Obama's State of the Union speech 1/24/2012

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Alias3000, Jan 25, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SAMARA

    SAMARA truth is a sword

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,151
    what do you think of the notion that some institutions are so entwined in the everyday that to not bail them out would make a $25,000 cheque worth $0.25?
    test
  2. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    Religious values don't trump US law in your hypothetical situation. If I get murdered it will be done in the US.
    test
  3. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    im not defending the bill or even obama, but you can hardly put the full share of the blame on him. the controversial laws in question are provisions attached to a defense appropriations bill that passed with overwhelming congressional support. a veto on his behalf would have subsequently been overridden by congress. then the fact that he had tried to veto a defense appropriations bill with so much support on both sides of the isle (93-7) would be used against him in the upcoming elections. a veto would have ultimately have been an empty gesture which would change nothing and would have given his opponents the rhetoric to make him seem anti-military. so instead of taking that route and facing the subsequent onslaught of his uber-nationalist republican rivals, he chose instead to upset the ALCU and other liberals who, let's face it, will probably vote for him anyways just to avoid a president gingrich or romney.
    test
  4. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,181
    And somma yall thought this nigga Barack was cool? Hell anww

    that NDAA ain't no joke. heads up
    test
  5. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,181

    Hell yeah it is.
    test
  6. SAMARA

    SAMARA truth is a sword

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,151
    I agree in part; however, the objections to NDAA is not a constitutional based one from what i am gathering. its a feel good thing. the matter of fact of the NDAA is that as the President is the commander in cheif over the troops, he too is identified as a key decision maker in prisoners of war.

    what has changed in this millenium, and get your pen and paper out for this history of warfare - after the gun became automatic killing and the killer were separate of one another. The killer no longer had to look at a victim. the killer to stare blankly into in area and think. then from blank thought came ideology that was no longer muttered around campfires, it was spread faceless and a person was left to look into their own eyes; indoing so, the point of fact was lost. there was no longer reason or ration governing these thoughts. There were no longer eyes staring back.

    i think that the threat to the generations in the western world is that the premise of freedom is taken for granted, that freedom is not something that is physical it is something that has since the beginning of human history is something that is mental.

    the concern is with people who have enslaved your citizens mentally to commit crimes. how to argue an opinion or belief when one is set on one side of agreement and the other on disagreement?

    is freedom the issue here? people who identify themselves as militants have refuted their right as citizens. This is the history of warfare since ... once upon a time.

    but let me get this straight - a citizen/alien who declares themselves aligned with the political agenda of a country that is in direct conflict with the home country and acts militantly against the home country by way of this political agenda seeking reward from a country that is in direct conflict with the home country IF CAUGHT should not be considered a militant, but rather protected by laws governing citizens/aliens who do not delcare themselves as militants and are therefore protected by laws governing citizens/aliens?

    before one asserts "yes" - the principle of mens reas here is that that the person KNOWLINGLY acted beyond the laws of citizenship/aliens and enacted behaviour reserved for soldiers in warfare against other soldiers. therefore, they are governed by laws of war not civil liberties.

    and anyone who doesnt understand this, read it again until you do.
    test
  7. Your Idol

    Your Idol ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Messages:
    12,045
    SAMARA, say hello to the 4th amendment. A feel good thing? Are you shitting me?
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)