Ron Paul lectures about the Fed's evils at Loyola University
-
Only marginally; that's my point. The CNN story doesn't support the allegation of assasination at all.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
No, the one I linked is related to the ORIGINAL post. If you click his original link (Trying to ignore all of the propaganda) and click on the "legality of assassinating" link near the end of the article, it pops up a small blurb about the guy my abcnews.com link discussed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
No, the one I linked is related to the ORIGINAL post. If you click his original link (Trying to ignore all of the propaganda) and click on the "legality of assassinating" link near the end of the article, it pops up a small blurb about the guy my abcnews.com link discussed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Christ, I'm getting lost now... :laugh: :laugh: Gimme a minute. [edit] Must be CP effect - IE can't display that web page. And I'm not sure what relevance it has to the point I was trying to make; that is, the CNN article he cited didn't support the allegation. I understand that some of the others did; I'm not disputing that. Although, as you've been arguing, Paul is clearly misrepresenting the nature of the issue for sensational purposes. (That is what you were arguing, wasn't it? :-D ) [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:37 PM
-
We've discussed this one before... But the constitution doesn't state a specific amount of danger... It just says "public danger"... One guy tried to crash a plane (Linked to Al Qaeda), and one guy shot up a Texas military base (Was supposedly communicating with Al Qaeda). I think that's enough to call it "public danger," albeit a limited amount.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
The thing is, what if they're totally unrelated? Within only a few hours of each incident happening, they're considered terrorism. And now you're considering them "public danger". I suppose you'd have to consider Columbine terrorism and public danger with that logic as well. It just doesn't make common sense, and now the government is hyping security over every little thing that goes on, making it less free, and more of a police state. Plus: A) how do we really know that they were with Alqaeda? The logic is that they knew both were Alqaeda. If that were true, how did he get on the plane/was he part of the military? This is a bullshit argument, and anyone with any kind of common sense can see through this story in a heartbeat. B) They were almost back to back. Some kind of central planning must have been going on, theoretically. So this is why they can call them Alqaeda, but I'd call it CIA. One was let on a plane with no passport (totally wouldn't happen normally, so this means he's not Alqaeda). One was part of the military. How fucking stupid is this one?! I just don't buy it. IMO they were CIA.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think that's enough to call it "public danger," albeit a limited amount.
Calling two incidents, however horrific, is not public danger. This was meant to be only for riots, revolts and revolutions. Period. Interpreting the Constitution without original intent kills the point of the very words on the parchment.
-
The thing is, what if they're totally unrelated? Within only a few hours of each incident happening, they're considered terrorism. And now you're considering them "public danger". I suppose you'd have to consider Columbine terrorism and public danger with that logic as well. It just doesn't make common sense, and now the government is hyping security over every little thing that goes on, making it less free, and more of a police state. Plus: A) how do we really know that they were with Alqaeda? The logic is that they knew both were Alqaeda. If that were true, how did he get on the plane/was he part of the military? This is a bullshit argument, and anyone with any kind of common sense can see through this story in a heartbeat. B) They were almost back to back. Some kind of central planning must have been going on, theoretically. So this is why they can call them Alqaeda, but I'd call it CIA. One was let on a plane with no passport (totally wouldn't happen normally, so this means he's not Alqaeda). One was part of the military. How fucking stupid is this one?! I just don't buy it. IMO they were CIA.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think that's enough to call it "public danger," albeit a limited amount.
Calling two incidents, however horrific, is not public danger. This was meant to be only for riots, revolts and revolutions. Period. Interpreting the Constitution without original intent kills the point of the very words on the parchment.
josda1000 wrote:
how do we really know that they were with Alqaeda?
As I said... PROOF should be required before they consider taking him out.
josda1000 wrote:
They were almost back to back. Some kind of central planning must have been going on, theoretically. So this is why they can call them Alqaeda, but I'd call it CIA. One was let on a plane with no passport (totally wouldn't happen normally, so this means he's not Alqaeda). One was part of the military. How f***ing stupid is this one?!
Supposedly, the underwear bomber (Now that's a hell of a nickname - Better to be called the Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight) was part of an Al Qaeda splinter group, not directly overseen by central command. SUPPOSEDLY. As for the Ft. Hood shooter, he wasn't actually part of Al Qaeda, but was supposedly on friendly terms with and in communication with the guy they're considering assassinating. Again... SUPPOSEDLY. Proof should be needed.
josda1000 wrote:
Calling two incidents, however horrific, is not public danger. This was meant to be only for riots, revolts and revolutions. Period. Interpreting the Constitution without original intent kills the point of the very words on the parchment.
But this is a legal document... The law is all about interpretation, and the constitution is pretty vague. How do you know for sure what the original intent was? Hell, look at the second amendment... That's not even grammatically correct! Look, I'm not saying they should be doing this. I'm just saying that TECHNICALLY, as in from a legal standpoint, it could be justified.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
josda1000 wrote:
That may not be referencing an assassination
... and so was irrelevant to the point you were trying to make. I understand your wish to get a more complete story (and your fear of sheeple being inflamed by bogus government claims), but you've gone from an article on a tangentially related subject, and the fact that it's lacking an interview, to claiming this is proof of Ron Paul's unambiguous claim that the government is assasinating US citizens. That's a pretty flimsy chain. :suss:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
http://www.santiagotimes.cl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18126:us-president-may-now-order-assassinations-of-us-citizens-accused-as-terrorists-&catid=32:features&Itemid=144[^] http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_0_0_t&usg=AFQjCNHPegyWOCwQWYQnb6LZqS_ozocAdw&cid=8797490538266&ei=VthhS-CJHIisNuqU2pMD&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlanticwire.com%2Fopinions%2Fview%2Fopinion%2FWhite-House-Hit-List-of-Americans-in-Yemen-Is-It-Legal-2327[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Christ, I'm getting lost now... :laugh: :laugh: Gimme a minute. [edit] Must be CP effect - IE can't display that web page. And I'm not sure what relevance it has to the point I was trying to make; that is, the CNN article he cited didn't support the allegation. I understand that some of the others did; I'm not disputing that. Although, as you've been arguing, Paul is clearly misrepresenting the nature of the issue for sensational purposes. (That is what you were arguing, wasn't it? :-D ) [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:37 PM
LunaticFringe wrote:
Although, as you've been arguing, Paul is clearly misrepresenting the nature of the issue for sensational purposes.
No he isn't. He stated it very clearly. If you are an American citizen accused as a terrorist, then your rights are stripped, and you can be assassinated, tortured, shipped overseas, anything they please.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Never let facts get in the way of a good rabble-rousing. :rolleyes:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
Never let facts get in the way of a good rabble-rousing.
That seems to be your tactic.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
During his lecture, Paul discussed one aspect of Obama’s presidency that particularly disturbed him. “This week I could not believe a headline that said the President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen.” Paul’s statement caused a surprised student to remark “oh my God.” http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2010m1d28-Ron-Paul-lectures-about-the-Feds-evils-at-Loyola-University-Md[^] Here's a great thread-maker. What do you think about the Federal Government debating whether it's legal to assassinate a United States citizen? This is totally unamerican, and unfounded. To me, the Constitution only gives war powers to the President only when we are at war, on our land. A) We're not at war (these wars haven't been declared by the Congress), and B) we haven't had battle on our land. But there's more to the article than this, read up people.
josda1000 wrote:
What do you think about the Federal Government debating whether it's legal to assassinate a United States citizen? This is totally unamerican, and unfounded.
I think exactly the opposite. Your constitution provides all peoples in your country to talk about all subjects. Why should that exclude the assassination of an American citizen? Freedom is a two way straight, if you wanna talk about whatever you want, you cannot limit the whatever.
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
What do you think about the Federal Government debating whether it's legal to assassinate a United States citizen? This is totally unamerican, and unfounded.
I think exactly the opposite. Your constitution provides all peoples in your country to talk about all subjects. Why should that exclude the assassination of an American citizen? Freedom is a two way straight, if you wanna talk about whatever you want, you cannot limit the whatever.
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
Although, as you've been arguing, Paul is clearly misrepresenting the nature of the issue for sensational purposes.
No he isn't. He stated it very clearly. If you are an American citizen accused as a terrorist, then your rights are stripped, and you can be assassinated, tortured, shipped overseas, anything they please.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
If you are an American citizen accused as a terrorist, then your rights are stripped, and you can be assassinated executed, tortured, shipped overseas, anything they please.
Let's get something straight folks. Assassination is the killing of someone in power. There is no due process, and it is usually done for power grabbing or other political reasons. You assassinate religious or political leaders, insurgent leaders, or leaders of movements. Killing a putz that drove the car of a leader is not an assassination. Nor is killing someone found guilty of a crime. That's execution. Someone that is a traitor is not assassinated, they are executed. And with the link Ian provided (which I could not find on the first 3 pages, nor could find through any of the sites touting this constantly in their own pages) I am less than pleased. See, we all know W should have been removed in 2003, and certainly not re-elected. But Obama has to have all this crap stopped. I don't care if he wants to look tough on terrorism, it is stupid. Due process should be followed and the rule of law should be maintained.
-
josda1000 wrote:
how do we really know that they were with Alqaeda?
As I said... PROOF should be required before they consider taking him out.
josda1000 wrote:
They were almost back to back. Some kind of central planning must have been going on, theoretically. So this is why they can call them Alqaeda, but I'd call it CIA. One was let on a plane with no passport (totally wouldn't happen normally, so this means he's not Alqaeda). One was part of the military. How f***ing stupid is this one?!
Supposedly, the underwear bomber (Now that's a hell of a nickname - Better to be called the Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight) was part of an Al Qaeda splinter group, not directly overseen by central command. SUPPOSEDLY. As for the Ft. Hood shooter, he wasn't actually part of Al Qaeda, but was supposedly on friendly terms with and in communication with the guy they're considering assassinating. Again... SUPPOSEDLY. Proof should be needed.
josda1000 wrote:
Calling two incidents, however horrific, is not public danger. This was meant to be only for riots, revolts and revolutions. Period. Interpreting the Constitution without original intent kills the point of the very words on the parchment.
But this is a legal document... The law is all about interpretation, and the constitution is pretty vague. How do you know for sure what the original intent was? Hell, look at the second amendment... That's not even grammatically correct! Look, I'm not saying they should be doing this. I'm just saying that TECHNICALLY, as in from a legal standpoint, it could be justified.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Supposedly, the underwear bomber (Now that's a hell of a nickname - Better to be called the Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
I am so glad I was not drinking anything when I read that. However, I think you owe me a new lung instead of a new monitor. SPOON!!!!!!!
-
Point taken, you should be able to freely talk about anything. But I'm saying, that if they actually did decide to make it legal to assassinate a citizen, that's just ridiculous. To talk about it, however, they've done it from day one.
It's called executing. The american citizen is not a head of state nor a religious figurehead. Using that term loads it with a ton of crap that is not actually involved there. And I am not disagreeing with your main point. Convict them in an open court with a jury of peers. Bring forward a real case and convict them. Don't hide evidence from the jury and claim national secrets. The court does not have to have media access when that evidence is presented.
-
During his lecture, Paul discussed one aspect of Obama’s presidency that particularly disturbed him. “This week I could not believe a headline that said the President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen.” Paul’s statement caused a surprised student to remark “oh my God.” http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2010m1d28-Ron-Paul-lectures-about-the-Feds-evils-at-Loyola-University-Md[^] Here's a great thread-maker. What do you think about the Federal Government debating whether it's legal to assassinate a United States citizen? This is totally unamerican, and unfounded. To me, the Constitution only gives war powers to the President only when we are at war, on our land. A) We're not at war (these wars haven't been declared by the Congress), and B) we haven't had battle on our land. But there's more to the article than this, read up people.
josda1000 wrote:
Paul’s statement caused a surprised student to remark “oh my God.”
I guess the fact that they were even there means that they like their 'facts' sprinkled with a bit of exaggeration. I'd need to see an original source to believe that the presidents comment meant exactly what is implied by what is being said here.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
If you are an American citizen accused as a terrorist, then your rights are stripped, and you can be assassinated executed, tortured, shipped overseas, anything they please.
Let's get something straight folks. Assassination is the killing of someone in power. There is no due process, and it is usually done for power grabbing or other political reasons. You assassinate religious or political leaders, insurgent leaders, or leaders of movements. Killing a putz that drove the car of a leader is not an assassination. Nor is killing someone found guilty of a crime. That's execution. Someone that is a traitor is not assassinated, they are executed. And with the link Ian provided (which I could not find on the first 3 pages, nor could find through any of the sites touting this constantly in their own pages) I am less than pleased. See, we all know W should have been removed in 2003, and certainly not re-elected. But Obama has to have all this crap stopped. I don't care if he wants to look tough on terrorism, it is stupid. Due process should be followed and the rule of law should be maintained.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And with the link Ian provided (which I could not find on the first 3 pages, nor could find through any of the sites touting this constantly in their own pages) I am less than pleased.
Once I got the guy's name, I looked him up on Wikipedia, and from there found a link to the abcnews article.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Supposedly, the underwear bomber (Now that's a hell of a nickname - Better to be called the Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
I am so glad I was not drinking anything when I read that. However, I think you owe me a new lung instead of a new monitor. SPOON!!!!!!!
I AM MIGHTY!!! :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I AM MIGHTY!!! :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
making gravy without the lumps, baby.