USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[froggyluv 2136]

Just because someone is a Republican doesnt make them a conservative. Not all share the same views.

For example Mitt Romney and his "Romney Care"..... "Government health care" which is not conservative.

Wasn't so long ago that only 23% of Americans considered themselves Republicans and many believed the mass departure was to the Conservative Independent and Libertarian Party.

Things like The Bush Doctrine, Bush's spending and borrowing habits as well as huge divides in the social conservatism circles being major factors.

The Right much like the Left is a spectrum with moderates to extremist.

[KEVINMGXP 20]

When exactly after WWII was it any different?

I do find this rather short sighted, what has WWII ''which is history by the way'' to do with todays laws and politics? Or even short or long after WWII Do you even understand the intend of the bill :s as long as I am aware there was no law after WWII that allowed in any circumstances to invade the rights as thus written down bellow, To give an example it reminds me of a movie with denzel washington and if I recall correct with bruce willis I know it was just a movie but the fact is that what is shown there might be possible to do without prosecution now.

So it's done!!!! Bill S1867 has been passed yesterday by Congress. This is the biggest defeat for the American people in the US history.

maybe it is a little bit better to point out what Bill S1867 means not everyone is an American citizen and knows about passing bills ;) ... to be honest they need to restructure some of the language in the bill, which is ambiguous at very best and downright scary at worst but thats my opinion ...

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2011/12/s-1867-indefinite-detention-defense-bill-passes-senate/

It’s official: the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, S. 1867, passed the Senate yesterday, December 1.

The Upper Chamber passed the bill with 93 ayes and 7 nays, the whole Senate voted and needed 50% approval:

A similar Bill had already passed in the House earlier this year; the Senate and House versions now need to be combined to form a new Bill before President Obama is able to sign it into law or veto it.

Earlier this week, Conservative Action Alerts reported that the Senate failed to approve amendments curtailing the power of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, a bill crafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) that would declare the entire United States of America as a military battlefield. The DoD Bill also provides the President power to hold American citizens indefinitely and waives the right to trial, codified in the Bill of Rights.

On Tuesday, the Senate rejected Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s amendment 1064 to modify S. 1867; Senator Mark Udall’s amendment 1107 was also rejected. Amendment 1064 received 30 ayes and 67 nays, and the only GOP support came from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), Sen. Rand Paul, and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Amendment 1107 received 37 ayes and 61 nays, where on two Republicans voted in favor — Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Rand Paul.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano commented on S. 1867 last week saying, “It basically says that the President can arrest whoever he wants anywhere in the United States of America, and keep them without charging them for a crime, without letting them see a lawyer, without bringing them to a judge for as long as he wants. How is that consistent with the Constitution?â€

The Judge is correct.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution states:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.â€

And, the Constitution itself states in the second clause of Section 9 of Article I:

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.â€

Conservative Action Alerts has sent just under 3,500 letters to Senators on behalf of our readers to oppose this piece of legislation; it is clear people are angry and outraged over the Defense Bill. Consider some of the following comments sent to lawmakers:

Thomas B. says “This must not pass. It will be a huge loss of our Constitutional rights… should be treason.â€

Kathleen F. says “I will personally seek to stand against any Senator that willfully undermines American Liberties…â€

Melba H. says “McCain got his freedom but he wants to take ours away.â€

Joseph L. says “I served 21 years in the Navy to protect and defend the Constitution; I now ask you to do the sameâ€

David D. says “If this [bill is not amended], then the terrorists have accomplished what they set out to do…â€

Lenora R “This is not a good idea at all. It reminds me both of Nazi Germany and the Russian Gulags.â€

As mentioned above, the House voted on their Defense Bill, HR 1540, earlier this year, where only 6 Republicans — Amash, Campbell, Chaffetz, Duncan (TN), McClintock, and Paul — voted it down.

Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) wrote recently on his facebook page that S. 1867 is “one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime.†Moreover, Amash maintains that the the bill capitalizes on misleading semantics; regarding section 1032 , he says “‘The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.’ This language appears carefully crafted to mislead the public. Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary.â€

Senator Paul warned on the Senate floor Tuesday: “Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won … detaining American citizens without a court trial is not American.â€

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

© Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031©, except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

© Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

© Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

Edited December 13, 2011 by KBourne

[st_dux 26]

While this law is indeed scary, I doubt very much that it would survive a challenge in the courts if it were to be used to detain American citizens.

[Colossus 2]

Any clue when they are going to vote on SOPA? I hear it's this Thursday, but I don't have a time on when it's happening. I'm sure it will pass because.. Well, let's face it, I don't think most of the representatives on "The Hill" have any technical knowledge on what they are actually voting on. I just want to watch it on C-SPAN so I can facepalm and say, "I don't want to live on this planet anymore".

Never mind, I guess not. :)

Edited December 15, 2011 by colossus

[nettrucker 142]

Hi

I just want to share this vid with you.

Mh1l0pePqjg&feature=related

and this one as well. Just listen closely to the words of Obama. Try to ignore the "prestitute" and focus on Obama's words.

8mPZlysCAm0

Edited December 15, 2011 by nettrucker

[Hans Ludwig 0]

lc4nf6ECxSE

[nettrucker 142]

I'm curious what the American establishment will come up with to neutralize him!

[binkster 0]

Lately the media has been good at neutralizing each one and can controll who is on top.

[nettrucker 142]

Lately the media has been good at neutralizing each one and can controll who is on top.

IMHO it depends on the American public who's going to be next president but seen what happend in 2000 and 2004 I'm afraid they are going to rig the elections. Ron Paul is a threat to the lobbyists which control the mainstream media.

[Fox '09 14]

I think ron paul is going to place 1st or second in Iowa, I'd be surprised if he didn't.

[nettrucker 142]

Well I hope so. I try to follow as best as I can the upcoming election. I personally think that corporate America will do everything possible to prevent that Ron Paul is going to be elected. That's why I stated that I'm really curious with what they gonna come up with to neutralize him.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Republican parties controllers let Ron Paul participate because he brings in the people he panders to and for no other reason. When you consider that the GOP's core vote is in terminal decline they need to fool as many groups of people as possible in to believing they have a voice in the GOP.

I am not saying that all those groups will vote Republican, despite their particular candidate losing, clearly they won't, but the GOP's hope is that enough people will fooled once again. That you can fool some of the people all the time is a long held Republican strategy, but each year it gets harder for the GOP as more and more people realise they were fooled.

Kind regards walker

[Fox '09 14]

Well I hope so. I try to follow as best as I can the upcoming election. I personally think that corporate America will do everything possible to prevent that Ron Paul is going to be elected. That's why I stated that I'm really curious with what they gonna come up with to neutralize him.

My guess is the "racist" letters. Thing about those is , even if he did write them, which will never be known as far as I'm concerned, and I take his word, it doesn't reflect his policy, and it's the least of the country's concern in my opinion.

[rangerpl 13]

Ron Paul is taking the frontrunner spot in Iowa:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/200357-ron-paul-is-the-front-runner-in-iowa

Hopefully Iowa will give him the momentum he needs to win New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

[nettrucker 142]

Ron Paul is taking the frontrunner spot in Iowa:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/200357-ron-paul-is-the-front-runner-in-iowa

Hopefully Iowa will give him the momentum he needs to win New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

Hi all

this is actually some positive news even the polls don't mean too much at the moment. let's cross fingers and hope for the best.

[batto 17]

Hi. Last week I watched report about forthcoming elections in USA on ÄŒT24 (Czech news television sponsored by state) and they talked about every past and present candidate (even those that already failed) _except_ Ron Paul. Why is that? I thought he has good odds.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Ron Paul has made it clear he does not support the Republican Party:

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2011/12/16/ron-paul-fails-answer-debate-question-endorsing-gop-nominee/gEzuhG47kVvk3dpRQC9vPI/story.html

Ron Paul is interested in one person and one person only, himself.

So at least he is playing the same fool you card as the GOP on that.

Clearly though Ron Paul has split the Republican vote with his expectation that most of his followers will leave the GOP and write in if he is not given the Republican Party nomination.

Of course Ron Paul may just chicken out and become another Welfare for the wealthy patsy and endorse whichever candidate Wall Street and the Fed decide to make the next 1%ers' Republican presidential sock puppet.

So which will Ron Paul do?

Kind regards walker

[nettrucker 142]

Hi there

here's an interesting but moreover very troubling blogpost concerning economical numbers in the USA

Even though most Americans have become very frustrated with this economy, the reality is that the vast majority of them still have no idea just how bad our economic decline has been or how much trouble we are going to be in if we don't make dramatic changes immediately. If we do not educate the American people about how deathly ill the U.S. economy has become, then they will just keep falling for the same old lies that our politicians keep telling them. Just "tweaking" things here and there is not going to fix this economy. We truly do need a fundamental change in direction. America is consuming far more wealth than it is producing and our debt is absolutely exploding. If we stay on this current path, an economic collapse is inevitable. Hopefully the crazy economic numbers from 2011 that I have included in this article will be shocking enough to wake some people up.

At this time of the year, a lot of families get together, and in most homes the conversation usually gets around to politics at some point. Hopefully many of you will use the list below as a tool to help you share the reality of the U.S. economic crisis with your family and friends. If we all work together, hopefully we can get millions of people to wake up and realize that "business as usual" will result in a national economic apocalypse.

The following are 50 economic numbers from 2011 that are almost too crazy to believe....

here's the link to the full article

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28268

This is really very disturbing in my opinion.

[rangerpl 13]

Hi. Last week I watched report about forthcoming elections in USA on ÄŒT24 (Czech news television sponsored by state) and they talked about every past and present candidate (even those that already failed) _except_ Ron Paul. Why is that? I thought he has good odds.

Because the establishment hates him. Lobby groups and the mainstream of both parties want to maintain the Status Quo, while Ron Paul is promising radical change.

I don't think Europeans like him very much either. His libertarian views are very much against what the EU has been doing.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

iGPDTkeYjFs

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks

[Fox '09 14]

t31ZOlj9Hk4

also from the young turks. I don't think the audio feed was working, I don't think peter was trying to talk over cenk. People are going nuts over this though, I don't see why though. He said he will have an independent source check into what they said, and I think peter should of left it at that.

As far as "socialist economy", I think peter does buy into all the establishment talking points, hence why cenk was a bit knee-jerkish about that statement. I don't think cenk should of cut him off, maybe just leave it at that end then talk about having it fact checked. Either way, I don't see why people are going nuts about it , especially on youtube. I suppose a lot of the people watching that are ron paul supporters , but they're very close minded. They jump on cenk for bringing up the race issue on his panel, which is very unreasonable in my opinion. It will come up eventually, it has, and even in an uncorrupted media it should come up.

I think overall cenk isn't bringing up the racist letters because he wants to "silence" ron paul. His audience is largely progressive, and I doubt many of them are republican voters, so even if he wanted to silence him it would have a minimal impact. Regardless, Cenk still likes Ron Paul as seen on the debate with his panel, and obviously throughout his regular show (as the gent above posted). He has always been anti establishment, so the idea that suddenly he's 'part' of the establishment after praising ron paul for days is absurd.

I'm trying to refute arguments from youtube on a small, barely political forum, so I should probably stop :( Edited December 22, 2011 by Fox '09

[st_dux 26]

I don't think the audio feed was working

Peter Schiff confirmed this on his radio show this morning. He couldn't hear Cenk's question because his audio feed was weak and he was talking (and he didn't have a video feed, so he couldn't see him talking, either). He said that, had he heard the question, he would have loved to answer it on the air.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

As far as "socialist economy"' date=' I think peter does buy into all the establishment talking points[/quote']

You do realize the US is a mixed economy, right? Maybe Peter should just use the word "planned" economy, which is essentially a "socialist economy."

It was John Maynard Keynes that liked many elements of Socialism and praised it. Since the Federal Reserve is a Keynesian bastion that pulls and pushes the levers to try and reach "full employment" and creates monetary policy, is it not a "socialist economy"?

[Fox '09 14]

I think i was misunderstood, I don't dispute what peter was saying, I just think cenk is used to talking to republicans and people from the establishment who always love to yell out SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM as buzzwords.

[froggyluv 2136]

Paul needs to do a better job of both distancing himself and explaining what and who was behind those racist ramblings that went out under his name. When asked, he continues to shrug and evade rather then declaring "That was some idiot I hired before I realised he was an inbred backwoods racist and I categorically disagree with everything he said!"

This is the same guy who wants to take away parts of the Civil Rights Law -and we're supposed to just take him at his word that he has no idea. Sorry but if you can't manage your little newsletter with certainty, how about a nation :rolleyes:

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, probably a D*ck.

Edited December 23, 2011 by froggyluv