• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens

I'd have to vote for Paul, and hope that more reasonable people keep him in check in office.

Who? Republicans in Congress, members of the party who nominated and ran with Paul? Or do you mean that Democrats are more reasonable?

:lol: You're still stuck.
 
Who? Republicans in Congress, members of the party who nominated and ran with Paul? Or do you mean that Democrats are more reasonable?

:lol: You're still stuck.


Well, that would be a real quandary if Paul were to get the nomination...But he won't....The real threat from Ron Paul is that he runs third party and helps Obama indirectly.

j-mac
 
Well, that would be a real quandary if Paul were to get the nomination...But he won't....The real threat from Ron Paul is that he runs third party and helps Obama indirectly.

That would be entertaining too.
 
Foreign combatants waging acts of war, to kill American civilians, are not entitled to the same rights we afford our citizenry....

j-mac

Then proving they are actually foreign combatants waging acts of war shouldn't be too tough then, should it?
 
Then proving they are actually foreign combatants waging acts of war shouldn't be too tough then, should it?


Yep, and when they get to Gitmo, they will get a status review no doubt. But NOT in our court system.

j-mac
 
Yep, and when they get to Gitmo, they will get a status review no doubt. But NOT in our court system.

j-mac

So before proving they are actual "combatants", we throw them in a place where they are denied fair trial and claim they will get a "review" there with no time line given and no way to ensure that we are actually imprisoning those whom were fighting against us?
 
If Ron Paul is your picture perfect definition of conservative and Kucinich is the same for liberal, then yes...Obama is a moderate centrist.

As was George W. Bush

As is almost every politician that's significantly ran for POTUS.

Funny that those who argue against indefinate detention and invading other countries are considered the fringe and those who support it are called the moderate.
 
So you place your faith more in unelected people making law through edict....Interesting.


j-mac

Determining whether a law is Constitutional is their job. This clearly isn't.
 
So before proving they are actual "combatants", we throw them in a place where they are denied fair trial and claim they will get a "review" there with no time line given and no way to ensure that we are actually imprisoning those whom were fighting against us?


Let's use KSM as an example...Do you think he deserved a "fair trial" in the United States proper?


j-mac
 
Even a whack job can be right, But, compared to Perry, Bachman, Santorum and Newt, Paul is a prue genuis!!!

And if my choice is between Obama and Perry, Bachman, Santorum or Newt, I will be forced to vote for Obama and hope the courts do their job. The bill is a poor one, likley illegal, and something we all should agree be changed.

That's too bad. Something similiar is the reason I absolutely could not vote for McCain. Anyone who is so willing to stomp on our Constitutional rights has no business being anywhere near an elected position.

I understand the "lesser of two evils" in some instances. Not in this one. I was sure that the courts would overturn Citizen United also but there was no way I could have voted for someone who had it in him to even go here.
 
No, the fact that the GOP cannot field a decent candidate OTHER than Paul is why Obama is likely a second term. If Obama gets elected because your side couldn't field someone better; that's your fault. I'll vote for Paul, I won't vote for any of your other candidates.

Romney can win, just as long as he can get nominated and if none of the other ones try to make a run as an independent and split the vote.

Nothing much will change if he does become president, except the Democrats will be the ones complaining, and the Republicans supporting "their" president, but he can win if his party will give him a chance.
 
Romney can win, just as long as he can get nominated and if none of the other ones try to make a run as an independent and split the vote.

Nothing much will change if he does become president, except the Democrats will be the ones complaining, and the Republicans supporting "their" president, but he can win if his party will give him a chance.


The cynic in me says you are right....

j-mac
 
Romney can win, just as long as he can get nominated and if none of the other ones try to make a run as an independent and split the vote.

Nothing much will change if he does become president, except the Democrats will be the ones complaining, and the Republicans supporting "their" president, but he can win if his party will give him a chance.
Romney could win, barring a significant upturn in the economy, if the evangelicals don't revolt (stay home). However the Tea Partiers will still be complaining and will still be trying to shut down the gov't. Romney would govern as a businessman, a compassionate one I would wager (witness Romneycare), not an extremist (which again leaves the Tea Partiers all dressed up with nowhere to go).
 
Last edited:
Romney could win, barring a significant upturn in the economy, if the evangelicals don't revolt. However the Tea Partiers will still be complaining and will still be trying to shut down the gov't. Romney would govern as a businessman, a compassionate one I would wager (witness Romneycare), not an extremist (which again leaves the Tea Partiers all dressed up with nowhere to go).


All that angst disappears if the economy turns around.

j-mac
 
Let's use KSM as an example...Do you think he deserved a "fair trial" in the United States proper?


j-mac

Why go here? He wasn't an American citizen or ever claimed to be. Countries have always held prisoners in war time. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with a vague definition of being at war but that's another subject.
 
Romney could win, barring a significant upturn in the economy, if the evangelicals don't revolt (and stay home). However the Tea Partiers will still be complaining and will still be trying to shut down the gov't. Romney would govern as a businessman, a compassionate one I would wager (witness Romneycare), not an extremist (which again leaves the Tea Partiers all dressed up with nowhere to go).

When have they tried to shut down the government?
 
He certainly deserved a fair trial. I don't think that we should abandon our own commitment to freedom and liberty in a zealous move to "protect" us from alleged terrorists. Those who raise arms against us most certainly should be punished; but I don't think it should be done so haphazardly that it entangles a significant number of innocent people. Fighting ideology is not like fighting an actual State.
 
Let's use KSM as an example...Do you think he deserved a "fair trial" in the United States proper?


j-mac

I would have had no problem with it. None. If you have the goods, you have the goods. If you don't, how do you really know he is what you think he is? Why so much fear for our justice system and so much respect for how our enemies do business? I really don't understand. But always remember, rule of law protects those who are innocent, and a few innoncent people could have used us showing some respect for rule of law.
 

They wanted Congress to act responsibly. Congress reacted negatively against that. The Tea Party supported the earlier budgets passed by the House. They were ahead of the curve in trying to get a budget passed.
 
They wanted Congress to act responsibly. [...]
Insisting on cutting spending while refusing to increase revenue is not acting responsibly. Your claim is glaringly false.
 
Insisting on cutting spending while refusing to increase revenue is not acting responsibly. Your claim is glaringly false.

People are forced to do it all the time.
 
That's too bad. Something similiar is the reason I absolutely could not vote for McCain. Anyone who is so willing to stomp on our Constitutional rights has no business being anywhere near an elected position.

I understand the "lesser of two evils" in some instances. Not in this one. I was sure that the courts would overturn Citizen United also but there was no way I could have voted for someone who had it in him to even go here.

While we're on the subject, screw Feingold too.
 
Back
Top Bottom