Boyah Forums

General => The Lobby => Topic started by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 02:46:06 PM

Title: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 02:46:06 PM
welcome to the PoLiCe StaTE, shitcunts. Paul 2012 smithicide;
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Andria on December 14, 2011, 02:47:40 PM
I want to be part of a revolution
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: YPrrrr on December 14, 2011, 02:49:48 PM
Quote from: Twilight Echo on December 14, 2011, 02:47:40 PM
I want to be part of a revolution
Me too, if I die I don't have to worry about shit anymore AWESOME

... though if people think like that then WWIII is inevitable. Sigh
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 02:50:23 PM
keep calm and carry on!
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Andria on December 14, 2011, 02:52:43 PM
Quote from: NPR on December 14, 2011, 02:49:48 PM
Me too, if I die I don't have to worry about shit anymore AWESOME

... though if people think like that then WWIII is inevitable. Sigh

Dying?

pfft I will see it to the end. I'd like to see anyone actually kill me.  baddood;

revolution has been a dream of mine for like always
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: YPrrrr on December 14, 2011, 02:56:26 PM
Quote from: Twilight Echo on December 14, 2011, 02:52:43 PM
Dying?

pfft I will see it to the end. I'd like to see anyone actually kill me.  baddood;

revolution has been a dream of mine for like always
I re-watched the South Park movie the other day and the "la resistance" song always makes me want to go do some bold and daring

It also reminds me I'd probably die girl;
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 02:57:05 PM
hey guys. you know like. people are . like. .. currently protesting this .s hit . idk if you noticed this or not
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Daddy on December 14, 2011, 02:57:35 PM
The bill passed 93-7.  That is 93% compared to the 66% needed for an overrride of the veto. You'd need at least 27 people to back down before his veto would even be worth anything.



Ron Paul wouldn't be able to do shit against a veto override either.
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: YPrrrr on December 14, 2011, 02:59:36 PM
Quote from: DeepForrestGhost  link=topic=57569.msg1156783#msg1156783 date=1323903425
hey guys. you know like. people are . like. .. currently protesting this .s hit . idk if you noticed this or not
Pshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Some revolution

Owie, I got tazed, quick someone post it on youtube cry;
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: NPR on December 14, 2011, 02:59:36 PM
Pshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Some revolution

Owie, I got tazed, quick someone post it on youtube cry;
wat the heck am i reading
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: ME## on December 14, 2011, 03:03:10 PM
if you listen closely, you can hear the russia today staff room erupting in celebration.  ifeelbetter;
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 03:04:26 PM
Quote from: Khadafi on December 14, 2011, 02:57:35 PM
The bill passed 93-7.  That is 93% compared to the 66% needed for an overrride of the veto. You'd need at least 27 people to back down before his veto would even be worth anything.



Ron Paul wouldn't be able to do shit against a veto override either.


i just meant I'd rather vote for paul than some shitheaded nigger who would let this happen

Quote from: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 03:02:38 PM
wat the heck am i reading


i hope to dear jesus god ypr is joking

Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 03:05:20 PM
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3895&s_sbsrc=111205_AdvocacyNDAA_fixNDAAredirect


here you go Revolutionaries. you can like. do something while you still have a shred of freedom
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: YPrrrr on December 14, 2011, 03:06:13 PM
Sigh... I wish you guys knew me in real life

I was hoping the pshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh gave it away
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 03:07:27 PM
yeah i am not really good at verbal things sorry lol
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 03:08:30 PM
Quote from: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 03:05:20 PM
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3895&s_sbsrc=111205_AdvocacyNDAA_fixNDAAredirect


here you go Revolutionaries. you can like. do something while you still have a shred of freedom


ya right like im givin my name and email to some liberal blog so they can email me every fucking 2 days about their next little campaign rouser

imstill getting emails from the anti-patriot act petition


Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: ME## on December 14, 2011, 03:08:55 PM
all of you guys should be happy with your taserings. 
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 03:09:48 PM
Quote from: Dovydas on December 14, 2011, 03:08:55 PM
all of you guys should be happy with your taserings. 


move to russia then
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: YPrrrr on December 14, 2011, 03:10:43 PM
Quote from: vziard on December 14, 2011, 03:09:48 PM
move to russia then
or Wall Street
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 03:10:52 PM
Quote from: vziard on December 14, 2011, 03:08:30 PM
ya right like im givin my name and email to some liberal blog so they can email me every fucking 2 days about their next little campaign rouser

imstill getting emails from the anti-patriot act petition





if you click the thing at the bottom you don't get the emails
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: PLEASEHELP1991 on December 14, 2011, 03:16:31 PM
i doubt even the supreme court would find those flagrant provisions constitutional
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 03:32:17 PM
Quote from: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 03:10:52 PM
if you click the thing at the bottom you don't get the emails


i was jk i did it 12 times
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Walter on December 14, 2011, 03:32:38 PM
Yeah lets vote ron paul then we can have a religious police state instead of a police state !!!!!!! lubdoods;
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 03:33:28 PM
Quote from: vziard on December 14, 2011, 03:32:17 PM
i was jk i did it 12 times
We Can Not Fuck Around In a Time Like This.
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 03:33:50 PM
Quote from: Walter on December 14, 2011, 03:32:38 PM
Yeah lets vote ron paul then we can have a religious police state instead of a police state !!!!!!! lubdoods;


you have huntsman confused with paul
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 03:34:37 PM
Quote from: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 03:33:28 PM
We Can Not Fuck Around In a Time Like This.


i'm not fuckin around. what is obama's phone number?
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Walter on December 14, 2011, 03:35:45 PM
Quote from: vziard on December 14, 2011, 03:33:50 PM
you have huntsman confused with paul


ron paul doesn't believe in seperation of church and state fyi he thinks that it should be "the state's decision" inb4 religious troops patrolling street. that alone is enough for me to not vote for him
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: YPrrrr on December 14, 2011, 03:38:58 PM
I'm pretty sure I'm voting for Obama given the potential candidates. At least he's good with foreign relations for the most part
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 03:39:48 PM
im voting for nayder still lol
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Andria on December 14, 2011, 03:40:15 PM
Quote from: NPR on December 14, 2011, 03:38:58 PM
I'm pretty sure I'm voting for Obama given the potential candidates. At least he's good with foreign relations for the most part

I guess... but he does support the Israeli occupation of Gaza and such so that isn't so great in terms of foreign policy
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Walter on December 14, 2011, 03:40:30 PM
Quote from: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 03:39:48 PM
im voting for nayder still lol


that guy is still trying wtf? akudood;
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: PLEASEHELP1991 on December 14, 2011, 03:40:56 PM
I'm voting for [REDACTED]
firm supporter of the australian ballot here
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 03:43:19 PM
Quote from: Walter on December 14, 2011, 03:35:45 PM
ron paul doesn't believe in seperation of church and state fyi he thinks that it should be "the state's decision" inb4 religious troops patrolling street. that alone is enough for me to not vote for him


not that I really agree with the philosophy of that but I think the idea, in the Paulian philosophy, is to delegate as much power as possible to states. like in an ideal united states (i am aware the articles of confederation existed).

like, sure, alabama can have a governor-bishop, and california can continue to worship money and pot. what's the problem, why should i get to make ethical decisions about people i will never talk to in my life?
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Walter on December 14, 2011, 03:55:28 PM
Quote from: vziard on December 14, 2011, 03:43:19 PM
alabama can have a governor-bishop...what's the problem


lol
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 04:17:27 PM
Quote from: Walter on December 14, 2011, 03:55:28 PM
lol


no srs, I don't live in alabama or know anyone there so I don't feel like I should have the right to tell them they shouldn't value religion if they really want to, and I also don't want them making laws about issues that only affect where I live (mexicans and pot). either have no laws, or do this, seems like a viable solution to actually enforce democracy
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: YPrrrr on December 14, 2011, 04:22:44 PM
Quote from: Twilight Echo on December 14, 2011, 03:40:15 PM
I guess... but he does support the Israeli occupation of Gaza and such so that isn't so great in terms of foreign policy

Doesn't he also emphasize less us support for Israel? Or maybe that was some wonderful dream I had
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: silvertone on December 14, 2011, 04:25:07 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5 ffadsffcvx
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Walter on December 14, 2011, 04:43:52 PM
Quote from: vziard on December 14, 2011, 04:17:27 PMenforce democracy


lol ok bro ok
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Daddy on December 14, 2011, 04:47:23 PM
Quote from: vziard on December 14, 2011, 04:17:27 PM
no srs, I don't live in alabama or know anyone there so I don't feel like I should have the right to tell them they shouldn't value religion if they really want to, and I also don't want them making laws about issues that only affect where I live (mexicans and pot). either have no laws, or do this, seems like a viable solution to actually enforce democracy
But why stop at the state line?


Why should voters in Suffolk County decide the laws here in Essex County?

Why stop at the county?

Why should voters in Salem decide the laws here in Lynn?

City?


Why should voters in That ward decide the laws in this ward?



Not saying that I don't see your point but why is State the threshold for laws when different wards of a city can have variances in their laws?
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: Khadafi on December 14, 2011, 04:47:23 PM
But why stop at the state line?


Why should voters in Suffolk County decide the laws here in Essex County?

Why stop at the county?

Why should voters in Salem decide the laws here in Lynn?

City?


Why should voters in That ward decide the laws in this ward?



Not saying that I don't see your point but why is State the threshold for laws when different wards of a city can have variances in their laws?


I'm actually completely in support of city-states and have always thought that the USA should be divided into 'super states' based roughly on economic regions that join together in some loosely regulated but mutually agreed-upon confederation for purposes of national defense and foreign trade
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Walter on December 14, 2011, 04:56:29 PM
Quote from: vziard on December 14, 2011, 04:49:37 PM
I'm actually completely in support of city-states and have always thought that the USA should be divided into 'super states' based roughly on economic regions that join together in some loosely regulated but mutually agreed-upon confederation for purposes of national defense and foreign trade


But what if one city is radical and forms an army and attacks a nearby city? What then Mister? Who will step in to stop it? Give them enough power and its bound to happen somewhere, just look at what the fed does with power. We are invading pretty much every country on the planet.
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Daddy on December 14, 2011, 04:58:30 PM
I think the West Texan Union should invade the socali federation because there are so many fags.
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: Walter on December 14, 2011, 04:56:29 PM
But what if one city is radical and forms an army and attacks a nearby city? What then Mister? Who will step in to stop it? Give them enough power and its bound to happen somewhere, just look at what the fed does with power. We are invading pretty much every country on the planet.


obviously I'm not talking about replicating the politics of athens and sparta, someone would have to use their big ol brain to figure out fair and enforceable inter-city regulations that would disencourage civil wars (this shouldn't be difficult considering we have the internet and are no longer concerned with winning land for the sake of raping the native population)
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Walter on December 14, 2011, 05:03:54 PM
Quote from: vziard on December 14, 2011, 05:00:20 PM(this shouldn't be difficult considering we have the internet and are no longer concerned with winning land for the sake of raping the native population)


Speak for yourself. AWESOME
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: snoorkel on December 14, 2011, 05:05:32 PM
Quote from: Walter on December 14, 2011, 05:03:54 PM
Speak for yourself. AWESOME


ok ive concluded you are trolling my band
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Walter on December 14, 2011, 05:08:19 PM
Quote from: Snowy on December 14, 2011, 05:06:28 PM
Wait, what isn't he vetoing? confuseddood;


snowy go play with your toys the big boys are talking philip; philip; philip; philip;
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: YPrrrr on December 14, 2011, 05:32:28 PM
Didn't the Articles of Confederation already try small government?
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: Andria on December 14, 2011, 05:36:37 PM
Quote from: NPR on December 14, 2011, 05:32:28 PM
Didn't the Articles of Confederation already try small government?

Something like that.

I am not sure small government like that can work, but I don't know if the Articles of Confederation are a good expample of that.
Title: Re: so obama actually ISN'T going to veto NDAA
Post by: wawi on December 15, 2011, 11:15:38 AM
i support it
if u r against it u probably have something to hide, commies and terrorists