Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

[JJ Husker]

If there are more people with the same economic views as Malth, we are screwed.

Can it truly be considered a 'view' when the ramblings do not even hint at a modicum of understanding in Macro or Micro economics?

Please point out where I am factually incorrect. Or if I need to clarify something. I see a lot of LOL THATS STUPID replies with absolutely no substance behind them.

I guess I will apologize for hijacking this thread. That wasn't my intent. I saw some comments I wanted to respond to and it went out of control. I cannot continue a debate when the concepts introduced make absolutely no sense to me. If that means I lose, fine. I guess I am dumbfounded as to how to counter statements like; Obama is a moderate or proposing that we don't have to live within our means because we have the ability to keep printing money. For me that is like saying the Huskers wear red and then somebody claims otherwise and asks me to prove it. Really, I give up. Sorry this got off track.

Obama is moderate if you turn off fox news for a day. Seriously, get some freaking perspective.

You are not making much of an effort to understand what I'm saying. I understand where you're coming from on many of the points you make, because I used to believe they were true as well. When I first read that "federal taxes don't fund anything", I thought "that's stupid" and it must have been nonsense. But I kept reading anyway, and when it finally clicked, I couldn't believe how f'ing simple it is.

The reason I said that you need to prove that deficit spending causes inflation, is that I understand it's intuitive and it makes sense. Each additional dollar that is created dilutes the value of the rest of the dollars. It's a claim that should be easy to quantify, by finding correlations between higher deficit spending and higher than average inflation, right? Well, good luck finding that data, because it doesn't exist. It is not factually correct. As I mentioned earlier, if you did something ridiculous like writing a everyone a check for a million dollars, then you may be able to make a case, but at our current spending levels, inflation is NOT an issue at all.

I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating that we start creating several trillion dollars or anything ridiculous. It's just that terms like "living within our means" doesn't really apply to an entity that can create money at will and doesn't need to be paid back. The deficit is merely a reflection of the money supply.

Malth, I am intrigued by some of your posts on the economy. I was going to let this one go but decided to come back to it after reading another one of your posts that said something to the effect of "tax dollars don't support anything". Originally I thought you were some kind of crackpot (probably still do to be honest) but it does appear that you are serious about these claims you are making. To be honest I really don't see you swaying me on these issues but I do promise to keep an open mind and consider what you say. I have a couple questions/explanations that may help you enlighten me or me you.

1- If tax dollars don't pay for or support anything, what happens to the thousands of dollars I send the government every quarter of every year? I make my checks out to the US Treasury and they sure as heck get cashed and the money comes out of my bank account. If my funds don't get used to pay for anything by the government, where do those funds go?

2- You have stated that dumping money into the economy (ie stimulus etc) does not / will not cause inflation. You posted some neat little graphs that showed no relationship between the 2. I would posit that recent stimulus to the economy has not necessarily caused inflation but rather has been eaten up by offsetting deeper recession, I would also state that, in an economy that is not on the ropes, dumping this money into the economy would cause inflation. If a billion dollars is added to the economy, that will cause a billion dollars (less the amount people/companies put into long term savings) growth in demand. Can we agree that higher demand will result in lower supply and thus increasing prices? BTW, increasing prices is also known as inflation. I may not be up on new economic "theories" but has the relationship of supply and demand changed? I claim additional money (not a result of natural growth) in the economy does cause inflation and/or offset the opposite and is not a natural market force and it should be avoided at virtually all costs. And, I don't mean to be picky but, more graphs of questionable motives and sources are not what I'm looking for. Just explain it.

 

[huskertim]

Carl on the left, JJ on the right. I would think that even as disparate as your personal views (and opinions of the C in C) are you might come together on the notion that a law empowering the administation to detain US citizens indefinately without trial is bad. Then again, I have been accused of missing the trees for the forrest on occassion.

BTW, sorry guys my white, middle class, christian a$$ isn't counting on the staintly boys at the ALCU to protect me. I think I might just cling to my guns and religion like a good like hick.

 

[carlfense]

Carl on the left, JJ on the right. I would think that even as disparate as your personal views (and opinions of the C in C) are you might come together on the notion that a law empowering the administation to detain US citizens indefinately without trial is bad. Then again, I have been accused of missing the trees for the forrest on occassion.

BTW, sorry guys my white, middle class, christian a$$ isn't counting on the staintly boys at the ALCU to protect me. I think I might just cling to my guns and religion like a good like hick.

It certainly isn't good.

 

[JJ Husker]

Carl on the left, JJ on the right. I would think that even as disparate as your personal views (and opinions of the C in C) are you might come together on the notion that a law empowering the administation to detain US citizens indefinately without trial is bad. Then again, I have been accused of missing the trees for the forrest on occassion.

BTW, sorry guys my white, middle class, christian a$$ isn't counting on the staintly boys at the ALCU to protect me. I think I might just cling to my guns and religion like a good like hick.

I don't believe it is my position that detaining US citizens indefinately without trial is a good thing. I have only tried to make 2 points (and apparently failed at doing so). 1- Yes, that law makes me nervous but, until I see or hear about actual innocent US citizens being detained, I will give up a little of my theoretical liberty in exchange for a real tool to help stop terrorism. The key word is UNTIL. 2- I have tried to point out that there really is no difference, as regards our liberty and freedom, between that law or another law which requires private citizens to purchase any specific good or service such as health insurance or to be forced to participate in a plan like Soc Sec. If there is a difference, it is that the PA law does not infringe on anyones liberty until it is actually abused but, in the case of Obamacare or Soc Sec, it does and will affect every single person. I won't argue that having health insurance isn't a good thing (I have it and wouldn't think of going without it) but where is our government empowered to make that decision for me?

I'm with you huskertim, I'm not going to depend on the ACLU for squat. Last I checked they were too busy defending cop killers and child pornographers to be bothered with the issues of upstanding legal citizens like myself. Any group that can read what is actually written about religion and government and come to the conclusion that it was intended to prevent public displays of or possible exposure to someone elses religion rather than preventing government from interfering with your religion, well, I'm not going to depend on them for anything.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

I started this thread asking 'Where is the ACLU?'. I might be a righty, but I'm fair.

I have to give to the ACLU for atleast looking into the Anwar al-Awlaki case.

There is little question that Anwar al-Awlaki is a terrorist dirtbag that got what he deserved, but the whole situation initiates an interesting dilemma….If an individual(s) within the government deem an American citizen is a terrorist, do they not receive a trial? Can they lawfully be assasinated?

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

At first this made sense to me, but then I got to thinking how dangerous this could be. What happens if an American citizen is wrongly accused of terrorism? Are they to be locked up without a trial? Even worse, what happens if someone is set-up? Who decides who is a terrorist?

Just curious were the ACLU and those that hate the Patriot Act are hiding.

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

http://www.guardian....detention-obama

Oh, they will be around to fight this.

The people who hate the same ACLU that fights tirelessly to protect their freedoms make me chuckle.

They don't fight for my freedoms. I could see them go away and not sweat it one bit. And if they do fight this so what even a blind squirrel finds a nut. :nutz

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

It explicitly states that the requirement does not extend to US citizens, among other things.

I does give the president the right to apply it to US citizens, if he says that national security is at stake. It's still basically the exact same thing that has been in place for over 10 years now. And we still have a Constitution. The issue is being sensationalized and it's kind of ridiculous.

And do you think I was referring to you as a firebagger in another thread? I was referring to the author of the article you linked.

Even if you weren't, it seemed to fit.

I voted for Obama in the Dem primary and in the general election, only because the competition was that much worse.

I read his Audacity book, and it was clear how much of a wimp he was.

Once he started naming his cabinet I had given up on him, before he even took office.

And time has showed that my extremely low expectations of him were not met.

He does not deserve a second term... even if we have to go to someone else worse than him.

And time has showed that my extremely low expectations of him were not met.

He does not deserve a second term... even if we have to go to someone else worse than him.

So what exactly should he have done to make you happy? Keeping in mind that Congress controls most of what gets passed and not, and that the Republicans over the past 4 years have been completely uncooperative, and have no problem busting out the filibuster over basically everything.

You seem to forget that BO had two years with a filibuster proof congress and he got his way for two years. 2010 was the first year he was without a majority in the house. He is an inept POTUS and his policies (Obama care) are hurting business.

http://www.politifac...mises/obameter/

Also, regardless of your thoughts on Obama, saying we'd be better off with someone worse than him is just no. Have you been paying attention to the Republican candidates? Are you aware of their views on economics? I'm sorry, but no thanks to the economic black hole their ridiculous policies would put us in. Hold your nose if you have to while you're in the voting booth, because the alternative is f'ing terrible. Do you really think that "teaching him a lesson" or whatever is going to benefit anyone? I'm sorry you're upset with Obama, but let's be realistic here.

Yeah oBUMa's policies are so much better lets spend the country into a depression. It is only going to be about fifteen years or so when we will have problems paying THE INTEREST ON THE DEBT. Not we will have problems paying our bills but we will have problems with THE INTEREST!! We need to change policy and fast or we are going the way of Greece. eyeswear2allthatsholy

 

[carlfense]

Oh, they will be around to fight this.

The people who hate the same ACLU that fights tirelessly to protect their freedoms make me chuckle.

They don't fight for my freedoms. I could see them go away and not sweat it one bit. And if they do fight this so what even a blind squirrel finds a nut. :nutz

They don't? I thought that you were a Christian? What are the tenets of this religion that you are inventing?

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

Oh, they will be around to fight this.

The people who hate the same ACLU that fights tirelessly to protect their freedoms make me chuckle.

They don't fight for my freedoms. I could see them go away and not sweat it one bit. And if they do fight this so what even a blind squirrel finds a nut. :nutz

They don't? I thought that you were a Christian? What are the tenets of this religion that you are inventing?

How can you even say that when you know they fight against religious freedom in every school in this country. More semantics and word dancing by a lawyer!! :hmmph

 

[carlfense]

How can you even say that when you know they fight against religious freedom in every school in this country. More semantics and word dancing by a lawyer!! :hmmph

Spoken like someone who has never bothered to look at ACLU cases beyond what Fox/Beck/Limbaugh tell them.

Prove it up. Show me how they fight against religious freedom in every school in the country. I won't have any trouble showing otherwise. Let's see what you have.

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

How can you even say that when you know they fight against religious freedom in every school in this country. More semantics and word dancing by a lawyer!! :hmmph

Spoken like someone who has never bothered to look at ACLU cases beyond what Fox/Beck/Limbaugh tell them.

Prove it up. Show me how they fight against religious freedom in every school in the country. I won't have any trouble showing otherwise. Let's see what you have.

Spoken like a true uber liberal who has never looked beyond the NYT or Huffington post. Then show otherwise, I am tired of you asking for links and when I give them you say nothing about them. Show me what you got!!! chuckleshuffle

 

[carlfense]

How can you even say that when you know they fight against religious freedom in every school in this country. More semantics and word dancing by a lawyer!! :hmmph

Spoken like someone who has never bothered to look at ACLU cases beyond what Fox/Beck/Limbaugh tell them.

Prove it up. Show me how they fight against religious freedom in every school in the country. I won't have any trouble showing otherwise. Let's see what you have.

Spoken like a true uber liberal who has never looked beyond the NYT or Huffington post. Then show otherwise, I am tired of you asking for links and when I give them you say nothing about them. Show me what you got!!! chuckleshuffle

http://www.aclufight...christians.com/

Your turn.

(Where are the links that you claim that I demanded and am now ignoring? I'd hate to think that you can't back that up either.)

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

How can you even say that when you know they fight against religious freedom in every school in this country. More semantics and word dancing by a lawyer!! :hmmph

Spoken like someone who has never bothered to look at ACLU cases beyond what Fox/Beck/Limbaugh tell them.

Prove it up. Show me how they fight against religious freedom in every school in the country. I won't have any trouble showing otherwise. Let's see what you have.

Spoken like a true uber liberal who has never looked beyond the NYT or Huffington post. Then show otherwise, I am tired of you asking for links and when I give them you say nothing about them. Show me what you got!!! chuckleshuffle

http://www.aclufight...christians.com/

Your turn.

(Where are the links that you claim that I demanded and am now ignoring? I'd hate to think that you can't back that up either.)

https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=110923_sc_video

http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=6166

http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/206561/

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-religion-belief/public-school-holds-christian-rally-convert-students

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/aclu-threatens-legal-action-nj-high-school-amendment-dispute/

 

[carlfense]

http://www.aclufight...christians.com/

Your turn.

(Where are the links that you claim that I demanded and am now ignoring? I'd hate to think that you can't back that up either.)

https://secure.aclu....110923_sc_video

http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=6166

http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/206561/

http://www.aclu.org/...onvert-students

http://www.foxnews.c...ndment-dispute/

Do you see the difference between your links and my links? Mine show that the ACLU defends the individual's religious rights. Your links show that the ACLU opposes the imposition of religious beliefs on others. BOTH of those types of cases defend the institution of Christianity.

Also, you're only 39 cases behind. Keep googling, my friend.

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

http://www.aclufight...christians.com/

Your turn.

(Where are the links that you claim that I demanded and am now ignoring? I'd hate to think that you can't back that up either.)

https://secure.aclu....110923_sc_video

http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=6166

http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/206561/

http://www.aclu.org/...onvert-students

http://www.foxnews.c...ndment-dispute/

Do you see the difference between your links and my links? Mine show that the ACLU defends the individual's religious rights. Your links show that the ACLU opposes the imposition of religious beliefs on others. BOTH of those types of cases defend the institution of Christianity.

Also, you're only 39 cases behind. Keep googling, my friend.

Seriously how can you say that when they are fighting a 70 year old graduation tradition just because there is a religious symbol. If that were true I could just put one on here and you would be a born again Christian using that logic!! That is just crazy logic!! :bad

A New Jersey high school with a 70-year tradition of hosting graduation ceremonies in a historic auditorium is standing firm against legal threats from the American Civil Liberties Union, which claims the event violates the separation of church and state because of the Christian-owned site's religious displays

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/aclu-threatens-legal-action-nj-high-school-amendment-dispute/#ixzz1oN99Rqu0