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

[Avorysuds]

You were charged with a crime and didn't get a fair trial?

He swings, and he misses.
Strike two.

Wow... Can you possibly make a bigger ass of yourself? Gramps, do you know how “rights” work?

You have the right to protest, however if you never protest guess what Gramps, you still have that right...

You have a second amendment right to own a gun… But just because you don’t does not mean you don’t have the right too.

You have the right to a fair trial… Now if the Government CAN up and tosses you in a secret prison, well then it’s no longer a right, it’s a possibility……………… …………….. ………………………………..

STRIKE THREE. Your out. Nothing but hypothetical nonsense.

I see you used a baseball theme to “win” in a debate. Gramps, you don’t even know how rights work, you honestly have no place to post on these boards.

So being I and many others answered your question, you simply didn’t like the answer maybe you can answer my question, not that you ever do.

Gramps, what makes a right a right in America?

 

[Avorysuds]

Just because Paul was very far away and very busy does not mean his actions don't reflect his rhetoric.

Yes, that's exactly what it means. To listen to his rhetoric, this was the single most important vote of the 112th Congress and, apparently, the end of the republic.

If he truly believes that, then "oh, it was going to pass anyway" or "he was busy trying to advance his political career" doesn't quite seem to cut it. It may pain you to realize this but Ron Paul is a politician, just like everyone else in this race.

I take it if Obama signs it into law you will not be voting for Obama then?

And voting for Obama was obviosuly a mistake being he voted for the Patriot act and all...

 

[LibertyForAll]

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.

He swings, and he misses. Strike one.

Pitch two: What personal RIGHTS have YOU lost?

It's the exact same pitch. Maybe this time you can hit it? And the reason I keep asking is because no one ever answers.

Amendment IV
(Pivacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[paulitician]

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe

 

[Avorysuds]

The rights you lose under the new NDAA 2012 are simple.

Any American citizen (or a foreigner) labeled a terrorist by federal agencies or govt., whether that be because you stock food, buy flashlights, pay in cash, etc..or you are alleged to have connections to terrorist organizations or their affiliates, can be seized and detained, without trial, indefinitely.

If you find nothing wrong with that, you'll be right at home in the new "battlefield" expansion.

Not that it really makes a difference. The last two presidents have been enjoying additional powers under "war time" provisions anyway. This means little to the rest of the world, who may be assassinated via drones or black ops teams, having nothing new to fear from these provisions.

Whether you think Ron Paul is a nut or not, he's correct about this new legislation. it was bound to happen and these powers will continue to squeeze the remaining liberties from the citizens of this country in perpetual war. Some have seen this coming and have spoken out for years that federal government power usurps would eventually lead to war on the citizens to protect the interests of government. History certain has a snarky and humorous way of repeating itself. Not that anyone in this country cares about history.

Nike released new shoes!

Talk about fear mongering. Now if I buy too much food or too many batteries they are going to imprison me? Sheer nonsense. You can make anything a negative when taken out of context. And if I give aid to a terrorist I deserve more than imprisonment.

You really need to pay more attention... You don't have to give aid to a terrorist, meaning you have still not read the bill.

Fuckin A gramps, you're so crazy and out of touch man. Maybe Cain was the candidate for you after alll.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

He swings, and he misses. Strike one.

Pitch two: What personal RIGHTS have YOU lost?

It's the exact same pitch. Maybe this time you can hit it? And the reason I keep asking is because no one ever answers.

Amendment IV
(Pivacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Gramps will not agree!!! And that makes the constitution wrong if Gramps does not agree!!! King Gramps!

 

[Greenbeard]

Just because Paul was very far away and very busy does not mean his actions don't reflect his rhetoric.

Yes, that's exactly what it means. To listen to his rhetoric, this was the single most important vote of the 112th Congress and, apparently, the end of the republic.

If he truly believes that, then "oh, it was going to pass anyway" or "he was busy trying to advance his political career" doesn't quite seem to cut it. It may pain you to realize this but Ron Paul is a politician, just like everyone else in this race.

I take it if Obama signs it into law you will not be voting for Obama then?

And voting for Obama was obviosuly a mistake being he voted for the Patriot act and all...

I haven't said anything about Obama or the content of this legislation.

I've merely pointed out that the overheated rhetoric of Paul the political candidate and the actions of Paul the duly elected representative of the Texas 14th do not match on this issue. The rhetoric in the OP is a play for primary votes and should be understood as such.

 

[paulitician]

"When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered." - Dorothy Thompson

Wow,what an incredibly wise woman. That quote perfectly describes the current atmosphere in our country. The People are just so willing to give all their liberty away. And for what?...Fear?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Wow... Can you possibly make a bigger ass of yourself? Gramps, do you know how “rights” work?

You have the right to protest, however if you never protest guess what Gramps, you still have that right...

You have a second amendment right to own a gun… But just because you don’t does not mean you don’t have the right too.

You have the right to a fair trial… Now if the Government CAN up and tosses you in a secret prison, well then it’s no longer a right, it’s a possibility……………… …………….. ………………………………..

STRIKE THREE. Your out. Nothing but hypothetical nonsense.

I see you used a baseball theme to “win” in a debate. Gramps, you don’t even know how rights work, you honestly have no place to post on these boards.

So being I and many others answered your question, you simply didn’t like the answer maybe you can answer my question, not that you ever do.

Gramps, what makes a right a right in America?

Your an idiot. Of all of the people on this board I have probably lost and regained more rights than any of you. I understand them and I appreciate having them restored.

You can list no situation where you have been infringed upon because you haven't been. Your response to me is to ask childish questions and attempt to put me in a box to fit your ideology. Along with throwing out hypothetical scenarios. If and when that happens we'll talk. Until then you got nothing but rhetoric.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He swings, and he misses. Strike one.

Pitch two: What personal RIGHTS have YOU lost?

It's the exact same pitch. Maybe this time you can hit it? And the reason I keep asking is because no one ever answers.

Amendment IV
(Pivacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Gramps will not agree!!! And that makes the constitution wrong if Gramps does not agree!!! King Gramps!

All hail the king.

Hold the applause, tips only please.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I did not say they are "going to" imprison you. But they very well could, is the point. And you have no legal recourse to that. If you are deemed a terrorist, you no longer have the ability to defend yourself in a court of law against the claim.

You're either really not understanding, or you've spent too much time arguing with others, and not enough time learning the facts.

 

[Avorysuds]

Yes, that's exactly what it means. To listen to his rhetoric, this was the single most important vote of the 112th Congress and, apparently, the end of the republic.

If he truly believes that, then "oh, it was going to pass anyway" or "he was busy trying to advance his political career" doesn't quite seem to cut it. It may pain you to realize this but Ron Paul is a politician, just like everyone else in this race.

I take it if Obama signs it into law you will not be voting for Obama then?

And voting for Obama was obviosuly a mistake being he voted for the Patriot act and all...

I haven't said anything about Obama or the content of this legislation.

I've merely pointed out that the overheated rhetoric of Paul the political candidate and the actions of Paul the duly elected representative of the Texas 14th do not match on this issue. The rhetoric in the OP is a play for primary votes and should be understood as such.

I brought up Obama, is there a rule that does not allow that? What my intention was is to either get you to lie and say you wouldn't vote for Obama if he supported this bill or at least admit that all you're trying to do is attack Paul for the sake of attacking Paul.

Paul has a long history of voting against stuff like this, he talks about being against it and while it's not the best situation that he didn't make the vote on this bill he is still one of the most outspoken people against this bill... The Bill Obama said he wouldn't sign and now says he will...

If Paul spoke out against this bill, then voted for it THAT would be something... Not making the vote when we don’t know anything about how the vote was brought up means nothing to me… The Vote could have been brought to the floor and voted on in hours, meaning Paul literally could not have made it there even if he tried, but you don’t know this, neither do I… But you go in knowing very little and attack away because that is all you wanted to do. If it comes out that Paul couldn’t make the vote because it was done quickly would you apologize? No, you wouldn’t… Just like if Obama signs it you will still vote Obama.

 

[Avorysuds]

Amendment IV
(Pivacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Gramps will not agree!!! And that makes the constitution wrong if Gramps does not agree!!! King Gramps!

All hail the king.

Hold the applause, tips only please.

What Gramps meant to say was he pitched a 38 mile an hour fast ball and we drove it out of the park… Now it’s time to claim he was just trolling the Paul supporters as to why Gramps does not even know the basics of the constitution but yet feels he clearly should be taken seriously in a debate about what “Rights” are.

Newt sounds like a good choice for you Gramps, after all he does want to re-write the entire constitution... Yeah, he's not fully bonkers or anything.

 

[paulitician]

"It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue." - Sam Adams

Always remember that incredibly wise quote from Sam Adams when the Socialists/Progressives & Neocons are mocking and ridiculing you. Yes,they are the current majority and we are the minority but that doesn't mean we should give up. Because we have honor and they do not. So don't get too down. Keep fighting the good fight. It's definitely worth it. Have a great day and take care.

 

[paulitician]

I take it if Obama signs it into law you will not be voting for Obama then?

And voting for Obama was obviosuly a mistake being he voted for the Patriot act and all...

I haven't said anything about Obama or the content of this legislation.

I've merely pointed out that the overheated rhetoric of Paul the political candidate and the actions of Paul the duly elected representative of the Texas 14th do not match on this issue. The rhetoric in the OP is a play for primary votes and should be understood as such.

I brought up Obama, is there a rule that does not allow that? What my intention was is to either get you to lie and say you wouldn't vote for Obama if he supported this bill or at least admit that all you're trying to do is attack Paul for the sake of attacking Paul.

Paul has a long history of voting against stuff like this, he talks about being against it and while it's not the best situation that he didn't make the vote on this bill he is still one of the most outspoken people against this bill... The Bill Obama said he wouldn't sign and now says he will...

If Paul spoke out against this bill, then voted for it THAT would be something... Not making the vote when we don’t know anything about how the vote was brought up means nothing to me… The Vote could have been brought to the floor and voted on in hours, meaning Paul literally could not have made it there even if he tried, but you don’t know this, neither do I… But you go in knowing very little and attack away because that is all you wanted to do. If it comes out that Paul couldn’t make the vote because it was done quickly would you apologize? No, you wouldn’t… Just like if Obama signs it you will still vote Obama.

Well said. Thanks.

 

[paulitician]

Gramps will not agree!!! And that makes the constitution wrong if Gramps does not agree!!! King Gramps!

All hail the king.

Hold the applause, tips only please.

What Gramps meant to say was he pitched a 38 mile an hour fast ball and we drove it out of the park… Now it’s time to claim he was just trolling the Paul supporters as to why Gramps does not even know the basics of the constitution but yet feels he clearly should be taken seriously in a debate about what “Rights” are.

Newt sounds like a good choice for you Gramps, after all he does want to re-write the entire constitution... Yeah, he's not fully bonkers or anything.

Neocons & Socialists/Progressives agree on most issues. They of course don't like to admit it though. They're both cheerleading for this NDAA. It gives Big Brother more power & control. And they both just love that. Hopefully enough brave politicians will stand up and fight to get rid of the NDAA. I really do hope so anyway.

 

[Modbert]

Right, he should have flown back D.C. because his vote would have stopped it.

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.

Yes, he should have fulfilled his job to the people he is suppose to represent. If he cares that much about the bill, he should have voted on it. It's not like this would have been the first bill where his vote would have ended up not meaning much in the grand scheme of things.

 

[WatertheTree]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

Apparently he was too busy to show up and vote against it.

Well ya, I dont know if your aware but he is running for president. Why vote agianst it when you can be president and veto it next year?

 

[Modbert]

Well ya, I dont know if your aware but he is running for president. Why vote agianst it when you can be president and veto it next year?

Assuming the bill hasn't been passed and signed by the time he takes office if elected. Which would actually be in 2013, not 2012.

 

[Modbert]

Neocons & Socialists/Progressives agree on most issues. They of course just don't like to admit it though. They're both cheerleading for this NDAA. It gives Big Brother more power & control. And they both just love that. Hopefully enough brave politicians will stand up and fight to get rid of the NDAA. I really do hope so anyway.

The World Socialist Web Site is going to be awfully surprised to find out they support NDAA now.

The Nation and the National Defense Authorization Act

Though maybe you can show us where Progressives and Socialists express their support for NDAA.