The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 22    Average: 3.3/5]
72 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 9626
Rating: 3.3
Category:
Date: 01/01/12 09:09 AM

72 Responses to Obama`s Law Quietly Passed: In Jail Forever?

  1. Profile photo of PhotoKing
    PhotoKing Male 30-39
    526 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 9:11 am
    Link: Obama`s Law Quietly Passed: In Jail Forever? - Rachel Maddow breaks down his speech--Basically, a suspected terrorists can be indefinitely detained without a trial.
  2. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 9:39 am
    To be fair, I think she made a mistake most of the way through when she said that Obama meant for the detention length to be 10 years. He didn`t actually say that.
  3. Profile photo of lucidexistan
    lucidexistan Male 30-39
    59 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 9:46 am
    He`s letting you know about a bill that passed quite while ago. It`s not even titled that. But yeah, it was overshadowed by SOPA, but it ended up passing pretty much undetected. Don`t be surprised, this is old news now. Careful protesters!
  4. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36842 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 9:52 am

    How long before the press is no longer allowed to cover this sort of thing?
  5. Profile photo of Evil_Eye
    Evil_Eye Male 18-29
    1442 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 10:00 am
    Forever? No. For years? Maybe.

    If a man`s actions indicate he has been planning to kill many people and he is known for working with a terrorist organisation... do you really want him to stay free?
    This is basicly to stop people like who planned 9/11, because they was aware something was going on but couldn`t gather enough evidence to hold them.

    I think it is a reasonable safety precaution, as long as it is goes on public record and the choices are made with an democratic vote.
  6. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33124 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 10:12 am
    Obama has lost Maddow?
    He`s gone full fascist, watch him suspend the upcomming election next.

    Hey lefties: happy now? Obama has done far worse that those "right wing crazies" McCain & Palin would EVER have done! Unspeakable debt, billions in handouts to Wallstreet, terminal unemployment, SOPA and now "prolonged detention" of US citizens.
    All that`s missing is the red armband.
    Happy now?
  7. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 10:17 am
    If you don`t know already, I`m a progressive and a liberal. And as misguided as I find the Republican candidates, I don`t think I can bring myself to vote for Obama a second time. I`m thinking write-in candidate (individual TBD).

    I never really got into the discussion on here because I`ve been avoiding IAB politics. But if you don`t know it already, a MAJOR root cause for the OWS protests, if not THE root cause, is bitter disenchantment among young Democrats with Obama. He promised Hope and Change on the campaign trail, then the moment he was in office, disbanded all liberal voices from his counsel and surrounded himself with financial industry insiders.

    Augggh. I can`t dwell on this. It makes my blood boil.
  8. Profile photo of robosnitz
    robosnitz Male 40-49
    2737 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 10:17 am
    @Gerry- not much longer. It`ll be considered terrorism and deemed a plot against America.
  9. Profile photo of robosnitz
    robosnitz Male 40-49
    2737 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 10:26 am
    We have Occupy Wallstreet crap EVERYWHERE now. The people are speaking whether you agree or not. It`s happening in other countries too.
    All of a sudden all are troops are being sent back home quickly.
    In the past week or two, this troublesome Bill has passed.Giving Government ultimate power.
    Am I the only one who can add this up?
    Military weapons, and assault vehicles to police forces. Really? WHY?
    Maybe their afraid that we`ll rise up and try and clean house.
    They`re taking care of business.
  10. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 10:34 am
    "If a man`s actions indicate he has been planning to kill many people and he is known for working with a terrorist organisation... do you really want him to stay free? "

    They don`t have to have proof that they did anything. Would you like to be accused of being a terrorist, and then be held indefinitely without getting a trial to prove your innocence? It`s essentially saying they`re guilty before proven innocent, and doesn`t give them the ability to prove their innocence.

    In the USA, there should be no such thing as being detained indefinitely. We have trials to prove someone guilty and then they can go to jail once proven guilty. Detaining someone potentially forever without a trial is barbaric and makes us pretty much similar to a third world country.
  11. Profile photo of robosnitz
    robosnitz Male 40-49
    2737 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 10:35 am
    Not too much longer now, everything you own will be taken by force, and you can fight. But you`ll lose.At first they`ll be nice about it.Then they won`t.Start hiding your valuables now.
  12. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36842 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Maybe the Mexicans will sell us our guns back so we can defend ourselves from our government.
    At a profit, of course.
  13. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 11:05 am
    "In the USA, there should be no such thing as being detained indefinitely"

    Well then I guess it`s a good thing that we don`t have it in the US. It only applies to enemy combatants captured outside the US.
  14. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 11:05 am
    @robosnitz: The sky is NOT falling. Stop trolling.
  15. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 11:40 am
    "Well then I guess it`s a good thing that we don`t have it in the US. It only applies to enemy combatants captured outside the US."

    Except that that`s not true.
  16. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 11:47 am
    It only applies to enemy combatants captured outside the US.
    Unfortunately, you are wrong. From Wikipedia`s article on the NDAA (which sources an ACLU analysis):

    The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person`s country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected.
  17. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 12:08 pm
    As aside: Does anyone know how to get the quote display to work reliably? I thought it was "quote" and "/quote" within square brackets, but sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn`t. Clearly I`m doing something wrong. ~fume~
  18. Profile photo of penguinazul
    penguinazul Female 18-29
    470 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 12:13 pm
    Best thing to do about this is not vote for Obama in the upcoming election.
  19. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36842 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    "I think it is a reasonable safety precaution"
    And if you are given a speeding ticket because you might drive too fast in the future will you think pre-crime is a good idea?
  20. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2345 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    this applies to americans as well on US soil. people, this just took away your freedom...all of it. you DO NOT live in a free country anymore. you live freely now so long as the gov allows you too.

    this will trump free speech, expression and religion bc all the gov has to do is proclaim you a threat, they do not have to prove why and then lock your a$$ up forever.

    we let this happen bc we do not pay attention or vote. we did, we now need to do away with these politicians and this law.
  21. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2345 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 1:10 pm
    5Cats

    you complete and total moron. he has not done worse, he was picked up where bush et al left off.

    moron, throiw aside your party, stop being a moron and join those of us that think for ourselves.

    we can no longer afford to be lib, con, dem, repub, we have to be americans trying to restore freedom to this country.
  22. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 1:12 pm
    @squirlz: Instead of Wikipedia, how about reading theactual bill that was signed into law. You`ll want to start reading at Section 1021.

    Excerpts:

    "(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

    Continued....
  23. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 1:13 pm
    Continued:

    "(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States."

  24. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 1:14 pm
    @jamie: Did you get that from Wikipedia also? Where`s your source??
  25. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 2:11 pm
    @Nettech: Regrettably, you`re misreading the parts of the legislation you`ve quoted. For an explanation, click here.

    Bottom line: Cenk Uygur has a Columbia Law degree and Rachel Maddow has a PhD in politics from Oxford. Nothing personal, but unless you can trump their credentials, I`m going to trust their interpretation over yours.
  26. Profile photo of topgun966
    topgun966 Male 18-29
    42 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 2:22 pm
    You people REALLY need to stop getting your info from Fox. First, this is NOT Obama`s law, this is the GOP run House`s law. Second, Obama WOULD NOT SIGN IT if it had the provision in it to detain US citizens into military custody. That was removed. IAB do your research before you post FUD
  27. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm
    @Topgun:

    Points of information:
    (1) I voted for Obama;
    (2) I`m well-known to regulars on this site as a true-blue progressive and proud liberal;
    (3) I don`t watch Fox News.
  28. Profile photo of Dad4Life
    Dad4Life Male 50-59
    2086 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm
    True blue progressive = socialist (borderline communist)
  29. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 2:57 pm
    @SCfan: Do you have anything to offer on topic--or was that just some kind of quaint, reflexive, McCarthyesque slur?
  30. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 3:11 pm
    @squirlz: I`m not misreading anything. Your reference is an interpretation. The interpretation states that "the authority already exists". That means it`s already there. The Act doesn`t change it. You needed someone else to spell that out for you when it says it right there?

    Did you actually read what you cited? He glaringly left out the lines I copied from the bill about things not applying to US citizens and resident aliens.

    And by the way, the Author of that `Opinion`?..

    "About the author: Mike Adams is an award-winning journalist and holistic nutritionist with a strong interest in personal health, the environment and the power of nature to help us all heal."

  31. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 3:24 pm
    PS squirlz: Rewatch the video that these posts are about (it has your heroine Rachel Maddow).

    NOWHERE in the entire video do they mention anything about American citizens. That surely would be a significant point to leave out by such a respected, educated hostess.

    She left it out becuase it`s NOT PART OF THE STORY.

    If you want to start talking about another topic - the Patriot Act for example, find a video, make a post, and if I have something to say, I will.

    I responded here because people were making false, uninformed statements about what the Act was about.
  32. Profile photo of Corpsecrank
    Corpsecrank Male 30-39
    930 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 3:29 pm
    This just doesn`t make sense to me. We had the patriot act wasn`t that to detain terrorists indefinite without trial? And yet this would even matter is true at all. This may or may not be true but since they already had that power simply adding a new law to do the same thing hardly makes a difference it is just redundant.
  33. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 3:39 pm
    @Nettech: According to legal minds better than mine or yours, here are the two main problems with the 2012 NDAA:

    (1) It treats disputed powers to detain U.S. citizens within the Patriot Act as a given and expands upon them. That`s the problem with "section e" you quoted ("Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens....")
    (2) It allows the military to detain "enemy combatants" anywhere in the world, not excluding the United States, only specifying that U.S. citizens are "not required" to be held by a military authority. In other words, if you read it closely, "section 1" in your post states only that the military MAY immediately turn over a detained U.S. citizen to the FBI or a law enforcement agency.

    I could continue, but I`ve made most of my points already. I think we`re going to have to agree to disagree here. Vale.
  34. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 3:40 pm
    That`s the whole point, Corpse. They`re not adding a new law to do the same thing. They are revising and clarifying the policies with respect to what were once called `enemy combatants` that were captured abroad and detained at Guantanamo.

    They are very careful to say that they are in no way adding to or detracting from any existing law concerning US citizens or acts committed in the US.
  35. Profile photo of TheShgn2
    TheShgn2 Male 13-17
    626 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 3:46 pm
    @Corpsecrank
    No the Patriot Act gave the government the power to search anything anywhere without a warrant. A previous bill let some suspected terrorists be held indefiently in war zones, this bill lets them be held indefiently anywhere including the US)
  36. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 3:50 pm
    You can`t just take one line or paragraph to use as a reference and forget the rest. When you take it in context (too much to copy and paste all of it here), my "Section 1" follows this:

    "(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

    (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--
    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
    (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners."
  37. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 4:14 pm
    @Nettech: As much as I wanted to disengage from this discussion, I find myself drawn in by your postscript.

    Net (may I call you Net?), the Rachel Maddow video makes no mention of the legislation because that broadcast is from September 2009. She was addressing Obama`s first proposals for creating a policy of "prolonged detention." The language of the 2012 NDAA was more than two years away.

    If you`re looking for a video addressing the 2012 NDAA, watch Cenk Uygar`s clip, several posts earlier. There, Cenk (who is a graduate of Columbia Law) says of the 2012 NDAA:

    It allows for indefinite detentions of enemy combatants.... It operates on U.S. soil and can apply to U.S. citizens. So it`s horrible--it destroys the Fourth and the Fifteenth Amendements and the Posse Comitatus Act becomes irrelevant... plus it really goes to the foundation of Western law in questioning habeas corpus.
  38. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 4:35 pm
    @squirlz: Thanks for pointing out how old the video is. I didn`t know it was so dated.

    The latest video I could find with Cenk was Dec 21. He mentions Posse Comitatus, but doen`t back it up. As for the rest of your quote...

    "It allows for indefinite detentions of enemy combatants...." While technically true, it actually reads "Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force"

    "It operates on U.S. soil and can apply to U.S. citizens." True. It`s a US law so of course it `operates on US soil` and it CAN apply to US citizens if they take up arms outside the US.

    "So it`s horrible--it destroys the Fourth and the Fifteenth Amendements and the Posse Comitatus Act becomes irrelevant..." Really? Love to see where that comes from...

  39. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 5:07 pm
    @Net: No problem re: the Maddow video. The original poster`s description was misleading in that it ties it to current events. I didn`t pick up on how old it was until a second viewing.

    Anyway, let`s start the new year right by cordially agreeing to disagree. Thanks for keeping the discussion productive and civil.

    ~Squrlz wags tail and hops back into his oak tree hollow~
  40. Profile photo of nettech98
    nettech98 Male 50-59
    1043 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 5:31 pm
    No problem. Have a good new year.

    See kiddies? That`s how it`s done...
  41. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33124 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 8:20 pm
    Does anyone know how to get the quote display to work reliably?
    @Squrlz: If you have a quote AND a link in the same post, it messes up the quote part. idk why, it just is.

    @robosnitz: You forgot: FEMA has been making "camps" all over America for the past 3 years, big enough to "concentrate" hundreds of thousands.
  42. Profile photo of patticakes
    patticakes Female 18-29
    463 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 8:32 pm
    Why is everyone so surprised? Obama has never followed the rule of law, along with Eric Holder, and ACORN, to name a few. This is a wannabe dictator. Give him a second term. What could possibly go wrong?
  43. Profile photo of ledzeppeloyd
    ledzeppeloyd Male 18-29
    2385 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 9:25 pm
    either hes secretly a republican or hes brainwashed
  44. Profile photo of jteachey1
    jteachey1 Male 18-29
    122 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 9:38 pm
    5Cats: Gtfo with that glen beck poo.
  45. Profile photo of jteachey1
    jteachey1 Male 18-29
    122 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 9:40 pm
    Lets be real here though. They didn`t start anything new with this bill. They would`ve done indefinite detentions without the bill had they felt like their system was at risk. We have no rights, only privileges. This bill just makes honest men out of them. Either way, it`s still drated.
  46. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36842 posts
    January 1, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    Vote for Obama? no.
    But the available choices are actually worse.

    In the background I hear Bonnie Tyler singing "I need a Hero"
  47. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 2:56 am
    jteachey1: 5Cats isn`t lying about the FEMA camps, they`ve been stocking up for `Disasters` since after hurricane Katrina. they`ve stockpiled everything from tents, cots, and blankets to chain link fencing, razor wire, and caskets.
  48. Profile photo of Fleaman1797
    Fleaman1797 Male 18-29
    718 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 3:16 am
    well, you people voted for him. i LAUGHED at everyone who said they was voting for obama. (BUT HE IS GONNA CHANGE STUFF!) oh yeah. he sure did.
  49. Profile photo of ForSquirel
    ForSquirel Male 30-39
    2192 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 6:38 am
    I don`t know what the big deal is. It`s not like anyone would ever abuse this at all.
  50. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36842 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 6:41 am

    @ Fleaman - technically, I didn`t vote FOR obama. I voted against McCain. It was the only other option. McCain had a track record of voting with Bush 98% and I didn`t want more of that mess. No, didn`t turn out to well, did it.

    It was a blind choice, but the only one we had.
  51. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 6:55 am
    More information about the "FEMA camps" and here. The second link is from Fox "News", and we all know how accurate they are, right? So, I`m gonna have to agree with Crakrjak on this one. If Glenn Beck says he doesn`t believe the camps exist, they most likely do.
  52. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    Liberals have no problem with oppression as long as they get to be the oppressors.
  53. Profile photo of Chiakimoto
    Chiakimoto Female 18-29
    40 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm
    @Gerry1of1
    You could have voted third party, or opted not to vote at all.
  54. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 1:20 pm
    @OldOllie: Any other tired old "evil librul" smears you`d care to share? ~sigh~

    Sure, buddy. The American middle class is being destroyed... and it`s all the LIBERALS fault. Riiiiiight.

    As I`ve pointed out on here countless times before, if it wasn`t for liberals such as Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson--who fought against British oppression--there wouldn`t even BE an America.

    I guess you skipped class that day.

    But wait, I see where you`re coming from. You`re calling Obama a liberal. Ha. Haha. Hahahahah. OMG, my sides hurt. Obama is more conservative than Ronald Reagan. He`s passed tax policies that are more regressive and has now signed legislation that does more damage to the Bill of Rights than Reagan would ever have DREAMED of doing. He`s also cozier with the financial industry and corporate lobbyists than Reagan was.
  55. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm
    @Ollie, cont`d:

    In short, what the corporatocracy did with Obama was find someone who would promote the same old corrupt corporate elite agenda, but with a hipper sound track. It was marketing. And yes, we liberals were duped.
  56. Profile photo of M_Archer
    M_Archer Male 18-29
    525 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm
    At first, I was like: "Well, the Constitution MUST provide power for the government to do that, otherwise they couldn`t have passed the bill!" So, I looked it up, and indeed, they can do that...in times of rebellion.

    I don`t see a Confederate flag anywhere.
  57. Profile photo of Amurika
    Amurika Male 30-39
    282 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    And just think, a non-American president got this passed. The elite are laughing at us.
  58. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 5:54 pm
    jtrebowski: You won`t find those FEMA camps on google satellite maps, in fact even if you knew what land FEMA owns and where they are, they won`t look like a concentration camps. All you will see are empty lots with some ordinary looking fencing around them. They can erect the buildings, guard towers, and everything else needed within 24 hours. The military is well trained and has all the equipment necessary to do this.
  59. Profile photo of eyesopen
    eyesopen Female 50-59
    13 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 7:03 pm
    Islam has Shariah law, America has Obama law.
  60. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 7:45 pm
    @Squrlz4Sale, if you seriously think that Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were liberals in the same sense that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are liberals, you are either ignorant, stupid, or insane. I can`t say for sure, but if I had to pick one, my money would be on stupid.

    Can you point to a single shred of evidence that ANY of the founders would have supported modern liberal ideas like federal income tax, Social Security, Obamacare, or ANY of the left-wing collectivist sewage that came out of the New Deal or the Great Society? In fact, they would all be utterly APPALLED at the very existence of the departments of Education, HUD, HHS, Labor, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, or Transportation.

    The closest thing we have today to the Founders` ideas are Libertarians, who, by the way, think liberals like you are a bunch of dumb$#!+ statist tools. I have to agree.
  61. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 8:57 pm
    @Ollie: My goodness! Judging by all your kind words, it looks like I really rattled your cage.

    You seem to be struggling to understand what liberalism is, so let me help you out. From Webster`s:

    a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically, such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class).
    That definition is as true today as it was in the time of our founding fathers. You ask for evidence that Paine, Franklin, our Jefferson would approve of today`s liberal institutions. Piece of cake.

    (Cont`d next post)
  62. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 9:00 pm
    @Ollie (cont`d)--

    Let`s take Jefferson first. One of his crowning achievements was the creation of the University of Virginia. Jefferson founded the school to make quality education available to the masses and felt his role in "state-sponsored" public education was so important, he included it in his epitaph (with no mention whatsoever of his presidency).

    Franklin? He created the first public hospital (I guess you`d call that Benjacare?), the first public library, and the "state-sponsored" U.S. Postal Service.

    As for Thomas Paine, he not only fomented both the American and French revolutions with his "liberal propaganda," he also argued passionately for a funny new thing known as a "minimum wage."

    Now, without a time machine, speculating what our liberal founding fathers would have thought of modern programs is tricky. But I`ll do my best, since you`ve asked.

    (Cont`d next post)
  63. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 9:02 pm
    @Ollie (cont`d)--

    In the time of Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine, this was not a wealthy country. We were a minor player on the world stage and heavily indebted to the French for loans that got us through the Revolutionary War. Ergo, there wasn`t a lot of money to throw around on social programs.

    But based on Jefferson`s shock at seeing the abject poverty of the French peasants in pre-revolutionary France, it`s clear that he was deeply sympathetic toward the poor and felt a government should do what it can to improve the conditions of the populace. In 1930s America, when an alarming number of America`s elderly were dying of malnutrition and hypothermia because they couldn`t hear their homes, would he have approved of the creation of Social Security? Yes, I`m pretty sure he would have.

    You`re free, of course, to disagree. But productive and civil discourse only, please. No name calling. Thanks.
  64. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm
    You seem to be struggling to understand what liberalism is, so let me help you out. From Webster`s:
    Frankly, I don`t give a dry fap how Webster defines "liberal." I take my definition from the actions of those who call themselves "liberal." (Actually, many of them are ashamed to call themselves liberal, so now they`re "progressives."

    But as to your lame-@$$ examples, not a single one of them involved a single penny of federal money, laws, or regulations.

    You just don`t get it, do you?
  65. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 9:55 pm
    @Ollie. Slow down, my man. You`re so full of vitriol I`m not even sure you know what you`re saying.

    For example: Explain to me how the U.S. Postal Service was founded without federal laws or federal money.

    Franklin`s hospital and Jefferson`s university were also created with public legislation and public money, albeit on the state level. (If you`re curious as to why so little social spending was occurring on the federal level, see my earlier remarks about America`s limited resources after the Revolutionary War.)
  66. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 2, 2012 at 10:58 pm
    Ollie, you haven`t responded. Does this mean we`re not going to be BFFs?

    ~Squrlz dabs at the corners of his eyes with his fluffy tail~

    In all seriousness, Ollie, I`m sure our beliefs are fundamentally not all that different. Like 99% of the people on here, I`m just a member of the endangered middle class trying to hold together a life of some meaning and dignity. Have a happy and prosperous 2012.
  67. Profile photo of topgun966
    topgun966 Male 18-29
    42 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 4:09 am
    O M F G READ THE dratING LAW. Obama would NOT sign it before the provision was put in to include WOULD NOT OVERRIDE ANY CURRENT LAW FOR ANY US CITIZEN OR LEGAL ALIEN. Translation? Does not effect ANY US citizen on US soil. This does however give more powers to US military in other countries. So you should thank god that Obama is in office and NOT the GOP otherwise it would effect ALL US citizens on our soil. (This was GOP`s law)
  68. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 4:42 am
    @topgun: Unfortunately, you`re mistaken. The law DOES apply to U.S. citizens and it DOES apply to U.S. soil. The best coverage I`ve seen to date was in yesterday`s Guardian (UK) article, which you can read here.
  69. Profile photo of pigsnout5
    pigsnout5 Female 18-29
    546 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 5:40 am
    i <3 obama.
  70. Profile photo of elhowell
    elhowell Male 18-29
    168 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 7:06 am
    drat.
  71. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 7:33 am
    I`d like to hear what 5cats thinks of the Patriot Act, since it was his bff Dubya that helped push that one through. Or would he merely say something about how many democrats voted for it? As if anyone could vote against anything labeled anti-terrorist at that time.
  72. Profile photo of InTheNameOf
    InTheNameOf Male 30-39
    335 posts
    January 3, 2012 at 2:30 pm
    Drat everything....we are doomed. I can`t wait for the bloody revolution - I am sooooo there.

    "Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all."
    "Any institution which does not suppose the people good, and the magistrate corruptible, is evil." - Maximilien Robespierre

Leave a Reply