U.S. lowers it's flag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RetiredJedi

I'm having a hard time with the new law that allows the government to detain American citizens, SUSPECTED of terroists acts, indefinately without a trial. Does the IV and VI Amendment mean anything? I have my own beliefs about someone who leaves and fights for the other side on the battlefield or actual terrorists. But to hold American citizens SUSPECTED of terrorism without a trial just opens doors to other things. That means that the talking heads in the government get to decide what is considered a suspected terrorist.

"Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial"

---

According to NADD law, it was revised to not included American Citizens and legal aliens, But those here illegally, are ones their after and thoses wanting to come into this country will not have the right.

A lot of jumpers try to get here and then give birth on our soil, where we then keep them, pay for them, and house them. The Bill should stop all this with the Military running it all.

Because life, even as an American citizen, as the child of an illegal immigrant is so easy and we spend such a large percentage of our taxes taking care of them while they provide no benefits for our society..

[/sarcasm]

If it's money you're worried about, tackle the big money problems. If it's not Medicare, Social Security, or Defense, it's just a drop in the bucket.

I can't fathom why our government is going to use the military to do this. I started another thread in quarantine but got no response. Glad to see others are as bewildered about this as I.

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin

When one ends another begins. Its always a matter of interest that matures into a contingency plan that eventually is acted upon. Its just a matter of time. Tick, tick, tick. Don't get me wrong, after 10 years I took the good, left the bad, but the methodology is still cookie - cutter. :2cent:

I see I am a few days late...as for the whole "troops leaving Iraq" thing. I spent 2 deployments in Fallujah and it was obvious as can be that there was never going to be any progress. I was dealing with sheiks who had the education and mentation of a 4th grader. You can't reason or teach politics to them and expect it to work. Anyone who has been there knows that the person with the biggest gun wins. Its the wild west without the good saloons to get a cold one.

I know we are not completely free from Iraq, as I know many of my friends who still do private contracting and are over there now and will remain for the next 17 months. These are guys who were scout snipers with me and are not there to shake hands and kiss babies. This all comes at a time to me where it is almost like an act of kindness or fulfillment of a promise from a president who has yet to deliver anything...amazing it all happens as elections draw near.

As far as the NADD law goes, I see some good which can be derived from it...but obviously plenty of room for major flaws. I think until they are done altering it that we have no idea how far they will want to push it. It can be beneficial as long as the correct people are blanketed and those in which deserve to be targeted are left without immunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enigmatic Reptiles

...amazing it all happens as elections drass near...

---

This was actually the prior presidents withdrawal timeline, buy this prez is just taking the credit for bringing the troops home.

Oh and thanks for serving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RetiredJedi

This was actually the prior presidents withdrawal timeline, buy this prez is just taking the credit for bringing the troops home.

Oh and thanks for serving.

---

Us he really stooping That low to get re-elected? Granted I stay out of the news category this blows my mind... if he's really doing what you said he must be pretty doubtful of his re-election..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twistedtails

Right. So, your grandpa who worked 30-50 years for a money hungry boss who decided not to match his retirement is out of money now and receives SSI. Are you saying he no longer deserves support from the people he supported his whole life? Does he not deserve medical care? This is the support I'm talking about. Life is tough right now for everybody and we are still paying taxes, in fact, there are talking about increasing the taxes even more and have done so recently. Your saying we should not recieve support in times like this. What about the 12,000,000 Americans who are going to run out of benefits on January 1st if the government doesn't reach an agreement by December 31st this year? Mind you, a lot of those people are not scum bags, they have worked a long time in established careers(paying taxes the whole time, some of them paying large amounts). IMO, your "daycare" statement was cold hearted and uneducated. The money would have been well spent here in our country taking care of people like this instead of funding a political war...

---

I would like to apologize. I believe we have been misunderstanding eachother. I did not mean in any way that the government should not be paying people their social security in anyway. When I read your original post I just assumed you were talking about things like free healthcare, welfare, food stamps, WIC, and EBT. I did not mean that people should not be recieving SSI that they paid into their whole life and won't receive a dime of because our government can't balance a budget. As far as being cold hearted and uneducated...you can blame that on life experiences and the public school system run by the government.:salute:

SSI should be phased out though. I hate that people always try to tie it to robbing from grandma. No politician I know of is advocating just turning it off. They all say to grandfather it out for something that can last the distance that will let young people get what grandma is getting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gomojoe

SSI should be phased out though. I hate that people always try to tie it to robbing from grandma. No politician I know of is advocating just turning it off. They all say to grandfather it out for something that can last the distance that will let young people get what grandma is getting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

:gj: Agreed.

Im pretty sure I don't need the government to run my retirement account.