Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'

page: 7
95
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
So, Obama has "reservations" eh? Poor fellow.

It appears Obama hasn't been properly House trained. When you take a crap on the
constitution, the best course of action is to rub the little fellow's nose in it, and then
promptly place him outside the (white) house. I hope the American people don't get
lazy.

On the lighter side....


Obama and Doctor Ron Paul seem to have something in common, in a weird sort of way...

One of them took the Hippocratic Oath

......and the other is a Hypocrite




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by dubiousone
 





They don't need to amend the Constitution to get away with the normalization of unconstitutional activity. Witness ther Patriot Acts.


No one has empowered and concreted the so called "Patriot Act" more than We the People. People love to whine about the TSA but keep paying damn good money for airline tickets so they can stand in line and wait for their turn to be molested by a government agent. We the People could have refused to fly with major airlines, found others flying in the same direction as We and allied ourselves to make chartering jets and airplanes affordable, but instead We the People appear to be quite happy about just whining about things.

Non-Acquiescence was once an American bedrock. Today surrender and shrugging our shoulders and declaring helplessness is the norm.


You confirmed my point.

By the way, when I tried at 9:14 p.m. to edit my 7:01 p.m. post to correct a spelling error, I get this message:

"You have exceeded the maximum window of 4 hours allowed to edit your post."

So, to the ATS computers, 2 hours and 15 minutes is a longer period of time than 4 hours. Can I get a job as an ATS technician? I can do the math. I'd probably be rejected as overqualified.
edit on 1/1/2012 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I will ask one more time. For all you that bitch and moan constantly, why the hell do you not vote for a smaller party? Take the time to learn what EACH PARTY stands for and vote accordingly. I would also suggest raising hell with the media for allowing these parties to fly under the radar each 4 years.

We need to change the system itself not just the politicians. It is like playing with someone's marked deck of cards and expecting to win. You will lose 90% of the time. DUH!!!!

Ron Paul is not the solution. He maybe a decent fellow with good ideas but he is carrying the republican SEWER with him. Why the hell do people enjoy getting screwed time and time again. Are you a masochist or what? Bush jr, Bush sr, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Carl Rove, Ronald Reagan, Wolfowitz, etc.

The right supports corporations and wealth people. Does america really have millions of millionares or are you all dumber than a box of rocks. Sorry for my condescending post but I keep reading so much ignorant nonsense it makes me want to quit ATS sometimes and board a spaceship for some far away planet with intelligent people.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 





You confirmed my point.


If all you are going to do is surrender and whine about surrendering and then pat yourself on the back for it, then it wasn't I who confirmed your point.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by dubiousone
 



You confirmed my point.


If all you are going to do is surrender and whine about surrendering and then pat yourself on the back for it, then it wasn't I who confirmed your point.


What leads you that conclusion? Expressing an observation is a surrender? An internet forum such as ATS where all posts are anonymous doesn't lend itself well to collective or effective action. It's great for sharing ideas, information, raising awareness, even whining at times. Whining and ranting are, after all, not entirely bad or harmful. Just don't make them your predominant method of addressing problems. They aren't a solution. But they can help clear one's thoughts and gain perspective. Don't believe me, Jean? Try it. You'll feel better. As to the TSA gropers, I suspect that you feed the beast far more than I do. And yes, I base that statement about you on as much information as you based your statement about me.
edit on 1/1/2012 by dubiousone because: clarify



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


It is your lamentation of an anonymous internet user name not being able to spark collective action that reveals your own inaction. What are you doing? Waiting for others to lead the way for you? Perhaps you simply transpose surrender on others merely to justify your own, but whatever the motive, as long as you wait for collective action to do what you as an individual needs to do, your surrender is fairly obvious.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
What about this part of it? Havent really seen someone bring it up yet.




Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.


How is that last part?........ treating the provisions as "non-binding"... does that mean these provisions or ALL provisions?

Also disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets?
edit on 1-1-2012 by Sypher209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by dubiousone
 


It is your lamentation of an anonymous internet user name not being able to spark collective action that reveals your own inaction. What are you doing? Waiting for others to lead the way for you? Perhaps you simply transpose surrender on others merely to justify your own, but whatever the motive, as long as you wait for collective action to do what you as an individual needs to do, your surrender is fairly obvious.


I will pass on your latest serving of bait.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Sypher209
 
this means Obama can do what he wants to do, if he wishes to detain you he can, if he decides to do to you what he did to,{yes he deserved it} Osama bin Laden, he can, if he Obama decides to close the open page on the gov ,{ if he even opened it}, can close it, he could deem it all NSI that is National security Issues, "for eyes only" or "top secret"

edit on 1-1-2012 by bekod because: editting



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


what a big fat liar. Oh well, glad I'm not him, and I never to acknowledge him as a leader, only as a puppet.

"Will not be detained indefinitely without a trail." Hah! I know that just a bunch of hot air being spouted from a moron.

Plus, it's just a piece of paper, no one here has to follow it. Those who don't follow it, should be considered some the bravest people around. And those who do, they are just wily whoppers who are gutless.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
can someone link me to the bill, and quote me the offending lines?
im reading all over about exclusion of US citizens to these things, and its misleading to popular ndaa hate right now...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


the only terrorists in this country, are those that signed their names to that bill.....despicable, the repercussions for us citizens could be gigantic in the future. what now defines a terrorist, or terror threat? mere protestors?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Well you US folk arn´t going to be rebelling and freeing your country again soon, unless you want to get locked up, shot or tortured for being a terrorist


It´s so sad it´s laughable, well not to worry the EU is following in your footsteps. The NWO is taking over, ready for the big finale



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
I asked an Israeli today about Obama passing that new law to lock up Americans without a trial....

He said America let in millions of muslims over the years and when they go crazy the Federal Government wants to be able to lock them up forever without a trial.

He said WII was about oil. The countries with no oil, Germany-Japan, were going after the people WITH oil. He said now the countries with NO oil (us), are going after the countries with oil.


He had no comment when I mentioned when the Jewish people in Germany lost their rights, they were slaughtered.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bisman
 
you asked

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
from this link www.opencongress.org... if you are still not sure of the text that the fuss is all about it is this

or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
protesting and going on strike could be deemed just that"directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces" now do you get it? And under the words "US is now a battlefield", once you do engage in such acts you give up your right as a US citizen. What acts"including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities" but i live out side the USA yea so think your safe your not"or its coalition partners" is this clear enough?

edit on 2-1-2012 by bekod because: added info. and word edit. added link



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


And here I thought George W Bush would go down in history as the worst, most-fascist, most anti-American president in history with his trashing of the constitution. Vehement email has been dispatched to the president (whom I will no longer refer to as president - Barack, along with W, will heretofore be known as "Hitler 1" and "Hitler 2")



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
I asked an Israeli today about Obama passing that new law to lock up Americans without a trial....

He said America let in millions of muslims over the years and when they go crazy the Federal Government wants to be able to lock them up forever without a trial.

He said WII was about oil. The countries with no oil, Germany-Japan, were going after the people WITH oil. He said now the countries with NO oil (us), are going after the countries with oil.


He had no comment when I mentioned when the Jewish people in Germany lost their rights, they were slaughtered.


Which country are you in? The U.S. has ridiculous amounts of oil.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Obama is just like all the other politicians. He sais one thing; but, realy thinks something else. When he ran for office his campain was mainly built on ending the wat in Iraq. He stated that if he won he would"emediatly" end the war and bring the boys and girls home. When he won, he not only did not end the war but extended it by four years and sent more troups over. Only at the end of his term, when he is facing new elections, does he end the war to boost his approval rating. I know from experiance and what is going on in the worldthat once he is reelected, he will send those troops back out to fight another war. Iran perhaps. I don't see how we can trust any politician. For them to be so high up in politics thay have to have perfected thier ability to lie and step on people. I always say, "If they made it this far in politics, I won't vote for them".



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by Pervius
I asked an Israeli today about Obama passing that new law to lock up Americans without a trial....

He said America let in millions of muslims over the years and when they go crazy the Federal Government wants to be able to lock them up forever without a trial.

He said WII was about oil. The countries with no oil, Germany-Japan, were going after the people WITH oil. He said now the countries with NO oil (us), are going after the countries with oil.


He had no comment when I mentioned when the Jewish people in Germany lost their rights, they were slaughtered.


Which country are you in? The U.S. has ridiculous amounts of oil.



Right, but obama won't let us touch any of it. A good example is the oil pipeline Canada want to run down to Texas, it would creat thousands of jobs and help supply us with oil, instead obama'd rather drag his heels and hopes Canada gets sick of waiting and sells to china instead.





top topics
 
95
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join