Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Deicide on May 30, 2011, 07:53:59 AM
-
-
good vid... a bit rushed, no doubt after a long day of work,....
-
The courts make sure the Constitution is being followed. BB said so.
-
The courts make sure the Constitution is being followed. BB said so.
lol. O.K. Paul Revere. Fight the power. lol. :)
-
lol. O.K. Paul Revere. Fight the power. lol. :)
I heard you're able to read half a volume of encyclopedias while taking a quick shit. Impressive.
-
I heard you're able to read half a volume of encyclopedias while taking a quick shit. Impressive.
I heard you're able to walk into a room and think you're the smartest guy in the room. Must be tough being so much more intelligent than most of the country. lol . . . .
-
I heard you're able to walk into a room and think you're the smartest guy in the room. Must be tough being so much more intelligent than most of the country. lol . . . .
Its about as difficult as reading all 300 pages of the Patriot Act was for you.
-
Can we at least agree that RP is 1000000% correct about obama's tyranny and power madness?
-
Its about as difficult as reading all 300 pages of the Patriot Act was for you.
Reading the Patriot Act wasn't that difficult. I'm wondering how the heck you complain about something when you haven't even read it?? And then you call people stupid who don't have a problem with the Act? You are a riot. ;D
-
I heard you're able to walk into a room and think you're the smartest guy in the room. Must be tough being so much more intelligent than most of the country. lol . . . .
Paultard
Yet another amongst the handfuls of insanely rabid supportes of the Ron Paul 2008 campaign for president.
People who feel compelled to relentlessly 'inform' the entire world about how Ron Paul is going to save America from the ravages of DC.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=paultard
-
I am with ron paul on probably 90% of things, but belive he is doing exactly what he should where he is and is probably a 35% candidate at best considering the pathetic state of the general electorate.
-
Paultards ‘Freak Out’ NH Clerk
Jennifer Call, the town clerk of Sutton, NH — the “Portsmouth of Merrimack County” — mistakenly reported zero votes for Ron Paul in her district last Tuesday, when he really had 31 (out of 920). Although she corrected the error shortly thereafter, she was quick to notice her name “being splashed across the internet as this horrible person.” Jennifer Call, meet the Paultards.
http://wonkette.com/344519/paultards-freak-out-nh-clerk
-
Paultard
Yet another amongst the handfuls of insanely rabid supportes of the Ron Paul 2008 campaign for president.
People who feel compelled to relentlessly 'inform' the entire world about how Ron Paul is going to save America from the ravages of DC.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=paultard
or this one:
buy paultard mugs, tshirts and magnets
A derogatory term used to mock supporters of Ron Paul.
1)Used to kill off rational discussion in hopes that the "Paultard" won't call them on it. This has proven very ineffective against Ron Paul himself.
2)Used as a scapegoat by liberals and neo-conservatives to cleanse themselves of the cognitive dissonance associated with ideologies of emotion not based upon logic.
3)Used by business owners who receive federal funds to curse those who would dare take away their cash cow.
4)Used by residents of the Washington, D.C. area to curse those who would make them take a job in the private sector
-
Reading the Patriot Act wasn't that difficult. I'm wondering how the heck you complain about something when you haven't even read it?? And then you call people stupid who don't have a problem with the Act? You are a riot. ;D
Ok , Ill put aside my disbelief that you actually read the whole thing and wont just google shit. How does the Patriot Act define terrorist or acts of terrorism, including domestic terrorism?
-
Paultard
Yet another amongst the handfuls of insanely rabid supportes of the Ron Paul 2008 campaign for president.
People who feel compelled to relentlessly 'inform' the entire world about how Ron Paul is going to save America from the ravages of DC.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=paultard
Doh! :) And then there's this one (from the same link):
2. Paultard
an unemployed male who:
endlessly spouts conspiracy theories about the CFR, the NAU, and the NWO, but not STD’s, because they’ve never had sex with another person.
is absolutely not racist, but is against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it infringes on the right to segregate, but which doesn’t mean the same thing as being racist AT ALL.
is absolutely not racist, but thinks that Ron Paul has no obligation to denounce the support of racist group Stormfront, which can only help the campaign and wouldn’t stigmatize him in the slightest.
is absolutely not racist, but thinks that there’s nothing wrong with Ron Paul posing for a photo with White Supremacist Don Black, because racists are people too, and did I mention that Ron Paul is not a racist?
is a member of the single most reviled group of people on the internet.
eg. These Paultards are actively discouraging anyone from wanting anything to do with Ron Paul.
-
Ok , Ill put aside my disbelief that you actually read the whole thing and wont just google shit. How does the Patriot Act define terrorist or acts of terrorism, including domestic terrorism?
Uh, no. I asked you what part of the Patriot Act you have a problem with. Have you found a Ron Paul youtube clip to give you your opinion yet? Or maybe try Alex Jones? Prison Planet??
-
Uh, no. I asked you what part of the Patriot Act you have a problem with. Have you found a Ron Paul youtube clip to give you your opinion yet? Or maybe try Alex Jones? Prison Planet??
I for one am not cool with the idea that we are taking judges out of the loop for warrants and the idea of indefinate detention without some type of judicial process or adjudication.
-
Doh! :) And then there's this one (from the same link):
2. Paultard
an unemployed male who:
endlessly spouts conspiracy theories about the CFR, the NAU, and the NWO, but not STD’s, because they’ve never had sex with another person.
is absolutely not racist, but is against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it infringes on the right to segregate, but which doesn’t mean the same thing as being racist AT ALL.
is absolutely not racist, but thinks that Ron Paul has no obligation to denounce the support of racist group Stormfront, which can only help the campaign and wouldn’t stigmatize him in the slightest.
is absolutely not racist, but thinks that there’s nothing wrong with Ron Paul posing for a photo with White Supremacist Don Black, because racists are people too, and did I mention that Ron Paul is not a racist?
is a member of the single most reviled group of people on the internet.
eg. These Paultards are actively discouraging anyone from wanting anything to do with Ron Paul.
:D
-
I for one am not cool with the idea that we are taking judges out of the loop for warrants and the idea of indefinate detention without some type of judicial process or adjudication.
I don't support warrentless wiretips on American citizens or holding people indefinitely without charges. Are we holding detainees indefinitely without charges under the Patriot Act?
-
I don't support warrentless wiretips on American citizens or holding people indefinitely without charges. Are we holding detainees indefinitely without charges under the Patriot Act?
Don't know what law it is cited for, but we are doing that in some cases. I say try em and fry em or let em go.
-
Don't know what law it is cited for, but we are doing that in some cases. I say try em and fry em or let em go.
Agree. The only hesitation I have is whether national security plays a role failing to charge a suspected foreign terrorist.
-
Uh, no. I asked you what part of the Patriot Act you have a problem with. Have you found a Ron Paul youtube clip to give you your opinion yet? Or maybe try Alex Jones? Prison Planet??
Dude, don't have a frigging cerebral aneurysm, you're not on trial here.
I was getting to the exact point of what problem I have with it and it started in the form of a question to you, since you are so well versed with the Act having read it and all. I admit to not reading the whole thing and I was hoping you can help me out with these defintions, maybe Alex Jones might have given me the wrong ones. ::)
-
Doh! :) And then there's this one (from the same link):
2. Paultard
an unemployed male who:
endlessly spouts conspiracy theories about the CFR, the NAU, and the NWO, but not STD’s, because they’ve never had sex with another person.
is absolutely not racist, but is against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it infringes on the right to segregate, but which doesn’t mean the same thing as being racist AT ALL.
is absolutely not racist, but thinks that Ron Paul has no obligation to denounce the support of racist group Stormfront, which can only help the campaign and wouldn’t stigmatize him in the slightest.
is absolutely not racist, but thinks that there’s nothing wrong with Ron Paul posing for a photo with White Supremacist Don Black, because racists are people too, and did I mention that Ron Paul is not a racist?
is a member of the single most reviled group of people on the internet.
eg. These Paultards are actively discouraging anyone from wanting anything to do with Ron Paul.
You saying Im a racist BB?
-
Dude, don't have a frigging cerebral aneurysm, you're not on trial here.
I was getting to the exact point of what problem I have with it and it started in the form of a question to you, since you are so well versed with the Act having read it and all. I admit to not reading the whole thing and I was hoping you can help me out with these defintions, maybe Alex Jones might have given me the wrong ones. ::)
If I remember correctly, it didn't. It modified the existing definition. So what's the issue?
-
If I remember correctly, it didn't. It modified the existing definition. So what's the issue?
Is your name BeachBum?
-
Is your name BeachBum?
Goddamn dude, what are you 12 fucking years old? Explains the blind devotion to RP. ::)
-
Goddamn dude, what are you 12 fucking years old? Explains the blind devotion to RP. ::)
If I wanted your opinion, I would have asked for it. Can you comprehend that?
-
Dude, don't have a frigging cerebral aneurysm, you're not on trial here.
I was getting to the exact point of what problem I have with it and it started in the form of a question to you, since you are so well versed with the Act having read it and all. I admit to not reading the whole thing and I was hoping you can help me out with these defintions, maybe Alex Jones might have given me the wrong ones. ::)
I'm not asking you to cite chapter and verse. I simply asked you what specific part you have a problem with. There is no crime in not having read the act. What's pretty silly is condemning something you haven't read, or worse, criticizing those who support something you haven't read.
I tell you what, you tell me which part bothers you and I'll use my friend Google to try and find it for you.
-
If I wanted your opinion, I would have asked for it. Can you comprehend that?
I didn't give you an opinion retard. I asked you a question. Can you comprehend that?
-
You saying Im a racist BB?
What?? lol. Dude I don't even know you.
-
I didn't give you an opinion retard. I asked you a question. Can you comprehend that?
You gave both dickwad.
-
Goddamn dude, what are you 12 fucking years old? Explains the blind devotion to RP. ::)
You know, his entire approach to this has been pretty juvenile. All I did was ask him what part of the Patriot Act bothered him and he got all worked up. Now, I freely admit to being a clown. Not sure what his excuse is. :D
-
You gave both dickwad.
No, I gave you a fact and then a question. Real simple for most people.
-
You know, his entire approach to this has been pretty juvenile. All I did was ask him what part of the Patriot Act bothered him and he got all worked up. Now, I freely admit to being a clown. Not sure what his excuse is. :D
Yeah, apparently they can't handle joking around about RP. Can't imagine why the term "fanatic" gets thrown around so much. ::)
-
No, I gave you a fact and then a question. Real simple for most people.
Sounds like you were really sure of that fact....
-
Yeah, apparently they can't handle joking around about RP. Can't imagine why the term "fanatic" gets thrown around so much. ::)
Tell me about it.
-
I'm not asking you to cite chapter and verse. I simply asked you what specific part you have a problem with. There is no crime in not having read the act. What's pretty silly is condemning something you haven't read, or worse, criticizing those who support something you haven't read.
I tell you what, you tell me which part bothers you and I'll use my friend Google to try and find it for you.
I was attempting to explain to you the parts that I have a problem with. In trying to establish wether you and I both understood certain defintions as they pretain to the Patriot Act, I asked you simple question. woopty doo, whats the big deal? Instead of an answer, you were the one that got all bent out of shape, as if I told you to lick some shit or something. You wanna "clown" around, go ahead, but the next time you wanna be a dinky let me know before hand so I don't waste any more time.
-
I was attempting to explain to you the parts that I have a problem with. In trying to establish wether you and I both understood certain defintions as they pretain to the Patriot Act, I asked you simple question. woopty doo, whats the big deal? Instead of an answer, you were the one that got all bent out of shape, as if I told you to lick some shit or something. You wanna "clown" around, go ahead, but the next time you wanna be a dinky let me know before hand so I don't waste any more time.
Oh please. ::) You are the one who got all worked up when I asked you a very simple, and what should have been, nonthreatening question. It started in this thread: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=378196.0
You didn't ask a simple question. I did. You never answered it. Still haven't.
As I said in the other thread, I've been asking people on this board for about four years what problems they have the Patriot Act. What I suspect is many of those folks, including you, have taken their talking points from Ron Paul, without knowing what the heck they're actually opposed to, or why.
-
Fuck man, you are so stubborn it's ridiculous. I cant believe Im caving into this.
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.
The defintions of terrorist, terrorism and domestic terrorism are too broad. They can ecompass just about any group. WTO protesters or Greenpeace could be considered terrorists/teorrorist organization. I could be participating in a lawfull manner during the WTO affair and still possibly be considered a terrorist through association. Maybe a guy asked me what time it was before he burns down a building and law enforcement saw me "engaging" with him earlier, I could be defined as a terrorist. This section expands the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating ""terrorism."
I don't trust the government to make a rational decision as to what conduct falls under the umbrella of terrorism. Does protesting the legalization of pot count as an act of terrorism? If a politician doesnt want to raise the debt cieling are they an economic terrorist? If I have a "DON"T TREAD ON ME" bumper sticker, am I a terrorist?
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.
“Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) provides a public safety partnership consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities that will collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence to the agencies tasked with Homeland Security responsibilities in a timely, effective, and secure manner,” explains the MIAC website. “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri.
Report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement”
(http://www.infowars.com/images/scan0023.jpg)
Other sections make it too easy for your assets to be taken from you if you fall into the above section, even if you arent charged with anything and it could take months and months before you have you assets returned.
Im not a lawyer and I didnt read the whole Act but it's how I interpret the above.since you read the whole thing maybe you can fill me in.
-
Fuck man, you are so stubborn it's ridiculous. I cant believe Im caving into this.
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.
The defintions of terrorist, terrorism and domestic terrorism are too broad. They can ecompass just about any group. WTO protesters or Greenpeace could be considered terrorists/teorrorist organization. I could be participating in a lawfull manner during the WTO affair and still possibly be considered a terrorist through association. Maybe a guy asked me what time it was before he burns down a building and law enforcement saw me "engaging" with him earlier, I could be defined as a terrorist. This section expands the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating ""terrorism."
I don't trust the government to make a rational decision as to what conduct falls under the umbrella of terrorism. Does protesting the legalization of pot count as an act of terrorism? If a politician doesnt want to raise the debt cieling are they an economic terrorist? If I have a "DON"T TREAD ON ME" bumper sticker, am I a terrorist?
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.
“Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) provides a public safety partnership consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities that will collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence to the agencies tasked with Homeland Security responsibilities in a timely, effective, and secure manner,” explains the MIAC website. “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri.
Report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement”
(http://www.infowars.com/images/scan0023.jpg)
Other sections make it too easy for your assets to be taken from you if you fall into the above section, even if you arent charged with anything and it could take months and months before you have you assets returned.
Im not a lawyer and I didnt read the whole Act but it's how I interpret the above.since you read the whole thing maybe you can fill me in.
Stubborn? Do you even know what that word means? ::)
Thanks for answering the question. I don't think your concerns are reasonable. The act has been in place for ten years and we have not seen simple political protesters, Ron Paul supporters, etc. declared terrorists. We also have the courts to provide safeguards. Haven't the courts invalidated portions of the Act?
And it appears you took your opinion straight from prison planet/Alex Jones/info wars.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-considering-legal-action-over-miac-document.html
http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/
http://www.dailypaul.com/85970/police-handouts-classifications-for-terrorists-includes-ron-paul-supporters
-
I took the one line and graphic from a site linked to that site. Again, woopty doo. The rest is from my own observations collecting info. The links you posted dont make the point I was making any less relevant. As a lawyer you should be aware how the wording of the above could be open to abuse and by your own admission the courts arent perfect.
-
I took the one line and graphic from a site linked to that site. Again, woopty doo. The rest is from my own observations collecting info. The links you posted dont make the point I was making any less relevant. As a lawyer you should be aware how the wording of the above could be open to abuse and by your own admission the courts arent perfect.
Oh brother. ::) Never said I was a lawyer. You have no idea what I do for a living. But let me give you a piece of advice: don't get your information from people who live in Middletown, Ohio or are married to special education teachers. Not the most reliable folks around. :)
In any event, most of your post was taken word-for-word from the three links I posted. Not a big deal, but pretty obvious that you have been relying on talking points. The view that the Patriot Act will be used to target the average American who participates in the political process is alarmist nonsense.
-
Lol, why is it always the buffoons who are concerned about being targeted? Serious people are getting on with their lives while the buffoon dundats make mountains out of molehills.
-
Oh brother. ::) Never said I was a lawyer. You have no idea what I do for a living. But let me give you a piece of advice: don't get your information from people who live in Middletown, Ohio or are married to special education teachers. Not the most reliable folks around. :)
In any event, most of your post was taken word-for-word from the three links I posted. Not a big deal, but pretty obvious that you have been relying on talking points. The view that the Patriot Act will be used to target the average American who participates in the political process is alarmist nonsense.
I used to think the same way you do about the patriot act, but after further evaluation, it is an abomination and unconstitutional. I for one do not trust the federal government with that kind of power, the potential for abuse and silencing dissent is to great.
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin
-
I used to think the same way you do about the patriot act, but after further evaluation, it is an abomination and unconstitutional. I for one do not trust the federal government with that kind of power, the potential for abuse and silencing dissent is to great.
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin
I agree with the Ben Franklin quote.
I've heard people complain about the Patriot Act, but never really hear anything specific about it. Every law has the potential for abuse.
I don't trust the federal government either.
-
The blind and rabid devotion that leaves most Ron Paul fanboys frothing at the mouth anytime someone so much as asks a question about a viewpoint of his is really going to end up turning people off to him. No different than all the assholes who thought Obama was going to be paying for their gas.
-
Oh brother. ::) Never said I was a lawyer. You have no idea what I do for a living. But let me give you a piece of advice: don't get your information from people who live in Middletown, Ohio or are married to special education teachers. Not the most reliable folks around. :)
I have no idea what you're taking about. You obviously can't seem to understand when someone is being sarcastic with you, I've only been riding your nuts about reading a 300 page legal document for the last 10 posts or so.
In any event, most of your post was taken word-for-word from the three links I posted. Not a big deal, but pretty obvious that you have been relying on talking points. The view that the Patriot Act will be used to target the average American who participates in the political process is alarmist nonsense.
::) Most of my post was my own expression, minus a paragraph with a graphic. How you could claim any differently is retarded.
-
The blind and rabid devotion that leaves most Ron Paul fanboys frothing at the mouth anytime someone so much as asks a question about a viewpoint of his is really going to end up turning people off to him. No different than all the assholes who thought Obama was going to be paying for their gas.
Truth.
-
I have no idea what you're taking about. You obviously can't seem to understand when someone is being sarcastic with you, I've only been riding your nuts about reading a 300 page legal document for the last 10 posts or so.
::) Most of post was my own expression, minus a paragraph with a graphic. How you could claim any differently is retarded.
Here is what you said:
The defintions of terrorist, terrorism and domestic terrorism are too broad. They can ecompass just about any group. WTO protesters or Greenpeace could be considered terrorists/teorrorist organization. I could be participating in a lawfull manner during the WTO affair and still possibly be considered a terrorist through association. Maybe a guy asked me what time it was before he burns down a building and law enforcement saw me "engaging" with him earlier, I could be defined as a terrorist. This section expands the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating ""terrorism."
I don't trust the government to make a rational decision as to what conduct falls under the umbrella of terrorism. Does protesting the legalization of pot count as an act of terrorism? If a politician doesnt want to raise the debt cieling are they an economic terrorist? If I have a "DON"T TREAD ON ME" bumper sticker, am I a terrorist?
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.
“Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) provides a public safety partnership consisting of local, state and federal agencies, as well as the public sector and private entities that will collect, evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence to the agencies tasked with Homeland Security responsibilities in a timely, effective, and secure manner,” explains the MIAC website. “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri.
Report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement”
(http://www.infowars.com/images/scan0023.jpg)
Other sections make it too easy for your assets to be taken from you if you fall into the above section, even if you arent charged with anything and it could take months and months before you have you assets returned.
Im not a lawyer and I didnt read the whole Act but it's how I interpret the above.since you read the whole thing maybe you can fill me in.
Here is an excerpt from one of the links:
Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin Considering Legal Action Over MIAC Document
Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Appearing on the Alex Jones Show today, founder-pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church and presidential nominee of the Constitution Party for the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, Chuck Baldwin, talked about the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report designating Baldwin, Ron Paul, Bob Barr supporters and Libertarians as terrorists.
Infowars broke the story on March 11 after Alex Jones received the MIAC document from an anonymous source in the Missouri police.
“The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as ‘militia’ influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties,” Kurt Nimmo wrote for Infowars.
On March 13, Paul Joseph Watson, Kurt Nimmo and Alex Jones expanded coverage of the MIAC report.
Mr. Baldwin asserted his strong opposition to the document and Missouri police efforts to characterize mainstream political parties and their supporters as domestic terrorists. The MIAC report specifically links these supporters to “militia” influenced terrorists. “Police are educated in the document that people are are anti-abortion, own gold, display an assortment of U.S. flags, or even those that talk about the film Zeitgeist, view the police as their ‘enemy’ and conflates them with domestic terrorists like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph and other domestic militia groups who have been charged with plotting terrorist attacks,” Infowars and Prison Planet reported.
In addition, Baldwin said he collaborated with Ron Paul and Bob Barr on a letter that will be sent to Missouri officials protesting the MIAC report. Mr. Baldwin indicated that if the letter does not result in a repudiation of the MIAC report and its absurd allegations, he and fellow letter signatories will consider legal action.
Chuck Baldwin will send a copy of the letter to Alex Jones. Infowars will post the letter.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-considering-legal-action-over-miac-document.html
And another:
Secret State Police Report: Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarians are Terrorists
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
March 11, 2009
Alex Jones has received a secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated February 20, 2009. A footer on the document indicates it is “unclassified” but “law enforcement sensitive,” in other words not for public consumption. A copy of the report was sent to Jones by an anonymous Missouri police officer.
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.
. . . .
http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/
Same article is posted on the "Daily Paul" website: http://www.dailypaul.com/85970/police-handouts-classifications-for-terrorists-includes-ron-paul-supporters
What a coincidence.
-
I already attested to using that paragraph from another site. Was that really all I posted or are you blind? I dont see any of the following in any link you provided.
The defintions of terrorist, terrorism and domestic terrorism are too broad. They can ecompass just about any group. WTO protesters or Greenpeace could be considered terrorists/teorrorist organization. I could be participating in a lawfull manner during the WTO affair and still possibly be considered a terrorist through association. Maybe a guy asked me what time it was before he burns down a building and law enforcement saw me "engaging" with him earlier, I could be defined as a terrorist. This section expands the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating ""terrorism."
I don't trust the government to make a rational decision as to what conduct falls under the umbrella of terrorism. Does protesting the legalization of pot count as an act of terrorism? If a politician doesnt want to raise the debt cieling are they an economic terrorist? If I have a "DON"T TREAD ON ME" bumper sticker, am I a terrorist?
Other sections make it too easy for your assets to be taken from you if you fall into the above section, even if you arent charged with anything and it could take months and months before you have you assets returned.
Im not a lawyer and I didnt read the whole Act but it's how I interpret the above.since you read the whole thing maybe you can fill me in.
-
I already attested to using that paragraph from another site. Was that really all I posted or are you blind?
No, that's not all you posted, and I addressed your main point.
-
So let me see if I understand this,
You don't trust the government but you dont have an issue with the Patriot Act because the courts will protect us?
-
The blind and rabid devotion that leaves most Ron Paul fanboys frothing at the mouth anytime someone so much as asks a question about a viewpoint of his is really going to end up turning people off to him. No different than all the assholes who thought Obama was going to be paying for their gas.
wtf?
Im talking about my viewpoint, not anyone else's.
-
So let me see if I understand this,
You don't trust the government but you dont have an issue with the Patriot Act because the courts will protect us?
Close, but not exactly. I don't trust the government. The judicial branch does a decent job of checking the executive and legislative branches. I don't always agree with them, but they do a good job.
I don't have an issue with the Patriot Act because I have not yet heard a reasonable complaint about its abuse, or its potential for abuse. I said earlier that every law has the potential for abuse.
You are concerned that Ron Paul supporters, or Americans engaged in peaceful political protests, can be arrested under the Patriot Act? Why do you think that hasn't happened in the ten years this law has been in effect?
-
Here is a question, we have heard the left scream since 2001 that we didn't "connect the dots" and that is why the Sept 11 attacks succeeded. What exactly did the patriot act do to remedy this? Then we heard the left scream about how terrible the Patriot Act was, well until Obama got elected, now its A'OK why? Because it's a bunch of political bullshit, as long as your guy is in charge well it ain't so bad, but when the other guy's in charge the bubonic plague pails in comparison. I will not trust a government that is only interested in political leverage when it comes to the constitution or the freedom of Americans.
-
You are concerned that Ron Paul supporters, or Americans engaged in peaceful political protests, can be arrested under the Patriot Act? Why do you think that hasn't happened in the ten years this law has been in effect?
I'm concerned about everyone rights.
-
Im concerned about everyone's rights .
So am I.
-
If it has happened would we even know? From what I gather you can be held indefinitely and without representation or have any of the other rights criminals usually have when arrested.
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-airline-felonies20-2009jan20,0,5468299.story
In-flight confrontations can lead to terrorism charges
At least 200 passengers have been convicted of felonies under the Patriot Act, often for behavior involving raised voices and profanity. Some experts say airlines are misusing the law.
OKLAHOMA CITY AND LOS ANGELES— Tamera Jo Freeman was on a Frontier Airlines flight to Denver in 2007 when her two children began to quarrel over the window shade and then spilled a Bloody Mary into her lap. She spanked each of them on the thigh with three swats. It was a small incident, but one that in the heightened anxiety after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks would eventually have enormous ramifications for Freeman and her children.
A flight attendant confronted Freeman, who responded by hurling a few profanities and throwing what remained of a can of tomato juice on the floor.
The incident aboard the Frontier flight ultimately led to Freeman's arrest and conviction for a federal felony defined as an act of terrorism under the Patriot Act, the controversial federal law enacted after the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.
Freeman is one of at least 200 people on flights who have been convicted under the amended law. In most of the cases, there was no evidence that the passengers had attempted to hijack the airplane or physically attack any of the flight crew. Many have simply involved raised voices, foul language and drunken behavior.
Some security experts say the use of the law by airlines and their employees has run amok, criminalizing incidents that did not start out as a threat to public safety, much less an act of terrorism.
In one case, a couple was arrested after an argument with a flight attendant, who claimed the couple was engaged in "overt sexual activity" -- an FBI affidavit said the two were "embracing, kissing and acting in a manner that made other passengers uncomfortable."
Jail as a sentence may not always be the case but lsoing your job could suck just as bad.
A flight attendant twice asked them to stop, according to the affidavit, and Persing responded, "Get out of my face," and later, "You and I are going to have a serious confrontation when we get off this plane."
But he denied making a threat. He said he did not feel well because of a chemotherapy drug and had put his head in Sewell's lap. "We were kind of confused why he was waking us up, why he wouldn't let me sleep," he said in a recent interview.
Charges were dropped against Sewell, but Persing, who had never been arrested before, was sentenced to 12 months' probation.
He almost lost his job as a Port of Los Angeles mechanic, which requires a security clearance from the Department of Homeland Security. The department initially yanked the clearance but reinstated it after a review of the facts.
-
If it has happened would we even know? From what I gather you can be held indefinitely and without representation or have any of the other rights criminals usually have when arrested.
Where did you gather that? News to me.
Unlawful enemy combatants have been held indefinitely without charges under the Military Commissions Act. Has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-airline-felonies20-2009jan20,0,5468299.story
In-flight confrontations can lead to terrorism charges
At least 200 passengers have been convicted of felonies under the Patriot Act, often for behavior involving raised voices and profanity. Some experts say airlines are misusing the law.
OKLAHOMA CITY AND LOS ANGELES— Tamera Jo Freeman was on a Frontier Airlines flight to Denver in 2007 when her two children began to quarrel over the window shade and then spilled a Bloody Mary into her lap. She spanked each of them on the thigh with three swats. It was a small incident, but one that in the heightened anxiety after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks would eventually have enormous ramifications for Freeman and her children.
A flight attendant confronted Freeman, who responded by hurling a few profanities and throwing what remained of a can of tomato juice on the floor.
The incident aboard the Frontier flight ultimately led to Freeman's arrest and conviction for a federal felony defined as an act of terrorism under the Patriot Act, the controversial federal law enacted after the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.
Freeman is one of at least 200 people on flights who have been convicted under the amended law. In most of the cases, there was no evidence that the passengers had attempted to hijack the airplane or physically attack any of the flight crew. Many have simply involved raised voices, foul language and drunken behavior.
Some security experts say the use of the law by airlines and their employees has run amok, criminalizing incidents that did not start out as a threat to public safety, much less an act of terrorism.
In one case, a couple was arrested after an argument with a flight attendant, who claimed the couple was engaged in "overt sexual activity" -- an FBI affidavit said the two were "embracing, kissing and acting in a manner that made other passengers uncomfortable."
Jail as a sentence may not always be the case but lsoing your job could suck just as bad.
A flight attendant twice asked them to stop, according to the affidavit, and Persing responded, "Get out of my face," and later, "You and I are going to have a serious confrontation when we get off this plane."
But he denied making a threat. He said he did not feel well because of a chemotherapy drug and had put his head in Sewell's lap. "We were kind of confused why he was waking us up, why he wouldn't let me sleep," he said in a recent interview.
Charges were dropped against Sewell, but Persing, who had never been arrested before, was sentenced to 12 months' probation.
He almost lost his job as a Port of Los Angeles mechanic, which requires a security clearance from the Department of Homeland Security. The department initially yanked the clearance but reinstated it after a review of the facts.
Dummies. I have zero sympathy for those folks. After 9/11, you get on the plane, shut the heck up, enjoy the flight, and gag on disgusting airplane food. Not that hard to do. I would treat any disturbance as a very serious matter while in flight. There is very little margin for error.
I fly a lot and I have been very careful to keep my nose clean. No goofball remarks when going through security (which is really a challenge). I even kept my cool when they took my protein powder and put it through chemical tests. I actually thought it was pretty funny. :)
-
We don't need the patriot act for that.
-
We don't need the patriot act for that.
I don't think that's why it was enacted anyway. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. Any idiot who creates any kind of disturbance in flight should be arrested, with or without the Patriot Act.
-
I think its difficult to make that statement against the second guy. I don't condone the woman's behavior but the charge is over the top.
-
I think its difficult to make that statement against the second guy. I don't condone the woman's behavior but the charge is over the top.
Depends. If all he did was put his head on his woman's lap because he was not feeling well, then I agree. But if he said: "Get out of my face," and later, "You and I are going to have a serious confrontation when we get off this plane," then he got what he deserved.
We cannot afford to tolerate much of anything in flight anymore. Keep in mind we had a guy trying to ignite his shoes, one try to blow up his underwear, and recently a guy charged the cockpit shouting Allahu Akbar.
And I tell you what, if I see someone creating a disturbance on my flight I'm taking that fool down myself. We'll probably both get arrested. lol . . . .
-
Dummies. I have zero sympathy for those folks. After 9/11, you get on the plane, shut the heck up, enjoy the flight, and gag on disgusting airplane food. Not that hard to do. I would treat any disturbance as a very serious matter while in flight. There is very little margin for error.
I fly a lot and I have been very careful to keep my nose clean. No goofball remarks when going through security (which is really a challenge). I even kept my cool when they took my protein powder and put it through chemical tests. I actually thought it was pretty funny. :)
Why don't you travel on a ship? ???
-
:D
-
Why don't you travel on a ship? ???
For the same reason I don't travel by kayak.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
'It's Almost As If There Are Two PATRIOT Acts'
Reason ^ | May 31, 2011 | Jacob Sullum
Posted on June 1, 2011 11:25:43 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Last week Mike Riggs noted Ron Wyden's warnings about the Obama administration's "secret interpretation" of the PATRIOT Act, which he said undermines democracy, the rule of law, and ultimately the public's support for anti-terrorism efforts. Here is some of what Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, had to say on the subject in a floor speech on Thursday:
When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry. And they will be asking senators, "Did you know what this law actually permits?" "Why didn't you know before you voted on it?" The fact is that anyone can read the plain text of the PATRIOT Act, and yet many members of Congress have no idea how the law is being secretly interpreted by the executive branch, because that interpretation is classified.
It's almost as if there are two Patriot Acts, and many members of Congress haven't even read the one that matters. Our constituents, of course, are totally in the dark. Members of the public have no access to the executive branch's secret legal interpretations, so they have no idea what their government thinks this law means....
While Americans recognize that government agencies will sometimes rely on secret sources and methods to collect intelligence information, Americans also expect that these agencies will operate at all times within the boundaries of publicly understood law.
I have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for ten years, and I don't take a backseat to anybody when it comes to the importance of protecting genuinely sensitive sources and collection methods. But the law itself should never be secret—voters have a need and a right to know what the law says, and what their government thinks the text of the law means, so that they can decide whether the law is appropriately written and ratify or reject decisions that their elected officials make on their behalf....
Government officials must not be allowed to fall into the trap of secretly reinterpreting the law in a way that creates a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the government secretly claims that it says....When the public eventually finds out that government agencies have been rewriting surveillance laws in secret, the result is invariably a backlash and an erosion of public confidence in these government agencies.
Wyden likened the Obama administration's classified understanding of the PATRIOT Act to Harry Truman's telegram-intercepting Project Shamrock, the CIA's domestic spying, the Reagan administration's Iran-contra scandal, and the Bush administration's secret approval of warrantless wiretaps. But what exactly does this twisting of the PATRIOT Act entail? Wyden can't say, because it's classified. (Duh!) But Cato Institute privacy specialist (and Reason contributing editor) Julian Sanchez argues, based on clues going back to comments that two other senators, Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), made more than a year ago, that the shocking secret probably has something to do with mass collection and analysis of cell phone geolocation data under Section 215 of the law.
Look for my column tomorrow about the rush to renew the PATRIOT Act.
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Click to Add Topic
This is fucked up. Even widen is pissed off.
-
BB - please tell me you dont support his crap? This is why I am against the Patriot Act. Its a gateway drug for the jack boots.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/06/01/mta-officers-detain-man-for-taking-pictures
-
Ron Paul warns of 'dictatorship in Washington DC'
By Josiah Ryan - 06/01/11 04:57 PM ET
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/164271-ron-paul-warns-of-dictatorship-in-washington-dc
GOP Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on Tuesday warned of too much "dictatorship in Washington D.C." while on a campaign stop in Mason City, Iowa.
"We're not on the verge of having a king, but we are on the verge of having way too much dictatorship in Washington, D.C.," Paul said, comparing the U.S.'s current situation to a Biblical tale in which the ancient Israelites demanded, against their own good, that a king rule their land instead of God.
"Our rights come from our creator, not our government," added Paul according to the The Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier.
Paul, who announced last month that he will run for president for the third time, faces an uphill battle as many Americans consider his positions to be on the far fringe of the right-wing.
Paul, however, noted that he had recently observed a seismic shift in American politics.
"The mainstream is changing," said Paul. "The mainstream wants balanced budgets, sound government and personal liberties --- that is mainstream.”
"The shift is in our direction --- obeying the Constitution for a change," he said.
________________________ ________________________ ___
Amen - obots look to their God King - not the constitution for anything.
-
Artificial Panic Behind the Rush to Extend the Patriot Act
www.Townhall.com ^ | June 1, 2011 | Jacob Sullum
Just before midnight last Thursday, a White House autopen signed legislation extending controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that were scheduled to expire the next day. President Obama authorized the use of a machine to produce a facsimile of his signature because he was traveling in Europe. But it was oddly appropriate, given the facsimile of congressional debate that preceded the bill's passage.
The extension was rushed through Congress based on a false sense of urgency, much like the original Patriot Act, which legislators did not even have time to read.
Back then, 45 days after 9/11, the urgency was based on a fear of follow-up attacks. Last week, the urgency supposedly was due to the long-anticipated expiration of three provisions: Section 215, which authorizes the government to demand "any tangible thing" it deems relevant to a terrorism investigation; Section 206, which lets the government obtain secret warrants for "roving wiretaps" without naming its target or specifying his location; and Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which allows secretly authorized domestic surveillance of "lone wolf" terrorism suspects who are not connected to a foreign organization or government.
While members of Congress have had plenty of time to read the Patriot Act since 2001, many of them, perhaps most, still did not know what they were approving. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, Democrats who serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, repeatedly warned that the government conducts surveillance based on a "secret interpretation" of the Patriot Act, apparently involving Section 215, that cannot be discussed because it is classified.
Yet congressional leaders insisted the expiring powers -- including the "lone wolf" provision, which has never been used -- were absolutely essential to national security. Letting them lapse, even for a single day, claimed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would invite "dire consequences for our national security ... giving terrorists the opportunity to plot attacks against our country undetected."
Never mind that Congress could have temporarily extended these provisions to provide more time for debate and consideration of amendments. The point of the wait-and-hurry-up strategy used by the Patriot Act's supporters is to assume away the very issue to be debated: whether the benefits of the privacy-invading powers granted by the law are worth the damage they do to civil liberties.
The law's supporters pay lip service to such concerns, professing admiration for Patriot Act critics such as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Expressing regret that the Senate did not have time for the "full and complete debate on the Patriot Act" he had promised, Reid called Paul "a very pleasant man with strong feelings," saying, "I have only the highest regard for him."
But when Paul's refusal to join the artificial panic delayed the vote Reid wanted, the majority leader quickly changed his tune. Thanks to Paul's "political grandstanding," Reid warned, the government might lose "some of the most critical tools it needs to counter terrorists." Referring to Paul's proposed amendment restricting the use of Section 215 to obtain firearm records, Reid averred that "he is fighting for an amendment to protect the right of terrorists ... to cover up their gun purchases."
As Paul noted in response, this charge was much like saying that someone who thinks police should obtain a warrant before searching the home of a murder suspect must be in favor of murder. Paul forcefully rejected the bipartisan post-9/11 consensus that "we wouldn't be able to capture these terrorists if we didn't give up some of our liberties."
Among other things, Paul questions the "suspicious activity reports" that financial institutions must file for cash transfers of more than $5,000 -- a requirement that was expanded by the Patriot Act. Noting that supporters of this mandate, which generates 1 million or so reports a year, say "the courts have decided our bank records aren't private," Paul responded: "The hell they aren't. They should be private."
If this is "political grandstanding," we need more of it.
-
BB - please tell me you dont support his crap? This is why I am against the Patriot Act. Its a gateway drug for the jack boots.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/06/01/mta-officers-detain-man-for-taking-pictures
If all the guy was doing was taking pictures, they should have left him alone.
What does this have to do with the Patriot Act?
-
If all the guy was doing was taking pictures, they should have left him alone.
What does this have to do with the Patriot Act?
Officers site the Patriot all the time on bullshit situations like this even if the action they are inspecting doesnt fall under it. Just more abuse of power from these officers.
-
Officers site the Patriot all the time on bullshit situations like this even if the action they are inspecting doesnt fall under it. Just more abuse of power from these officers.
Did they arrest this guy for violating the Patriot Act? The story doesn't mention it.