Sure thing. Right after Obama takes our guns away.

He is different Michael.... and 51 times worse!

LOL! :1orglaugh

It has nothing to do with this administration, it's been happening over many years,. Meanwhile it has now accelerated to the point where they are taking the constitution apart with open votes in congress and in open court.

In the meantime, you all blindly root for your parties like it's college football.....

I have to say Rochard, with no offense intended, that you sound exactly like people living in germany in 1933, or Argentina in the early 70s, or any place and time where the government is getting out of control and good people stand by and just pooh pooh any concerns..... They all said the same things you keep on saying. "Oh please! These are modern times. Nothing like that could happen here!"



:disgust



.

I'm a huge WWII buff; I'm currently reading a book about Vichy France. I'm well aware of what past governments have done.

Every four years I hear the same argument: "The government is going to take our guns away". They said this about Obama four years ago. Ironically, I am legally allowed to have multiple assault rifles in my house - I have more firepower than my local police department. Yet still we have people running around who honestly think that the government is going to take our guns away. We just had one of the worst shootings in US history, and yet gun control isn't even a point of discussion in upcoming election.

Then we have the Patriot Act. Scary stuff, gives the government big power. Yet I still don't see Stormtroopers banging on doors in the middle of night and making people disappear. How many people have been arrested under the Patriot Act?

Here's the quote I commented on, which was by you:

Do you really think that Obama is going to round up tens of thousands of Americans using the NDAA?

Be serious already.

I'm not rooting for any party; I'm a registered Independent who plans to vote for Gary Johnson this time around.

All I did was provide another possible explanation (and a reasonable one, I'd like to think) for why the administration sought an emergency stay of Judge Forrest's order.

I think the NDAA is deeply, fundamentally flawed, and I feel the same way about the stated justification for its existence. That opinion doesn't change my view that the emergency stay of the injunction is justifiable from a legal perspective, that's all.

Ultimately, I think the case will wind up in front of the Supreme Court, which I hope will issue an injunction (probably one that is narrower than the one issued by Judge Forrest) and then kick it back to Congress to more clearly define the vague terms that leave open the potential for the law to be abused.

Give it time; bad law typically isn't fixed overnight.

According to Obama's speech about Osama, the Navy Seals weren't even mentioned, he kept telling everyone "I"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_856122.html

I don't like Mitt, but anything has to be better than the President that in recent years has the record for unemployment being above 8%. And don't say that it can't improve and will stay that way, they said the same thing when Carter was in office. Reagan changed that.

I'd rather have a good economy, where the unemployment rate is around 4% and people have more income for things like paysite membership

A list obtained by the Justice Department defines only 361 cases defined as terrorism investigations from September 11, 2001 to September 2004. 31 of the entries on the list were blacked out. Only 39 of these individuals were convicted of crimes related to terrorism. The median sentence for these crimes was 11 months. So according to that, it's just a new tool for the government to overstep our rights. Like Obama passing that law that allows the arrest of protesters by the CIA they deem to be a threat on federal property.

No, they are just going to keep giving them to the Mexican drug cartels