Originally posted by FMFI figure that if I can disappear tomorrow for all of eternity the rest of my rights don't really amount to a hill of beans FMF.
Because you said "watching our individual rights vanish" which suggests more than one.
Of course, there are other things, like being able to drink a frigg'in biggie soda, but what do collectivists like yourself care, just so long as governemnt increases in power?
Originally posted by whodeyIf you can quote a post of mine supporting the ban on large sodas then that would be interesting.
I figure that if I can disappear tomorrow for all of eternity the rest of my rights don't really amount to a hill of beans FMF.
Of course, there are other things, like being able to drink a frigg'in biggie soda, but what do collectivists like yourself care, just so long as governemnt increases in power?
Here is the question you have dodged:
The NDAA is clearly outrageous and should be condemned. But it is merely codifying what were the equally condemnable de facto powers claimed and used by the executive in, say, 2006, 2007 and 2008 during which time you did not criticize them at all, not even once, even though you could have. What changed in 2008?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI doubt whodey holds the republican party with much respect. You seem to like to categorize people and make them fit into your false political paradigm. This is very disdainful.
Bingo. He was remarkably silent when his own Republican party was involved.
What's interesting is that when Bush tried the shoe bomber in the civilian judicial system neither Democrats nor Republicans criticized him for it. But when Obama did the same for the underwear bomber the Republicans went apesh** and Fox News had a week long orgasm. That's just one of many examples of double standards.
Originally posted by joe beyserYou are correct. Even Mitt Romney supported the NDAA.
I doubt whodey holds the republican party with much respect. You seem to like to categorize people and make them fit into your false political paradigm. This is very disdainful.
Anytime both parties come together on anything be afraid, be very afraid.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhodey has evolved over the years. Now the blinders have been lifted and I see both parties as different flavors of collectivism/fascism.
So if FMF's claim is true, what did change in 2008?
FMF thinks that all I want is a Republican in the Oval Office. If that were true, why would I have posted threads bashing Romney while he was running? Make no mistake, "W" and Obama are more alike than people like you care to admit. In fact, what really seperates them Kaz?
Originally posted by whodeyI condemned the powers in question long before you did and continue to condemn them now that they have been codified. On this issue, with what justification do you attempt to sneer at anyone who has taken my stance [as opposed to your johnny-come-lately stance] with your cardboard-cutout "collectivist" label?
Whodey has evolved over the years. Now the blinders have been lifted and I see both parties as different flavors of collectivism/fascism.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYou're getting me mixed up with USArmyParatrooper, which you'll see if you look back at page 2.
FMF thinks that all I want is a Republican in the Oval Office.
You seem so wrapped up in your own facetious prattle, you can't even differentiate between the different people you "engage" with here. 😀
Originally posted by whodeyThere have been calls for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be tried as an "enemy combatant" and not in a civilian court. Do you see these calls as coming from "collectivists"?
What concerns me though is the constant move towards collectivism, while watching our individual rights vanish in the process.
Originally posted by FMFFeel free to hijack my thread FMF by making this all about Whodey. I think at various times in our lives we have all been duped into supporting collectivists, usually out of ignorant party loyalty. So what?
I condemned the powers in question long before you did and continue to condemn them now that they have been codified. On this issue, with what justification do you attempt to sneer at anyone who has taken my stance [as opposed to your johnny-come-lately stance] with your cardboard-cutout "collectivist" label?
If we are to turn a new leaf and band together to fight it, then we should engage in the here and now. Most people are still asleep at the wheel and have no idea just how enslaved they have already become.
Originally posted by FMFIf a civilian court were to prove that he was engaged with foreign powers to attack the citizenry, then they have a point. I think that actively engaging in war against the citizenry would be a basis for revoking ones citizenship.
There have been calls for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be tried as an "enemy combatant" and not in a civilian court. Do you see these calls as coming from "collectivists"?