The National Defense Authorization Act (Ron Paul predicted this!)

[Stoney Franklin]

ron paul is some dope shit
too bad he's too real for the american public

[[MPGH]arunforce]

Just because he wrote a provisional note, doesn't mean that anything changes. The military would still have the authority to indescriminately detain citizens
indefinitely without a trial. Of course he's gonna say he doesn't agree with that part to cover his own ass. As far as the troops go he didn't start pulling anyone out until his PR for his re-election was falling appart. There are Government officials,Senators, and Congressman that are completely against the NDAA. We already have the Patriot act, there is absolutely no need for this Bill.

Obama was a constitutional law professor. He knows damn well that citizens can't be detained indefinitely without trial, it's against the constitution. I'm not an expert by any means, but they would probably require the executives branch's consent. If it ever gets taken to the Supreme Court it would probably be thrown out in a heart beat, but then again the same 5 that sold out to make corporations people will still be there. You think he's going to risk his ass to sign some freedom-stealing bill for no reason, and pull out of Iraq to boost his ratings. Sounds pretty counterproductive. Considering he ran on the campaign to pull out of Iraq and was against invading Iraq as a senator, had it on his timetable since he became president, sounds like you are pulling shit out of your ass regarding that. His PR has been pretty good, everyone can argue about his role in the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but he's going to be remembered as the guy who finally caught that SOB. There are gov. officials, senators, and congressmen against EVERY bill, what's your point? It still had majority support which speaks on it's own on where Congress stands. I'm not arguing toward supporting the bill or defending Obama but I don't really think the NDAA is that big of a deal compared to something like the Patriot Act. The fact that he signed the NDAA shows his character regarding fighting for our rights. He isn't the same guy that America elected in 2008. The sad thing is I'd still vote for him, because he is the lesser of the other evils, because if you listen to the shit most of the republicans are saying..? Like seriously what the fuck. But I don't know, they are all probably liars just trying to sell out to their crowd then turn around and not care like every other president in the history of the USA. The best thing about Ron Paul is he will stand up for our rights, and has a fairly good chance of doing just that even if he gets elected just based on his track record.

Even IF his administration does not use it, that does not mean one in the future will not. How can you defend this? Obama wanted this. It was HIS administration that changed the language in the bill.


Don't piggy back on excuses. Even if that IS true that just means he folded under pressure.




As far as the troops go, there will be thousands of troops in Iraq for a long time, but about 250,000 contracters. Contractors that get paid around $100,000 a year while soldiers make a fraction of that...

I can't defend it. It seems like a shady way to make us vote for him again. I don't like the fact that he doesn't have a backbone and compromises on our rights. But then again we're just a small amount of libertarians in a fucked up country full of democrats and republicans of the same species. They really don't care about what we think.

I don't really like the fact that we need Ron Paul to fix us up. Who's going to save us when he's not there (exaggeration). There are a lot of issues me and him don't see eye to eye, like NASA and science funding, but he kinda is what we need right now. I think Obama would have been a great president in the pre-9/11 world, personally, but at the same time, who's to say the next president doesn't just undo what Ron Paul does or undoes. I really don't think anything good will come out of it if he got elected in some ways, because we need a political shift. Old people are basically fucking this country up with backwards mentality like SOPA, Patriot Act, NDAA, and all the shit that has come out in the last 12 years. It's good to see more young libertarian voters these days, but we need a sustained change in ideology, not just Ron Paul.

I also think Ron Paul still has a pretty good chance of becoming the republican nominee:
1. You know he's mainstream when RJ supports him :P. (I'll eat my words if you were a Ron Paul supporter in 2008)
2. McCain got the nominee when he only had 7% in Iowa. Iowa isn't a good indicator for republican nominees it seems.

I'll vote Ron Paul straight up if Obama signs SOPA. If Ron Paul isn't the nominee, I won't vote, or vote for a Libertarian independent.
If Obama rejects it and Ron Paul is the nominee, I'll have to think (leaning toward Obama). If Obama rejects it and there is a nutjob republican, I'm voting Obama.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

[SIZE="2"]

Obama was a constitutional law professor. He knows damn well that citizens can't be detained indefinitely without trial, it's against the constitution. I'm not an expert by any means, but they would probably require the executives branch's consent. If it ever gets taken to the Supreme Court it would probably be thrown out in a heart beat, but then again the same 5 that sold out to make corporations people will still be there. You think he's going to risk his ass to sign some freedom-stealing bill for no reason, and pull out of Iraq to boost his ratings. Sounds pretty counterproductive. Considering he ran on the campaign to pull out of Iraq and was against invading Iraq as a senator, had it on his timetable since he became president, sounds like you are pulling shit out of your ass regarding that. His PR has been pretty good, everyone can argue about his role in the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but he's going to be remembered as the guy who finally caught that SOB. There are gov. officials, senators, and congressmen against EVERY bill, what's your point? It still had majority support which speaks on it's own on where Congress stands. I'm not arguing toward supporting the bill or defending Obama but I don't really think the NDAA is that big of a deal compared to something like the Patriot Act. The fact that he signed the NDAA shows his character regarding fighting for our rights. He isn't the same guy that America elected in 2008. The sad thing is I'd still vote for him, because he is the lesser of the other evils, because if you listen to the shit most of the republicans are saying..? Like seriously what the fuck. But I don't know, they are all probably liars just trying to sell out to their crowd then turn around and not care like every other president in the history of the USA. The best thing about Ron Paul is he will stand up for our rights, and has a fairly good chance of doing just that even if he gets elected just based on his track record.



I can't defend it. It seems like a shady way to make us vote for him again. I don't like the fact that he doesn't have a backbone and compromises on our rights. But then again we're just a small amount of libertarians in a fucked up country full of democrats and republicans of the same species. They really don't care about what we think.

I'm "pulling shit out of my ass?" Really? Obama assaulted and then shat on the constitution, particularly on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments, which provide the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government, to be free from unreasonable seizure, to be provided with due process of law and a speedy trial, to be informed of all charges, to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment, and to be protected from the deprivation of liberty without the aforementioned due process. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era … but President Truman had the courage to veto that bill.

A President who breaches a signing statement covenant faces no more consequences than any other corrupt politician who renegs on a promise. By signing NDAA and attempting to give its unconstitutional provisions the force of law, Barack Hussein Obama became complicit with all of the bought-and-paid-for U.S.
You talk as if you support the Constitution Arun, yet you seem to be forgetting the most important part. "FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE"
How many of these seemingly subtle little bills are we going to allow to be passed until we ultimately become a police state?


Here was Obama's statement:

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

So his administration is making a promise, what of the next administration? Either way he really can't be trusted.

Clearly he proved this fact already by:

Declaring War on Lybia w/o Congressional approval- provision for 60 days if an attack on US land or forces. Article I Sec. 8

Overthrew State governments with Stimulus Package-1607(b): "If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.”

GM Bailout- only congress has any authority with money

ObamaCare?-Supreme Court is currently doing the ruling

Matheson Affair- Bribery w/ judge appointments Article II Sec. 4 states he is worthy of impeachment

You can't support the Constitution, and also someone with Capitalist/socialist ideologies my friend.

[Pandemic]

too late, he already approved it

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

too late, he already approved it

Read date of thread creation. Kthnx.

[[MPGH]arunforce]

I'm "pulling shit out of my ass?" Really? Obama assaulted and then shat on the constitution, particularly on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments, which provide the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government, to be free from unreasonable seizure, to be provided with due process of law and a speedy trial, to be informed of all charges, to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment, and to be protected from the deprivation of liberty without the aforementioned due process. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era … but President Truman had the courage to veto that bill.

A President who breaches a signing statement covenant faces no more consequences than any other corrupt politician who renegs on a promise. By signing NDAA and attempting to give its unconstitutional provisions the force of law, Barack Hussein Obama became complicit with all of the bought-and-paid-for U.S.
You talk as if you support the Constitution Arun, yet you seem to be forgetting the most important part. "FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE"
How many of these seemingly subtle little bills are we going to allow to be passed until we ultimately become a police state?


Here was Obama's statement:

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

So his administration is making a promise, what of the next administration? Either way he really can't be trusted.

Clearly he proved this fact already by:

Declaring War on Lybia w/o Congressional approval- provision for 60 days if an attack on US land or forces. Article I Sec. 8

Overthrew State governments with Stimulus Package-1607(b): "If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.”

GM Bailout- only congress has any authority with money

ObamaCare?-Supreme Court is currently doing the ruling

Matheson Affair- Bribery w/ judge appointments Article II Sec. 4 states he is worthy of impeachment

You can't support the Constitution, and also someone with Capitalist/socialist ideologies my friend.

"As far as the troops go he didn't start pulling anyone out until his PR for his re-election was falling appart."

I specifically stated: "Considering he ran on the campaign to pull out of Iraq and was against invading Iraq as a senator, had it on his timetable since he became president, sounds like you are pulling shit out of your ass regarding that." So yes, you are pulling shit out of your ass. There is not one shred of evidence to back up your statement, and instead you turn this into a war on how he violated the constitution. The facts are that every single president in modern times has violated the constitution in some way or the other, the fact is that half of the things you would list would be examples of the US Government doing something, and how Obama is responsible for every single person and action in the US government.

Sounds like you have bad blood with Obama and try to turn this into your little political agenda with "Hussain the socialist." I support the constitution and disapprove the NDAA yet I'm forgetting "for the people by the people..." because I'm refuting your unfair criticism of the POTUS. By golly gee whiz! I must also support terrorism because I think Guantanamo Bay should be closed down too!!1

And suddenly it's declaring war on Libya by the joint NATO effort to protect citizens from a tyrant bombing and killing his own people by enforcing a NO FLY ZONE. Yeah, we surely went to war with our invasion in Libya, we took over so many cities, marched straight into the capital city grabbed that mother fucker, and bombed the fuck out of them!1111

Yeah, he certainly overthrew those governments offering money! They went rock bottom and never came back, sure that's why Texas and Louisiana rejected parts, if not all of the stimulus package.

The big 3 CEOs went infront of congress and got the bailout approved by congress during the BUSH administration. I can't stand Bush but at least I'm pointing your unfair bullshit at the wrong person and lie about it.

ObamaCare is unconstitutional. I don't think anyone should be FORCED to buy anything.

I don't know anything about this Matheson Affair, but from what I looked up it sounds like he's guilty. I'm not sure if that directly falls under bribery, or it can't be proven, or whatever the case is. I'm sure they know they can't get caught if no one has drawn up impeachment papers. I'm not here to defend Obama, I'm here to point out the atypical cynical unfair bullshit.

No, I can't support the constitution and a guy who has capitalist and socialist ideologies, that'd be ridiculous! They are mutually exclusive and operate in the opposite ends of the spectrum. That's like saying you can't support the constitution if you want citizen paid fire stations.

[Hitman]

Obama? You mean the man who's abusing his war powers, bombing countrys with out congressional approval, was elected on lies, started more wars, and is trying to create a socalist state in America? Yeah sure... w/e dummy.

This is what you get when the blacks take revenge.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

"As far as the troops go he didn't start pulling anyone out until his PR for his re-election was falling appart."

I specifically stated: "Considering he ran on the campaign to pull out of Iraq and was against invading Iraq as a senator, had it on his timetable since he became president, sounds like you are pulling shit out of your ass regarding that." So yes, you are pulling shit out of your ass. .

During his campaign for presidency he clearly said in multiple speeches that he would get this done in '09 not the end of 2011.

First, in September of 2007, Obama said, “So let me be clear. There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolvetheir civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year, but now.”
Then, as his campaign picked up steam during the primary, he said in primary debates that he’d have our troops out of Iraq within 6 months of assuming office.
Then on January 15, 2008, he changed it to the end of 2009 (a little over 11 months): “I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009.

So, it was Obama pulling shit ot of his ass. Not I.

As far as Libya goes the no fly zone was one of the first actions taken, I think you are forgetting about the predator drone bombings, and tomahawk missles fired from our naval ships on the Mediterranean. Either way establishing a no fly zone in another Country is still an act of war, and the declaration of war was not approved by Congress.

It is true what you said though..he isn't the first person to defy the Constitution,
but he's done it far too many times for me to be comfortable with him as our commander and chief.
I have no "bad blood" with Obama like you say. I don't like the direction he's been taking this Country at all.

[RJ]

@arunforce I voted McCain in 08, but during the time Ron Paul couldn't get out of single didgets. I was aware of him, and his ideals because I had several friends following him at the time, but I was more focused on keeping Obama out of the white house, but saddly Dems could of elected a popsicle stick into office in 08. This year I've been supporting Ron Paul since he announced his canidicy for 2012 though.

Anyway, it's fine if you do not agree with him %100 on all issues, but we need someone who will fight for us, instead of fighting for the status quo. The man has a very deep understanding on economics, foreign policy, and personal liberty. Heck, he predicted our current economic/millitary/social mess, YEARS before they became platform for a president to get elected on.

The man has a perfect voting record as a 10 time congressman, and I believe he will actually do what he says he will do. You can't buy Ron Paul.

[[MPGH]arunforce]

During his campaign for presidency he clearly said in multiple speeches that he would get this done in '09 not the end of 2011.

First, in September of 2007, Obama said, “So let me be clear. There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolvetheir civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year, but now.”
Then, as his campaign picked up steam during the primary, he said in primary debates that he’d have our troops out of Iraq within 6 months of assuming office.
Then on January 15, 2008, he changed it to the end of 2009 (a little over 11 months): “I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009.

So, it was Obama pulling shit ot of his ass. Not I.

Yes, and my point being that he had it on the TIMETABLE to be removed and had nothing (or very little) to do with his re-election campaign.

As far as Libya goes the no fly zone was one of the first actions taken, I think you are forgetting about the predator drone bombings, and tomahawk missles fired from our naval ships on the Mediterranean. Either way establishing a no fly zone in another Country is still an act of war, and the declaration of war was not approved by Congress.

It is true what you said though..he isn't the first person to defy the Constitution,
but he's done it far too many times for me to be comfortable with him as our commander and chief.
I have no "bad blood" with Obama like you say. I don't like the direction he's been taking this Country at all.

The latter part is probably under most contexts is an act of war. I don't think a no fly zone should need congressional approval, and I didn't think it's necessary to declare war with Libya when they didn't have soldiers on the ground. I understand that it should though, it's ripe for abuse and that's what the constitution is all about. If I remember correctly, the missile strikes were designed to take out tanks and other strategic weapons that were being used to hurt civilians. Maybe he should have went through Congress, but I think they did the right thing regardless. I mean, bombing terrorists in pakistan with unmanned drones is an act of war, and I'm pretty sure US soldiers going in Pakistan w/o approval and killing Bin Laden is an act of war too (not debating whether he actually died or not, just the fact that the US navy went in there). The point is, yeah, probably the constitution doesn't cover all the bases, maybe Obama was extending or violating his power, but honestly, I don't think Congress would have approved it, nothing ever gets done there because of partisan bickering except when it's for taking our rights away.

< AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Cole]

hmm so far i kinda like this threads balance
not alot of overly extreme democratic or republican sympathizers very interestingly near balanced at least in terms of flaming

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

[FONT="Tahoma"][SIZE="2"]

[FONT=Verdana]

Yes, and my point being that he had it on the TIMETABLE to be removed and had nothing (or very little) to do with his re-election campaign.



< AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Arun, the point I'm making is that his original time table was 6 months...it got dragged 2.5 years past that...
He's a smart guy, there is no way in hell that he believed what he originally promised was even close to being realistic.
You might think "oh well..he was off by a couple years"
Well that couple years cost us trillions of dollars..so yeah it's kind of a big deal.
That couple years hindered funding for domestic issues that we are currently struggling with due to lack of funding.
On top of that, I believe the Libya conflict lasted 72 days at 9.2 million dollars a day to be involved in that.
I think the more conventional and less costly course of action for that whole mess,
would have been to provide intel to our allies over there,
opposed to blowing millions of dollars on spending artillery. Also, we did more than just establish a no fly zone.
The Tomahawk missles fired from our naval ships were taking down enemy planes..which yes that would classify that action as being concurrent with the no fly zone procedures, but bombing ground forces in Trippoli with predator missles sure isn't.

[Azathᴏth]

Maybe Obama was hammered on New Years when he signed the bill. That would explain the lack of media coverage.

"WELL....LOOKS LEGIT"

[RJ]

@arunforce If you ignore the constitution and go to war, and kill people without a decloration it opens the door to new and inadmissible principles in warfare. War time conditions always undermine personal liberties! We need to get out of the affairs of foreign nations, and promote diplomicy!

Reguardless about what YOU thought about Obama. A lot of people saw him as an end to our wars (Not war WARS). This is a major part of the reason he was elected, period... And now that he is finally pulling troops(some not all) from Iraq, he's putting in contractors. There's about 250,000 in Iraq now. Each of them get paid $50,000-$250,000 a year.

What about Afganistan though?...

And now everyones talking about Iran like it's Nazi Germany. Iran can barely support itself. They pose NO THREAT to the United States. What air force are they going to attack with? They can't even produce enough gas for themselfs.

[[MPGH]arunforce]

Arun, the point I'm making is that his original time table was 6 months...it got dragged 2.5 years past that...
He's a smart guy, there is no way in hell that he believed that what he originally promised was even close to being realistic.
You might think "oh well..he was off by a couple years"
Well that couple years cost us trillions of dollars..so yeah it's kind of a big deal.
That couple years hindered funding for domestic issues that we are currently struggling with due to lack of funding.
On top of that, I believe the Libya conflict lasted 72 days at 9.2 million dollars a day to be involved in that.
I think the more conventional and less costly course of action for that whole mess,
would have been to provide intel to our allies over there,
opposed to blowing millions of dollars on spending artillery. Also, we did more than just establish a no fly zone.
The Tomahawk missles fired from our naval ships were taking down enemy planes..which yes that would classify that action as being concurrent with the no fly zone procedures, but bombing ground forces in Trippoli with predator missles sure isn't.

I agree with most of your statements, but the point I was making was that you worded it like he pulled out of Iraq for re-election, I'm just saying that wasn't the case, they've been working on it since Day 1, despite the delays.

@arunforce If you ignore the constitution and go to war, and kill people without a decloration it opens the door to new and inadmissible principles in warfare. War time conditions always undermine personal liberties! We need to get out of the affairs of foreign nations, and promote diplomicy!

Reguardless about what YOU thought about Obama. A lot of people saw him as an end to our wars (Not war WARS). This is a major part of the reason he was elected, period... And now that he is finally pulling troops(some not all) from Iraq, he's putting in contractors. There's about 250,000 in Iraq now. Each of them get paid $50,000-$250,000 a year.

What about Afganistan though?...

And now everyones talking about Iran like it's Nazi Germany. Iran can barely support itself. They pose NO THREAT to the United States. What air force are they going to attack with? They can't even produce enough gas for themselfs.

I agree, diplomacy is the best first action, but the biggest issue is do we just let everyone have nuclear weapons? It's basically inevitable, eventually every country will be able to develop nuclear weapons, USA won't sign the UN protocol to remove all nuclear weapons, so who are we to say Iran can't have it? It's kinda hypocritical. I think that is the biggest problem with Iran, they wouldn't last long in a military conflict. They pose no threats to us. People think we need to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons to prevent something from happening to Isreal, but from what I read, Isreal is just abusing the relationship with the US (spies, etc), and honestly, they would be insane to drop a nuclear bomb in Isreal (as the media likes to portray them). I really don't think Iran will do anything, but they first develop nuclear technology for PEACEFUL purposes, then they turn around and say they are developing nuclear weapons, that's the problem with diplomacy/appeasement.

He never said he'd pull out of Afghanistan (I think we should). A lot of contractors are people who have technical skills to repair and fix Iraq, and as it's a war torn country and their lives are possibly at risk, so they get paid more. I don't agree with PMC being in any country, but who can really agree with everything.

Well that's just my two cents.