Rome Is Burning, Now Where's My Fiddle?

Linkie no workie. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

must've accidentally hit an enter key and split the link

hate that when that happens.

http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2011/12/list-of-senators-who-voted-for-s1867.html

damn that didn't work.

http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/...for-s1867.html

now its fixed!!

93-7? I'm disappointed.

makes me wonder if they actually read the bill which runs 600+ pages. I don't think they would've voted for it if that section 1031 was included if they understood what that meant..

The problem is that the bill allows the government to hold an American citizen, in the United States, without bond or trial, based on the suspicion of terrorist activities. AYFKM? In America? If this bill is signed, we can kiss whatever was left of freedom goodbye, and reminisce about how this used to be a free country. At least until the military comes and places us in camps. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Lincoln suspended habius corpus in the Civil War; that was temporary. Habius corpus was restored after the war. The war against Radical Islam is essentially permanent.

If Islamic terrorism gets much worse our civil liberties could be in jeopardy. If the government can wire tap and enter your house without a warrant because they think you're a terrorist or someone who supports terrorism, it's not much of a leap to imagine the government entering your house for any reason at all.

In police states, if you piss off the government about anything, they "dissapear" you. They just come and haul you off and you're never heard from again. Nobody inquires about you or complains for fear that they will be next.

Bill Ayers, Obama's close friend, said in an interview that approximately twenty five million Americans would have to be killed in reeducation camps after the revolution; the ones that were hard core capitalists.

But the trains will run on time.

I hope we still have a country left for Rand Paul to run for President of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8NdmfjRrhw&sns=fb

93-7? I'm disappointed.

makes me wonder if they actually read the bill which runs 600+ pages. I don't think they would've voted for it if that section 1031 was included if they understood what that meant.. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

But that's on the final vote on the bill, which is the Pentagon funding bill. The entire bill is probably 500 - 700 pages long. There is essentially two provisions of one or two pages each that are problematic from a civil liberties standpoint. There were several votes on substitutes on the offending provisions. Those are the votes that you need to find that will show you how the Senators broke down on the issue in question.

It's very hard to vote against the entire bill as you will then be tagged as "voting against or men and women in uniform". Or "he voted to fund our soldiers in Afghanistan." That kind of bullshit TV ad, which by the way is devastatingly effective as we saw when John Kerry said "I voted against it before I voted for it," in an almost identical situation as this. Kerry voted against a offensive portion of a bill on amendment, but then voted for the entire bill that he felt was overall necessary but had the smaller bad provision in it.

I think the offending provisions should nullify the entire bill. I'm appalled that the correcting amendments were defeated. If the President has the gonads to veto this bill, I may well become an Obama fan. Probably not, but I will have much more respect for him.

But that's on the final vote on the bill, which is the Pentagon funding bill. The entire bill is probably 500 - 700 pages long. There is essentially two provisions of one or two pages each that are problematic from a civil liberties standpoint. There were several votes on substitutes on the offending provisions. Those are the votes that you need to find that will show you how the Senators broke down on the issue in question.

It's very hard to vote against the entire bill as you will then be tagged as "voting against or men and women in uniform". Or "he voted to fund our soldiers in Afghanistan." That kind of bullshit TV ad, which by the way is devastatingly effective as we saw when John Kerry said "I voted against it before I voted for it," in an almost identical situation as this. Kerry voted against a offensive portion of a bill on amendment, but then voted for the entire bill that he felt was overall necessary but had the smaller bad provision in it. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Very good point TTH and one most folks have a hard time understanding.

I had read that 9 Dems joined in with the GOP for a yes vote while something like four GOP members voted with the majority of the Dems on the No vote. Of course all 9 Dems are up for re-election and scared of their shadow. Can't remember why the 4 Repub's joined in with the Dems. Maybe they were the Rand Paul types.

Maybe they were the "love liberty and freedom" types.

Maybe they were the "love liberty and freedom" types. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

are you saying that the majority of Dems are the love liberty and freedom types?

On this issue, it appears to be. Democrats aren't all bad, mainly just bad with money.

John Stewart has an interesting perspective on the NDAA.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewa...without-trial/

say "boo!" they'll run for the hills.