Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel

Old 19th Sep 2012, 23:59
  #8221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
A member of the Peacock Network not reporting fairly?

NBC News Not Airing Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Tape Because They Have Not Yet ‘Authenticated It’ | Mediaite

A video that broke on the Drudge Report on Tuesday and circulated widely
which purports to show President Barack Obama as an Illinois
state senator advocating for laws that favor redistribution of wealth continues to shift the focus of the presidential campaign. Today on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell said that neither NBC News nor MSNBC will air the video
because they have not yet independently authenticated that the voice on the video is that of President Obama.
I'm shocked I tell you.

Pity they had already run it earlier that day and that another outlet reports:

The Washington Post reports, “The Obama campaign confirmed
that is Obama’s voice on the recording and a spokesman moved to rebut Romney’s criticism of it.”
Good thing they don't want to appear irresponsible or partisan. And they slipped when breathlessly reporting the Romney "47%" comments as "verified" when the original outlet, Mother Jones, today admitted that the tape was "not in its entirety."
brickhistory is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 00:13
  #8222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,157
con-pilot & SAS,
Little things like this is what I'm taking about.
Speaking of little things, Do you all shop at Walmart, yes or no?

TD
Turbine D is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 00:33
  #8223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,157
con-pilot,
Surprise, surprise, nay a word on the latest events of 'Fast and furious'.
You are watching the wrong news. I haven't watched NBC News since Tom Brokaw retired. Watch ABC News with Diane Sawyer. There, you would have heard about "Fast & Furious", second story of the news. Why do you continue to torture yourself, is it a macho thing?

Oh, BTW, early voting starts in Ohio on October 2nd for in person or absentee ballots. So far, as reported last Friday, 500,200 persons have applied for absentee ballots (me included). So, 13 days for Romney to get his act together, the WSJ lead editorial, remember???

brickhistory,
"Coincidentally, that gap appears immediately after the now infamous "47%" comments.
It was when the attendees left to get a fresh martini and mumbled to themselves "I hope what we just heard doesn't ever get out to the public". (Darn, it did...)

Although I am glad that the $2.6B won't be going to Russia anymore. Perhaps we could save another billion or two by taking our money away from the global giveaways. A billion here, a billion there, you know the rest...
I am totally with you here, well said!

TD
Turbine D is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 00:59
  #8224 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
I'll be voting absentee next week. I can't predict my schedule for November, though I'll be bidding days off for election week.

I think this one will be so close that Democrats will be reduced, once again, to finding lost ballots, disallowing military votes, taking advantage of urban corruption like dead and illegal voters, etc.

Those of us trying to save the country have to overcome that corrupt advantage I place at about 2% in the close races and precincts. So Romney really needs 52 % to win this thing.

This is the big one. We can't survive in our current life view if Democrats prevail. If this one is lost, I'm taking the assets I have out. Moving them all to Australia. If Romney wins, I'll keep a base here. I think there are a million or so like me out there.

Watch the stock market. If it sees an Obama win and tanks, bail. If it sees a Romney win and rallies, plunge.
BenThere is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 01:43
  #8225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 65
Posts: 618
TurbineD,

Good for ABC, and actually of the three network news broadcasts, ABC seems to be the least biased. Just my opinion, and mostly based on Jake Tapper's reports. I actually liked Peter Jennings the best but sadly, we lost him to Lung Cancer.

That said, I believe what Con was pointing out the clear favoritism of NBC towards the President. It's no surprise to me that their "catch phrase" is Lean Forward and the Obama's Campaign is Forward.

So worry not Obamabots, the DNC is still in firm control of NBC.
11Fan is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 01:46
  #8226 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by brickhistory View Post
Good thing they don't want to appear irresponsible or partisan. And they slipped when breathlessly reporting the Romney "47%" comments as "verified" when the original outlet, Mother Jones, today admitted that the tape was "not in its entirety."
Apparently the fact checkers were immediately diverted from investigating Obama's Columbia records in order to confirm the validity of the 47% clip.
 
Old 20th Sep 2012, 02:44
  #8227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
Those that vote now are decided voters....and nothing said in the next week or two is going to change anyone's mind. What matters is the 6-8% of the voters who are real "Undecided" voters....but that being said....if they don't know who they are going to vote for by now....they must be really dense people with very little grasp of what is going on around them.
SASless is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 02:51
  #8228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Has anyone ever seen a campaign get so bad, seems these ones are after each others throat.
Obama will lie and deceive to get elected, just as he did the first go round.
Ones that voted for him will still suck up to the free programs that has our debt now at over 16 trillion.
Remember during his campaing before he said 10 trillion was not acceptable, cant blame that one on bush and we were funding 2 major wars then, 16 trillion now!
Funny has his redistribution of wealth tape is getting lost now.
Think we are in for a rough 4 years if the USA economy can even survive it.
Obama supporters keep drinking that kool aid.
Money will run out soon, then what will you do?
Writing bad checks you cannot cash will destroy all.

Last edited by Earl; 20th Sep 2012 at 02:53.
Earl is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 03:06
  #8229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,157
con-pilot,
US Totalitarian State Wins After All: Obama Reinstates NDAA Military Detention Provision | ZeroHedge

Which after understanding what just happened, is no little thing at all.
This a small section of the annual National Defense Authorization Act which provides funding for our military. The section in question reads like this:
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARYFORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
On October 18, 2011 numerous Senators debated the legislation on the Senate floor. The discussion surrounded the need to pass the funding bill and the Senator Reid's hesitance to bring it to the floor with the detainee provisions. The debate concludes that the detainee provisions passed the committee 25-1 and provides bi-partisan cover for the Senate Majority Leader.

On December 1, 2011 debates on the Senate floor were held regarding the Feinstein amendments. Numerous Senators took part in what was perhaps the most important day of debate regarding the law. The participants included Senator Graham of South Carolina, Senator Kyl, Senator Feinstein, Senator McCain, Senator Leahy, Senator Blunt, Senator Levin, Senator Durbin, and Senator Ayotte.
In discussing the Feinstein amendment, the Senators reaffirmed that the military will have default custody of enemy combatants and established two distinct new items. The first was that the detainee provisions did not seek to interfere with the long term detention provisions or prevent a person from eventually obtaining a habeas corpus trial. The law simply stated that anyone captured on a battlefield and suspected of being allied with al-Qaeda could be questioned as long as desired without a lawyer or trial. This questioning could go on for years, as in the case of Jose Padilla where he was detained for 5 years before a habeas corpus trial.
The second item that was definitively established was that the US homeland was now a part of the battlefield in the war on terror. This meant that where before, US citizens captured on US soil could obtain a trial to establish what crimes were committed, the President could now use his authority to detain those people as suspected of committing acts of war.

On December 31, 2011 President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA into law. When he signed the law, he also issued a signing statement on how he would interpret the law. In that signing statement, President Obama clarifies that the law does indeed allow for the arrest and indefinite detention of US citizens.
The President then asserts that he will not use the law for these purposes and that the inclusion of the language is counter to the Constitution and US traditions. This declaration is counter to Senator Levin's statements that the Obama administration requested that language which would have prevented the law from applying to US citizens be removed.
The main purpose of the statement relating to detainee provisions states that the language is not necessary as it codifies rights that the President already possessess. In other words, it is not necessary for Congress to affirm that the President has the right to detain US citizens captured on the battlefield as that right was already affirmed in the Hamdi case and others. What is not mentioned in the signing statement is that Congress has asserted that this bill now declares the homeland as part of the battlefield, which means that the President's right to detain enemy combatants indefinitely now applies to US citizens on US soil.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
These are the facts regardless of how Zero Hedge wants to interpret it.

TD
Turbine D is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 03:45
  #8230 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
You are watching the wrong news. I haven't watched NBC News since Tom Brokaw retired.
No, I'm watching the right news for hearing and seeing the latest propaganda from the DNC. Along with the latest 'approved' campaign strategy from the Reelect Obama headquarters.

As for your 'cut and paste', the facts are as to what Obama wishes them to be.

The President then asserts that he will not use the law for these purposes and that the inclusion of the language is counter to the Constitution and US traditions.
Which is all fine and good, until he changes his mind, if he is reelected. He has already shown his contempt for the Constitution by ordering the assassinations of at least two American citizens, without due process, by executive order, ordering the US Military to assassinate them by using drones.

As Obama is a proven liar, his assertions mean nothing.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 12:04
  #8231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
Turb.....who is the liar......Senater Levin or BH Obama? Well at least in this matter anyway!



On December 31, 2011 President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA into law. When he signed the law, he also issued a signing statement on how he would interpret the law. In that signing statement, President Obama clarifies that the law does indeed allow for the arrest and indefinite detention of US citizens.
The President then asserts that he will not use the law for these purposes and that the inclusion of the language is counter to the Constitution and US traditions. This declaration is counter to Senator Levin's statements that the Obama administration requested that language which would have prevented the law from applying to US citizens be removed.
The main purpose of the statement relating to detainee provisions states that the language is not necessary as it codifies rights that the President already possessess. In other words, it is not necessary for Congress to affirm that the President has the right to detain US citizens captured on the battlefield as that right was already affirmed in the Hamdi case and others. What is not mentioned in the signing statement is that Congress has asserted that this bill now declares the homeland as part of the battlefield, which means that the President's right to detain enemy combatants indefinitely now applies to US citizens on US soil.
SASless is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 12:33
  #8232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
Interesting, me thinks, that a known conservative media outlet aka, The Wall Street Journal, is questioning the whole campaign of Mitt Romney. How is this reconciled?
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 12:36
  #8233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
brickhistory wrote:

Perhaps we could save another billion or two by taking our money away from the global giveaways. A billion here, a billion there, you know the rest...
Hm. What a great idea. I'll begin the list of our "friends" who really don't need our $$$ anymore.

1. Pakistan
2. Egypt
3. Saudi Arabia

I'll stop there for now as I really have no need for carpal tunnel!
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 12:43
  #8234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
con wrote:

He has already shown his contempt for the Constitution by ordering the assassinations of at least two American citizens, without due process, by executive order, ordering the US Military to assassinate them by using drones.
And? The problem with this is? Do you know what the two American citizens in question were up to? Should we have waited until they blew something up before reacting?

I see no reason to despair when two scum bags are taken out before they perform their dastardly deeds.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 12:50
  #8235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
Lots of us are questioning the Romney Campaign.....they are not getting their message across....have too many attack ads that only respond to the Obama attack ads.

We want them to get down to brass tacks...tell the American people what their agenda is...their plans....their goals....what they will do in the first 100 days....make a new Contract with America sort of thing.

We want him to focus on the real issues....the Economy, Jobs, Tax Reform, Repeal and Replace Obamacare.....tell us what his Foreign Policy goals are....and be specific.

he is a good Man....and is trying to run a "good" campaign but he is not getting the job done selling his agenda for his first term in office.

As in any boxing match.....the aggressive fighter usually wins....he has to land more blows on the opponent...take the fight to the opponent....and score hard blows....and if possible.....do a Knock Out. So far he has been on the defensive.

Granted in this fight the Referee is soldily in Obama's corner, ignores all the below the belt hits, ear biting, and eye gouging....but calls a foul when Romney merely looks hard at Obama!


RGB, As much as it may distress you....the Constitution and American law applies to American Citizens no matter where we are on God's Green Earth. As much as I agree with concept these two are Enemies of the State, are engaged in Terrorist Activities....that alone does not exempt them rrom their Rigjhts under the Constitution. If we do....then events like Waco and Ruby Ridge become common place if a government official decides someone or some group are "Enemies of the State".

Now I say this too.....If either or both of these guys are in the same car....or house....or boat....or standing close to a legitimate target and they get killed along with the target.....Good!

Last edited by SASless; 20th Sep 2012 at 12:56.
SASless is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 12:56
  #8236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
One of the ways the Romney campaign could get their message across is to ignore whatever comes out of the Anointed One's campaign and keep their eye on the ball. By constantly defending themselves and, at the same time, not saying much of anything about the issues, they are doing themselves a disservice.

In a word, they need to stay FOCUSED.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 13:22
  #8237 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
I take a back seat to nobody in my protective views regarding the Constitution. I hope if nothing else my record on PPRuNe demonstrates that if nothing else.

However, I don't think the extrajudicial targeting of American citizens engaged in treasonous or violent activity against the US is a violation.

We are at war, and many of the enemy are our own citizens. Further, they often conduct their operations beyond the reach of law enforcement and our judicial system. The choice becomes killing them or allowing them to continue to operate.

I have no problem with killing them, providing adequate safeguards are in place, and I believe they are, to prevent this process from becoming a method to actually attack legitimate citizens for political or unconstitutional purposes. Active Jihadi Americans, to my way of thinking, have voluntarily surrendered their Constitutional protections.

Last edited by BenThere; 20th Sep 2012 at 13:23.
BenThere is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 13:26
  #8238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
BenThere wrote:

Active Jihadi Americans, to my way of thinking, have voluntarily surrendered their Constitutional protections.
They are traitors. Nothing more and nothing less. And we all should know what happens to traitors during time of conflict.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 13:37
  #8239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
The CUSA does not protect violence. It does not protect treason.

Is flaunting the Constitution and advocating its violation treason?

That opens up the game to include those holding office who disobey it?

Not every traitor believes in Muhammad.
Lyman is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2012, 13:45
  #8240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
No, Lyman, not every traitor believes in Mohammad. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind.
rgbrock1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.