Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Palin's Acceptance Speech @ RNC


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#46    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 06 September 2008 - 03:06 AM

acidhead43 on Sep 4 2008, 03:18 AM, said:

Im certainly not a fan of the democratic/republican parties presently..

yet,             http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03...ript/index.html

listening to Palin tonight I was amazed at the flat out lies and distorted information she said about Obama..



"Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions"


Excuse me, but where have you been?

Quote

"let me be specific: The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars"


This is absolutely true...incontrovertibly true.  This is precisely what Obama wants to do.  This is not a lie, it is a clear delineation of the Democrat's policy!


Quote

..I almost got sick when they applauded her for defending the Federal Governments decision to remove Habeas Corpus from an individual's rights.

"Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights."

..And the sedated audience rose and applauded her for it..


Perhaps they understood what you don't:

Habeus Corpus hasn't been eliminated.
Habeus Corpus applies to American Citizens.
Al Qaeda is NOT in that category.
THEY have no rights.

Trying to give them rights that apply to American Citizens.,..and which also apply,  to an extent to Legal Alien Enemy Combatants (by vaious agreed to provisions of international law) is the travesty here.

Hint: Habeus Corpus is a right still granted to all American Citizens (despite the fact that it's virtually obsolete due to the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty).  It never was, nor should be a right for an illegal alien enemy combatant.  Perhaps taking the time to read and understand the applicable law would illustrate this for you.  No one's rights were taken away...at all!




Quote

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yes...it is...




Quote

On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would remove habeas corpus for any person determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”[4][5] by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the unavailability of habeas corpus failed 48–51.[6]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially eliminates habeas corpus for any non-citizen.



Do you actually know what this means, and to whom it applies?  I don't think so.  



QUOTE
The whole world is a battle field for THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.


Where ever the illegal alien enemy combatants are...that is the battle field.  


You don't actually really understand this situation, do you?







#47    Caesar

Caesar

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

  • Semper Fidelis

Posted 06 September 2008 - 03:07 AM

ninjadude on Sep 5 2008, 11:01 PM, said:

But the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council says Obama's "present" votes were actually part of a careful strategy to prevent those restrictions from passing.

link

then why not just say NO?



#48    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,106 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 06 September 2008 - 03:13 AM

Caesar on Sep 5 2008, 10:07 PM, said:

then why not just say NO?


Because Illinois just wants to be different. That's what makes our country great - differences. Other legislatures only allow yes or no votes.  You don't have to completely understand, but you should accept that Illinois does things in the legislature a bit differently than other places. There are many states that have legislative weirdness. Nebraska as a unicameral for instance.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#49    Caesar

Caesar

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

  • Semper Fidelis

Posted 06 September 2008 - 03:13 AM

Startraveler on Sep 5 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

He often did explain why he voted "present." Many times it was because he questioned the constitutionality of a law (Obama was a senior lecturer on con law at UChicago).

Yes but its up to a court to decide the constitutionality of law

Startraveler on Sep 5 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

You're going by what Lieberman, a McCain supporter, said at the Republican National Convention? Lieberman who was booted from the Democratic party by his constituents? Look, I've posted some of what Obama's done above. Take it, leave it, whatever. The facts are there.

I'm just having some fun tongue.gif


#50    Caesar

Caesar

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,623 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

  • Semper Fidelis

Posted 06 September 2008 - 03:15 AM

ninjadude on Sep 5 2008, 11:13 PM, said:

Because Illinois just wants to be different. That's what makes our country great - differences. Other legislatures only allow yes or no votes.  You don't have to completely understand, but you should accept that Illinois does things in the legislature a bit differently than other places. There are many states that have legislative weirdness. Nebraska as a unicameral for instance.

Yeah I agree, I guess.


#51    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,537 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 06 September 2008 - 03:17 AM

Quote

This is absolutely true...incontrovertibly true.  This is precisely what Obama wants to do.  This is not a lie, it is a clear delineation of the Democrat's policy!


Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Analysis of the candidates' tax plans reveals that Obama offers a larger tax cut to the vast majority of households in the United States.


Quote

Habeus Corpus hasn't been eliminated.
Habeus Corpus applies to American Citizens.
Al Qaeda is NOT in that category.
THEY have no rights.


Not according to the United States Supreme Court. See Boumediene v. Bush (2008). The suspensions of habeas corpus in the Military Commissions Act were unconstitutional.



Quote

then why not just say NO?


A "present" vote has the same effect as a "no" vote. However, if a respected legislator--i.e. Obama--votes "present" (as opposed to "no"), he can provide cover for legislators under pressure to vote "yes" to join him in a "present" vote. Legislatures are very complicated things.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users