Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal section of NDAA / Section 1021 equals police state

Robodoon

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2012
1,034
113
48
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95z7aspbibE&list=UU2o_YlayYtnjwoqO7ihwNEw&index=2&feature=plcp]Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal section of NDAA / Section 1021 equals police state - YouTube[/ame]

Comment: Ron Paul even when running for election, is doing his job. I haven't heard any of the MSM even bring this up, well they don't talk about NDAA either. Got to keep that police state quite for their evil masters of the military industrial complex for NWO
 
GOOD for him.

He'll [probably get at least 93 DEMS and 43 Republicans in the HoA who will support the bill.

He'll have a helluva time getting much traction in the 99-0-1 Senate though.
 
GOOD for him.

He'll [probably get at least 93 DEMS and 43 Republicans in the HoA who will support the bill.

He'll have a helluva time getting much traction in the 99-0-1 Senate though.

I don't know about that some may have regretted they voted for it, since they went home.
 
Wow, look at all the people here that care! Tell you anything about where the nation is headed?

Newt's love life is a hot topic for political discussion though.
 
Wow, look at all the people here that care! Tell you anything about where the nation is headed?

Newt's love life is a hot topic for political discussion though.

I care. This is one matter on which I agree 100 percent with Ron Paul. There was another topic on this same subject in which I said so.

There's a lot of repetition on this site. :lol:

(edited to correct 10 to 100 :lol:)
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly not passing any directed judgement toward anyone in particular. But you would think this whole NDAA thing would be hot news and Ron working to repeal the most damning portions as well. But alas, it is not adn the nation is full of entertainment "news" networks that will spend hours talking about Newt's love life and Romneys tax returns.

It just seems that the beginning of the end is upon us in 'MeriKa.
 
The news media, as a whole, is chock full of childish finger-pointers and gossip-mongers.

The vast majority of the news media is systematically trying to divert our attention AWAY from the many devastating issues and calamities that are destroying our country, by promoting "supermarket tabloid" crap as being REAL news.

Who cares about Newt's private life? The LEFTISTS care a lot. But when Bill Clinton was assaulting women, having extra-marital affairs, and lying under oath, the leftist news media categorized Clinton's despicable sexual misconduct and lack of morals as "a private matter".

The leftist news media have a LONG history of protecting their Democrat political heroes, from Grover Cleveland to Woodrow Wilson to FDR to JFK to LBJ to Bill Clinton, and all other "non-Presidents" in-between.

This country is FINISHED if the Democrats keep control. FINISHED.
 
In my opinion, one of the most damaging things any American citizens ever did to the United States of America was Ethel and Julius Rosenberg giving our nuclear weapons secrets to the Soviets.

I have no doubt in my mind they would be classified as "enemy combatants" in today's world, and promptly waterboarded 183 times.

But they weren't waterboarded because we had just sentenced some Japanese assholes to hard labor for waterboarding their prisoners.

Our country was in the middle of mass hysteria during the Red Scare of the 50s. Out of its ever loving mind. And yet we did not ship the Rosenbergs off to a remote military base and detain them until the end of the Cold War.

No. We tried them as the criminals they were, in a civilian court, and executed them.


The same can be said about Christopher Boyce. He also placed the lives of every living human being on the planet in jeopardy, as the Rosenbergs had.

Tried and sentenced in civilian court.

John Walker. Another one who put us all in danger. Tried and sentenced in civilian court.
 
Last edited:
Heres my problem,if its alqueda,or assiciates here,properly profiled and identified as terrorist groups,as i say with domestic terrorist gangs,then i agree with the bill.WITH THESE PROVISIONS.im massachusetts,people noticed weird motionings with 9/11,beforehand,and had not jamie gorelick blocked intelligence sharing,9/11 wouldnt happened,especially if bubba buttfuck clinton tpok binladen when offered instead of saying he was a hot potato..
 
Heres my problem,if its alqueda,or assiciates here,properly profiled and identified as terrorist groups,as i say with domestic terrorist gangs,then i agree with the bill.WITH THESE PROVISIONS.im massachusetts,people noticed weird motionings with 9/11,beforehand,and had not jamie gorelick blocked intelligence sharing,9/11 wouldnt happened,especially if bubba buttfuck clinton tpok binladen when offered instead of saying he was a hot potato..

You would support an accusation from the president against an American citizen that they should be detained without trial for as long as the government deems necessary?
 
Heres my problem,if its alqueda,or assiciates here,properly profiled and identified as terrorist groups,as i say with domestic terrorist gangs,then i agree with the bill.WITH THESE PROVISIONS.im massachusetts,people noticed weird motionings with 9/11,beforehand,and had not jamie gorelick blocked intelligence sharing,9/11 wouldnt happened,especially if bubba buttfuck clinton tpok binladen when offered instead of saying he was a hot potato..

You would support an accusation from the president against an American citizen that they should be detained without trial for as long as the government deems necessary?

Not without proof,and not without evidence of profiling,activities,or affiliation or direct involvement with terror groups.otherwise,NO.
 
Heres my problem,if its alqueda,or assiciates here,properly profiled and identified as terrorist groups,as i say with domestic terrorist gangs,then i agree with the bill.WITH THESE PROVISIONS.im massachusetts,people noticed weird motionings with 9/11,beforehand,and had not jamie gorelick blocked intelligence sharing,9/11 wouldnt happened,especially if bubba buttfuck clinton tpok binladen when offered instead of saying he was a hot potato..

You would support an accusation from the president against an American citizen that they should be detained without trial for as long as the government deems necessary?

Not without proof,and not without evidence of profiling,activities,or affiliation or direct involvement with terror groups.otherwise,NO.

There does not have to be any proof with the NDAA just on a word from the preident. sec 1021 covers that.
 
"Not without proof".

That pretty much sums up the problem. The NDAA allows US citizens, and non-citizens, to be locked up indefinitely without proof.

A habeas corpus hearing is held to let the judicial system know the "body" is in the system. And once a year, the "body" must be again produced to show it is still alive and in the system.

This can be done indefinitely, without there ever being a trial to prove the person belongs in custody.
 
"Not without proof".

That pretty much sums up the problem. The NDAA allows US citizens, and non-citizens, to be locked up indefinitely without proof.

A habeas corpus hearing is held to let the judicial system know the "body" is in the system. And once a year, the "body" must be again produced to show it is still alive and in the system.

This can be done indefinitely, without there ever being a trial to prove the person belongs in custody.

We lost both habeas corpus AND posse comitatus on NDAA 2012. The battlefield, it is everywhere now. We're all the terrorists accoding to the federal government and those who signed a yay to this hunk o fshit.

I'm actually surprised people aren't more pissed. i guess not many really giving a flying shit. Jersey Shore re-runs! Gotta go! :confused:
 
You would support an accusation from the president against an American citizen that they should be detained without trial for as long as the government deems necessary?

Not without proof,and not without evidence of profiling,activities,or affiliation or direct involvement with terror groups.otherwise,NO.

There does not have to be any proof with the NDAA just on a word from the preident. sec 1021 covers that.


The bill needs to go,then....
 
Not without proof,and not without evidence of profiling,activities,or affiliation or direct involvement with terror groups.otherwise,NO.

There does not have to be any proof with the NDAA just on a word from the preident. sec 1021 covers that.


The bill needs to go,then....

Thats the problem people support it and don't understand what it does. True the law must be repealed but also those who voted for it must go, no matter how you feel about them and what they support. I have a senator who is very pro 2A he voted for and now he must go.
 
I pos repped bigreb on this one. This was a one-vote issue. If your rep or senator voted for it, you have to vote for the opponent.
 
I pos repped bigreb on this one. This was a one-vote issue. If your rep or senator voted for it, you have to vote for the opponent.

Yep, lets hope the people remember, but they need to know about it first.
 

Forum List

Back
Top