Enemy Expatriation Act Could Strip Americans of Citizenship

lol

I can almost guarantee that if Kucinich's wife got more screen time everyone in America would vote for Kucinich. Because we're sexist.

It's too late, America.

  On 1/24/2012 at 8:00 AM, disparaissant said:

im with baph 100%

you probably could have guessed that though

 

ron paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. the fact that so many self-proclaimed leftists are willing to take the shit he spews at face value and buy into it just boggles my mind. he voted for DOMA. he voted for the partial birth abortion ban. he introduced federal legislature decreeing that life beings at conception. he's a liar and a hypocrite.

his anti-war stance is not an anti-war stance, it's an isolationist stance that comes from his racist, paranoid john birch society background. it's based almost entirely on xenophobia. he wants to pull us from defense pacts. he is fucking nuts.

his anti-war on drugs stance is an anti-federal war on drugs stance. if the states want to execute you for an oz. of weed well STATES RIGHTS, BRO.

his opposition to the civil rights act is fucking scary in a country where polls show that in some southern states, voters would like miscegenation laws to come back.

his opposition of the CRA and placement of property rights over the rights of citizens forecasts a dystopian future corporatocratic oligarchy that would be more at home in a fucking shadorun scenario than a supposedly "first world country."

he admitted that he didn't think we should have gotten involved in world war 2, for fuck's sake.

let's not even get started on his economic weirdness. you know, his financial ideas that are nearly unanimously considered untenable and insane.

i could go on but i'll spare you.

man just look how happy he is to be hanging out with the founder of the internet's largest white supremacist message board.

wotta peach.

lol, ok. a lot of these are good points, and a lot of them aren't. Ill try to explain my position one by one.

He voted for DOMA-Well, that's a good point LOL...I don't think I can defend that one. I do think its fair to revise some of the existing legislation to make civil unions include all the legal entitlements that marriages do...I don't know if he supports that though.

Partial-Birth-Again, yeah, good point, but considering partial-births account for less than two-tenths of a percent of all abortions done in the United States and that the doctors having done the procedure get to go before a medical review board, this doesn't really boil my balls all that badly.

What defense pacts? You mean NATO and NAFTA? These are essentially monopolized western cartels. NATO was formed as a reaction to the creation of Soviet buffer states in Eastern Europe. Its old hat and doesn't need to exist anymore. In fact, part of the reason OPEC gave the United States so much flak was because of NATO pressuring all states in the Middle East to back down on Israel. Its a continuation of colonial policy and its IMHO intolerable.

About the states' rights and execution for possessing weed, how is that not just as paranoid as what you claimed above? What state in their right mind is going to execute people for marijuana? Do you know how expensive that would be? The appeals system that would happen? The trials? How much larger and overbloated the police force would have to be? Paul certainly has moments of paranoia there, but come on, how is this any less crazy?

Ok, now for the Civil Rights Act. I'm not excusing Paul, and I don't necessarily agree with him on this point, but historically ther ehave been valid reasons to oppose the Civil Rights Act not only from white but also black communities. Affirmative action is a big point of it, and you know the whole argument against that, but there is another problem. A lot of Democrats and (to a lesser extent Republicans) used the passage of the Civil Rights Act to embarrass political opponents who opposed it on constitutional grounds....now these opponents were not all racists, Robert Byrd, sure...Thurmond, no doubt, but there were also a lot of Northern Democrats who had quandries over racial quotas and busing being enforced in school systems. ....fucking Hubert Humphrey, one of the bigger supporters of the bill was incredibly worried about enforcement of racial quotas. Don't even get me started about the effects it had on the ERA movement or fair wages for women.

Now, how can I argue this without being a racist? Well, because a lot of libertarians have the view that once there is a certain amount of legislation defending minorities not already inherent in the constitution, any semblance of egalitarianism collapses. The minority should have already been protected against. Anyway, others like Sowell and Friedman can argue this point much better than I can..I personally don't really buy into it, but I can certainly understand the qualms people had about the Civil Rights Act during its passage.

Finally, lets be realistic. Do you honestly forsee the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment being rescinded, and having minority populations throw up their arms and take it in the ass? There would be mass pandemonium if something like that were to occur. That's why its easier to pass shit like the Enemy Expatriation Act to usurp all citizens' rights in one fell swoop.

Economic policies?-Im right there with you sister, amen. I was converted by chen along with some healthy readings of Schumpeter and Friedman. Its incredibly naive to assume that Paul's "hands off" would do anything other than completely entrench those mega-corps already on life support due to corporate socialism. At the same time, its almost unanimous among current economists that a stimulus is necessary at least in the temporary run of things, because even the Austrian school never experienced a globalized economic structure like we have today, nonetheless the US is over 15 trill in debt....according to most Austrian econs, this govt. by all means should have collapsed by now.

Not getting into WWII? Ok, I gotta say if you actually looked into US involvement prior to WWII, you would have no doubt in your mind that we shouldn't have been involved. The problem is that most Americans buy into the fantasy that our involvement in WWII started in 1941, when in fact we had been involved since the 1930s. I could go on at great length about this for hours, but basically you have a couple of major steps:

1936- Complicit support and financial aid to Nationalist China against the Communist Chinese, this then turns into financial (and later weaponry) aid against the Japanese invasion.

Then you have a series of acts which later culminated in the first Lend-Lease Act of 1941, which, despite overwhelming opposition from the public allowed financial aid to flow into Gr. Britain and the Allied forces. Yet we still proclaimed "neutrality" while still conducting business affairs with Germany.

Finally, prior to the Pearl Harbor bombing, FDR places an oil embargo on the Japanese, and threatens to cut off steel exports as well, citing that until Japan withdrew from China, the embargoes would continue. At this point, and its very clear from govt. records, the US military was expecting military reprisal for these actions. What other choice did Japan have? All the big boys from the west got their own little chunks of Asia, but all of a sudden when you have a rising power in the East this is unacceptable? Its completely understandable to see why Pearl Harbor happened in this context.

There was a huge push towards withdrawing military power after witnessing the horrors of WWI...so much that there was immediately Congressional investigations on how the US military industrial complex operated and unduely influenced the government into taking action that may not have been necessary given the circumstances.

My point is, I don't really consider myself a Paul supporter anymore in the sense that I think he is qualified to run the country. However, I do think it is worth keeping him in the political dialogue because it means people from both sides of the political aisle will start to seriously look at how both Dem and Rep. administrations are and have been destroying the constitution and our protections.

It's sweet irony that the supposed reason 9/11 happened was that the crazy mooslims hated American Freedom. And what does America do in response, chip away them. FLOL

  On 1/24/2012 at 6:29 PM, azatoth said:

It's sweet irony that the supposed reason 9/11 happened was that the crazy mooslims hated American Freedom™. And what does America do in response, chip away them. FLOL

That's exactly the problem...Paul is the only one in the public eye other than Kucinich who is openly stating that this is precisely the problem. If Muslims hated freedom, why wouldn't they bomb the Netherlands? Canada? or a number of other countries that arguably have far more freedoms than we do? Not even considering the fact that Bin Laden's actual explanation for the attacks is because of U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia. Its the most ridiculous argument ever presented to the American people, and we are eating it up.

i think you're missing the point of the ww2 argument sr4, the question is not whether it had clean motives but whether it was beneficial for the wolrd in the global sense.

  On 1/24/2012 at 6:52 PM, eugene said:

i think you're missing the point of the ww2 argument sr4, the question is not whether it had clean motives but whether it was beneficial for the wolrd in the global sense.

WTF kind of question is that? Of course it wasn't beneficial, 70 million people died because of it.

because of us involvement ?

hindsight is always 20/20.

Anyway, the argument that the U.S. won the war, is only a part of it. The United States shortened the length of the war. Hitler's Germany was doomed once it launched Barbarossa. But that's another can o' worms.

what a fuck

  On 1/24/2012 at 6:59 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

hindsight is always 20/20.

 

Anyway, the argument that the U.S. won the war, is only a part of it. The United States shortened the length of the war. Hitler's Germany was doomed once it launched Barbarossa. But that's another can o' worms.

i think anyone who's not getting extra marks for trying to outhipster mainstream history will agree that the shortening of that war was a great thing.

  Quote

ron paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing

i wish more of Obama's voters who've seen how horrible he is thought this about him 3 years later.

its pretty amazing how much people 'hate' ron paul but continue to make endless and mental gymnastic excuses for Obama.

At this point i dont think any of his voters at least not directly have admitted to themselves he is a wolf in sheeps clothing

it's gone from

-give him a chance, hes only been in there ____ years!

to

- the presidential office itself is impotent, it has no power, what do you expect him to d o?

huh? When did you guys skip the part where you stopped making excuses for him? Will it ever come?

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:03 PM, eugene said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 6:59 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

hindsight is always 20/20.

 

Anyway, the argument that the U.S. won the war, is only a part of it. The United States shortened the length of the war. Hitler's Germany was doomed once it launched Barbarossa. But that's another can o' worms.

i think anyone who's not getting extra marks for trying to outhipster mainstream history will agree that the shortening of that war was a great thing.

outhipster? what the fuck are you on about? All I was demonstrating is that there is more than valid reasoning for disliking our involvement in World War II, precisely because we were practically begging for Japan to bomb us.

  On 1/24/2012 at 6:09 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

My point is, I don't really consider myself a Paul supporter anymore in the sense that I think he is qualified to run the country. However, I do think it is worth keeping him in the political dialogue because it means people from both sides of the political aisle will start to seriously look at how both Dem and Rep. administrations are and have been destroying the constitution and our protections.

I don't think anyone has a problem with that, but for reasons you yourself agree with, and a few others that we'll necessarily have to agree to disagree on, I could never support him. The reason I brought Paul up is because of the "Vote Paul" shit mentioned previously in this thread. I'm happy to have him as part of the process. But fuck it, I'm going to at least try to mention why "Vote Paul" should be examined a little closer.

Nobody's going to get me to vote for a social conservative, ever, and Ron is exactly that. There are people who like that and they should absolutely vote accordingly. I'm not one of them.

I did not vote for Obama and I did not vote for McCain. I do, nonetheless, take voting seriously, and I did try to participate in the process to the extent my conscience allowed.

i just wanted to interject into the conversation to say that nuclear bombs save lives, if it were not for our heroic efforts of immolating 100,000 civilians from an airplane evil would have taken over the world.

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:08 PM, baph said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 6:09 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

My point is, I don't really consider myself a Paul supporter anymore in the sense that I think he is qualified to run the country. However, I do think it is worth keeping him in the political dialogue because it means people from both sides of the political aisle will start to seriously look at how both Dem and Rep. administrations are and have been destroying the constitution and our protections.

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with that, but for reasons you yourself agree with, and a few others that we'll necessarily have to agree to disagree on, I could never support him. The reason I brought Paul up is because of the "Vote Paul" shit mentioned previously in this thread. I'm happy to have him as part of the process.

but if thats the case, could you support Obama? because im eagerly awaiting to make a 'slam' list as you and disp have of Ron Paul. It's actually far easier to do with Obama because he's been sitting in the office for 3 years and done a significant amount of irreparable damage.

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:09 PM, Awepittance said:

i just wanted to interject into the conversation to say that nuclear bombs save lives, if it were not for our heroic efforts of immolating 100,000 civilians from an airplane evil would have taken over the world.

 

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:08 PM, baph said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 6:09 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

My point is, I don't really consider myself a Paul supporter anymore in the sense that I think he is qualified to run the country. However, I do think it is worth keeping him in the political dialogue because it means people from both sides of the political aisle will start to seriously look at how both Dem and Rep. administrations are and have been destroying the constitution and our protections.

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with that, but for reasons you yourself agree with, and a few others that we'll necessarily have to agree to disagree on, I could never support him. The reason I brought Paul up is because of the "Vote Paul" shit mentioned previously in this thread. I'm happy to have him as part of the process.

 

but if thats the case, could you support Obama? because im eagerly awaiting to make a 'slam' list as you and disp have of Ron Paul. It's actually far easier to do with Obama because he's been sitting in the office for 3 years and done a significant amount of irreparable damage.

exactly. I tend to view the heinousness of World War II by principle, not by price. The only difference between 70 million dying unnecessarily and 2400 dying unecessarily is the fucking number.

Edit: my quotes got all tangled up there. Point taken Baph.

Stop talking about Ron Paul. He's going to lose, and he sucks anyway. Sure he's better than others, but he still sucks for reasons Baph stated among others. Just read his god damn website.

Anyways, how about those American freedoms?

What freedoms?

*Laugh Track*

Fuck fighting for my freedom, I want to get the hell out of here. Canada is a little cold for my tastes though. Where should I go?

Edit: Christ, every time an interesting political thread is started, it's derailed by RON PAUL IS GOD LOL or AMURIKAH AND ISRAEL BLAH BLAH. Stay on topic. We have Ron Paul and America/Israel threads.

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:09 PM, Awepittance said:

i just wanted to interject into the conversation to say that nuclear bombs save lives, if it were not for our heroic efforts of immolating 100,000 civilians from an airplane evil would have taken over the world.

 

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:08 PM, baph said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 6:09 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

My point is, I don't really consider myself a Paul supporter anymore in the sense that I think he is qualified to run the country. However, I do think it is worth keeping him in the political dialogue because it means people from both sides of the political aisle will start to seriously look at how both Dem and Rep. administrations are and have been destroying the constitution and our protections.

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with that, but for reasons you yourself agree with, and a few others that we'll necessarily have to agree to disagree on, I could never support him. The reason I brought Paul up is because of the "Vote Paul" shit mentioned previously in this thread. I'm happy to have him as part of the process.

 

but if thats the case, could you support Obama? because im eagerly awaiting to make a 'slam' list as you and disp have of Ron Paul. It's actually far easier to do with Obama because he's been sitting in the office for 3 years and done a significant amount of irreparable damage.

You got me before the edit. I did not vote for Obama. I know anyone can say that on the internets, but I honestly did not vote for Obama, or McCain.

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:12 PM, Murveman said:

Stop talking about Ron Paul. He's going to lose, and he sucks anyway. Sure he's better than others, but he still sucks for reasons Baph stated among others. Just read is god damn website.

 

Anyways, how about those American freedoms?

What freedoms?

*Laugh Track*

 

Fuck fighting for my freedom, I want to get the hell out of here. Canada is a little cold for my tastes though. Where should I go?

here here, Obama is the sitting president. And as our freedoms continue to erode under his administration we sit here arguing about Ron Pauls merits. More whistleblowers have been prosecuted under the Obama administration than any previous administration in history, 3d naked body scanners were implemented under his tenure, he now has the explicit power to be judge jury and executioner for any american citizen

it's hard for me to imagine us being in a worse state, it would honestly be better to me if we had a president who was overtly crazy about doing these things. That way the american public would at least have their guard up instead of bending over backwards to make excuses for him

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:14 PM, baph said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:09 PM, Awepittance said:

i just wanted to interject into the conversation to say that nuclear bombs save lives, if it were not for our heroic efforts of immolating 100,000 civilians from an airplane evil would have taken over the world.

 

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:08 PM, baph said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 6:09 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

My point is, I don't really consider myself a Paul supporter anymore in the sense that I think he is qualified to run the country. However, I do think it is worth keeping him in the political dialogue because it means people from both sides of the political aisle will start to seriously look at how both Dem and Rep. administrations are and have been destroying the constitution and our protections.

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with that, but for reasons you yourself agree with, and a few others that we'll necessarily have to agree to disagree on, I could never support him. The reason I brought Paul up is because of the "Vote Paul" shit mentioned previously in this thread. I'm happy to have him as part of the process.

 

but if thats the case, could you support Obama? because im eagerly awaiting to make a 'slam' list as you and disp have of Ron Paul. It's actually far easier to do with Obama because he's been sitting in the office for 3 years and done a significant amount of irreparable damage.

 

You got me before the edit. I did not vote for Obama. I know anyone can say that on the internets, but I honestly did not vote for Obama, or McCain.

i didn't ask if you voted for him, i asked if you could support him. If your answer is no, thank you

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:12 PM, Murveman said:

Stop talking about Ron Paul. He's going to lose, and he sucks anyway. Sure he's better than others, but he still sucks for reasons Baph stated among others. Just read his god damn website.

 

Anyways, how about those American freedoms?

What freedoms?

*Laugh Track*

 

Fuck fighting for my freedom, I want to get the hell out of here. Canada is a little cold for my tastes though. Where should I go?

 

Edit: Christ, every time an interesting political thread is started, it's derailed by RON PAUL IS GOD LOL or AMURIKAH AND ISRAEL BLAH BLAH. Stay on topic. We have Ron Paul and America/Israel threads.

No one. I repeat, no one in this thread has compared Ron Paul to God. Relax.

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:09 PM, Awepittance said:

i just wanted to interject into the conversation to say that nuclear bombs save lives, if it were not for our heroic efforts of immolating 100,000 civilians potential kamikaze from an airplane evil would have taken over the world.

fixt

I'm sorry I may be contributing to the derailing to this thread:

Is Obama really the reason for all of this? Does the president and their administration really hold that much power?

I don't mean this from some bullshit conspiracy theory perspective. I mean, doesn't congress (or the corporations their tied up in at least) have power to check the president's power?

Also, instead of just playing a blame game until the end of time, what can we do about these problems? I want these answers.

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:18 PM, eugene said:

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:09 PM, Awepittance said:

i just wanted to interject into the conversation to say that nuclear bombs save lives, if it were not for our heroic efforts of immolating 100,000 civilians potential kamikaze from an airplane evil would have taken over the world.

fixt

ok. troll.

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:19 PM, Murveman said:

I'm sorry I may be contributing to the derailing to this thread:

 

Is Obama really the reason for all of this? Does the president and their administration really hold that much power?

I don't mean this from some bullshit conspiracy theory perspective. I mean, doesn't congress (or the corporations their tied up in at least) have power to check the president's power?

 

 

 

Also, instead of just playing a blame game until the end of time, what can we do about these problems? I want these answers.

Grassroots activism. Easy statement, harder to realistically implement.

Obama is partly to "blame" because hes the face of this administration, the same as Bush was when he fucked everything up.

Congress is partly to blame, give me a name and Ill probably be happy to verbally run them through as well.

I suppose he's also to blame because he isn't vetoing enough as well.

Grass roots activism? Shit man, I have stuff to do.

Edit: Also, why is America degrading so drastically lately? Are the majority of the American people to blame? Why is administration getting away with passing laws that the people don't want?

I'm kind of tired of this 2-party "democratic" republic.

Edit 2: When you say "Grass roots activism", what should we rally against exactly? We need an agenda here if anything is going to happen.

i see where you're coming from smetty

we could go on FOREVER about WW2 but i wont bother.

in any case i see your point about him at least being good for dialogue but UGH i just HATE HIM SO MUCH.

  On 1/24/2012 at 7:08 PM, baph said:

Nobody's going to get me to vote for a social conservative, ever, and Ron is exactly that. There are people who like that and they should absolutely vote accordingly. I'm not one of them. .

this pretty much just sums up where i'm at with him. except i think those people should maybe just not vote until they stop being bigoted assholes but that's just me being a jerk.