Judge Napolitano: We are now under martial law. Everyone in this country is now a potential terroris

Originally posted by HeavenWolf
Just a thought, and some of you may label it as moronic.. but what if Ron Paul does get nomination, and everything. And he is then deemed a terrorist and then detained? I mean the provisions already in place could basically allow individuals to streeetch it to cover whatever they need. It almost seem like the uber feinshmekers want the American constituents to start rise up and give them a real reason to crack down.

Yes, it would be a really moronic thing for the government to do. To go through all the pains of making such arrests legal, only to give the game away by arresting such a prominent person as Ron Paul would be stupidity of the highest order.

If Ron Paul is really considered such a threat, there are several ways of eliminating such a threat without looking so stupid. That is, unless Obama is a great patriot who beieves that the US can be saved only through a popular revolution and expects such an action to trigger a popular armed revolt against the entire establishment.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

They perish because they refused to love the truth, For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie,

The father of lies.

reply to post by ReadyPower

You do realize we're in a war time situation RIGHT NOW.

We've been at war since 2001-03.

I am SSSSOOO happy to be here on this little island called the UK.
No such laws have changed things here, nor have I heard of any on the pipeline.
us Brits fight, we fight hard. If this was to happen here (it NEVER would)
Our armed forces and our police would side with the general public.

I fear for you guys in the US, I really do. If "if" what I am reading is true, it does "seem" like Germany in the early to mid 30s. I mean, go look at the presidents poidum he gives his "state of the union" address on. Look whats behind him. Sybolistic OR WHAT...
...Scarey, thats what it is.

I am a nobody, with no opinion other than what the Internet throws at me. I love wee Scotland. Wouldnt change this wee paradise for all the gold in fort kno.....oh, wait.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
We americans have a say in the sence that we elect the people who made the legal structure in question, but typically we have to vote for candidates selected and financially maintained by the system. Who knows how a candidate appears on a ballot? Something to do with the system liking him or her.

Another set of questions from another "alien" (which, only in America, apparently can mean both an extraterrestrial and a non-American, which apparently are considered being one and the same):

1. As for voting in the US, I understand that you first have to register as agreeing with a certain party in order to be allowed to vote for it. So what is then the point of actually voting? Using an extract from that party affiliation database should be enough.

2. I also understand that the citizens do not actually vote directly for a candidate, but that their vote is simply being used to give an indication for who the real voters should vote. My understanding is that those voters (whoever they are) are being called "the electors", and that they could potentially vote totally different from what the ordinary citizens indicated in their votes.

3. My understanding is also that there are only 2 parties to choose from. Although being 100% more than in North Korea, that is still not a very wide selection of party agendas to choose from.

I might be totally wrong about this, but in either case... please enlighten me.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
....And if I read one post suggesting there have been no successful terrorist attacks because they were thwarted by our government (such as the "underwear bomber"), I'm quite sure my head will explode and my monitor will be riddled with brain matter.

Do you believe that a lone guy hiding some small explosives in his underpants, having the only effect to give that guy slight burn marks on his privates, to be comparable to something that brought two sky scrapers down? If that is indeed the case, then please explain your reasoning.

reply to post by moniker

I am not an American, but lived there for a few years and consider myself to be reasonably familiar with their political system, so venture to answer your questions.

1. As for voting in the US, I understand that you first have to register as agreeing with a certain party in order to be allowed to vote for it. So what is then the point of actually voting? Using an extract from that party affiliation database should be enough.

False. You need not be registered with any party to vote for a candidate of that party. However, they have a system called 'primaries' to select the candidate, from among those wishing to, that will represent a party. In order to be able to vote in a primary, you must be registered with the state election commission as a member of that party. Even this is not a requirement in many states.

2. I also understand that the citizens do not actually vote directly for a candidate, but that their vote is simply being used to give an indication for who the real voters should vote. My understanding is that those voters (whoever they are) are being called "the electors", and that they could potentially vote totally different from what the ordinary citizens indicated in their votes.

I think you are referring to the election of the President. Yes, contrary to popular belief, the US President is not directly elected by the people, but by an electoral college. The memebrs of the electoral college are nominated by the states. The convention, not law, in most states is to let the people for a Presidential candidate and the one polling the most votes in the state gets to nominate all the electors from the state. There is one state which in 2004 decided to distribute the electors according the percentage vote received, but I am not sure if that is in effect yet. Since the electors are nominated by the candidate winning the popular vote in that state, it is extremely unlikely, although not impossible, that they will vote for a different candidate in the electoral college.

3. My understanding is also that there are only 2 parties to choose from. Although being 100% more than in North Korea, that is still not a very wide selection of party agendas to choose from.

Your understanding is completely wrong. There are more than a dozen registered political parties in the US and there is no limit on what the number can be. But historically the two parties Republican and Democratic have dominated the political dialogue and all but these two garner insignificant percentage of vote.

Link to a handy guide just in case of unconstitutional detention.


a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...

reply to post by moniker


That is all true, but if the selection proccess started at the local level say at the size of a school district, the parties could die a natural death and the candidates could be truely representative of the populace. The system could work alot better than it does.