29 replies to this topic

[Ryinrea]

Yamato, on 09 December 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Before automatically hitching a ride on the anti-Paul bandwagon, let's at least hear Rand Paul out for his reasoning on this issue before only listening to others tell us what it is.



Where's the "treason"at exactly?  

It's worth noting here that the federal government's detention power is currently facing legal challenge.

Rand Paul is a ******* in sheep clothing  after all he sold out his own father. His reasoning is that we shouldn't let fear detract us; however, he's saying this amendment is alright thought the rest of NDAA  will nullify this amendment respectfully he can kiss my ass.

[Yamato]

Ryinrea, on 09 December 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

Rand Paul is a ******* in sheep clothing  after all he sold out his own father. His reasoning is that we shouldn't let fear detract us; however, he's saying this amendment is alright thought the rest of NDAA  will nullify this amendment respectfully he can kiss my ass.

Nice language.   What bureaucrat in Washington DC do you prefer?

You might be right but you haven't validated this claim.  What basis do you have to claim that the NDAA nullifies this amendment?   Don't just keep repeating the same assertion and hoping I believe it.   Legal minds are worried about this and rightly so, but I don't see the "express authorization" in the NDAA, and this issue is a lot more complicated than that when some of our bureaucrats think they already have this power without the NDAA being necessary.   So we're all over the road here and not everyone can be legally right at the same time.   Throwing stink bombs at Rand Paul first when there's so many richer targets out there looks pretty ridiculous though.

[Yamato]

If we're done supporting Rand Paul, who are we supporting?   If Rand Paul isn't good enough to be President, what President was good enough to be President in the past 100 years in this country?   If Rand Paul is so bad for our future, who isn't?   As if we can't find 99 other Senators far more worthy of all this hateful blubber.

[OverSword]

Attention tools.
Rand Paul is the replacement for his father Ron Paul who's function was to make you believe that despite the rampant corruption in our nearly dead system, there is someone fighting for truth, justice, and for the voters.  If like preacherman 76 you pay attention to what he does (or does not as the case may be) you will see that nothing will change and he will never put through an effective piece of legislation, just keeps telling the truth but really does nothing to stop the liars.

[me-wonders]

I am listening to college lectures about Hitler and the development of NAZI power.  The professor begins with a question, asking if such a thing happened in the US would we stand against it.  Yeah, right, like the wheat stands against the wind storm.  Some of us know the reasoning of our past laws, and we would stand against changes that have been made or are being made, but what good does that do?

Only when the masses are educated for democracy and only when they stand together for their liberty, is their democracy and liberty defended.  That begins with education and it was stopped in 1958, and replaced by Germany's model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose.  It is hard for me pay attention to the college lectures, because they do not say enough about what happened when the Prussians took over, and centralized public education.   Our constitution prevents our government from doing this, but it has been done.

[preacherman76]

Yamato, on 10 December 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Nice language.   What bureaucrat in Washington DC do you prefer?

You might be right but you haven't validated this claim.  What basis do you have to claim that the NDAA nullifies this amendment?   Don't just keep repeating the same assertion and hoping I believe it.   Legal minds are worried about this and rightly so, but I don't see the "express authorization" in the NDAA, and this issue is a lot more complicated than that when some of our bureaucrats think they already have this power without the NDAA being necessary.   So we're all over the road here and not everyone can be legally right at the same time.   Throwing stink bombs at Rand Paul first when there's so many richer targets out there looks pretty ridiculous though.

What do you mean it isnt validated? Did you read the OP? You dont see how NDAA authories the indefinite detention of Americans? Basicaly what happened is they tryed to quite oposition to parts of NDAA by pretending to reverse those parts. But they said it in such a way that it allows them to do it anyway. They are counting on the people to be dumb. And the fact the Rand see's this as some kinda victory means he is counting on you to be dumb too.

[preacherman76]

OverSword, on 10 December 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

Attention tools.
Rand Paul is the replacement for his father Ron Paul who's function was to make you believe that despite the rampant corruption in our nearly dead system, there is someone fighting for truth, justice, and for the voters.  If like preacherman 76 you pay attention to what he does (or does not as the case may be) you will see that nothing will change and he will never put through an effective piece of legislation, just keeps telling the truth but really does nothing to stop the liars.

Sure Blame Ron cause he couldnt single handedly implement, or denie legislation. What proof do you have that its his function to pretend to care about liberty? A single congressmen doesnt have anywhere near the power you aparently think they have.

Folks 30 years and under are overwhemlingly now in support of freedom, the constitution, and the bill of rights. It wont be 10 years and we will be the majority. All because of Ron Paul.

[preacherman76]

Yamato, on 10 December 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

If we're done supporting Rand Paul, who are we supporting?   If Rand Paul isn't good enough to be President, what President was good enough to be President in the past 100 years in this country?   If Rand Paul is so bad for our future, who isn't?   As if we can't find 99 other Senators far more worthy of all this hateful blubber.

There isnt anyone. All are corrupt, all elected today fall short of what the people deserve. I gotta be honest I dont understand your loyalty. First the man fully supported what represents everything wrong with American politics in putting all his chips on Romney. Now he his declaring victory over legislation that has no teeth to do what we were told it suppossed to.

Anyhow, as of right now there isnt anyone in the spot light worth trusting. Ive said it before, and I'll say it again, I will never leave my integrity at the curtain of a voting booth ever again.

[preacherman76]

Yamato, on 09 December 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Before automatically hitching a ride on the anti-Paul bandwagon, let's at least hear Rand Paul out for his reasoning on this issue before only listening to others tell us what it is.

Yea great speech. He certainly knows how to talk the talk. Problem is this legislation doesnt do what he is claiming it does. Talking the talk means nothing if you arent going to walk the walk. It still leaves the door wide open for them to indefinitly detain Americans through legislation already passed by congress.

Quote

Where's the "treason"at exactly?  

There isnt any treason on Rands part. He voted no on NDAA. The treason spoken of is the indefinite detention of Americans with no due process.

Quote

It's worth noting here that the federal government's detention power is currently facing legal challenge.

We can only hope the courts have more sence then our elected officails. I wont hold my breath though.

[Yamato]

preacherman76, on 11 December 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

Yea great speech. He certainly knows how to talk the talk. Problem is this legislation doesnt do what he is claiming it does. Talking the talk means nothing if you arent going to walk the walk. It still leaves the door wide open for them to indefinitly detain Americans through legislation already passed by congress.




There isnt any treason on Rands part. He voted no on NDAA. The treason spoken of is the indefinite detention of Americans with no due process.




We can only hope the courts have more sence then our elected officails. I wont hold my breath though.

The courts aren't rewriting the law though, they're interpreting it as is their job.   If they interpret it to mean that there is no treason, then you're jumping the gun.   That's the point I was making by telling you that the whole idea of this detention is being challenged.   And if Rand Paul voted no to the NDAA and he's not the treason you were speaking of, then why are you bringing it up in your narrative, and taking it out on Rand Paul?  

So let's get this straight.  Rand Paul would have avoided the treason by voting no to Feinstein Lee?   Why is voting Yes for Feinstein Lee mutually exclusive to voting down the NDAA later?   Can't there be a future with Feinstein Lee and not the NDAA even if the courts rule that your worst fears are true?   Of course there can!     You're wanting too much too fast.   Ron Paul didn't part the oceans in his first year either.  He barely got anything done in 30+.  This is just strategy not indication that Rand Paul isn't true to the liberty movement.

[keithisco]

me-wonders, on 10 December 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

I am listening to college lectures about Hitler and the development of NAZI power.  The professor begins with a question, asking if such a thing happened in the US would we stand against it.  Yeah, right, like the wheat stands against the wind storm.  Some of us know the reasoning of our past laws, and we would stand against changes that have been made or are being made, but what good does that do?

Only when the masses are educated for democracy and only when they stand together for their liberty, is their democracy and liberty defended.  That begins with education and it was stopped in 1958, and replaced by Germany's model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose.  It is hard for me pay attention to the college lectures, because they do not say enough about what happened when the Prussians took over, and centralized public education.   Our constitution prevents our government from doing this, but it has been done.

Not sure where to start here.. If the USA Citizens woul;d not stand against another Hitler taking power in the USA (I think this is what you are saying) and bring him down, then certainly, most of the rest of the world would do so if he / she became a threat outside of his / her borders.

The "German Model" is certainly not all Technology,... Arts, Humanities, and languages are taught alongside the other subjects, which kinda goes against what you are being taught at the moment. I suspect your lecturer in this area is somewhat biased and not giving a true picture of education in Germany.

You should think more about the needs of your Country, see what skills and talents are required (such as engineering, medicine, and trades), not everything is Military (far from it)

In the First World most of us live in an urbanised culture, the comforts and prosperity of which need the skills mentioned above to perpetuate. Those who do not want to live this way have the option of working the Land to produce the goods required to support our populations. Or, indeed, to add artistic meaning to our everyday life.  IMO

[preacherman76]

Yamato, on 11 December 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

The courts aren't rewriting the law though, they're interpreting it as is their job.   If they interpret it to mean that there is no treason, then you're jumping the gun.   That's the point I was making by telling you that the whole idea of this detention is being challenged.   And if Rand Paul voted no to the NDAA and he's not the treason you were speaking of, then why are you bringing it up in your narrative, and taking it out on Rand Paul?  

Are you seriouly suggesting I need a court ruling to determine if parts of NDAA are treason? The only thing Im blaming Rand for is pretending to stand in the way of treasonis legislation, when both he and I know he isnt standing in the way of anything. If he really believed everything he said in your video, he'd call out this so called block of indefinite detention for the worthless peice of paper it is.

Quote

So let's get this straight.  Rand Paul would have avoided the treason by voting no to Feinstein Lee?   Why is voting Yes for Feinstein Lee mutually exclusive to voting down the NDAA later?   Can't there be a future with Feinstein Lee and not the NDAA even if the courts rule that your worst fears are true?   Of course there can!     You're wanting too much too fast.   Ron Paul didn't part the oceans in his first year either.  He barely got anything done in 30+.  This is just strategy not indication that Rand Paul isn't true to the liberty movement.

Again, I never said Rand did anything treasonis. All im saying is stop pretending to be a hero pretending you have done something, when you havent done anything at all. Wanting to make sure no American is ever denied due process is not wanting to much to fast. In fact, till just a couple months ago, it was argueably the most profound part of this countries very foundation. Its not like we are trying to reverse some long established law here.

[Yamato]

preacherman76, on 11 December 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

Are you seriouly suggesting I need a court ruling to determine if parts of NDAA are treason? The only thing Im blaming Rand for is pretending to stand in the way of treasonis legislation, when both he and I know he isnt standing in the way of anything. If he really believed everything he said in your video, he'd call out this so called block of indefinite detention for the worthless peice of paper it is.



Again, I never said Rand did anything treasonis. All im saying is stop pretending to be a hero pretending you have done something, when you havent done anything at all. Wanting to make sure no American is ever denied due process is not wanting to much to fast. In fact, till just a couple months ago, it was argueably the most profound part of this countries very foundation. Its not like we are trying to reverse some long established law here.

Rand Paul stood on the Senate floor and filibustered it.   Does he really have to drive his staff down onto the rocks and stop the demonic establishment in its tracks immediately, or can we give him some time that he needs to work in a world where everything moves at the speed of politics?   Rand Paul will be the one with a heavy hand in getting rid of what we both despise like the NDAA.

Edited by Yamato, 12 December 2012 - 02:16 PM.

[preacherman76]

Yamato, on 12 December 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Rand Paul stood on the Senate floor and filibustered it.   Does he really have to drive his staff down onto the rocks and stop the demonic establishment in its tracks immediately, or can we give him some time that he needs to work in a world where everything moves at the speed of politics?   Rand Paul will be the one with a heavy hand in getting rid of what we both despise like the NDAA.

My problem is not that he isnt moving fast enough. My problem is that he is declaring a victory on the side of liberty when there is no victory at all. In other words he is a liar. He wants me to believe something that isnt true.

[Yamato]

preacherman76, on 12 December 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

My problem is not that he isnt moving fast enough. My problem is that he is declaring a victory on the side of liberty when there is no victory at all. In other words he is a liar. He wants me to believe something that isnt true.

There must be many victories in the fight for liberty.  Fighting for liberty is never over.   Rand Paul has never suggested that it is.   Feinstein Lee is a step in the right direction.   Killing the NDAA is another.   Neither of these results are going to be earth quaking in their magnitude.  We can check off every item on our liberty list that we can think of, and the fight for liberty will rage on.  

I'm not sure what you're interpreting as a lie but Rand Paul's record is looking awesome so far in both his rhetoric and his works imho.   If you listened to him more, you'd probably ease and open your mind about him.