POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

[JamesBW43]

Also, to quote wiki,



You guys had a president out there dueling people? Like 1,2,3,FIRE! type duels? Thats nuts lol. I feel like the secret service today wouldnt let that fly.

Dick Cheney might beg to differ.

[Valandui]

Also, to quote wiki,



You guys had a president out there dueling people? Like 1,2,3,FIRE! type duels? Thats nuts lol. I feel like the secret service today wouldnt let that fly.

He's also the only president to ever pay off the national debt.

[Valandui]

I would too, though I'd leave out that I'm half Hispanic. My main issue with Jackson stems from him dismantling the Bank of the US and plunging the country into a depression over a personal vendetta.

Interesting human. Bad president.

That was the best thing he ever did and one of the best things to ever happen to this country. The Federal Reserve is the reason for almost every problem this country currently has.

[NY8123]

Also, to quote wiki,



You guys had a president out there dueling people? Like 1,2,3,FIRE! type duels? Thats nuts lol. I feel like the secret service today wouldnt let that fly.

Can you imagine the TV ratings!!! Just line ol' Obama up with Romney and let'em duel it out. Or better yet maybe with swords! Tis merely a flesh wound!

[TheWalrus]

That was the best thing he ever did and one of the best things to ever happen to this country. The Federal Reserve is the reason for almost every problem this country currently has.

Oh, bull****.

The result of Jackson's so-called "best thing he ever did" was this:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


That's only a seven year economic depression. No biggie. And like I said, it wasn't even mostly a policy decision. Jackson hated the guy who was running the bank at the time and ended the charter to get back at him.

[JamesBW43]

I couldn't agree with Walrus more. It is so much easier to categorize things as good and bad rather than see the grey in them. I feel like most of the media (including online) does it as well. Any time I want to look up something, I have to go through several sources before I actually find details. Details which tell a very different story than the short news reports tell.

Everyone was so upset about the Patriot Act renewal, but if you actually read the three provisions that were renewed, they are a far cry from the general term of "unconstitutional spying".

The same goes for the NDAA. Everyone likes to say, "the NDAA allows the US to detain citizens, who are abroad, indefinately. That is clearly 100% bad". But dealing with terrorism overseas is extremely complicated. It's not like we have the resources to build a case by the book against people who are half way around the world (not to mention to do it safely). Should we put the lives of law abiding citizens in jeopardy in order to protect the liberties of a citizen who has left the country to take up arms against it?

I don't necessarily agree with all of these policies, but I think they have legitimate arguments to make.

[JamesBW43]

Yes, this is a TV show and the subject is slightly different, but I think it's a good scene that somewhat illustrates my point.

[rob19]

And I would say your standards for "evil" are too low.

You're also being too flippant with the word "unconstitutional." In some cases the legality of these laws have already been upheld, and in others is still in dispute. I disagree with them. You disagree with them. But it's not for us to render absolutist judgements on their constitutionality when neither us are even lawyers, to say nothing of being constitutional lawyers.

What the NSA is doing is unconstitutional by the 4th amendment. They're using a loophole saying they don't have persons looking at the information they're spying on, & I'm not so naive or trusting to believe them. Due-Process is a basic constitutional right, to deny an American citizen such a right is unconstitutional. You don't necessarily need to be a constitutional lawyer to know that. In regards to civilian killings, look no further than the Wikileaks footage of that Apache gunning down about a dozen or so reporters, while injuring women & children in the process.

Today, WikiLeaks
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
of a U.S. Army helicopter opening fire, unprovoked, on a group of about a dozen people in New Baghdad—a group that included a Reuters photographer and his driver, who were both killed, and several children, who were injured.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
published at the time of the incident, “American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.” WikiLeaks also notes that “the military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured. After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own ‘Rules of Engagement.’”

The same goes for the NDAA. Everyone likes to say, "the NDAA allows the US to detain citizens, who are abroad, indefinately. That is clearly 100% bad". But dealing with terrorism overseas is extremely complicated. It's not like we have the resources to build a case by the book against people who are half way around the world (not to mention to do it safely). Should we put the lives of law abiding citizens in jeopardy in order to protect the liberties of a citizen who has left the country to take up arms against it?

[JamesBW43]

The words Congressman Paul uses "even in a prison here" are either false or misleading. The NDAA specifically mentions that the law changes nothing in regards to how US citizens are arrested and detained on US soil.

[rob19]

The words Congressman Paul uses "even in a prison here" are either false or misleading. The NDAA specifically mentions that the law changes nothing in regards to how US citizens are arrested and detained on US soil.

"The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces."