Romney Supports NDAA

Wacky Quacky

Gold Member
May 16, 2011
2,103
377
130
WTF, Republicans. Your front runner openly and unabashedly supports the NDAA. A bill that you have been blasting Obama for signing. Do you still support Romney, even though he supports having the authority to take away your right to a fair trial? Do you support the Constitution at all, or is it really all about the party rivalry?

Breaking: Romney Supports NDAA! - YouTube
 
All of the GOP candidates support the NDAA, except Ron Paul. And perhaps Santorum.
 
Last edited:
Any one of them (except Paul) would change their tune and sign the same law the moment they were elected and assumed all that executive power for themselves. They are just suffering from Incumbent Derangement Syndrome at the moment.
 
I don't support Romney's support of NDAA's support of throwing out habeas corpus.

But will this change any voter's minds, or is beating Obama more important than defending the Constitution?

Or in the Case of Obama and the Democrats is holding on to power more important than following the Constitution.


You people need to chill the fuck out about the NDAA, if it is truly such a bad Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court will strike it down at some point. That's how the system works.
 
I don't support Romney's support of NDAA's support of throwing out habeas corpus.

But will this change any voter's minds, or is beating Obama more important than defending the Constitution?

Or in the Case of Obama and the Democrats is holding on to power more important than following the Constitution.


You people need to chill the fuck out about the NDAA, if it is truly such a bad Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court will strike it down at some point. That's how the system works.

Except when it doesn't....
 
You people need to chill the fuck out about the NDAA, if it is truly such a bad Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court will strike it down at some point. That's how the system works.

You people need to chill the fuck out about Obamacare, if it is truly such a bad Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court will strike it down at some point. That's how the system works.
 
WTF, Republicans. Your front runner openly and unabashedly supports the NDAA. A bill that you have been blasting Obama for signing. Do you still support Romney, even though he supports having the authority to take away your right to a fair trial? Do you support the Constitution at all, or is it really all about the party rivalry?

Breaking: Romney Supports NDAA! - YouTube
I've been saying that Romney is Obama with an "R".

We need to get off this false "left right paradigm" that gives us on the illusion of choice.
 
You people need to chill the fuck out about the NDAA, if it is truly such a bad Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court will strike it down at some point. That's how the system works.

You people need to chill the fuck out about Obamacare, if it is truly such a bad Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court will strike it down at some point. That's how the system works.
Right, because courts are never corrupted and always make the right/best decisions.
 
Obama has taken us back to the "Dark Ages" of the 11th Century

The NDAA Law that Obama signed has taken us back to the 11th century. The "Magna Carta" was signed in England in 1215AD & gave everyone the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. We are so screwed now that Obama signed this law & taken these basic human rights away from us.

Now these jerks are trying to pass the SOPA and PIPA Laws. These laws will remove most of the information from the internet. You will no longer be allowed to know what is going on in this country or the world.
 
Last edited:
I know how we can correct this law. Since CDO's are considered WMD's “financial weapons of mass destruction" Now that the new NDAA bill has become the law of the land, can we just arrest, torture & kill all the Wallstreet Bankers & government officials we believe are guilty without proof or trial? I bet if we did this enough one of 2 things would happen. These people would either hand over their plunder or they would get rid of that stupid law & give us our rights back.

Any of you guys in the FBI or law enforcement. Maybe we should just form a posse & round them up.
 
I don't support Romney's support of NDAA's support of throwing out habeas corpus.

But will this change any voter's minds, or is beating Obama more important than defending the Constitution?

Considering Obama signed it into law I don't think replacing him could possibly be exacerbating the problem.

He didn't have much choice. A veto would have definitely been over-ridden and this would have been fodder for the right wing to spew out that timely canard "That the left doesn't support the military".

He was able to change some of the wording and issued a signing statement. It was a poison pill from the get go.
 
I know how we can correct this law. Since CDO's are considered WMD's “financial weapons of mass destruction" Now that the new NDAA bill has become the law of the land, can we just arrest, torture & kill all the Wallstreet Bankers & government officials we believe are guilty without proof or trial? I bet if we did this enough one of 2 things would happen. These people would either hand over their plunder or they would get rid of that stupid law & give us our rights back.

Any of you guys in the FBI or law enforcement. Maybe we should just form a posse & round them up.

:lol:

:clap2:
 
But will this change any voter's minds, or is beating Obama more important than defending the Constitution?

Considering Obama signed it into law I don't think replacing him could possibly be exacerbating the problem.

He didn't have much choice. A veto would have definitely been over-ridden and this would have been fodder for the right wing to spew out that timely canard "That the left doesn't support the military".

He was able to change some of the wording and issued a signing statement. It was a poison pill from the get go.

Obama Force Congress to Take Away Your Civil Rights in NDAA

According to Democrat Carl Levin, Obama forced congress under threat of veto to remove the provision that protected the civil rights of US citizens.
 
Last edited:
Considering Obama signed it into law I don't think replacing him could possibly be exacerbating the problem.

He didn't have much choice. A veto would have definitely been over-ridden and this would have been fodder for the right wing to spew out that timely canard "That the left doesn't support the military".

He was able to change some of the wording and issued a signing statement. It was a poison pill from the get go.

Obama Force Congress to Take Away Your Civil Rights in NDAA

He was against that part of it.

Obama Signing Statement: The NDAA Doesn

In the second paragraph of his NDAA signing statement, Obama stated, “The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.”

The president explained why he signed the NDAA, “Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.”

What would have been your solution? The Senate vote was nearly unanimous on this.
 

Forum List

Back
Top