The NDAA is so blatantly unconstitutional that it will never stand up in court. Should Obama have vetoed the ENTIRE DEFENSE SPENDING AUTHORIZATION over something that is never going to stand up in court? "Sorry soldiers, but we can't give you your paycheck, because congress passed something that is unconstitutional and Obama decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater over this issue". The NDAA is brought up ever year and ALWAYS has stupid shit in it, because it is a must pass bill.
Have you looked at the Supreme Court decisions of the last few years? I'm not counting on them to rule in the public's favor. They've ruled that private property can be confiscated by the government under eminent domain and then handed over to corporations. That's just one of the rulings. No, I'm holding Obama's feet to the fire on this one.
@imrational sure they've made some decisions that have bad consequences, but if you read their actual rulings, their opinions are well founded upon legal grounds. And even though they do make a lot of decisions that some people disagree with, they make far more decisions that are not surprising. But then this ruling has no corporate benefit, so I expect the more conservative-type judges to side with the people against the government. (It's corporations > people > government)
My next concern is on ACTA. After that I will turn my attention on this travesty. Reason being I want to prevent any more damage before trying to fix what's already been done.
What is not reported is the Signing Order Obama did that, essentially said he signed theose portions that relate to the defense budget, but would not endorse or support the provisions of the NDAA not related to the defense departments budget. This is as close to what a "Line Item Veto" power would give the president as possible. SOPA and PIPA also dies because Obama said he would not sign them as drafted. Give credit where due. He might actually get it.
@RyuDarragh Initially Obama threatened a veto on NDAA because he wanted the executive branch to have more discretion, which he got in the bill as he wanted. That Obama says he won't use the powers he got isn't very comforting to me. His personal qualification isn't actually part of the law, plus won't matter for a future president. SOPA & PIPA are still in the works, so unknown how that will pan out. People need to keep alert and then speak up vs just applaud minor victories, IMO.
NEWS: Google is changing its privacy policy on March 1st. It will link all of its data. Anonymity online is going to die a little more. When I first started YouTubing, being the 3rd Atheist speaking out against religious infringement onto the State, I did so because I felt I had anonymity. How will future activists feel about speaking out when there is no such safeguard?
@imrational I didn't know that about Google. Did know about SOPA, PIPA and NDAA. I've told family and friends about them and none seem particularly interested or concerned. It is rather disturbing how little people care or know. The Daily Show is actually better than regular news in many ways.
We absolutely need to contact our representatives and hold the people responsible for writing this legislation accountable. If anything, we need to make it clear that's it's not acceptable to use US lives (or any lives) as pawns for partisan backstabbing.
Another GOP gambit designed to turn the president's supporters against him. Obama has publicly and vehemently against the detention clauses, but vetoing the bill would have meant denying benefits and healthcare to veterans who desperately need them and who would've stood for that? It was a nasty, underhanded catch-22 and I don't know why people are acting as though Ron Paul is the only one who understands indefinite detention of US citizens is wrong.
I'm sorry, I disagree. Obama could have refused to sign solely because of that clause. He could have stood up for Freedom and Liberty. He could have held a press conference and denounced it, demanding the names of the legislators who added that rider. He didn't. Instead, he signed it on DECEMBER 31st! A time when many people wouldn't have been following the news as closely as they normally would.
Obama has had anything but a transparent government, in contradiction to his promise
@imrational I'm not sure I would have refused to sign if put in his position. I don't think I could justify ignoring the real and immediate needs of a group of our most vulnerable citizens, surely jeopardizing the lives of vets and their families, because of a set of abstract ideals that will fall to the Supreme Court who is supposed to check this imbalance. The fact of the matter is Obama was set up to fail either way. Signs the bill - he hates Freedom. Doesn't - he kills vets.
I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree on this topic. At least we can both agree that the clause in the NDAA is wrong and must be retracted.
Now, if we can also get Obama to pardon Bradley Manning, or open the deposition of Michael Connell, or promise to not veto a Whistleblower Act, or stick to some of his past promises... then I'd be much more sympathetic towards him.
@MissXaverie That's just it! The NDAA subsection of which he speaks over-rides the need for courts in the detainment process. It allows due process to be thrown aside at government's will. They could have modified the bill to allow for Vet's coverage while not allowing our civil rights to be further eroded. It's a sad day.
@VideoGuyNC I know and I agree. It's absolutely tragic and something has to be done. But we also can't ignore that it's inclusion in the first place, especially given when it was added, was blatantly malicious. There are certainly many things I would criticize Obama for, but I don't see the point in rewarding this kind of underhanded politics by pointing fingers exactly as intended.
@imrational Obama actually did threaten a veto, but was because he wanted more powers for the executive branch to detain. He was refusing to sign & putting Congress on the spot, but just not for what you suggest. While this was happening few people were paying attention, then he got what he wanted & signed adding a non-binding qualification after the fact. I'm glad he wrote the qualification afterwards, but that struck me as just politics because won't be binding at all to a future President.
@imrational I'm cynical enough that I don't think it matters much which of the major media supported candidates get into power because they are six of one and half a dozen of the other. Obama vs Bush... not that much difference. Romney vs Obama? No difference to me. Gingrich would be bought and paid for if elected. Not much difference in what will actually happen. It seems like a complete farce. Corporatism is winning and we are all pawns in this international globalized power structure.
@MissXaverie Being part of defense bill would seem to have made it inevitable, but the Obama administration threatened a veto on the bill initially because they wanted more clear executive powers to detain. After they got more powers, then they agreed to sign. Obama added the qualifications after the fact, but that isn't binding on the law or him and won't matter at all for a future administration. I'm glad he wrote a qualification, but it wasn't particularly comforting to me.
@imrational Thanks for bringing attention to this, but it is a bit long in the tooth as you mention. For those of you who have NOT already heard of NDAA, I suggest you seek some real sources of news (as opposed to TV or cable), like the RT news channel here on YouTube, Democracy Now! or Al Jazeera. Those three sources of news alone cover more real news than all the US news outlets combined.
straight up, sopa/pipa was buried because google and the rest of the net represented more money to the politicians than hollywood did; it didnt happen in the name of justice or for any noble reasons.
ndaa slipped through so easily because there was absolutely zero money competing against its passage.
HE is FIGHTING FOR OUR RIGHTS! THE ONLY PERSON nonetheless REPUBLICAN, TO TAKE TIME OFF HIS CAMPAIGN and DO THIS. The Media Reports that on This Day he TOOK off Time with his FAMILY which REALLY PISSES ME OFF! TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY ABOUT RON PAUL! ITS up to THE PEOPLE NOW!
2012 is the year we make contact -- Educate yourself on NWO policies.
ikkuj 3 weeks ago
The NDAA is so blatantly unconstitutional that it will never stand up in court. Should Obama have vetoed the ENTIRE DEFENSE SPENDING AUTHORIZATION over something that is never going to stand up in court? "Sorry soldiers, but we can't give you your paycheck, because congress passed something that is unconstitutional and Obama decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater over this issue". The NDAA is brought up ever year and ALWAYS has stupid shit in it, because it is a must pass bill.
puellanivis 4 weeks ago
@puellanivis
Have you looked at the Supreme Court decisions of the last few years? I'm not counting on them to rule in the public's favor. They've ruled that private property can be confiscated by the government under eminent domain and then handed over to corporations. That's just one of the rulings. No, I'm holding Obama's feet to the fire on this one.
imrational 3 weeks ago
@imrational sure they've made some decisions that have bad consequences, but if you read their actual rulings, their opinions are well founded upon legal grounds. And even though they do make a lot of decisions that some people disagree with, they make far more decisions that are not surprising. But then this ruling has no corporate benefit, so I expect the more conservative-type judges to side with the people against the government. (It's corporations > people > government)
puellanivis 3 weeks ago
My next concern is on ACTA. After that I will turn my attention on this travesty. Reason being I want to prevent any more damage before trying to fix what's already been done.
MageGrayWolf 4 weeks ago
What is not reported is the Signing Order Obama did that, essentially said he signed theose portions that relate to the defense budget, but would not endorse or support the provisions of the NDAA not related to the defense departments budget. This is as close to what a "Line Item Veto" power would give the president as possible. SOPA and PIPA also dies because Obama said he would not sign them as drafted. Give credit where due. He might actually get it.
RyuDarragh 4 weeks ago
@RyuDarragh Initially Obama threatened a veto on NDAA because he wanted the executive branch to have more discretion, which he got in the bill as he wanted. That Obama says he won't use the powers he got isn't very comforting to me. His personal qualification isn't actually part of the law, plus won't matter for a future president. SOPA & PIPA are still in the works, so unknown how that will pan out. People need to keep alert and then speak up vs just applaud minor victories, IMO.
MegF142857 4 weeks ago
@MegF142857: Absolutely! Constitution does say "By the People, For the People", not the oligarchy.
RyuDarragh 4 weeks ago
Smoke and Mirrors.
RyuDarragh 4 weeks ago
@imrational The Young Turks also covered this all along, you might want to consider watching them too.
tawnos42 4 weeks ago
NEWS: Google is changing its privacy policy on March 1st. It will link all of its data. Anonymity online is going to die a little more. When I first started YouTubing, being the 3rd Atheist speaking out against religious infringement onto the State, I did so because I felt I had anonymity. How will future activists feel about speaking out when there is no such safeguard?
imrational 4 weeks ago
@imrational I didn't know that about Google. Did know about SOPA, PIPA and NDAA. I've told family and friends about them and none seem particularly interested or concerned. It is rather disturbing how little people care or know. The Daily Show is actually better than regular news in many ways.
MegF142857 4 weeks ago
@MegF142857
Thanks for speaking up about these things. I've told co-workers and I'm sure they just think I'm a loon.
Did you ever read about Michael Connell, the late GOP webdesigner? That is a VERY interesting story.
imrational 4 weeks ago
We absolutely need to contact our representatives and hold the people responsible for writing this legislation accountable. If anything, we need to make it clear that's it's not acceptable to use US lives (or any lives) as pawns for partisan backstabbing.
MissXaverie 4 weeks ago
Another GOP gambit designed to turn the president's supporters against him. Obama has publicly and vehemently against the detention clauses, but vetoing the bill would have meant denying benefits and healthcare to veterans who desperately need them and who would've stood for that? It was a nasty, underhanded catch-22 and I don't know why people are acting as though Ron Paul is the only one who understands indefinite detention of US citizens is wrong.
MissXaverie 4 weeks ago
@MissXaverie
I'm sorry, I disagree. Obama could have refused to sign solely because of that clause. He could have stood up for Freedom and Liberty. He could have held a press conference and denounced it, demanding the names of the legislators who added that rider. He didn't. Instead, he signed it on DECEMBER 31st! A time when many people wouldn't have been following the news as closely as they normally would.
Obama has had anything but a transparent government, in contradiction to his promise
imrational 4 weeks ago 2
@imrational I'm not sure I would have refused to sign if put in his position. I don't think I could justify ignoring the real and immediate needs of a group of our most vulnerable citizens, surely jeopardizing the lives of vets and their families, because of a set of abstract ideals that will fall to the Supreme Court who is supposed to check this imbalance. The fact of the matter is Obama was set up to fail either way. Signs the bill - he hates Freedom. Doesn't - he kills vets.
MissXaverie 4 weeks ago
@MissXaverie
I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree on this topic. At least we can both agree that the clause in the NDAA is wrong and must be retracted.
Now, if we can also get Obama to pardon Bradley Manning, or open the deposition of Michael Connell, or promise to not veto a Whistleblower Act, or stick to some of his past promises... then I'd be much more sympathetic towards him.
imrational 4 weeks ago
@MissXaverie That's just it! The NDAA subsection of which he speaks over-rides the need for courts in the detainment process. It allows due process to be thrown aside at government's will. They could have modified the bill to allow for Vet's coverage while not allowing our civil rights to be further eroded. It's a sad day.
VideoGuyNC 4 weeks ago
@VideoGuyNC I know and I agree. It's absolutely tragic and something has to be done. But we also can't ignore that it's inclusion in the first place, especially given when it was added, was blatantly malicious. There are certainly many things I would criticize Obama for, but I don't see the point in rewarding this kind of underhanded politics by pointing fingers exactly as intended.
MissXaverie 4 weeks ago
@imrational Obama actually did threaten a veto, but was because he wanted more powers for the executive branch to detain. He was refusing to sign & putting Congress on the spot, but just not for what you suggest. While this was happening few people were paying attention, then he got what he wanted & signed adding a non-binding qualification after the fact. I'm glad he wrote the qualification afterwards, but that struck me as just politics because won't be binding at all to a future President.
MegF142857 4 weeks ago
@imrational I'm cynical enough that I don't think it matters much which of the major media supported candidates get into power because they are six of one and half a dozen of the other. Obama vs Bush... not that much difference. Romney vs Obama? No difference to me. Gingrich would be bought and paid for if elected. Not much difference in what will actually happen. It seems like a complete farce. Corporatism is winning and we are all pawns in this international globalized power structure.
MegF142857 4 weeks ago
@MissXaverie Being part of defense bill would seem to have made it inevitable, but the Obama administration threatened a veto on the bill initially because they wanted more clear executive powers to detain. After they got more powers, then they agreed to sign. Obama added the qualifications after the fact, but that isn't binding on the law or him and won't matter at all for a future administration. I'm glad he wrote a qualification, but it wasn't particularly comforting to me.
MegF142857 4 weeks ago
@imrational Thanks for bringing attention to this, but it is a bit long in the tooth as you mention. For those of you who have NOT already heard of NDAA, I suggest you seek some real sources of news (as opposed to TV or cable), like the RT news channel here on YouTube, Democracy Now! or Al Jazeera. Those three sources of news alone cover more real news than all the US news outlets combined.
aerofart 4 weeks ago
straight up, sopa/pipa was buried because google and the rest of the net represented more money to the politicians than hollywood did; it didnt happen in the name of justice or for any noble reasons.
ndaa slipped through so easily because there was absolutely zero money competing against its passage.
jhdillingerjr 4 weeks ago
ANOTHER REASON FOR RON PAUL!!!
HE is FIGHTING FOR OUR RIGHTS! THE ONLY PERSON nonetheless REPUBLICAN, TO TAKE TIME OFF HIS CAMPAIGN and DO THIS. The Media Reports that on This Day he TOOK off Time with his FAMILY which REALLY PISSES ME OFF! TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY ABOUT RON PAUL! ITS up to THE PEOPLE NOW!
GREATSCOTTGLASS561 4 weeks ago
Pretty bad.
MonicaTheMad 4 weeks ago
people remember when you call be civil (no name calling no 4 letter words)
TheUnmaskedMagician 4 weeks ago
Thanks, I hadn't heard of this.
Ormaaj 4 weeks ago
It's sad when comedy shows give the most accurate news coverage.
blayzebright 4 weeks ago
law and disorder at it's finest
pugluv0586 4 weeks ago