• 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

Dittohead not! said:
The law is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights. Does that mean Obama broke the law by signing it? Did Congress break the law by passing it?

It seems to me that both broke their oath to uphold the Constitution, but I'm not sure that means that either one actually broke the law.
Click to expand...

But something the courts could rule on I suspect.
 
Boo Radley said:
But something the courts could rule on I suspect.
Click to expand...

No doubt it could, but will it? It still hasn't addressed the issue of asset forfeiture, which is also clearly and blatantly unconstitutional.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No doubt it could, but will it? It still hasn't addressed the issue of asset forfeiture, which is also clearly and blatantly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

True. I'll hope for the best.
 
Boo Radley said:
I agree. And it is in the national defense and international policy that I most agree with Paul. Domestically less so. But here I agree with you.
Click to expand...

I agree with Paul a lot. Where I deviate is along the gold standard and Federal Reserve marks. We need fiat currency in this global economy and the government needs to have total control on setting the value of that currency. And they were granted the power. That's not to say there aren't problems with the Fed; there are. But getting rid of it isn't the solution. It needs to be made 100% property of Congress (only Congress was given authority to print and regulate the value of our currency) and there needs to be proper restriction, regulation, and oversight on it.

I want us to be the shining city on the hill again, Ron Paul I do believe can help move us back in that direction. The Republocrats in general however just wish to tarnish America and our great Republic even more.
 
Ikari said:
I agree with Paul a lot. Where I deviate is along the gold standard and Federal Reserve marks. We need fiat currency in this global economy and the government needs to have total control on setting the value of that currency. And they were granted the power. That's not to say there aren't problems with the Fed; there are. But getting rid of it isn't the solution. It needs to be made 100% property of Congress (only Congress was given authority to print and regulate the value of our currency) and there needs to be proper restriction, regulation, and oversight on it.

I want us to be the shining city on the hill again, Ron Paul I do believe can help move us back in that direction. The Republocrats in general however just wish to tarnish America and our great Republic even more.
Click to expand...

Again, largely I agree. But don't down play our part in this too much. Both parties have reacted to what they htink a majority really wants. And we do continue to vote for them.
 
I think that the NH Union leader publisher had it right in his Op Ed...

A Wall Street Journal columnist notes that Paul is “a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.”

Perhaps this warped view is why Paul believes that al-Qaida terrorists caught in the United States ought to be treated as common criminals, not enemy combatants. He wants them read Miranda rights to which they are not entitled and he wants them tried and sentenced in civil courts rather than by military tribunals.

This is nothing short of nuts. What is needed to competently fight a war, and al-Qaida is indeed at war with us, is the ability to gather information. Telling the enemy that it has a “right to remain silent” is absurd.

Paul believes that if a U.S. citizen throws in with al-Qaida or associated groups overseas, where he plots American death and destruction, we need to somehow find him, arrest him, and bring him back to stand civil trial here rather than eliminate him, even if that is the only option.

We are in a much different kind of war than we have ever faced, but Paul doesn’t see it. He has repeatedly said that U.S. aggression is responsible for 9-11 and other attacks on America from radical jihadists.

He has repeatedly said that we should allow Iran to continue to develop a nuclear weapon. This is the same country whose leadership vows death to America, the “Satanic power,” and who wants Israel wiped from the map.

Never mind Paul being the favored candidate of the lunatic fringe (see white supremacists, anti-Semites, truthers, etc.). Never mind his refusal to disavow a third-party run (which would only help President Obama’s reelection).

His defenders say they admire Ron Paul’s “consistency.” It is true, Paul has been consistently spouting this nonsense.

Joseph W. McQuaid: Ron Paul is truly dangerous | New Hampshire OPINION01
Click to expand...


Paul would guarantee a second Obama term, and likely will not make it past IA.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I think that the NH Union leader publisher had it right in his Op Ed...




Paul would guarantee a second Obama term, and likely will not make it past IA.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I'm still unsure why you guys fear due process. I'm convinced if this comes to pass, you will regret it, but find a way to blame someone else.
 
j-mac said:
I think that the NH Union leader publisher had it right in his Op Ed...




Paul would guarantee a second Obama term, and likely will not make it past IA.

j-mac
Click to expand...

No doubt Paul running either as the Republican nominee or as a third party candidate would make a second Obama term much more likely.

But, you're agreeing with a union leader? Will wonders never cease?
 
Dittohead not! said:
No doubt Paul running either as the Republican nominee or as a third party candidate would make a second Obama term much more likely.

But, you're agreeing with a union leader? Will wonders never cease?
Click to expand...


Probably the only "union" anything where this would be true.....good one...heh, heh....

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Paul would guarantee a second Obama term, and likely will not make it past IA.

j-mac
Click to expand...

It would be entertaining to watch you pick between Paul and Obama though.
 
j-mac said:
I think that the NH Union leader publisher had it right in his Op Ed...




Paul would guarantee a second Obama term, and likely will not make it past IA.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Heaven forbid due process of law as required by the Constitution, right?

You big government types are all the same.
 
Thunder said:
that's cause u haven't read it.
Click to expand...

Really? So you're near me...watching me? How the **** do you know I didn't read it? Keep your assumptions and suppositions and hyperbole and idiotic statements to yourself. Come back if you actually have data to back your claim.
 
Ikari said:
Heaven forbid due process of law as required by the Constitution, right?

You big government types are all the same.
Click to expand...



You can name call til the cows come home. That is really all you ever do anyway.


j-mac
 
Dittohead not! said:
No doubt Paul running either as the Republican nominee or as a third party candidate would make a second Obama term much more likely.

But, you're agreeing with a union leader? Will wonders never cease?
Click to expand...

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.
 
j-mac said:
You can name call til the cows come home. That is really all you ever do anyway.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Is it now? It seems that blind partisanship and deflection are your forte. You want to expand government, I don't agree with the expansion. I want to follow the Constitution, restrict government. If you have proof these people are terrorists, you can prove it in court. Ain't no problem to it.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm still unsure why you guys fear due process. [...]
Click to expand...
Because it stymies their agenda of foreign imperialism and domestic authoritarianism.
 
j-mac said:
Oh good grief....yet another post into the absurd.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I got the perfect response for this.

You can name call til the cows come home. That is really all you ever do anyway.


HAHAHAHAHA. Try to wait at least a page or two before you contradict yourself.
 
Ikari said:
Is it now? It seems that blind partisanship and deflection are your forte. You want to expand government, I don't agree with the expansion. I want to follow the Constitution, restrict government. If you have proof these people are terrorists, you can prove it in court. Ain't no problem to it.
Click to expand...

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

j-mac
 
American said:
His chance will be coming up with Iran. Ever since the 1979 embassy attack, Iran has been earning its comeuppance.
Click to expand...

That's all we need, another unfunded optional war in the Middle East. How do you propose we should pay for this optional war you advocate?
 
Catawba said:
That's all we need, another unfunded optional war in the Middle East. How do you propose we should pay for this optional war you advocate?
Click to expand...

This is extremely simple...two words.

Bake Sale. I can support that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom