{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/31/2013 7:39:21 PM
24
He views himself and acts like a king. He has often shown a great disregard for the Constitution he not only swore to uphold, but used to teach people about.
English
-
Aside from the NDAA, I want examples, since you used "often."
-
His invasions, Obamacare, Gun regulations, taxation and his assault on free speech to name a few.
-
Invasions? Congress. Obamacare? Congress. Gun regulation? Congress Taxation? Congress? Assault on free speech? You're an idiot.
-
>assault on free speech Okay, let's just let WBC protest funerals and say that everyone that isn't affiliated with them is going to burn in hell, or are fags. >invasions >bush administration >obamacare >dumbed down version of Canada's health care system, seems to work for them. >taxes Do I even need to cover this, or do you know where I'm headed with this?
-
Bush's Invasions* Supreme Court ruled it constitutional. Go bring up another case if you think you know better. I gave you the list. All Constitutional, none of them ban assault weapons or magazines. What are you going on with free speech now? That's a new one, even for you.
-
I can get one quick response before my shift starts... Bush had nothing to do with Libya or Uganda, why do you keep bringing the guy up? It won't help you, I was just as critical and disappointed with George as I am with his carbon copy Barrack. They are both Big Government. A simple Google search will tell you they are limiting magazine sizes to ten rounds and reinstating the assault rifle ban. Why are you debating in topics you're not properly educated in? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SGWH3kirzg I'll check this again perhaps on lunch or when I get home.
-
Tell me, when did we invade Libya? We provided military support to countries from NATO who were creating the anti-air zone. That's all. And what the hell are you going on involving Uganda? They are BILLS by Congressmen and women to enact those laws. Obama has not created a piece of legislation or executive order to make that happen. Do your -blam!-ing research. Why does it not surprised me you linked Fox News, the most unbiased news source.
-
Good luck. I've been trying to get examples with sources from this guy for the past twenty minutes.
-
I gave them to you.
-
You gave me examples, with no credible sources to back it up besides "Obamas bad!"
-
The NDAA? Which one? It's the yearly military budget.
-
The one which claims he has the authority to detain anyone he wants without trial, charge or due process. He is a filthy murderer.
-
It isn't anyone he wants; there are stringent requirements: verified affiliation with AQ or a known terrorist group, and verified participation in the planning or enactment of an attack against the U.S. or its allies. We've had laws like this forever regarding holding war criminals and enemy combatants without trial until the war is over.
-
lol, "verified". Please define. I'll save you the trouble: "whatever the gov't wants to believe."
-
Edited by HurtfulTurkey: 1/31/2013 10:24:05 PMI always find it so odd how people are so quick to think the government will do this on a whim...they did it once (and he was a well known terrorist and was relatively influential in his organization), and now everyone flips out like they're expecting to be thrown behind bars with no explanation one day. It would be impossible to persuade someone that has so little trust in the government that they think random citizens will be detained meaninglessly. Citizenship doesn't protect one from the consequences of treason and being an enemy combatant.
-
Treason? The crime? Shouldn't one be tried and found guilty of a crime before being executed for it? You're right that citizenship is no shield against consequences, but nor is anyone asking it to be. Treason is punishable by death per the Constitution itself, IIRC. But the Constitution also requires "due process of law" which we typically interpret as a proper trial.
-
Edited by HurtfulTurkey: 1/31/2013 10:32:56 PMI agree, which is why I specified being an enemy combatant. Do you not agree that an American citizen should be subject to the same treatment as any other person that wages war against the country?
-
Where does it say it doesn't apply to U.S. citizens? As far as I know they only have to suspect you of terrorism and not even prove it, I've yet to have anyone prove otherwise. Anyways, all they'd have to do is call me a terrorist and that voids my citizenship: Meaning they can do it to whoever they want. Anyways, it's still unconstitutional because the fourth and fifth amendment apply to ALL people, it restrains our government. Time for me to go to work now but I'll check this later.
-
[quote]Where does it say it doesn't apply to U.S. citizens?[/quote] NDAA 2012, Section 1032: [quote]The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States[/quote] [url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf]Page 362[/url]
-
All that deals with is the requirement to detain them in military custody (note it applies only to Section 1032 ["this section"]). That means that the gov't (specifically, the military) absolutely can detain US citizens per the (rather vague) provisions of Section 1031. Per 1032, they simply are not required (but may still have the option) to hold US citizens so detained in military custody, whereas non-citizens are absolutely required to be held in military custody (as opposed to civilian custody).
-
It applies to U.S. citizens; like I said, it's not just a suspected association, you have to be affiliated with a terrorist group and have participated in an attack; this measure was possibly in response to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. It's a tricky situation, because on one hand, it's unreasonable to use the military to enforce domestic issues; on another, those that choose to actively support terrorists aren't exactly committing crimes that are domestic or civil in nature.
-
[quote]The one which claims he has the authority to detain anyone he wants without trial, charge or due process. He is a filthy murderer.[/quote] Again, it was passed through a GOP controlled House and Democratic Senate easily. The GOP would have gone ballistic if they disagreed with this and found it unconstitutional. And I don't see how this relates to him being a murderer, which he is not.
-
He murdered Anwar Al-Awlaki. And of course the right side of the Big Government party wouldn't care about having more power when they get their Big Government person into office. They do just as many things unconstitutional as the left Big Government party. I can clearly see you are blind and am done here. You honestly didn't know Barrack is a murderer by definition?
-
You mean the guy that was suspected of aligning with terrorists, and whom had connections with several terrorist attacks across the globe? This is why you classify Obama as a murderer? Again, great evidence to back up your claims. You really should be a debater, you're sure to win with no [i]sources[/i]
