• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

First They Came .... poem by Martin Niemöller

sportage

Lifer
Considering all he smoke over this and that coming from the republican candidates this cycle. Whether it be same sex marriage, or women's rights, or birth control, or religion, or attending a college, or home schooling, or class warfare, or you name it...
I thought the poem quoted below was worth remembering.
Because while today the hoopla might be over some issue you are willing to sign on to, tomorrow it may not be.

-- by Martin Niemöller, prominent German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor, best known as the author of the poem First they came....

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
 
Instead of worrying about Republicans focusing on subjects that have little bearing on the election come November. Why dont you worry about a very real issue?

Like how this administration is laying legal framework for executing American citizens outside the country without trial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...can-citizens/2012/03/05/gIQANknFtR_story.html

Or even better how they think the padministration reviewing the case is now "due process".

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...ted_killings_count_as_due_process.php?ref=fpa

Your poem applies to this situation a hell of a lot more than Republicans putting their foot in their mouth about birth control.
 
Instead of worrying about Republicans focusing on subjects that have little bearing on the election come November. Why dont you worry about a very real issue?

Like how this administration is laying legal framework for executing American citizens outside the country without trial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...can-citizens/2012/03/05/gIQANknFtR_story.html

Or even better how they think the padministration reviewing the case is now "due process".

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...ted_killings_count_as_due_process.php?ref=fpa

Your poem applies to this situation a hell of a lot more than Republicans putting their foot in their mouth about birth control.

You think the subject of having religious fanatics make legislative decisions for you is minor? In what world?
 
You think the subject of having religious fanatics make legislative decisions for you is minor? In what world?

You think any of the shit the Republicans are blabbling about now will actually get enacted? Sure, bury your head in the sand worrying about republicans while Obama frames legal ground work to kill US citizens without a trial. The distraction is easy when the morons are marching.
 
You think the subject of having religious fanatics make legislative decisions for you is minor? In what world?

In the world where the government can kill you for a suspected crime without having to take you to court.

That world. You know, Earth.
 
Seen gas prices lately? Any clue how detrimental the price of fuel is on the economy? And you're worried about some idiot talk show host? Please, this is nothing but a distraction to keep the focus off Obama's utterly failed presidency.
 
Seen gas prices lately? Any clue how detrimental the price of fuel is on the economy? And you're worried about some idiot talk show host? Please, this is nothing but a distraction to keep the focus off Obama's utterly failed presidency.

What do gas prices have to do with Obama? Ever heard of the free market?
 
Considering all he smoke over this and that coming from the republican candidates this cycle. Whether it be same sex marriage, or women's rights, or birth control, or religion, or attending a college, or home schooling, or class warfare, or you name it...
I thought the poem quoted below was worth remembering.

This is how "LGBT" got started. Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender; they act as one solid group just for the sake of numbers. Nobody actually wants to work with Lesbians when half of them look and sound like Rosie O'Donnell. Trannies? Why would anyone work with them? Numbers. They might not like each other, but they stick together. If written today, Niemoller's poem would say: I came for the lesbians, I stayed for the trannies.
 
What do gas prices have to do with Obama? Ever heard of the free market?

Don't be ridiculous...when gas and oil prices went through the roof in 2008, the righties blamed everyone except Bush...but now that it's happening again, it's Obama's fault. 🙄
 
What do gas prices have to do with Obama? Ever heard of the free market?
Both parties have retards that think the president should run the middle east with an iron fist of nuclear fisting. Military enforced oil embargo against China = cheap gas in the US! Yay! (and it brings USA and China much much closer to total war)

Given Obama's well earned nobel peace price ( :awe: ), it makes sense that he would keep the market open. No military pressure in the middle east = global free market = higher demand = higher gas prices. OBAMA RUINED AMERICA!!
 
You think any of the shit the Republicans are blabbling about now will actually get enacted? Sure, bury your head in the sand worrying about republicans while Obama frames legal ground work to kill US citizens without a trial. The distraction is easy when the morons are marching.
You mean those US citizens who are trying to subvert our government from other counttres...

http://rt.com/news/holder-us-killings-justification-931/

US Attorney General Eric Holder has presented the White House’s justification for killing American citizens on foreign soil without trial. He says it is OK to do so because America is “at war with a stateless enemy.”

Holder argued drone killings like that of Al-Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaqi last September are “in full accordance with the Constitution.”

"'Due process' and ‘judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security," the attorney general said. "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."

"Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack," he said in a speech Monday at a law school in Chicago.

"Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats," he added.

Holder says in some cases acting without a court decision is the only realistic alternative, because the situation is changing in real time and a window of opportunity may close.


"In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out – and we will not," Holder


So what part of that do you not agree with?
You think that if a US Citizens joins a terrorist organization over seas and rises to prominence in that organization that they be given due process?

Whatabout all those people they are going to kill...where is there due process.....


Gen87 I venture to say you are in the minority on this issue...especially if people really knew the facts.

Shalom!
 
You mean those US citizens who are trying to subvert our government from other counttres...

http://rt.com/news/holder-us-killings-justification-931/

US Attorney General Eric Holder has presented the White House’s justification for killing American citizens on foreign soil without trial. He says it is OK to do so because America is “at war with a stateless enemy.”

Holder argued drone killings like that of Al-Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaqi last September are “in full accordance with the Constitution.”

"'Due process' and ‘judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security," the attorney general said. "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."

"Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack," he said in a speech Monday at a law school in Chicago.

"Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats," he added.

Holder says in some cases acting without a court decision is the only realistic alternative, because the situation is changing in real time and a window of opportunity may close.


"In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out – and we will not," Holder


So what part of that do you not agree with?
You think that if a US Citizens joins a terrorist organization over seas and rises to prominence in that organization that they be given due process?

Whatabout all those people they are going to kill...where is there due process.....


Gen87 I venture to say you are in the minority on this issue...especially if people really knew the facts.

Shalom!

You are kidding me right? The people who pulled the trigger say it is legal and within the constitution to do it? Gee, really? Since when has the executive been granted to be the reviewer and executioner all in one? What they are basically saying is if we feel you are a threat we can kill you without a trial. That doesnt scare you at all?

And this guy wasnt in a fire fight with US troops. Thus their idea of an imminent threat is horseshit. He spoke out against our war in the ME like many on here have. He was deemed a threat by the same govt who praised him a decade ago and then that govt killed him without even a trial, or indictment. Their proof is what? They couldnt even be bothered to indict him before the assasination. Even Bin Laden got indicted in 1998 for christs sake. Which means their evidence is razor thin that they didnt believe a grand jury would indict.

The willingness of people in this country to grant the power of trial and execution to the executive is scary. Today it is some guy in Yemen, what is stopping them once they kill more across the world to take internal? Why do you believe they couldnt deem a guy like that in chicago a threat to national security and just bump him off? Why would your reaction be any different? Because he is on US soil? He is a citizen regardless and granted protected rights to not be killed by his govt without trial.

Edit: And what facts? The administration hasnt provided any other than to say he is associated with known AQ members. Whoopie effing do, guilt by association is now standing for denying us a trial and being bombed by a drone?
 
Last edited:
You think any of the shit the Republicans are blabbling about now will actually get enacted? Sure, bury your head in the sand worrying about republicans while Obama frames legal ground work to kill US citizens without a trial. The distraction is easy when the morons are marching.

What do you expect from a person who places OWS on the same level with major US rights movements (civil, womens, labor...) in last century? He believes that OWS's arrests will have the same impact as the civil rights arrests in the 60's. He also believes that boogieman bank executives single handedly caused the economic collapse yet can't name the first one.
 
Considering all he smoke over this and that coming from the republican candidates this cycle. Whether it be same sex marriage, or women's rights, or birth control, or religion, or attending a college, or home schooling, or class warfare, or you name it...
I thought the poem quoted below was worth remembering.
Because while today the hoopla might be over some issue you are willing to sign on to, tomorrow it may not be.
-- by Martin Niemöller, prominent German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor, best known as the author of the poem First they came....

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Just recently heard this poem referenced.

It was by religious leaders referring to the govt's position to force Catholics to provide BC against their beliefs.

The other religions, who have no opposition to BC, announced supporting them and referenced the poem.

Fern
 
You are kidding me right? The people who pulled the trigger say it is legal and within the constitution to do it? Gee, really? Since when has the executive been granted to be the reviewer and executioner all in one? What they are basically saying is if we feel you are a threat we can kill you without a trial. That doesnt scare you at all?

And this guy wasnt in a fire fight with US troops. Thus their idea of an imminent threat is horseshit. He spoke out against our war in the ME like many on here have. He was deemed a threat by the same govt who praised him a decade ago and then that govt killed him without even a trial, or indictment. Their proof is what? They couldnt even be bothered to indict him before the assasination. Even Bin Laden got indicted in 1998 for christs sake. Which means their evidence is razor thin that they didnt believe a grand jury would indict.

The willingness of people in this country to grant the power of trial and execution to the executive is scary. Today it is some guy in Yemen, what is stopping them once they kill more across the world to take internal? Why do you believe they couldnt deem a guy like that in chicago a threat to national security and just bump him off? Why would your reaction be any different? Because he is on US soil? He is a citizen regardless and granted protected rights to not be killed by his govt without trial.

Edit: And what facts? The administration hasnt provided any other than to say he is associated with known AQ members. Whoopie effing do, guilt by association is now standing for denying us a trial and being bombed by a drone?

First of all who are you to need proof of anything?

Secondly -- it`s pretty obvious American citizens don`t just show up in a terrorist camp to check it out and such......proof..lolol
How is that so scary?? If an American Citizen is a member of a terrorist group...and they are active in that terrorist group somewhere in the middle east then they deserve what they get.

If they are active in a terrorist group in the United states then I say they need to be aprehended and charged. Just because your an American citizen once you deicide to screw the US and leave the country to particpate in terrorist activities then IMO you have betrayed your country and as such whatever happens happens!

End of story!
 
Last edited:
You are kidding me right? The people who pulled the trigger say it is legal and within the constitution to do it? Gee, really? Since when has the executive been granted to be the reviewer and executioner all in one? What they are basically saying is if we feel you are a threat we can kill you without a trial. That doesnt scare you at all?

And this guy wasnt in a fire fight with US troops. Thus their idea of an imminent threat is horseshit. He spoke out against our war in the ME like many on here have. He was deemed a threat by the same govt who praised him a decade ago and then that govt killed him without even a trial, or indictment. Their proof is what? They couldnt even be bothered to indict him before the assasination. Even Bin Laden got indicted in 1998 for christs sake. Which means their evidence is razor thin that they didnt believe a grand jury would indict.

The willingness of people in this country to grant the power of trial and execution to the executive is scary. Today it is some guy in Yemen, what is stopping them once they kill more across the world to take internal? Why do you believe they couldnt deem a guy like that in chicago a threat to national security and just bump him off? Why would your reaction be any different? Because he is on US soil? He is a citizen regardless and granted protected rights to not be killed by his govt without trial.

Edit: And what facts? The administration hasnt provided any other than to say he is associated with known AQ members. Whoopie effing do, guilt by association is now standing for denying us a trial and being bombed by a drone?

I feel like capture and trial is always a better option. But in all seriousness, what do you suggest for US citizens who actively make war on their country? We're not talking about using a predator drone on some P&N poster because they're anti-Obama...the guy we're talking about was a terrorist. If we can capture him and try him, great, I think we should do that with all the terrorists we can. If not though, he would seem to be a legitimate military target. If you're arguing that he was not, then how DO we deal with people in that category?
 
First of all who are you to need proof of anything?

Secondly -- it`s pretty obvious American citizens don`t just show up in a terrorist camp to check it out and such......proof..lolol
How is that so scary?? If an American Citizen is a member of a terrorist group...and they are active in that terrorist group somewhere in the middle east then they deserve what they get.

If they are active in a terrorist group in the United states then I say they need to be aprehended and charged. Just because your an American citizen once you deicide to screw the US and leave the country to particpate in terrorist activities then IMO you have betrayed your country and as such whatever happens happens!

End of story!

Mr. Rumsfeld? Is that you?
 
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Sounds like a wet dream for our colleagues that constantly bash those who are religious. (which I am not, just sayin...)
 
Lol at the fear mongering, "tomorrow it could be you!". Yawn.

If an American is found to be in the middle of some Shit-istan country, in terrorist camps, seen with terrorists, associated with terrorists, collaborating with terrorists, what makes them different from the foreign terrorists who are putting our loyal American troops 6 feet under? Nothing.

If an "American" is participating in the activities that are enough to classify foreigners as terrorists and make them eligible for a Hellfire up their ass, send one at the "American" terrorist too. I couldn't care less.
 
First of all who are you to need proof of anything?

Secondly -- it`s pretty obvious American citizens don`t just show up in a terrorist camp to check it out and such......proof..lolol
How is that so scary?? If an American Citizen is a member of a terrorist group...and they are active in that terrorist group somewhere in the middle east then they deserve what they get.

If they are active in a terrorist group in the United states then I say they need to be aprehended and charged. Just because your an American citizen once you deicide to screw the US and leave the country to particpate in terrorist activities then IMO you have betrayed your country and as such whatever happens happens!

End of story!

I am an american citizen who is demanding to know why our executive wiped its ass with the constitution and assasinated another citizen without a trial. That is who I am. Who are you?

And so what he did show up in a training camp? Charge and indict him for his crimes. Why didnt the administration do such a thing? Instead they said trust us, we have the proof, but we wont show it to you. It is such a weak argument that any citizen who associates with people deemed enemy of the state can now be killed by the state.

You cant be this daft. How is it not scary when the govt deems you an enemy for excercising freedom of speech and then proceeds to kill you for excercising that right? This guy was praised by the govt right after 911. Then he was killed without trial by that same govt when his tune changed. And if he is active so what? Capture and bring him to justice. At the very least indict him for a crime.

What does a border matter once the state decides you are the enemy? Think about that for a second. There isnt a need once they lay the legal framework to kill you for talking in a way they dont like. They can claim it is too hard to apprehend you in the mountains or in your fortress in texas and just bomb you.

Answer me this question. Why was Bin Laden charged and indicted on charges and this guy not? Bin laden was afforded more due process than an American citizen. That should worry you.
 
I feel like capture and trial is always a better option. But in all seriousness, what do you suggest for US citizens who actively make war on their country? We're not talking about using a predator drone on some P&N poster because they're anti-Obama...the guy we're talking about was a terrorist. If we can capture him and try him, great, I think we should do that with all the terrorists we can. If not though, he would seem to be a legitimate military target. If you're arguing that he was not, then how DO we deal with people in that category?

This guy was not an imminent threat to this country. He was preaching out of a mosque in Yemen for christs sake. His major crime? Changing his tune after he saw the trail of terror we left in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many on this very msgboard have said the same thing as him.

What do I suggest we do with citizens who engage in activities that are illegal? Bring them to justice like we do any other citizen abroad. He would only be a legit military target if he were actively fighting US troops. He wasnt.
 
Lol at the fear mongering, "tomorrow it could be you!". Yawn.

If an American is found to be in the middle of some Shit-istan country, in terrorist camps, seen with terrorists, associated with terrorists, collaborating with terrorists, what makes them different from the foreign terrorists who are putting our loyal American troops 6 feet under? Nothing.

If an "American" is participating in the activities that are enough to classify foreigners as terrorists and make them eligible for a Hellfire up their ass, send one at the "American" terrorist too. I couldn't care less.

You dont lose your citizenship because you are in a foreign land associating with people who are at war with the state.
 
You think any of the shit the Republicans are blabbling about now will actually get enacted? Sure, bury your head in the sand worrying about republicans while Obama frames legal ground work to kill US citizens without a trial. The distraction is easy when the morons are marching.

It already has in some states.. what are you talking about?
 
What do you expect from a person who places OWS on the same level with major US rights movements (civil, womens, labor...) in last century? He believes that OWS's arrests will have the same impact as the civil rights arrests in the 60's. He also believes that boogieman bank executives single handedly caused the economic collapse yet can't name the first one.

30 years ago: He believes that protests for inter-racial marriage protest arrests will have the same impact as the civil rights arrests in the 60's.

60 years ago: He believes that civil rights arrests will have the same impact as women's suffrage!

You could do the same for anti vietnam protests, women entering the workforce, freeing the slaves, creating labor unions... All were views by a majority of the time as a bunch of instigators. It takes 30 years for people to begrudgingly accept them(at least publicly). Nothing new here.

Same people, different eras.

And as Londo says, he doesn't think bank executives were guilty of causing the economic collapse...
 
Back
Top