Rick Santorum takes disagreement with Ron Paul's comments to a whole new level!

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Rick Santorum takes disagreement with Ron Paul's comments to a whole new level! (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:21:38 AM EDT

How many of you agree with This

"This is the time to call on Congress and the President to amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to provide for a renunciation of citizenship by action," he said.

Good idea?
Great idea?
OMG wtf is he thinking!?

Did he just scuttle what was left of his presidential bid?

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:22:30 AM EDT

[#1]

Jumped the shark

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:28:02 AM EDT

[#2]

santorum is running for president? huh, hadnt noticed.

he has even less chance of getting the nomination than ronpaul

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:29:23 AM EDT

[#3]

Santorum is a nut case, and always has been.

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:30:06 AM EDT

[#4]

Rick Santorum is crazier than Ron Paul.

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:36:17 AM EDT

[#5]

Santorum is spot on.

al-Awlaki did renounce his citizenship by moving to a foreign country, taking up arms against the US by joining al Queda and advocating repeated attacks against the US, which include Maj. Hassan shouting "allahu ackbar" as he gunned down victims at Ft Hood.

Fuck mentally ill RP.

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:43:56 AM EDT

[#6]

"Is anyone really surprised at this point? Ron Paul put up a commentary claiming the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were our own fault – and now, he's condemning America for helping rid the world of a murderer,"

I can't find any fault with this.

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:48:05 AM EDT

[#7]

I agree that scumbags who join forces that we are at war with and plans or helps coordinate attacks against his home country, he should have his citizenship revoked.
Not like the gesture really matters though, I'd rather the guy be flattened by a 500 lb bomb.

Fuck Ron Paul.

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:54:16 AM EDT

[#8]

The Federal government does not need any more power to execute it's assigned responsibilities. Stop trying to give it more power. It doesn't need your help in that regard.

The idea that the Feds could have the power to revoke someone's citizenship is fraught with dangers. If you can't see that, I pity you.

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:56:41 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

The Federal government does not need any more power to execute it's assigned responsibilities. Stop trying to give it more power. It doesn't need your help in that regard.

The idea that the Feds could have the power to revoke someone's citizenship is fraught with dangers. If you can't see that, I pity you.

Virtually every democratic European nation does exactly that. Do we consider them less democratic because of that? Are their tanks now rolling down the streets of mainstreet because of a "slippery slope" that government revokes citizenship of people who leave the country and conduct war on their own home country?

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:57:31 AM EDT

[#10]

I can picture Rick's constipated looking face when he said this. It looks like he has just had shit smeared under his nose every time he speaks or is trying to solve a really tough equation (as another member put it).

Oh, and Santorum has almost as much chance of getting nominated as my cat does.

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:59:02 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The Federal government does not need any more power to execute it's assigned responsibilities. Stop trying to give it more power. It doesn't need your help in that regard.

The idea that the Feds could have the power to revoke someone's citizenship is fraught with dangers. If you can't see that, I pity you.

Virtually every democratic European nation does exactly that. Do we consider them less democratic because of that? Are their tanks now rolling down the streets of mainstreet because of a "slippery slope" that government revokes citizenship of people who leave the country and conduct war on their own home country?

Well, since you put it that way, let's do it. I've always wanted the US to be just like France or Germany.

Doing what you describe is already a crime outlined in the US Constitution. Treason. There is no REASON to give the Feds more power to prosecute someone for treason.

Posted: 10/1/2011 9:59:23 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

I can picture Rick's constipated looking face when he said this. It looks like he has just had shit smeared under his nose every time he speaks or is trying to solve a really tough equation (as another member put it).

Oh, and Santorum has almost as much chance of getting nominated as my cat Ron Paul does.

FIFY

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:00:13 AM EDT

[#13]

Sounds like a great idea, until they turn it on you. Like every other .gov regulation and law.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:00:19 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I can picture Rick's constipated looking face when he said this. It looks like he has just had shit smeared under his nose every time he speaks or is trying to solve a really tough equation (as another member put it).

Oh, and Santorum has almost as much chance of getting nominated as my cat Ron Paul does.

FIFY

Whats the matter? Your boy Perry not polling so well anymore?

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:00:23 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The Federal government does not need any more power to execute it's assigned responsibilities. Stop trying to give it more power. It doesn't need your help in that regard.

The idea that the Feds could have the power to revoke someone's citizenship is fraught with dangers. If you can't see that, I pity you.

Virtually every democratic European nation does exactly that. Do we consider them less democratic because of that? Are their tanks now rolling down the streets of mainstreet because of a "slippery slope" that government revokes citizenship of people who leave the country and conduct war on their own home country?

Well, since you put it that way, let's do it. I've always wanted the US to be just like France or Germany.

Doing what you describe is already a crime outlined in the US Constitution. Treason. There is no REASON to give the Feds more power to prosecute someone for treason.

Aye, but you think terrorists deserve due process and that bombing an asshole in Yemen who carried out war against his own country should be spared of being considered a military target.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:01:43 AM EDT

[#16]

Call me crazy, but I'd prefer the government not have the ability to rip up someone's citizenship if they get a little rowdy.

Seems to make sense when it comes to Muzzies. It's everyone else that I think would get mistreated.

Suddenly militias are going to be a target...

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:05:05 AM EDT

[#17]

"This is the time to call on Congress and the President to amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to provide for a renunciation of citizenship by action,"

Hey Rick, I'm pretty sure America has enough laws to deal with traitorous and terrorist behavior by its citizens. Awlaki is a stain on a pile of rocks. The system works just fine. So Rick, we don't need your vague definition of "action" codified into more restrictive laws, you fucking xenophobic twat.

Obvious failed campaign bid and desperate attempt to appear relevant is obvious. Now go away Rick.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:12:15 AM EDT

[#18]

Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:14:40 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Call me crazy, but I'd prefer the government not have the ability to rip up someone's citizenship if they get a little rowdy.

Seems to make sense when it comes to Muzzies. It's everyone else that I think would get mistreated.

Suddenly militias are going to be a target...

They won't just call you crazy. They'll call you a terrorist sympathizer, unpatriotic, liberal, hippy, tinfoil hatter, ronulan, coward...whatever gets you to STFU.

ETA: cult member

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:16:06 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:18:13 AM EDT

[#21]

To a large extent Santorum is right about Paul. In my mind Paul is nothing less than a terrorist sympathizing appeaser living in a fantasy world and his cult members are doing mental gymnastics to validate is insanity.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:18:50 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
"Is anyone really surprised at this point? Ron Paul put up a commentary claiming the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were our own fault – and now, he's condemning America for helping rid the world of a murderer,"

I can't find any fault with this.

What did he say Jim?

I don't know, Dat old man uses lots o words, but Rudy gullianni just told me dat old sumbitch hates ahmericuh!
Let's git him!

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:22:22 AM EDT

[#23]

I think its pretty safe to say that participating in an organization that is at war with the United States is effectively renouncing your citizenship. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:24:06 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The Federal government does not need any more power to execute it's assigned responsibilities. Stop trying to give it more power. It doesn't need your help in that regard.

The idea that the Feds could have the power to revoke someone's citizenship is fraught with dangers. If you can't see that, I pity you.

Virtually every democratic European nation does exactly that. Do we consider them less democratic because of that? Are their tanks now rolling down the streets of mainstreet because of a "slippery slope" that government revokes citizenship of people who leave the country and conduct war on their own home country?

Well, since you put it that way, let's do it. I've always wanted the US to be just like France or Germany.

Doing what you describe is already a crime outlined in the US Constitution. Treason. There is no REASON to give the Feds more power to prosecute someone for treason.

Aye, but you think terrorists deserve due process and that bombing an asshole in Yemen who carried out war against his own country should be spared of being considered a military target.

Come on............................................. he wasn't targeted. He just happened to be with other dudes who were targeted!

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:25:52 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!

Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:28:16 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!

Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:34:38 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

How many of you agree with This

"This is the time to call on Congress and the President to amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to provide for a renunciation of citizenship by action," he said.

Good idea?

Great idea?

OMG wtf is he thinking!?

Did he just scuttle what was left of his presidential bid?

OMG!!!!!!!!! He insulted Dear Leader!!!!!!! Burn him! He's a witch!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:35:30 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!

Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.

You do realize that the Federal government only exists because the people extend that existence at their pleasure, right?

The basic tasks of the Federal government were not set by the founding fathers. They were written by the framers and approved by the people.

By giving the Feds the power to essentially unrestrain itself from the constitution on a case by case basis, you are effectively making the Federal government a power unto itself without any consent required for it's continued existence.

At the very least, such a law would be unconstitutional. In reality, it fundamentally undermines the notion of government by consent of the governed. How can you have consent with the potential to be disenfranchised by that government without due process?

I don't think it's extreme at all to distrust such a power of the Feds. Perhaps such a power would be used in a responsible manner now... how about in 10 years?
The Federal government has only ever proven itself WHOLLY untrustworthy with almost every power we've given it.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:40:15 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
How many of you agree with This

"This is the time to call on Congress and the President to amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to provide for a renunciation of citizenship by action," he said.

Good idea?
Great idea?
OMG wtf is he thinking!?

Did he just scuttle what was left of his presidential bid?

OMG!!!!!!!!! He insulted Dear Leader!!!!!!! Burn him! He's a witch!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lyt9wWIqTmE/TJDXr56EPxI/AAAAAAAADVE/wPNITrVnB3k/s1600/Grape+Flavor+Aid.jpg

So you think this post is about him insulting Ron Paul, and not about his quote that I posted?

I see what I'm dealing with now.

I didn't think I would have to say this, but here I go:

This thread is about Rick Santorum wanting Obama and congress to be able to strip someone of their citizenship with no trial.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:42:14 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!

Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.

You do realize that the Federal government only exists because the people extend that existence at their pleasure, right?

The basic tasks of the Federal government were not set by the founding fathers. They were written by the framers and approved by the people.

By giving the Feds the power to essentially unrestrain itself from the constitution on a case by case basis, you are effectively making the Federal government a power unto itself without any consent required for it's continued existence.

At the very least, such a law would be unconstitutional. In reality, it fundamentally undermines the notion of government by consent of the governed. How can you have consent with the potential to be disenfranchised by that government without due process?

I don't think it's extreme at all to distrust such a power of the Feds. Perhaps such a power would be used in a responsible manner now... how about in 10 years?

The Federal government has only ever proven itself WHOLLY untrustworthy with almost every power we've given it.

You think such a law will lead to American's living in the USA, who have not joined a enemy force bent on the destruction of the USA, will all have their citizenship revoked?

Every government depends on the consent of the people to stay in power. The US government prosecuting it's own citizenry on such a basis would be massively counter productive.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:46:03 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!

Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.

You do realize that the Federal government only exists because the people extend that existence at their pleasure, right?

The basic tasks of the Federal government were not set by the founding fathers. They were written by the framers and approved by the people.

By giving the Feds the power to essentially unrestrain itself from the constitution on a case by case basis, you are effectively making the Federal government a power unto itself without any consent required for it's continued existence.

At the very least, such a law would be unconstitutional. In reality, it fundamentally undermines the notion of government by consent of the governed. How can you have consent with the potential to be disenfranchised by that government without due process?

I don't think it's extreme at all to distrust such a power of the Feds. Perhaps such a power would be used in a responsible manner now... how about in 10 years?
The Federal government has only ever proven itself WHOLLY untrustworthy with almost every power we've given it.

You think such a law will lead to American's living in the USA, who have not joined a enemy force bent on the destruction of the USA, will all have their citizenship revoked?

Every government depends on the consent of the people to stay in power. The US government prosecuting it's own citizenry on such a basis would be massively counter productive.

Right, because the government never prosecutes innocent people.

And it's never comprised of personalities jealous of their own power.

And those powers are never used to silence political opponents or critics.

Don't be naieve.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:47:40 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!

Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.

You do realize that the Federal government only exists because the people extend that existence at their pleasure, right?

The basic tasks of the Federal government were not set by the founding fathers. They were written by the framers and approved by the people.

By giving the Feds the power to essentially unrestrain itself from the constitution on a case by case basis, you are effectively making the Federal government a power unto itself without any consent required for it's continued existence.

At the very least, such a law would be unconstitutional. In reality, it fundamentally undermines the notion of government by consent of the governed. How can you have consent with the potential to be disenfranchised by that government without due process?

I don't think it's extreme at all to distrust such a power of the Feds. Perhaps such a power would be used in a responsible manner now... how about in 10 years?
The Federal government has only ever proven itself WHOLLY untrustworthy with almost every power we've given it.

You think such a law will lead to American's living in the USA, who have not joined a enemy force bent on the destruction of the USA, will all have their citizenship revoked?

Every government depends on the consent of the people to stay in power. The US government prosecuting it's own citizenry on such a basis would be massively counter productive.

what happens when eric holder's DOJ has determined the TEA party is a terrorist organization

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:49:01 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How many of you agree with This

"This is the time to call on Congress and the President to amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to provide for a renunciation of citizenship by action," he said.

Good idea?

Great idea?

OMG wtf is he thinking!?

Did he just scuttle what was left of his presidential bid?

OMG!!!!!!!!! He insulted Dear Leader!!!!!!! Burn him! He's a witch!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lyt9wWIqTmE/TJDXr56EPxI/AAAAAAAADVE/wPNITrVnB3k/s1600/Grape+Flavor+Aid.jpg

So you think this post is about him insulting Ron Paul, and not about his quote that I posted?

I see what I'm dealing with now.

I didn't think I would have to say this, but here I go:

This thread is about Rick Santorum wanting Obama and congress to be able to strip someone of their citizenship with no trial.

Yeah. I checked your post history. It's a Ron Paul thread.

Posted: 10/1/2011 10:53:44 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

what happens when eric holder's DOJ has determined the TEA party is a terrorist organization

There we go again, more "everything the .gov does is a slippery slope to tyranny" weak ass argument

Posted: 10/1/2011 11:04:06 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

what happens when eric holder's DOJ has determined the TEA party is a terrorist organization

There we go again, more "everything the .gov does is a slippery slope to tyranny" weak ass argument

I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but I'm pretty sure if barny frank had said this, instead of a "conservative", you would be spitting nails.

Objection to letting the government strip our citizenship without trial is a "weak ass argument"?

Posted: 10/1/2011 11:10:53 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Santorum is spot on.

al-Awlaki did renounce his citizenship by moving to a foreign country, taking up arms against the US by joining al Queda and advocating repeated attacks against the US, which include Maj. Hassan shouting "allahu ackbar" as he gunned down victims at Ft Hood.

Posted: 10/1/2011 11:14:34 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Call me crazy, but I'd prefer the government not have the ability to rip up someone's citizenship if they get a little rowdy.

Seems to make sense when it comes to Muzzies. It's everyone else that I think would get mistreated.

Suddenly militias are going to be a target...

They won't just call you crazy. They'll call you a terrorist sympathizer, unpatriotic, liberal, hippy, tinfoil hatter, ronulan, coward...whatever gets you to STFU.

ETA: cult member

Yep.

Posted: 10/1/2011 11:35:09 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

what happens when eric holder's DOJ has determined the TEA party is a terrorist organization

There we go again, more "everything the .gov does is a slippery slope to tyranny" weak ass argument

yeah cuz .gov would never abuse power or over step it's authority

. have you heard of fast and furious, and I'm not talking about the lame ass movies?

Posted: 10/1/2011 11:35:39 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You think such a law will lead to American's living in the USA, who have not joined a enemy force bent on the destruction of the USA, will all have their citizenship revoked?

Every government depends on the consent of the people to stay in power. The US government prosecuting it's own citizenry on such a basis would be massively counter productive.

Right, because the government never prosecutes innocent people.

And it's never comprised of personalities jealous of their own power.

And those powers are never used to silence political opponents or critics.

Don't be naieve.

Where do you get these crazy notions? I'm sure that our present leadership would never consider law-abiding americans terrorist threats, especially tea party participants or veterans returning from overseas. I'm sure that any powers given to them will be used responsibly and objectively.

/sarcasm

Posted: 10/1/2011 11:38:12 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Schizophrenia - how does it work?

I'm unclear here, it's cool to assassinate a US citizen but not revoke his citizenship? Is a wookie from Endor?

Santorum and Paul are both right in some facets. Assassination of a US citizen as a doctrine is illegal. Doesn't mean you can't kill them on the battlefield and use the "coming right at us" defense, but setting out to explicitly and extra-judicially kill a US citizen is illegal. Following the order is illegal. Giving the order is illegal.

There should be a mechanism to sidestep this - and one way is to strip citizenship. This should be done through due process and a trial (even in absentia) and once complete, kill the fucker any way you want.

If you can't see how clearly this will lead to tanks and checkpoints in the street all over America! Then I don't know what to tell you!

Mr. Brown is a terrorist threat, therefore we remove his citizenship. Prove it? We don't have to prove it; he isn't a US citizen. He doesn't have any rights that we have to respect.

That is exactly the kind of potential you should be worried about.

And when the Japanese were rounded up during WW2, it meant everyone was going to get rounded up not too long after.... oh wait.

I agree with keeping .gov in check, but you guys take it to the extreme that the government shouldn't even do it's BASIC task that was set by the founding fathers, that you think even defending the homeland will result in Americans be oppressed.

Just about everything the government has done with our best interests in mind, has went fucking sideways on us. Give some examples that havent over time.

Posted: 10/1/2011 11:41:15 AM EDT

[#41]