The Conventions

Over 18 ONLY! For grown-ups. . .

Moderators: Sluggo, Amskeptic

User avatar
Westy78
IAC Addict!
Location: Stumptown OR
Status: Offline

Re: The Conventions

Post by Westy78 » Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:28 pm

Does the NDAA bill that Obama said he wouldn't pass then signed into law while we were distracted on a holiday not bother anyone? That alone really puts me at odds in reelecting him. I really can't believe that more people aren't appalled by that bill. At the same time there's no way in he'll I'd vote for Romney.
Chorizo, it's what's for breakfast.

User avatar
hambone
Post-Industrial Non-Secular Mennonite
Location: Portland, Ore.
Status: Offline

Re: The Conventions

Post by hambone » Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:38 pm

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013[1][2] is legislation under consideration in the United States Congress.
Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the defense authorization and defense appropriations bills. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent.[3][dead link]
The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 passed the House Armed Services Committee 56-5 on May 10. The bill as reported to the House authorizes $554.2 billion in base Pentagon spending and $88.5 billion for overseas contingency operations (OCO).[4] The bill passed the full House on May 18 by a vote of 299-120.[5]
So as to not have the Act run into the same legal trouble the 2012 version did, the US House included sections 1031 through 1033, which strike the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Within those sections include references to a federal appeals court decision and a Supreme Court ruling that affirm the Constitutional rights of American citizens.[1] However, there are already criticisms of the Act, especially with regard to a "readiness" and funding for an attack on Iran.[6]
http://greencascadia.blogspot.com
http://pdxvolksfolks.blogspot.com
it balances on your head just like a mattress balances on a bottle of wine
your brand new leopard skin pillbox hat

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: The Conventions

Post by Amskeptic » Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:48 am

Westy78 wrote:Does the NDAA bill that Obama said he wouldn't pass then signed into law while we were distracted on a holiday not bother anyone? That alone really puts me at odds in reelecting him. I really can't believe that more people aren't appalled by that bill. At the same time there's no way in he'll I'd vote for Romney.

I must have been distracted . . . my my balky cow.
Did I read Hambone's Wiki reference correctly, that it strikes habeas corpus?
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
Westy78
IAC Addict!
Location: Stumptown OR
Status: Offline

Re: The Conventions

Post by Westy78 » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:34 pm

Amskeptic wrote:
Westy78 wrote:Does the NDAA bill that Obama said he wouldn't pass then signed into law while we were distracted on a holiday not bother anyone? That alone really puts me at odds in reelecting him. I really can't believe that more people aren't appalled by that bill. At the same time there's no way in he'll I'd vote for Romney.

I must have been distracted . . . my my balky cow.
Did I read Hambone's Wiki reference correctly, that it strikes habeas corpus?
Colin

You got it. They can detain any American citizen without reason or trial indefinitely if they are suspected of terrorist activity. And before you say, oh that will never be me, do some research on what suspicious activities they deem potential terrorist worthy. In all likely hood it will not be used without good cause but I don't think any government official, no matter their rank should have that kind of power. It becomes a very slippery slope.

Don't know the background or legitimacy on this site but it explains it pretty well.

http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_ ... nment.html
Chorizo, it's what's for breakfast.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: The Conventions

Post by Amskeptic » Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:35 pm

Westy78 wrote:And before you say, oh that will never be me, do some research

Easy there . . . I never liked the Patriot Act and I do not like the way Homeland Security is now its own self-justifying bureaucracy.
What shall we concerned citizens do to protest?
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
ruckman101
Lord God King Bwana
Location: Up next to a volcano.
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: The Conventions

Post by ruckman101 » Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:32 pm

Well, for a start, we the people need to assert our sovereignty, not accepting that a corporate entity has more. We the people are sovereign, not a mental concept, despite court rulings. The people of Pittsburgh recently outlawed fracking. I was encouraged to hear Obama suggest rolling back the Citizen's United ruling. Once that tide begins, we the people can do anything.


neal
The slipper has no teeth.

User avatar
Westy78
IAC Addict!
Location: Stumptown OR
Status: Offline

Re: The Conventions

Post by Westy78 » Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:55 pm

Amskeptic wrote:
Westy78 wrote:And before you say, oh that will never be me, do some research

Easy there . . . I never liked the Patriot Act and I do not like the way Homeland Security is now its own self-justifying bureaucracy.
What shall we concerned citizens do to protest?
Colin

Sorry, that wasn't directed at you. It was a general statement to anyone that would make a claim such as that.
Chorizo, it's what's for breakfast.

Post Reply