Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 170 of 1403 FirstFirst ... 165166167168169170171172173174175 ... LastLast
Results 1,691 to 1,700 of 14025

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

  1. -1691
    JamesBW43's Avatar
    You're standing on my neck

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    3,526
    vCash:
    4112
    Loc:
    Gainesville, Florida
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Simply Google the section you're referencing. You'll find pages upon pages of articles debunking your misconception, it isn't just that author.



    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/thre...etention_bill/
    I've read these arguments before. They are not what I'm arguing against. I'm not saying US citizens are exempt. I'm saying, US citizens on US soil, will not be detained indefinitely. The purpose of that provision of the NDAA is for dealing with people like Al-Awlaki.

    I'm not saying this is a good thing either, but the implication made by so many of these opinions, that US citizens can be arrested on US soil and held indefinitely is just not true.
    Not every human is a manipulative, opportunistic, letch... or at least that's what I'm told.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -1692
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,203
    vCash:
    6744
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    An interesting corollary to a law like the Patriot Act or the NDAA is the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII (though I consider the latter far more egregious), which began with an Executive Order signed by Roosevelt in 1942. I'm not sure how much, if any, you've read about it. But assuming you have, how does that change your opinion of Roosevelt as a president? Do you think you would have been able to vote for him in 1944?
    That’s a question I can’t answer in a vacuum. I’d need to know a myriad of other things in order to make that decision. It certainly wouldn’t help though. Ideally we’d all like to see that kind of behavior limited to the 40’s.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    So do I. Perfectly reasonable point. But if you're not saying that friendly fire deaths are reason enough to not engage in military actions or wars, then I have to question why you brought it up in the first place.
    We were discussing evils. Not only friendly fire, but the repeated killing of innocent civilians through questionable tactics; such as double-tapping.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Jackson's obsession with eliminating the Bank dated back to the 1824 Presidential election, where because none of the candidates (Jackson, John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay) got a majority of the delegates, the decision went to the House of Representatives. There, the third place finisher in the race, Henry Clay (who was Speaker of the House), shifted his support to Adams (who had finished 2nd in delegates) in return for being appointed Secretary of State, which at that time was seen as the surest path to the presidency.
    This enraged Jackson, who called it a "corrupt bargain" and vowed revenge. Where the Bank comes in is that Clay supported the bank and it's president, Nicholas Biddle. Biddle and the Bank in return financially supported Clay for the presidency in 1828, though this time Jackson won outright.
    I’m not saying he didn’t hate the guy, but I also believe it wasn’t just because he hated the guy, as you had indicated.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    I think the key is there doesn't seem to be a good understanding of what constitutes an "enemy combatant" or a "battlefield" in this day and age. If I were an American citizen during WWII and left America to fight on behalf of Germany, should I still expect to have due process respected on the battlefield or after I was captured? Or does my traitorous action mean that I forfeit some of my rights?

    I think there is more gray area here than you're considering.
    These aren’t only POW’s & enemy combatants. This applies to anyone suspected of terrorism. Are you aware of what could officially qualify someone as a terrorist according to the military?

    You’ve recently changed your “choices in entertainment.”
    You have “peculiar discussions.”
    You “complain about bias,”
    You’re “socially withdrawn”
    and you’re frustrated with “mainstream ideologies.”
    Your “Risk Factors for Radicalization” include “Social Networks” and “Youth.”
    Being young (if you live near a battle zone, you are fair game)
    Reporting or doing journalism
    Speaking out against government policies
    Protesting anything
    Questioning war (even though war reduces our national security; and see this)
    Criticizing the government’s targeting of innocent civilians with drones (although killing innocent civilians with drones is one of the main things which increases terrorism. And see this)
    Asking questions about pollution (even at a public Congressional hearing?)
    Paying cash at an Internet cafe
    Asking questions about Wall Street shenanigans
    Holding gold
    Creating alternative currencies
    Stocking up on more than 7 days of food (even though all Mormons are taught to stockpile food, and most Hawaiians store up on extra food)
    Having bumper stickers saying things like “Know Your Rights Or Lose Them”
    Investigating factory farming
    Infringing a copyright
    Taking pictures or videos
    Talking to police officers
    Wearing a hoodie
    Driving a van
    Writing on a piece of paper
    (Not having a Facebook account may soon be added)
    Being frustrated with “mainstream ideologies”
    Using social media
    Valuing online privacy
    Supporting Ron Paul or being a libertarian
    Liking the Founding Fathers
    Being a Christian
    Being anti-tax, anti-regulation or for the gold standard
    Being “reverent of individual liberty”
    Being “anti-nuclear”
    “Believe in conspiracy theories”
    “A belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack”
    “Impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
    “Insert religion into the political sphere”
    “Those who seek to politicize religion”
    “Supported political movements for autonomy”
    Being “anti-abortion”
    Being “anti-Catholic”
    Being “anti-global”
    “Suspicious of centralized federal authority”
    “Fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
    “A belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in … survivalism”
    Opposing genetically engineered food
    Opposing surveillance
    These are all official signs of being a terrorist from the U.S Military.

    http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...INAL090911.pdf

    These could apply to almost anyone, & they've made it like this purposefully. So it’s not that there’s grey area I’m not accounting for, I believe there’s entirely too much grey area all together in regards to whom exactly we can legitimately suspect of terrorist activities.

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesBW43
    I've read these arguments before. They are not what I'm arguing against. I'm not saying US citizens are exempt. I'm saying, US citizens on US soil, will not be detained indefinitely. The purpose of that provision of the NDAA is for dealing with people like Al-Awlaki.

    I'm not saying this is a good thing either, but the implication made by so many of these opinions, that US citizens can be arrested on US soil and held indefinitely is just not true.
    ‘A retired admiral, Judge Advocate General and Dean Emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law also says that it applies to American citizens on American soil.

    The ACLU notes:

    Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

    But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”’
    Quote Quote  

  3. -1693
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,114
    vCash:
    29363
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    That’s a question I can’t answer in a vacuum. I’d need to know a myriad of other things in order to make that decision. It certainly wouldn’t help though. Ideally we’d all like to see that kind of behavior limited to the 40’s.
    Okay. Because from what I've been gathering from your posts about this election is that Obama and Romney's positions on civil liberties were in and of themselves enough to disqualify them from getting your vote. Perhaps I misunderstood. Because internment, at least to me, is/was far worse than the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

    We were discussing evils. Not only friendly fire, but the repeated killing of innocent civilians through questionable tactics; such as double-tapping.
    Friendly fire isn't an evil. It's a mistake.

    What's double tapping? I mean, does it have another meaning other than as a method of shooting someone so you know they're dead?

    I’m not saying he didn’t hate the guy, but I also believe it wasn’t just because he hated the guy, as you had indicated.
    You're free to think that. Not that it matters much either way, as it's off topic. I was just using Jackson as an example of a bad president who -- despite being an admirer of Jefferson -- expanded the power of the presidency. He was so hated by a section of the population in his day they formed the Whig party, which became the forerunner to the Republicans (which in those days was the Northern, liberal party).

    These aren’t only POW’s & enemy combatants. This applies to anyone suspected of terrorism. Are you aware of what could officially qualify someone as a terrorist according to the military?

    These are all official signs of being a terrorist from the U.S Military.

    http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...INAL090911.pdf

    These could apply to almost anyone, & they've made it like this purposefully. So it’s not that there’s grey area I’m not accounting for, I believe there’s entirely too much grey area all together in regards to whom exactly we can legitimately suspect of terrorist activities.
    Oh, c'mon, Rob. That pamphlet applies to people in the military observing the behavior of other people in the military for evidence of radicalism. Not only that, but your quoted "list" includes stuff not in the pamphlet.

    You link to the wrong thing or something? 'Cause I don't this pamphlet is relevant to anything.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -1694
    WVDolphan's Avatar
    Two Little Debbies and a cup of coffee

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2005
    Posts:
    14,431
    vCash:
    4894
    Thanks / No Thanks
    2013 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Don't listen to him, Buddy. All 9954 can do is engage in stupid false equivalencies and bring candidates down. But when asked to talk about a specific aspect of Johnson's record on it he shows just how ignorant he is on the issues he claims to care about. Hating the Republicans and the Democrats does not make you automatically interesting or relevant.

    I don't get this "anti-American" **** I see conservatives throwing around so casually right now. Do they really think the President and the new Democratic members of the Senate are actively engaging in sinister and evil activities? What a frightening vision they must have of the world, and a stupidly childish one. These are differences in policy, not in good and evil. Get over yourself.

    If anything, the "American" thing to do is to educate yourself on both sides of these arguments so you won't be so tempted to demonize the policy and the people of the other side. Propaganda feeds on ignorance, and you seem to be one of it's victims.
    Wow. The Walrus just got ****ing real.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -1695
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,114
    vCash:
    29363
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by WVDolphan View Post
    Wow. The Walrus just got ****ing real.
    If you're going to post in the PoFo again, your first stop needs to be the "eat crow" thread.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -1696
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,076
    vCash:
    6807
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by WVDolphan View Post
    Wow. The Walrus just got ****ing real.
    He's a bitch that can't face me like a man. He has to resort to ignoring me and attacking me through another people's post. Grade A *****. Not real at all.

    ---------- Post added at 09:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------

    Amazing watching Obama supporters carry water for clear attacks on our liberties. The same way Bush supporters did. Nothing has changed at all.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  7. -1697
    JamesBW43's Avatar
    You're standing on my neck

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    3,526
    vCash:
    4112
    Loc:
    Gainesville, Florida
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    ‘A retired admiral, Judge Advocate General and Dean Emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law also says that it applies to American citizens on American soil.

    The ACLU notes:

    Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

    But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”’
    There's nothing in this argument that supports that title or refutes the fact that existing laws regarding arrests on US soil will remain unchanged. It's still just arguing that the section applies to US citizens, which I'm not refuting.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -1698
    JamesBW43's Avatar
    You're standing on my neck

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    3,526
    vCash:
    4112
    Loc:
    Gainesville, Florida
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post

    Amazing watching Obama supporters carry water for clear attacks on our liberties. The same way Bush supporters did. Nothing has changed at all.
    I'm sorry man, but that is a ridiculous interpretation of the conversations going on right now.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -1699
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,203
    vCash:
    6744
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Okay. Because from what I've been gathering from your posts about this election is that Obama and Romney's positions on civil liberties were in and of themselves enough to disqualify them from getting your vote. Perhaps I misunderstood. Because internment, at least to me, is/was far worse than the Patriot Act and the NDAA.
    There’s too much I don’t know about the 40’s to be able to give an educated answer on the matter, but given some of the alternatives we have today, not even in regards to over-all party choices, but simply different candidate choices as well; shouldn’t it seem like someone who wants to digitally track & monitor the entire populous, not be someone the majority of people want to elect to rule them? Is what the NSA doing even remotely defense-able? Is it to be accepted & tolerated as fact of life?

    I understand all candidates are a compromise of sorts, but what’s worth losing some of your basic civil liberties for?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    What's double tapping? I mean, does it have another meaning other than as a method of shooting someone so you know they're dead?
    It’s believed that a large portion of the percentage of civilians killed are in double-tap strikes. It’s where they strike an area, & possibly hours later, will strike again once the people who live in the area begin to clear the rubble & remove the bodies.

    One of the most horrifying tactics reportedly used by the United States in the prosecution of the death-by-drone program is the so-called “double tap.” The Stanford/NYU report brought this to light and an article in the Daily Mail (U.K.) accurately summarized the practice: “A drone fires one missile — and then a second as rescuers try to drag victims from the rubble. One aid agency said they had a six-hour delay before going to the scene.” According to the story this insupportable and inhumane tactic is resulting in the death of “49 people for every one known terrorist in Pakistan.”
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Oh, c'mon, Rob. That pamphlet applies to people in the military observing the behavior of other people in the military for evidence of radicalism. Not only that, but your quoted "list" includes stuff not in the pamphlet.
    You link to the wrong thing or something? 'Cause I don't this pamphlet is relevant to anything.
    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/insider-threat/
    http://www.infowars.com/u-s-army-cha...as-terrorists/

    It’s relevant when the bar of suspicion for terroism is so low it could apply to anyone. Remember, the NDAA doesn’t state you need proof to detain someone, just to suspect them of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesBW43
    There's nothing in this argument that supports that title or refutes the fact that existing laws regarding arrests on US soil will remain unchanged. It's still just arguing that the section applies to US citizens, which I'm not refuting.
    ‘The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.’

    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/thre...etention_bill/
    Quote Quote  

  10. -1700
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,076
    vCash:
    6807
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesBW43 View Post
    I'm sorry man, but that is a ridiculous interpretation of the conversations going on right now.
    No it's quite the same conversation I saw in 2004. I really don't see a difference in policies and sh!tty excuses for attacks on liberties.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6718
    Last Post: 08-08-2013, 03:17 PM
  2. Replies: 1716
    Last Post: 02-04-2008, 03:37 PM
  3. can we keep this thread alive in the PoFo?
    By Maynard the Hammer in forum Questions and Suggestions Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2006, 11:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •