Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: NDAA Amendement Rejected in Senate

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 30, 2012, 10:42 a.m. EST by ivyquinn (167)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Anyone surprised? I'm not. These puppets continue to work for the establishment and not the people.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senate-rejects-amendment-banning-indefinite-detention

74 Comments

74 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

How much you want to bet that the vast majority of the politicians that voted for this monstrosity get re elected?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago
[-] 3 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

There already were. That story is from last year.

This is what's happening this year. http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-newest-version-of-ndaa-makes-it-easier-to-deta/

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I agree. They will parade themselves as patriotic heros.

[-] 0 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

And this is why, so what can you do? All I know is to keep pushing the moral case vs. the political case. The conservative Christian Right has a lock on things, and they can't see how they advocate (Constitutional rights) for the very thing they oppose (remove rights under NDAA) all at the same time...and that's because they "think" emotionally and not logically, if they, in fact think at all (personally I'd say that FuxNews does their thinking for them).

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Your statement that the "conservative Christian Right" has a lock on things demonstrates your continued conflation of all conservatives under one title, just as you continue to conflate all liberals under one title.

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_liberalism.html

"Modern American Conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical Liberals and Social Conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th Century."

"Classical Liberalism holds that the only real freedom is freedom from coercion, and that state intervention in the economy is a coercive power that restricts the economic freedom of individuals, and so should be avoided as far as possible. It favours laissez-faire economic policy (minimal economic intervention and taxation by the state beyond what is necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security and property rights), and opposes the welfare state (the provision of welfare services by the state, and the assumption by the state of primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens)."

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_conservatism.html

Plainly some "conservatives", and I might guess most of them, hold very "classically liberal" viewpoints, and even YOU as a self defined Liberal don't agree with those classic liberal views and are more of a social liberal.

I again suggest that you educate yourself as much as possible about known differences before you continue to categorize yourself as one thing and everyone else as another. You can't possibly hope to "educate" someone else if you have no idea where they already are mentally or emotionally or logically.

[-] 0 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I use conservative, liberal. centrist, progressive, neo-con, and all other such descriptors exactly the way they are commonly used by most people and the media today to commonly communicate about a broad group of people who generally hold those views. If you want to go off on some self-important mission (as usual) to educate all of us uneducated boobs who are not worthy to breathe air and speak in the same space as Your Holiness, I can't stop you. But people on this forum generally think you're nothing but a gigantic, annoying pain in the ass, and your karma score reflects that without question. If that is your goal for being here, then congratulations, you have succeeded spectacularly.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OH - - - - MY - - - - Bravo - well spoken - very well spoken.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

And your agreement with Underdog just Underscores how tightly packed into the box of your own paradigm you are. That you cannot see the ironic hypocrisy of your own behavior, or his, is amazing. The blind cheering on the blind.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

That's because you, and the media, think that you can apply a label to a "broad group of people" and then insult them without it having any negative consequences for you. You constantly insult ALL conservatives (as does the media) as if all of them are exactly the same, and yet you cannot fathom why no one wants to join your movement and the media cannot fathom why their ratings are dropping.

If you can't handle reality without becoming offended, or accept the opinions of someone who doesn't agree with your every word, then you are NOT going to help OWS or bring people in to help it.

My "karma score" here, as you put it, reflects the inability of most of the posters here to get past themselves or think outside of their own paradigm. It is literally proof that "group think" is the only thing appreciated here! The very same thing you JUST accused the "conservative Christian Right" of doing-thinking emotionally, not logically. So the higher my score goes, the more it proves my point.

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Well I'm Christian, but I'm logical. I just don't let my religion blur my passion for economic freedom. Neocons do...

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

A follower of Christ - of Love - of a better world for ALL. Good.

Because if all endeavors were undertaken - with love - love of others as well as self - a love of life - ALL Life. Then this world would be Healthy Peaceful and Prosperous for ALL.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Interesting. Do you consider yourself conservative, liberal, center, or what?

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I don't consider myself anything. I believe in making change across the board. I believe that cross ideological standpoints are beneficial to society, and our economy.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

If you believe that, you should have been having this conversation with your conse(R)vative friends for the last 30 years or so.

Change for the sake of change is a fools choice.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I have this conversation as much as possible. Social change is coming like it or not.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Nice to know.........:)

What is it you say to them?

My Wife and I, often have issues talking to a friend that literally loves Glenn Beck and all things FLAKESnews. It can get frustrating.

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I expose the issues, regardless of who is around, in a fashion that promotes them to actually....THINK...lol.

It can. Sometimes I have to focus on my goals, rather than caring about what they may think.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I wish it were that simple.

When I try explain the Koch brothers complicity in what's happening. she starts ranting about "the bigs".

When we try and talk about global warming, she starts para-quoting "revelations" and Leviticus.

Then it will be on to nonsense about Obama being moooslim, communist, progressive, liberal, nazi, intent on bringing sharia law to America.......

I mean how do you get through, and she's not the only one I've met in this frame of mind. There's a lot of them.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I think that if you explain it in a way that isn't overwhelming for their minds, they could be receptive. For example global warming can be presented as 'climate change.' Tat could easily open the conversation up. As far as the profiles go, ignorance will perpetuate itself no matter the group. My suggestion is to incite intellectual conversation and enrich minds as you do that.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

They've already been overwhelmed with the lies and carefully crafted propaganda of FLAKESnews.

The term "climate change" is but one example of that controlled propaganda. It's a term paid for and "invented" by the folks that actually brought you global warming in the first place.

Indeed, many no can longer identify propaganda at all, they start thinking it's just marketing. Another such "invented" term for propaganda.

So please be more specific and informative, and use FLAKESnews, Hannity, O'reilly, or better yet Glenn Back as an example.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Global warming will of course be accompanied by climate change. California is experiencing an unprecedented storm for them. The East Coast just survived 2 storms of unprecedented strength in 2 weeks. This is in no way normal - and is on the increase - in the USA - and - around the world. Go ahead and say it is a freak and passing occurance - sure - why not - but - BUT - we do not have to ignore the fact that we "PEOPLE" have added to this current destructive weather. No - we can make changes - in our energy production and in our fuel use. Can't hurt to be clean - and it might very well help. In the mean time - we have got to get people off of low ground - on the coast and inland.

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

People do add to the footprint. So does geo engineering. But these two issues are subverted and we continue to be left in the dark.

Also Fracking is one of the issues that no one will touch.

We need to change that narrative collectively.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It will take the involvement of the people to make proper and needed changes in how society operates.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Understand that BR is here to be contentious contrary to argue both sides of a coin and split the difference in another argument - she(?) has not shown any attempt to be a positive force for humanity. At this point in time with all of the attempts to speak rationally with her(?) and all of them being failures - you have to realize that it is deliberate disagreement on her part or a serious mental derangement.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Hmmmmm.

ivy=betsy?

The character is different, so I have to wonder how long before the act breaks...............:)

So far I've found ivy to be among those that refuse to commit to anything concrete.

It's all jargon, posturing and sloganeering.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26682) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OH - - - Ivy???? - - - hmmmm - - - - sorry - - - - wrong cat. I have not had enough contact/interaction with that one to make a comment.

[-] 0 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

If you believe in making change across the board, then that is a very liberal view, as most conservatives do not embrace change very well at all (and frequently oppose it).

[-] 3 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I disagree. I'm friends with many different ideologies. Inciting paradigm wars only damages progress.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

46 of the 60 who voted against this repeal of indef detention.were Republicans!

We should campaign against everyone of the politicians who voted against this. Whatever their party affiliation!

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

I don't get it....so hypocritical - they're supposed to be against big government and pro constitution...here they are with a perfect opportunity to showcase their dedication to that and they fail miserably.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I submit repubs are so tied to the benefits of war profits/politics of war that they have excused away the anti constitutional affects of indefinite detention, & other contradictions to their professed righteousness.

They need the war on terror & the trappings of fear to keep their base in line and willing to sacrifice rights, & principle.

They ain't fooled me. And with each passing day more people are enlightened. Thank you OWS!

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

People get what they voted for. Who are the 14 Dems that voted against it?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Not interested in the 46 Repubs who voted against repeal.? Surprise surprise.

Check the roll call below that I linked, if you wanna criticize the Dems.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Senate passed the NDAA bill 98-0

They're all phonies and fascists. Anyone of them claiming to oppose anything in that bill are phonies, and the fucks in full force for it are the fascists. These phonies and fascists need to GTFO

That bill prepares for a war in Iran, mentioning Iran over 200 times. And it contains indefinite detention provisions.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ayotte Amendment strips money/ability to xfer Gitmo detainees.

Agitate all pols to strip it out in conference.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Disgusting.

Anyone see this on the MSM at all? I haven't. Most important piece of legislation revision probably in the history of this country and noone covers it.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

This happened a year ago.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Nope. The only one you can even find the content on is CSPAN.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Only 2 Republicans voted in support of the Udall anti indef detention amendent. Only 14 Dems voted against!

THAT is meaningful!

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210

[-] -2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

I saw Paul coming, not Kirk though. Surprises happen I suppose.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Repubs should have come up with at least 13 more. The party has been captured by extremist war mongers.

I hope we defeat them in the conference committee, or w/ a veto. But I have little faith in either.

[-] 1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

There's only one Party... The War Party.

And, of course, there's Occupy - and I can tell ya, friends, it ain't no party.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So the vast difference in the way these 2 parties vote are not important.?

One party voted mostly for indefinite detention & against early Afghan withdrawal.

Irrelevant?

[-] 0 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

Would that be the Party that crafted indefinite detention for American citizens?...The one that resisted the " withdrawal " from Iraq?... That currently owns the White House?

No, not important in the least.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago
  • The republicans created, implemented, & used the policy in 2002 after they exploited the 9/11 attacks.

  • The republicans (Rep P. King) "crafted" the indefinite detention language last year when it was added to the veto proof defense budget

  • Republicans defeated Dem efforts to repeal it last Dec, and last May.

  • Bush is the only Pres to use the power, This Admin has never used the Auth. Commited to not using it with an executive signing statement and has resolved more than half of the left over indef detention cases Repub left us in gitmo,

  • And just this past week, Dems led the fight and vote to repeal indef detention. Repubs led the fight and votes to retain it. Repubs are currently the only threat to continuing this offensive constitutional rights violation.

Do you really not know these facts? Or are you one of the shallow, one dimensional conservative shills who think you can convince us that Dems are as bad as republicans.

The jig is up. You can't use these partisan lies to obfuscate the truth.

Republicans are clearly the problem on this indef detention rights violation. (and many others) And smart people know it.

[-] 1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

The piddling opposition by some Democrats to the Patriot Act was far outweighed by their support of the measure, which was extended by Obama in '11.

The NDAA was never in any danger of being vetoed by Obama - as long as the most egregious elements were left intact, and his DOJ lawyers fought tooth and nail for it when it was challenged by the courts.

Of course, Obama hasn't used the provision himself, as he prefers to kill Americans outright.

Anyone who claims to discern any real difference between the two parties on this issue or foreign policy in general has either got a vested interest in one or the other party - or is a complete idiot.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You clearly don't know what you are talkin about because the patriot act vote in the house had almost 130 dems voting against it, so stop lying.

210 repubs voted for it cause the repubs are the war mongering party.

So stop the partisan lying you complete idiot!

[-] 1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

You're the one who is lying. Only 66 members voted against the Act - and two of them were Republicans.

As for me being "partisan", it's you who's taking sides. I condemn both without reservation.

But since you're into name calling, "war monger" is a more apt description of the Democrats.... Witness Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and LBJ.... Oh, and let us not forget the man who fired the first shot of the Civil War - Jefferson Davis, Democrat!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

117 house dems voted against & 11 refused to vote

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/36?ref=politics

The repubs have been the war mongering party for 40 years. They have successfully labeled dems 'weak on defense' since the great McGovern because Dems have been and are the only ones fighting against the war, & things like patriot act, indef detention, etc.

The vote clearly shows some dems caved in and supported this repub created patriot act.

We must pressure all pols who voted the wrong way. But let's not kid ourselves repubs created the policy, & proudly push the bill, It's progressive Dems who stand with us against the patriot act.

[-] 0 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

I was referring to the original legislation. Even so....

Nearly twice as many Dems voted for the extension of the Patriot act than voted against it - with Obama auto penning into law. I guess he's a Republican too, huh?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

65 Dems voted for the extension (they should be denounced) of the Patriot act, 128 Dems did not vote for the extension (they should be celebrated as heroes). So twice as many Dems voted against the patriot act than voted for it.

You got it backwards.

210 repubs voted for the patriot act extension, and only 25 voted against it. The repubs are clearly the problem.

All pols (incl Pres Obama) should be denounced for supporting this rights violation.

We must also raise up those who bravely vote against it in order to encourage more to do so. To pretend both parties are the same is to ignore reality and neglect the celebration of those who stood with us against the patriot act.

Git it?

[-] 0 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

You're correct. I didn't break it down into parties. Nevertheless, I would say one Civil War, two World Wars, a Korean "police action" plus Vietnam, trumps a half assed vote in the house that didn't even carry the day.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm ok with sticking with current reality. LOL.

Certainly I can't judge the actions of todays pols based on what someone did a century and a half ago. Do you?

That's as bad as ignoring the pols who vote against the republican created rights violations.

You gotta be pretty ignorant to do that huh?

Gotta celebrate our supporters man! And try to stick with the last 50 years.ok?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago
  • The republicans created, implemented, & used the indef detention policy in 2002 after they exploited the 9/11 attacks.

  • The republicans (Rep P. King) "crafted" the indefinite detention language last year when it was added to the veto proof defense budget

  • Republicans defeated Dem efforts to repeal it last Dec, and last May.

  • Bush is the only Pres to use the power, This Admin has never used the Auth. Commited to not using it with an executive signing statement and has resolved more than half of the left over indef detention cases Repub left us in gitmo,

  • And just this past week, Dems led the fight and vote to repeal indef detention. Repubs led the fight and votes to retain it. Repubs are currently the only threat to continuing this offensive constitutional rights violation.

[-] -1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

Celebrate the good guys? I'm for that. And let us not ignore those who have seen the light after a decade of deprivation. I noticed, for instance, that Republican opposition to the Act increased from 3 to 25, almost nine fold - while the Dem opposition only doubled.

At this rate, the Republicans will have restored their reputation as the Party on Peace and prosperity just in time for the Ron Paul inaugural in '16!

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

What reputation as the Party of Peace and Prosperity? They haven't had that reputaion since Lincoln! The Party of Peace and Prosperity my arse!

[-] -1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

Reagan comes to mind. He brought inflation under control, spurred on the economic recovery and settled the Soviets hash without a shot fired.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

And if they believe that you've got some land to sell um in Florida, right?

[-] -1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

Florida?... You mean the homeland of the Seminole Indeans who beat back the genocidal assault of Andrew Jackson?

Add his name to the pantheon of Democrat Party warmongers.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Please, find somewhere else to pump your pom poms for the Republicans. Weren't Romney and Bush enough cheerleaders for you guys. Oh, I forgot, Ronald Reagan was also a cheerleader.

The Democrats in the last couple of generations have gotten pretty lame, but at least they aren't lead by a bunch of cheerleaders with a silver spoon up their ass.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ron Paul? Isn't he the retired old guy with the racist newsletter from the '90's?

[-] -1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

The same guy who voted AGAINST the Patriot Act the first time - as well as every other piece of unconstitutional legislation for over thirty years....

That's the man.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Voting against the repub created 'war on terror' rights violations should be celebrated. Well done old man.

However the whole racist thing can't be ignored.

But thats ok 'cause almost 70% of House Dems voted against the Patriot act extension! And they ain't racists either.

Are you gonna support those congresspeople. Or just the Racist?

[-] -1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

Let the record show. The Democrats are equally culpable for launching the War on Terror.

Was there ever a war they didn't like?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

At the height of the fear mongering propaganda after the 9/11 attacks.

I remember the country was behind it 70%. What transpired since is what taught us all our mistake, and failures.

So the behavior of the individual pols in the parties since then is the better measure of who supports our anti war on terror agenda.

70% of House Dems did not support the extension of the patriot act.

I'm sure that percent has grown. Repubs only show more support for these obscene rights violations that I am against and you pretend to be as you preach for the retired racist Ron Paul.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

70% of the house Dems voted against the extension of the repub created Patriot act.

You WANT Dems to be equally culpable and some certainly are But not most. Simply uttering "let the record show" doesn't make it so.

The 70% voting record shows otherwise.

[-] 0 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

Oh, don't play stupid... The vote to launch the " Global War on Terror" passed, virtually unanimously.

[-] -1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

You are mistaken calling yourself a progressive. You are mistaken calling Ron Paul a racist. What you are is a shill for the left wing of the War Party.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Only 30 dems voted for it and they should be denounced. Along with the 42 Repubs (who wrote it by the way) who also supported it.

The 20 dems who didn't vote for it should be celebrated. Along with the 3 measly Repubs who voted against it. Although the 3 repubs voted against it accidentally so.

3! Only 3! Repubs are clearly the problem!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The repubs are the fear mongers who exploited the 911 attacks to create this trumped up 'war on terror', to feed the MIC, and scare the population into accepting the rights violations you claim to be against

Seems like you are more interested in defending the racist newsletter writer Ron Paul.

Well I don't give a fuck about Ron Paul. He had a few good votes, but he is done, retired, spent, The battle continues!

Denounce those voting for rights violations, Support those voting against. (no matter the party)

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Fact- On May 26 2011, 32 Senate DEMOCRATS voted FOR the Patriot Act. 17 Senate Democrats voted AGAINST it. 3 didn't vote at all.

The voting record SHOWS that.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00084#top

VQuack seems to confuse the Senate and the House, so I pointed out that the MAJORITY of Democrats in the Senate voted FOR the bill. (65% voted to extend the Patriot Act)

It's also confusing because there was the initial vote ON the Patriot Act and then several votes on whether or not to extend the PA as well as to modify it.

As you can see here, in 2010 the House Dems snuck in a vote without the press knowing and the majority of House Dems voted FOR the PA to be extended with NO changes to it at all.

http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/2010/02/26/house-dems-who-voted-for-patriot-act-extension-without-reform/

In Feb of 2010- One hundred and sixty two (162) House Dems voted to extend the Patriot Act with NO reforms whatsoever. They snuck it into a vote on something else entirely:

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/02/25/patriot-act-without-reforms-passes-house-roll-call-included/

[-] -1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

The only ones harping on the " racist thing " are the neocons and their neolib enablers... Which one are you?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You are mistaken. Many progressives despise racists like Ron Paul.

He destroyed any good he might have left us with that racist newsletter.

Are you more concerned for Racist Paul or anti Patriot act activism?

'Cause almost 70% of House Dems opposed the Patriot act extension and they ain't racists.

Whatta ya think? Ya with us?