Hey

Manchester, TN

#65195 Feb 6, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Ok, if you'll stop begging, here's what will save you...GET OFF THE DRUGS AND ALCOHOL, REHAB, AA, NA, and A GOOD PSYCHOLOGIST!
I have a GOOD PSYCHOLOGIST that would be my GOOD SISTER.
I don't do drugs or alcohol. Some one brought a bottle of Black Velvet for Christmas 5yrs ago and there is some still there.
I gave up smokin.I gave up my Spitfire I gave up Pennsylvania I gave up my snowmobile and I will get them back.
You can have my smokes. Because I don't care what happens to you.
Dunlapian

Dunlap, TN

#65196 Feb 6, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
Well, it looks like the Dems are pretty well aligned with Obama, and the Republicans seem against him in relation to the drone strikes on American citizens...
I can see both sides of this issue, but, just as I opposed the parts of the "Patriot Act" that took away the civil liberties of Americans in the name of safety, just as I opposed the UNLIMITED detention of prisoners in Guantanamo, and just as I opposed the use of torture on those prisoners, I am opposed to targeting AMERICAN citizens with drone strikes. This policy is at least as bad as those I outlined above, and most likely worse, since those above CAN be corrected, but death can not.
This policy makes the executive a god, deciding with perhaps a checkmark on a list, which American citizen lives and which dies....personally, I see nothing in the constitution that gives him that power.
Had I chosen to, I could have made a case in the other direction, since there is another side. Capturing an American Citizen engged in terrorist activities, would require putting some (perhaps many) American lives at risk, versus pressing some buttons and sending that drone to kill him/her. Secondly, if God Forbid, there were another attack here, and the public was later told that the President knew about the plot, and because
an American was involved, a drone strike was not used...Republicans would be screaming at the president for not taking out this person when he had the chance. Another tough issue to say the least ! BUT the consitution either means something or it doesn't. I believe it should, and it does.
OT, all of your points well taken.
Today(as you know) the world is very different, things happen very fast. Battle lines are not black and white. American Citizens hate America and it's citizens so much, that they will kill as many of them as possible even if they die also.
Yes, our own intelligence dept's can be corrupted, like what Cheney did. Or on the other hand our intelligence gathering can be the best defense.
President Obama has a sworn oath to protect us, and if he didn't do everything in his power to do so(and he can't wait for a trail by jury) Obama and Obama alone would be the one at fault and the Republicans would be all over him, for political gain. They would not be with him to fix the problem. As Americans we should all band together fight this enemy with the best weapons available.
As Americans we should also be very careful and not go into any conflict without knowing all of the facts.
Right now we could use more help at home with our own American projects.
Hey

Manchester, TN

#65197 Feb 6, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know anything about farming , other than what I have read about the Giant Agri-businesses. I thought you were speaking as a Food Consumer...I was! You really don't make yourself clear, you're too busy ranting and raving, I guess...at People who didn't have a thing to do with your plight, whatever it is!
I make myself perfectly clear.I know what the hell i'm talking about and you don't.
Frankly I don't think you know what you're talking about either.
You really should have stayed on my good side and NO I AM NOt THREATENING YOU.Y'all can leave your drones in your pocket.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65198 Feb 6, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
That's all you do is bash people who do not go along with the agenda.
You keep blaming everyone but your the one that knocks everyones ideas and opinions but your own.
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
Get it through your empty head...You stupid friggen butt licker.
Um...
Nuh

South Pittsburg, TN

#65199 Feb 6, 2013
I'm torn on the whole drone on Americans deal. I'm not sure just how the Justice Dept's position on it's legality meshes with:

Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Constitution defines only one crime, that of treason, and tells us that it requires (1) the Congress to be involved and (2) the Courts (article 3 is the Judiciary) to be involved and gain a "conviction" based on witnesses or confession in OPEN court before (3) the Executive takes action. Maybe the Founders felt it was important to clearly define that particular crime for some reason because it is the only one that got specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself.
WILLARD

Dunlap, TN

#65200 Feb 6, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> Good Morning "Nuh" ! Glad to see your post. I had never hear of this program before you posted this, and it seems to be a great idea, with potential to save/change a lot of lives, not to mention minds ! I will check it out further and see what I can do to help.
Talk to everyone later, have a great day all !
Unbelievable! If sheer ignorance is the problem here, someone should regularly issue posts explaining the fundamental virtues of the U.S. constitution and general framework of american government. Aside from God, nothing has changed lives as has this great benefactor throughout world history. Moreover, American benevolent giving has never been surpassed by any peoples in all of history. Interestingly, our framework of American government and attendant constitutional protections made all of this possible. While you're checking out cool new programs, do consider the U.S. Constitution!

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#65201 Feb 6, 2013
Nuh wrote:
I'm torn on the whole drone on Americans deal. I'm not sure just how the Justice Dept's position on it's legality meshes with:
Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Constitution defines only one crime, that of treason, and tells us that it requires (1) the Congress to be involved and (2) the Courts (article 3 is the Judiciary) to be involved and gain a "conviction" based on witnesses or confession in OPEN court before (3) the Executive takes action. Maybe the Founders felt it was important to clearly define that particular crime for some reason because it is the only one that got specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself.
I'm not that familiar with history back during that time so this is literally just a "stab in the dark", but could it be that some of our Founding Fathers were thought , by some, to be British sympathizers? Just guessing...
Hey

Manchester, TN

#65202 Feb 6, 2013
The Original Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Um...
After a while even the Good Humor Man gets ticked off.
I can not stomach that crap anymore.
I am not the only one.
And I'll repeat it one more time She's a butt licker and she tries to make a big liar look like "THE MAN"
Not that Obama is corrupt as those before him.Oh never.
But he did a better con job.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#65203 Feb 6, 2013
"Hundreds Of Thousands Dealing With PTSD."

Click here:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/hundreds-of-tho...

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#65204 Feb 6, 2013
The Original Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Um...
"Um" is right! I have no idea who "Hey" is, when I was on his/her "good side"...I don't even know if it's a Male or a Female. All in all, to sum it up, I don't have a clue who or what he/she is talking about and yet, he/she posts like I should.
All I know is that we have some very strange Posters on here!

I wish it would go back like it used to be, where everybody knew who they were talking to, at least as much as you can on an anonymous Forum and everybody posted with the same User Name. At least, One could get a sense of their personality. But, that was BTT, "Before The Trolls" and those days are gone forever, it seems. What a shame!
Cornbread

Scottsville, KY

#65207 Feb 6, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Um" is right! I have no idea who "Hey" is, when I was on his/her "good side"...I don't even know if it's a Male or a Female. All in all, to sum it up, I don't have a clue who or what he/she is talking about and yet, he/she posts like I should.
All I know is that we have some very strange Posters on here!
I wish it would go back like it used to be, where everybody knew who they were talking to, at least as much as you can on an anonymous Forum and everybody posted with the same User Name. At least, One could get a sense of their personality. But, that was BTT, "Before The Trolls" and those days are gone forever, it seems. What a shame!
I tried to get a decent debate going once...sigh...
But certain posters refuse to allow intelligence. Kinda like it works in Government.
If you can't impress em with brilliance.... baffle em with bull chit.
WILLARD

Dunlap, TN

#65209 Feb 6, 2013
Nuh wrote:
I'm torn on the whole drone on Americans deal. I'm not sure just how the Justice Dept's position on it's legality meshes with:
Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Constitution defines only one crime, that of treason, and tells us that it requires (1) the Congress to be involved and (2) the Courts (article 3 is the Judiciary) to be involved and gain a "conviction" based on witnesses or confession in OPEN court before (3) the Executive takes action. Maybe the Founders felt it was important to clearly define that particular crime for some reason because it is the only one that got specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself.
This administration is not morally constrained by our constitution. Pernicious doctrines of subjective truth, subjective morality, subjective relevancy, subjective ethics have now morphed into what I can only consider - subjective legal doctrines.

There are multiple bodies of law which, in and of themselves are foreboding. These seminal bodies of law are even darker when examined together. When separate legal empowerments pick up legal definitions found in separate but relevant sections of law, they become legally synergistic and reveal a dark and coherent intent!

Such is the case involving much of the current of law pursuant to to homeland security measures (LAWS) which deal with "continuity of government" and "exigent circumstances" during or after "ANY" "National Emergency".

Similar and additional libertires were taken (unconstitutionally) and are apparent in the 2013 NDAA law (National Defense Authorization Act). The legal definition of (north continental United States of America) has been legally declaired: a "Battlefield" in the war against terrorists! This will, by laws already passed, permit American citizens in the U.S. to be declaired "Domestic enemy combatants", subject to administrative prerogatives of targeted killing, not only by means of a drone strike.

Please also know that the threshold of evidence requires less than Probable cause or resonable suspicion, requiring on "suspicion" with language included having to do with those who are suspected as "political Beligerants". You may not be aware that Obama has now authorized "INTERPOL" to operate with total impunity within U.S. borders. Obama, with an executive order, stopped any and all oversight possibilities over this dubious organization tied to the KGB. Obama blocked all oversight of INTERPOL operations in the U.S. by Congress, F.B.I., C.I.A., and even the justice department! His executive order even blocks the powers of all sunshine laws in America, including the "freedom of Information Act". All of this information is available to anyone...It just requires work! Good luck to you.
Truth Detector

Jamestown, TN

#65212 Feb 6, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
<quoted text>
...YAWN...thank you for sharing...YAWN...
Yeah. Answering the question would tax your brain.
Dunlapian

Dunlap, TN

#65213 Feb 6, 2013
WILLARD wrote:
<quoted text>
This administration is not morally constrained by our constitution. Pernicious doctrines of subjective truth, subjective morality, subjective relevancy, subjective ethics have now morphed into what I can only consider - subjective legal doctrines.
There are multiple bodies of law which, in and of themselves are foreboding. These seminal bodies of law are even darker when examined together. When separate legal empowerments pick up legal definitions found in separate but relevant sections of law, they become legally synergistic and reveal a dark and coherent intent!
Such is the case involving much of the current of law pursuant to to homeland security measures (LAWS) which deal with "continuity of government" and "exigent circumstances" during or after "ANY" "National Emergency".
Similar and additional libertires were taken (unconstitutionally) and are apparent in the 2013 NDAA law (National Defense Authorization Act). The legal definition of (north continental United States of America) has been legally declaired: a "Battlefield" in the war against terrorists! This will, by laws already passed, permit American citizens in the U.S. to be declaired "Domestic enemy combatants", subject to administrative prerogatives of targeted killing, not only by means of a drone strike.
Please also know that the threshold of evidence requires less than Probable cause or resonable suspicion, requiring on "suspicion" with language included having to do with those who are suspected as "political Beligerants". You may not be aware that Obama has now authorized "INTERPOL" to operate with total impunity within U.S. borders. Obama, with an executive order, stopped any and all oversight possibilities over this dubious organization tied to the KGB. Obama blocked all oversight of INTERPOL operations in the U.S. by Congress, F.B.I., C.I.A., and even the justice department! His executive order even blocks the powers of all sunshine laws in America, including the "freedom of Information Act". All of this information is available to anyone...It just requires work! Good luck to you.
Willard, which Executive Order did our President Obama sign to block all Sunshine Laws in America?
WILLARD

Dunlap, TN

#65214 Feb 6, 2013
Dunlapian wrote:
<quoted text>Willard, which Executive Order did our President Obama sign to block all Sunshine Laws in America?
I didn't assert that! Interpol has been exempted.
Dunlapian

Dunlap, TN

#65215 Feb 6, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
Hey Dunlapian, forget the popcorn, let's order in a Full Course Meal. This is going to be better than the Frazier-Ali Fight...and it's going to be long and bloody! LMAO!
----------
"Joe Walsh Forming Super PAC To Fight Karl Rove's Super PAC."
("The former Congressman joins Tea Partyers who are lining up against American Crossroads.")
Click here:
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/joe_walsh_for...
Your on Sassy, I just love watching Republicans eat their own!
Whoever gives to the Joe Walsh Super Pac might want to check to see that he does not dig in and take out $100,000 he owes his ex-wife and 3 little children.

As for old Karl.......well all I can say is good luck!(with your money)
WILLARD

Dunlap, TN

#65216 Feb 6, 2013
Dunlapian wrote:
<quoted text>Willard, which Executive Order did our President Obama sign to block all Sunshine Laws in America?
Exerpt from the Examiner:

What is most disturbing to police chiefs and officers in the US is that President Obama has provided foreign officers and international agencies exemptions from laws and regulations to which US cops must comply. An amendment to an executive order secretly signed by President Barack Obama on December 16, 2009 gives police officers from foreign governments who work for INTERPOL police powers in the United States.

"This Obama executive order is a slap in the face of US cops -- who must adhere to laws and regulations including FOIA -- but also a slap in the face of American citizens who may be abused by these non-citizen cops from countries that don't recognize our constitutional protections," warns former New York City detective and Marine intelligence officer Sidney Franes.

When President Ronald Reagan's passed an executive order addressing INTERPOL, it clearly spelled out limitations such as requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. While many opposed Reagan's executive order, it was unchallenged due to the Cold War.

"Under the Obama administration such Reagan-era limitations have been kicked to the wayside by a globalist White House," said Frances.

Obama's executive order reads as follows:

Amending Executive Order 12425 designating INTERPOL as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions and immunities

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them."

"What Obama has done is he's given foreign police agencies more power than our own police have or should have. What's next? INTERPOL cops raiding American homes based on unlawfully obtained information?" asks political strategist Mike Baker.

"This executive order signing received almost no media coverage and follows the recent creation of an International Intelligence Agency."

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#65217 Feb 6, 2013
WILLARD wrote:
<quoted text>
Exerpt from the Examiner:
What is most disturbing to police chiefs and officers in the US is that President Obama has provided foreign officers and international agencies exemptions from laws and regulations to which US cops must comply. An amendment to an executive order secretly signed by President Barack Obama on December 16, 2009 gives police officers from foreign governments who work for INTERPOL police powers in the United States.
"This Obama executive order is a slap in the face of US cops -- who must adhere to laws and regulations including FOIA -- but also a slap in the face of American citizens who may be abused by these non-citizen cops from countries that don't recognize our constitutional protections," warns former New York City detective and Marine intelligence officer Sidney Franes.
When President Ronald Reagan's passed an executive order addressing INTERPOL, it clearly spelled out limitations such as requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. While many opposed Reagan's executive order, it was unchallenged due to the Cold War.
"Under the Obama administration such Reagan-era limitations have been kicked to the wayside by a globalist White House," said Frances.
Obama's executive order reads as follows:
Amending Executive Order 12425 designating INTERPOL as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions and immunities
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them."
"What Obama has done is he's given foreign police agencies more power than our own police have or should have. What's next? INTERPOL cops raiding American homes based on unlawfully obtained information?" asks political strategist Mike Baker.
"This executive order signing received almost no media coverage and follows the recent creation of an International Intelligence Agency."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/12/...

So what does the counterterrorism official from the Bush years think of this?

He can't believe it's taken this long.

"To the extent that granting these immunities to INTERPOL furthers the efficacy or ease of information-sharing or joint action on an expedited basis to act on warrants
seems like a no brainer to me," the official says.

"Conservatives can't have it both ways," the official says. "You can't be complaining about the hypothetical abdication of US jurisdiction at the same time you're complaining the Obama administration is not being tough enough on national security."

Obama administration officials say this new executive order doesn't allow INTERPOL to do any more than they were allowed to do once Reagan recognized them as a public international organization. Though clearly the Executive Order does prohibit US law enforcement from searching and seizing INTERPOL records, officials say, those provisions can be waived by the president if need be.
Mike

Bulgaria

#65218 Feb 6, 2013
WILLARD wrote:
<quoted text>
Exerpt from the Examiner:
What is most disturbing to police chiefs and officers in the US is that President Obama has provided foreign officers and international agencies exemptions from laws and regulations to which US cops must comply. An amendment to an executive order secretly signed by President Barack Obama on December 16, 2009 gives police officers from foreign governments who work for INTERPOL police powers in the United States.
"This Obama executive order is a slap in the face of US cops -- who must adhere to laws and regulations including FOIA -- but also a slap in the face of American citizens who may be abused by these non-citizen cops from countries that don't recognize our constitutional protections," warns former New York City detective and Marine intelligence officer Sidney Franes.
When President Ronald Reagan's passed an executive order addressing INTERPOL, it clearly spelled out limitations such as requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. While many opposed Reagan's executive order, it was unchallenged due to the Cold War.
"Under the Obama administration such Reagan-era limitations have been kicked to the wayside by a globalist White House," said Frances.
Obama's executive order reads as follows:
Amending Executive Order 12425 designating INTERPOL as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions and immunities
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL),*it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them."
"What Obama has done is he's given foreign police agencies more power than our own police have or should have. What's next? INTERPOL cops raiding American homes based on unlawfully obtained information?" asks political strategist Mike Baker.
"This executive order signing received almost no media coverage and follows the recent creation of an International Intelligence Agency."
(INTERPOL),*"it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983," A little old for obama to sign it.
Hey

Manchester, TN

#65219 Feb 6, 2013
WILLARD wrote:
<quoted text>
Exerpt from the Examiner:
What is most disturbing to police chiefs and officers in the US is that President Obama has provided foreign officers and international agencies exemptions from laws and regulations to which US cops must comply. An amendment to an executive order secretly signed by President Barack Obama on December 16, 2009 gives police officers from foreign governments who work for INTERPOL police powers in the United States.
"This Obama executive order is a slap in the face of US cops -- who must adhere to laws and regulations including FOIA -- but also a slap in the face of American citizens who may be abused by these non-citizen cops from countries that don't recognize our constitutional protections," warns former New York City detective and Marine intelligence officer Sidney Franes.
When President Ronald Reagan's passed an executive order addressing INTERPOL, it clearly spelled out limitations such as requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. While many opposed Reagan's executive order, it was unchallenged due to the Cold War.
"Under the Obama administration such Reagan-era limitations have been kicked to the wayside by a globalist White House," said Frances.
Obama's executive order reads as follows:
Amending Executive Order 12425 designating INTERPOL as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions and immunities
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them."
"What Obama has done is he's given foreign police agencies more power than our own police have or should have. What's next? INTERPOL cops raiding American homes based on unlawfully obtained information?" asks political strategist Mike Baker.
"This executive order signing received almost no media coverage and follows the recent creation of an International Intelligence Agency."
MORE PLEASE

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greeneville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Elizabeth Greer 13 min an old friend 21
Emory Luke Jennings 17 min an old friend 7
Atheist/agnostic atrocities 43 min shapeshift 55
fun thing to do ***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Sep '10) 1 hr Independent1 7,675
skanky moms who post party and drinking picture... 1 hr sylvia 27
ty for slandering 1 hr bahahaha 13
***** last post wins ***** 2 hr Trunketeer 1,639
when we die 2 hr Kohlrabi 55
Ted Cruz for president Sat Question 117
Greeneville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Greeneville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]