Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: US House adopts ’Sue the Saudis’ 9/11 bill

  1. #1

    US House adopts ’Sue the Saudis’ 9/11 bill

    House Resolution 3815 - JASTA, was passed WITHOUT opposition by the House of Representatives.
    The White House aka Bammyland, has THREATENED to veto JASTA.
    Now imagine if you all will, the KSA's response to this and the dirty folders of intel they have on ALL of the U.S. co-conspirators that had permitted 9/11 to go down in the first place.
    ***popcorn ready***
    US House adopts ’Sue the Saudis’ 9/11 bill

    Saudi Arabia has tried to block the bill, using the services of its many lobbyists in Washington.
    Among them is the Podesta Group, co-founded by current Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta
    and run by his brother Tony.


    House Resolution 3815, also known as the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” or JASTA,
    creates an exception to sovereign immunity created by a 1976 law,
    thus allowing US citizens to sue foreign countries
    for terrorism that kills Americans on US soil.
    The law has been invoked to shield Saudi Arabia from lawsuits
    over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    So legislation passed the both house and senate. The same bill ? How much will come out of it ? Interesting..
    "I am a bird"

  4. #3
    I'm thinking bout a RPF Class Action...
    Who here hasn't been materially damaged by 911?
    Any lawyers among us?
    Let's get this party STARTEDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. #4
    Then who do we sue for covering up for the crime? maybe charges for complicity with their silence. I bet it must have been the Saudis who setup the NORAD drill exercise simulation a plane hijack in the NE region, that way when the real thing happened, it would confuse the pilots defending the air ways.

    My guess would be that the only part the Saudis were responsible for was supplying the patsies who died in the crash. Before I forget, these people documenting the event should also be charged with something.


  6. #5
    I could get MUCH more motivated about SUING
    than I can voting.
    I just want to cause TROUBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. #6
    Saudi Barbaria's making threats again.

    Saudis Threaten US: "Passage Of Sept 11 Law Will Lead To Instability, Chaos And Extremism"
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...-and-extremism
    When Congress unaninmously passed a bill last Friday known as "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act," or JASTA, allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts, there was confusion whether Obama would still veto said bill, as he had threatened to previously, even though by sheer numbers Obama's veto may be overruled, leaving him hanging and appearing to support a Saudi position over that of the US people. Then on Monday we got the answer when White House press secretary Josh Earnest announced that Obama would still veto said bill. "That is still the plan," Earnest said. "The president does intend to veto this legislation."

    The Saudis, however, are not taking any chances, and are back to engaging in the same verbal warnings they unleashed in April of this year, when they suggested passage of the law would force the kingdom to sell its US-denominated reserves: threats.

    As Reuters reports, a senior Saudi policy adviser on Wednesday condemned a U.S. bill that would allow families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue the kingdom for damages, "warning it would stoke instability and extremism." In other words, if Obama fails too stop a law which everyone in Congress voted for, the US would suffer.

    "This legislation sets a dangerous precedent in the field of international relations," Abdullah Al al-Sheikh was quoted as saying by state news agency SPA. Al al-Sheikh is the speaker of the Shura Council, an appointed body that debates new laws and advises the government on policy.

    "(The bill risks) triggering chaos and instability in international relations and might contribute to supporting extremism, which is under intellectual siege, as the new legislation offers extremists a new pretext to lure youths to their extremist thoughts," al-Sheikh added without elaborating.

    JASTA would remove sovereign immunity, preventing lawsuits against governments, for countries found to be involved in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said on May 2 that the kingdom had warned the United States that the proposed law would erode global investor confidence in America.

    Fifteen of the 19 hijackers who crashed airliners in New York, outside Washington and in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001 were Saudi nationals; furthermore the recently released formerly classified "28 pages" showed a clear connection between Saudi officials and events on Sept 11, but the Saudi government has strongly denied responsibility and has lobbied against the bill.

    That has not stopped some members of Congress from becoming increasingly vocal in criticizing Saudi Arabia, long a U.S. ally and trade partner.

    A bigger question is whether the Saudis have backed off their previous threat to dump US Treasuries in case Obama fails to veto a bill which all of America wants passed; needless to say Obama finds himself in a rather unpleasant situation - deciding how to appease a country which has openly threatened the US if it does not get its way, potentially roiling the bond market at a very sensitive time, and at the same time avoiding to appear like a traitor to an entire nation with just a few months left in his term.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  8. #7
    Obama poised to veto 9/11 bill – and could face first successful override
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...-override.html


    [...]
    At issue is a white-hot bill approved by both bodies of Congress to permit families of 9/11 terrorism victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia. President Obama wants to veto the measure. Both bodies of Congress are tentatively prepping to override Obama’s veto.
    [...]
    The Senate originated the 9/11 bill. So it was up to the Senate to send the measure to the White House. The Senate did so on Monday, Sept. 12. That set in motion the 10-day calendar (excluding this past Sunday) which requires Obama to veto the bill by 11:59:59 p.m. ET Friday, Sept. 23 or the bill becomes law regardless.

    It was thought the Senate could approve all of its work for the fall last week and skip town. That would have been the perfect scenario for the Obama administration. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., itches to cut loose vulnerable GOP senators facing competitive re-election bids. Also, it was doubtful the president would veto the bill while he huddled with world leaders at the start of the U.N. General Assembly in New York this week.

    Many thought it was unlikely the Senate would reconvene prior to the election for an override vote. Moreover, punting the override vote until after the election inoculated lawmakers who may oppose the bill. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution requires a recorded roll call tally to document how lawmakers vote on an override. So, postponing an override vote protects lawmakers from bad optics of “opposing 9/11 family victims.”

    But Congress hasn’t figured out a way to expeditiously finish its work to fund the government – this week, let alone last week. So Congress will meet at least through next week. And McConnell plans a veto override effort in the coming days.

    So expect the president to veto the bill Thursday or Friday and return the package to Capitol Hill alongside an exhaustive set of objections.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  9. #8
    Siding With Saudi Arabia, Obama Vetoes Sept 11 Bill Passed Unanimously In Congress
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...ously-congress

    It has been a day of Friday afternoon surprises: just one hour after Ted Cruz pretended to endorse Donald Trump when he really meant don't vote for Hillary, president Obama denied what all American citizens demanded - and got - after both chambers unanimously passed the Sept 11 law several weeks ago, when he decided to veto the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act bill.



    As The Hill reports, Obama on Friday vetoed legislation that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S courts, setting up a high-stakes showdown with Congress. Obama’s move opens up the possibility that lawmakers could override his veto for the first time with a two-thirds vote in both chambers. Worse, it now appears - with reason - that Obama has now sided not with the US population but with a small minority of Saudi emirs.

    Republican and Democratic leaders have said they are committed to holding an override vote, and the bill’s drafters say they have the support to force the bill to become law.

    The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) unanimously passed through both chambers by voice vote.

    But the timing of the president’s veto is designed to erode congressional support for the bill and put off a politically damaging override vote until after the November elections. Obama waited until the very end of the 10-day period he had to issue a veto, hoping to buy time to lobby members of Congress against the measure.
    [...]
    The measure has touched a political nerve ahead of an election in which terrorism has emerged as a central issue. It has strong bipartisan support and is backed by 9/11 families’ organizations.

    Those families have sought damages from Saudi Arabia, since 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001 hailed from that country. Critics have long been accused the Saudi government of directly or indirectly supporting the attacks, though a concrete link has never been proven.

    * * *

    Obama has strongly opposed the legislation, arguing it would undermine sovereign immunity and open up U.S. diplomats and military service members to legal action overseas if foreign countries pass reciprocal laws.

    But most of all, the administration is also wary of angering Saudi Arabia - one of the most generous donors to the Clinton Foundation and an alleged sponsor of Hillary's presidential campaign - which is forcefully lobbying against the measure.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Obama has strongly opposed the legislation, arguing it would undermine sovereign immunity and open up U.S. diplomats and military service members to legal action overseas if foreign countries pass reciprocal laws.
    To paraphrase: "If we demand justice then other people could demand justice from us. - Obama"

    In all seriousness, he's kind of right. The day the world starts suing the U.S.A. for all the illegal actions it's taken...YIKES.

    Barry is just being consistently evil. Americans may like the idea of "stickin' it to the Saudi's" for 9/11 but we got a lot more blood on our hands than Americans want to admit.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    To paraphrase: "If we demand justice then other people could demand justice from us. - Obama"

    In all seriousness, he's kind of right. The day the world starts suing the U.S.A. for all the illegal actions it's taken...YIKES.

    Barry is just being consistently evil. Americans may like the idea of "stickin' it to the Saudi's" for 9/11 but we got a lot more blood on our hands than Americans want to admit.
    He's right- not even "kind of right".

    The supposed Saudis that took down the towers were said to have been trained in Germany; shall we sue them too? Plus the US gov safely and secretly took rich and famous Saudis out of the US after 911 to protect them.

    Also, some of the IDs found from the supposedly dead terrorists were from people still alive and well in the ME. How did that happen?
    There is no spoon.

  13. #11
    So.. if I follow the 'logic'... I'm still left with one question:
    Other than 'talk'....
    How (then) does one hold a 'State' accountable for it's actions?
    If it's not suit or legal claim for damage...
    What is the mechanism?
    You know the answer don't you. yep.
    The founders did too.

    But you see the prob Ender?
    You condemn (logically) the posed solution..
    w/o offering an alternative.
    What's your alternative?
    (This isn't 'Ender's Game' is it? haha )

    Just being curious... as I was about to post this...
    Obama vetoes bill allowing to sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11

    and found Lucille beat me (as usual ).
    Last edited by goldenequity; 09-23-2016 at 05:03 PM.

  14. #12
    Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected

    I feel like I have to take a shower after I post from the New York Times.

    (my 2K post at RPF... whowhoooo )

    ps... I got up early Lucille.
    Last edited by goldenequity; 09-24-2016 at 05:07 AM.

  15. #13
    I'm with Rand Paul on this one. as usual

  16. #14
    Well.... here we are folks. It'll be an interesting Cspan to watch tomorrow. 2 hrs of senate debate... then up or down vote.

    US Senate to Consider Overriding Obama’s 9/11 Act Veto on Wednesday




    Iraqis Set to Sue US Government for War Crimes


  17. #15
    Might as well throw this one in as well.

    Should U.S. pay reparations for slavery? U.N.-appointed experts think so

    "The slave trade was a crime against humanity and the U.S. government should pay reparations."

  18. #16
    Conflict News ‏@Conflicts 2 min.
    BREAKING: US Senate votes to override Obama's 9/11 bill veto - @AFP

    They did it. Just now.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Then who do we sue for covering up for the crime?
    Freas Neuman?
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenequity View Post
    So.. if I follow the 'logic'... I'm still left with one question:
    Other than 'talk'....
    How (then) does one hold a 'State' accountable for it's actions?
    If it's not suit or legal claim for damage...
    What is the mechanism?
    You know the answer don't you. yep.
    The founders did too.

    But you see the prob Ender?
    You condemn (logically) the posed solution..
    w/o offering an alternative.
    What's your alternative?
    (This isn't 'Ender's Game' is it? haha )

    Just being curious... as I was about to post this...
    Obama vetoes bill allowing to sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11

    and found Lucille beat me (as usual ).
    We're already in Ender's Game: Detached killers in a computer room in the US killing those terrible 'buggers' in the ME.

    Obviously the solution is to GTH out of the ME and stop bombing innocents and taking their resources.

    ETA: And Obama was right on this- suing the Saudis is a stupid move, even if was actually Saudis that did it.

    Next can the US be sued for drone killings, forming al Qaeda & ISIS, helping to overthrow Iran's government in 1953, and the Ukraine's just recently? The list could actually be YUGE.
    Last edited by Ender; 09-28-2016 at 11:53 AM.
    There is no spoon.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    We're already in Ender's Game: Detached killers in a computer room in the US killing those terrible 'buggers' in the ME.

    Obviously the solution is to GTH out of the ME and stop bombing innocents and taking their resources.

    ETA: And Obama was right on this- suing the Saudis is a stupid move, even if was actually Saudis that did it.

    Next can the US be sued for drone killings, forming al Qaeda & ISIS, helping to overthrow Iran's government in 1953, and the Ukraine's just recently? The list could actually be YUGE.
    I actually agree with this. Seems like Americans are being duped.

    In the game of country-suing who has most to lose? America. Likely even if 3000 families sued, they'd lose or Saudis wouldn't pay.

    But somehow I believe it more likely that Uncle Sam would be more than willing to cut a check to countless countries for crimes committed (by past administrations of course) in order to sink America even further into debt slavery and certain economic collapse.

    This thing seems like a cleverly thought out ruse.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  23. #20
    yes... YUGE. HAHAHA.
    I've been damaged.
    but
    I'm willing to settle.
    Last edited by goldenequity; 09-28-2016 at 12:07 PM.

  24. #21
    If we are indeed tossing the Saudis under the bus, I would strongly recommend everyone start looking for the thing that Congress desperately does not want us to notice.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  25. #22
    ...
    Obama warned in a veto message to the Senate last week that the bill would improperly give legal plaintiffs and the courts authority over complex and sensitive questions of state-sponsored terrorism.

    He also cautioned that it would undermine protections for U.S. military, intelligence and foreign service personnel serving overseas, as well as possibly subject U.S. government assets to seizure.

    Obama sent a letter to Senate leaders reiterating his concerns.

    “The consequences of JASTA could be devastating to the Department of Defense and its service members — and there is no doubt that the consequences could be equally significant for our foreign affairs and intelligence communities,” he wrote in the letter, which was later circulated by a public affairs company working for the embassy of Saudi Arabia.
    ...
    Senators who are worried about the risk posed by the bill to U.S. personnel in foreign countries huddled on the Senate floor Tuesday to discuss passing additional legislation to protect them.
    ...
    "The focus right now is how can we over a period of time create some corrective legislation to deal with whatever blowback might occur,” Corker said.
    ...
    Schumer revived the bill last year by teaming up with Cornyn, a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee. They overcame an early objection from colleagues by empowering the president to pause a lawsuit against a foreign government if the administration proves good-faith effort to reach a settlement are underway. [So the executive can override the jurisdiction of the courts?]

    The administration initially wanted unilateral authority to stop a lawsuit regardless of the status of negotiations, something the 9/11 families rejected.
    http://thehill.com/policy/internatio...rwhelming-vote
    Last edited by charrob; 09-28-2016 at 01:15 PM.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    If we are indeed tossing the Saudis under the bus, I would strongly recommend everyone start looking for the thing that Congress desperately does not want us to notice.
    The Saudis threat to dump their dollar assets? That's basically the end of petrodollar standard if they do it.

    Interesting timing of this 9/11 stuff right when OPEC announces production cuts, Saudi threatens to dump the dollar assets, yuan entering SDR officially on Sat Oct 1 and a possible fed.gov shutdown over the weekend if spending bill isn't passed by Fri Sep 30. Somethin's a brewin my friends.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenequity View Post
    Conflict News ‏@Conflicts 2 min.
    BREAKING: US Senate votes to override Obama's 9/11 bill veto - @AFP

    They did it. Just now.
    "The single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done."

    Hardly.

    Obama Humiliated: For The First Time, Congress Votes To Override President's "Sept 11" Bill Veto
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...o-sept-11-bill

    Summary: The US Congress, first the Senate and then the House, humiliated the president when it voted on Wednesday to override Obama for the first time in his eight-year tenure, as the House voted 348-77 to reject a veto of legislation allowing families of terrorist victims to sue Saudi Arabia. The House easily cleared the two-thirds threshold to push back against the veto. The Senate voted 97-1 in favor of the override earlier in the day, with only Democratic Leader Harry Reid voting to sustain the president’s veto.



    “We can no longer allow those who injure and kill Americans to hide behind legal loopholes denying justice to the victims of terror,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

    The White House immediately slammed lawmakers following the Senate vote.

    “I would venture to say that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done possibly since 1983,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One, an apparent reference to a 95-0 vote to override President Ronald Reagan that year.

    The override was widely expected in both chambers, with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle characterizing it as an act of justice for the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

    The so-called Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism (JASTA) would amend current law to allow victims of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil to sue countries that are not formally designated as sponsors of terrorism — like Saudi Arabia.

    As reported before, the implications for capital markets should the House follow the Senate in overriding Obama's veto, they could be dramatic: as noted earlier, the threat of the 9/11 bill passing has put on hold Saudi plans to issue its megabond, effectively putting even more pressure on the kingdom's finances; alternatively as Saudi Arabia has threatened before, should the bill pass, it would (and may have no other choice considering its liquidity crisis) have to sell US reserves, among which billions in Treasurys and an unknown amount of US equities.


    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    If an American commits a crime in another country, should that country be able to sue the US Government (taxpayers) in a foreign court over it?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 09-28-2016 at 10:49 PM.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    If an American commits a crime in another country, should that country be able to sue the US Government (taxpayers) in a foreign over it?
    Like bombing a hospital or wedding party?
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  31. #27
    Al Arabiya: Saudi has ways to hit back at 9/11 lawsuit effort



    The kingdom maintains an arsenal of tools to retaliate with, including
    curtailing official contacts,
    pulling billions of dollars from the US economy,
    persuading its close allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council
    to scale back

    counterterrorism cooperation,
    investments
    and US access to important regional air bases.

    "This should be clear to America and to the rest of the world:
    When one GCC state is targeted unfairly, the others stand around it,"

    "All the states will stand by Saudi Arabia in every way possible,"

    "No one knows how Saudi Arabia might respond to an override of President Obama's veto?"

    The CEOs of DOW and GE sent letters to Congress
    warning of the bill's potentially destabilizing impact on American interests abroad.

    Defense Secretary Ash Carter this week sent a letter to Congress saying
    "important counterterrorism efforts abroad" could be harmed
    and
    US foreign bases and facilities could be vulnerable to monetary damage awards in reciprocal cases.

    Such reactions may not come directly from Riyadh
    but countries connected to Saudi Arabia,

    He said the eight-decade-long US-Saudi relationship is "entering into a new phase,"
    in which ties will be mostly underpinned by arms sales,
    unlike during the era of warm relations under President George W. Bush.
    Buh-bye.

  32. #28
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...-veto-override

    Obama reiterated his longstanding argument that the measure carries serious unintended consequences, despite the noble intentions of its supporters.

    The president said the measure could erode the concept of sovereign immunity, leaving American citizens and assets abroad vulnerable to lawsuits if foreign countries pass reciprocal laws.

    “The concern that I've had is -- has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia per se, or my sympathy for 9/11 families,” Obama said.

    “It has to do with me not wanting a situation in which we're suddenly exposed to liabilities for all the work that we're doing all around the world.”
    "Work." You mean the terrorism the American Empire perpetrates on a daily basis all over the GD planet?



    Wonderful! Let the lawsuits rain down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream!
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  33. #29
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    9,138
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    To paraphrase: "If we demand justice then other people could demand justice from us. - Obama"

    In all seriousness, he's kind of right. The day the world starts suing the U.S.A. for all the illegal actions it's taken...YIKES.

    Barry is just being consistently evil. Americans may like the idea of "stickin' it to the Saudi's" for 9/11 but we got a lot more blood on our hands than Americans want to admit.
    I think it is time that Americans face the destruction that our government creates in our name. I don't think we should ignore the blood on our hands... do you?
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    I think it is time that Americans face the destruction that our government creates in our name. I don't think we should ignore the blood on our hands... do you?
    Well, what I'm really saying is that people feel righteous through this bill, when what it should do is remind them of their own crimes. Obama is aware, which is more than we can say for average American who thinks 9/11 forever sanctifies American exceptionalism.

    We shouldn't ignore the blood, but likely will, and thus destruction will likely come.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. House adopts Amash transparency reforms
    By Suzanimal in forum Justin Amash Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-07-2015, 08:44 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-02-2013, 12:23 PM
  3. House Adopts Amash Transparency Reforms
    By sailingaway in forum Justin Amash Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-21-2013, 10:58 PM
  4. House adopts plan for 'volunteer' corps
    By hugolp in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-03-2009, 11:29 PM
  5. House adopts plan for 'volunteer' corps
    By Volitzer in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-03-2009, 11:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •