RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Fellow -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 12:31:49 PM)

quote:

You have proof that the video of him being beaten to death, which was widely viewed (and prolly is still on youtube) was CIA and al-Queda?

You have credible documentation of this, cuz not a one of those agencies have a decent dental plan according to what I saw.


Obama ordered attack on Libya, the exact events on the desert ground are secondary. There was NATO (read US) aircraft attack on his convoy, the drone was involved etc.... Put any president in such situation they will be gone.



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/27/2013 12:35:06 PM)

Right, so no al-queda cia mash up in that picture



Fellow -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 12:35:21 AM)

quote:

Right, so no al-queda cia mash up in that picture

It is a fact (not even rejected by the US officials) that they (CIA) brought in their associate Al-Qaeda to do the job (get rid of Gaddafi regime). They tried first to give weapons to Gaddafi opposition, but you can not really expect untrained civilians to be able to do much useful with these.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 3:21:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow
quote:

Right, so no al-queda cia mash up in that picture

It is a fact (not even rejected by the US officials) that they (CIA) brought in their associate Al-Qaeda to do the job (get rid of Gaddafi regime). They tried first to give weapons to Gaddafi opposition, but you can not really expect untrained civilians to be able to do much useful with these.


Do you have a citation to go with that "fact?" And, there is quite a difference between "not rejecting" and "validating" a claim. If someone were to ask me if I thought MN was, in fact, merely a slew of binary and did not respond, I did not specifically reject the notion, did I? I did reject the notion by not responding to the question, and it's ridiculousness.

Now, for that citation...



Politesub53 -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 4:36:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

Right, so no al-queda cia mash up in that picture

It is a fact (not even rejected by the US officials) that they (CIA) brought in their associate Al-Qaeda to do the job (get rid of Gaddafi regime). They tried first to give weapons to Gaddafi opposition, but you can not really expect untrained civilians to be able to do much useful with these.



Laughable laughable laughable.



herworshipper -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 4:55:14 AM)

It is true that in spite of making a lot of noise like they are so different, the Dems and Republicans work together to keep control of the government away from third parties or independants.

It would be intereesting to take a look at the bills that pass without opposition from either side.



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 6:04:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

Right, so no al-queda cia mash up in that picture

It is a fact (not even rejected by the US officials) that they (CIA) brought in their associate Al-Qaeda to do the job (get rid of Gaddafi regime). They tried first to give weapons to Gaddafi opposition, but you can not really expect untrained civilians to be able to do much useful with these.


This is so fuckin ridiculous that I am just going to say this:

IF THE CIA WERE INVOLVED, and the plan was to kill Khaddafy, at the end of the operation, everyone in Libya with the exception of Khaddafy would be dead.

It don't pass the piss test. Epic Fail at a quick reality glance.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 6:28:28 AM)

I don't see what the argument is. This is not surprising, at all.

When President (then Sen.) Obummer was campaigning, one of the points he kept hammering home was that having Guantanamo as a detention center was wrong and closing it seemed to be the centerpiece of his proposed foreign policy.

Whoops! Much like his promise to end President Bush's "illegal" war, immediately after taking office, it seems that he's no different at keeping promises than anyone else.

No surprises. Another lying piece of shit.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 6:31:04 AM)

Well, no the teabaggers are the lying pieces of shit, he tried and was defeated by the shiteaters.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities




DesideriScuri -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 7:51:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Well, no the teabaggers are the lying pieces of shit, he tried and was defeated by the shiteaters.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantanamoDetentionFacilities


Passing an EO isn't really trying. Recall, if you will, the makeup of the House and Senate at the time of his Coronation... er, Anointing... er, swearing in. He had majorities on his side. He did not have the Super Majority necessary in the Senate to simply pass what-the-fuck ever he wanted. I don't doubt the D's could have gotten a Senator or two to agree to close Guantanamo.

An EO, though? That's like waving down a taxi by simply standing by the side of the road.



JeffBC -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 8:03:32 AM)

And yet Ron, only a few months later he was asserting the need to detain people extra-judicially ... american's and otherwise... if they were an "enemy of the state" or somesuch. I think that speech was in May something. In other words, I've got to agree with "lying sack of shit". I agree with DS that to equate writing an EO with "trying" on such a critically important issue as "due process" is nothing more than sleight of hand.

In the end you either believe in the rule of law in which case you'd find Guantanamo reprehensible or you do not in which case you'd... uh... write an executive order to cover your political ass.



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 8:25:45 AM)

 
quote:


Passing an EO isn't really trying. Recall, if you will, the makeup of the House and Senate at the time of his Coronation... er, Anointing... er, swearing in. He had majorities on his side. He did not have the Super Majority necessary in the Senate to simply pass what-the-fuck ever he wanted. I don't doubt the D's could have gotten a Senator or two to agree to close Guantanamo.

An EO, though? That's like waving down a taxi by simply standing by the side of the road.


What the fuck sort of ignorant horseshit is this?  Its as if you think this is meaningful this asswipe.   How would you have him do it?  Shoot the congress and make the law himself?  It needed no law to open it, but it took one to keep it open.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/23/169922171/obamas-promise-to-close-guantanamo-prison-falls-short


Now it is not unusual in democratic circles to have a dearth of your party asstonguing you, as in teabagger circles, where they are synchronizing the asstonguing on a second by second basis.

I will point out that Goldwater walked in the Oval office and told Nixon to resign or he would see the impeachment thru.

I believe the teabaggers told W to go to hell on a couple of issues as well.

Is that the stupidest thing you got to say, or do you have even more imbecilic shit to non-contribute?  



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 8:36:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

And yet Ron, only a few months later he was asserting the need to detain people extra-judicially ... american's and otherwise... if they were an "enemy of the state" or somesuch. I think that speech was in May something. In other words, I've got to agree with "lying sack of shit". I agree with DS that to equate writing an EO with "trying" on such a critically important issue as "due process" is nothing more than sleight of hand.

In the end you either believe in the rule of law in which case you'd find Guantanamo reprehensible or you do not in which case you'd... uh... write an executive order to cover your political ass.


Yeah, but no.  Two different circumstances. 


This is 'rule of law' as I understand it:

It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.

That's Aristotles definition, and I can accept it without let or hindrance.

And while I find the Guantanemo situation reprehensible at its inception, I think that now, it falls within the rule of law.

Prisoners of war are prisoners of war.

I can see the lot of cowardly chickenhawks in congress saying, geez, we don't want to invite terrorists into our states....much the same way as the cowards wouldnt try the WTC mastermind in New York City for equivalent reasons.

So, I don't see where the rule of law has been defiled, it is the goddamn law in the United States.   I don't like the whole fuck-o-ree, but nobody is doing anything other than hollering at each other on fucksites about it.

Meh.



MrRodgers -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 8:37:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

This is just Obama second term, just wait what will happen during his third and forth term of presidency.

This is direct evidence though by design, circumstantial, unlike the fact of 4 more years of wars and GITMO, an enhance Patriot act and the recent DAA...that the NWO is progressing because this power assumed as it is...is part and parcel of [it.]

This is also further proof, as I have said, that presidents do what they need to do...to stay alive.

Bye America, it's been nice while it lasted.



MrRodgers -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 8:44:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

And yet Ron, only a few months later he was asserting the need to detain people extra-judicially ... american's and otherwise... if they were an "enemy of the state" or somesuch. I think that speech was in May something. In other words, I've got to agree with "lying sack of shit". I agree with DS that to equate writing an EO with "trying" on such a critically important issue as "due process" is nothing more than sleight of hand.

In the end you either believe in the rule of law in which case you'd find Guantanamo reprehensible or you do not in which case you'd... uh... write an executive order to cover your political ass.


Yeah, but no.  Two different circumstances. 


This is 'rule of law' as I understand it:

It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.

That's Aristotles definition, and I can accept it without let or hindrance.

And while I find the Guantanemo situation reprehensible at its inception, I think that now, it falls within the rule of law.

Prisoners of war are prisoners of war.

I can see the lot of cowardly chickenhawks in congress saying, geez, we don't want to invite terrorists into our states....much the same way as the cowards wouldnt try the WTC mastermind in New York City for equivalent reasons.

So, I don't see where the rule of law has been defiled, it is the goddamn law in the United States.   I don't like the whole fuck-o-ree, but nobody is doing anything other than hollering at each other on fucksites about it.

Meh.

There is no longer the presumption that we are a government of the people so there isn't anything the 'people' can do about it. Plus it is obvious now that the American people are too distracted in their partisanship and generally...too stupid to do anything about this.

Everything Hitler did was within the 'rule of law.' The repetition of that phrase is an Orwellian requirement. Changing the meaning of words...and phrases such as these. Sending out drones to do our distant collateral murder is now, within the...'rule of law.'



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 8:46:39 AM)

Nothing Hitler did was within the rule of law, unless you are operating under a different definition than I.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 9:04:58 AM)

I'm almost positive that Sen. Obama also promised to end the Afghanistan war, while campaigning in '07-'08. I remember it because when he got elected, I was thinking: "Well, if he ends these wars, at least that will be a step in the right direction."

As the father of a combat Marine, the idea that my son would come home to me was a very pleasing one. When President Obummer renegged on his promises, I wasn't surprised but naturally, I was disappointed.

He's gone on to strengthen (if that was even possible) the attack against our constitution which King George II named "The PATRIOT ACT". Obummer did so with an executive order.

My understanding is that if the president orders the Joint Chiefs to end a war and they don't, it's treason. So, why couldn't the newly-minted failure-in-chief just walk into the situation room and say: "Gentlemen, I want this war over as quickly as possible. Show me a plan in two days"? Why? Well, because he didn't want to; for whatever reason.

I will give him one mitigating circumstance: I remember the look on his face at the end of the day when King George II hosted him in the Whitehouse, right after he was elected. His look said to me: "Wow! We're in deeper doo-doo than I thought. Shit's gittin' real!". He looked like he was really amazed at just how bad off we really were.

That's not surprising, considering he was thrust onto the national stage by the DNC, having very little experience of politics at a national level and having NO EXPERIENCE as an executive (Governor, Mayor).



Peace and comfort,



Michael



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 9:09:12 AM)

[image]http://img.tfd.com/IOD/kennedy.jpg[/image]

When we got into office, the thing that surprised me most was to find that things were just as bad as we'd been saying they were.

JFK



mnottertail -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (2/28/2013 9:19:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I'm almost positive that Sen. Obama also promised to end the Afghanistan war, while campaigning in '07-'08. I remember it because when he got elected, I was thinking: "Well, if he ends these wars, at least that will be a step in the right direction."

(all after is removed)


Yeah, I am almost positive he said no such thing, but maybe you got a quote not out of context, cuz I remember this:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/obama_afghanist.html

And there is more, but I watched that particular back and forth with McCain.

In his acceptance speech he said he would finish the war in Afghanistan........



JeffBC -> RE: Obamas' PreCrime-Constitutional-Indefinte-Detention (3/1/2013 8:35:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
How would you have him do it?  Shoot the congress and make the law himself?

I would've hoped that the leader of the free world would have led.

In point of fact, he DID lead... in exactly the opposite direction from the rule of law. He has consistently pushed for rule by fiat. When one man... one faceless man somewhere buried in the bowels of a faceless bureaucracy can declare me an enemy of the state and do whatever the fuck he wants with me then I'm just not able to see that as "law" anymore. That is back to the days of kings and rule by fiat.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125