• 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.

NDAA passes House, will be signed into law by Obama.

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-375

Throw those tyrants who voted for it out!

This is a good explanation as to why the Antifederalists were right. A standing army beyond one which guards a common armoury leads to total tyranny. I'm also worried about my security because of this so this certainly wasn't about "national security". Certainly they realize by now that nations are an illusion even if most of the people don't.

How could anyone who claims to care for Americans support this?

We're beginning to live in a police state. Sooner more people will realize that total centralization of power is more chaotic than Anarchy could be at its wildest dreams. Government cannot be limited by the rule of law. The rule of law is incompatible with anything other than a stateless society or a confederation.
 
Anarchist420 said:
Throw those tyrants who voted for it out!
Click to expand...

What sickens me is that there aren't many politicians who didn't vote for it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

It was passed overwhelmingly, with 79% of Republicans and 48% of Democrats voting yes. And our Democratic president is going to sign it.

So now what? Throw Obama out and elect a Republican president who is even more likely to push for and support bills curtailing our constitutional rights? Keep voting for Democrats who obviously do not care? There is no one out there who represents the interests of the people.
 
Anarchist420 said:
NDAA passes House, will be signed into law by Obama.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-375

How could anyone who claims to care for Americans support this?

We're beginning to live in a police state.
Click to expand...

I care and I think this is a good thing. You know why?

Because it is yet another step towards a Revolution which is what you want to get rid of the Tyrants that did in fact put this and everything else in place that has destroyed America.

It has to go full circle.
 
I'm not a fan of this NDAA; but, at least they supposedly exempted U.S. citizens, right? Unfortunately, that's about the only positive... 🙁
 
Last edited:
dmcowen674 said:
I care and I think this is a good thing. You know why?

Because it is yet another step towards a Revolution which is what you want to get rid of the Tyrants that did in fact put this and everything else in place that has destroyed America.

It has to go full circle.
Click to expand...


There you have it folks, we're one step closer to the great vinegar revolution and you can take that to the bank because McOwned said so.
 
As I explained in the other thread, this bill was amended to state that it ads no new detention authority not already contained in the Authorization For Use of Military Force Act passed in 2001. Accordingly, it ads nothing new regarding detention authority.

The issue is still very important because it hasn't been resolved by the SCOTUS yet even though it has been a pending issue for 10 years now. It's actually two related issues to be resolved: 1) whether the 2001 legislation actually conferred the detention authority (it is apparently ambiguous), and 2) if so, whether it is constitutional.

In sum, everyone should be very concerned about the issue of detention of U.S. citizens without trial, but this particular bill is not cause for concern because it ads no new powers.

I suspect this comment will be overlooked as people rant away on the issue, but those are the facts. If anyone really wants to question this, I'll show you the exact provision where it says no new detention powers are granted to the POTUS.
 
Last edited:
Looks like we mostly have the right people in place in CT. 4 out of 5 aint bad. Too bad the rest of the country is dragging us down.
 
Some of you guys have the approximate IQ of a house plant. Not only does this legislation add no new detention powers, but you can't prosecute someone for "treason" for voting on a bill.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9999 said:
Some of you guys have the approximate IQ of a house plant. Not only does this legislation ad no new detention powers, but you can't prosecute someone for "treason" for voting on a bill.
Click to expand...

At the risk of being a philodendron I was under the impression from other threads that protections for US citizens were not absolutely set in stone.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
At the risk of being a philodendron I was under the impression from other threads that protections for US citizens were not absolutely set in stone.
Click to expand...

No, they're not, but what I've been trying to say is that this statute was amended to state that it confers no *new* detention powers not already existing under the 9/15/2001 Resolution, which essentially "declared war" on Al Qaeda. The issue is very troublesome, but this statute adds no NEW cause for concern. The objections should have come in 2001 and subsequently when the issues were being litigated in the Padilla and Hamdi cases. People are making a big deal out of this statute as if it's a new thing, but the issue has been there for 10 years now.

Essentially, the 2001 resolution said, "we're at war with AQ and its members and anyone helping them are enemy combatants." Most legal authorities have already construed that to mean that anyone, including US citizens, who are suspected of aiding AQ can be detained as if they are prisoners of war. This new law, by its own terms, says that it does nothing to alter or expand on whatever authorities are conferred by that 2001 Resolution.
 
Last edited:
dank69 said:
Did you vote for them?
Click to expand...
No actually I didn't vote for them. I've abstained from voting in the past 2 elections because both candidates sucked equally.

I'd like to knock that pretty smile off my representative's face for voting to raise the debt ceiling. He's nothing but an establishment whore.
 
Anarchist420 said:
No actually I didn't vote for them. I've abstained from voting in the past 2 elections because both candidates sucked equally.

I'd like to knock that pretty smile off my representative's face for voting to raise the debt ceiling. He's nothing but an establishment whore.
Click to expand...

You talk really tough for a leech who can't make his own way in the world.
 
Anarchist420 said:
No actually I didn't vote for them. I've abstained from voting in the past 2 elections because both candidates sucked equally.

I'd like to knock that pretty smile off my representative's face for voting to raise the debt ceiling. He's nothing but an establishment whore.
Click to expand...
Whew, good thing for you. I was about to bring you up on charges of treason. Carry on then.

EDIT: Waitaminute...so you didn't vote against them? Treason charges incoming.
 
dank69 said:
I think we should expand that to everyone that voted for anyone that voted for it.
Click to expand...

An intriguing concept, but I think it goes too far. After all, you could feasibly have voted for, say, Obama, and if he signs it, nobody would have expected such.
 
MotF Bane said:
An intriguing concept, but I think it goes too far. After all, you could feasibly have voted for, say, Obama, and if he signs it, nobody would have expected such.
Click to expand...
Nope, treason. And you're pretty close to going on the list with that kind of talk, too, mister.
 
h2011-375.png


Looks like CA libruls voted against it.
 
Oh don't worry. They've been building those detention camps all over the country for years now. They're prepared for the unrest that's about to happen.



Sent from my HTC Vision using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top