The NDAA

[JakeStarkey]

We don't need no stinkin' fascists as President.

No Trump.

No Cruz.

Cruz opposed the NDAA as where Obama signed it.

Now who is the fascist?

If Cruz were to become President, he would use the NDAA against his political enemies in a heart beat.

Idiot. He voted against it.
Hillary, on the other hand, would use it in a heartbeat.

Cruz would use it, and you know it.

Cruz also voted against the DOD budgets every single time.

No commander in chief material is Mr. Cruz.

He is a libertarian loser.

 

[paulitician]

We don't need no stinkin' fascists as President.

No Trump.

No Cruz.

Cruz opposed the NDAA as where Obama signed it.

Now who is the fascist?

If Cruz were to become President, he would use the NDAA against his political enemies in a heart beat.

Idiot. He voted against it.
Hillary, on the other hand, would use it in a heartbeat.

Cruz would use it, and you know it.

Cruz also voted against the DOD budgets every single time.

No commander in chief material is Mr. Cruz.

He is a libertarian loser.

Both Parties support the NDAA, Patriot Act, and massive NSA spying on Citizens. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist. Hussein especially, has increased NSA domestic spying exponentially.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The scary thing is that Trump makes Cruz look reasonable.

 

[paulitician]

The scary thing is that Trump makes Cruz look reasonable.

Oh Gawd, stop it. Just because you're supporting the most corrupt piece of shit running, doesn't mean everyone else has to. To hell with Hillary Clinton. I'll go with Cruz.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The scary thing is that Trump makes Cruz look reasonable.

Oh Gawd, stop it. Just because you're supporting the most corrupt piece of shit running, doesn't mean everyone else has to. To hell with Hillary Clinton. I'll go with Cruz.

I will vote for Rubio or Kasich or Christie. Cruz looks reasonable only because Trump is so awful. R or K or C make Cruz look like the libertarian idiocy that he embraces.

 

[paulitician]

The scary thing is that Trump makes Cruz look reasonable.

Oh Gawd, stop it. Just because you're supporting the most corrupt piece of shit running, doesn't mean everyone else has to. To hell with Hillary Clinton. I'll go with Cruz.

I will vote for Rubio or Kasich or Christie. Cruz looks reasonable only because Trump is so awful. R or K or C make Cruz look like the libertarian idiocy that he embraces.

Come on man. We all know you're a Clinton Bootlicker. You don't need to lie to us. We know you better than you think we do. You're not voting Republican. Period, end of story.

 

[Votto]

The scary thing is that Trump makes Cruz look reasonable.

Oh Gawd, stop it. Just because you're supporting the most corrupt piece of shit running, doesn't mean everyone else has to. To hell with Hillary Clinton. I'll go with Cruz.

I will vote for Rubio or Kasich or Christie. Cruz looks reasonable only because Trump is so awful. R or K or C make Cruz look like the libertarian idiocy that he embraces.

What do you find so appalling about Cruz?

 

[JakeStarkey]

votto wrote "What do you find so appalling about Cruz?" to my "I will vote for Rubio or Kasich or Christie. Cruz looks reasonable only because Trump is so awful. R or K or C make Cruz look like the libertarian idiocy that he embraces." What does votto not understand?

 

[FA_Q2]

votto wrote "What do you find so appalling about Cruz?" to my "I will vote for Rubio or Kasich or Christie. Cruz looks reasonable only because Trump is so awful. R or K or C make Cruz look like the libertarian idiocy that he embraces." What does votto not understand?

Is that supposed to make any sense or do you not have an actual answer to votto's question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

votto wrote "What do you find so appalling about Cruz?" to my "I will vote for Rubio or Kasich or Christie. Cruz looks reasonable only because Trump is so awful. R or K or C make Cruz look like the libertarian idiocy that he embraces." What does votto not understand?

Is that supposed to make any sense or do you not have an actual answer to votto's question.

You, my dolt, are a clueless as Votto. That's OK.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We don't need no stinkin' fascists as President.

No Trump.

No Cruz.

Cruz opposed the NDAA as where Obama signed it.

Now who is the fascist?

If Cruz were to become President, he would use the NDAA against his political enemies in a heart beat.

Idiot. He voted against it.

Hillary, on the other hand, would use it in a heartbeat.

Another ridiculous lie, and more ignorance from the right.

The NDAA does not 'authorize' martial law, nor does it 'suspend' the Writ of Habeas; any attempt to use the measure in such a manner would be invalidated by the courts.

Indeed, 'martial law' may not be 'imposed' absent actual military war and only when the courts in a given jurisdiction are no longer functioning (see Ex parte Milligan).

 

[Votto]

votto wrote "What do you find so appalling about Cruz?" to my "I will vote for Rubio or Kasich or Christie. Cruz looks reasonable only because Trump is so awful. R or K or C make Cruz look like the libertarian idiocy that he embraces." What does votto not understand?

So you don't like Ted's hair cut?

Again, what specifically don't you like about him other than the way he looks?

 

[Votto]

We don't need no stinkin' fascists as President.

No Trump.

No Cruz.

Cruz opposed the NDAA as where Obama signed it.

Now who is the fascist?

If Cruz were to become President, he would use the NDAA against his political enemies in a heart beat.

Idiot. He voted against it.

Hillary, on the other hand, would use it in a heartbeat.

Another ridiculous lie, and more ignorance from the right.

The NDAA does not 'authorize' martial law, nor does it 'suspend' the Writ of Habeas; any attempt to use the measure in such a manner would be invalidated by the courts.

Indeed, 'martial law' may not be 'imposed' absent actual military war and only when the courts in a given jurisdiction are no longer functioning (see Ex parte Milligan).

What about this do you not understand?


Just to remind everyone of what the NDAA actually says.

This pernicious law poses one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in our nation’s history. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, foreign nationals who are alleged to have committed or merely “suspected” of sympathizing with or providing any level of support to groups the U.S. designates as terrorist organization or an affiliate or associated force may be imprisoned without charge or trial “until the end of hostilities.” The law affirms the executive branch’s authority granted under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and broadens the definition and scope of “covered persons.” But because the “war on terror” is a war on a tactic, not on a state, it has no parameters or timetable. Consequently, this law can be used by authorities to detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security and stability – potentially even demonstrators and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.

If you have another version of the legislation I would love to see it.

No offense, but just saying you claim it says something does not make it so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Votto has no answer for this from the above, "The NDAA does not 'authorize' martial law, nor does it 'suspend' the Writ of Habeas; any attempt to use the measure in such a manner would be invalidated by the courts.

Indeed, 'martial law' may not be 'imposed' absent actual military war and only when the courts in a given jurisdiction are no longer functioning (seeEx parte Milligan)."

 

[Votto]

Votto has no answer for this from the above, "The NDAA does not 'authorize' martial law, nor does it 'suspend' the Writ of Habeas; any attempt to use the measure in such a manner would be invalidated by the courts.

Indeed, 'martial law' may not be 'imposed' absent actual military war and only when the courts in a given jurisdiction are no longer functioning (seeEx parte Milligan)."

What about this don't you understand?

merely “suspected” of sympathizing with or providing any level of support to groups the U.S. designates as terrorist organization or an affiliate or associated force may be imprisoned without charge or trial “until the end of hostilities.”

So long as "hostilities" continue the said person can be locked up indefinitely.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, Votto does not get it.

 

[Votto]

Yep, Votto does not get it.

So if they "arrested" anyone, who would know?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, Votto does not get it.

So if they "arrested" anyone, who would know?

Votto, that has been answered for you.

 

[Votto]

Yep, Votto does not get it.

So if they "arrested" anyone, who would know?

Votto, that has been answered for you.

When then has the law been implemented to prove your assertion?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, Votto does not get it.

So if they "arrested" anyone, who would know?

Votto, that has been answered for you.

When then has the law been implemented to prove your assertion?

Do you know of anuyone who has been arrested? I do. The program works. They want bad people, not peaceful TPs or libertarians.