Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Ron Paul furious over indefinite detention act


  • Please log in to reply
146 replies to this topic

#61 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,687 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:05 PM

While we are at it, let's detain indefinitely every member of the US who voted for Obama, because, you know, since we don't really have to prove anything, giving money to his campaign and subsequently voting him into office is, by extension, supporting terrorism.

#62 Iceberg Slim

Iceberg Slim

    Keep it 100

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,087 posts
  • Locationwhatcha worried about it for

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:08 PM

You are hedging my question.....

#63 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,687 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:11 PM

Your question is stupid, the burden of proof is what denotes a justice system, anything else is not a civilization under the rule of law. What you have is a military dictatorship, the voice of the people no longer matter.

If you can't prove that someone is directly funding someone or something else, than the possibility exists that he's not. You are relying on other people's word and circumstantial evidence.

#64 Iceberg Slim

Iceberg Slim

    Keep it 100

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,087 posts
  • Locationwhatcha worried about it for

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:15 PM

Your question is stupid, the burden of proof is what denotes a justice system, anything else is not a civilization under the rule of law. What you have is a military dictatorship, the voice of the people no longer matter.

If you can't prove that someone is directly funding someone or something else, than the possibility exists that he's not. You are relying on other people's word and circumstantial evidence.



Yeah....ok then...wasted enough time.....

#65 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,687 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:18 PM

What if one of these informants had a friend who ran a store that also sold cigarettes? What if he was just wanting to help a friend make more money? What if someone was fudging information in order to bolster their record, make it look like they are doing a better job, working for a promotion. He doesn't have to prove anything after all.

#66 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,687 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:20 PM

Your ability to just roll with this, and acting like it is some necessary piece of legislation to protect you from the mythical terrorist boogyman, while blindly ignoring it's disastrous abuse potential is pretty fuging hilarious actually.

#67 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,100 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:22 PM

I say we indefinitely detain every member of congress and every member of government, who, in anyway, voted for or supported the actions taken in Libya on behalf of the Al Qaeda "liberators". We funded, armed, and militarily supported a terrorist network known (at least according to our good ol'gubment) for attacking the US and it's allies on multiple occasions.


that's a big fat

BOOM BITCH!!!


POST OF THE YEAR

#68 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,687 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:22 PM

Ask the people of Egypt how they like military rule, their little "liberation" worked awesome for them. Wait you mean the military doesn't want to give up power? Well darn.

#69 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,100 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:22 PM

Floppin just fuged every one of you fugers.

very nice analogy my friend.

#70 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,558 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:23 PM

it's actually a very good question - if this scenario actually happened (and its a very likely one, I can use American business funds going to the IRA in vast amounts as a demonstratable case, although there are many like it involving Muslim terrorist groups as well) how do you think we should be able to respond?

It "appears" that enough alterations were made to more clearly define what can and can't be done; anything else will be argued well by YOUR friends at the ACLU who will argue from the complete other end of the spectrum (why I support them). But I'm no expert -however this does not mean I am going to take yet another of these whacky websites at their word.

#71 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,687 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:26 PM

Who's linking wacky websites CWG? If you can prove that someone is funding a terrorist group, go for it, arrest them. Keyword: proof, if you can't, well then how do you really know that they are? Someone told you so? What if they are lying, what if they have their own motives? I mean seriously, how can you argue for individual indefinite detention without proof? What the fug is wrong with you people?

#72 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,687 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:27 PM

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

#73 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,100 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:30 PM

Did CW just pull out a "wacky website" method of defense here in the box?

jeezus

#74 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,558 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:31 PM

What if one of these informants had a friend who ran a store that also sold cigarettes? What if he was just wanting to help a friend make more money? What if someone was fudging information in order to bolster their record, make it look like they are doing a better job, working for a promotion. He doesn't have to prove anything after all.


Actually you are incorrect. In the investigation of a crime, alibis from potential accomplices are kind of a big deal.

Believe me, I completely understand and appreciate your view on this as I pretty much share it in theory, but these are the kinds of issues that get ruled on, overruled, and ruled on again for a while as they are kind of new ground for enforcement policies.

Anyways the Alien and Sedition Act was a LOT more dangerous than this and Founding Father John Adams signed it.

http://en.wikipedia....nd_Sedition_Act

#75 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,687 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 15 December 2011 - 12:32 PM

What did I say that was incorrect?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com