Your rights have been taken away as of today

[Sallow]

I am a REP and I am against this bill so I dont know why you say that.. All my friends who are REP are against it too

Anything negative like this they think the Rep's are for. And it won't change their minds just because we tell them they're idiots and don't know what they're talking about....because a lot of them ARE idiots and don't know what they're talking about. Why would ANYONE be in favor of a bill like this? If Obama doesn't veto it, he's dead in the water.

It doesn't matter if he vetoes the bill or not the fact that it was presented is unnerving if you ask my opinion

What the heck does that mean. If he vetoes it, it shows that he's on your side. About this issue anyway.

 

[Sallow]

You think that Obma will veto this bill when the Senate voted 93 to 7?
Way more than a super majority.

Sure.

 

[Photonic]

You think that Obma will veto this bill when the Senate voted 93 to 7?
Way more than a super majority.

Sure.

That's what the president is FOR.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Anything negative like this they think the Rep's are for. And it won't change their minds just because we tell them they're idiots and don't know what they're talking about....because a lot of them ARE idiots and don't know what they're talking about. Why would ANYONE be in favor of a bill like this? If Obama doesn't veto it, he's dead in the water.

It doesn't matter if he vetoes the bill or not the fact that it was presented is unnerving if you ask my opinion

What the heck does that mean. If he vetoes it, it shows that he's on your side. About this issue anyway.

No it doesn't here read my last reply

he will veto but the senate will over ride it. It's a poly for obama to look like he has done something right. Congress votes to over ride his veto. It's a win win for obama and Congress. The only losers are the American people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The bill says;
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Why do you all keep saying that this bill applies to U.S. Citizens?

Because it does

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had sought an exception to the provision for U.S. citizens, but her effort failed, 55-45.

If it didn't exist why did Feinstein try to have the provision removed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Anything negative like this they think the Rep's are for. And it won't change their minds just because we tell them they're idiots and don't know what they're talking about....because a lot of them ARE idiots and don't know what they're talking about. Why would ANYONE be in favor of a bill like this? If Obama doesn't veto it, he's dead in the water.

It doesn't matter if he vetoes the bill or not the fact that it was presented is unnerving if you ask my opinion

Hey stupid........you DO realize that the people who STARTED the bill are in Congress, right?

Hey stupid son of a bitch have you ever heard of the bill of rights? Have you ever heard the part that we are a country of laws?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

The bill says;
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Why do you all keep saying that this bill applies to U.S. Citizens?

Read the whole article-it is applicable to U.S. citizens.

Also what if it didn't pertain to citizens? The constitution/bill of rights doesn't just pertain to citizens.

 

[LibertyForAll]

This puts those FEMA camps into perspective.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This puts those FEMA camps into perspective.

yes it does

 

[Katzndogz]

Hey it's obama with all that power, you trust him don't you?

 

[peach174]

The bill says;
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Why do you all keep saying that this bill applies to U.S. Citizens?

Read the whole article-it is applicable to U.S. citizens.

Also what if it didn't pertain to citizens? The constitution/bill of rights doesn't just pertain to citizens.

Yes it does and those that are here legally.
Our Constitution is for the United States Citizens and Aliens who have come here legally.
It does not apply to any one else.
You are buying into the liberal ideology of it being for all.
Read the first thing our Constitution says;
In Very big a bold letters is says;
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The bill says;
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Why do you all keep saying that this bill applies to U.S. Citizens?

Read the whole article-it is applicable to U.S. citizens.

Also what if it didn't pertain to citizens? The constitution/bill of rights doesn't just pertain to citizens.

Yes it does and those that are here legally.
Our Constitution is for the United States Citizens and Aliens who have come here legally.
It does not apply to any one else.
You are buying into the liberal ideology of it being for all.
Read the first thing our Constitution says;
In Very big a bold letters is says;
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States

Peaches if this didn't effect U.S. CITIZENS why did Feinstein try to have the provision removed?

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had sought an exception to the provision for U.S. citizens, but her effort failed, 55-45.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Yay totalitarian military dictatorships!!! I hope the Neocons are finally happy now.

This had bipartisan support.

You fail.

protip: the Neocon agenda transcends party lines.

That sounds more like libtard agenda. Either way it is wrong.

 

[Dragon]

Hey it's obama with all that power, you trust him don't you?

Of course not. No liberal would EVER trust the government with that kind of power. That's against everything liberalism stands for.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This had bipartisan support.

You fail.

protip: the Neocon agenda transcends party lines.

That sounds more like libtard agenda. Either way it is wrong.

It's an elitist agenda globalist

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey it's obama with all that power, you trust him don't you?

Of course not. No liberal would EVER trust the government with that kind of power. That's against everything liberalism stands for.

You're confusing libertarianism with liberalism next caller please.

 

[Dragon]

You're confusing libertarianism with liberalism

On issues like this, the two are in complete agreement.

 

[Sirkarl101]

Is it not time for us to put off the other bullshit and join together and march on D.C and let them know we will not stand for this. I know many of you think very little of my opinions but come on. Post answers [lease and I will be in D.C this weekend to stand united with all of you. Democrat, Republican, Independent. I am 52 yrs. old, disabled and scared to death right now, not for myself but all of America.
Am I overreacting?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're confusing libertarianism with liberalism

On issues like this, the two are in complete agreement.

you as an individual may dis agree with it, but libertarianism and liberalism are not the same. What is happening is a mixture of liberals working with conservatives to enslave the public. But for a better term you can call them global elites or Statist.

 

[Jarhead]

I am a REP and I am against this bill so I dont know why you say that.. All my friends who are REP are against it too

You in favor of the Patriot Act? Honest question.

Never.