U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina > Charleston area
 [Register]
Charleston area Charleston - North Charleston - Mt. Pleasant - Summerville - Goose Creek
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 01-22-2012, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
7,437 posts, read 6,706,046 times
Reputation: 3373

Advertisements

I would greatly encourage you to watch the video that is in the third link on this google page. (it is the link where you see the face of levin dated 12-13-11, uploaded by cincinnati911truth).

This bill is absolutely disgusting and we the people have just watched our rights flushed down the toilet by this administration.


obama wanted ndaa changed to detain citizens - Google Search


Quote:
Originally Posted by gigimac View Post
CHROME KITTY, your statement "Obama had no reservations" is incorrect. A conservative might assume what you said by only reading the shortened AP news story in the Charleston paper, but if you will read the entire story, which was published by National Public Radio among other news outlets, this is what it says about Obama's reservations:

"The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

"'My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,' Obama said in the signing statement. 'Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.'"

Below is the link to the whole story on NPR. You see, it is the FBI that wanted to be able to hold Americans indefinitely in military custody without trial, but the President did not want to violate American rights under the Constitution, irregardless of their suspected terrorist acts. You have to keep in mind the President was a Constitutional Law Professor for many years after graduating MAGNA cumlaude from Harvard Law School.

Obama Signs Defense Bill, With 'Reservations' : NPR (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/31/144524058/obama-signs-defense-bill-with-reservations - broken link)
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2012, 03:38 PM
 
Location: SC
8,569 posts, read 8,896,002 times
Reputation: 2888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromekitty View Post
Do you have that youtube link?

Someone told me long ago, if you want the real news of what is happening here in the US, go to media outside of this nation. Sad huh?
It is true though. DrudgeReport.com is very good because they pull from all over the world. I read it every day. They will publish what our MSM chooses not to let us in on or what the MSM will eventually get around to reporting days or weeks later.

Here is the link you asked for on Lindsay Graham comments about how the NDAA should apply to American citizens.


Sen. Lindsey Graham on the NDAA, Indefinite Detention of American Citizens - YouTube
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2012, 03:46 PM
 
Location: SC
8,569 posts, read 8,896,002 times
Reputation: 2888
This is unrelated but does anyone find it odd that Newt Gingrich would have to cancel a speaking event before the primary due to lack of attendance (only 24 people showed up) in SC the same day that over 1000 people show up to see Ron Paul at College of Charleston for their bully pulpit series, yet Gingrich (who isn't even on the ballot in 3 states and is technically unelectable) wins the primaries in SC????

Also why did they leave the candidates on the ballot here that have dropped out? It wasn't like the ballots had to be printed ahead of time. All someone needed to do was open the program and delete the 3 candidates who have dropped out. Some South Carolinians even voted for the drop outs.

I have similar questions about Iowa. How could Santorum have won there when he was virtually unknown?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2012, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Mount Pleasant, SC
7,840 posts, read 3,525,785 times
Reputation: 3472
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh View Post
This is unrelated but does anyone find it odd that Newt Gingrich would have to cancel a speaking event before the primary due to lack of attendance (only 24 people showed up) in SC the same day that over 1000 people show up to see Ron Paul at College of Charleston for their bully pulpit series, yet Gingrich (who isn't even on the ballot in 3 states and is technically unelectable) wins the primaries in SC????

Also why did they leave the candidates on the ballot here that have dropped out? It wasn't like the ballots had to be printed ahead of time. All someone needed to do was open the program and delete the 3 candidates who have dropped out. Some South Carolinians even voted for the drop outs.

I have similar questions about Iowa. How could Santorum have won there when he was virtually unknown?
The event was not well attended and it had invited Newt to speak. He chose not to speak, but I do believe Paul spoke at it and it was indeed to a very small crowd. Was a convention, if I remember correctly.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2012, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Asheville
1,162 posts, read 2,213,830 times
Reputation: 1145
CHROME et al, I watched what you said to watch, and my original post stands. People are confusing what the President unambiguously said thru all seven revisions of this bill and when he signed the bill. He did not agree with the wording that might lead to an innocent American being held indefinitely without trial. In a statement released back in November, he said the military detention routine would "...be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."

I have read many erroneous interpretations of essentially the same law that was passed by Congress after 9/11 giving President Bush extraordinary powers to fight terrorism. But this semantics issue is understandable mainly because of the nature of legislation, like back in California on the gay rights issue, when folks were chanting, "Vote No on Proposition 8," what that actually meant was: A vote of No means a vote to not ban same sex marriages.

But for those who don't see this as politics as usual and in fact have real concerns, not to worry, remember the House has a Republican majority now and the Senate no longer has a Democratic super majority, so chances are, especially if the President didn't care for the bill, we'll be safe.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2012, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
7,437 posts, read 6,706,046 times
Reputation: 3373
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh View Post
It is true though. DrudgeReport.com is very good because they pull from all over the world. I read it every day. They will publish what our MSM chooses not to let us in on or what the MSM will eventually get around to reporting days or weeks later.

Here is the link you asked for on Lindsay Graham comments about how the NDAA should apply to American citizens.


Sen. Lindsey Graham on the NDAA, Indefinite Detention of American Citizens - YouTube

Thanks!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2012, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
7,437 posts, read 6,706,046 times
Reputation: 3373
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh View Post
This is unrelated but does anyone find it odd that Newt Gingrich would have to cancel a speaking event before the primary due to lack of attendance (only 24 people showed up) in SC the same day that over 1000 people show up to see Ron Paul at College of Charleston for their bully pulpit series, yet Gingrich (who isn't even on the ballot in 3 states and is technically unelectable) wins the primaries in SC????

Also why did they leave the candidates on the ballot here that have dropped out? It wasn't like the ballots had to be printed ahead of time. All someone needed to do was open the program and delete the 3 candidates who have dropped out. Some South Carolinians even voted for the drop outs.

I have similar questions about Iowa. How could Santorum have won there when he was virtually unknown?


Good points.
They were calling SC at 7:01, that evening. Sickening.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2012, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
7,437 posts, read 6,706,046 times
Reputation: 3373
You didn't watch the video...if you had you would have the knowledge as to why the verbage that was used, was used.

Do you think that laws are created and signed because someone needed something to do that particular day? What a silly comment that we would "be safe" since obama didn't care for the bill. Good grief, how sad.



Quote:
Originally Posted by gigimac View Post
CHROME et al, I watched what you said to watch, and my original post stands. People are confusing what the President unambiguously said thru all seven revisions of this bill and when he signed the bill. He did not agree with the wording that might lead to an innocent American being held indefinitely without trial. In a statement released back in November, he said the military detention routine would "...be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."

I have read many erroneous interpretations of essentially the same law that was passed by Congress after 9/11 giving President Bush extraordinary powers to fight terrorism. But this semantics issue is understandable mainly because of the nature of legislation, like back in California on the gay rights issue, when folks were chanting, "Vote No on Proposition 8," what that actually meant was: A vote of No means a vote to not ban same sex marriages.

But for those who don't see this as politics as usual and in fact have real concerns, not to worry, remember the House has a Republican majority now and the Senate no longer has a Democratic super majority, so chances are, especially if the President didn't care for the bill, we'll be safe.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 01:45 AM
 
Location: Summerville
7,934 posts, read 9,670,909 times
Reputation: 1262
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh View Post
It is true though. DrudgeReport.com is very good because they pull from all over the world. I read it every day. They will publish what our MSM chooses not to let us in on or what the MSM will eventually get around to reporting days or weeks later.

Here is the link you asked for on Lindsay Graham comments about how the NDAA should apply to American citizens.


Sen. Lindsey Graham on the NDAA, Indefinite Detention of American Citizens - YouTube

Our Liberal Senator from SC...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2012, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Asheville
1,162 posts, read 2,213,830 times
Reputation: 1145
Gee, Chrome, I have no reason to say I saw a video when I didn't. And I looked at both of them, they were plenty short to go through! The videos were taken from one of the seven reworks of the bill, when Congress was trying to get the wording right and managed to leave out some of the original powers granted to government to stop terrorism, and in the process some of them misconstrued what the President was concerned about in that particular instance. They eventually fixed it. And I don't mind if you think my attempt to console your concerns was some sort of pathetic gesture, because I only tried to show you Republicans were behind the signed bill, too.

In the end, I'll repeat, if we read what President Obama said before the bill was worked on seven times and afterwards, which I have quoted in my posts, he clearly stated he WANTS to protect the rights of Americans suspected of terrorism. And as for the basic idea of granting anti-terrorism powers to the military, FBI, CIA, and Special Ops, there is no difference in the bill under President Obama and President Bush. That part of the bill is the same. And in fact the ACLU objected to the bill when Bush signed it, just like they objected to it when Obama signed it. The difference is President Obama made it clear he wants Americans not to automatically be detained indefinitely without trial, which the Congress changed the bill so that would not happen, and thus the President signed it, with reservations.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina > Charleston area

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top