The NDAA

[g5000]

Even in the 2012 NDAA, the word "suspected" only appears once, and has nothing to do with what Votto is claiming.

Information sharing.--If United States Customs and
Border Protection suspects a product of being imported or
exported in violation of section 42 of the Lanham Act, and
subject to any applicable bonding requirements, the Secretary
of Treasury is authorized to share information appearing on,
and unredacted samples of, products and their packaging and
labels, or photographs of such products, packaging and labels,
with the rightholders of the trademarks suspected of being
copied or simulated, for purposes of determining whether the
products are prohibited from importation pursuant to such
section.

So when someone starts going on about a law and uses single words like "suspected" out of context, you should always smell a rat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A president and Congress does not have the power during peace time (we do not have a Declaration of War) to violate the Constitution's 1st Amendment to ban Muslims.

Absolutely no authority exists for that action.

The president can ban any person who will not denounce shari'a as being superior to American law.

 

[FA_Q2]

There's a difference between having a law that might allow things ultimately found loathsome and unconstitutional, but perhaps necessary if there were concerted and repteated attacks, and saying we should do things that are xenophobic, counter productive and simply wagging the dog for cheap pol gain.

Yes there is. Saying we should do things that are crazy is meaningless as it is nothing more than idiotic rhetoric meant to draw in those that are not paying attention. Actually crafting the law is action and is actually committing to doing that kind of crazy shit. The latter is FAR worse.

I dunno. I'd hate to see it, but imagine ISIS or some other group having many active cells like were in France and all attacking at the same time. I'm ok with having a standby plan to basically nationalize law enforcement temporarily and curtail civil rights, partially to protect muslims from racist rioters.

It's another to vilify doctors and other professionals who do nothing but benefit America.

I am not.

The government does not need to violate our rights in the name of safety. That simply ensures that we are both unsafe and without rights. Terrorism is a much smaller issue than the government and those wanting to transfer as much power to them as possible make it out to be. I am MUCH more concerned that I will be killed driving to work then getting killed by a terrorist plot. The reality here is that the terrorists are, with very little actual action, dictating actions across the entire government.