Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Not voting for obama doesn't mean you have to vote for the republican. Hell I don't think any of them are worth a shit either. I don't think I'm going to vote this time.

These are my thoughts. This is a power-grab by the government. Coupled with the SOPA which basically limits what you can post on twitter, facebook, etc. They don't want what happened in the Middle East to happen here. The power of the internet and civil disobedience scares the fuck out of these assholes.

I'm voting for either Romney or Gingrich. If its anyone else, Im not voting.

I want a politician who will work for the common man and not big money. Also they both seem like honest men who stand their ground for the principles they believe in.

I like Romney because I can relate due to him being somewhat liberal. He has stated before his support for abortion rights and gay marriage.

While Gingrich isn't really as progressive on social issues, I respect him for having sound moral character and being a man of integrity.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

Ironically, that's what I thought about Obama when I voted for him. It's also what I thought about Bush when I voted for him at the age of 18.




We all know how that turned out.

A+ trolling. Touting Newt "I left my wife who was dying of cancer for my mistress" Gingrich's moral character and Mitt "Corporations are people" Romney's desire to help the common man.

Good stuff.

Hey maybe you can vote for Trump based on his business acumen, or Palin based on her dogged determination to see her commitments through!

On topicish: The executive branch has claimed it's right to hold indefinitely since 9-11. Look at the Padilla case, their entire argument was 'we say he's a terrorist and we can do whatever we want with terrorists'. Calling America a battlefield comes directly from the 4th (I think) circuit's ruling that basically said 'It doesn't count in America because America isn't a battlefield'.

I can't imagine something like this getting past the supreme court, even with the absolute dumbfuckery going on there lately. It's one thing for companies to buy supreme court votes, it's another for the branch to neuter itself.

I think SOPA will be like smacking a bee's nest. It'll be the next war on drugs (or I guess the next war on terror), billions and billions down the drain, people incarcerated, no way to stop the illegal activity. They'll be able to pick the low hanging fruit, but the internet is one area where I think the private sector vastly trumps the power of the government.

Dvergar /
Quisling

rofl yeah that was pretty good trollin nigga.

aside from the fact that we could tell it was trolling

It did give me pause. I've read some incredibly stupid things that have been posted sincerely, but in the end I just didn't think he was that stupid.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Should've vetoed it. It only had 65% support in the House, so a veto would have killed it.

It's disgraceful.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Heya folks, I don't post here very often anymore but I check in every now and then. First, I hadn't heard much about NDAA(maybe I live under a rock) so after seeing this thread I got the impression that it somehow would allow the Gov/Mil what ever to hold US citizens w/o trial. So that is some scary shit so I looked it up(specifically the Sections 1031 and 1032 mentioned) and didn't really see what you guys seem to. I am not great at legal jargon so if I am wrong please correct me.
______________________________________________________

So the Sections of NDAA in question.

Section 1031. Affirmation of the Authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain "Covered Persons".

Ok, so a "Covered Person" seemed to be defined as a terrorist type. It is also says in Section 1031 that these "Covered Persons" may be detained without trial until the "end of hostilities"... what ever that means.

Section 1032. Requirement for Military Custody.

Now if you read through this one you get down to ->
"(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."
____________________________________________

So the way I read those it seems to me that if you are a US citizen you still CAN'T be held by the Gov/Mil and would thus be turned over to the "proper authority's" if you committed a crime which in turn would get you a fair trial ?

Talk to me I feel like I'm missing something(I didn't read all 680sum odd pages after all) > <


~Chubathingy

Çhubathingy - Shaman - Royal Militia
Hoenhiem - Paladin - Royal Militia
Contact: Bnet= nurindun#1138 / twitter / twitch

the word of the law is one thing, the interpretation is the dangerous part,

and that law can be misinfuckingterpreted.

Well I get that(as seen by all the idiots on the internet talking about it that obviously haven't read any of it). I mean the "Covered Persons" seem pretty well defined but I guess if they think you did something(or not, if you're a conspiracy theorist) lock you up and throw away the key you wouldn't be able to prove that you don't fit that mold(seeing as you wouldn't get a trial until the war on terror is "over").

~Chubathingy

Çhubathingy - Shaman - Royal Militia
Hoenhiem - Paladin - Royal Militia
Contact: Bnet= nurindun#1138 / twitter / twitch

It's just worrisome when they put in a law that I feel is going a step in the wrong direction, because the next step they take in that direction will be even further, and even further after that.

Well, SOPA took a blow today... Fingers crossed

The executive branch believed (and still does) it had the authority to hold anyone, anywhere, for as long as they wanted without charge. The Bush administration decided that the congressional authorization for the war on terror gave them that right. Jose Padilla was held without charge and the government argued through multiple federal trials that it was a-ok, they finally charged him in order to avoid a supreme court decision that was clearly not going to go their way.

One of the key rulings was that the executive couldn't hold American citizens indefinitely because America isn't a battlefield, and only congress has the right to suspend habeas corpus. That is exactly the argument this bill was crafted for.



In 2009 the department of defense issued materials used to training purposes that listed protestors as low-level terrorists. They removed section (it was a multiple choice question), but would not comment on it.

In 2008, prior to the republican national convention there were pre-emptive arrests made of those people who were planning otherwise peaceful protests. They were charged with domestic terrorism. Under the ndaa, they could have been held indefinitely.



It means nothing, when you make war on a tactic and not a state or a people you are instituting a perpetual war.




The key word in the above is "requirement". Nothing in the bill says they can't detain citizens, it only says they aren't required to.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Just read this....got super depressed afterwards.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-set ... er-2011-12


Really it's almost shocking how easy it was to ruin democracy and turn America into a police state. Of course the media (except for Jon Stewart) said absolutely nothing about it. Thanks Fox News, CNN, MSNBC....