This is why there is no difference between the republican party and the democrap party. Both want to control the people with big goverment, and both parties are deadly affraid of the people hence all the talk about our 2nd amendment rights.
The republican party received my last vote for them in this last election. They can't be trusted.
Now i'll sit back and have a nice cup of hot TEA.
Congress approved a measure Friday that would renew expansive U.S. surveillance authority for five more years, rejecting objections from senators who are concerned the legislation does not adequately protect Americans' privacy.
The bill passed the Senate 73 to 23...
The lopsided Senate vote authorized a continuation of the government's ability to eavesdrop on communications inside the United States involving foreign citizens without obtaining a specific warrant for each case.
READ MORE...
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/29/george-w-bush-continues-to-destroy-privacy-rights/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/29/george-w-bush-continues-to-destroy-privacy-rights/)
The NDAA, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the so-called Patriot Act, any politician who voted for them will not get a vote from me, regardless of their party affiliation.
They are NOT "the same."
One is wrong 98% of the time. The other is wrong 25% of the time. As William Buckley (and Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh) said, you vote for the most Conservative candidate THAT CAN WIN. To do anything else is to guarantee a Demonrat victory.
Voting for any of the 20 "3rd parties" is suicide. You elect the most Conservative Republican you can.
They are NOT the same....The Republicans put that bill through to
protect this country against foreign enemies and Monitor foreign terrorists.
The Democrats apologize to terrorists and want to monitor you and me because we aren't on board with their agenda....big difference.
Billy
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on December 29, 2012, 06:46:05 PM
They are NOT the same....The Republicans put that bill through to
protect this country against foreign enemies and Monitor foreign terrorists.
The Democrats apologize to terrorists and want to monitor you and me because we aren't on board with their agenda....big difference.
Billy
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The Patriot Act gave the geenlight to the current administration, (as well as Bush's), to trample all over the US constitution.
By sacrificing our freedom, we have made the work of 19 Islamic cowards, worthwhile.
The USAPatriot Act was an important piece of legislation in protecting the American people. So was the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. Both of these things have streamlined our human intelligence capabilities, tightened security at our ports, has enabled law enforcement to do their jobs in a timely manner, and law enforcement agencies can now share information like never before.
The NDAA is a different beast. The NDAA allows the President of the United States to determine who is an enemy of the state and who is not. It is vastly different from either the patriot act or homeland security.
Quote from: kramarat on December 29, 2012, 07:00:24 PM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The Patriot Act gave the geenlight to the current administration, (as well as Bush's), to trample all over the US constitution.
By sacrificing our freedom, we have made the work of 19 Islamic cowards, worthwhile.
The problem is there are more than 19 of them....Thats why CAIR
are Ron Paul supporters.
The Govt has a responsibility to defend us under the Enumerated powers of the Constitution. As the great Sun Tzu told us..."Know your enemy as you know yourself and you will win a hundred battles, know
not your enemy or yourself and their will be to limit ot your failures."
If you want to know your enemy...you have to study him.....
I stand by what I just said.
Billy
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on December 29, 2012, 06:46:05 PM
They are NOT the same....The Republicans put that bill through to
protect this country against foreign enemies and Monitor foreign terrorists.
The Democrats apologize to terrorists and want to monitor you and me because we aren't on board with their agenda....big difference.
Billy
:thumbup:
Another reason we need a "Thanks" button. Thumbs Up will have to do
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on December 29, 2012, 07:05:30 PM
The problem is there are more than 19 of them....That's why CAIR
are Ron Paul supporters.
The Govt has a responsibility to defend us under the Enumerated powers of the Constitution. As the great Sun Tzu told us..."Know your enemy as you know yourself and you will win a hundred battles, know not your enemy or yourself and their will be to limit ot your failures."
If you want to know your enemy...you have to study him.....
I stand by what I just said.
Billy
Under the circumstances, Bush did the right thing. He also left the door open for a cockroach like Obama.
Quote from: kramarat on December 29, 2012, 08:18:50 PM
Under the circumstances, Bush did the right thing. He also left the door open for a cockroach like Obama.
Thats the problem when a radical leftist comes to power.
Billy
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on December 29, 2012, 08:31:29 PM
Thats the problem when a radical leftist comes to power.
Billy
Correct. And why it was brilliant on the part of the founders, to limit a president's term to a maximum of eight years. Obama can deal our country a hell of a blow, but not a death blow. Everything he does can be reversed. The founders saw Obama coming.
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on December 29, 2012, 08:31:29 PM
Thats the problem when a radical leftist comes to power.
Billy
That is why the Founders used the Constitution to set strict limits on what the Federal Government could do.
A Free Society is not a safe society. It is, however, preferable to the "safety" of Tyranny!
It will be a cold day in hell before I ever fly on a commercial airline flight again, simply because I don't believe that I should have to undergo a virtual strip search simply to get on a plane.
Presidents didn't have term limits until after FDR
Quote from: Yawn on December 29, 2012, 09:26:03 PM
Presidents didn't have term limits until after FDR
Damn. You nailed me on that one. :blush:
I had never checked it. It seems like a no brainer. I'm glad it's in place; and it's notable that it was put in place to stop the reign of FDR.
Thanks. Now I'm more worried about the things that Obama might do to us.
Quote from: Yawn on December 29, 2012, 09:26:03 PM
Presidents didn't have term limits until after FDR
Indeed. Up to that point Presidents had felt they should follow the example of Washington and leave after two terms. It took a Dimocrap to decide he was "too important" or "too indispensable" to leave. There was a lot of that going around at the time - witness Hitler and Mussolini. Roosevelt not leaving after two terms, was just another example of how much the Dims had in common with the Fascists and the Communists of that era. If he had lived, He probably would have had himself appointed "President for Life" like some South American "Banana Republic".
Quote from: mdgiles on December 30, 2012, 06:39:25 AM
Indeed. Up to that point Presidents had felt they should follow the example of Washington and leave after two terms. It took a Dimocrap to decide he was "too important" or "too indispensable" to leave. There was a lot of that going around at the time - witness Hitler and Mussolini. Roosevelt not leaving after two terms, was just another example of how much the Dims had in common with the Fascists and the Communists of that era. If he had lived, He probably would have had himself appointed "President for Life" like some South American "Banana Republic".
That's how I got the idea that it was somehow in the founding documents. Washington set the precedent; and it stayed that way for a long time. It's hard to believe that with all of the precautions that they took to prevent government corruption, that term limits weren't in there. Although I suppose they saw the vote as a countermeasure to anyone taking over forever.
I'm sure they are spinning in their graves, if they can see the guy we have as president and the stupidity of the people that voted for him.
Quote from: kramarat on December 30, 2012, 08:04:28 AM
That's how I got the idea that it was somehow in the founding documents. Washington set the precedent; and it stayed that way for a long time. It's hard to believe that with all of the precautions that they took to prevent government corruption, that term limits weren't in there. Although I suppose they saw the vote as a countermeasure to anyone taking over forever.
I'm sure they are spinning in their graves, if they can see the guy we have as president and the stupidity of the people that voted for him.
As they were writing the Constitution, Washington was in the room with them. He - and they - knew they who they were writing the office for. The problem was that there was no question in their minds about Washington becoming some kind of a king or dictator. When he walked into the Continental Congress and resigned his commission and went home, Washington was the undisputed leader of the best and largest army on the North American continent. They Knew the kind of man he was. And they assumed only his type would hold the office, and they were pretty much right.
IMHO, I think a lot changed with the enormous immigrant inflow in the beginning of the 20th century. Up to that point many of the immigrants had come to the US from Northern and Western Europe. Many had come here specifically to escape any kind of political oppression in their home countries - for example the Irish - they were not going to see the same thing here. At the beginning of the 20th century people started coming from Eastern and Southern Europe, for the economic opportunity. Many of them came from Oppressive regimes, and had lived under those regimes for centuries. It was easy to convince them that business owners, for example, were no different than the feudal lords they had just escaped. I think this is where "Progressivism" got it's big push from. From people who really didn't understand the American system.
Quote from: mdgiles on December 30, 2012, 08:47:24 AM
As they were writing the Constitution, Washington was in the room with them. He - and they - knew they who they were writing the office for. The problem was that there was no question in their minds about Washington becoming some kind of a king or dictator. When he walked into the Continental Congress and resigned his commission and went home, Washington was the undisputed leader of the best and largest army on the North American continent. They Knew the kind of man he was. And they assumed only his type would hold the office, and they were pretty much right.
IMHO, I think a lot changed with the enormous immigrant inflow in the beginning of the 20th century. Up to that point many of the immigrants had come to the US from Northern and Western Europe. Many had come here specifically to escape any kind of political oppression in their home countries - for example the Irish - they were not going to see the same thing here. At the beginning of the 20th century people started coming from Eastern and Southern Europe, for the economic opportunity. Many of them came from Oppressive regimes, and had lived under those regimes for centuries. It was easy to convince them that business owners, for example, were no different than the feudal lords they had just escaped. I think this is where "Progressivism" got it's big push from. From people who really didn't understand the American system.
Much like no one saw Obama coming when the Patriot Act was signed. I had a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach when that went through............and here we are. It's being turned against regular Americans, and nobody can stop it. :sad: