

The NDAA was going to pass regardless of Obama's non-veto, because of the Senate majority.

Therefore Obama's non-veto was purely symbolic of his support for a police state.

Obama knows that 9/11 wasn't perpetrated by Muslims.

Obama knows that his banker friends are deliberately bringing down the world economy.

Obama is ex-CIA after all, like his mother was.

Read the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

[-] 2 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

""""Obama knows that 9/11 wasn't perpetrated by Muslims""""""

Then who was it? The gunman on the grassy knoll?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Actually, signing statements determine how (if at all) a law will be applied. They mean a lot from a legal point of view. While they don't modify laws, they often determine their application or enforcement, and can render them entirely moot. And that is exactly what Obama's signing statement has done in this case. Despite the law having been passed, his administration will not authorize its enforcement and is not required to. And since that authorization is necessary for the law to be put into effect, the law actually has no effect as of now and into the future. It might as well have never been passed for all the effect it will have following the signing statement.

[-] 2 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

You could not be more wrong. Proponents of the imperial presidency like to make signing statements look like laws, but they are not even binding on the puppets who sign them much less the ones that follow. They may frame and project "policy" for the current administration, but that's about it.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Signing statements have the force of law, (especially on agencies under the administrative branch, which are bound to follow the administration's orders). It's true that there is no universal agreement that they are completely legal. But while they are certainly controversial - and the controversy extends all the way back to James Madison - until the Supreme Court itself disallows them, they will continue to work as an end run around aspects of legislation.

Since Samuel Alito wrote the foundational memo about the current use of signing statements while still a clerk in the Reagan administration, chances are pretty slim that the Supreme court, upon which he now sits, will do anything about it.

[-] 2 points by AussieMick (3) 2 years ago

You are making stuff up. There is NO evidence that "signing statements" have ANY constitutional authority whatsoever. The President doesn't get to say how laws are enforced, that is NOWHERE in his power.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

For the 5th time, constitutional authority is NOT the issue. the issue is that they work regardless of their weak legal standing. And unless or until the Supreme Court rules they can be disregarded, - which up to now it hasn't done - they must be followed. Whatever their legal standing is, they WORK.

[-] 2 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

You talk in circles, as do most writers who attempt to legitimize Presidential signing statements. "Following orders" does not equate to "force of law", and from a Constitutional perspective Bushbama's signing statement carries no more weight than mine, which I'll share with you here:

Americans must not be distracted by Corporate Fascist Puppet Barack Obama saying "my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens" in his signing statement for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (H.R.1540). Presidential "signing statements" are political propaganda with no Constitutional basis. A President who breaches a signing statement covenant faces no more consequences than any other corrupt politician who renegs on a promise. By signing NDAA and attempting to give its unconstitutional provisions the force of law, Barack Hussein Obama became complicit with all of the bought-and-paid-for U.S. Senators and Representatives who voted for this bill, and along with them them should be charged with Seditious Conspiracy under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 Section 2384. Unless and until these vermin are arrested, charged and removed from office, I will no longer consider the government they infest to be legitimate.

IronBoltBruce

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 2 years ago

epa1nter "It's true that there is no universal agreement that they are completely legal"

I think that sums it up !

AND AWAY WE GO !!!

[-] 2 points by bonadolq (5) 2 years ago

Reviewing your statements, please clarify as to how it supercedes Constitutional Law.

Referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement, what is your rebuttal to its quote listed below?:

"..a task force of the American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers". In fact, the Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety and return it to the House in which it originated, along with his written objections to it."

Regarding statements discussing federal agency compliance with Signing Statements, the President, Congress, the Senate, the US military, US agencies, their executives, and direct employees are dutifuly obligated to uphold the following oath above any orders that would supercede the Constitution (even Executive orders that attempt to circumvent the Constitution):

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[5 U.S.C. §3331]

To put it plainly, Agencies have a duty to the Constitution; not an Administation nor a particular President. Just because the President makes a statement or directive within a Signing Statement, DOES NOT guarantee the enforceability of the statements therein by the current and future administrations, nor does it necessarily make it legal under Constitutional Law.

The practice of Signing Statements being used as an Executive Exemption has been, and is now, done for solely political expediency of an agenda with the concurrence and complicty of similarly minded constiuents within the Agencies and other branches of government.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I never said that it supercedes constitutional law. That's your hobgoblin, not mine. In fact, I clearly stated that its use was suspect on constitutional grounds. I am talking about how it actually WORKS. And it works by directing all enforcement agencies to operate by the executive interpretation of the law. If that interpretation indicates it is not to be enforced, it is not enforced. It's as simple as that.

Whether or not agencies are bound to serve the constitution is just another fact that has no baring on this. Enforcement agencies follow the directives of the president when it comes to how a law is to be interpreted and enforced. The President has the constitutional authority to supervise and control the activity of subordinate officials and agencies within the Executive Branch. As such those officials and agencies are constitutionally bound to adhere to the presidents directives as expressed in signing statements. Violating such a directive would require a ruling by the courts. No agency would (or could) take it upon itself to make such a violation without a clear judicial green light. They cannot, by law, act unilaterally against the directives inherent in a presidential signing statement. Again, not without the backing of the courts.

Bush effectively (and scurrilously) gutted the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gasses or perform other functions it was bound by congress to perform via several if his signing statements. (He issued hundreds of them). His actions in this regard were considered hugely controversial, not only because of the constitutional weakness of using them in a way not intended by law, but because they were so bloody EFFECTIVE at undermining the congress. Obama's use of them now is just as effective, but at least this time it's being done for the right reasons. Whatever the reasons, signing statements effectively - VERY effectively - undermine the will of the congress and alter implementation of legislation.

You have NO idea how these signing signing statements actually work. You have legal definitions and legal theory, but no clue about the mechanics of their implementation. The sky is not falling.

[-] 2 points by bonadolq (5) 2 years ago

I would request a more civil tone in our discourse.

I am not discounting your point of view and for the record, having served as an public servant with agencies subject to the executive branch policies. I do understand the impact at the bureaucratic and political level as I have written correspondences for congressional and judicial review as a result of signing statements.

If you recall my last paragraph, I concur with the spirit of your post, but also add the clear statement that signing statements are followed because the agencies are led by officials adhering to the same agenda

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

My apologies for the tone. I just got fed up with all those accusations of being an Obama shill.

If you truly know how signing statements work, you know that the constitutionality of them has little bearing on their effectiveness. Knowing how the executive branch works, you also know that any agency under its umbrella it duty-bound by law to adhere to a presidential directive, whether they are similarly minded or not.

If you have been around in Washington long enough, you witnessed how effectively they undermined enforcement of many other laws during the previous administration, and that there was nothing the enforcement agencies could do about it. THey were required to comply even though they weren't close to being like-minded.

[-] 0 points by GreedKilIs (29) 2 years ago

People like you should be the first to be on your knees begging for no more water board.

[-] 1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

“¡Prefiero morir de pie que vivir de rodillas!”- Emiliano Zapata

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by ubergoober (-2) from Newark, NJ 2 years ago

This doesn't apply to citizens. Section 1022 subsection a paragraph 2 identifies the prerequisite that the subject's detainment be authorized in section 1021, which expressly excludes US citizens. Persons detained outside the US may indeed be another story. Travel and fraternize with caution I suppose.

[-] 2 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

"This doesn't apply to citizens" my butt. You need to read this:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

[-] 1 points by monkeywrencher (8) 2 years ago

stop trolling blatant falsehoods

[-] -2 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

The sheeple voted for him.. Of course almost every "minority" in this country voted for him and would have done so regardless of his policies. He could run on the platform of "All white people should be enslaved" and minorities would vote for him. Yet somehow white people are "racist" and minorities need laws, regulations, and affirmative action to "protect them from white racism". We voted for a BLACK MAN as our PRESIDENT but somehow "blacks are oppressed". Isn't that a joke. Then you have the Elitist whites who voted for him, not respecting him, but seeing him as their puppet or tool. In their arrogant, narcissistic minds, they "put him their" He isn't "above" them. He is their tool. Then you have idiots who just thought it would be "cool" to vote for him, or think that because they were able to vote for a black man, they weren't "stupid hicks". Rather they are smart and "worldly". And most of all you had the sheeple who believed all of his promises and that he was going to somehow make them have life easier and that the rich would pay for it.

So what did you expect to happen? Sadly enough, it will happen again in 2012.

[-] 2 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

You actually sound kind of like one of the racists that black people need protection from. Sorry, but you sound so bitter you could just spit. Obama won as much because of Bush as he did because of McCain, who two weeks before the economic collapse proclaimed that our economy was strong and accused Obama of political posturing when he decided to head back to D.C. to look to the economy. But, of course your viewpoint of Obama's victory is due in part to affirmative action. I personally voted for Obama because of the contrast that he represented from McCain and I voted for Kerry because he was black. Oh, but wait, Kerry isn't black, he's rich white guy, but I would have chosen him over Bush (the war president) because I knew we shouldn't have been in Iraq. Who did you vote for in 2004? If it was Bush, what does that say about you and your judgement? And don't assume I'm some democrat loving zealot, because I am as disillusioned and have been disillusioned with Obama and the democratic party since the beginning of 2010 and currently I would not vote for him in the upcoming election, but I wouldn't vote for any of the idiots that the republican party is putting up, especially when the biggest idea on how to fix the economy was to say that all but one janitor should be fired from all high schools and students should be allowed to take those jobs for less pay. Please, if you've heard something better from Mitt, Michelle, Ron, Rick, Rick, Huntsman or Newt, let me know, because I have a better idea than anything I've heard from those idiots.

[-] 1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

""""You actually sound kind of like one of the racists that black people need protection from"""""

No sir, YOU are one of the REAL "racist" ones hiding behind "compassion". I personally find Black people to be every bit as capable of success as any white person. To grant them special accommodations thought up by Narcissistic White Liberals and "Black Community Leaders", many of whom DEPEND on racism for their agendas, is to tell Black people that they are second rate human beings, incapable of what the great white race is, given the same means. And MY Black friends feel the same way. Their is nobody more "racist", believing themselves superior to minorities, than Elitist White Liberals hiding behind compassion and concern. See, my Black friends, feel embarrassment at the thought of being given "special considerations" to "protect" them. They are actually EXTREMELY OFFENDED by it. Can you comprehend that? Or can you only follow a popular agenda, the old obligatory, "Blacks are mistreated" and "Those poor unfortunate Black people need the help and support of me because I am superior in so many ways".

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

You are one of those people who think that black people are treated as equals. You are wrong and I bet you wouldn't be so positive of the negatives of affirmative action if you were black and I'd be willing to bet that given the choice to be either a Black man, Hispanic man or a woman with a Doctoral degree or a white guy with a Bachelors, you'd probably take your chances as the white guy with less education, so don't try to post your ideology of BULLSHIT here. Though I have never benefited from affirmative action, I can honestly say that people (other than white) are treated differently and given fewer opportunities and laid off before less qualified whites. This is not because any such thing happened to me, but I witnessed it with colleagues of mine and I worked for one of the world's largest engineering firms. You cannot be speaking from actual incidents that caused you to lose a job to a less qualified person of color, because I doubt that that has happened too often, but I do know that the reverse happens. If you think racism is gone, consider this and have your "black" friends consider this fact. One of the frontrunners for the republican presidential nomination has suggested that black students could benefit from jobs being taken away from their parents and given to them. Newt firmly believes that his lunacy of taking janitors jobs away from the adults and giving them to the kids is the way in which to fix our economy. And whether or not you are a republican or a democrat, this stupid logic should reveal to even you and your "black" friends that there is a definite disconnect between black people and the leaders of this country. P.S. - I am black and I have never received anything based on affirmative action, but I would neither be offended or deny that there is a need for it in this country. And if you and your black friends don't think that blck people are mistreated, you might want to look at your upbringing and those of your black friends, because I grew up in mostly white neighborhoods, but I still see that there is a distinct difference in the way black people are treated in this country and the way white people are treated.

[-] 1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

WHaa WHaa WHaa. The "Leader" IS a black person. How fuckin "racist" is THAT. And in a PRIVATE WORLD, with PERSONAL FREEDOMS with PRIVATE RIGHTS, a purple person should be able to lay off/not lay off, hire/not hire, fire/not fire, a green person or any other person for WHATEVER THE HELL REASON he or she so chooses. It isn't the job of the Liberal government or the Liberal media to dictate to or force private citizens who the hell they should like or not like. And in doing so, all it does is keep the flames of racism and resentment burning. The lines drawn very solidly SEPARATING people. The feelings of victimization anchoring American youth giving them the feeling they are not as good as white people. And if I could choose to be white or black, it wouldn't matter a damn bit to me. I would choose to be the best person I could possibly be and live the best way I could for myself and everyone else. If someone chooses to hate others based on the color of their skin, that is his or her RIGHT. THAT is the person who loses out in the end,missing out on great opportunities to form relations, whatever they may be, with some really wonderful, great people. But government cannot FORCE anyone to not hate others. All it does, as I stated, is fan the flames of hatred. Yes. I do know of situations where whites were passed over for positions so those positions could be given to LESS QUALIFIED minorities. Now if it is a minority in the PRIVATE SECTOR doing that, I have no problem with it. It is that employers right to choose whoever he wants. In the Public sector, THAT IS DISCRIMINATION. It is the exact thing it is "claiming" to be against. I guess in your opinion, the best way to fix a clogged pipe is to clog it at the other end.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Well, let's take your argument one step further. Were the civil rights necessary? Are they still necessary. Of course not according to Ron Paul who I would guess you support, given your username, but I can't imagine schools being desegregated spontaneously or otherwise by white people, especially since there are still white people in this country who believe that segregation is still the way to go when it comes to school proms. I am referencing a documentary that Morgan Freeman took part in, because he wanted to see the prom in his hometown desegregated, so your argument that the president is Black and that means that all racism is gone shows a severe ignorance on your part. Obama's presidency actually shines a light on the racism that is prevalent in the U.S.A.. Why would all of the Republicans be so hell bent on making Obama a one term president. He's passed policies that out-republican George W. Bush. He is more a republican in democrats clothing, so why would the GOP hate him so much. Please explain this phenomenon. This one, I could be wrong about, but when did media in the U.S. refer to any past president as Mister (insert name here). Maybe foreign correspondent have done this, but find an instance when our media referred to the president as anything other than "Bush" or "President Clinton". I know this is trivial, but as a black person, I noticed this and have yet to find proof to the contrary. And answer me this, why would anyone be offended by any form of help, especially in the economy in which we now live. Student loans are a form of assistance, but I don't hear students saying they're offended by this form of monetary assistance. Why shouldn't they get the same form of assistance that those of us who already have degrees get from the government? Private sectors don't seem too proud to fight for subsidies, even when they are making more money than ever before in history, why should black people be ashamed of receiving assistance that give rise to more opportunities in life. As a matter of fact, your black friends should be offended by your statements that everything is equal for them and for every black person in this country. Be honest, do you really have black friends, or are they acquaintances that you see around the warehouse? Come on, be honest, you can let your rebel flag fly. Oh yeah, here's a clip featuring Ron Paul, I thought you might enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z48Dgy0zcfw&feature=watch_response

[-] 1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

""""so your argument that the president is Black and that means that all racism is gone shows a severe ignorance on your part.""""""

Sorry buddy, but I am not INSANE enough to believe "racism is gone". I know and know of MAY people who hate based on skin color. That is their RIGHT and shows their stupidity and aren't people I really am fond of.

"""""Why would all of the Republicans be so hell bent on making Obama a one term president. He's passed policies that out-republican George W. Bush"""""

Because George Bush was very "leftist" in his policies. That doesn't mean they should be content with someone who possibly "is a little better." I am a FISCAL "conservative" so therefor I didn't like Bush at all. I don't like cancer, but that doesn't mean I should be content with a little less cancer. I would want it ALL GONE or as much as possible.

"""""why would anyone be offended by any form of help, especially in the economy in which we now live. Student loans are a form of assistance, but I don't hear students saying they're offended by this form of monetary assistance.""""""

It is "offensive" and "discriminatory" if that help is given with any regard to RACE. Isn't that what Liberals are supposed to be AGAINST. If help is for POOR, then give it based on those standards. If help is for those who achieved high academics, then give the "help" base on THAT. Color of skin should have NOTHING to do with it. We are supposed to all be EQUAL, not separate based on our skin tones. AMERICANS!!! Not AFRICAN-Americans. Not GERMAN-Americans. Not PURPLE-Americans... AMERICANS!!!!!

"""""why should black people be ashamed of receiving assistance that give rise to more opportunities in life""""""

Never said they should "be ashamed of" THAT. They should be ashamed if they receive it BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK. Why not have "help" that policy states can ONLY BE GIVEN TO WHITES??? If someone felt so superior to me because of my skin color and believed me to be less able to do things on my own, I would feel like a second-rate inferior Human Being.

""""""Be honest, do you really have black friends, or are they acquaintances that you see around the warehouse? Come on, be honest, you can let your rebel flag fly"""""

Excuse you low life scum, but the GODFATHER OF MY SON is BLACK, BY MY CHOICE. Fortunately I don't work in a warehouse though. I went to school, paid for by MY FAMILY with NO HELP. And my Black friends have great respect for me. They know I like them because of WHO THEY ARE. They respect me because I have no sympathy for them. And I definitely don't look at them as "lower" people who need my handouts or pity. I actually have ENVY for some as they are more successful that me. But a long time ago they chose not to be "victims of oppression". They realized in this world some people will like them and some won't for WHATEVER REASONS. And they chose to avoid those that didn't like them. I would never be arrogant enough to find myself so much above anyone just because of their skin color. They are every bit as capable as myself

No shit there is racism. There are a lot of Blacks who hate whites for being white. It isn't the job of the government to "fix" that either. It is LIFE!!! If a black employer ever chose a black man over myself even though I was far more qualified, my response would be, "That sucks, his loss". I wouldn't look to the governanny to pity me or save me. There will ALWAYS be people who are stupid enough to hate based on color. ALWAYS were, ALWAYS will be. Intentionally practicing racism by our government or any other institution will never change that. But it will cause JUSTIFIABLE resentment from those on the "losing" end, and can't do much for the self-esteem of those who "benefit".

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

You need medical marijuana and quick!

[-] 1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Why? Because I can think for MYSELF and don't follow the guidelines of what MSNBC tells me. I take it you are a white person who feels so far superior to black people that you think they need your sympathy and support. That you are of the superior race that "controls" the successes of black individuals because they are incapable of doing so themselves. Boy, aren't you great. You sticking up for those lowly black people who can''t prosper on their own without your agenda? And you call rednecks "racist". At least they FEAR black people more than anything. You don't give black people even that much respect. Why would you fear them when you are far superior to them? Right?

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

You lost me at "I take it ..."

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

What's you take on the teabagger sheeple?

[-] 0 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Many are just people who became pissed off that we have an "affirmative action President". I can't say I blame them either. I like their "low taxes" policies. But many are of that "Conservative Christian" clan who claim to be for "personal freedoms", yet they want the government to tell us what we can do with our own INDIVIDUAL minds and bodies.... Freedoms should run rampant as long as they go along with a Christian agenda about some sky fairy who will throw all of us who don't obey into a pit of fire and brimstone... But he "loves" us. A "god" who says "casual sex is sinful", yet makes it feel so good. A god who answers our prayers, yet if not in the way that was prayed for, was "just god's will", part of his "master plan". A god who makes some people athletic, brilliant, and beautiful, then makes some with crippling diseases, Downs syndrome, etc. One would think they would admit that this "god" of theirs is twisted with the games he plays. So there is my take on "teabaggers". I don't lump myself in with a group, or one of the main "ideologies". I am Libertarian-minded. Live and let live. Do what you want unless you are harming someone else. Keep the courtroom and the babysitter, "for my own good" laws out of my life.

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

Hmmmm,

Yet your hook seriously barbs, but one "group".

My guess is that you are a libe(R)tarian

BTW: Teabaggers raised my taxes. A lot.

So much for their tax policies.

Just so long as they don't tax you, right?

[-] 1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

See, you have that so typical "group" mentality. I said, "I really didn't like EITHER group. I spent an entire paragraph basically laughing at "teabaggers". Yet that isn't "enough" for you. I didn't "demonize" them "equally"?

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

I'm sorry, I'm considering more than one of your posts.

But, yes, your hook seriously barbs but one "group" ( your term, not mine).

As I said, I now believe you to be a libe(R)tarian.

Teabaggers raised my taxes, I'm not laughing. they are not funny.

They are just another form of republican liars, and let's face facts, republicans win the liars race hands down. All the way back to NIxon, who committed treason and got less bad press Clinton.

So much for the illusion of "liberal" press. It hasn't been for a very long time.

[-] 1 points by fabianmockian (225) 2 years ago

Yeah, you never hear the losing basketball team blame God for their lose: "Jesus just didn't post up right and the Holy Spirit wasn't getting the rebounds we needed." This was stolen from The Onion

[+] -4 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

I'm not reading this shit, you can't even spell America correctly you fucking wamp

[-] 3 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

Amerika is symbolic of the NAZI state America has come to be. It symbolizes the usurpation of the people's authority by a foreign power. American people are in incredible danger now, & it is from within, not without. You have a terrorist govt. They lie about a foreign threat to cause war. There is no money in peace..., It is starting in Europe too, now they have almost taken over the UN. Bad news for all of us who thought 'NAZI Germany' politics was a huge mistake...

[-] -1 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

No Amerika was spelled that way because some south American douche bag couldn't write proper English a few years ago and it stuck.

[-] 2 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

The spelling "Amerika" was intentional. Have someone with an IQ higher than yours and Dubya's explain the implication.

[-] -1 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

At least I know how to stick my dick into a girl correctly you virgin.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You're a dumb twat.

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

Wamp, I haven't said that since I was like 10!, I actually though I made that up with a childhood friend of mine.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You are the reason why people think and say our nation is illiterate.