An Unconstitutional Point Upon Which Neoconservatives and Social Democrats Agree...

[eyer]

..."Neoconservatives" in this instance being the House RINOs who voted for it Friday, and "Social Democrats" being those Representatives who did the same and the Statist-in-Chief who has all along demanded the unconstitutional power to do so:

The Associated Press

Earlier Friday, the House reaffirmed the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, even of U.S. citizens captured on American soil.

The House rejected an amendment by Reps. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Justin Amash, R-Mich., that would have barred indefinite detention and rolled back mandatory military custody. The vote was 238-182.

“The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not give them a charge or trial,” Amash said during hours of House debate.

The policy’s supporters argued that ending it would weaken national security and coddle terrorists.

...The detention issue has created an unusual political coalition in Congress.

Conservatives fear it could result in unfettered power for the federal government, allowing it to detain American citizens indefinitely for even a one-time contribution to a humanitarian group that’s later linked to terrorism. They argue it would be a violation of long-held constitutional rights. Also disconcerting to the GOP is the reality that the current government is led by a Democratic president.

Several Democrats also have criticized the provision as an example of government overreach and an unnecessary obstacle to the administration’s war against terrorism.

The provision in the current defense law denies suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subjects them to the possibility they would be held indefinitely.

http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x728156726/House-approves-defense-spending

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

..."Neoconservatives" in this instance being the House RINOs who voted for it Friday, and "Social Democrats" being those Representatives who did the same and the Statist-in-Chief who has all along demanded the unconstitutional power to do so:

WOOOOT! GO BIG GOVERNMENT KEEPING EVERYONE SAFE FROM THEMSELVES!! YEAAAA!! M'ERICA FUCK YEA!!! COMING AGAIN TO SAVE THE MUTHA FUCKIN DAY YEA!! TERRORIST YOUR DAYS ARE THOUGH NOW YOU HAVE TO ANSWER TO M'EEEEERIKUUUU FUCK YEA!

INTERNET!! FUCK YEA!!
STARBUCKS!! FUCK YEA!!
PORNO!!! FUCK YEA!!
WAL MART!! FUCK YEA!!
SLAVERY!!!! FUCK YEA!!
DISNEY WORLD!! FUCK YEA!!
http://www.truthaboutit.net/pictures/2010-11/teamamerica.jpg

.........M'ERIKU!!

 

[KingOrfeo]

The nearest thing to "social democrats" in Congress are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Any of them vote for this? My understanding is they don't like it one little bit. I know the writers and editors of The Nation and In These Times and Mother Jones don't like it one little bit.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The nearest thing to "social democrats" in Congress are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Any of them vote for this? My understanding is they don't like it one little bit. I know the writers and editors of The Nation and In These Times and Mother Jones don't like it one little bit.

And, turns out I'm right, the Progressive Caucus consistently votes against indefinite detention; while the Tea Party Caucus and the Constitution Caucus vote for it.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

And, turns out I'm right, the Progressive Caucus consistently votes against indefinite detention; while the Tea Party Caucus and the Constitution Caucus vote for it.

What? You mean eyer is full of shit yet again?

This is me not surprised.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

The nearest thing to "social democrats" in Congress are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Any of them vote for this? My understanding is they don't like it one little bit. I know the writers and editors of The Nation and In These Times and Mother Jones don't like it one little bit.

And, turns out I'm right, the Progressive Caucus consistently votes against indefinite detention; while the Tea Party Caucus and the Constitution Caucus vote for it.

What? You mean eyer is full of shit yet again?

This is me not surprised.

All this finger pointing aside boys, it passed and we have once again continued to allow our gov to butt fuck the people sans lube. Drink up....the kool aid is safe

 

[eyer]

What? You mean eyer is full of shit yet again?

This is me not surprised.

And this is you in your usual LIT position:

(_o_)
../|\
...|
../ \

 

[KingOrfeo]

All this finger pointing aside boys, it passed and we have once again continued to allow our gov to butt fuck the people sans lube. Drink up....the kool aid is safe

If you don't like it, vote for progressives/social democrats. They wouldn't do this.

Here's one you can vote for if you live in California's 2nd District.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

If you don't like it, vote for progressives/social democrats. They wouldn't do this.

Here's one you can vote for if you live in California's 2nd District.

Good fiscal responsibility, return on the taxpayers dollar and staying the fuck out of peoples private affairs is possible. But not though social/progressive democrats. They only support one of those, clue: it's not fiscal responsibility/getting the tax payer return on their dollar.

So no....I will not be voting for any progressive/social democrats that I am eligible to vote for. The only reason I will vote for Obama is to keep Mitt nutjob out of office.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

All this finger pointing aside boys, it passed and we have once again continued to allow our gov to butt fuck the people sans lube. Drink up....the kool aid is safe

Hey, the thread started with finger pointing, and in usual eyer fashion, in completly the wrong direction.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

And this is you in your usual LIT position:

Got your moron card pulled again eh eyer?

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

Jesus, the Army of Darkness all show up at the same time.

I blame high-speed rail.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Good fiscal responsibility, return on the taxpayers dollar and staying the fuck out of peoples private affairs is possible.

This thread ain't about any of that. If you want civil liberties, vote progressive.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Jesus, the Army of Darkness all show up at the same time.

And win easily.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Jesus, the Army of Darkness all show up at the same time.

Great movie, stupid reference to it. But then who expects anything other than that from you?

 

[eyer]

Got your moron card pulled again eh eyer?

By King0's progressive political propaganda?

That's funny...

...but I do understand why you're so defensive about it.

How 'bout the 19 House Democrats who voted against the 19 Republicans who decry the unconstitutionality of this act, and the Democrat President you voted for demanding the power to ignore the 4th Amendment?

Is it even possible you can denounce them for their treason...

...when it's so obvious how stoutly they pull your chain?

 

[koalabear]

By King0's progressive political propaganda?

That's funny...

...but I do understand why you're so defensive about it.

How 'bout the 19 House Democrats who voted against the 19 Republicans who decry the unconstitutionality of this act, and the Democrat President you voted for demanding the power to ignore the 4th Amendment?

Is it even possible you can denounce them for their treason...

...when it's so obvious how stoutly they pull your chain?

Don't ask it too many questions, it's cuts into it's Twinkies time.

 

[phrodeau]

So you feel free to re-define "neoconservatives" however you like?

Can you name three neoconservatives currently in Congress?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So you feel free to re-define "neoconservatives" however you like?

Can you name three neoconservatives currently in Congress?

Not only that, but redefine treason as well.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Hey, the thread started with finger pointing, and in usual eyer fashion, in completly the wrong direction.

Then don't degrade yourself to the level of partisan hack because both sides voted for it. You can sub categorize one side of the isle or the other until you get whatever result you want....bottom line, both sides of the isle are fucking the people. Not an innocent politician up there that hasn't voted for their checkbook/campaign finance comity, people be damned, at some point.

If you do find one, they are probably the FNG.

This thread ain't about any of that. If you want civil liberties, vote progressive.

Bullshit....civil liberties vs cash flow is what it's always about.

I can get my civil liberties through independents/libertarians without being taxed into the poor house so some progressive democrat can get his/her cut under the guise that it's to "help" some mooch breeder who can't figure out how to make a living or support their 30 kids on a minimum wage job.

 

[KingOrfeo]

By King0's progressive political propaganda?

No, by the actual votes of progressives. You still like the Tea Partiers? They voted for indefinite detentions.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Bullshit....civil liberties vs cash flow is what it's always about.

The indefinite-detentions issue has everything to do with civil liberties and nothing to do with cash flow.

 

[Liar]

So you feel free to re-define "neoconservatives" however you like?

Can you name three neoconservatives currently in Congress?

What are labels, man? He already redefined Social Democrat.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

The indefinite-detentions issue has everything to do with civil liberties and nothing to do with cash flow.

Are you seriously that ignorant? Private prisons/detention centers are one of the largest, most boomin' industries in america......follow the money and I will bet the farm someone in a really nice suit, sitting in a really nice office is going to get paid a FORTUNE!!!! because this bill passed.