Rep. Paul Says Defense Bill Assures 'Descent Into Totalitarianism...

paulitician

Platinum Member
Oct 7, 2011
38,401
4,162
1,130
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country’s “slip into tyranny” and virtually assures “our descent into totalitarianism.”


“The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty,” Paul, the libertarian congressman, said Monday in a weekly phone message to supporters. “To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.”

The NDAA is the nearly $670 billion defense spending bill that covers the military budget and funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One controversial provision mandates the detention of terror suspects and reaffirms the administration’s authority to detain those suspected of having ties to terrorist organizations.

“The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning,” Paul continued. “It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal council. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.”

“It is no longer limited to members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of substantially supporting such groups or associated forces,” Paul continued. “How closely associated, and what constitutes substantial support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or suppose a political candidate? Are all donors of that candidate or supporters of that candidate now suspects and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?”

Read More:
Rep. Paul says defense bill assures
http://drudgereport.com/
 
But to be fair I don wonder why he didn't make it to the vote... Not that itr matters when you look at the yes VS no amounts.
 
rp is a dottering old insane fucktard. he will never be president and is not worthy to be president. eveah.
 
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country’s “slip into tyranny” and virtually assures “our descent into totalitarianism.”


“The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty,” Paul, the libertarian congressman, said Monday in a weekly phone message to supporters. “To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.”

The NDAA is the nearly $670 billion defense spending bill that covers the military budget and funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One controversial provision mandates the detention of terror suspects and reaffirms the administration’s authority to detain those suspected of having ties to terrorist organizations.

“The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning,” Paul continued. “It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal council. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.”

“It is no longer limited to members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of substantially supporting such groups or associated forces,” Paul continued. “How closely associated, and what constitutes substantial support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or suppose a political candidate? Are all donors of that candidate or supporters of that candidate now suspects and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?”

Read More:
Rep. Paul says defense bill assures
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®
American politicians are paranoid. People working in 2-3 jobs to finance the military in foreign countries. What do they get back from their tax money?
 
But to be fair I don wonder why he didn't make it to the vote... Not that itr matters when you look at the yes VS no amounts.

Now don't go and tarnish your reputation now by attempting to be fair.

Just maybe Paul was hundreds of miles away... Just maybe the bill was brought up and voted on before he could do anything about it.

Look who else missed the vote ... Bachmann

That's why I asked the question before condemning like a fool

What’s your Tin foil hat theory here Gramps? Paul secretly wanted the bill to pass so he missed the vote on purpose?
.
 
rp is a dottering old insane fucktard. he will never be president and is not worthy to be president. eveah.
So if November rolls around and you have to choose between Paul and Obama you'd choose Obama? :confused:

Willo is a Neocon at best... Of course she would vote Obama over Paul, Willo's main issue with Obama is not policy, it's that he is a Democrat.

Willo likes Newt atm..

Newt at one point and in many cases for years supported:

The HC mandate and UHC.
Cap and trade
TARP
The Obama Stimulus
The Libya War

You know, pretty much everything Willo hates about Obama...
 
But to be fair I don wonder why he didn't make it to the vote... Not that itr matters when you look at the yes VS no amounts.

Now don't go and tarnish your reputation now by attempting to be fair.

Just maybe Paul was hundreds of miles away... Just maybe the bill was brought up and voted on before he could do anything about it.

Look who else missed the vote ... Bachmann

That's why I asked the question before condemning like a fool

What’s your Tin foil hat theory here Gramps? Paul secretly wanted the bill to pass so he missed the vote on purpose?
.

I didn't condemn, I lol'd

It's easy to take a position against something when you don't vote. It's the same shit Obama did when he was in the state legislature and we all called him out for it.

My personal opinion of the bill is moot as I don't know all the details as you claim to.
 
Totally unnecessary Bullshit. Big Brother is out of control. It's hard to fathom how they can still be milking 911 all these years later. All because a couple of Terrorist assholes attacked us one time ten years ago. How many more rights are they gonna take away from us in the name of 'Security?' How much more power & control does Big Brother need to fight the Terrorist Boogeyman? But the most important question is,why are so many Americans just going along with this descent into Totalitarianism? Is it all just fear?
 
Totally unnecessary Bullshit. Big Brother is out of control. It's hard to fathom how they can still be milking 911 all these years later. All because a couple of Terrorist assholes attacked us one time ten years ago. How many more rights are they gonna take away from us in the name of 'Security?' How much more power & control does Big Brother need to fight the Terrorist Boogeyman? But the most important question is,why are so many Americans just going along with this descent into Totalitarianism? Is it all just fear?

What personal RIGHTS have YOU lost?
 
Now don't go and tarnish your reputation now by attempting to be fair.

Just maybe Paul was hundreds of miles away... Just maybe the bill was brought up and voted on before he could do anything about it.

Look who else missed the vote ... Bachmann

That's why I asked the question before condemning like a fool

What’s your Tin foil hat theory here Gramps? Paul secretly wanted the bill to pass so he missed the vote on purpose?
.

I didn't condemn, I lol'd

It's easy to take a position against something when you don't vote. It's the same shit Obama did when he was in the state legislature and we all called him out for it.

My personal opinion of the bill is moot as I don't know all the details as you claim to.

If you don't even know what the bill is about then wtf are you doing here? Oh, Trolling the Paul supporters another issue that you self admittedly don't even understand... Shocking, lol.

Gramps, you sure do know how to own yourself.

BTW, if this make Paul like Obama than that means you might be able to vote for him over Obama if he wins the nomination right? You know cuz you said you could vote Obama in 2012…

As I have said Gramps, what are you not a huge Progressive Liberal on.
 
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

Apparently he was too busy to show up and vote against it.
Right, he should have flown back D.C. because his vote would have stopped it. :rolleyes:

It passed overwhelmingly 283 - 136 with 14 not voting.

This is why your posts ObamaCare carry no weight with me. You're not totally honest. You could be but I think you choose not to.

Good point, very dishonest of me to link directly to the vote so no one would ever see the tally.

The fact remains: Paul's rhetoric doesn't match his actions. Presidential candidates miss votes all the time; but when they miss votes on legislation that they claim "will accelerate the country’s 'slip into tyranny' and virtually assures 'our descent into totalitarianism'" to schmooze in New Hampshire, that's a little different. Particularly when half of the candidate's shtick is based on being the "principled" candidate who isn't afraid to be on the losing side of an important vote.
 
Totally unnecessary Bullshit. Big Brother is out of control. It's hard to fathom how they can still be milking 911 all these years later. All because a couple of Terrorist assholes attacked us one time ten years ago. How many more rights are they gonna take away from us in the name of 'Security?' How much more power & control does Big Brother need to fight the Terrorist Boogeyman? But the most important question is,why are so many Americans just going along with this descent into Totalitarianism? Is it all just fear?

What personal RIGHTS have YOU lost?

You have been spammed this answer many time. Just like the bill you said you know NOTHING ABOUT you chose to not know the answer.

Gramps give up, you have become a joke on these boards. You are willfully ignorant then demand your option hold some amount of credibility.

The very bill you don't know anything about takes away everyone’s personal rights... You would know this if all you did was casually sit back and listen... But the blinders are on and the hate for Paul overwhelms your ability to educate yourself in fear you might agree with him.
 
Just maybe Paul was hundreds of miles away... Just maybe the bill was brought up and voted on before he could do anything about it.

Look who else missed the vote ... Bachmann

That's why I asked the question before condemning like a fool

What’s your Tin foil hat theory here Gramps? Paul secretly wanted the bill to pass so he missed the vote on purpose?
.

I didn't condemn, I lol'd

It's easy to take a position against something when you don't vote. It's the same shit Obama did when he was in the state legislature and we all called him out for it.

My personal opinion of the bill is moot as I don't know all the details as you claim to.

If you don't even know what the bill is about then wtf are you doing here? Oh, Trolling the Paul supporters another issue that you self admittedly don't even understand... Shocking, lol.

Gramps, you sure do know how to own yourself.

BTW, if this make Paul like Obama than that means you might be able to vote for him over Obama if he wins the nomination right? You know cuz you said you could vote Obama in 2012…

As I have said Gramps, what are you not a huge Progressive Liberal on.

I will never vote for Paul. Ever, the man would destroy our country. Maybe even faster than Obama has.
 
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

Apparently he was too busy to show up and vote against it.
Right, he should have flown back D.C. because his vote would have stopped it. :rolleyes:

It passed overwhelmingly 283 - 136 with 14 not voting.

This is why your posts ObamaCare carry no weight with me. You're not totally honest. You could be but I think you choose not to.

Good point, very dishonest of me to link directly to the vote so no one would ever see the tally.

The fact remains: Paul's rhetoric doesn't match his actions. Presidential candidates miss votes all the time; but when they miss votes on legislation that they claim "will accelerate the country’s 'slip into tyranny' and virtually assures 'our descent into totalitarianism'" to schmooze in New Hampshire, that's a little different. Particularly when half of the candidate's shtick is based on being the "principled" candidate who isn't afraid to be on the losing side of an important vote.

You are a liar... Paul has voted many times alone or in a very small minority. Just because Paul was very far away and very busy does not mean his actions don't reflect his rhetoric. Paul has a huge record of backing up his talk with votes, you would have a point if he didn't...

I believe Paul was one of the few that voted against the patriot act... and expanding it.

Edit to add links: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml for both 2001 and 2006... 2 votes.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top