What the troops REALLY want is to end the killing of innocents & come back home to defend THIS country. And there's only one candidate who is willing to do that. If we really cared about the troops, we would honor their wish.
I think we've got the Earth-to-space part well practiced... it needs a few tweaks like this spaceplane, but we're pretty good.
Now we just need a warp drive so we can fly to nearby planets & stars within a reasonable time. Hopefully before an asteroid hits us and kills-off the mammals. (Followed by the Age of Reptiles.)
In the U.S. touching a woman's breast or somebody's crotch, even through clothing, is a crime. It's sexual assault. We had a case like that in my college where someone grabbed a girl's boob and then was arrested & jailed.
So if a person is not allowed to infringe upon other people's rights, neither can the government.
>>>(1) Obama vetos the bill. He gets eviscerated in the news media
That's true, but there's also this little factoid: Obama didn't veto the NDAA, because he didn't want to veto it. He was the one who asked Congress to ADD the two sentences to arrest suspected terrorists (including americans) without giving them a right to trial. He wanted the law to pass as written.
And then he included a signing statement which he knows, from previous SCOTUS cases, doesn't mean anything. It's null-and-void.
According to the FBI a suspected terrorist is someone who: - pays with cash - deposits more than $10,000 in their account - carries a pocket constitution - belongs to a gun club - has a Ronpaul or Campaign for Liberty bumper sticker - texts with a phone and tries to hide the screen with their hand - posts on Facebook that he/she opposes the TSA - and on and on
Basically, under the FBI definition, we are nearly-all suspects for terrorism, and under the NDAA that means we can be jailed without right to trial.
You're voting for Obama? The guy who said it is "unpatriotic for Bush to add 4 trillion to the debt" and then does the same thing himself in just half the time.
The guy who said "you can take it to the bank" that both wars will be over by Dec 31, 2009, but in fact both wars continued for another 2 years, and the Afghan war will continue indefinitely. MEANWHILE he went off and started NEW wars by bombing Yemen and Libya and murdering who knows how many 100s or thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
The guy who signed a law that FORCES us to buy health insurance in direct contravention of out 9th and 10th amendment rights. Expanded the TSA to grope people at train depots, along interstate highways, at post offices, in malls, and just recently in buses. Signed the ACTA which censors free speech ont he net, added two sentences to the NDAA so he could arrest and imprison Americans without a right to trial (on the mere suspicion of being terrorists). Started regulating family farms such that children can no longer help milk the cows, bale the hay, et cetera.
You are making the same dumbass mistake as the TV media. You didn't count Iowa or Nevada or Maine or any of the other caucus states. You're acting as if those states don't exist. The fact of the matter is that nearly-all those caucus states are going to Paul, so he should have hundreds of votes added to his tally.
BUT NO instead you'd prefer to wipe those states off the map and pretend they don't exist.
Oh and by the way, yes, I expect Romney to win the convention in August, and eventually be our next president. THEN I expect he will take us to war with Iran, reinstate the draft once he discovers he needs more soldiers, silence free speech online, in papers, and then start rounding-up people claiming "they are terrorists" just because they are anti-war. Thanks to the NDAA. (Note: If Obama wins, I expect the same thing to happen. Obama loves to bomb things and strike-thru the Bill of Rights.)
It would be more of a travesty if we allowed the election to be hijacked by the Romney Party when they are stealing votes (through backroom manipulation, or Diebold machines) and trying to block Paul supporters from registering to vote.
Does Mitt Romney have 1144 delegates? No. Then it's not over. Just as election night is not over until the president scores 50% of the electoral college.
Romney has ~850. Paul has ~400. That's including caucus states like Iowa, which TV media likes to pretend don't exist (or just flat-out lie, like claiming Paul won 0 delegates in Iowa). If Paul keeps gobbling-up delegates than Romney will never reach the 1144 he needs.
When President Romney is in charge, I hope you are one of the first he rounds-up and throws in jail as a "suspected terrorist". Or maybe drafts you for his Iran War project. Then as you huddle in your cell or trench, I hope you fall into a stupor and mumble, "I shoulda voted for Ron Paul. I shoulda voted for Ron Paul. I shoulda......"
Anyone who is opposed to liberty and natural rights deserves nothing less than to experience the tyranny he embraced...... like those Jews or Communists who enthusiastically voted for Hitler and eventually wound-up gassed or shot. "Reap what you have sown."
I've met a few black people who would have voted "no" on the 1960s Civil Rights bill too. Why? Because they say it forces them to serve whites in their businesses, and they don't want to. They argue it's private property just the same as their homes, and if government has power to force whites into their private business, then government also has power to force blacks to let whites into their home. (Just in case you doubt me, search youtube and watch the videos posted by black folks.)
Oh and since this came-up: Did you know there was a Civil Rights Bill in the 1950s? It failed because the Democrats voted it down.
And also Bills in the 1870s and 1860s, which the Dems voted down (but the Republicans had the majority and passed them).
Since a third party has NEVER won the presidency in the entire history of this republic, you are just throwing-away your vote. The winners have always been the Top 2 parties (Federalist v. Democrat, Democrat v. Whig, or Democrat v. Republican). Never a third party.
>>>Some of us also feel murder is something that should be taken VERY seriously, and generally avoided at all costs
Most of these politicians are near death anyway. So they end-up in a coffin 20-30 years ahead of schedule... in the long term it matters not. 100 years from now, we probably won't even remember their names.
BUT you raise a good point about the after-revolution.
Probably the new Constitution would be written to give the government all kinds of new authority (as happened with the EU Constitution aka Lisbon Treaty). We're better-off trying to restore the existing document piece-by-piece by electing ourselves into Congress and then repealing these bad laws. As Congressman Paul says, "It took 80 years to reach this point, and may take just as long to undo the bad legislation."
I just read a post by a Wikipedia staffmember that said "CISPA is not a bad bill" and then justifies his position. It makes me wonder who bribed the wiki corporation & staff to spread that lie. No wonder they didn't protest it.
(1) He already announced his retirement from Congress.
(2) According to NBC's Rachel Maddow and other sources, Paul has now won 4 states, and it appears he will win ~10 more over the next few weeks (the states that were won by Gingrich/Santorum are now "freed" to whoever has the most delegates; probably Paul). Plus I expect Maine and Nevada will go to Paul too, since he scored the majority of delegates.
We're going to have a brokered convention where Romney will not have the 1144 votes to win the nomination. It will be split.
(3) You don't quit a 26 mile marathon at mile 22. Paul's come all this way, and only has two more months to go. It would be silly for him to quit, especially since he's only ~450 delegates behind Romney, and that gap is closing (see point 2). Paul started the race; he might as well go all the way to the finish line, as he did in 2008.
Too bad the Supreme Court already nullified that (and other) executive orders which try to change law. They have ruled time-and-time again that the Legislative Power lies with the congress, not the president, and the written act of the bill overrules signing statements or E.O.s
Oh and "it was passed by a vetoproof majority" doesn't mean crap to me. He still could have vetoed it, and then I would have respected the man for honoring his commitment to uphold the Constitution (and the right to trial in the 6th).
>>>any one of a panel of six people could unilaterally overrule it.
This doesn't mean crap to me either. The Constitution says a "jury of your peers" shall decide your guilt and punishment (or innocence), not a panel of unelected bureaucrats that serve the pleasure of the president and his desire to be "touch on crime" (think George Bush or Mitt Romney). Heck, not even the right to defend yourself exists.
Who you gonna vote for instead? There is nobody else better than Paul. I guess you'll vote for banker-funded Romney. Or maybe banker-funded Obama.
So fuck you right back. You're a "summer soldier and sunshine patriot" if you vote for either of those tyrants. Just like those who abandoned Washington in 1777 when times got rough.
You prefer the Obama or Romney brand of liberty? While I may not agree with everything Paul says, he's still the best voice in Congress for liberty and the Bill of Rights. I agree with him on 99%.
You sir are guilty of first-order thinking, rather than looking at the secondary and tertiary effects. Two scenarios:
(1) Ron Paul cancels his four speaking engagements today and tomorrow, pisses-off ~8000 people who will post "Ron sucks" on facebook (which are then read by ~80,000 other people), flies all the way across the west coast to the east coast to cast just *1* vote..... which would have done nothing to stop CISPA from passing anyhow.
(2) Skip the vote because he knew he could not stop the passage. And instead talk to those 8000 people in Arizona and Texas, ignite their desire to fight for liberty and the Bill of Rights, share that fire across facebook to their ~80,000 followers, and thus provide the foundation that will inspire these people to run for Delegates and Legislature and the Congress, and eventually repeal CISPA, NDAA, and all the other crap that has been passed.
The reason's pretty obvious, and it's the same reason he missed a couple votes this year..... he's busy giving speeches for his campaign (~2000 people per day show up to see him). I think it's a wise move.
Igniting the fire of liberty in the 15-to-35 year olds, the next generation of politicians and voters, is more important than casting just 1 vote which would not have stopped CISPA from passing.
Wow you're a gullible little fucker. Didn't he ALSO say he would veto the NDAA? Yes. Then he signed it. The lying piece of shit.... I suspect Obama is really George Bush wearing a mask.
Now we'll see if Obama keeps his promise (veto the bill). I'm not holding my breath.
In other news: Megaupload will likely Not be prosecuted by the U.S. Government because the judge ruled the government has no authority to "serve" a foreign company. Bad news: The U.S.G. still wins because they've destroyed the company, so RIAA and MPAA got their money's worth when they bribed the politicians to act as their puppets and kill megaupload.
I can't help wondering if the same tactic will be used in the future against sites or persons that Hollywood/the record companies desire to be silenced. No doubt CISPA will make that task so much easier.
Slashdot Mirror
What the troops REALLY want is to end the killing of innocents & come back home to defend THIS country. And there's only one candidate who is willing to do that. If we really cared about the troops, we would honor their wish.
I think we've got the Earth-to-space part well practiced... it needs a few tweaks like this spaceplane, but we're pretty good.
Now we just need a warp drive so we can fly to nearby planets & stars within a reasonable time. Hopefully before an asteroid hits us and kills-off the mammals. (Followed by the Age of Reptiles.)
In the U.S. touching a woman's breast or somebody's crotch, even through clothing, is a crime. It's sexual assault. We had a case like that in my college where someone grabbed a girl's boob and then was arrested & jailed.
So if a person is not allowed to infringe upon other people's rights, neither can the government.
>>>(1) Obama vetos the bill. He gets eviscerated in the news media
That's true, but there's also this little factoid: Obama didn't veto the NDAA, because he didn't want to veto it. He was the one who asked Congress to ADD the two sentences to arrest suspected terrorists (including americans) without giving them a right to trial. He wanted the law to pass as written.
And then he included a signing statement which he knows, from previous SCOTUS cases, doesn't mean anything. It's null-and-void.
You remind me of my friends who think cops can do no wrong, and that criticism of them should be outlawed.
According to the FBI a suspected terrorist is someone who:
- pays with cash
- deposits more than $10,000 in their account
- carries a pocket constitution
- belongs to a gun club
- has a Ronpaul or Campaign for Liberty bumper sticker
- texts with a phone and tries to hide the screen with their hand
- posts on Facebook that he/she opposes the TSA
- and on and on
Basically, under the FBI definition, we are nearly-all suspects for terrorism, and under the NDAA that means we can be jailed without right to trial.
You're voting for Obama? The guy who said it is "unpatriotic for Bush to add 4 trillion to the debt" and then does the same thing himself in just half the time.
The guy who said "you can take it to the bank" that both wars will be over by Dec 31, 2009, but in fact both wars continued for another 2 years, and the Afghan war will continue indefinitely. MEANWHILE he went off and started NEW wars by bombing Yemen and Libya and murdering who knows how many 100s or thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
The guy who signed a law that FORCES us to buy health insurance in direct contravention of out 9th and 10th amendment rights. Expanded the TSA to grope people at train depots, along interstate highways, at post offices, in malls, and just recently in buses. Signed the ACTA which censors free speech ont he net, added two sentences to the NDAA so he could arrest and imprison Americans without a right to trial (on the mere suspicion of being terrorists). Started regulating family farms such that children can no longer help milk the cows, bale the hay, et cetera.
You're voting for this cat?
Fool.
You are making the same dumbass mistake as the TV media. You didn't count Iowa or Nevada or Maine or any of the other caucus states. You're acting as if those states don't exist. The fact of the matter is that nearly-all those caucus states are going to Paul, so he should have hundreds of votes added to his tally.
BUT NO instead you'd prefer to wipe those states off the map and pretend they don't exist.
Oh and by the way, yes, I expect Romney to win the convention in August, and eventually be our next president. THEN I expect he will take us to war with Iran, reinstate the draft once he discovers he needs more soldiers, silence free speech online, in papers, and then start rounding-up people claiming "they are terrorists" just because they are anti-war. Thanks to the NDAA. (Note: If Obama wins, I expect the same thing to happen. Obama loves to bomb things and strike-thru the Bill of Rights.)
It would be more of a travesty if we allowed the election to be hijacked by the Romney Party when they are stealing votes (through backroom manipulation, or Diebold machines) and trying to block Paul supporters from registering to vote.
>>>Dude, the Republican primary is over.
Does Mitt Romney have 1144 delegates?
No. Then it's not over. Just as election night is not over until the president scores 50% of the electoral college.
Romney has ~850.
Paul has ~400.
That's including caucus states like Iowa, which TV media likes to pretend don't exist (or just flat-out lie, like claiming Paul won 0 delegates in Iowa). If Paul keeps gobbling-up delegates than Romney will never reach the 1144 he needs.
When President Romney is in charge, I hope you are one of the first he rounds-up and throws in jail as a "suspected terrorist". Or maybe drafts you for his Iran War project. Then as you huddle in your cell or trench, I hope you fall into a stupor and mumble, "I shoulda voted for Ron Paul. I shoulda voted for Ron Paul. I shoulda......"
Anyone who is opposed to liberty and natural rights deserves nothing less than to experience the tyranny he embraced...... like those Jews or Communists who enthusiastically voted for Hitler and eventually wound-up gassed or shot. "Reap what you have sown."
I've met a few black people who would have voted "no" on the 1960s Civil Rights bill too. Why? Because they say it forces them to serve whites in their businesses, and they don't want to. They argue it's private property just the same as their homes, and if government has power to force whites into their private business, then government also has power to force blacks to let whites into their home. (Just in case you doubt me, search youtube and watch the videos posted by black folks.)
Oh and since this came-up: Did you know there was a Civil Rights Bill in the 1950s? It failed because the Democrats voted it down.
And also Bills in the 1870s and 1860s, which the Dems voted down (but the Republicans had the majority and passed them).
Since a third party has NEVER won the presidency in the entire history of this republic, you are just throwing-away your vote. The winners have always been the Top 2 parties (Federalist v. Democrat, Democrat v. Whig, or Democrat v. Republican). Never a third party.
How sneaky of them.
>>>Some of us also feel murder is something that should be taken VERY seriously, and generally avoided at all costs
Most of these politicians are near death anyway. So they end-up in a coffin 20-30 years ahead of schedule... in the long term it matters not. 100 years from now, we probably won't even remember their names.
BUT you raise a good point about the after-revolution.
Probably the new Constitution would be written to give the government all kinds of new authority (as happened with the EU Constitution aka Lisbon Treaty). We're better-off trying to restore the existing document piece-by-piece by electing ourselves into Congress and then repealing these bad laws. As Congressman Paul says, "It took 80 years to reach this point, and may take just as long to undo the bad legislation."
Why would he veto CISPA? He already signed ACTA. He loves these kinds of laws/treaties.
I just read a post by a Wikipedia staffmember that said "CISPA is not a bad bill" and then justifies his position.
It makes me wonder who bribed the wiki corporation & staff to spread that lie.
No wonder they didn't protest it.
(1) He already announced his retirement from Congress.
(2) According to NBC's Rachel Maddow and other sources, Paul has now won 4 states, and it appears he will win ~10 more over the next few weeks (the states that were won by Gingrich/Santorum are now "freed" to whoever has the most delegates; probably Paul). Plus I expect Maine and Nevada will go to Paul too, since he scored the majority of delegates.
We're going to have a brokered convention where Romney will not have the 1144 votes to win the nomination. It will be split.
(3) You don't quit a 26 mile marathon at mile 22. Paul's come all this way, and only has two more months to go. It would be silly for him to quit, especially since he's only ~450 delegates behind Romney, and that gap is closing (see point 2). Paul started the race; he might as well go all the way to the finish line, as he did in 2008.
Too bad the Supreme Court already nullified that (and other) executive orders which try to change law. They have ruled time-and-time again that the Legislative Power lies with the congress, not the president, and the written act of the bill overrules signing statements or E.O.s
Oh and "it was passed by a vetoproof majority" doesn't mean crap to me. He still could have vetoed it, and then I would have respected the man for honoring his commitment to uphold the Constitution (and the right to trial in the 6th).
>>>any one of a panel of six people could unilaterally overrule it.
This doesn't mean crap to me either. The Constitution says a "jury of your peers" shall decide your guilt and punishment (or innocence), not a panel of unelected bureaucrats that serve the pleasure of the president and his desire to be "touch on crime" (think George Bush or Mitt Romney). Heck, not even the right to defend yourself exists.
Who you gonna vote for instead?
There is nobody else better than Paul.
I guess you'll vote for banker-funded Romney. Or maybe banker-funded Obama.
So fuck you right back. You're a "summer
soldier and sunshine patriot" if you vote for either
of those tyrants. Just like those who abandoned
Washington in 1777 when times got rough.
You prefer the Obama or Romney brand of liberty? While I may not agree with everything Paul says, he's still the best voice in Congress for liberty and the Bill of Rights. I agree with him on 99%.
You sir are guilty of first-order thinking, rather than looking at the secondary and tertiary effects. Two scenarios:
(1) Ron Paul cancels his four speaking engagements today and tomorrow, pisses-off ~8000 people who will post "Ron sucks" on facebook (which are then read by ~80,000 other people), flies all the way across the west coast to the east coast to cast just *1* vote..... which would have done nothing to stop CISPA from passing anyhow.
(2) Skip the vote because he knew he could not stop the passage. And instead talk to those 8000 people in Arizona and Texas, ignite their desire to fight for liberty and the Bill of Rights, share that fire across facebook to their ~80,000 followers, and thus provide the foundation that will inspire these people to run for Delegates and Legislature and the Congress, and eventually repeal CISPA, NDAA, and all the other crap that has been passed.
Had I been Paul, I would have picked scenario 2.
The reason's pretty obvious, and it's the same reason he missed a couple votes this year..... he's busy giving speeches for his campaign (~2000 people per day show up to see him). I think it's a wise move.
Igniting the fire of liberty in the 15-to-35 year olds, the next generation of politicians and voters, is more important than casting just 1 vote which would not have stopped CISPA from passing.
>>>Obama has said he would veto it
Wow you're a gullible little fucker. Didn't he ALSO say he would veto the NDAA? Yes. Then he signed it. The lying piece of shit.... I suspect Obama is really George Bush wearing a mask.
Now we'll see if Obama keeps his promise
(veto the bill).
I'm not holding my breath.
In other news: Megaupload will likely Not be prosecuted by the U.S. Government because the judge ruled the government has no authority to "serve" a foreign company. Bad news: The U.S.G. still wins because they've destroyed the company, so RIAA and MPAA got their money's worth when they bribed the politicians to act as their puppets and kill megaupload.
I can't help wondering if the same tactic will be used in the future against sites or persons that Hollywood/the record companies desire to be silenced. No doubt CISPA will make that task so much easier.
Danm Fcukers.