100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: America | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Sat 12/29/12 07:01 PM
|
|
up until 1969, blacks were not 'free' to do many t hings others have been allowed to do since the countrys founding? By the REAL LAW, the black people were always free; they just had to fight the tyranny of the white majority tooth & nail to get their freedom & equality under the law recognized. You can be thankful that you had men of the calibre of MLK to lead that fight. how are blacks now 'less free' than they were in the past? They aren't, however, in general they have joined the white people in the equality of slavery now visited upon everyone. Unfortunately, there are very few who recognize that the country has become a plantation that serves its banking master. "There are none so enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe One possible exception to this might be the Black Panthers. They seem to have an instinctive knowledge that they are free and are willing to fight in the cause of it. 'freedom' isnt equated by whether someones right to do the 'same' is stepped on its whether ANY OF THEIR rights are stepped on in the process Correct. It is the old inch/mile principle. If you surrender ANY of your rights to a tyrant, you will soon find you have lost them ALL. Rights, by their very nature, come with duties. Perhaps the greatest duty of all is to ensure that those rights are there for EVERYONE. Throughout history this has entailed much bloodshed, as time after time, people lose their rights and must then fight and die to regain them. In the words of a slave-owning white man from your past: "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Until we finally learn to fight for and preserve EVERYONE's rights and not just our own, the price of freedom will always be measured in gallons of blood. and then there is that pesky old debate of defining what things are actually 'rights',,,other than the very vague life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness described in our declaration of independence Forget all that written crap. The law is very simple. Every reasonable human being knows the law. We are paractically born with the knowledge of what is right & wrong & fair & unfair. This is the innate knowledge of natural law that is coded into the human genes. To put it into its simplest terms, you have the right to do as or claim what you please, so long as your deeds & claims do not infringe on the right of another. Put yet another way for clarity, You have the right to do as you please, so long as you do no harm. (As always that right comes with the duty to respect and honour that right for everyone.) All the written law in the world is based on this simple principle and any "law" that is not in accord with it, while "legal", is not lawful & therefore should be rescinded or repealed. Legal slavery is a good example of what was once thought to be lawful (because slaves were not considered "men"), and a the "tradition" of slavery stretched back for eons. Only in the last couple of hundred years did people realize the "law" was unlawful and create positive laws to prohibit involuntary servitude. (Too bad they didn't prohibit "ignorant" servitude, because that's how banks & governments get around the anti-slavery laws). The constitution doesn't define your rights (you were BORN with them) it only enumerates some of them by enshrining them on paper so your government doesn't forget some of the more important ones. it seems like things happen to minorities (point of reference: minority is not a race and does not refer to race) throughout history in this country and thats not qualified as the least 'free' times, indeed the majority believe those times to be grand and quite 'free' for them, Societies have always been based on the "democratic" principle of the majority rule, also known as the tyranny of the majority. That's what makes the idea of a republic so appealing. The vote of millions cannot lawfully trample on the right of even one man. but let restraints or laws affect the demographic of the majority and its the end of the world Too bad for the majority…In a republic the rule of law is paramount, and the law will prevail. A true republic is ruled by law, not by men. too bad school doesnt teach that a candidate cant keep any promises that are dependent in any significant way on the participation of others Too bad school doesn't teach the potential candidates not to lie to the people and make promises they know they won't keep, just for the sake of getting elected. In my view, any elected politician that doesn't fulfil his campaign promises should be impeached and tried for fraud. as I have stated many times before, I can probably count on one hand how many times I have heard a candidate use the word 'promise' in attachment to creating a law or changing a law,,,, but people dont want to hear a candidate constantly say they will 'try', its not 'leadership' language even though its the only promise any politician can make being no one politician is the whole government,,,or has the full authority to do much of anything on their own,,, In that case, they should be impeached and charged with breach of promise (civilly) and possibly criminal fraud if it can be shown that the breach was intentional. The law looks very dimly on that. An intentional breach of promise is called fraud, and is a punishable criminal offence, an unintentional breach only leaves one open to a civil suit by the injured party(s) for monetary damages resulting from it. there is no law against breaking promises, only contracts and proving 'intentional' fraud would be a large waste of even more time that could be devoted to things that would actually be making america a BETTER place for the people here,,, What is a promise if not a unilateral contract that is tacitly accepted by the other party(s)? What is breach of promise if not a failure to fulfil the terms by providing the valuable consideration? If there were no law against breaking promises, I could write all the fraudulent bonds I wanted, couldn't I? I know proving fraud can be difficult, and sometimes impossible (thanks to he always reserved "plausible deniability"), but if there is sufficient evidence for a prima facie case, the accused should nevertheless be charged and brought before a court of competent jurisdiction for trial. Impeaching the crooked candidates shortly after they are elected (thus preventing them from doing much damage to the nation) would probably go a LOOOONNNNGGGG way to making America a MUCH better place for its people. It is one thing to prosecute people for knowingly making a false statement while under oath. It is another thing to call for the impeachment of politicians for not fulfilling campaign promises. The former makes sense; the latter is nonsense. Actually, the latter makes excellent sense...In very short order, it would keep the politicians from lying to the whole nation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Toodygirl5
on
Sat 12/29/12 07:02 PM
|
|
America used to be a free country. Sadly it's not anymore. America is said to be the Most free country and that is why, so many are turning it into a not so free country. Too free is not necessarily a good thing, as we see everyday more and more. Did I say I didnt want to be here? Wrong that is your own thinking not mine. Unless I said that, you cant say what I meant by it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
up until 1969, blacks were not 'free' to do many t hings others have been allowed to do since the countrys founding? By the REAL LAW, the black people were always free; they just had to fight the tyranny of the white majority tooth & nail to get their freedom & equality under the law recognized. You can be thankful that you had men of the calibre of MLK to lead that fight. how are blacks now 'less free' than they were in the past? They aren't, however, in general they have joined the white people in the equality of slavery now visited upon everyone. Unfortunately, there are very few who recognize that the country has become a plantation that serves its banking master. "There are none so enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe One possible exception to this might be the Black Panthers. They seem to have an instinctive knowledge that they are free and are willing to fight in the cause of it. 'freedom' isnt equated by whether someones right to do the 'same' is stepped on its whether ANY OF THEIR rights are stepped on in the process Correct. It is the old inch/mile principle. If you surrender ANY of your rights to a tyrant, you will soon find you have lost them ALL. Rights, by their very nature, come with duties. Perhaps the greatest duty of all is to ensure that those rights are there for EVERYONE. Throughout history this has entailed much bloodshed, as time after time, people lose their rights and must then fight and die to regain them. In the words of a slave-owning white man from your past: "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Until we finally learn to fight for and preserve EVERYONE's rights and not just our own, the price of freedom will always be measured in gallons of blood. and then there is that pesky old debate of defining what things are actually 'rights',,,other than the very vague life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness described in our declaration of independence Forget all that written crap. The law is very simple. Every reasonable human being knows the law. We are paractically born with the knowledge of what is right & wrong & fair & unfair. This is the innate knowledge of natural law that is coded into the human genes. To put it into its simplest terms, you have the right to do as or claim what you please, so long as your deeds & claims do not infringe on the right of another. Put yet another way for clarity, You have the right to do as you please, so long as you do no harm. (As always that right comes with the duty to respect and honour that right for everyone.) All the written law in the world is based on this simple principle and any "law" that is not in accord with it, while "legal", is not lawful & therefore should be rescinded or repealed. Legal slavery is a good example of what was once thought to be lawful (because slaves were not considered "men"), and a the "tradition" of slavery stretched back for eons. Only in the last couple of hundred years did people realize the "law" was unlawful and create positive laws to prohibit involuntary servitude. (Too bad they didn't prohibit "ignorant" servitude, because that's how banks & governments get around the anti-slavery laws). The constitution doesn't define your rights (you were BORN with them) it only enumerates some of them by enshrining them on paper so your government doesn't forget some of the more important ones. it seems like things happen to minorities (point of reference: minority is not a race and does not refer to race) throughout history in this country and thats not qualified as the least 'free' times, indeed the majority believe those times to be grand and quite 'free' for them, Societies have always been based on the "democratic" principle of the majority rule, also known as the tyranny of the majority. That's what makes the idea of a republic so appealing. The vote of millions cannot lawfully trample on the right of even one man. but let restraints or laws affect the demographic of the majority and its the end of the world Too bad for the majority…In a republic the rule of law is paramount, and the law will prevail. A true republic is ruled by law, not by men. too bad school doesnt teach that a candidate cant keep any promises that are dependent in any significant way on the participation of others Too bad school doesn't teach the potential candidates not to lie to the people and make promises they know they won't keep, just for the sake of getting elected. In my view, any elected politician that doesn't fulfil his campaign promises should be impeached and tried for fraud. as I have stated many times before, I can probably count on one hand how many times I have heard a candidate use the word 'promise' in attachment to creating a law or changing a law,,,, but people dont want to hear a candidate constantly say they will 'try', its not 'leadership' language even though its the only promise any politician can make being no one politician is the whole government,,,or has the full authority to do much of anything on their own,,, In that case, they should be impeached and charged with breach of promise (civilly) and possibly criminal fraud if it can be shown that the breach was intentional. The law looks very dimly on that. An intentional breach of promise is called fraud, and is a punishable criminal offence, an unintentional breach only leaves one open to a civil suit by the injured party(s) for monetary damages resulting from it. there is no law against breaking promises, only contracts and proving 'intentional' fraud would be a large waste of even more time that could be devoted to things that would actually be making america a BETTER place for the people here,,, What is a promise if not a unilateral contract that is tacitly accepted by the other party(s)? What is breach of promise if not a failure to fulfil the terms by providing the valuable consideration? If there were no law against breaking promises, I could write all the fraudulent bonds I wanted, couldn't I? I know proving fraud can be difficult, and sometimes impossible (thanks to he always reserved "plausible deniability"), but if there is sufficient evidence for a prima facie case, the accused should nevertheless be charged and brought before a court of competent jurisdiction for trial. Impeaching the crooked candidates shortly after they are elected (thus preventing them from doing much damage to the nation) would probably go a LOOOONNNNGGGG way to making America a MUCH better place for its people. a promise is not a LEGAL contract our courts are tied up enough with litigious money motivated suits, saying I promise is protected under free speech unless there is an actual legally accepted CONTRACT involved a bond is a legally accepted CONTRACT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
up until 1969, blacks were not 'free' to do many t hings others have been allowed to do since the countrys founding? By the REAL LAW, the black people were always free; they just had to fight the tyranny of the white majority tooth & nail to get their freedom & equality under the law recognized. You can be thankful that you had men of the calibre of MLK to lead that fight. how are blacks now 'less free' than they were in the past? They aren't, however, in general they have joined the white people in the equality of slavery now visited upon everyone. Unfortunately, there are very few who recognize that the country has become a plantation that serves its banking master. "There are none so enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe One possible exception to this might be the Black Panthers. They seem to have an instinctive knowledge that they are free and are willing to fight in the cause of it. 'freedom' isnt equated by whether someones right to do the 'same' is stepped on its whether ANY OF THEIR rights are stepped on in the process Correct. It is the old inch/mile principle. If you surrender ANY of your rights to a tyrant, you will soon find you have lost them ALL. Rights, by their very nature, come with duties. Perhaps the greatest duty of all is to ensure that those rights are there for EVERYONE. Throughout history this has entailed much bloodshed, as time after time, people lose their rights and must then fight and die to regain them. In the words of a slave-owning white man from your past: "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Until we finally learn to fight for and preserve EVERYONE's rights and not just our own, the price of freedom will always be measured in gallons of blood. and then there is that pesky old debate of defining what things are actually 'rights',,,other than the very vague life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness described in our declaration of independence Forget all that written crap. The law is very simple. Every reasonable human being knows the law. We are paractically born with the knowledge of what is right & wrong & fair & unfair. This is the innate knowledge of natural law that is coded into the human genes. To put it into its simplest terms, you have the right to do as or claim what you please, so long as your deeds & claims do not infringe on the right of another. Put yet another way for clarity, You have the right to do as you please, so long as you do no harm. (As always that right comes with the duty to respect and honour that right for everyone.) All the written law in the world is based on this simple principle and any "law" that is not in accord with it, while "legal", is not lawful & therefore should be rescinded or repealed. Legal slavery is a good example of what was once thought to be lawful (because slaves were not considered "men"), and a the "tradition" of slavery stretched back for eons. Only in the last couple of hundred years did people realize the "law" was unlawful and create positive laws to prohibit involuntary servitude. (Too bad they didn't prohibit "ignorant" servitude, because that's how banks & governments get around the anti-slavery laws). The constitution doesn't define your rights (you were BORN with them) it only enumerates some of them by enshrining them on paper so your government doesn't forget some of the more important ones. it seems like things happen to minorities (point of reference: minority is not a race and does not refer to race) throughout history in this country and thats not qualified as the least 'free' times, indeed the majority believe those times to be grand and quite 'free' for them, Societies have always been based on the "democratic" principle of the majority rule, also known as the tyranny of the majority. That's what makes the idea of a republic so appealing. The vote of millions cannot lawfully trample on the right of even one man. but let restraints or laws affect the demographic of the majority and its the end of the world Too bad for the majority…In a republic the rule of law is paramount, and the law will prevail. A true republic is ruled by law, not by men. too bad school doesnt teach that a candidate cant keep any promises that are dependent in any significant way on the participation of others Too bad school doesn't teach the potential candidates not to lie to the people and make promises they know they won't keep, just for the sake of getting elected. In my view, any elected politician that doesn't fulfil his campaign promises should be impeached and tried for fraud. as I have stated many times before, I can probably count on one hand how many times I have heard a candidate use the word 'promise' in attachment to creating a law or changing a law,,,, but people dont want to hear a candidate constantly say they will 'try', its not 'leadership' language even though its the only promise any politician can make being no one politician is the whole government,,,or has the full authority to do much of anything on their own,,, In that case, they should be impeached and charged with breach of promise (civilly) and possibly criminal fraud if it can be shown that the breach was intentional. The law looks very dimly on that. An intentional breach of promise is called fraud, and is a punishable criminal offence, an unintentional breach only leaves one open to a civil suit by the injured party(s) for monetary damages resulting from it. there is no law against breaking promises, only contracts and proving 'intentional' fraud would be a large waste of even more time that could be devoted to things that would actually be making america a BETTER place for the people here,,, What is a promise if not a unilateral contract that is tacitly accepted by the other party(s)? What is breach of promise if not a failure to fulfil the terms by providing the valuable consideration? If there were no law against breaking promises, I could write all the fraudulent bonds I wanted, couldn't I? I know proving fraud can be difficult, and sometimes impossible (thanks to he always reserved "plausible deniability"), but if there is sufficient evidence for a prima facie case, the accused should nevertheless be charged and brought before a court of competent jurisdiction for trial. Impeaching the crooked candidates shortly after they are elected (thus preventing them from doing much damage to the nation) would probably go a LOOOONNNNGGGG way to making America a MUCH better place for its people. a promise is not a LEGAL contract our courts are tied up enough with litigious money motivated suits, saying I promise is protected under free speech unless there is an actual legally accepted CONTRACT involved a bond is a legally accepted CONTRACT A bond is a conditional promise no different than a campaign promise. Both are unilateral contracts and BOTH are binding under the law...I could care less what the legislated legality might be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone is missing the point here. What I'm referring to is the laws that this administration has passed such as the government can arrest anybody they want and hold them for as long as they want and not have to charge them with anything. That's loss of freedom. Wow, what a wild claim that you make, minus any evidence to support it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
America used to be a free country. Sadly it's not anymore. We were on our way at one point... It almost seems as though people don't want it now. Not having to be responsible and enjoying a tranquil, routine lifestyle i guess takes priority. People forget history and become too complacent. Hence, why history repeats itself i suppose. history tends to repeat itself anyway - also there is nothing wrong with a peaceful routine lifestyle nice to live in a country where that is possible one thing this thread does is clearly evidence that many are not aware of our freedoms, what they are, & how they are protected for us sad bring back 4th grade civics and you HAVE to pass 
It is nice to live in a peaceful routine lifestyle, i agree. I do wonder if such a lifestyle ends corrupts us in the long term... This lifestyle in question should definitely be a goal of ours, but it should not sought at the expense of liberty. You make a good point of going back to the basics. All too often people forget why we have certain rights. Sad, i agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is naive though, isn't it? Believing, thinking even, that we can outlast the greatest civilizations in history. It becomes so insane that we create mythos around our own destruction and hinge it on numbers created by us, now that...That is one hell of an effin' ego.
The belief that any of us can determine when, or even if, this country will fall is naive too. Even the Egyptian Empire had ups and downs, and they went on to last thousands of years...This is just how it happens when you create a civilization, it can't be good all of the time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally. ==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion. ==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... An 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burka is only subject to having her neck and head searched. ==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money. ==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher "cute" but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable. ==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments. ==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of "underprivileged" drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools of a “home”. ==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while some slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones. ==================================== ==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government. ==================================== ==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual. ==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iPhones, TV's and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars). ==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you "safe". ==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Sat 12/29/12 07:40 PM
|
|
It is naive though, isn't it? Believing, thinking even, that we can outlast the greatest civilizations in history. It becomes so insane that we create mythos around our own destruction and hinge it on numbers created by us, now that...That is one hell of an effin' ego. The belief that any of us can determine when, or even if, this country will fall is naive too. Even the Egyptian Empire had ups and downs, and they went on to last thousands of years...This is just how it happens when you create a civilization, it can't be good all of the time. The duration of empires has shortened over the millennia. The earliest empires lasted for thousands of years. Two thousand years ago, they measured their duration in the several hundreds of years. Today's American empire will last less than two hundred and fifty years. It has already seen its rise and the bulk of its fall. The similarity to the Roman Empire is almost spooky. Right up until the Sack of Rome by the barbarians, the Roman citizens believed they were still a mighty empire, even though it had long since fallen past the point of no return. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is naive though, isn't it? Believing, thinking even, that we can outlast the greatest civilizations in history. It becomes so insane that we create mythos around our own destruction and hinge it on numbers created by us, now that...That is one hell of an effin' ego. The belief that any of us can determine when, or even if, this country will fall is naive too. Even the Egyptian Empire had ups and downs, and they went on to last thousands of years...This is just how it happens when you create a civilization, it can't be good all of the time. The duration of empires has shortened over the millennia. The earliest empires lasted for thousands of years. Two thousand years ago, they measured their duration in the several hundreds of years. Today's American empire will last less than two hundred and fifty years. It has already seen its rise and the bulk of its fall. The similarity to the Roman Empire is almost spooky. Right up until the Sack of Rome by the barbarians, the Roman citizens believed they were still a mighty empire, even though it had long since fallen past the point of no return. And a hundred years before it fell I'm sure similar stories sprung up over whatever issue they were having at the time. Point is, if it happens there isn't much you or I can do...And all that we can do is hope it doesn't happen. Because we are beyond controlling it, we had our chance years ago to kill it before it even began and we chose the other direction...Our government didn't kill our country, our apathy killed it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone is missing the point here. What I'm referring to is the laws that this administration has passed such as the government can arrest anybody they want and hold them for as long as they want and not have to charge them with anything. That's loss of freedom. Wow, what a wild claim that you make, minus any evidence to support it. Then you should be able to provide a link to a news story that supports your claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Sat 12/29/12 08:12 PM
|
|
we had our chance years ago to kill it before it even began and we chose the other direction...Our government didn't kill our country, our apathy killed it. Correction...It isn't yet dead. Where there is life there is hope...but not if we sit on our collective *** thinking it's all over and we have lost. I don't care if I have to lead the charge all by myself; I will not stand by and see the banks enslave the entire human race. If I happen to fall in the battle, at least I will die with honour for fighting the just cause. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees for the rest of my life. (for one thing, it's easier on the pants.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone is missing the point here. What I'm referring to is the laws that this administration has passed such as the government can arrest anybody they want and hold them for as long as they want and not have to charge them with anything. That's loss of freedom. Wow, what a wild claim that you make, minus any evidence to support it. Then you should be able to provide a link to a news story that supports your claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone is missing the point here. What I'm referring to is the laws that this administration has passed such as the government can arrest anybody they want and hold them for as long as they want and not have to charge them with anything. That's loss of freedom. Wow, what a wild claim that you make, minus any evidence to support it. Then you should be able to provide a link to a news story that supports your claim. exactly when did the PRESIDENT remove language from this bill? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone is missing the point here. What I'm referring to is the laws that this administration has passed such as the government can arrest anybody they want and hold them for as long as they want and not have to charge them with anything. That's loss of freedom. Wow, what a wild claim that you make, minus any evidence to support it. Then you should be able to provide a link to a news story that supports your claim. exactly when did the PRESIDENT remove language from this bill? I am still waiting for a hyperlink to a news report confirming the aforementioned claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for those who wish to read the text of the bill proposed by CONGRESS to the president
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone is missing the point here. What I'm referring to is the laws that this administration has passed such as the government can arrest anybody they want and hold them for as long as they want and not have to charge them with anything. That's loss of freedom. Wow, what a wild claim that you make, minus any evidence to support it. Then you should be able to provide a link to a news story that supports your claim. exactly when did the PRESIDENT remove language from this bill? I am still waiting for a hyperlink to a news report confirming the aforementioned claim. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Videos.php/2011/12/12/proof-obama-will-sign-ndaa-1031-citizen- I haven't read it yet, but presumably the above link should verify the claim. All I really know is that amendments were proposed to the NDAA, but the proposals died on the floor. As it stands now, ANY American citizen (or anybody else for that matter) ANYWHERE can be arrested and imprisoned without recourse to a court of law (i.e. without habeas corpus) INDEFINITELY (up to and including the end of his life). Effectively, the president can have anyone "disappeared" on his say-so, just like Joseph Stalin or Hitler. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone is missing the point here. What I'm referring to is the laws that this administration has passed such as the government can arrest anybody they want and hold them for as long as they want and not have to charge them with anything. That's loss of freedom. Wow, what a wild claim that you make, minus any evidence to support it. Then you should be able to provide a link to a news story that supports your claim. exactly when did the PRESIDENT remove language from this bill? I am still waiting for a hyperlink to a news report confirming the aforementioned claim. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Videos.php/2011/12/12/proof-obama-will-sign-ndaa-1031-citizen- I haven't read it yet, but presumably the above link should verify the claim. All I really know is that amendments were proposed to the NDAA, but the proposals died on the floor. As it stands now, ANY American citizen (or anybody else for that matter) ANYWHERE can be arrested and imprisoned without recourse to a court of law (i.e. without habeas corpus) INDEFINITELY (up to and including the end of his life). Effectively, the president can have anyone "disappeared" on his say-so, just like Joseph Stalin or Hitler. this was already true under Bushs AUMF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Sat 12/29/12 10:18 PM
|
|
Everyone is missing the point here. What I'm referring to is the laws that this administration has passed such as the government can arrest anybody they want and hold them for as long as they want and not have to charge them with anything. That's loss of freedom. Wow, what a wild claim that you make, minus any evidence to support it. Then you should be able to provide a link to a news story that supports your claim. exactly when did the PRESIDENT remove language from this bill? I am still waiting for a hyperlink to a news report confirming the aforementioned claim. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Videos.php/2011/12/12/proof-obama-will-sign-ndaa-1031-citizen- I haven't read it yet, but presumably the above link should verify the claim. All I really know is that amendments were proposed to the NDAA, but the proposals died on the floor. As it stands now, ANY American citizen (or anybody else for that matter) ANYWHERE can be arrested and imprisoned without recourse to a court of law (i.e. without habeas corpus) INDEFINITELY (up to and including the end of his life). Effectively, the president can have anyone "disappeared" on his say-so, just like Joseph Stalin or Hitler. this was already true under Bushs AUMF It was true even before that. basically, the US government has been a tyranny since 1913. JFK gave it the last shot at straightening things out, and you know what happened to him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go to www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B16bMwXs_8 I don't know how to put a like on here.
|
|
|
|
|
