When DailyKos, the ACLU, and conservatives are all against a bill, you know it has to be a real stinker.

Is introducing this bill an impeachable offense? Because it ought to be.

Great.

Of course our "Constitutional Law Professor" President won't sign this if/when it hits his desk.

Marcus Aurelius: When DailyKos, the ACLU, and conservatives are all against a bill, you know it has to be a real stinker.

i'll bet it quietly passes House and Senate, and Obama signs it in the dead of night.

at least Limbaugh will be in the same death camp as the rest of us. that might be worth a few yarfs while we're waiting to die.

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: When DailyKos, the ACLU, and conservatives are all against a bill, you know it has to be a real stinker.

i'll bet it quietly passes House and Senate, and Obama signs it in the dead of night.

at least Limbaugh will be in the same death camp as the rest of us. that might be worth a few yarfs while we're waiting to die.

Obama's threatened a veto.

Well, McCain would know what indefinite detention looks like and how much he enjoyed it, of course he wants everyone else to have that experience.

GAT_00: Well, McCain would know what indefinite detention looks like and how much he enjoyed it, of course he wants everyone else to have that experience.

At least he got to stay in a Hilton.

Marcus Aurelius: GAT_00: Well, McCain would know what indefinite detention looks like and how much he enjoyed it, of course he wants everyone else to have that experience.

At least he got to stay in a Hilton.

I have your aisle seat right here.

I'm so glad that so many brave folk's who have suggested Second Amendment solutions are standing up against this...

Odd that government seeks to increase control, rather than return power to the people. Who'd have thought?

Marcus Aurelius: GAT_00: Well, McCain would know what indefinite detention looks like and how much he enjoyed it, of course he wants everyone else to have that experience.

At least he got to stay in a Hilton.

ba dum tssh

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: GAT_00: Well, McCain would know what indefinite detention looks like and how much he enjoyed it, of course he wants everyone else to have that experience.

At least he got to stay in a Hilton.

I have your aisle seat right here.

and you don't want to know who the pilot is

hubiestubert: I'm so glad that so many brave folk's who have suggested Second Amendment solutions are standing up against this...

Wut?

mrshowrules: hubiestubert: I'm so glad that so many brave folk's who have suggested Second Amendment solutions are standing up against this...

Wut?

Pointing out that things are unbearable when libs do it, not when the authoritians do it.

mrshowrules: and you don't want to know who the pilot is

John McCain?

tudorgurl: holy fark

oh come on - you can't actually be surprised at this. we've been heading this way for at least a decade now.

SilentStrider: mrshowrules: and you don't want to know who the pilot is

John McCain?

That's where I was going with that. Crashing two planes and all.

/thinks McCain was a great American

dj_bigbird: Of course our "Constitutional Law Professor" President won't sign this if/when it hits his desk.

The scarier question is what would any of the current Republican candidates do if they were President and this came across their desk? I'm guessing Huntsman and Paul (obviously) would veto it and the rest of them would sign it. Romney might be against it at heart but sign it to continue to prove how he's a tough guy conservative to his base.

No, no, you miss the whole point... this is just a pro-NRA bill, since you'll really want your 2nd amendment rights when the Army comes to your house to arrest your family.

Well, how can we be a third world country without military control?

simplicimus: Well, how can we be a third world country without military control?

Well, some of the new Republican talking points seem to be that if the President (and they mean Obama) makes a decision contrary to his generals he is a failure and unAmerican. Basically, their ideology seems to be taking them to the military is always right and should make the calls.

WorldCitizen: simplicimus: Well, how can we be a third world country without military control?

Well, some of the new Republican talking points seem to be that if the President (and they mean Obama) makes a decision contrary to his generals he is a failure and unAmerican. Basically, their ideology seems to be taking them to the military is always right and should make the calls.

All things considered, I'd trust our troops over Republicians.

simplicimus: WorldCitizen: simplicimus: Well, how can we be a third world country without military control?

Well, some of the new Republican talking points seem to be that if the President (and they mean Obama) makes a decision contrary to his generals he is a failure and unAmerican. Basically, their ideology seems to be taking them to the military is always right and should make the calls.

All things considered, I'd trust our troops over Republicians.

What about... Republican troops?

Dun dun DUNNNNN

The Onion is prophetic: simplicimus: WorldCitizen: simplicimus: Well, how can we be a third world country without military control?

Well, some of the new Republican talking points seem to be that if the President (and they mean Obama) makes a decision contrary to his generals he is a failure and unAmerican. Basically, their ideology seems to be taking them to the military is always right and should make the calls.

All things considered, I'd trust our troops over Republicians.

What about... Republican troops?

Dun dun DUNNNNN

I believe the troops take an oath to obey the constitution. And they follow it. Elected politicians, not so much.

hubiestubert: I'm so glad that so many brave folk's who have suggested Second Amendment solutions are standing up against this...

Seriously this. I will remember to bring this up to them later.

simplicimus: The Onion is prophetic: simplicimus: WorldCitizen: simplicimus: Well, how can we be a third world country without military control?

Well, some of the new Republican talking points seem to be that if the President (and they mean Obama) makes a decision contrary to his generals he is a failure and unAmerican. Basically, their ideology seems to be taking them to the military is always right and should make the calls.

All things considered, I'd trust our troops over Republicians.

What about... Republican troops?

Dun dun DUNNNNN

I believe the troops take an oath to obey the constitution. And they follow it. Elected politicians, not so much.

Troops follow orders. The US government is designed to have civilians ultimately responsible for those orders. Civilians who are then responsible to the voters who put them in office and can remove them from office. The civilians in charge of the government take those same oaths. Nothing against the troops, but I doubt there are many constitutional scholars amongst the rank and file. The Pentagon has its own army of lawyers, and I would hope that they would vet their decisions against the Constitution. But even among constitutional lawyers/scholars/Supreme Court Justices there are debates about what is and what is not following the Constitution.

Long story short, no, the military should not be in charge of our country or our country's policies.

Makh: hubiestubert: I'm so glad that so many brave folk's who have suggested Second Amendment solutions are standing up against this...

Seriously this. I will remember to bring this up to them later.

it won't matter. most of the tea party would think this is just darn spiffy...at least until the government started putting THEM into jail cells just like everyone else.

And that's why I didn't vote for McCain in 2008.

I'd really like to know what's going through these people's heads where they think that this shiat is acceptable to the public? Just wow.

I cant vote for Levine again. I hate the Republican party, but i will vote for Levin's opponent next chance i get. Utterly despicable and abhorrent.

I believe the line goes something like: If you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about

/amirite or amirite

Peter von Nostrand: I believe the line goes something like: If you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about

/amirite or amirite

Nah, it gets better. From the war on drugs ( pre-Bush), we got "the car you're driving makes me think you're a drug dealer, so I have to confiscate it here and now, and your cash too. No, no judge is needed, but you can go to court to get your stuff back".

make me some tea: And that's why I didn't vote for McCain in 2008.

Wut?

make me some tea: And that's why I didn't vote for McCain in 2008.

I'd really like to know what's going through these people's heads where they think that this shiat is acceptable to the public? Just wow.

Pancakes!

make me some tea: And that's why I didn't vote for McCain in 2008.

I'd really like to know what's going through these people's heads where they think that this shiat is acceptable to the public? Just wow.

Ditto. I didn't trust him not to try and pull this exact sort of shenanigans.

The Constitution does not work like that.

fusillade762:
The Onion is prophetic: All things considered, I'd trust our troops over Republicians.

What about... Republican troops?

They're called "Blackwater". Or whatever they've changed their name to this week.

sesame street. I know, right? who knew?

Marcus Aurelius: When DailyKos, the ACLU, and conservatives are all against a bill, you know it has to be a real stinker.

Is introducing this bill an impeachable offense? Because it ought to be.

+1

SilentStrider: mrshowrules: and you don't want to know who the pilot is

John McCain?

His plane's about to burn up our aircraft carrier.