USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[VanhA-ICON 11]

Hi all

A prime example of imaginary friend politics:

As always follow the link to the original text in full

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/obama-asks-to-romney-explain-the-origins-of-mormonism-again-201203074979/

You could not make this shit up... Oh wait a minute some one did! Snake oil sales men have been living off this kind of imaginary friend con for millennia; some people are dumber than a bag of spanners.

Oh and the reason Ron Paul is in the race is to pander to and lock in the racist vote and fool the libertarians into voting for the republican candidate rather than the libertarian one. It is all about herding the voter sheep through the voting machines to be shorn. Bhaaa bhaaa bhaaa.

Kind regards walker

Wow... this is quite new to me... had to check from other sources is it really so (Origins of mormonism)

So they.... like added an extra "m" fearing their religion might sound ... a..... tad silly??

This explains so much, lol

[Fox '09 14]

Hi, have you guys heard about Obama's impeachment over Libya?

http://www.infowars.com/media-cover-up-of-obama-impeachment-exposed/

Direct YT video.

Share the vid on many ways, because you won't hear it from the media.

http://www2.wnct.com/news/2012/mar/12/jones-introduces-obama-impeachment-bill-ar-2032921/

Here's a credible article. I would say do not share the video because of the channel's history. Alex jones plays to people's fears & primitive feelings (ie advocating for hangings & execution). I think it's irresponsible and sharing his videos is just as irresponsible.

Anyway, I doubt republicans or the tea baggers will bother. Obama is wall street's friend and they wouldn't want to rock the boat. If anything I'd say perhaps they would censure him at the worst.

[PELHAM 10]

@ Fox'09 - it isn't really a credible explanation of the facts as they fail to point out the vagueness of the US Constitution which causes the legal argument between the Presidential Office and Congress. The basic argument here is 'does the US have to declare war every time military force is used'? If you go on legal precident the answer is no because the US Congress has only formally declared war on five separate ocasions (the last time during WW2), each upon prior request by the President. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.

Presidents maintain that they have the Constitutional authority, as commander in chief (Article Two, Section Two) to use the military for "police actions" as Authorised under the UN charter. Many in Congress disagree because of their exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, although there is some controversy as the Constitution does not specify the form of such a declaration.

Congress maintains the point of view of the 1973 'War Powers Resolution' but the Office of the President has always rejected that resolution as unconstitutional (Presentment Clause). So the argument as to who has overall control in using military force continues.

Further reading:

War Powers Clause Article I, Section 8, Clause 11

Presidential Powers Article 2, section 2, clause 1

Declarations of War by the US

Police Action

War Powers Resolution 1973

Presentment clause

[rangerpl 13]

-snip-

From walker's link:

Romney was the big winner of 'Fabulous Tuesday' when all the Republican contenders showcase their latent homosexuality in 10 states at once.

While experts agreed that foaming Christian Rick Santorum is obviously the gayest, right wing voters opted for Romney's combination of film star good looks and inexplicably angry opposition to same-sex hand holding.

I'm glad we're all using credible, serious news sources. And, speaking of that,

Hi, have you guys heard about Obama's impeachment over Libya?

http://www.infowars.com/media-cover-up-of-obama-impeachment-exposed/

Direct YT video.

Share the vid on many ways, because you won't hear it from the media.

Alex Jones is my favorite comedian

[Fox '09 14]

@ Fox'09 - it isn't really a credible explanation of the facts as they fail to point out the vagueness of the US Constitution which causes the legal argument between the Presidential Office and Congress. The basic argument here is 'does the US have to declare war every time military force is used'? If you go on legal precident the answer is no because the US Congress has only formally declared war on five separate ocasions (the last time during WW2), each upon prior request by the President. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.

Presidents maintain that they have the Constitutional authority, as commander in chief (Article Two, Section Two) to use the military for "police actions" as Authorised under the UN charter. Many in Congress disagree because of their exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, although there is some controversy as the Constitution does not specify the form of such a declaration.

Congress maintains the point of view of the 1973 'War Powers Resolution' but the Office of the President has always rejected that resolution as unconstitutional (Presentment Clause). So the argument as to who has overall control in using military force continues.

Further reading:

War Powers Clause Article I, Section 8, Clause 11

Presidential Powers Article 2, section 2, clause 1

Declarations of War by the US

Police Action

War Powers Resolution 1973

Presentment clause

My point was simply that there were other articles from credible sources, didn't mean to link that article specifically. (Unless you were talking about the AJ article?) That aside, thank you for the links and your view. I understood it was legal precedent but not so much the history. I generally do not dabble in constitutional law but I would usually trust sources such as the ACLU & other organizations dedicated to the subject. I'll have a read on wikipedia, there's a lot of compelling arguments but I'd like to find out what the correct side is (or at least the most correct/widely accepted).

[PELHAM 10]

My point was simply that there were other articles from credible sources' date=' didn't mean to link that article specifically. (Unless you were talking about the AJ article?) That aside, thank you for the links and your view. I understood it was legal precedent but not so much the history. I generally do not dabble in constitutional law but I would usually trust sources such as the ACLU & other organizations dedicated to the subject. I'll have a read on wikipedia, there's a lot of compelling arguments but I'd like to find out what the correct side is (or at least the most correct/widely accepted).[/quote']

I would be careful of the ACLU, they have their own agenda, as do all the other interested parties. Reading their take on this they make some mistakes and completely ignore legislation which doesn't support their view.

ACLU Challenging President’s Use Of Force In Libya

In the above they assume that military action cannot be taken without a declaration of war. But what is the legal definition of a Declaration of War and can it be applied (it isn't defined in the constitution)? Have a look here:

wikipedia-declaration of war

You will see that there are problems the constitution didn't forsee:

Since 1945, developments in international law such as the United Nations Charter, which prohibits both the threat and use of force in international conflicts, have made declarations of war largely redundant in international relations.

The US Congress ratified the United Nations Charter on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2, with 5 abstentions? The War Powers Resolution 1973 aims to partially ignore this. So when you have Congress passing contradicting laws it allows the President to effectively pick and choose? Also, did Congress authorise military action taken under the UN Charter when they ratified it? It's a complex situation and I'm suspicious of organisations that leave out important pieces of the puzzle.

Also their legal justifications are flawed. The cases they quote deal with Congressional Letters of Marque and Reprisal powers not Declaration of War powers? They are part of the same clause but are completely different things. The cases deal with the capture of enemy ships and the sale and compensation of the vessels. I'm not sure law relating to 17th century privateers is relevant here?

Letters of marque

Edited March 13, 2012 by PELHAM

[Fox '09 14]

Thanks once again, I think I have a grasp on it now.

[nettrucker 142]

Hi all

I've digged up this article of 2006. I've lost track of this article for a long time but I finally digged it up again. This is an interesting read about the political ideology of the "neocons". I did some research and well . . . I leave it up to you to comment because I've already made up my own opinion concerning this subject. Please don't jump me because for some of you it might be old news, but I personally believe that the majority of the people doesn't know enough about the neocon political ideology.

The George W. Bush Administration:

A Lesson for Bush Supporters

Originally Published February 2006

UPDATED: 20-March-2006 - Click here for more information.

The facts and allegations contained in this article are not disputed, are easily verified and are documented by the subjects in their own words. I am writing this not to tell you about some secret on to which I have stumbled, rather to explain the well defined and verifiable information that has been kept out of the public discourse by the American corporate news media. Perhaps this will serve as a prime example of how much media deception takes place in our nation. I ask you not to accept what you read in this article as truth, and I ask you not to dismiss it as an untruth, I ask you to research the claims for yourself. The information is out there and nobody is denying the claims made in this article. They are simply refusing to discuss them.

Please, don’t trust me…test me. – Jesse – Editor, TvNewsLIES.org

1. A FICTIONAL TALE OF HORROR

If you wanted to hire a child daycare professional to look after your child, it seems reasonable that you would want to know something about that person’s background. Perhaps you would check into his or her criminal history to see if there was a record of sexual offense or violence towards children. Perhaps you would check the person’s religious background to make certain he is not involved in any bizarre religious practice such as child or animal sacrifice. You surely would conduct a thorough and painstaking pursuit of all available information about the applicant.

By performing your due diligence, you would be acting in the best interest of your child; you would be acting as a fully responsible parent; and you would be ensuring that the person you hire is exactly what he or she purports to be.

Now, let’s assume that during your investigation you uncover nothing really suspicious about the person at all. All you find out is that the name of the applicant’s religion is very similar to your own. In fact, because the name is “Neo-Christianity†or “Neo-Judaism,†you feel quite comfortable with the term. After all, it sounds so familiar and suggests a close connection to your own belief system.

What if you accept this discovery and feel quite safe with the presumptions you made – even though you never took a moment to research the newly identified religion?

And what if you made a dreadful and irreparable mistake?

here's the link to the full article

http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/george-w-bush/ethics/427-required-reading-for-bush-supporters.html

It is definitely worth a read IMO.

Edited March 16, 2012 by nettrucker

[Tonci87 163]

Very interesting read!

[Tonci87 163]

End of career?

[onlyrazor 11]

End of career?

santorum, from Wiktionary, free dictionary and thesaurus

Etymology

From the surname of former US Senator Rick Santorum (born 1958).[1] After Santorum made statements equating homosexuality with bestiality and opining that mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts,[2] US columnist Dan Savage gathered input from his readers and held a contest for definitions to "memorialize the scandal".[3] Savage set up a website which defined the term, and helped to promote it.[4] See Campaign for "santorum" neologism for further information.

Noun

santorum (uncountable)

(sex, slang) A frothy mixture of lubricant and fecal matter as an occasional byproduct of anal sex. [from 21st c.]

(slang, derogatory) Shit: rubbish, worthless matter, nonsense, bull. [from 21st c.]

[GRS 10]

It's a poorly looped video. Shows nothing. Not like I care, Ron Paul is the only one worth a damn in this race.

[ziiip 1]

While experts agreed that foaming Christian Rick Santorum is obviously the gayest, right wing voters opted for Romney's combination of film star good looks and inexplicably angry opposition to same-sex hand holding.

That is hilarious. :D

[walker 0]

Hi all

Santorum is an irrelevance. He has let slip his normal mode of speech to others in his party on several occasions and was recorded saying it in public too, those in the party already know his attitude and pegged him as a blabber mouth, that is why he never got the support of the party apparatchiks.

His purpose was to lock in a particular section of the Imaginary Friend vote, just as Ron Paul was there to openly pander to the racists and fool the Libertarians in to not voting for the Libertarian candidate; there is a Libertarian Candidate but enough Libertarians will fooled in to following Ron Paul and stay and vote for the Bolshevik Republicans; for it to have been a worth while puppet show.

The foreign owned companies and 1% apparatchiks that run the Republican party long ago decided the Republican puppet in chief will be the one who is foolish enough to believe in Imaginary Friend visions that came out of a Top Hat was heralded by an ethereal presence called, I kid you not, "Moroni", all from the "preachings" of a bonafide snake oil sales man.

Adding another M in the middle of "Moroni" so it is not obvious, is realy special.

Any one Dumb enough to believe all that, will be real easy to manipulate, hence why he is the chosen candidate foreign owned companies and 1% apparatchiks.

It is all about herding the disparate flocks of voter sheep through the voting machines. That is how the Republican party has worked for decades the sheep are just too dumb to see it. Baaahh, bah, bah.

Kind Regards walker

Edited April 2, 2012 by walker

[mrcash2009 0]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/man-whose-wmd-lies-led-to-100000-deaths-confesses-all-7606236.html

Man whose WMD lies led to 100,000 deaths confesses all

Defector tells how US officials 'sexed up' his fictions to make the case for 2003 invasion

Well its a bit too easy to label that on this bloke after all it takes people to sex it up with him to start it all, so the "confession" will be ... interesting.

Although I have to say Dr David Kelly (who was murdered lets face it) would be turning in his grave about now (Mr "Dark actors playing games").

Edited April 2, 2012 by mrcash2009

[batto 17]

Just found this, it looks interesting:

https://rt.com/usa/news/cispa-bill-sopa-internet-175/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/four-unanswered-questions-about-cybersecurity-bills

[Tonci87 163]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA

[nodunit 397]

"The Rogers bill gives companies a free pass to monitor and collect communications and share that data with the government and other companies, so long as they do so for “cybersecurity purposes.†Just invoking “cybersecurity threats†is enough to grant companies immunity from nearly all civil and criminal liability, effectively creating an exemption from all existing law. Additionally, the Rogers bill places almost no restrictions on what kinds of information can be collected and how it can be used, so long as the companies can claim it was motivated by “cybersecurity purposes.†S. 2105 (Lieberman) and S. 2151 (McCain) contain similarly dangerous provisions."

How can one read such a thing and not have their blood boil.

Edited April 4, 2012 by NodUnit

[mrcash2009 0]

Actually I don't mind living on the planet, I just wish the government would stop whoring itself out to companies, they are seeming more and more like mindless robots hellbent on stealing everyones information and slowly but surely crushing as many human rights as possible, as opposed to individuals that are capable of empathy.

It has a name, called The New World Order. But the kicker is, if you say it, someone becomes obsessed with mentioning foil and hats like a kind of reaction:beam:, when at the exact time they do so as a reflex action, the most blatant things are unfolding that show it ... but .... shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... dont say it too loud, ok :music: *Damn I should have put that in small font size* (lets play a game and see the responses to such a phrase).

Honestly, it is difficult to remain civil when they just keep pushing and pushing, everyone has to have a breaking point of some sort, a point of taking the gloves off and saying "Alright, your head is up your ass."

Dont worry, because what you do is set up a militarised styled police force to combat this type of thing under a broadened heading of "extremist views". Its almost perfection ... but again, keep that to yourself and only whisper it :868:

[nodunit 397]

So we remain silent we're screwed and if we speak out we're screwed. Funny thing is I used to be one of those people "Nah the government isn't entangeld in any conspiracies, they are americans, they took vows and have to uphold them afterall how else could they remain in office? But I see now that our nation has degenerated so much that violations of the constitution and bill of rights are A okay as long as we're safe... I'd be more terrified of our own government than any so called terrorist. Afterall what have the "Terrorists" managed to do that our own system hasn't? Sure they kill our soldiers (in two wars we never should have entered) but thats it.

They aren't the ones that signed a bill that allows the military to take away citizens without question, they aren't the ones trying to repeatedly push bills that immoraly police the internet, they aren't the ones banning 50 words from tests, they aren't the ones passing laws that slowly but surely destroy freedom of speech. They aren't the ones passing bills to "protect" our oh so deserving politicians by violating their citizens.

Edited April 4, 2012 by NodUnit

[mrcash2009 0]

So we remain silent we're screwed and if we speak out we're screwed.

I was over playing the example really, but its not hard to see things for what they truly are these days. You dont need any tin foil for that, that's for sure.

Unfortunately the "Terror" card is the decades best use to persuade things to be put into place by law. Thats all you get now, bad examples promoted, swathing calls for change, blanket solution for everyone.

Its like being in a room with 1000 people, 2 people have a fight, 998 others get security checked "just incase".

[Tonci87 163]

I like how they use the term "war against cyberattacks". Seriously? You call that war? War against what? A few hackers? War? What if those hackers do something because of political protest (aka anonymous)? They don´t want anyone to protest in any way. If you go outside and protest, chances are high that you get either beaten up or you get peppersprayed, maybe even arrested for no apparent reason. If you protest from inside your home, via the internet, they declare war on you. This world is fucked up.

[nettrucker 142]

It has a name, called The New World Order. But the kicker is, if you say it, someone becomes obsessed with mentioning foil and hats like a kind of reaction:beam:, when at the exact time they do so as a reflex action, the most blatant things are unfolding that show it ... but .... shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... dont say it too loud, ok :music: *Damn I should have put that in small font size* (lets play a game and see the responses to such a phrase).

Dont worry, because what you do is set up a militarised styled police force to combat this type of thing under a broadened heading of "extremist views". Its almost perfection ... but again, keep that to yourself and only whisper it :868:

Yeah most people still believe that the NWO is just a myth - conspiracy theory. Everyone has the right to believe whatever she/he wants. I'm always trying to not reject things that seem too farfetched. I try to analyze and research these so called conspiracy theories and then build my own opinion. I'm simply saying that we can't trust our governments and our politicians. They're running their own agenda for a long time now. The worst is that they are succeeding especially because people can't accept the evil and wrongdoings of the politicians we have elected.

Nato and the USA are committing war crimes constantly. They are not bound to International law . . . they are above it. The juridical systems are just corrupt and flawed to it's DNA. Noone will be held responsable for the war crimes committed. After WW II at the Nuernberg trials people who've done similar things have been trialed, sentenced and then hanged.

As long as people deny the existence of the NWO we will loose everything what Democracy stands for. The Americans have already lost their freedom and liberty and we in Europe are going to be next.

:depressed:

[st_dux 26]

There is no NWO; there is no master plan. Western government is just fundamentally flawed in its design; the incentives for individuals operating within it are all wrong. That's the problem.

[Fox '09 14]

-snip- nevermind.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Fox '09