Obama Impeachment

[Valsuelm]

Actually I'm only vaguely aware of that law, but my point is so is most everyone else, am I wrong?

 

Anyone supporting it certainly. Unless they are an evil MFer.

 

No one with any sense of even a smidgeon of appreciation for liberty and the U.S. Constitution would support the U.S. Patriot Act. And it's worth noting that a majority on Capital Hill have supported it for over a decade. There's probably no better litmus test in determining if your representative is fighting for your freedoms and/or competent than if they support the Patriot Act or not.

 

I've not read the whole thing, but I have read a bunch, more than enough to see how bad it is. And I'm aware of how it was written before 9/11, shoved through Congress, and what's been done in it's name since. It is an evil act through and through, and a good example of doublespeak in regards to how it's named as anyone but a real U.S. patriot would support this act if they actually were aware of what's in it. And supporting any act without being aware of what's in it is just plain dumb.

 

Just because you've chosen to be unaware of something that is in the public domain, do not assume that most everyone else has chosen to be unaware as well.

[Valsuelm]

 

Personally I think that some of the dislike of Obama is not really based on his policies but on the fact he is black and how some people resent the fact they see there interpretation of what defines the USA as changing. I'm not saying this is why you dislike Obama as you have given your reasons in the past and they are not based on his race. But surly you can't deny that some of the criticism of Obama  are really about racial perspective?

 

 

I know racist people. I've seen racism firsthand directed at others in a real way (not just calling someone a name, but in a manner that actually hurts the individual in some way), and have experienced it directed at myself in a real way. It exists. It however does not exist as a common thing to a level that it affects more than a smidgeon of the U.S. population's opinion of Obama. Those that defend Obama on grounds of racism really just show how little there is to defend, and/or show how per-occupied with race they are themselves.

 

Racism isn't even remotely as prevalent in the U.S. as it is in South Africa (where it is still probably worse than it ever was in the U.S. as a whole, even in the darkest of times in that regard) or as some in the U.S. media would have you believe, and not even remotely might be an understatement. Also, It is probably safe to say Obama has gotten more votes due to his skin color than those he's lost because of it. I've heard far far far far more people say they were voting for Obama because he's black (in 2008) because they thought it was time for a black president than say they wouldn't vote for him because he was black. That Obama was black was overall an asset in 2008 USA, not a liability.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Bryy]

So you assume each and every one was guilty as charged and deserved death by Obama? Very well.

Hey, I have an idea.

 

Some doctors are tall. Some doctors are men.

 

That means all men must be tall.

 

As for the "charged and deserved death by Obama" bull****, you do know there's this thing called the military, right?

[Hurlshort]

 

So I clicked on Valsuelm's link...

 

 

Let's just say I really nailed it when I mentioned Reagan's negative effect on mental health care.

 

 

Oh? So you're insinuating I'm crazy? What's wrong with the link? Obviously you didn't realize what it was if you're making that insinuation. Either that or you're a extra special level of brainwashed to have such a knee jerk reaction to what I linked. I'll give you the option to check again. I'll agree the website could be better designed, but the information I linked is anything but crazy. It's one of the best books I've ever read (and I read a lot) for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is it's enlightening on a level that most are not, especially if you know your history, and have done research yourself on some of the subjects the author touches on.

 

If I recall right you're a teacher aren't you? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall you saying such sometime ago. If there was ever a book you should read as a teacher or as a parent if you have kids in the public school system in the U.S., Europe, or any other nation that has a schooling model based on theirs (which is most at this point), the book I linked or possibly another one by the same author is one that should be read. The author, John Taylor Gatto, was kind enough to put the book I linked on his website for free. If you don't know who he is, I suggest you look him up, and then read his book either on the website or order a copy.

 

Also, putting aside the innumerable things wrong with the 'mental health care' system in our nation, what gives the Federal government Constitutional authority to say or do anything at all in regards to 'mental health'?

 

 

I wasn't insinuating anything about you, the barb was pointed more John Taylor Gatto.  But I do apologize for being dismissive, thank you for responding.

 

I am a big supporter of education reform and thinking critically about how we teach.  Gatto has earned the right to be critical of education, for sure, but he comes across as a doomsday prophet with a lot of his hyperbole.  Here is a response that I identify with and is better written than I can manage at this point:

 

http://researchnetwork.pearson.com/college-career-success/all-criticism-and-no-leadership-make-jack-a-bad-instructor

[Calax]

 

And that's all you need to know about Teddy R

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

And that's all you need to know about Teddy R

God that Deadpool run has been fun.

[teknoman2]

http://www.rense.com/general96/putinvobama.html

to lighten the mood

[BruceVC]

 

 

Personally I think that some of the dislike of Obama is not really based on his policies but on the fact he is black and how some people resent the fact they see there interpretation of what defines the USA as changing. I'm not saying this is why you dislike Obama as you have given your reasons in the past and they are not based on his race. But surly you can't deny that some of the criticism of Obama  are really about racial perspective?

 

 

I know racist people. I've seen racism firsthand directed at others in a real way (not just calling someone a name, but in a manner that actually hurts the individual in some way), and have experienced it directed at myself in a real way. It exists. It however does not exist as a common thing to a level that it affects more than a smidgeon of the U.S. population's opinion of Obama. Those that defend Obama on grounds of racism really just show how little there is to defend, and/or show how per-occupied with race they are themselves.

 

Racism isn't even remotely as prevalent in the U.S. as it is in South Africa (where it is still probably worse than it ever was in the U.S. as a whole, even in the darkest of times in that regard) or as some in the U.S. media would have you believe, and not even remotely might be an understatement. Also, It is probably safe to say Obama has gotten more votes due to his skin color than those he's lost because of it. I've heard far far far far more people say they were voting for Obama because he's black (in 2008) because they thought it was time for a black president than say they wouldn't vote for him because he was black. That Obama was black was overall an asset in 2008 USA, not a liability.

 

 

Valsuelm can I ask you a favor, I have noticed a slightly annoying trend lately from some people where I make a point around a particular issue of social justice and part of the response is "but in South Africa you xx " or in South Africa there is xxx". I'm not talking about South Africa and the obvious social ills that our society grapples with. We can start a separate discussion around the social problems that South Africa faces and I'll gladly partake in it.

 

Saying all that you make some good points. You feel race has very little to do with the condemnation Obama faces, I can't dispute your opinion so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Finally I find myself disagreeing with most of what you say on topics. But I want to recognize the fact that you take the time and effort to make your point, the foundation of a debate is the principle of constructive views. You don't ever say things like " well you are wrong because I'm right". You articulate your point and I appreciate that. So keep up the good debate etiquette

[Meshugger]

 

So you assume each and every one was guilty as charged and deserved death by Obama? Very well.

Hey, I have an idea.

 

Some doctors are tall. Some doctors are men.

 

That means all men must be tall.

 

As for the "charged and deserved death by Obama" bull****, you do know there's this thing called the military, right?

 

 

Drone attacks are mostly conducted by JSOC. JSOC does not report to the military, it reports directly to the White House. Which is worse? Obama being the one signing for the attack or an intern for the associate security adviser? 

 

Oh well, the whole NSA thing also. Great legacy, wonderful legacy, Barry.

[Cultist]

Impeachment is not for presidents who suck or poor leaders, it's for presidents, who declare themselves rulers of birds in the air and fishes in the oceans, or start building 100 meter tall golden statues to themselves.

[Tagaziel]

 

By the way, Clinton was not impeached, at least not in a way that ousted him from office. He was acquitted two months later by the Senate.

 

Yes he was acquitted but he WAS impeached.   Impeachment is simply the process of bringing charges against a Federal Official.  That's it.  It is just a bill of indictment.   It is NOT the act of removing that official from office.  That is done automatically if the subsequent trial (after a successful bill of impeachment is brought against the official) ends in a conviction.   The trial is NOT part of the impeachment process. 

 

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

 

 

US Constitution, Article 2 section 4

 

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors

 

 

Investigator Kenneth Starr brought 11 charges against Bill Clinton.   The House Judiciary Committee forwarded four charges to the House of Representatives. The House approved two of the four impeachment articles sent up by the Judiciary Committee, rejecting Article II (Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case) and Article IV (Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee) .but passing Articles 1 (Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury) and Article III (Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case)..  When the House successfully approved articles I and III, Bill Clinton had been impeached (indicted).   

 

Clinton was subsequently tried in Senate trial resided by Chief Justice William Rehnquist; was acquitted and remained in office.    

 

Here's a link with the full text of the articles of impeachment passed by the house:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm#full1

 

Here's a link with the reduced text of all four original articles considered by the house

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm

 

 

Here's a NYTimes link that lays out the process:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/impeachment/

 

William Jefferson Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice by a divided House of Representatives, which recommended virtually along party lines that the Senate remove the nation's 42d President from office.  NYTimes December 18,1998

 

And that's the reason I prefer continental law. Thanks for the correction, though as pointed out Bartimaeus, impeachment is generally synonymous with removal from office around these parts (though it may vary by state).

 

U.S. impeachment also differs from European impeachment. Isn't impeachment the actual act of conviction in the U.K., for example, whereas U.S. impeachment is merely the go ahead for the trial to take place?

In Poland the procedure is entirely different, as impeachment is decided by the State Tribunal, after a motion by the National Assembly (Sejm + Senate).

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

Racism ... hatred of government ... they're the same

Wait a minute here. I've read this three times and I want to make sure I am getting your meaning. Are you actually suggesting that distrust (hatred in your words) of government is the same as racism? Or is somehow rooted in racism? If so that is the most appallingly stupid thing I've ever seen posted here. And considering the folks who post here, that is saying a lot.

 

Please tell me I'm misunderstanding what you are driving at. If so, my apologies.

 

 

Personally I think that some of the dislike of Obama is not really based on his policies but on the fact he is black and how some people resent the fact they see there interpretation of what defines the USA as changing. I'm not saying this is why you dislike Obama as you have given your reasons in the past and they are not based on his race. But surly you can't deny that some of the criticism of Obama  are really about racial perspective?

 

Sorry, you are really off base on this one. By this logic the only way we would not be racist is if we rolled over and gave him everything he wanted. His opposition if rooted in ideology, and in some cases good old common sense.

 

You know, I KNEW I'd had this conversation before. Read posts 408 & 412 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/49786-us-presidential-elections/page-21?do=findComment&comment=886880

[213374U]

Actually I'm only vaguely aware of that law, but my point is so is most everyone else, am I wrong?

 

If you are only vaguely aware of USAPATRIOT, then you may be more qualified to speak about it that the people who voted it into law.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y_Ej_RA5Bf0C&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

That's some healthy lawmaking, right there.

Edited March 9, 2014 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

 

 

 

 

 

Racism ... hatred of government ... they're the same

Wait a minute here. I've read this three times and I want to make sure I am getting your meaning. Are you actually suggesting that distrust (hatred in your words) of government is the same as racism? Or is somehow rooted in racism? If so that is the most appallingly stupid thing I've ever seen posted here. And considering the folks who post here, that is saying a lot.

 

Please tell me I'm misunderstanding what you are driving at. If so, my apologies.

 

 

Personally I think that some of the dislike of Obama is not really based on his policies but on the fact he is black and how some people resent the fact they see there interpretation of what defines the USA as changing. I'm not saying this is why you dislike Obama as you have given your reasons in the past and they are not based on his race. But surly you can't deny that some of the criticism of Obama  are really about racial perspective?

 

Sorry, you are really off base on this one. By this logic the only way we would not be racist is if we rolled over and gave him everything he wanted. His opposition if rooted in ideology, and in some cases good old common sense.

 

You know, I KNEW I'd had this conversation before. Read posts 408 & 412 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/49786-us-presidential-elections/page-21?do=findComment&comment=886880

 

 

Of course _some_ of his critics are racist. Just as some have small feet. And when they critique him it will be from a racist - or evil small footed - perspective. But it doesn't mean all critics mince about in tiny black brogues.

 

I might have lost the thread of that one.

[Valsuelm]

I wasn't insinuating anything about you, the barb was pointed more John Taylor Gatto.  But I do apologize for being dismissive, thank you for responding.

 

I am a big supporter of education reform and thinking critically about how we teach.  Gatto has earned the right to be critical of education, for sure, but he comes across as a doomsday prophet with a lot of his hyperbole.  Here is a response that I identify with and is better written than I can manage at this point:

 

http://researchnetwork.pearson.com/college-career-success/all-criticism-and-no-leadership-make-jack-a-bad-instructor

 

 

I wouldn't ever accuse John Taylor Gatto of being a doomsday prophet. Of all the folks I know of that talk about the U.S. education system in a no nonsense manner (which is few people at the national level) I'd actually place him among the most positive of them all. He's a pretty enlightened lighthearted guy in my estimation. A beacon of enlightenment in the dark sea of bull**** that makes up most of what is our discourse on education at the national level is these days.

 

That said, the history of our education and current condition of it truly can come off of as an overwhelmingly negative thing, and John Taylor Gatto is the bearer of bad news to many folks who are unfamiliar with some of what he's talking about. That things have gotten markedly worse in just the last 20 years makes much of what he says all the more relevant. John, a multiple award winning teacher (and very deserving of those awards), likely wouldn't last in today's school system, he would likely be fired, as would many of the better teachers I had growing up. Things are not good. But I'm not looking to get into a debate about the current school system.

 

I read your link (thank you for it), and I think the guy who wrote that article is lazy in his critique, is probably a little too self absorbed. has entirely missed much of the meat of John's work, and if he's limited himself to just reading John's short essays (which he seems to have done) then he's missing out on most of what John ever talks/writes about. John does indeed offer some solutions, but they are solutions the typical holder of a PhD in education are not going to swallow or recognize, as they are a part of the problem more than most anything else, and part of John's solution would mean the elimination of most of such people's jobs.

 

John's best work in my opinion has nothing to do with solutions though, and that's when he writes/talks of the history of the modern education system and is just serving as a historian (it is not a historian's job to offer solutions). And this is why I linked Gatto, and used the specific link I did, as the book 'The Underground History of American Education' was pertinent to what I was talking about. It's a good book, and I highly recommend reading it to anyone, but especially teachers and parents of those in our state sponsored education system. But it's really a good read for anyone who wants to know how and why we got where we are.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

Valsuelm can I ask you a favor, I have noticed a slightly annoying trend lately from some people where I make a point around a particular issue of social justice and part of the response is "but in South Africa you xx " or in South Africa there is xxx". I'm not talking about South Africa and the obvious social ills that our society grapples with. We can start a separate discussion around the social problems that South Africa faces and I'll gladly partake in it.

 

Saying all that you make some good points. You feel race has very little to do with the condemnation Obama faces, I can't dispute your opinion so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Finally I find myself disagreeing with most of what you say on topics. But I want to recognize the fact that you take the time and effort to make your point, the foundation of a debate is the principle of constructive views. You don't ever say things like " well you are wrong because I'm right". You articulate your point and I appreciate that. So keep up the good debate etiquette

 

 

I mentioned racism in South Africa as that's where you're from (I assume you're truthful with your location), and what I was attempting to do was point out the marked differences between our nations on the issue to say to you that it's not as bad here as you seem to think in regards to racism. It really isn't, not even remotely. I didn't do it to belittle you or your nation. I surmised that perhaps you might have a tough time believing that given the exceptional levels of racism in your backyard and how some U.S. media constantly manufactures stories to stoke the fires of racism.

 

Race simply is the most minor of factors when it comes to Obama, just as sex is when it comes to a female like Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin. So minor it's really not worthy of being discussed. 'Racism' and 'sexism' are terms far more often used as a weapon to marginalize by the lowest of the low of journalists and politicians than they are actually used as factors to determine someone's vote positively or negatively. And while there are no numbers on it and never likely will be (as how do you even measure such a thing?) I think anyone who's really paying attention to what goes on and talks to a lot of different people would say that Obama got far more votes because he was black than he lost votes because he was black, and the same goes for Hillary, Sarah, and others in regards to their sex and race. Genuine racism exists in the U.S., but the hypersensitivity to it, the false sense of guilt, and false sense of entitlement is far far far more common amongst the populace.

 

As for us disagreeing a lot. Yes. You come across to me as someone who believes almost wholeheartedly in the official western state supported dialogue on almost every subject that ever comes up on these forums. (I am simplifying this critique.) I think I question things a lot more than you do, in essence because many years ago I realized I was being lied to, and a lot. I used to believe a lot of the same bull**** you do but upon realizing that some of it was bull**** I dug for truth, I found some, and it was anything but pretty. I don't think you realize how much of what you think is true is a bunch of lies (your latest thread on 'banbossy' is a good example), and I think you should question things more than you do before you jump on a bandwagon. As I've said on these forums before: Always ask yourself 'Why am I being shown this?' 'Why is this a news story?' and 'Cui Bono?'

 

If we were sitting in a pub or on a dock by a lake on a regular basis over the course of time I think I could convince you of many a thing (I have success doing this with people; truth is a powerful convincing tool for all but the most delusional), but it's hard to debate on a forum, and not knowing where you come from (why you think as you do) on whatever issue it is we're discussing. But really, question things more. Have no heroes, always ask 'why?'. The answers are not what many seem to be on the surface. The world is often not as advertised on television and in the major print publications (both of which are largely owned by the same folks, worldwide at this point).

 

Edited March 11, 2014 by Valsuelm

[obyknven]

Reason for Obama Impeachment.

US to violate own laws by financially aiding Ukraine’s coup-installed govt .

http://rt.com/news/us-aid-ukraine-illegal-202/

 

“Indeed, in accordance with the amendments introduced to the 1961 law (Foreign Assistance Act) a few years ago the provision of foreign assistance is prohibited to ‘the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.’ The relevant provision is contained in 22 US Code § 8422,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

“Thus, by all criteria the provision of funds to the illegitimate [Kiev] regime, which seized power by force, is unlawful and goes beyond the boundaries of the US legal system,” the statement added.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Valsuelm can I ask you a favor, I have noticed a slightly annoying trend lately from some people where I make a point around a particular issue of social justice and part of the response is "but in South Africa you xx " or in South Africa there is xxx". I'm not talking about South Africa and the obvious social ills that our society grapples with. We can start a separate discussion around the social problems that South Africa faces and I'll gladly partake in it.

 

Saying all that you make some good points. You feel race has very little to do with the condemnation Obama faces, I can't dispute your opinion so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Finally I find myself disagreeing with most of what you say on topics. But I want to recognize the fact that you take the time and effort to make your point, the foundation of a debate is the principle of constructive views. You don't ever say things like " well you are wrong because I'm right". You articulate your point and I appreciate that. So keep up the good debate etiquette

 

 

I mentioned racism in South Africa as that's where you're from (I assume you're truthful with your location), and what I was attempting to do was point out the marked differences between our nations on the issue to say to you that it's not as bad here as you seem to think in regards to racism. It really isn't, not even remotely. I didn't do it to belittle you or your nation. I surmised that perhaps you might have a tough time believing that given the exceptional levels of racism in your backyard and how some U.S. media constantly manufactures stories to stoke the fires of racism.

 

Race simply is the most minor of factors when it comes to Obama, just as sex is when it comes to a female like Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin. So minor it's really not worthy of being discussed. 'Racism' and 'sexism' are terms far more often used as a weapon to marginalize by the lowest of the low of journalists and politicians than they are actually used as factors to determine someone's vote positively or negatively. And while there are no numbers on it and never likely will be (as how do you even measure such a thing?) I think anyone who's really paying attention to what goes on and talks to a lot of different people would say that Obama got far more votes because he was black than he lost votes because he was black, and the same goes for Hillary, Sarah, and others in regards to their sex and race. Genuine racism exists in the U.S., but the hypersensitivity to it, the false sense of guilt, and false sense of entitlement is far far far more common amongst the populace.

 

As for us disagreeing a lot. Yes. You come across to me as someone who believes almost wholeheartedly in the official western state supported dialogue on almost every subject that ever comes up on these forums. (I am simplifying this critique.) I think I question things a lot more than you do, in essence because many years ago I realized I was being lied to, and a lot. I used to believe a lot of the same bull**** you do but upon realizing that some of it was bull**** I dug for truth, I found some, and it was anything but pretty. I don't think you realize how much of what you think is true is a bunch of lies (your latest thread on 'banbossy' is a good example), and I think you should question things more than you do before you jump on a bandwagon. As I've said on these forums before: Always ask yourself 'Why am I being shown this?' 'Why is this a news story?' and 'Cui Bono?'

 

If we were sitting in a pub or on a dock by a lake on a regular basis over the course of time I think I could convince you of many a thing (I have success doing this with people; truth is a powerful convincing tool for all but the most delusional), but it's hard to debate on a forum, and not knowing where you come from (why you think as you do) on whatever issue it is we're discussing. But really, question things more. Have no heroes, always ask 'why?'. The answers are not what many seem to be on the surface. The world is often not as advertised on television and in the major print publications (both of which are largely owned by the same folks, worldwide at this point).

 

 

Good post

 

I do live in South Africa but I travel a lot  overseas for work....well mostly Africa and the Middle East. We occasionally go to Europe for holiday and my family has an apartment in the UK because my stepmother is worried about the future of the country so she has made substantial investments in the UK. The reason I am mentioning all this is because I don't think my oopinion is insulated based only on a South African perspective.

 

It would be great to meet someday and have a beer, or 2, and discuss our views in person because I agree a forum isn't always the best medium to make an effective point

Edited March 12, 2014 by BruceVC

[HoonDing]

[Bryy]

 

 

So you assume each and every one was guilty as charged and deserved death by Obama? Very well.

Hey, I have an idea.

 

Some doctors are tall. Some doctors are men.

 

That means all men must be tall.

 

As for the "charged and deserved death by Obama" bull****, you do know there's this thing called the military, right?

 

 

Drone attacks are mostly conducted by JSOC. JSOC does not report to the military, it reports directly to the White House. Which is worse? Obama being the one signing for the attack or an intern for the associate security adviser? 

 

Oh well, the whole NSA thing also. Great legacy, wonderful legacy, Barry.

 

I bet you can tell us all about what really happened to JFK, as well.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

So you assume each and every one was guilty as charged and deserved death by Obama? Very well.

Hey, I have an idea.

 

Some doctors are tall. Some doctors are men.

 

That means all men must be tall.

 

As for the "charged and deserved death by Obama" bull****, you do know there's this thing called the military, right?

 

 

Drone attacks are mostly conducted by JSOC. JSOC does not report to the military, it reports directly to the White House. Which is worse? Obama being the one signing for the attack or an intern for the associate security adviser? 

 

Oh well, the whole NSA thing also. Great legacy, wonderful legacy, Barry.

 

I bet you can tell us all about what really happened to JFK, as well.

 

 

Running out of arguments, are we now? Try harder. You should visit the memorial in Dallas however, they even marked the first and second hit on the road. 

 

Back to Barry. As others have already said, repeal the patriot act already. It's very name is a travesty.

[alanschu]

 

Actually I'm only vaguely aware of that law, but my point is so is most everyone else, am I wrong?

 

If you are only vaguely aware of USAPATRIOT, then you may be more qualified to speak about it that the people who voted it into law.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y_Ej_RA5Bf0C&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

That's some healthy lawmaking, right there.

 

 

Unfortunately I have an aversion to anything associated with Michael Moore....

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Actually I'm only vaguely aware of that law, but my point is so is most everyone else, am I wrong?

 

If you are only vaguely aware of USAPATRIOT, then you may be more qualified to speak about it that the people who voted it into law.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y_Ej_RA5Bf0C&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

That's some healthy lawmaking, right there.

 

 

Unfortunately I have an aversion to anything associated with Michael Moore....

 

 

It's a well deserved aversion, but even Moore has a hand in a few good things. The above just illustrates what's also illustrated and discussed elsewhere: that the 'Patriot Act' was shoved through congress without being read.

 

That's important, but also important if not moreso is since that time congress and everyone else has had more than enough time to read it, and yet a majority of congress continues to vote for the renewal of expiring provisions and our President signs it into law, repeatedly (despite the fact that much of it is illegal on Constitutional grounds), whenever the occasion arises. We as a nation continue to elect people who either don't care about our rights and the Constitution, are too stupid to realize what they are, or are downright evil and want to take them away. None of that bodes well for us.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Valsuelm

[teknoman2]

 

 

 

So you assume each and every one was guilty as charged and deserved death by Obama? Very well.

Hey, I have an idea.

 

Some doctors are tall. Some doctors are men.

 

That means all men must be tall.

 

As for the "charged and deserved death by Obama" bull****, you do know there's this thing called the military, right?

 

 

Drone attacks are mostly conducted by JSOC. JSOC does not report to the military, it reports directly to the White House. Which is worse? Obama being the one signing for the attack or an intern for the associate security adviser? 

 

Oh well, the whole NSA thing also. Great legacy, wonderful legacy, Barry.

 

I bet you can tell us all about what really happened to JFK, as well.

 

he made a law that took control of currency out of the hands of the federal reserve (private) bank and returned it to the government. so new currency could be printed and distributed directly by the state and not loaned by someone with a printing press. that was a few days before he died. the next day his vice (and now acting) president revoked the law

[Calax]

Meanwhile we've got the "Enforce the Law" act that just sailed through the House.

 

Not entirely sure that this is going to go the way that those in the house want it to if you ask me.