The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: JC5123 on October 06, 2011, 02:10:32 PM
-
I just found this Bio on Herman Cain who recently won the Florida Republican Party caucus over Rick Perry;
Herman Cain is running for president. He’s not a career politician (in fact he has never held political office). He’s known as a pizza guy, but there’s a lot more to him. He’s also a computer guy, a banker guy, and a rocket scientist guy.
Here’s his bio:
* Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics.
* Master’s degree in Computer Science.
* Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile ballistics (making him a rocket scientist).
* Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola.
* VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury (this is the top of the ladder in the computer world, being in charge of information systems for a major corporation).
All achieved before reaching the age of 35. Since he reached the top of the information systems world, he changed careers!
* Business Manager. Took charge of Pillsbury’s 400 Burger King restaurants in the Philadelphia area, which were the company’s poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes, cleaning toilets. After three years he had turned them into the company’s best performers.
* Godfather’s Pizza CEO. Was asked by Pillsbury to take charge of their Godfather’s Pizza chain (which was on the verge of bankruptcy). He made it profitable in 14 months.
* In 1988 he led a buyout of the Godfather’s Pizza chain from Pillsbury. He was now the owner of a restaurant chain. Again he reached the top of the ladder of another industry.
* He was also chairman of the National Restaurant Association during this time. This is a group that interacts with government on behalf of the restaurant industry, and it gave him political experience from the non-politician side.
Having reached the top of a second industry, he changed careers again!
* Adviser to the Federal Reserve System. Herman Cain went to work for the Federal Reserve Banking System advising them on how monetary policy changes would affect American businesses.
* Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. He worked his way up to the chairmanship of a regional Federal Reserve bank. This is only one step below the chairmanship of the entire Federal Reserve System (the top banking position in the country). This position allowed him to see how monetary policy is made from the inside, and understand the political forces that impact the monetary system.
After reaching the top of the banking industry, he changed careers for a fourth time!
* Writer and public speaker. He then started to write and speak on leadership. His books include Speak as a Leader, CEO of Self, Leadership is Common Sense, and They Think You’re Stupid.
* Radio Host. Around 2007—after a remarkable 40 year career—he started hosting a radio show on WSB in Atlanta (the largest talk radio station in the country).
He did all this starting from rock bottom (his father was a chauffeur and his mother was a maid). When you add up his accomplishments in his life—including reaching the top of three unrelated industries: information systems, business management, and banking—Herman Cain may have the most impressive resume of anyone that has run for the presidency in the last half century.
-
I am impressed by his documented and open climb to the top through hard work in the private sector. Very hard working man that has been rewarded for his work.
Last week he revealed a side that I did not like: His name was associated with going after Gov. Perry over the hunting lease Perry's father held. #1. This is not an issue in the Presidential process since it did not involve Gov. Perry; and #2. It is just the type of negativity that will lead to a total implosion of the Republican Party's final candidate come next year.
Let's focus on each person's strengths, and chose the person with the best strengths for our nation's needs today!
-
He did all this starting from rock bottom (his father was a chauffeur and his mother was a maid). When you add up his accomplishments in his life—including reaching the top of three unrelated industries: information systems, business management, and banking—Herman Cain may have the most impressive resume of anyone that has run for the presidency in the last half century.
Yeah, I know but all the MSM reports (so all anyone hears) is "former Godfathers Pizza...).
-
We might finally have a black President and not a half-breed.
-
I can relate to all what I heard the other day on Hannity on Fox. Cain said that he does not believe that the racial slur on the rock represents how Perry feels about black Americans, but that he did find the slur formerly on the rock objectionable. He seems to be saying that he does not blame Governor Perry or the Perry family.
I can also say that I saw Herman Cain speak at the last NRA Convention in Pittsburgh (April of this year) and that he came across as a genuine supporter and defender of the Second Amendment.
We could do a lot worse than Herman Cain as President (such as the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue)!
-
I can relate to all what I heard the other day on Hannity on Fox. Cain said that he does not believe that the racial slur on the rock represents how Perry feels about black Americans, but that he did find the slur formerly on the rock objectionable. He seems to be saying that he does not blame Governor Perry or the Perry family.
I can also say that I saw Herman Cain speak at the last NRA Convention in Pittsburgh (April of this year) and that he came across as a genuine supporter and defender of the Second Amendment.
We could do a lot worse than Herman Cain as President (such as the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue)!
Don't get Hannity, so I can't speak to that. What I did see was daily paper and hear on NPR was Cain's name tied to denouncing the racial slur on the rock. Like everything else, I may have over reacted to Cain allowing it to happen. Whether he allowed it, started it, or didn't know it was happening, it paints the picture to the world that the Rep. candidates are just a bunch of sharks circling while they create their own chum.
-
If Cain gets the nomination I wouldn't have a problem voting for him,
-
I am an American. Black. Conservative. I don't use African-American, because I'm American, I'm black and I'm conservative. I don't like people trying to label me. African- American is socially acceptable for some people, but I am not some people.
Herman Cain
I'm not a professional politician. I'm a professional problem solver, and I believe we should cut the salaries of senators and congressmen 10 percent until they balance the budget. I call that conservative common sense.
Herman Cain
People who oppose Obama are said to be racists - so I guess I'm a racist.
Herman Cain
Stupid people are ruining America.
Herman Cain
****
Hard to disagree with the man.
-
Stupid people are ruining America.
Herman Cain
****
Hard to disagree with the man.
Amen to that.
-
I am afraid he is a Federal Reserve insider, having been the deputy chairman and chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. This makes him not only more of the status quo, but also one of the professional counterfeiters that have bankrupted this country. I cannot support him. End the Fed!!
-
I am afraid he is a Federal Reserve insider, having been the deputy chairman and chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. This makes him not only more of the status quo, but also one of the professional counterfeiters that have bankrupted this country. I cannot support him. End the Fed!!
He may also have been a member of a Kindergarten class, but that doesn't make him an immature 5 year old.
Because he held a certain position at one time does not mean he has the stereotypical views of others who hold or have held that office.
Has he expressed beliefs that lead you to believe he is a Fed Reserve insider and working for the continued existence of the Fed?
If so, please post references. I'm sure we would all be interested in that aspect of his political makeup.
Thanks.
P.S. If he ends up being the Republican candidate, does your statement that you cannot support him mean that you will vote for Obama? Or for a third party candidate? Or skip voting this time around?
P.P.S. If you don't mind sharing, who did you vote for president in the last election?
-
I could certainly vote for Cain if he makes it onto the ballot.
-
The only current Rep. candidates I would not vote for are Romney or Huntsman.
If either of them got the nomination I would have to write in TT and I ;D
-
The only current Rep. candidates I would not vote for are Romney or Huntsman.
If either of them got the nomination I would have to write in TT and I ;D
X2
-
The guy that runs our warehouse at work is a VERY liberal black man who is always railing against republicans. Since he and I always spend our second cup of coffee aurguing politics, he very loudly asked, so everyone would hear, what I would do if the Republican nominee was a black man. I, just as loudly, told him "I'd send him money".
-
The guy that runs our warehouse at work is a VERY liberal black man who is always railing against republicans. Since he and I always spend our second cup of coffee aurguing politics, he very loudly asked, so everyone would hear, what I would do if the Republican nominee was a black man. I, just as loudly, told him "I'd send him money".
Next time tell him ya know a conservative, gun loving, bible hugging, white boy that already has sent money to the "black man".
-
I am an American. Black. Conservative. I don't use African-American, because I'm American, I'm black and I'm conservative. I don't like people trying to label me. African- American is socially acceptable for some people, but I am not some people.
Herman Cain
I'm not a professional politician. I'm a professional problem solver, and I believe we should cut the salaries of senators and congressmen 10 percent until they balance the budget. I call that conservative common sense.
Herman Cain
People who oppose Obama are said to be racists - so I guess I'm a racist.
Herman Cain
Stupid people are ruining America.
Herman Cain
****
Hard to disagree with the man.
Sir,I like the way you think.
-
First off I want to make it clear I don't dislike the man, and I do agree with 90% of his platform. With that said I think, just like Hussein, a great deal of his popularity and political appeal is because he's black. He is just from the other end of the political spectrum. The dems wallowed all over Hussein because it gave them a shield against people who would criticize him. They could, and did, immediately play the race card. It got to the point if you were conservative and were critical of anything he said, you were branded a "racist". Even McCain admitted to going soft on him during the campaign because he didn't want to be on the receiving end of attacking a black candidate. It certainly contributed to him losing the election. He came across as a mealy mouthed old man, not an assertive leader because of his mild, bland, overly polite political stance against Hussein.
Fast forward to Herman Cain. Same deal, opposite political party. He has zero experience with any type of foreign policy by his own admission. We saw where "learn as you go" got us with Hussein. Sure, people are already saying he can hire that out by surrounding himself with smart foreign affair advisers. That is only if he can get them. Hussein had zero economic experience and surrounded himself with guys like Tim Geithner and the result was an economic disaster. Cain could do much the same with foreign policy.
I find it ironic that the same conservatives who blasted Palin for her "inexperience" are so ready, willing, and able to jump on the bandwagon with this guy. Palin was a state governor, and this guy ran a pizza franchise, and she was "inexperienced", and this guy isn't? People say that's what they like about him. I'm sorry I don't. The entire Middle East is all but ready to explode. Iran is being led by a total nutcase, and is dangerously close to getting a nuclear weapon. And to frost the cake and light the candles we're currently involved in 2 wars that are all but bankrupting this country. Salt it all over with idiots demonstrating daily, showing their hate for what this entire nation is built on, (Capitalism), and the best we can do is jump up and down for a guy like Cain?
I'll freely admit this isn't the best Republican field we've ever had, but I think we have better options than Herman Cain. The office of the President has lacked any leadership skills since we put the clown we now have in. Enough with this silly racial political experimentation to win elections. When you cut through the political crap, that is all this is. All that would be left is for him to win the nomination, then select Marco Rubio as his running mate. Political correctness yet again at it's finest, at the expense of a total lack of any necessary political experience. You wouldn't want to hire a novice pilot and co pilot to fly you around, why would you want the same inexperience leading the nation? Especially with the bad weather we've got ahead of us to fly through.
-
Bill, half of your position is based on what other folks might be thinking of Cain, not how he, himself, will perform.
Because folks who support him with his level of experience previously showed disdain for Palin because of her lack of performance has no bearing on how he will perform.
Because some folks might support him solely because he is a black conservative also has no bearing on how he will perform.
And because BHO hired socialist economic advisers who would push his Marxist economic agenda does not mean Cain would hire the same quality advisers... if anything he will pick those at the other end of the spectrum.
We still don't know if he will be a "good" president, but I haven't seen any positive correlation between the amount of "political experience" an office holder has and doing a good job as a leader. If anything, it seems to have a reverse correlation.
And exactly what is "political experience'? Knowing the ins and outs of getting re-elected, climbing the party hierarchy, getting placed in influential positions on powerful commodities, becoming proficient at procuring "pork spending" for your constituents?
Other than knowing the way to your office, I'm not sure what beneficial experience career politicians bring to the table.
-
Bill, half of your position is based on what other folks might be thinking of Cain, not how he, himself, will perform. Because folks who support him with his level of experience previously showed disdain for Palin because of her lack of performance has no bearing on how he will perform.
That's just it, we have no way of knowing how he will perform based on his total inexperience. You can't say that about Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, or for that matter Palin. No matter if you like her or hate her, her political performance cannot be overlooked in Alaska where she enjoyed a very high approval rating from her constituents. Her performance during her governorship was not "lacking" anything. I can think of several states where she outperformed the governor's they currently have in place. Our state under Janet Napolitano was a perfect example. Yes, we now have Jan Brewer, which is a marked improvement, but I would trade her for Palin in a heartbeat.
Cain is a whole different story. He's nothing but a crap shoot, pure and simple. This guy doesn't bring much to the table unless you compare him to Hussein, who brought a grand total of NOTHING. I don't like "professional politicians" anymore than the next guy, but I like some type of record that shows how he would deal with international problems. Cain seems reluctant to even discuss such matters. That scares me with the condition of the world at this time. The fact of the matter is if Herman Cain were white, and brought to the table his current level of total inexperience, he would be chastised for it unmercifully, or else completely ignored with poll numbers in the toilet. But he is black, witty, funny, and conservative. For me that just isn't enough.
-
P.S. If he ends up being the Republican candidate, does your statement that you cannot support him mean that you will vote for Obama?
Of course not. I'll be stuck voting for Cain the same as I was stuck voting for McCain the last time. It does no good to waste your vote, or stay home. So it only makes sense to vote for the guy who can beat Hussein, who is deplorable. Sometimes you have to take a defensive position in voting, just as you would in shooting. You have no other successful options open to you.
-
Of course not. I'll be stuck voting for Cain the same as I was stuck voting for McCain the last time. It does no good to waste your vote, or stay home. So it only makes sense to vote for the guy who can beat Hussein, who is deplorable. Sometimes you have to take a defensive position in voting, just as you would in shooting. You have no other successful options open to you.
:D :D :D I didn't post that question directed to you, Bill, but I did think of it when I responded to your post on Cain.
I didn't bring it up because I knew your answer would be the above.
Well, maybe I didn't "know" it...but I'd have been VERY surprised if it had not been.
-
Bill has a valid point, this election is one case where the lesser of 2 evils may still be evil, but it is by far a lesser evil.
The #1 objective must be to get rid of BO, actually getting the "Best" person is secondary.
That being said I would still not vote for that POS Romney.
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-advisers-helped-white-house-draft-health-care-130122666.html
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama never met to discuss the federal health care law, but Romney's advisers did. New records reviewed by NBC News's Michael Isikoff point out that "White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006." One meeting, NBC News reports, "was in the Oval Office and presided over by Barack Obama." Jon Gruber, one of the advisers who attended the Obama meeting, said that the White House "really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model." Especially in light of Perry's recent "Romney Remedy" ad, Romney is distancing himself from Gruber like an embarrassing ex, as aides have tried to suggest Gruber wasn't a really an adviser to Romney. However, as Isikoff writes, Gruber was "personally recognized by Romney when the governor signed the health-care bill into law" as well as "appointed by Romney as a board member to the Connector Authority." Gruber himself has a few, possibly damaging, words for Romney:
I think he is the single person most responsible for health care reform in the United States. … I’m not trying to make a political position or a political statement, I honestly feel that way. If Mitt Romney had not stood up for this reform in Massachusetts … I don’t think it would have happened nationally. So I think he really is the guy with whom it all starts.”
We should decide in advance who to write in in case he does get the nomination.
While I don't think he can win, and I think some of his positions are poorly thought out, I would suggest Ron Paul as the default protest vote.
-
You can always vote for the Libertarian candidate.
That would make it easier for the Libertarian candidates to be included on ballots in the next election cycle and might influence some politicians to take a more Libertarian lean to their position.
I know some don't like parts of the Libertarian platform, but it does strongly support the Constitution and individual rights and responsibilities, both of which would be a welcome addition to or desirable to be strengthened in any candidate.
-
So, have we written off Perry for the most part?
So far, he's been rather lackluster and less than impressive.
I think we've proven again why Senators and Congress persons are less than desirable as Presidential candidates. Give me a Governor or an Executive who's got a proven track record of one or the other and see what happens.
I'm still far more focused on the Senate and the House but I'll yank the big R lever regardless of whomever is the candidate as I've stated before.
-
You can always vote for the Libertarian candidate.
That would make it easier for the Libertarian candidates to be included on ballots in the next election cycle and might influence some politicians to take a more Libertarian lean to their position.
I know some don't like parts of the Libertarian platform, but it does strongly support the Constitution and individual rights are responsibilities, both of which would be a welcome addition to or desirable to be strengthened in any candidate.
The reason I did not suggest the Libertarian candidate is because RP has such a large cult following, and name recognition that a wide spread rejection of Romney as the SOSO candidate might actually put him in office.
That was my thinking any way,others may or may not agree.
My preference would be Perry or Cain.
-
The reason I did not suggest the Libertarian candidate is because RP has such a large cult following, and name recognition that a wide spread rejection of Romney as the SOSO candidate might actually put him in office.
That was my thinking any way,others may or may not agree.
My preference would be Perry or Cain.
Since we are writing in someone why not Sarah? ;D
-
The fact of voting is if you don't select a candidate who can muster up the 270 necessary Electoral Votes, you've wasted your time and vote on what amounts to nothing. No matter how much you like a candidate or his platform, if they have no chance of winning you've accomplished as much voting for them as they have running. A complete waste of time, money, and effort.
Ron Paul is a good example of this. He has zero chance of winning. I don't care how many skewed "Straw Polls" he wins, or how much his small, narrow band of supporters cheer him on everywhere he goes, he has no chance. Soon he'll do what he's done the last 2 times he has run for President. He will fold up his tent and go home. This time a 3 time loser.
Everything everyone did for him will be a total waste, period. You can't say that about many of the other candidates, even Cain. At least at this point in time. Romney, Perry, and Cain all have a legitimate shot at it. Down the road the field will be narrowed to just a couple. Then you must vote for whoever it may be if you want rid of Hussein. It's just that simple. Ron Paul doesn't figure into the equation, and never has. That's right, never has because he has continually polled in the single digits, and always will.
Wasting time on him is a bit like someone trying to qualify a Ford F-150 into the Indy 500. They'd have every redneck in the joint cheering for them on every lap. It wouldn't matter because it would be all but guaranteed it would finish dead last, if it even made the field, which of course it wouldn't.
-
Since we are writing in someone why not Sarah? ;D
Opinion is to polarized about Palin, it's either love her or hate her, no middle ground.
If she did win, the same demo tactics of continuous lawsuits that led her to resign as Gov would prevent her from getting anything done as Pres.
RP on the other hand would come as such a shock to both party's he would have some leeway while they figured out"WTF just happened ? " ;D
-
The fact of voting is if you don't select a candidate who can muster up the 270 necessary Electoral Votes, you've wasted your time and vote on what amounts to nothing. No matter how much you like a candidate or his platform, if they have no chance of winning you've accomplished as much voting for them as they have running. A complete waste of time, money, and effort.
Ron Paul is a good example of this. He has zero chance of winning. I don't care how many skewed "Straw Polls" he wins, or how much his small, narrow band of supporters cheer him on everywhere he goes, he has no chance. Soon he'll do what he's done the last 2 times he has run for President. He will fold up his tent and go home. This time a 3 time loser.
Everything everyone did for him will be a total waste, period. You can't say that about many of the other candidates, even Cain. At least at this point in time. Romney, Perry, and Cain all have a legitimate shot at it. Down the road the field will be narrowed to just a couple. Then you must vote for whoever it may be if you want rid of Hussein. It's just that simple. Ron Paul doesn't figure into the equation, and never has. That's right, never has because he has continually polled in the single digits, and always will.
Wasting time on him is a bit like someone trying to qualify a Ford F-150 into the Indy 500. They'd have every redneck in the joint cheering for them on every lap. It wouldn't matter because it would be all but guaranteed it would finish dead last, if it even made the field, which of course it wouldn't.
This is not true of 3rd party candidates.
Around 50% of the Libertarian campaign budgets go to getting signatures on petitions for ballot access. The number of signatures required is based upon the percentage of votes the party candidate received in a previous election.
So, if you support a 3rd parties platform, you can make them more competitive financially in the next election cycle by voting for their candidate even if it is a no-win possibility. Most Libertarian candidates to not accept the matching government funds.
-
This is not true of 3rd party candidates.
It is even truer. A third party candidate will never be elected in a dominate 2 party political system. The Electoral College would not mathematically support, or allow it to happen. There are 538 total electoral votes and 270 electoral votes, a majority, are needed to win. None of this is divisible by 3. Even Ross Perot, who did the best of any third party candidate in recent history, did not receive one single Electoral Vote. Before you even begin to discuss the viability of a third party candidate, you would have to completely dismantle the Electoral College. That will not happen in our lifetime.
-
He may also have been a member of a Kindergarten class, but that doesn't make him an immature 5 year old.
Because he held a certain position at one time does not mean he has the stereotypical views of others who hold or have held that office.
Has he expressed beliefs that lead you to believe he is a Fed Reserve insider and working for the continued existence of the Fed?
If so, please post references. I'm sure we would all be interested in that aspect of his political makeup.
Thanks.
P.S. If he ends up being the Republican candidate, does your statement that you cannot support him mean that you will vote for Obama? Or for a third party candidate? Or skip voting this time around?
P.P.S. If you don't mind sharing, who did you vote for president in the last election?
I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that a person who made it as high up the ladder as chairman of the Kansas City Fed Res Bank is an insider. One example of Cain's bankster makeup is his support for a national sales tax in addition to the existing income tax. He obviously had no moral qualms about working with the professional counterfeiters, so I believe his morals and ethics are definitely tainted in that regard.
No, I will not vote for Obama. No, I will not vote for a third party candidate. Yes, I will not vote.
I did not vote in the last presidential election.
-
It is even truer. A third party candidate will never be elected in a dominate 2 party political system. The Electoral College would not mathematically support, or allow it to happen. There are 538 total electoral votes and 270 electoral votes, a majority, are needed to win. None of this is divisible by 3. Even Ross Perot, who did the best of any third party candidate in recent history, did not receive one single Electoral Vote. Before you even begin to discuss the viability of a third party candidate, you would have to completely dismantle the Electoral College. That will not happen in our lifetime.
The benefit of reduced ballot access costs filters down to local elections. The stronger the failed attempt the more benefit., so it will benefit the party.
That is the point I was making.
You vote will do some good rather than being a total waste.
-
I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that a person who made it as high up the ladder as chairman of the Kansas City Fed Res Bank is an insider. One example of Cain's bankster makeup is his support for a national sales tax in addition to the existing income tax. He obviously had no moral qualms about working with the professional counterfeiters, so I believe his morals and ethics are definitely tainted in that regard.
No, I will not vote for Obama. No, I will not vote for a third party candidate. Yes, I will not vote.
I did not vote in the last presidential election.
I will agree that it is not a stretch to suggest it. But it simply does not make it true.
And you will have to explain to me where Cain supports the existing income tax....unless his 9-9-9 proposal has already been put in place?
Additionally, you will need to show me how supporting a national sales tax supports the professional counterfeiters. And does that only apply to sales tax? Or supporting any tax? And then does anyone else who supports a sales tax or income tax if that applies as well become a Bankster Insider and professional counterfeiter supporter?
-
Get over the idea of printed money, any one but a total idiot can do the math and figure out that if you converted all American money into Gold and silver there has not been enough mined in recorded history to cover the volume required.
Also, if you don't vote for somebody, if you stay home, you are part of the problem, and deserve the f*cking you will get from 4 more years of BO.
-
Get over the idea of printed money, any one but a total idiot can do the math and figure out that if you converted all American money into Gold and silver there has not been enough mined in recorded history to cover the volume required.
True in not only this country, but many others as well. It is the reason why there is not one single country on the planet currently on the Gold standard.
-
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/10/prweb8869232.htm
Here is more about the guy who supported TARP and does not want an audit of the Federal Reserve.
Monetary policy is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE if one wishes to understand politics, government, history, current events. If you don't understand how the US is run by professional counterfeiters at the Federal Reserve, please take time to read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. It will change your entire world view if you have never been exposed to the truth about fiat currency based economies and central banks.
-
Here is more about the guy who supported TARP and does not want an audit of the Federal Reserve.
So who would you support of the current candidates who has a chance of winning over Hussein?
-
No, I will not vote for Obama. Yes, I will not vote. I did not vote in the last presidential election.
Then, regardless if you want to admit it or not, you voted for Obama in the last election, and will do so again.
-
So who would you support of the current candidates who has a chance of winning over Hussein?
RON PAUL 2012!!!
-
RON PAUL 2012!!!
I said which candidate Who has a chance of WINNING?
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html#ixzz1aQI1PNW4
It figures the liberals would back people like this.
-
I said which candidate Who has a chance of WINNING?
This shows the ignorance of voters. They take a very good candidate, and are willing to dismiss them as viable based on one aspect of their lives. Also, it's not up to the president to audit the fed. That is a duty of congress. That was a monster that they created. The problem is that so many of them are entrenched like tics in it.
-
They take a very good candidate, and are willing to dismiss them as viable based on one aspect of their lives.
Which candidate are you refering to?
-
Cain, they keep trying to say he's "just another politician" because he ran the fed Reserve. Personally I think this is a bonus. He will know what really goes on there. Now if he chooses to do nothing about it, that's why we have an election every 4 years.
-
There seems to be a BIG misunderstanding here, Cain never "ran the Federal Reserve". He ran one of the region federal reserve banks.
And it most likely gave him a hell of a lot better understanding of monetary policy and the politics of banking than reading some book.
The reason the country is so f*cked up is because of people voting for college professors and writers who never actually did anything, instead of for people who have actually know something about the fields they are going to manage.
As for Ron Paul, as I've posted elsewhere, the only way he will get elected is if there is a HUGE anti Romney protest vote.
Other wise he's a wasted ballot, which is as good as a vote for BO.
Cain is in fact, an actual "rocket scientist" who has reached the top of his field in several different professions, ( Mathematics, communications technology, business management, and Banking )
-
Cain, they keep trying to say he's "just another politician" because he ran the fed Reserve. Personally I think this is a bonus. He will know what really goes on there. Now if he chooses to do nothing about it, that's why we have an election every 4 years.
The Federal Reserve has been around since 1913. Somebody has got to run it. All of these Ron Paul disciples are trained to despise everything economic Paul doesn't like. The Federal Reserve is far from perfect. But our currency is among the best in the world, and is the standard all others are judged against. Every time I hear the term "fiat dollar" I know it's some Ron Paul junkie getting off on his latest economic nonsense.
Paul is a crackpot, period. And he contradicts himself all the time. One minute he talks of putting this country back on a "Gold Standard". In another he talks of selling off the gold in Fort Knox to pay off the debt. Both are stupid ideas that will never happen. In another idiotic speech he talks about closing 800 military bases world wide. This guy is completely off the rails, and makes no sense. He was booed by his own crowd at the Tea Party Debate.
Now we've caught Iran in a plot to assassinate leaders on American soil. Yet again Ron Paul is just peachy with these ass hats getting a nuclear weapon. His philosophy of, "They'll leave us alone if we leave them alone", is totally ridiculous. And last but not least he was against the killing of Anwar Al Awlaki. And they wonder why this clown keeps polling under 10%. I wish he would just go back to doing what he does best, bringing the pork home to Galveston. The Shrimp fishermen love him.
-
The US, "Central bank" dates back to 1791, with gaps from 1811-16, and from 1836-62, since then we have continuously had some form of centralized banking system, get used to it.
-
Gov. Christie endorsed Romney,....OK, ask yourself why?
Christie, is a moderate fed up with the BS from both sides....He is a McCain with "balls" on every other policy, and he is a solution oriented politician.
Romney, is a moderate, and borderline RINO, he is smooth in his Ken Doll presentation, and has some good and bad positions on issues. Plus he is someone who will "appease". For example, Bush let Ted Kennedy write the Education "No Child Left Behind" act. As soon as he signed it, Bush was bashed 27 ways from Sunday by the talking heads in the MSM, and the Left for its failure....
WTF?
Perry, is rough around the edges, which has appeal, but stumbles on core Conservative principles. Period. Also seen as an appeaser, and not the sharpest pencil in the box, this will haunt him for the next 13 months.
Paul, God Bless Him, has run for POTUS, since 1988,....He can't win. Sorry,...as much as some really like him, he does represent a wake the "f" up to the establishment. Of both parties...
That leaves Cain, (Santorum, and Bachman, won't cut it), although they have valid points and sound ideas. The stage is set.
I haven't endorsed anyone, I like Santorum, and Newt, and Perry, and Cain, and Bachmann. (sorry not the Ken Doll..)
But regardless, I would vote for Bobo the Clown and gladly cast my vote for the Rep. nominee, if it gets BHO the "F" OUT.
Even if it is Paul, or the Ken Doll....
Cain, is from the outside,...he may lack foreign policy exp,....but all it takes is common sense. Which he has. What are you looking for,....your Manchurian Candidate?
There is no perfect candidate.
But anyone to get our current POS out has my vote.
Most of the people who are in elective office in Washington, D.C., they have held public office before. How's that workin' for you?
Herman Cain
This economy is on life support.
Herman Cain
-
I said which candidate Who has a chance of WINNING?
Don't buy into the mainstream media hoax about Ron Paul not being electable. He has already been elected to Congress multiple times. I'll tell you this: If Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee, then Obama will get re-elected. Why? Because Ron Paul supporters are knowledgeable and informed, and they don't support Dr. Paul because he is this month's prom king media darling (Perry, now Cain). Ron Paul supporters will not hold their noses and vote for one of the bought and paid for corporate/bankster/globalist shills that make up the rest of the Republican field. I don't expect the corrupt party of Abraham Lincoln to nominate Dr. Paul, since the Repubs and Dems are two branching of the same party, that being the big government party. If all of Ron Paul's supporters walk away, the Republicans are doomed. But it won't really be a loss for them since Obama is doing all the things they like anyway. They absolutely FEAR someone as principled and committed to the cause of liberty and the rule of law as Dr. Paul. RON PAUL 2012!!
-
Don't buy into the mainstream media hoax about Ron Paul not being electable. He has already been elected to Congress multiple times.
435 people are elected to the House EVERY 2 years, not all of them are presidential material. In fact who was the last Congressman to be elected President? Garfield, and who the hell was he?
I'll tell you this: If Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee, then Obama will get re-elected.
Precisely why:
1. We got BHO in the first place
2. Ron Paul and his supporters are looked at as kooks
And ifwhen Ron Paul isn't the nominee and BHO loses what say you? Eat your hat? Your words? Ron Paul's shorts?
-
The Federal Reserve has been around since 1913. Somebody has got to run it. All of these Ron Paul disciples are trained to despise everything economic Paul doesn't like. The Federal Reserve is far from perfect. But our currency is among the best in the world, and is the standard all others are judged against. Every time I hear the term "fiat dollar" I know it's some Ron Paul junkie getting off on his latest economic nonsense.
Paul is a crackpot, period. And he contradicts himself all the time. One minute he talks of putting this country back on a "Gold Standard". In another he talks of selling off the gold in Fort Knox to pay off the debt. Both are stupid ideas that will never happen. In another idiotic speech he talks about closing 800 military bases world wide. This guy is completely off the rails, and makes no sense. He was booed by his own crowd at the Tea Party Debate.
Now we've caught Iran in a plot to assassinate leaders on American soil. Yet again Ron Paul is just peachy with these ass hats getting a nuclear weapon. His philosophy of, "They'll leave us alone if we leave them alone", is totally ridiculous. And last but not least he was against the killing of Anwar Al Awlaki. And they wonder why this clown keeps polling under 10%. I wish he would just go back to doing what he does best, bringing the pork home to Galveston. The Shrimp fishermen love him.
You should really spend some time studying the Federal Reserve issue, as well as the Austrian school of economics. You should also listen to what Ron Paul actually says, considering you have mis-characterized his message. Ron Paul stands for following the Constitution. If we followed the Constitution and abolished the Federal Reserve bank, this country has a chance to be saved. Also, if we followed the Constitution and did not have a global empire, we as Americans would be much safer. It is the welfare/warfare state THAT CAN ONLY BE SUSTAINED BY A CENTRAL BANK PRINTING MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR that has the country on the brink of ruin.
Ron Paul does not wish for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, nor does he wish that the any other country, including the US has them either. The CIA and the UN have both said the Iran is not even within 10 years of being able to produce a nuclear weapon, even if they desired to do so.
His philosophy of peaceful trade and no entangling alliances with other countries is the identical foreign policy of George Washington.
You realize that Anwar Al-Awlaki was a US citizen, right? You are also familiar with the 5th amendment to the Con forbidding a citizen being deprived of their life without due process? You realize that Awlaki was never indicted, never tried before a jury, never afforded legal counsel. He was summarily executed on the say so of Obama. Period. So if the president decides that YOU OR YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS are terrorists he can execute you without having to give any legal justification, even after you are dead. I cannot think of anything more UNAMERICAN than supporting a citizen being executed by the emperor's decree. When one person's rights are violated, every person's rights are violated. Cheering the extra-judicial execution of any person is disgusting. To do so demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution, due process, human rights and basic human decency.
-
435 people are elected to the House EVERY 2 years, not all of them are presidential material. In fact who was the last Congressman to be elected President? Garfield, and who the hell was he?
Precisely why:
1. We got BHO in the first place
2. Ron Paul and his supporters are looked at as kooks
And ifwhen Ron Paul isn't the nominee and BHO loses what say you? Eat your hat? Your words? Ron Paul's shorts?
It won't matter because Ron Paul has already started a Revolution. He has helped a whole generation re-discover what the idea of liberty and the rule of law are about. This movement is not stopping any time soon. It certainly won't be stopped if Dr. Paul isn't elected president. This election and the next one after that are not important in the grand scheme. As Dr. Paul has said, "Politicians are basically irrelevant. Ideas are all that matter." P.S. Lyndon Johnson was in the House of Representatives, not that that is relevant.
-
Don't buy into the mainstream media hoax about Ron Paul not being electable. He has already been elected to Congress multiple times. I'll tell you this: If Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee, then Obama will get re-elected. Why? Because Ron Paul supporters are knowledgeable and informed, and they don't support Dr. Paul because he is this month's prom king media darling (Perry, now Cain). Ron Paul supporters will not hold their noses and vote for one of the bought and paid for corporate/bankster/globalist shills that make up the rest of the Republican field. I don't expect the corrupt party of Abraham Lincoln to nominate Dr. Paul, since the Repubs and Dems are two branching of the same party, that being the big government party. If all of Ron Paul's supporters walk away, the Republicans are doomed. But it won't really be a loss for them since Obama is doing all the things they like anyway. They absolutely FEAR someone as principled and committed to the cause of liberty and the rule of law as Dr. Paul. RON PAUL 2012!!
I don't know how far you had to fall to hit your head that hard, but you're in for a very rude awakening. Ron Paul getting elected into Congress doesn't have a thing to do with him getting into the White House. The last time this nation directly elected a Congressman into the Presidency was James Garfield in 1862. Stop dreaming. Ron Paul gets elected for the same reason the rest of them do, he brings home the pork into his district.
Stop buying into this silly bull$h!t the media is, "holding Ron Paul back". The people simply don't want him, period. He's too radical, and he comes off as a crackpot. He's too soft on terror, and he doesn't see Iran as a threat. Even now. His brainless disciples follow him with no mind of their own, slobbering over every word he says. Ron Paul's own political base is his worst enemy. They scare people. "Knowledgeable and informed? You've got to be kidding me. Informed about what? They don't have a clue, and totally lack any common sense.
Do you honestly think this idiot is going to close 800 military bases around the world if he got elected, when Hussein couldn't even close GITMO after he made it one of the biggest planks in his political platform? His isolationist policies didn't work 70 years ago, and they won't work now. His own colleagues in Congress would shut down all of his crackpot policies he wants to initiate so fast your head would spin. Look at Hussein. He had a Democratic House and Senate and what did he get done in 2 years? It took months of political wrangling to get Hussein Care passed. And when it finally did it was a watered down version that no one wanted. Not the single payer system he had so envisioned. Where is his "jobs bill" going? Nowhere, just like the rest of his silly $h!t. Ron Paul would get even less passed if he were elected, which he never will be.
Let's move on to economics. You talk about him and his ilk being "knowledgeable"? All this clown does is harp on and on about how we need to go back to a precious metal standard. Anyone with a 6th grade education knows full well there isn't enough gold in existence to back our currency. If there was it would no longer be so "precious". There is not one single nation on the surface of this planet that presently is on ANY type of precious metal standard. Harp all you want about the "fiat dollar", you're going to have it for a long time to come so get used to it. The same with the Federal Reserve he and his cronies so hate.
You Ron Paul lovers need a lesson in simple arithmetic as well. This guy continually polls in the single digits because the people of this country simply don't want him, yet you think he is the only one who can beat Hussein? Where are you going to get the other 40+% of the vote you are going to require, out of thin air? Ron Paul is a 2 time loser who is going for three straight. He'll succeed. In a few months his campaign will do what it always does. It will run out of money and interest will peter out. He'll go back to Texas where he belongs. He's a nice guy with Presidential ambitions that never materialized. You could fill a basket ball court a$$holes to elbows with others like him. Guys like Ron Paul, along with the people who support him, are they're own worst enemies. They will never be accepted by the mainstream voters. You don't like that, and think it should change. The fact of the matter is it won't. Everything else is just wishful thinking on your part, and we all know where that leads. The same place as his campaign....nowhere.
-
You realize that Anwar Al-Awlaki was a US citizen, right? You are also familiar with the 5th amendment to the Con forbidding a citizen being deprived of their life without due process? You realize that Awlaki was never indicted, never tried before a jury, never afforded legal counsel.
So if the president decides that YOU OR YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS are terrorists he can execute you without having to give any legal justification, even after you are dead.
Listen to yourself. And you wonder why Paul can't poll consistently over 10%? It's because people who think in such a warped manner support him. Awlaki was an enemy combatant. They have no rights, citizen or not. They are not afforded due process, nor should they be. Wake up. This guy was involved in all but countless plots to kill Americans. It is pure luck he didn't kill more than he did. He got what he deserved. Let's hope others like him do as well.
It is absolute nonsense the way you Ron Paul disciples try to connect some imaginary dots from the killing of Awlaki, a proven threat to America and it's citizens, to the government assassinating Vinnie the cab driver for too many unpaid parking tickets. This is precisely why Ron Paul won't get elected. Most Americans with an ounce of common sense don't want to be associated with such stupid, foolish, hypothetical thinking that has as much chance to materialize as Ron Paul's foolish policies.
-
Palin was a state governor, and this guy ran a pizza franchise, and she was "inexperienced", and this guy isn't?
He didn't run a franchise. He was CEO for the entire company.
-
435 people are elected to the House EVERY 2 years, not all of them are presidential material. In fact who was the last Congressman to be elected President? Garfield, and who the hell was he?
Precisely why:
1. We got BHO in the first place
2. Ron Paul and his supporters are looked at as kooks
And ifwhen Ron Paul isn't the nominee and BHO loses what say you? Eat your hat? Your words? Ron Paul's shorts?
So, it Ron Paul's fault that BHO is the President? Do tell. McCain needed a lot more than Paul's .03% to beat Obama.
-
He didn't run a franchise. He was CEO for the entire company.
So what? This country is up to it's eyeballs in CEO's. While it gives them economic and business experience, it by no means qualifies them to be President. Ross Perot proved that if he proved anything. CEO's operate like God in their own little kingdom they set up for themselves, through the corporate structure they and their board of directors create. When a President reaches the White House he must be able to work with people he not only disagrees with, but many times may even hate. Presidents can't fire Senators and Congressmen. They can only try to change their thinking to be more in line with what they want. That takes political skill and maneuvering. CEO's simply know how to give orders. If the person on the receiving end doesn't carry them out to the satisfaction of the CEO, he or she is simply gotten rid of. That's not the way it works in Washington politics.
Remember Ross Perot's silly comment he made during the debates when he said, "When I get in there these guys in the $1,500.00 suits and Alligator shoes will be GONE!" What did he think, that he could simply fire elected officials? That is the problem with CEO's and corporate king pins. That attitude will just get you shut down in Washington's inner circle. One only has to look at Hussein's "Jobs Bill". "Pass this bill RIGHT NOW!", he demanded. It went straight down the toilet because he cannot work with either House. He has no operative political skills. That is not something you learn in a corporate board room, or in law school. There is something to be said for good political skills. If you want to get anything done in Washington, that is.
-
It won't matter because Ron Paul has already started a Revolution.
And in 3 separate Presidential political campaigns, spanning 23 years where has it gone? You guys really have a difficult time with reality, don't you? This guy will be dissolved into dust, and he will have achieved no more politically than he has right now. Much the same can be said of his kid. He simply parrots everything the old man says. If the message isn't being listened to in the first place, a younger messenger won't change the way it's received.
-
So, it Ron Paul's fault that BHO is the President? Do tell. McCain needed a lot more than Paul's .03% to beat Obama.
Not what I said, the reason BHO was elected is because many people sat at home and didn't vote for McCain because he wasn't what the rank and file wanted. But any opposition to the nominee is a dynamic force, it's not one for one, and it has a much bigger impact than just the .03% you cite.
If you want a Libertarian Party you don't create it from the top down with a president, you start at the base, a grass roots level movement, like the Tea Party.
Why is it that Ron Paul supporters think they are smarter than everyone else?
-
Why is it that Ron Paul supporters think they are smarter than everyone else?
Same reason the Occupy Wall Street idiots think they are doing something productive. ::)
-
The only thing Mauler got right is that Alwaki was a US citizen murdered by the Govt with out the trial guaranteed by the Constitution. Being an enemy combatant does not change that. Any one who bitches about their "gun rights" but is OK with this is either an idiot or a hypocrite.
Ron Paul didn't start a revolution, if he had he would have been elected back in 88.
All he has done is motivate some ignorant people who know they are being fed BS in college, but have not yet studied the real issues enough to have a clue.
He keeps getting reelected, BFD, so didn't Ted Kennedy. What has he accomplished ? Name one bill that he has gotten passed.
He is ineffectual and even his son thinks he's a flake.
-
The fact Anwar Al-Awlaki was a citizen was more of a technicality, than it was of any consequence. His actions made him ripe for the picking, so to speak. If I did the same, I would expect the same, as would most Americans. I think even he did, which is why he tried to hide his whereabouts so carefully. Even he had enough sense to know being a United States citizen wouldn't shield him. There is a simple solution to all of this. If you want to be treated like an American citizen, then act like one, not it's enemy.
Stretching this into gun control doesn't make any sense. I can lose my gun rights as a Citizen by simply committing a felony, or less. And rightfully so. If I want to retain my gun rights I must behave and observe the laws of the land. Once lost it is a time consuming and costly legal procedure to reinstate them. In this country if you are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence you will lose your gun rights. If you do what Anwar Al-Awlaki did you will lose your life. He played the same exact game Bin Laden did. His outcome was the same as well. Both plotted, and succeeded in killing innocent Americans. The fact one happened to be a citizen had no bearing, nor should it have.
-
I think a couple of members of the forum could spend their time more wisely. Rather than making thousands of trolling responses on this forum, performing a little independent study and research could lead them out of the darkness. There is so much more to life than being a clueless keyboard warrior.
-
I think a couple of members of the forum could spend their time more wisely. There is so much more to life than being a clueless keyboard warrior.
I'm assuming you are referring to yourself, seeing as 8 of your 10 total posts on this forum are within the confines of this thread.
-
The fact Anwar Al-Awlaki was a citizen was more of a technicality, than it was of any consequence. His actions made him ripe for the picking, so to speak. If I did the same, I would expect the same, as would most Americans. I think even he did, which is why he tried to hide his whereabouts so carefully. Even he had enough sense to know being a United States citizen wouldn't shield him. There is a simple solution to all of this. If you want to be treated like an American citizen, then act like one, not it's enemy.
Stretching this into gun control doesn't make any sense. I can lose my gun rights as a Citizen by simply committing a felony, or less. And rightfully so. If I want to retain my gun rights I must behave and observe the laws of the land. Once lost it is a time consuming and costly legal procedure to reinstate them. In this country if you are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence you will lose your gun rights. If you do what Anwar Al-Awlaki did you will lose your life. He played the same exact game Bin Laden did. His outcome was the same as well. Both plotted, and succeeded in killing innocent Americans. The fact one happened to be a citizen had no bearing, nor should it have.
The fact that he was a citizen is all that matters, technicality or not.
You posted " I can lose my gun rights as a Citizen by simply committing a felony, or less".
That is not true, you have to be convicted of a felony or spouse abuse. They may hold your arms until after the trial, but if found not guilty they must be returned.
This guy had no trial, just some Washington A holes decided , "F*ck his rights, lets blow him up ".
If it was done to some one you agreed with you would be screaming bloody murder.
The fact that he was a peckerhead does not mean it's OK to ignore his rights.
I think a couple of members of the forum could spend their time more wisely. Rather than making thousands of trolling responses on this forum, performing a little independent study and research could lead them out of the darkness. There is so much more to life than being a clueless keyboard warrior.
I've been doing independent study for 35 years. Get informed and you too can be opinionated.
I'm assuming you are referring to yourself, seeing as 8 of your 10 total posts on this forum are within the confines of this thread.
ROFL ;D
-
The fact Anwar Al-Awlaki was a citizen was more of a technicality, than it was of any consequence. His actions made him ripe for the picking, so to speak. If I did the same, I would expect the same, as would most Americans. I think even he did, which is why he tried to hide his whereabouts so carefully. Even he had enough sense to know being a United States citizen wouldn't shield him. There is a simple solution to all of this. If you want to be treated like an American citizen, then act like one, not it's enemy.
Stretching this into gun control doesn't make any sense. I can lose my gun rights as a Citizen by simply committing a felony, or less. And rightfully so. If I want to retain my gun rights I must behave and observe the laws of the land. Once lost it is a time consuming and costly legal procedure to reinstate them. In this country if you are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence you will lose your gun rights. If you do what Anwar Al-Awlaki did you will lose your life. He played the same exact game Bin Laden did. His outcome was the same as well. Both plotted, and succeeded in killing innocent Americans. The fact one happened to be a citizen had no bearing, nor should it have.
Bill, I don't think the question here is if he deserved to die or not. The question is should the government be making that call based on no constitutional procedures or any type of review or set standards.
They simply decided he needed to be Offed (and I agree he did) because of reasons of their own choosing. I happen to agree with the reasons THIS time, but if they are allowed to pick the target based on their own secret reasons, I might not agree with the next few thousand they eliminate.
I have come to the conclusion, after my years of observation, that the government cannot, at any level, be trusted with unchecked power and particularly this one, the abuse of which will ensure there are no whistle blowers around to testify against it.
I don't like the statement that 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' because I like to believe there are those who are not corruptible, myself included, but anyone who wields that much power would have to have an incorruptible set of advisers to help keep them between the lines....and I have no hope that the any safeguards would prevent the abuse of this power.
It cannot be allowed.
-
Let me put it another way.
If citizens don't have the right to kill these politicians that richly deserve it, where do they get the right to kill citizens .
-
The fact that he was a citizen is all that matters, technicality or not.
If it was done to some one you agreed with you would be screaming bloody murder.
When you kill Americans all bets are off. Your "citizenship" isn't getting you anywhere, or getting you a trial instead of a missle up your a$$ in some far away land. If I "agreed" with what he did, I would deserve the same fate, because I would pose the same danger.
-
P.S. Lyndon Johnson was in the House of Representatives, not that that is relevant.
There were a lot of Presidents that were Congressman but most held another position before running for POTUS.
Lyndon Johnson, you really want to compare RP to Johnson? OK, be my guest. Johnson started his political carreer in the House but he came out of Senate, where he was the majority leader, to run as VP, not President. I don't mean to confuse anyone with facts...
-
Bill, I don't think the question here is if he deserved to die or not. The question is should the government be making that call based on no constitutional procedures or any type of review or set standards.
They simply decided he needed to be Offed (and I agree he did) because of reasons of their own choosing. I happen to agree with the reasons THIS time, but if they are allowed to pick the target based on their own secret reasons, I might not agree with the next few thousand they eliminate.
I have come to the conclusion, after my years of observation, that the government cannot, at any level, be trusted with unchecked power and particularly this one, the abuse of which will ensure there are no whistle blowers around to testify against it.
I look at it this way. You have 2 choices here. Let the government do what it is supposed to do, which is protect us from foreign invaders, (citizen or not). Or else look the other way and live with the consequences of this guys henchmen turning up somewhere with a truck bomb, (maybe on your street), and killing innocent people. I'll choose option A. It is ridiculous to think we can safely capture these guys and bring them to trial. We were lucky enough to get the opportunity to kill the guy with sophisticated weaponry. Capture would have been out of the question, if not totally impossible, and could have put American lives in danger. Look at Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It's been 10 years and they haven't even set a trial date yet. Not to mention how many millions we've spent on him already.
No, I'm sorry, but "the right way" is usually no way. Not to mention the cost. These people pose a clear and present danger to us far more than our government does. At least at this time. We were damn lucky with Bin Laden. Had we captured him instead of killed him it would have been yet another 10 year circus. Al Awlaki would have been far worse. Every bleeding heart would have poured out of the woodwork. There is no way to "square off" on the battlefield with these guys. It becomes a game of kill them when and where you find them. Bush said after 9/11 there would be nowhere for these guys to hide anywhere in the world. So far he has been right. I'm no fan of government. But with that said I'll pick them, along with their covert ways and methods of protecting us, over some greasy rag head that wants me dead. And I don't much care if he was born here, or in some Middle Eastern stink hole. Their intent is the same, so should be the punishment. I happen to agree with the reason THIS time too. And so far I have no reason not to believe I'll agree NEXT TIME as well. Let's hope they run out of guys before I change my mind.
-
Let me put it another way.
If citizens don't have the right to kill these politicians that richly deserve it, where do they get the right to kill citizens.
When those same citizens kill, or mastermind the killing of innocent Americans. When citizens are shot dead by the police in commission of a crime there is no trial, just a funeral. They were killed because they put an innocent American in danger. If it were your wife they protected by killing them, you would be thanking them, not screaming bloody murder. Cops are forced to play judge, jury, and executioner every day of the week they have to drop the hammer in the line of duty...........on United States CITIZENS.
-
When those same citizens kill, or mastermind the killing of innocent Americans. When citizens are shot dead by the police in commission of a crime there is no trial, just a funeral. They were killed because they put an innocent American in danger. If it were your wife they protected by killing them, you would be thanking them, not screaming bloody murder. Cops are forced to play judge, jury, and executioner every day of the week they have to drop the hammer in the line of duty...........on United States CITIZENS.
Bill, you can compare them to Cops when cops are empowered to meet in secret, decide who they want to off and for whatever reasons they decided.
Cops have a very limited list of reasons to shoot a someone and for sure there will be plenty of review afterwards. Even with all this, we have seen how many incidents where cops have abused their power and killed innocents, knowing full well they were innocent.
-
how many incidents where cops have abused their power and killed innocents, knowing full well they were innocent.
Then they go to trial for it. Like I said we don't have a lot of choices here. Capture requires troops, or at the least elite ground forces. And it is too risky. We don't necessarily have the right to go on foreign soil to get these guys if we were so inclined. Look at how pissed Pakistan got at us for violating their sovereignty. What the hell are we supposed to do with these guys, invite them to to the White House to chat? You have no options open except to find them, and kill them when you do. Or allow them to go free and continue to kill us. That option stinks.
-
When those same citizens kill, or mastermind the killing of innocent Americans. When citizens are shot dead by the police in commission of a crime there is no trial, just a funeral. They were killed because they put an innocent American in danger. If it were your wife they protected by killing them, you would be thanking them, not screaming bloody murder. Cops are forced to play judge, jury, and executioner every day of the week they have to drop the hammer in the line of duty...........on United States CITIZENS.
So you're saying that murders don't need to be tried to be executed ? But cops that murder some one should be tried before they're executed ?
You can't defend this dumbazz position.
-
So you're saying that murders don't need to be tried to be executed ? But cops that murder some one should be tried before they're executed ?
They are enemy combatants. They should be killed. They were killed. What is the problem? Oh, yeah.......He was a "Citizen". ::)
-
Then they go to trial for it. Like I said we don't have a lot of choices here. Capture requires troops, or at the least elite ground forces. And it is too risky. We don't necessarily have the right to go on foreign soil to get these guys if we were so inclined. Look at how pissed Pakistan got at us for violating their sovereignty. What the hell are we supposed to do with these guys, invite them to to the White House to chat? You have no options open except to find them, and kill them when you do. Or allow them to go free and continue to kill us. That option stinks.
I see what you are saying.
Because there is no other option to stop the guy because he is out of reach of all official US authority, if anything was going to be done it had to be outside official legal channels.
Then the procedure needs to be put in place, and I don't mean some Executive Order, but a legal process with a warrant type routine that would include a very high court.
Sure, it might take a bit of time, but if you KNOW the guy is that bad, do the work, have it reviewed and get your KOS order.
Search warrants of any kind take more time, but we would be fools if we said the guys in the coffee room down at the precinct could just decide if they were in the mood for a search on some scum bag that morning.
Doing it cause the guys in the back room thought he needed to go just doesn't cut it....not for the government.
-
I see what you are saying.
Because there is no other option to stop the guy because he is out of reach of all official US authority, if anything was going to be done it had to be outside official legal channels. Then the procedure needs to be put in place, and I don't mean some Executive Order, but a legal process with a warrant type routine that would include a very high court. Sure, it might take a bit of time, but if you KNOW the guy is that bad, do the work, have it reviewed and get your KOS order.
Search warrants of any kind take more time, but we would be fools if we said the guys in the coffee room down at the precinct could just decide if they were in the mood for a search on some scum bag that morning. Doing it cause the guys in the back room thought he needed to go just doesn't cut it....not for the government.
What kind of "procedure" are you going to put in place? This guy was a proven no good who had his hands in the killing of Americans. There was nothing else we could do. Look at how the Pakistanis jacked us off with Bin Laden for years tipping him off. You'll never get these guys any other way than we did with Al Awlaki. We are lucky we got him. The fact this guy was a "citizen" means nothing. It's a formality, nothing more. You don't hear anyone really bitching about it. These guys are like trying to catch a greased pig. You have to shoot them. If he had made contact with our government and wanted to turn himself in, he would have saved his own life. He didn't, now he's dead. I'm just not seeing a problem with any of this.
I don't put cops who make a mistake in the line of duty in the same category as some greasy rag head who has denounced his country, and wants to kill everyone in it, given the opportunity.
-
"...to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foriegn and DOMESTIC" doesn't say anything about a trial. That said there are limits to that. Of course the OWS subversives it wouldn't apply as they are a threat but so far are not killing people. Al Awlaki actively pursued the VIOLENT overthrow of the US government.
Although not 100% personally verified accurate:
In January 2010, White House lawyers considered the legality of attempting to kill al-Awlaki, given his U.S. citizenship. Opportunities to do so "may have been missed" because of legal questions surrounding such an attack. But on February 4, 2010, New York Daily News reported that al-Awlaki was "now on a targeting list signed off on by the Obama administration".
On April 6, The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing. Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council. U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing. The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11. People on the target list are considered military enemies of the U.S., and therefore not subject to a ban on political assassinations approved by former President Gerald Ford.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
BTW I love how we bounce from Pres canidates to anti-terrorism to nearly nekkid women and back, in a LOT of the posts around here ;D
-
I'm ashamed of you two.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec1
Section 3 - Treason Note
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
-
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Besides it wasn't just treason, it's also sedition.
Treason is the ACT of trying to overthrow the govenrment.
Sedition is INCITING others to overthrow the government
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381
§ 2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2384
§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2388
§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.
The UCMJ, for example, doesn't have an article covering treason, only mutiny and sedition.
894. ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
-
Two things are going on.
1) This Admin. "condemned" water boarding and enhanced interrogation techniques. Saying it is inhumane and cruel.
2) All that had to be done, is very simple.
A formal Declaration Of War by Congress.
A Trial In Absentia. Followed by a press conference.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/nobel_peace_laureate_assassinates_american_citizen_1.html
SOME kind of due process is better than the same techniques, Hitler, Hussien, Chavez, and every other dictator has used to exterminate troublesome dissidents, seditious traitors, and terrorists...
Tout American Exceptionalism? Fine,...Walk the walk. All was needed was a brief press conference, stating evidence has been presented to a tribunal, SCOTUS, FED panel, whatever, and we have determined that Al-Alwaki is an imminent threat, a danger to this country, weighed the evidence, and determined he is an enemy combatant and traitor to this country.
He therefore will become a target of opportunity, and if unable to be captured, may perhaps be killed as an enemy of this country.
THAT"S IT,...Enough due process.....DONE, Constitutional req's met....Go get him.
None of this slippery DC basement held "no names" that can determine who is next....
The SS did the same....Aren't we slightly better than that?
-
Since he was a civilian the UCMJ does not apply, secondly, like mutiny, sedition is not illegal for civilians,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
In 1832, the House Judiciary Committee denounced the Sedition Act as unconstitutional, permitting the refund of fines which had been paid under it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub. L. No. 65-150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds. One historian of American civil liberties has called it "the nation's most extreme antispeech legislation."[1]
It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. Those convicted under the act generally received sentences of imprisonment for 5 to 20 years.[2] The act also allowed the Postmaster General to refuse to deliver mail that met those same standards for punishable speech or opinion. It applied only to times "when the United States is in war."[3] It was repealed on December 13, 1920.[4][/b]
Be all that as it may, your reference shows you are wrong and you know it.
You clearly highlighted " A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
This guy got no trial, no court martial, just some stupid pricks playing God.
TW, the only problem with your post is that Hitler and Stalin, hell, even Pol Pot operated with in the frame work of their laws unlike this regime.
-
I may have missed something, but it seems our "rights" under the Constitution are being "morphed" into the framework of the dictators you and I both cited.
If their laws "allowed this", we are becoming no better.
-
I found the US Code section, see above
Most of that section has been the same, with minor wording changes since the end of WW2
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt)
-
I found the US Code section, see above
Most of that section has been the same, with minor wording changes since the end of WW2
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt)
Find the part that says no trial required to impose a sentence.
Your basic premise that it is OK for the Govt to kill a citizen with out trial is stupid, and indefensible, I don't care what document you quote.
If you actually read them you will notice they all require a trial before execution no matter what kind of scumbag your dealing with.
I expected better from you.
-
So what?
I was merely pointing out what I considered a fairly significant misspeak. Saying a CEO = a franchise owner is like saying Lee Iacoca owned a car dealership. I don't care if you agree with the guy or not. Can we at least accurately represent the man?
This country is up to it's eyeballs in CEO's. While it gives them economic and business experience, it by no means qualifies them to be President. Ross Perot proved that if he proved anything. CEO's operate like God in their own little kingdom they set up for themselves, through the corporate structure they and their board of directors create. When a President reaches the White House he must be able to work with people he not only disagrees with, but many times may even hate. Presidents can't fire Senators and Congressmen. They can only try to change their thinking to be more in line with what they want. That takes political skill and maneuvering. CEO's simply know how to give orders. If the person on the receiving end doesn't carry them out to the satisfaction of the CEO, he or she is simply gotten rid of. That's not the way it works in Washington politics.
I think you oversimplify this a bit. CEOs can and do act that way within their organization. Inside the Executive Branch, there are many folks that serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them at will. However, a CEO (just like a President) also has to work with folks outside of his organization (partners, suppliers, and so on). They also have to work with shareholders. To say that a CEO is automatically inept at working with others is ridiculous. They tend to be problem solvers, which is something we woefully lack right now. They also tend to be able to call bovine fecal matter "BS" which politicians seems unable to do.
Remember Ross Perot's silly comment he made during the debates when he said, "When I get in there these guys in the $1,500.00 suits and Alligator shoes will be GONE!" What did he think, that he could simply fire elected officials? That is the problem with CEO's and corporate king pins. That attitude will just get you shut down in Washington's inner circle. One only has to look at Hussein's "Jobs Bill". "Pass this bill RIGHT NOW!", he demanded. It went straight down the toilet because he cannot work with either House. He has no operative political skills. That is not something you learn in a corporate board room, or in law school. There is something to be said for good political skills. If you want to get anything done in Washington, that is.
Vaguely, but I'd have to hear it in context again. If he said it in the context you imply, then yes, it was ridiculous. However, Bush I had plenty of political experience, and he promised "No New Taxes", when it's patently obvious that the President doesn't control that. Being a career politician doesn't make one smart. Compromising doesn't make one a good politician. If these are your criteria, McCain must've been your dream candidate. "Getting something done" is not the same as accomplishing something good.
I haven't made a decision yet. I can't really seem to get excited about any of the candidates. Then again, I haven't really gotten excited about any of the candidates in my lifetime, so this isn't really new.
-
This guy got no trial, no court martial, just some stupid pricks playing God.
Since you're such a champion of citizens rights, how about telling us just how you would go about bringing these guys to justice? Remember, if you are going to play this by the book, you have to play it all the way. You can't violate a nations sovereignty to uphold citizens rights.
Now, let's look at the game from a factual standpoint, now that we've managed to totally cleanse it by upholding everyone's rights, laws, and sovereignty, and keeping everyone happy, including the guy who's trying to kill all of us.
1.) You can't kill him because you haven't tried him. He is a United States citizen who has denounced his country, but we all know that doesn't matter. He still has "rights".
2.) You can't capture him because you would by violating the sovereignty of the nation he was hiding out in by crossing their border without permission, and putting troops in their country to commit, what amounts to an act of kidnapping. Also, if the country he is hiding out in does not have an extradition treaty with the United States, you could not bring him back here for trial even if you were to capture him. You would be violating yet another law.
3.) The country he's hiding out in will not give you permission to enter their country to capture him, because they hate us as much or more than the guy we're trying to capture does.
4.) Going to the UN is as worthless as jacking off in a cup.
5.) There is no chance of getting him to "peacefully surrender".
So based on those facts and options, none of which will work without violating something, which option would you use to get him that I'm forgetting?
-
I may have missed something, but it seems our "rights" under the Constitution are being "morphed" into the framework of the dictators you and I both cited.
If their laws "allowed this", we are becoming no better.
And this is the money quote. We have - and have had for some time - a .gov that does not see our rights as inalienable, as God-given, as inherent in each of us because we exist. Rather, our rights, liberties and freedoms have been subsumed by an ever increasingly acquisitive Federal, state and even local .govs for their own aggrandizement, their own power and control over us, and our "rights" - in their view - only serve to get in the way.
Our country has been manipulated in virtually every way for decade to ensure the weakening of these rights, a well as the destruction of our economy and political system. All to allow a handful of stealth people to control and manipulate the power of this country.
-
I haven't made a decision yet. I can't really seem to get excited about any of the candidates. Then again, I haven't really gotten excited about any of the candidates in my lifetime, so this isn't really new.
This is the part of your post I'll address because the rest will just be more back and forth. I agree. I haven't gotten excited about any of these candidates in a long time. It appears this nation is all out of dynamic leaders, and has been for a long time. No one new appears to be coming down the pike. A lot of this is because we as voters have become obsessed with picking fly $h!t out of pepper.
For example, Gingrich is by far the most qualified. He was Speaker Of The House, and has vast experience in working with law makers and getting things done. He is a brilliant debater, and knows what to say, along with how to say it. He is an old school Regan conservative who understands economics as well as foreign affairs. He knows a tremendous amount of valuable people in Washington, and could put together a brilliant cabinet, and solid knowledgeable appointees in high positions....... But the people are more obsessed with his personal life, and the fact his wife hasn't paid her credit balance at Tiffany's. JFK was banging the hell out of Marlyn Monroe in the White House and no one cared.
Now we've become a nation of nit pickers who want a perfect candidate that doesn't exist, and never will. Then you have the Ron Paul crowd, which I am personally fed up with, and cannot stand any longer. These idiots think they know more, and are smarter than everyone else in the country. They think anyone who doesn't vote for Ron Paul wants big government, along with "more of the same". They all think they are economic geniuses who firmly believe Ron Paul is the only human being on the surface of planet Earth who can save this country. They have become so obnoxious in their blind praise of him it has become a total turn off listening to them swoon over his every word. He is a terrible debater, and manages to sink himself at most every opportunity.
They hate every other candidate and continually describe them all as "NEOCONS", a term they themselves can't define correctly 90% of the time. They all prove this the way they so broadly use, and misapply the term. The country is getting fed up with them as well, as Ron Paul never polls above the single digits for more than 10 minutes at a time. Soon he'll be going home a 3 time loser. This time let's hope it's for good. Then his followers can go back to not voting, which most shouldn't be doing in the first place.
It looks like the Republicans will get the White House regardless of who they run based on Hussein's miserable performance, which appears to be getting worse every day. I'm starting to perhaps hope they won't get the Senate. That way they can keep fighting with one another and pass nothing. That appears to be the better alternative based on what they have been passing. The only downside to that would be the inability of a full blown Republican legislature that could dump Hussein Care. Let's hope it doesn't get that far and the Supreme Court will dump it for us.
The spending has got to stop. That will mean more demonstrations, fighting and rioting because the have nots will crank up their bitching and moaning. Too bad. This will get bloody before it gets better. I'm getting tired of waiting for what appears to be inevitable. They won't seal the border until a massive amount of Americans die as a result of another attack which can be linked to a porous border and lackadaisical security along it. That is coming. It's when, not if.
It looks like we're going to get Romney with each passing day. Christie's support will make it OK for the conservatives and independents to vote for him. Cain will fizzle, much like Perry. His "9-9-9" plan will be shot full of holes because as soon as the average middle income American picks up a 4 function calculator they are going to realize just how much it's going to cost them. For example here in Arizona we already have had a 9.3% sales tax shoved down our throat to pay for all of our illegal invaders. Now add Herman's 9% national sales tax, and you're looking at 18.3% lumped on to everything you buy. That means a $1,000.00 pistol will cost $1,183.00 out the door. A $28,000.00 Camaro or Mustang $ 33,124.00 before you pay for any license, title, or "destination charges". Simply put, it won't fly, and will be shot full of holes.
The tax code may be overly complicated, but I'll take it over his ill conceived crap. The bottom line is we're going to pay more and get less whoever gets in. We simply have too many worthless idiots to support. If you doubt that, turn on the TV today and look at the filthy bums you have running up and down Wall St. The country is filling up with them faster than a dirty kitchen attracts cockroaches.
-
Since you're such a champion of citizens rights, how about telling us just how you would go about bringing these guys to justice? Remember, if you are going to play this by the book, you have to play it all the way. You can't violate a nations sovereignty to uphold citizens rights.
Now, let's look at the game from a factual standpoint, now that we've managed to totally cleanse it by upholding everyone's rights, laws, and sovereignty, and keeping everyone happy, including the guy who's trying to kill all of us.
1.) You can't kill him because you haven't tried him. He is a United States citizen who has denounced his country, but we all know that doesn't matter. He still has "rights".
2.) You can't capture him because you would by violating the sovereignty of the nation he was hiding out in by crossing their border without permission, and putting troops in their country to commit, what amounts to an act of kidnapping. Also, if the country he is hiding out in does not have an extradition treaty with the United States, you could not bring him back here for trial even if you were to capture him. You would be violating yet another law.
3.) The country he's hiding out in will not give you permission to enter their country to capture him, because they hate us as much or more than the guy we're trying to capture does.
4.) Going to the UN is as worthless as jacking off in a cup.
5.) There is no chance of getting him to "peacefully surrender".
So based on those facts and options, none of which will work without violating something, which option would you use to get him that I'm forgetting?
Actually you can, citizens have rights, not countries.
I don't see any thing here about the rights of foreign counties, (Except in finance )
Check for yourself
http://www.usconstitution.net/
As to the rest of your post it's pure BS, We got both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden in foreign countries
-
We got both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden in foreign countries.
They weren't citizens.
-
citizens have rights, not countries.
I don't see any thing here about the rights of foreign counties, (Except in finance )
So you have no problem with violating international law involving other nations sovereignty, just citizens rights. If you're going to pick and choose which laws and rights you are going to abide by, and which you're going to outright violate, what's the point? Just do as we did, which amounts to what ever the hell we want. Fly in and kill the bastard.
-
What kind of "procedure" are you going to put in place? This guy was a proven no good who had his hands in the killing of Americans. There was nothing else we could do. Look at how the Pakistanis jacked us off with Bin Laden for years tipping him off. You'll never get these guys any other way than we did with Al Awlaki. We are lucky we got him. The fact this guy was a "citizen" means nothing. It's a formality, nothing more. You don't hear anyone really bitching about it. These guys are like trying to catch a greased pig. You have to shoot them. If he had made contact with our government and wanted to turn himself in, he would have saved his own life. He didn't, now he's dead. I'm just not seeing a problem with any of this.
I don't put cops who make a mistake in the line of duty in the same category as some greasy rag head who has denounced his country, and wants to kill everyone in it, given the opportunity.
You either want to let the government pick and choose who they execute without control, as they did here, or you want to stop that practice, even though this time you agree with it. The next time you might not agree at all, but you have allowed the precedent to go unchallenged.
I'll quote one of Tom's posts...doesn't quite apply here but it is apt. "You should have stopped me when I took the roll."
-
My point in all of this is that sooner or later common sense has to kick in. When it does there is no other way to do this except the way we did it. Screw his "rights". Capture is all but impossible. There isn't anything else. You either have to kill the guy when and where you find him, or let him go. The later would be stupid. I am not buying into all of this "slippery slope" nonsense, in that if we allow the government to do this, the next thing is they'll be assassinating citizens for not paying back taxes, or some such silly, concocted foolishness. When anything even remotely happens like that there are consequences. One only has to look at Waco and Ruby Ridge to see what happens when the government oversteps it's bounds on it's own citizens. And before you again go off on some kind of legal tangent, remember that David Koresh and Randy Weaver did not denounce their country, or plot to kill anyone.
I'm not a civil rights, or constitutional lawyer and neither are you. With that said when an individual denounces his country, then plots to kill it's citizens, and attempts to carry out such attacks more than once, and successfully, (Fort Hood), then all bets are off. If that "fractures" a few of his rights he has, or once had, from a country he has since denounced, too bad. We as a nation have never faced a situation with enemies such as this. Because of it there very well may have to be some new laws enacted or rewritten. Until they are I see no reason to make something dangerous and complicated even more so by ignoring it, and letting someone of this caliber go free. There was no other way within reason to do it, period.
-
Find the part that says no trial required to impose a sentence.
Your basic premise that it is OK for the Govt to kill a citizen with out trial is stupid, and indefensible, I don't care what document you quote.
If you actually read them you will notice they all require a trial before execution no matter what kind of scumbag your dealing with.
I expected better from you.
The title that they are using for the basis of the trial on W's Military Commisions Act of 2006. It's tenuous because some of the wording isn't consistant.
Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
(a) Jurisdiction— A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants— Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.
(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive— A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
(d) Punishments— A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.
:"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means —
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
...
"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is —
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."
There is a great deal of debate about the unlawful enemy combatant definition since in one paragraph it says it applies to "aliens" and in others it does not. I'm not saying that there isn't sticking points and that the interprutation is vague, but there is laws and procedures in place that the average American has no business knowing. Sorry you can't have it both ways. Total transperancy isn't possible and you REALLY don't want to know everything either. At the same time an open trial as you are contending puts more Americans at risk. You are opening sources and techniques up for scrutiny by people we don't want to have that information.
-
My point in all of this is that sooner or later common sense has to kick in. When it does there is no other way to do this except the way we did it. Screw his "rights". Capture is all but impossible. There isn't anything else. You either have to kill the guy when and where you find him, or let him go. The later would be stupid. I am not buying into all of this "slippery slope" nonsense, in that if we allow the government to do this, the next thing is they'll be assassinating citizens for not paying back taxes, or some such silly, concocted foolishness. When anything even remotely happens like that there are consequences. One only has to look at Waco and Ruby Ridge to see what happens when the government oversteps it's bounds on it's own citizens. And before you again go off on some kind of legal tangent, remember that David Koresh and Randy Weaver did not denounce their country, or plot to kill anyone.
I'm not a civil rights, or constitutional lawyer and neither are you. With that said when an individual denounces his country, then plots to kill it's citizens, and attempts to carry out such attacks more than once, and successfully, (Fort Hood), then all bets are off. If that "fractures" a few of his rights he has, or once had, from a country he has since denounced, too bad. We as a nation have never faced a situation with enemies such as this. Because of it there very well may have to be some new laws enacted or rewritten. Until they are I see no reason to make something dangerous and complicated even more so by ignoring it, and letting someone of this caliber go free. There was no other way within reason to do it, period.
I agree....laws will h ave to be enacted or rewritten. Until then is it wrong to condone the illegal killing.
And what were the consequences besides a bunch of innocent folks killed and some cash awarded to some survivors?
And just who are the onse who decided all bets are off? Admin thugs in the back room like happened here? I say no, you seem to be saying yes.
-
I agree....laws will h ave to be enacted or rewritten. Until then is it wrong to condone the illegal killing.
It is far worse to allow this guy to continue plotting to kill Americans totally unchecked. Risk the death of more citizens to protect the "rights" of someone who wants to see those same citizens killed, until we can change the law? That is ridiculous. I take it the other way around. So will most Americans. Which is why you don't hear too many complaining about it.
-
It is far worse to allow this guy to continue plotting to kill Americans totally unchecked. Risk the death of more citizens to protect the "rights" of someone who wants to see those same citizens killed, until we can change the law? That is ridiculous. I take it the other way around. So will most Americans. Which is why you don't hear too many complaining about it.
You were to fast for me...I added two lines to the post after you responded. Here they are.
And what were the consequences besides a bunch of innocent folks killed and some cash awarded to some survivors?
And just who are the onse who decided all bets are off? Admin thugs in the back room like happened here? I say no, you seem to be saying yes.
-
It is far worse to allow this guy to continue plotting to kill Americans totally unchecked. Risk the death of more citizens to protect the "rights" of someone who wants to see those same citizens killed, until we can change the law? That is ridiculous. I take it the other way around. So will most Americans. Which is why you don't hear too many complaining about it.
Popular opinion doesn't make something right. I prefer our Republic to that Democracy.
And by that logic, since few Germans complained about Auschwitz, it was the right choice.
-
The title that they are using for the basis of the trial on W's Military Commisions Act of 2006. It's tenuous because some of the wording isn't consistant.
Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
(a) Jurisdiction— A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants— Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.
(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive— A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
(d) Punishments— A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.
:"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means —
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
...
"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is —
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."
There is a great deal of debate about the unlawful enemy combatant definition since in one paragraph it says it applies to "aliens" and in others it does not. I'm not saying that there isn't sticking points and that the interprutation is vague, but there is laws and procedures in place that the average American has no business knowing. Sorry you can't have it both ways. Total transperancy isn't possible and you REALLY don't want to know everything either. At the same time an open trial as you are contending puts more Americans at risk. You are opening sources and techniques up for scrutiny by people we don't want to have that information.
It appears that the "procedure" is in place, even if there might be some ambiguities.
If the competent "Commission" rules the individual an unlawful enemy combatant, he is subject to trial and then punishment, including death.
So the questions become. Was the secret group assembled according to these requirements, was a trial held - in absentia is fine as long as it is allowed in this law. And then was the sentence of the trial death?
As to the rest....actually I REALLY do want to know. However, I understand Need To Know and wouldn't want everything to be public knowledge.
However, that the procedure was followed and it timeline and a list of witnesses to the procedure would not be out of line.
-
I prefer our Republic to that Democracy.
That all sounds real noble and good. However it is just plain stupid to put American citizens in direct danger, by defending a another citizens "rights" who has denounced his country, and wants to kill as many of his fellow citizens as he possibly can. American lives come before anything. It does no good to be dead right.
-
There have been multiple news reports outlining that the National Security Council, the President, and DoJ all INDEPENDANTLY came to the concluision to add Al Awlaki to the list of targets as far back as Feb 2010.
The UK and UN both added him to the "Wanted" list shortly after we did for the same reasons we did.
In late April 10, representative Charlie Dent (R-PA) introduced a resolution urging the U.S. State Department to issue a "certificate of loss of nationality" to al-Awlaki. He said al-Awlaki "preaches a culture of hate" and had been a functioning member of al-Qaeda "since before 9/11", and had effectively renounced his citizenship by engaging in treasonous acts
Not a US Court, but he was also tried in Yemen
Al-Awlaki was charged in absentia in Sana'a, Yemen, on November 2 with plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda.[210] Ali al-Saneaa, the head of the prosecutor's office, announced the charges as part of a trial against another man, Hisham Assem, who had been accused of killing a Frenchman, also saying that al-Awlaki corresponded with Assem for months, encouraging him to kill foreigners.[210][211] The prosecutor said:
Yesterday a regular visitor of bars and discotheques in America ... Awlaki today has become the catalyst for shedding the blood of foreigners and security forces. He was chosen by Al-Qaeda to be the lead in many of their criminal operations in Yemen. Awlaki is a figure prone to evil devoid of any conscience, religion, or law.[212]
A lawyer for al-Awlaki denied he was linked to the Frenchman's murder.[211] On November 6, Yemeni Judge Mohsen Alwan ordered that al-Awlaki be caught "dead or alive".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki)
-
And what were the consequences besides a bunch of innocent folks killed and some cash awarded to some survivors?
That is the way our laws work. It worked for Ron Goldman's father against O.J. Simpson the same as it worked for Randy Weaver, the same as it worked for the survivors of the families of 9/11. Ron Goldman cannot be brought back to life for his father, no more than Weavers wife and kid can be for him. Nor can the people who died on 9/11. The only "justice" left to administer is money. The FBI paid Weaver millions. O.J. can't pay Goldman. The average 9/11 family was paid $1.8 million. It isn't fair, it's the best anyone can do.
And just who are the onse who decided all bets are off? Admin thugs in the back room like happened here? I say no, you seem to be saying yes.
Whoever has the intel that can provide a sure identification on him, and the military person or persons who can make the decision on if he can be taken out successfully without collateral damage that might cause a big international incident. In Bin Laden's case it was the President. My guess is he was involved in the decision making process here as well. In the least the Secretary Of State and Joint Chief's Of Staff.
-
The title that they are using for the basis of the trial on W's Military Commisions Act of 2006. It's tenuous because some of the wording isn't consistant.
Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
(a) Jurisdiction— A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants— Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.
(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive— A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
(d) Punishments— A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.
:"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means —
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
...
"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is —
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."
There is a great deal of debate about the unlawful enemy combatant definition since in one paragraph it says it applies to "aliens" and in others it does not. I'm not saying that there isn't sticking points and that the interprutation is vague, but there is laws and procedures in place that the average American has no business knowing. Sorry you can't have it both ways. Total transperancy isn't possible and you REALLY don't want to know everything either. At the same time an open trial as you are contending puts more Americans at risk. You are opening sources and techniques up for scrutiny by people we don't want to have that information.
There's that word again. Give it up J, every document you cite disproves your argument.
There isn't a single one of them that states "Arbitrary execution is OK".
Bill, you are just part of the problem. People like you deserve to get screwed by the Gov.
-
That all sounds real noble and good. However it is just plain stupid to put American citizens in direct danger, by defending a another citizens "rights" who has denounced his country, and wants to kill as many of his fellow citizens as he possibly can. American lives come before anything. It does no good to be dead right.
you are right...how could I doubt the wisdom of our government and this administration. Foolish of me to want to control the ability of them to execute an American citizen without due process (although jnevis' post indicates they may have followed the procedure).
Why think of all the time wasted with all the formalities they DID observe. Stupid to waste time when we could have just picked out a few we want out of the way.
As soon as we start to accept the government taking action outside the Constitution and Law, for any reason, we are on the way downhill....and that slope IS slippery.
-
There's that word again. Give it up J, every document you cite disproves your argument.
There isn't a single one of them that states "Arbitrary execution is OK".
Bill, you are just part of the problem. People like you deserve to get screwed by the Gov.
What part of it was arbitrary?
It is a stated fact that Al Awlaki was recruiting, training, and assisting with the planning and execution of American and Coalition civilians and combatants. We have mountains of evidence that he was doing it. He iwas universally cited as a leader in AQAP. Other countries found him guilty and called for his execution (Yemen, his "other" citizenship among them). Our own legal system, as screwed as it can be, determined he was a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. A military tribunal weighed the evidence and determined he was an enemy combatant. How many trials does this guy need have to have before it satisfies you? You can call foul all you want, the rules were followed and he was eliminated. Just because you couldn't watch it on Court TV is irrelevant. Plus they were in the process of stripping him of his citizenship. So if they had it would have been ok, since they didn't kill an American at that point, but since they hadn't it's not? Following that logic EVERY terrorist, no matter what country they are from requires a trial prior to eliminating them, just to make it "legal".
-
What part of it was arbitrary?
It is a stated fact that Al Awlaki was recruiting, training, and assisting with the planning and execution of American and Coalition civilians and combatants. We have mountains of evidence that he was doing it. He iwas universally cited as a leader in AQAP. Other countries found him guilty and called for his execution (Yemen, his "other" citizenship among them). Our own legal system, as screwed as it can be, determined he was a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. A military tribunal weighed the evidence and determined he was an enemy combatant. How many trials does this guy need have to have before it satisfies you? You can call foul all you want, the rules were followed and he was eliminated. Just because you couldn't watch it on Court TV is irrelevant. Plus they were in the process of stripping him of his citizenship. So if they had it would have been ok, since they didn't kill an American at that point, but since they hadn't it's not? Following that logic EVERY terrorist, no matter what country they are from requires a trial prior to eliminating them, just to make it "legal".
For me, just one. The one listed in your legal reference that comes right after the Tribunal rules that he is an unlawfull enemy combatant.
(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive— A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
I didn't write the law, so if it applies to to many folks, don't complain to me about it.....but while it is the law, the government must follow the procedure.
And I do believe a trial is necessary where called for. Trials have formal procedures for entering evidence. "Everyone knows" or "It is a stated fact" alone are not evidence. Let the evidence be submitted formally in the trail that is specified in this law.
-
Bill, you are just part of the problem. People like you deserve to get screwed by the Gov.
When laws that are supposed to protect it's citizens, force those same citizens to live in deliberate danger, something is very wrong. All the legal chest pounding and mumbo jumbo you want to pile up on top of that isn't going to replace common sense.
-
When laws that are supposed to protect it's citizens, force those same citizens to live in deliberate danger, something is very wrong. All the legal chest pounding and mumbo jumbo you want to pile up on top of that isn't going to replace common sense.
Poor Herman...he has had his thread hijacked by us.
and I'd agree if I expected common sense from the government instead of abuses of power.
-
For me, just one. The one listed in your legal reference that comes right after the Tribunal rules that he is an unlawfull enemy combatant.
...
And I do believe a trial is necessary where called for. Trials have formal procedures for entering evidence. "Everyone knows" or "It is a stated fact" alone are not evidence. Let the evidence be submitted formally in the trail that is specified in this law.
And the tribunal was held, behind closed doors, with the determination in early 2010 that he WAS an enemy combatant, therefore a target. I just didn't list the entire timeline, since it's moot, the end result is still the same.
This is a forum of intelligent individuals, with strong opinions of how our government SHOULD be run. We may not always agree with what happens, or with each other, but at the end of the day the discussions give all of us a better understanding of the process. There are parts of that process that HAVE to be kept from the general population, no matter how "illegal" it appears to those not directly involved. At no point do they have to present the case to the open population. This isn't the OJ trial, with the world watching. We may not like it, but we should respect the fact that we are not allowed to know EVERYTHING for our own safety.
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” -George Orwell
-
and I'd agree if I expected common sense from the government instead of abuses of power.
In actuality you got it. They whacked Al Awlaki. It was the common sense play to make.
-
There are parts of that process that HAVE to be kept from the general population, no matter how "illegal" it appears to those not directly involved. At no point do they have to present the case to the open population. This isn't the OJ trial, with the world watching. We may not like it, but we should respect the fact that we are not allowed to know EVERYTHING for our own safety.
Excellent point. The public's "right to know" does not always extend into such matters.
-
It looks like the Republicans will get the White House regardless of who they run based on Hussein's miserable performance, which appears to be getting worse every day.
I wish I shared your optimism. I don't think we should underestimate the Republicans' inability to field a candidate with more job suitability than a bucket of warm urine. It's tough to beat an incumbent, and it's tougher to beat one that has the media on its side.
-
I wish I shared your optimism. I don't think we should underestimate the Republicans' inability to field a candidate with more charisma than a bucket of warm urine. It's tough to beat an incumbent, and it's tougher to beat one that has the media on its side.
Normally I would agree with you, but not this time. The Republicans won't have to beat this incumbent because he has already beaten himself. I keep on saying this because it is a fact. No incumbent American President has ever been reelected with an unemployment rate over 7.5% since Roosevelt. Hussein has it even worse. Every day gets worse than the last. If things continue the dems might even run someone else rather than run the risk of losing not only the Presidency, but the Senate as well. His own party wants him less than the Republicans do. He went from being their darling to their doom. The media can't prop up sap. It runs too much.
-
Back to the OT....
Anyone else got a better idea?....
-
In actuality you got it. They whacked Al Awlaki. It was the common sense play to make.
and you expect this to be the start of a long string of good common sense moves?
We aren't going to come to an agreement here.
I don't think the government should violate legal procedures and the law when I like the reason they are doing it, and you do.
-
And the tribunal was held, behind closed doors, with the determination in early 2010 that he WAS an enemy combatant, therefore a target. I just didn't list the entire timeline, since it's moot, the end result is still the same.
This is a forum of intelligent individuals, with strong opinions of how our government SHOULD be run. We may not always agree with what happens, or with each other, but at the end of the day the discussions give all of us a better understanding of the process. There are parts of that process that HAVE to be kept from the general population, no matter how "illegal" it appears to those not directly involved. At no point do they have to present the case to the open population. This isn't the OJ trial, with the world watching. We may not like it, but we should respect the fact that we are not allowed to know EVERYTHING for our own safety.
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” -George Orwell
Please don't put words in my mouth. Show me were I have said the trial should be open and covered by MSM. I said that the law called for a trial and one should be held in the presence of reliable witnesses, not open to the public or with full disclosure.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty for a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty or Safety." Ben Franklin
-
and you expect this to be the start of a long string of good common sense moves?
We've been killing these guys for years. Where have you been? We just whacked another one today. Just 10 minutes ago on O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly, (who holds a law degree), said it would be perfectly legal for the President to use drones to kill Iranian leaders in Iran. Yeah I know they're not "citizens". I think beside you and Tom, no one else cares. So we'll put you two in charge of worrying about it.
-
Anyone else got a better idea?....
The tax code needs reforming, but "9-9-9" isn't it. Third grade arithmetic can prove why. It instantly puts a 18% burden on the average American. Far more when you factor in a state sales tax, which in many states can be up to 10%. When the numbers are crunched, and his opponents start picking it apart like Santorum has started to already, this whole thing is going to be a ball and chain around Cain's neck.
It's ill conceived and neither House will EVER buy into it. Nor should they because it allows the government to tax you both ways. Now they can only tax your income. Under this abortion they can tax both your income, as well as your spending. If passed how long do you think the national sales tax would remain at just 9%? In no time it would be raised to 10%, then 11%. This thing would be a financial disaster to the average American who is struggling now. 9% on your income, plus another 9% on virtually everything you buy outside of food and medicine. And trust me, once the government gets their hand in the till for 9% of your purchases, they'll tax your chow and pills as well. They pissed away our Social Security, and robbed Medicare dry. Don't think for a second food and medicine are off the table.
-
What part of it was arbitrary?
It is a stated fact that Al Awlaki was recruiting, training, and assisting with the planning and execution of American and Coalition civilians and combatants. We have mountains of evidence that he was doing it. He iwas universally cited as a leader in AQAP. Other countries found him guilty and called for his execution (Yemen, his "other" citizenship among them). Our own legal system, as screwed as it can be, determined he was a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. A military tribunal weighed the evidence and determined he was an enemy combatant. How many trials does this guy need have to have before it satisfies you? You can call foul all you want, the rules were followed and he was eliminated. Just because you couldn't watch it on Court TV is irrelevant. Plus they were in the process of stripping him of his citizenship. So if they had it would have been ok, since they didn't kill an American at that point, but since they hadn't it's not? Following that logic EVERY terrorist, no matter what country they are from requires a trial prior to eliminating them, just to make it "legal".
For an American Citizen to be killed by the American Govt requires an American conviction.
If you weren't so pigheaded about this you would see that .
Why doesn't Texas increase revenue by contracting executions for Mexico.
Cuz it's stupid.
-
So Tom, by your standard every tribunal at Gitmo needs to be on Court TV and published in every paper?
You're the first to say that the media and the government doesn't tell us everything, which I agree too. Sure it would be easy to come out and say that the tribunal saw the evidence and found him guilty, but in doing so jepardizes the sources and capabilities used to collect the data. Bitch all you want, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE NEED TO KNOW. This isn't BHO's birth certificate, it's an on-going war on terrorism with other targets on the table.
-
Go ahead, hide behind "Need to know" like a typical govt hack.
The Constitution is clear and you are just grasping at straws to support BS.
If the UN were ever "patrolling in the US", or what ever the tin foil crowd claims, it will be suckers like you under the blue helmets.
I used to think well of you, but you are no better than the New Orleans LEO's during Katrina.
Just remember the magic words J, Befeln ist befeln.
Ve must have ordnung !
-
I'm sorry you feel that way Tom but look at it from another perspective.
Not saying ANYTHING and letting the Tom Bogans of the world say it's illegal and complain means we can contiue to gather data and use it to find, target, and capture/eliminate terrorist threats and give you the right to continue to complain in relative peace. Acknowledging the tribunal happened would require the intel community to release what we knew, when we knew it, and how we got the information. That puts guys down range in danger and causes us to loose valuable time to rebuild the capability to gather the data, meaning we run the risk of getting attacked again. I have a LOT more insight into what's happening and I think it's the right call, that's all I'll say.
I don't like the gov't running amok any more than you do, but there are limits to transperency and blabbing everything we do to the evening news. Like Spock says, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." Your safety and the safety of those downrange outweigh letting the world know everything we do because a few people that are actively trying to kill us happen to be citizens.
-
I'm sorry you feel that way Tom but look at it from another perspective.
Not saying ANYTHING and letting the Tom Bogans of the world say it's illegal and complain means we can contiue to gather data and use it to find, target, and capture/eliminate terrorist threats and give you the right to continue to complain in relative peace. Acknowledging the tribunal happened would require the intel community to release what we knew, when we knew it, and how we got the information. That puts guys down range in danger and causes us to loose valuable time to rebuild the capability to gather the data, meaning we run the risk of getting attacked again. I have a LOT more insight into what's happening and I think it's the right call, that's all I'll say.
I don't like the gov't running amok any more than you do, but there are limits to transperency and blabbing everything we do to the evening news. Like Spock says, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." Your safety and the safety of those downrange outweigh letting the world know everything we do because a few people that are actively trying to kill us happen to be citizens.
jnevis, Drop your smokescreen about those opposing this action wanting it all on the evening news. I have never stated that and neither has Tom. Either you are dreaming or deliberately trying to cloud the issue. In either case, it makes for a poor argument.
Next, you mention a quote from Spock. Unless you want to limit it's validity to only the cases you approve of, it is exactly the argument the current administration is using to promote Marxism/Socialism. If you mean it only has validity when you want it to, you can drop that argument also.
Last, the Tom Bogans of the world did not say it was illegal, it was the legal reference you posted. Try to read it this time.
(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive— A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
Did you manage to notice the word trial?
By your own reference, there needed to be a trial. And before you start blowing smoke about it not being possible, remember I previously posted that a trial in absentia should be allowed and that the trial also performs the function of having the evidence formally presented to the judges at the trial. Please note that I have said NOTHING about making it public, so don't throw up that red herring again.
The only requirement I think should be there is that a timeline of when the events required by this law be available and that the members of the Tribunal and the Trial Judge Roster should be known so that we don't have it consisting of BHO, Michelle, their two daughters and Eric Holder. I'd like to be assured of a little more qualification and lack of bias.
It would be nice to see someone I trusted on the Tribunal and Trial Judge roster...but I don't imagine Larry Potterfield would be chosen even if he is available.....
-
I'm sorry you feel that way Tom but look at it from another perspective.
Not saying ANYTHING and letting the Tom Bogans of the world say it's illegal and complain means we can contiue to gather data and use it to find, target, and capture/eliminate terrorist threats and give you the right to continue to complain in relative peace. Acknowledging the tribunal happened would require the intel community to release what we knew, when we knew it, and how we got the information. That puts guys down range in danger and causes us to loose valuable time to rebuild the capability to gather the data, meaning we run the risk of getting attacked again. I have a LOT more insight into what's happening and I think it's the right call, that's all I'll say.
I don't like the gov't running amok any more than you do, but there are limits to transperency and blabbing everything we do to the evening news. Like Spock says, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." Your safety and the safety of those downrange outweigh letting the world know everything we do because a few people that are actively trying to kill us happen to be citizens.
Your position keeps changing, mine remains the same.
I don't give a crap about public, although most murder trials are. My focus has consistently been on the point that the US Govt is violating the Constitution when it executes a US citizen with out trial.
The fact that you have been reduced to quoting a fictional character paraphrasing Lenin contradicting the stated purpose of the Founding Fathers is pathetic
When considered in the context of your Govt employment it becomes scary.
-
Both sides of this arguement are making assumtions that, regetably, we will never know the whole story.
You are assuming the trial never happened, while I'm saying it did, just that the records are more than likely sealed and the information will not be released. Would I like to see it released, hell yes. Do I believe it will ever happen, no. I never once said it wasn't possible.
We don't openly discuss the other trials being held at Gitmo or release the details of them, why should this one be any different? Because the accused is an American? So his nationality gives him more rights than any other terrorist? They have only acknowledged that they are happening, not the members, accused, or witnesses.
John Walker Lindh was given an "open" federal trial, only because we captured him alive, in Afghanistan, prior to the law referenced earlier being written. We didn't even know he was a threat until he was captured. Al Alwaki had been operating for years and was well known so an in abstetia trial/tribunal; isn't outside the realm of the possible.
-
The fact that you have been reduced to quoting a fictional character paraphrasing Lenin contradicting the stated purpose of the Founding Fathers is pathetic
When considered in the context of your Govt employment it becomes scary.
This from the guy that resorted to name calling and ranting. How very Democratic of you.
-
Both sides of this arguement are making assumtions that, regetably, we will never know the whole story.
You are assuming the trial never happened, while I'm saying it did, just that the records are more than likely sealed and the information will not be released. Would I like to see it released, hell yes. Do I believe it will ever happen, no. I never once said it wasn't possible.
We don't openly discuss the other trials being held at Gitmo or release the details of them, why should this one be any different? Because the accused is an American? So his nationality gives him more rights than any other terrorist? They have only acknowledged that they are happening, not the members, accused, or witnesses.
John Walker Lindh was given an "open" federal trial, only because we captured him alive, in Afghanistan, prior to the law referenced earlier being written. We didn't even know he was a threat until he was captured. Al Alwaki had been operating for years and was well known so an in abstetia trial/tribunal; isn't outside the realm of the possible.
More BS.
Here's 10+ pages of hits on "Gitmo trials"
http://www.ask.com/web?l=dis&o=15492&qsrc=2873&q=gitmo%20trials
Lets look a few titles
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/10/ap-military-guantanamo-trials-transparency-added-100511/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_military_commission
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40178.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/022208_rigged_trials.htm
http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpps/news/change-planned-for-next-gitmo-trials-dpgapx-20111005-to_15345693
That's just picked off the first 2 pages, nope, no info there. ::)
This from the guy that resorted to name calling and ranting. How very Democratic of you.
Name calling ? By comparing you unfavorably to a Nazi ? They were obeying their laws, you want to chuck them out the window if you don't like the victim.
Democratic ? No thank God, I support the Republic, not mob rule.
-
I conceed that I cannot find anything either way on whether a trial actually occurred.
The White House ordered its lawyers to prepare a carefully drafted legal opinion that would permit the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, the United States-born al-Qaeda leader killed by a drone attack in Yemen last month.
A 50-page argument was written in 2010 to justify the potential killing of al-Awlaki, it has emerged. As he was an American citizen, the Government would in normal circumstances have been legally prevented from executing him without first staging a fair trial.
The existence of the secret document, which effectively dodged that protocol, was revealed yesterday by the New York Times.
Al-Awlaki's assassination would be lawful only if it was not possible to capture him alive, it concluded. Because his circumstances were deemed unique, the opinion does not set a future precedent for the US to kill any citizen it suspects of posing a terrorist threat
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/terrorism/news/article.cfm?c_id=340&objectid=10758115
End result is the same, one less dirtbag.
To much stuff to get accomplished to worry about it, since i'm a "pigheaded gvernment hack"
-
Back to the OP:
What is Cain's opinion on 2d Amendment?
http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Cain/Gun-Control.php (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Cain/Gun-Control.php)
The Second Amendment: Individual or Collective Right?
Cain is a firm supporter of the Second Amendment.
“I support the Second Amendment … I support, strongly support, the Second Amendment. I don’t support … onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment …”
June 7, 2011 , An interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer
Sounds good for a sound bite.
Legislations
Cain’s view on the Second Amendment is completely at odds with the mainstream conservative Republican position, in that, Cain favors state level gun control legislations..
“… yes, that (gun legislations) should be a state’s decision.”
June 7, 2011 , An interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer
A little concerning from a National CCW reciprocity stand point but would be less of a chance of a national AWB among other things.
-
Back to the OP:
What is Cain's opinion on 2d Amendment?
http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Cain/Gun-Control.php (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Cain/Gun-Control.php)
The Second Amendment: Individual or Collective Right?
Cain is a firm supporter of the Second Amendment.
“I support the Second Amendment … I support, strongly support, the Second Amendment. I don’t support … onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment …”
June 7, 2011 , An interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer
Sounds good for a sound bite.
Legislations
Cain’s view on the Second Amendment is completely at odds with the mainstream conservative Republican position, in that, Cain favors state level gun control legislations..
“… yes, that (gun legislations) should be a state’s decision.”
June 7, 2011 , An interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer
A little concerning from a National CCW reciprocity stand point but would be less of a chance of a national AWB among other things.
That is the one objection I have to Cain, Freedom of speech, Voting rights, Slavery, etc. none of the other amendments are state decisions.
In fact several were passed specifically to take the matter out of the states hands, and have been used to force states to do things like segregation that they did not want to do.
-
I posted a Cain "clip", on the Politics Thread, and did present it as a "soundbite" approach to appease the lawful gun owners of this Country, as well as a "diluted, watered down leave it up to the States to decide"..
The question I have is Legislation vs. Regulation.
As we found in McDonald, after Heller, is Ill, CA, MA, NJ, and DC, can abide by Federal Legislation, but by local/state Regulation, can make it impossible, or a hindrance, too much trouble, too expensive, too many hurdles, get it registered, cops fire and keep a round "on file", keep it in your house, but don't defend yourself in your garage, as it's not your technical dwelling type BS.
Either way, Cain did not impress me with his position. And our MSM in the debates, asks BS questions, and allows all the candidates, to give BS answers.
Same with the Nat. Reciprocity Act. Why do I need another level of Fed. incompetence for a Constitutional Right? That is "supposed" to apply to ALL States in this Union?
IMHO, I don't think Cain is a threat to my firearms. But he won't be a proponent to lessen any State Regulating/Banning. or other BS either.
Like the Alabama immigration law,....the Feds incapability to enforce it's own laws, caused Alabama/Arizona, to enact their own...
Both are being sued, or appealed, and picked apart by the FED Court System.....
-
It will be a whole lot easier to tile Cain in the direction we want him to go, as he is leaning that way pretty much now, than tilt most anyone else that way.
-
It will be a whole lot easier to tile Cain in the direction we want him to go, as he is leaning that way pretty much now, than tilt most anyone else that way.
I have to agree with Solus, Perry has done well with Texas, but Cain has twice taken failed business', which pretty much describes our economy, and turned them into money makers.
While Perry is solidly good on gun rights, Cain can be lead in the right direction, even more so since guns are not a big issue in this campaign while the economy is.
Romney would sign anything that got to his desk.
-
End result is the same, one less dirtbag.
And it was the necessary and correct result. There are over 300,000,000 people in this country. How many are complaining about the death of Al Awlaki as being improper? That right there should tell you something. The 299,999,998 that aren't are not asleep at the switch. They're just not so good at connecting abstract dots to read, here come the black helicopters!
-
It will be a whole lot easier to tile Cain in the direction we want him to go, as he is leaning that way pretty much now, than tilt most anyone else that way.
Pick up a 4 function calculator and figure out how much his stupid, ill conceived "9-9-9" plan is going to cost you, and you won't be walking away from Herman Cain, you'll be running away!
-
Herman Cain admits ‘some people will pay more’ under 9-9-9
Published: 9:40 AM 10/16/2011 | Updated: 4:10 PM 10/16/2011
By Alex Pappas--The Daily Caller
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain admitted Sunday that “some people” would pay more in taxes every year under his “9-9-9” tax reform plan.
“That’s right. Some people will pay more,” Cain told David Gregory of NBC’s Meet the Press. “But most people will pay less, that’s my argument.”
Cain’s plan throws out the current tax system by establishing a 9 percent corporate tax, a 9 percent income tax and a new 9 percent national sales tax. During a lengthy discussion with Gregory, Cain defended his plan from critics who say the plan will make lower income earners pay more.
Asked by Gregory who will pay more, Cain said, “The people who spend more money on new goods. The sales tax only applies to people who buy new goods, not used goods. That’s a big difference that doesn’t come out.” ???
Cain took issue though with Gregory saying “the reality of this plan: the wealthiest Americans would pay less, the poorest Americans and middle class would pay more.”
“I do dispute that,” Cain said. “You and others are making assumptions about what wealthy Americans will do with their money and you’re making assumptions about…the middle class and the poor. You can’t predict their behavior.” ???
“More people will pay less in taxes,” he said.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/16/herman-cain-admits-%e2%80%9csome-people-will-pay-more%e2%80%9d-under-9-9-9/ (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/16/herman-cain-admits-%e2%80%9csome-people-will-pay-more%e2%80%9d-under-9-9-9/)
OK I'm having trouble making a whole lot of sense of the bolded part. So if I buy from Goodwill, a pawn shop, or a used car lot I'm OK but if I buy anything new I pay more? If that's the case, then TAB's comments about it hurting the small business owner is correct. If I'm the owner of a gun shop, or any other small retail store, I have to pay all three tiers of the plan on everything, including my payroll, inventory, and profits. So now I have to fire an employee to afford the tax increases, since I was just on the edge anyway. How's that helping create jobs? Since I might need a new car, I look at a used lot since I get a tax break instead of buying new. New cars sales tank and the auto co's lay off more workers and/or send more jobs overseas to reduce costs.
As for the second part, haven't we been complaining about BHO being out of touch with middle America? Last time I checked there were multiple "indicators" that show how people spend money; housing starts, household goods sales, auto sales, and the like. You can to some extent predict what peopl eare spending money on. In a bad economy people save as much as they can to cover long term expenses. Better economic conditions the "wealthy" (a nebulous definition, since according to some anyone making over $70K an year is wealthy) are more apt to use thier money to buy stuff or start a business. Pretty predictable.
Maybe I misread it, it's been known to happen. ;D
-
Forget how they always try to translate the whole "Wealthy vs. Poor" argument, and examine the plan for what it is. It gives the government a whole new tax vehicle they do not have now. The ability to tax your spending as well as your income. We have people continually wanting, and whining for a smaller, less expensive government. How is it these same people can get behind a plan that opens the door for greater taxation of it's people from a perspective that now does not exist? It's just plain stupid.
Tax laws work for everyone, not just "the rich". These so called "flat taxes" are not all they are cracked up to be. "9-9-9" will hurt middle income people far more simply because they are required to spend a higher percentage of their income to exist in a civil society. Therefore they will be taxed on a higher percentage of their income overall when all is said and done. The average American spent more than they earned last year. Under Cain's plan they will be hit the hardest as opposed to a higher income person who invests more than they spend.
If you invest in tax deferred investments, and don't piss your money away under today's tax laws, you'll make out. Under Cain's plan you won't because everything will either change, or else be replaced. It is a case where simple isn't always "better". You have to think beyond your paycheck. As always it's not what you make, but rather what you do with it after you make it. With Cain it isn't going to matter much, because it will limit most, if not all your options.
-
Pick up a 4 function calculator and figure out how much his stupid, ill conceived "9-9-9" plan is going to cost you, and you won't be walking away from Herman Cain, you'll be running away!
Got a better idea ?
Or are you happy to continue with the same old failed policies ?
-
Got a better idea ?
Or are you happy to continue with the same old failed policies ?
How do you figure they are "failed"? I'm married with no children and my wife does not work. We file jointly. Last year I paid almost no Federal Income tax because of the way I invested my income under today's current tax laws. I did not "cheat". I simply utilized the deductions and investment options that were avaliable to me, along with anyone else, the way they are written. Why would I want something "simpler" if it's going to cost me more of my money to implement it? That makes no sense.
Most people know how to do two things with money. Earn it and spend it. Cain's plan is aimed at them, and perhaps it doesn't matter because most of those people won't ever get ahead in life, regardless of what kind of tax laws they implement, or how "simple" they are.
-
How do you figure they are "failed"? I'm married with no children and my wife does not work. We file jointly. Last year I paid almost no Federal Income tax because of the way I invested my income under today's current tax laws. I did not "cheat". I simply utilized the deductions and investment options that were avaliable to me, along with anyone else, the way they are written. Why would I want something "simpler" if it's going to cost me more of my money to implement it? That makes no sense.
Most people know how to do two things with money. Earn it and spend it. Cain's plan is aimed at them, and perhaps it doesn't matter because most of those people won't ever get ahead in life, regardless of what kind of tax laws they implement, or how "simple" they are.
For starters, because I was on unemployment for most of the year, with no deductions and still paid about $1,000 in income tax while you worked all year and paid nothing.
There should be no loop holes.
I actually do have a better idea that I've outlined else where in the forum, but it would never get past the Congress.
-
For starters, because I was on unemployment for most of the year, with no deductions and still paid about $1,000 in income tax while you worked all year and paid nothing.
There should be no loop holes.
They are not "loopholes". They are the tax code, and they apply to anyone and everyone the same way. Not everyone is in the same financial position. You have many options of what you can do with your money. The Federal government, (as much as you seem to hate them), actually give people a damn good incentive to save and become self reliant. IRA's, 401 K's, tax deferred annuities, and many other investment options allow you to invest, and pay no taxes now, and at a far reduced rate later. This is a good thing.
The problem is as I said, most people save nothing, and to make matters worse, borrow far too much. They are their own financial worst enemy. That is not the governments fault. They, (the government), are in fact giving people the opportunity to invest, and pay them less doing it. The smart ones take advantage of this. Many do not, and blame the government for their own shortcomings. These people then in turn blame "the rich" for getting all the breaks, and using all the "loopholes". These Wall St. idiots prove that. They want to blame everyone but themselves for their inability to generate wealth in an environment where others have. They think the whole playing field should "be more level", when in fact it already is. They just can't take advantage of it because they are not as disciplined with money as many others are.
In your case you have become the victim of a bad economy, like many others have. It is bound to happen to most at some point in their lives. Now you find yourself paying tax at a time when you can afford it the least. Welcome to Herman Cain's plan. If he gets his way your pain will be equally spread throughout the nation. I fail to see how that improves anything?
-
They are not "loopholes". They are the tax code, and they apply to anyone and everyone the same way. Not everyone is in the same financial position. You have many options of what you can do with your money. The Federal government, (as much as you seem to hate them), actually give people a damn good incentive to save and become self reliant. IRA's, 401 K's, tax deferred annuities, and many other investment options allow you to invest, and pay no taxes now, and at a far reduced rate later. This is a good thing.
The problem is as I said, most people save nothing, and to make matters worse, borrow far too much. They are their own financial worst enemy. That is not the governments fault. They, (the government), are in fact giving people the opportunity to invest, and pay them less doing it. The smart ones take advantage of this. Many do not, and blame the government for their own shortcomings. These people then in turn blame "the rich" for getting all the breaks, and using all the "loopholes". These Wall St. idiots prove that. They want to blame everyone but themselves for their inability to generate wealth in an environment where others have. They think the whole playing field should "be more level", when in fact it already is. They just can't take advantage of it because they are not as disciplined with money as many others are.
In your case you have become the victim of a bad economy, like many others have. It is bound to happen to most at some point in their lives. Now you find yourself paying tax at a time when you can afford it the least. Welcome to Herman Cain's plan. If he gets his way your pain will be equally spread throughout the nation. I fail to see how that improves anything?
Of course you don't, you are one of the ones milking the system.
Just like GE.
-
These so called "flat taxes" are not all they are cracked up to be. "9-9-9" will hurt middle income people far more simply because they are required to spend a higher percentage of their income to exist in a civil society. Therefore they will be taxed on a higher percentage of their income overall when all is said and done.
How does a flat tax of X% make the middle income people pay a higher percentage? X% is X% is it not?
-
How does a flat tax of X% make the middle income people pay a higher percentage? X% is X% is it not?
I believe he is looking at the sales tax of 9% which is higher than most folks are paying now.
Since non-rich have a higher % of their income going to non-discretionary spending, like food, basic housing, fuel, utilities, etc., they will be paying a higher percentage of their income unless these items are excluded.
-
Even the uber-rich have to pay for their house, fuel and food.
I don't really like the idea of a National sales tax either, but the economy needs CPR not a bandaid.
Don't forget, everyone of us is paying a 35% corporate tax now.
I haven't heard of any real plan for the economy exept for sound bites of "I'm going to focus on jobs." I will admit that since the election is over a year away, I haven't really been looking though.
All I care about is getting rid of the POS that currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As has been stated before, we will not find the "Perfect" candidate. Such a thing doesn't exist.
-
Even the uber-rich have to pay for their house, fuel and food.
I don't really like the idea of a National sales tax either, but the economy needs CPR not a bandaid.
Don't forget, everyone of us is paying a 35% corporate tax now.
I haven't heard of any real plan for the economy exept for sound bites of "I'm going to focus on jobs." I will admit that since the election is over a year away, I haven't really been looking though.
All I care about is getting rid of the POS that currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As has been stated before, we will not find the "Perfect" candidate. Such a thing doesn't exist.
Yes they are paying for food.....but the % of their income that goes to food will be small compared to the % paid by a low income person.
If each spend $100/mo on food and say the tax is $9 and the low income person makes $900/mo, they are paying 1% of their income to that tax. I rich person making $10,000 a month is only paying .1% of their income to the tax.
They are not paying a higher % of tax, but it is a greater portion of their available income.
-
Of course you don't, you are one of the ones milking the system.
Just like GE.
So you've NEVER had a deduction in the past? It was a tax break then , but now it's a loophole? Were you "milking the system" then? Your previous argument boils down to equal protection under the law, but now you're saying it shouldn't apply to taxes? If I can't use it no one should?
I don't make enough to afford to get significant deductions, matter of fact I was penalized for not paying enough taxes quarterly so I had to pay at the end of the year. I changed my deductions so I shouldn't have the same problem this year. Is that gaming it too? My only direct deductions have been the kids, the interest on my house, and college bills. The others being 401k investments for retirement. So having kids, owning a house, going to school, and saving for retirement are loopholes?
Is it a flawed system, yes. Is a flat tax the only solution, no. Do I think it's a bad one, probably.
-
No, J I've always filed 1040 EZ
-
Sorry to hear that. I think that is part of what BIll is getting at. The kind of deductions I mentioned are available to anyone, just there are a lot of people who either choose not to use them or for any number of reasons can't. That doesn't make it a loophole or taking advantage of the system. Its' the "American Dream" last time I checked (family, a home, an education, and a decent retirement). The law is written for people to be able to get a break if they are doing something to better themselves or save for the future. Are there corporations that take advantage of the current laws too, yes. Most of the breaks for companies were originally for the ones that are hiring people, making jobs is a good thing. Penalizing the little guy trying to run the corner gun/flower/... shop because he "makes to much money" and gets a break on his taxes isn't going to help anybody. Plus as has been mentioned before a national sales tax is something that could quickly go very wrong. The local sales tax when I was a kid was around 7%, it's now 12%. You don't think that Cain's 9% won't do the same thing? Sure the "rich" pay more in actual $s in taxes but the lower/middle class pay more than they can afford to.
Would I still vote for him if nominated. Definately. Do I want to see if someone else has a better plan, yes.
-
Of course you don't, you are one of the ones milking the system.
How is keeping more of what I earn "milking the system"? I don't want anything from the government. By the same token I don't want them getting anymore from me than I absolutely have to give them. People earning nothing and receiving entitlements are "milking the system". By guys like me paying as little as possible into it, their world of self reliance becomes more forced upon them. That is the way capitalism should work. If you want to help support the democratic version of it by expanding the tax base, be my guest. You will then be more accommodating in helping them "milk it" by paying the added taxes, which will in turn provide the milk.
-
How does a flat tax of X% make the middle income people pay a higher percentage?
They don't pay a higher percentage, they spend a much higher percentage of their income on necessities, which will be subjected to Cain's 9% national tax. Someone earning far more will spend a significantly less percentage of their income on those same necessities. Yes, they will be taxed dollar for dollar the same, but the less one makes, the harder the hit will feel economically for them.
-
Are there corporations that take advantage of the current laws too, yes. Most of the breaks for companies were originally for the ones that are hiring people, making jobs is a good thing.
This is the part so many just don't get. Democrats cry and whine how the big corporations get all of these horrible tax breaks. This increases their profit margin which equates to more jobs through increased hiring, and a larger employee base as they grow larger and more powerful, higher salaries, larger stock dividends for their investors, and bigger profits across the board. That is what capitalism is based on.
The flip side is instead you tax the pi$$ out of them and the government is the benefactor. They then proceed to waste every penny of it through entitlement programs, useless wars, and out and out waste and bad monitary management. Which is better? I would rather see a "fat cat" get fatter, than an idiotic government run by the likes of Hussein and Pelosi waste their hard earned profits by literally stealing it from them in increased taxes. Remember, those private jets don't build themselves.
-
They don't pay a higher percentage, they spend a much higher percentage of their income on necessities, which will be subjected to Cain's 9% national tax. Someone earning far more will spend a significantly less percentage of their income on those same necessities. Yes, they will be taxed dollar for dollar the same, but the less one makes, the harder the hit will feel economically for them.
Not true if, and it's a big IF what he says is true. That all other "hidden" taxes on goods are eliminated in the process!
Remember, every single part of a supply chain is taxed by either the Feds or the states and according to his statements, all of those taxes would be gone.
Again, it's got a one in a quadrillion chance of become law but it's getting people thinking. I've never been able to defer investment monies into a tax shelter because of my personal situation. I've only been able to take the simple deduction over my 39 years of being a taxpayer. But, if someone taxed my income at 9%, I'd save money. If I paid 9% on my spending and an addition 6-1/4% on my state taxes on things that are actually taxed in my home state (food and clothing are currently exempt) than I would be making my money work for me rather than for the state or the Fed.
Granted, I don't spend a lot on things I don't need. Most of the things I need to survive are exempt in my state. The fact that my electric bill is raped monthly, my cell phone bill is raped monthly, my cable bill is raped monthly and every other utility is being gang raped monthly will change, at least according to the Cain plan on taxes.
-
yeah becuase industrys making less then 10% profit are just evil and need to be taxed more... ::)
you would be amazed at how low the profit % are for most companys. For most its single digets, the gas station on the corner for example, might make a few cents a gallon, they normally make more on the guy buying a couple sodas then they do on some one filling up and paying with a credit card.
between me and my partner, we get around 5% of our gross and we split that. So yeah, taxing us more is a good thing, that way that 5% can become 3%... that will make us want to reinvest in the company and hire more people...
-
yeah becuase industrys making less then 10% profit are just evil and need to be taxed more... ::)
you would be amazed at how low the profit % are for most companys. For most its single digets, the gas station on the corner for example, might make a few cents a gallon, they normally make more on the guy buying a couple sodas then they do on some one filling up and paying with a credit card.
between me and my partner, we get around 5% of our gross and we split that. So yeah, taxing us more is a good thing, that way that 5% can become 3%... that will make us want to reinvest in the company and hire more people...
TAB, you are aware that anything that you buy that is for RESALE is not taxable under most state law don't you?
Also, 10% GROSS profit annually is considered the norm for moderate growth.
-
TAB, you are aware that anything that you buy that is for RESALE is not taxable under most state law don't you?
yeah too bad we don't resale anything... we buy are stuff retail( granted very low mark up retail as we buy alot from our suppliers) then charge the custmer our costs.
CA says you can't be a retailer and a wholesaler at the same time, and since we wholesale several products, that we have manufactors for us, we can't buy stuff whole sale.
just as well it means we don't have to deal with sales tax... which is a good thing.
oh yeah if your intrested in power use recording gear, PM me, maybe you can be one of our retailers...
-
yeah too bad we don't resale anything... we buy are stuff retail( granted very low mark up retail as we buy alot from our suppliers) then charge the custmer our costs.
CA says you can't be a retailer and a wholesaler at the same time, and since we wholesale several products, that we have manufactors for us, we can't buy stuff whole sale.
just as well it means we don't have to deal with sales tax... which is a good thing.
I've said it before kid. You need to move to another state.
There is no reason that what you do can't be done profitably in another area of the country!
-
I've said it before kid. You need to move to another state.
There is no reason that what you do can't be done profitably in another area of the country!
do you even know what we do?
I'll give you a hint the recent change in title 24 has help us a bunch.
-
do you even know what we do?
I'll give you a hint the recent change in title 24 has help us a bunch.
That last I heard you do energy audits. Regardless, you should be able to sell yourself and make a profit that isn't raped by the state that you reside in. Do you think that Kalifornistan is the only state that needs your services?
I have no problem with conserving energy! Green is a bit off the edge but saving a company energy equates to saving a company money in the short and the long term and I've not worked for ANY company that isn't willing to save money!
-
"Green" is a load of liberal BS.
The idea of increased energy efficiency to lower expenses is simply economic common sense .
-
"Green" is a load of liberal BS.
The idea of increased energy efficiency to lower expenses is simply economic common sense .
BINGO!
-
but do other states mandate smart meters?
you know the ones that charge you more by when you use your power? Thats our spot in the market place, others can tell you the total power used, but can't tell you when. becuase of a few pattens my biz partner owns, we can tell you exactly when you are using said power.
We also have a insualtion company.
Tom most green is BS. We actually have real world solutions that don't rob peter to pay pual.
Oh you want a green tip that every one can do and save them selfs $$$ and use alot less water?
Pee in the shower. Really, it well save 584 gallons of water per person, per year( 1.6 g/flush toilets). if your charged by the cubic foot, it will save you about 78 cubic feet a year.
-
but do other states mandate smart meters? you know the ones that charge you more by when you use your power?
I doubt AZ mandates them but APS wants every home they service to have them in place by 2013-4.
Oh you want a green tip that every one can do and save them selfs $$$ and use alot less water? Pee in the shower.
Does the sink count? Usually I remove the dishes first....
-
( 1.6 g/flush toilets)
The perfect example of government stupidity and "green" thinking. It takes nothing to clog one of these things. So you end up crapping, then flush, and wiping, then flush again. Your 1.6 gallon flush toilet now becomes 3.2 gallons minimum. And believe me I've had deposits that require 3 or more flushes! Ever try cleaning a plunger you used because the present "load" didn't quite make it? You can thank your government if you have. Trust me the thinking employed with this monstrosity isn't "green" it's brown!
-
That all other "hidden" taxes on goods are eliminated in the process! Remember, every single part of a supply chain is taxed by either the Feds or the states and according to his statements, all of those taxes would be gone.
Please don't make me laugh because this isn't even close to being the truth. The reason is simple. How many taxes in your lifetime have you ever seen "eliminated" in favor of another? I have never seen or heard of one. Have you ever seen toll roads made free? The Golden Gate Bridge cost $35,500,000.00 to build. In fiscal year 2009-10, approximately 123 million vehicles crossed the seven state-owned toll bridges in the Bay Area, generating approximately $466 million in total toll revenues. In short, San Francisco takes in over 13 times in one year in tolls alone what it costs to entirely build the Golden Gate Bridge. Illinois toll road system is much the same. They were only supposed to remain "toll roads" until the bonds were paid off. That was over half a century ago. Everyone is still not only paying, but paying more.
Taxes are much like gun control. They won't give up one gun law to get another. This is why we have over 20,000 gun laws on Federal, state, and local levels. And yet none of them make any sense, because now the liberals preach we need "common sense" gun laws. Will they get rid of one of the 20,000 in favor of one that applies common sense by their own admission? Not hardly. They'll give up taxes even less.
Cain's plan is lip service to get him elected, nothing more. And that is only if people are stupid enough to buy into it. I won't argue if they are or aren't. They elected Hussein so anything is possible in that regard. As far as "hidden taxes" being eliminated in favor of a "flat tax"?.... You'll never see it in your lifetime, anymore than you will see the IRS eliminated. Once you start these government departments they never go away, they just continue to feed and grow larger and more powerful in the process. Yet do nothing. The "Department Of Homeland Security" is a perfect example. We have yet another government department to feed that costs hundreds of billions, and our southern border still leaks like a sieve. Once you have a child you can never stop feeding it until it can take care of itself. The difference between government and children is they never become self sufficient. They just require more "food".
Because Cain's plan attacks the governments money supply, it has even less chance of becoming reality than Ron Paul's nonsense that he's trying to sell. Like the closing of 800 military bases worldwide, and returning this nation to a gold standard. Politicians preach a lot of hot air on the campaign trail. But this years bunch are exceptionally full of it.
-
Don’t tell Occupy Wall Street: Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be boon for private equity titans
By Zachary Roth
Senior National Affairs Reporter
PostsEmailRSSBy Zachary Roth | The Lookout – 14 hrs
Under Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan, the managers of private equity funds--one of the most lucrative financial structures on Wall Street--would pay, on average, an income tax rate of just around 6 percent.
That's less than the 9 percent rate most workers would pay, and it's a huge dropoff from the best assessment of the tax rate for private-equity fund managers under the existing tax code, which is around 29 percent.
An accountant with the American Institute of CPAs prepared an analysis on Friday, at the request of Yahoo News, that found that Warren Buffett would likely pay no income taxes under Cain's 9-9-9 plan. But the plan would be almost as kind to those who run private equity funds. They would pay "a very, very small effective rate," Robert Willens, a tax adviser to financial firms and a former managing director at Lehman Brothers, told The Lookout.
...
In a typical private-equity fund, the managers are paid about 2 percent of the firm's assets as a managing fee, plus 20 percent of the fund's profits--the "2 and 20" standard. But they pay income tax only on the 2 percent managing fee. The fund's profits are reported as "carried interest," which count as long-term capital gains. Under the current tax system, those gains are taxed at a rate of just 15 percent.
Under Cain's 9-9-9 plan, which has helped push him to the top of several polls of the 2012 Republican presidential field, long-term capital gains would not be taxed at all.
...
So under Cain's plan, which imposes a flat 9 percent income tax on everyone, private-equity managers would pay a 9 percent rate on the 66.7 percent share of their earnings that are subject to income tax. That comes to 6 percent of their total income, a reduction of almost 80 percent from the roughly 29 percent rate that Metrick and Kasuda's finding indicates they're currently paying.
Cain's plan lacks specifics, so it conceivably could involve closing the carried interest loophole. Asked by The Lookout whether Cain would continue to treat carried interest as a capital gain, a spokesman for the campaign pledged to respond, but did not do so before deadline.
"Will get back to you on carried interest," Rich Lowrie, Cain's top economic adviser and the man who helped devise the 9-9-9 plan, wrote in a subsequent e-mail to The Lookout.
Didn't we collectively complain a LOT about non-specific policy details and the constant "I'll get back with you." answers from BHO? Just saying. He's still better than BHO but...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/don-t-tell-occupy-wall-street-cain-9-225053818.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/don-t-tell-occupy-wall-street-cain-9-225053818.html)
-
The perfect example of government stupidity and "green" thinking. It takes nothing to clog one of these things. So you end up crapping, then flush, and wiping, then flush again. Your 1.6 gallon flush toilet now becomes 3.2 gallons minimum. And believe me I've had deposits that require 3 or more flushes! Ever try cleaning a plunger you used because the present "load" didn't quite make it? You can thank your government if you have. Trust me the thinking employed with this monstrosity isn't "green" it's brown!
That is just way to much information.
Come on Bill, we have standards here, they may be low, but we do have them. ;D
-
The perfect example of government stupidity and "green" thinking. It takes nothing to clog one of these things. So you end up crapping, then flush, and wiping, then flush again. Your 1.6 gallon flush toilet now becomes 3.2 gallons minimum. And believe me I've had deposits that require 3 or more flushes! Ever try cleaning a plunger you used because the present "load" didn't quite make it? You can thank your government if you have. Trust me the thinking employed with this monstrosity isn't "green" it's brown!
You've hit on one of my top pet peeves. Those damn "efficient" toilets.
It it mandatory to use at least two flushes to reduce the chance of clogs and 3 flushes to make them work like the "wasteful" toilets did.
The bowl doesn't hold enough water to loosen the paper and excrement, so it gets into the drain in a more solid clump. Two flushes seems to push the solid clump farther along, but does little to loosen it. The three flushes seem to add enough agitation through movement and additional water to do the job.
Yeah...and because there is little water in the bowl, cleaning them or the tools needed to keep them flowing is a real PITA.
Can you think of much that is more ludicrous for the Congress of the US to be involved with and feel the need to legislate than how your crapper works?
-
That is just way to much information.
Come on Bill, we have standards here, they may be low, but we do have them. ;D
You are gonna really love my follow up to Bill's post then ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Sorry, I had to.
-
Can you think of much that is more ludicrous for the Congress of the US to be involved with and feel the need to legislate than how your crapper works?
I think they also regulate how much sugar is allowed in Ketchup.
-
I think they also regulate how much sugar is allowed in Ketchup.
Yeah...and I guess they could mandate the maximum number of toilet paper sheets allowable per wipe/dump.
I've had plumbers tell me their business clearing out plumbing blockages due to toilet waste back up has increased nicely since the new special toilets have become mandatory.
It is much cheaper to do some extra flushing than pay a plumbing bill.
Maybe the Yahoos will leave wiping alone since they can't find the location for it using both hands.
-
Yeah...and I guess they could mandate the maximum number of toilet paper sheets allowable per wipe/dump.
I've had plumbers tell me their business clearing out plumbing blockages due to toilet waste back up has increased nicely since the new special toilets have become mandatory.
It is much cheaper to do some extra flushing than pay a plumbing bill.
Maybe the Yahoos will leave wiping alone since they can't find the location for it using both hands.
there is a reason why the toilet in the master bath is an american standard made in 39... its a little over 5 gallons a flush, but I've never had to double flush. besides I pee in the shower so I'm saving water that way...
-
Perhaps if they legalize dope the Mexicans can make a profit smuggling in contraband, high volume toilets to the American black market?
-
there is a reason why the toilet in the master bath is an american standard made in 39... its a little over 5 gallons a flush, but I've never had to double flush. besides I pee in the shower so I'm saving water that way...
pee in the back yard and give a little back to nature ;D ;D
-
pee in the back yard and give a little back to nature ;D ;D
I think you get a death sentence for that here... its only a 1/4 arce lot, but I do have a double split face block wall that I built around it... besides the back yard is all pea gravel. Might put in a small patch of grass when the son gets older... by older I mean like 10 or 11 so he can be out there mowing the lawn. The front is done by the teenager that lives up the street. he does a better job then the mexicans for less money too. I can tell he is going to be a go getter, that kid is always working. :)
Billt I use to have every one ask me for the old toilets I took out of the 100 year old homes... I've yet to see a new toilet work as well as the old ones. I've seen it all, dump buckets, presurized, large holes, funky traps... you name it. still can't flush worth a shit.
-
I think you get a death sentence for that here... its only a 1/4 arce lot, but I do have a double split face block wall that I built around it... besides the back yard is all peea gravel. Might put in a small patch of grass when the son gets older... by older I mean like 10 or 11 so he can be out there mowing the lawn. The front is done by the teenager that lives up the street. he does a better job then the mexicans for less money too. I can tell he is going to be a go getter, that kid is always working. :)
Billt I use to have every one ask me for the old toilets I took out of the 100 year old homes... I've yet to see a new toilet work as well as the old ones. I've seen it all, dump buckets, presurized, large holes, funky traps... you name it. still can't flush worth a shit.
FIFY ;D ;D
and the kid can use a push mower earlier =))
-
Wow, it never fails to amaze me around here...
Presidential canidate, to Constitutional Law, to econimic theory, to the toilet all in the same thread ;D
-
Priceless. ;D
The Commerce Dept. which "regulates all they can", just ask Cass Susstien our Regulatory Czar, was never intended to mandate lightbulbs, or toilets, or MPG, etc,......
Another usurping gov't body, enabled by a citizenry, that allowed it to happen....
"For the children"....
Al Bundy was right all along...
-
-
This alone has me liking Cain now:
http://www.hermancain.com/lolwut (http://www.hermancain.com/lolwut)