American Politics

[epicguy10000]

Killing all the terrorist wont help, it just makes us the terrorist

 

/back to lurking

[Wantdew]

Killing all the terrorist wont help, it just makes us the terrorist

 

/back to lurking

Then what are we supposed to do about the terrorist?

 

[epicguy10000]

Then what are we supposed to do about the terrorist?

Not comit a large amount of genocide . I understand to stop the terrorist some have to be killed, but killing ALL of them you are more likely to get civillians also

[Rosedamai]

Not comit a large amount of genocide . I understand to stop the terrorist some have to be killed, but killing ALL of them you are more likely to get civillians also

Yeah, terrorists don't exactly go around with a "I'm a terrorist and I'm out to kill you" sign strapped to their foreheads.

[Alpha1]

Obama sure as hell has improved your foreign policies a LOT.

 

In what ways?

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/m...senal/?page=all

 

There is a lot of similarities.

 

You should do when some of your Republican presidents show their contempt for the rest for the world by bombing anyone they don't happen to agree with (or whose resources they want)

 

 

I think it's one of the elements that possibly could lead to a dictatorship. But then again the Patriot Act is, in my opinion and from the info I've gathered, also one of the elements that possibly could lead to a dictatorship. I don't think that necessarily makes Obama and/or Bush a dictator, but I still frown on them for making such absurd choices.

 

The stuff on the Patriot Act and the NDAA are way overblown.

 

 

[epicguy10000]

Yeah, terrorists don't exactly go around with a "I'm a terrorist and I'm out to kill you" sign strapped to their foreheads.

I know that, what I'm trying to say is that Kat's idea of carpet bombing Mexico to kill drug dealers ia bad idea, of course finding terrorists isn't easy and they can look like normal people but generally a terrorist will try to kill a soldier, now I'm saying usually, some terrorists are rather good at hiding

[Rosedamai]

The stuff on the Patriot Act and the NDAA are way overblown.

Which is why I said "possibly".

 

There is a lot of similarities.

Yeah, but the thing is, when you get down to the basics, Obama's image as a president is one with a lot more stability than Bush's image as a president. He doesn't sound uneducated (Is our children learning? Ho ho ho ho) and he doesn't go off on black/white views about the world (friend or foe? Seriously).

 

I know that, what I'm trying to say is that Kat's idea of carpet bombing Mexico to kill drug dealers ia bad idea, of course finding terrorists isn't easy and they can look like normal people but generally a terrorist will try to kill a soldier, now I'm saying usually, some terrorists are rather good at hiding

I was agreeing with you. Personally how are you going to distinguish the drug cartel people from, say, local ruffians/town drunks who aren't as much of a nuisance? Or the person with a wife and two kids who's struggling to make a living that looks physically intimidating because he works all day doing manual labor, but has a heart of gold? Or the high school kid who just think it's cool to wear something that may look like a gang sign but isn't? You can't distinguish people based on their looks or insignia or whatever. Edited September 11, 2012 by ylangylang

[epicguy10000]

 

I was agreeing with you. Personally how are you going to distinguish the drug cartel people from, say, local ruffians who aren't as much of a nuisance? Or even the person with a wife and two kids who's struggling to make a job that just looks menacing and threatening, but has a heart of gold? Or the high school kid who just think it's cool to wear something that may look like a gang sign but isn't? You can't distinguish people based on their looks or insignia or whatever.

Ahhh, okay, it seemed like you were agreeing with me but at the same time it seemed like weren't, thank you for clarifying

[Rosedamai]

Ahhh, okay, it seemed like you were agreeing with me but at the same time it seemed like weren't, thank you for clarifying

Nah, I should have been more clear.

[LascielsShadow]

My point earlier was that most people are convinced that USA is a Democracy when it isn't.

 

I should of been more clear but, I meant that the NDAA gives the president the ability to turn us into a Dictatorship.  It's is unlikely though.

But...how? Aside from potential issues related to the detention provision, what exactly is in the NDAA that makes you think this?

 

"The president might make decisions I don't like" does not equal "the president is turning the country into a dictatorship". Checks and balances, man. They serve a purpose. Unless there's a massive federal government level hostile takeover, the US is not going to become a dictatorship anytime soon. I honestly cannot wrap my brain around the thought that people genuinely believe this.

 

 

For the edification of anyone interested, here's my favourite explanation of the NDAA for 2012.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-fa...-the-perplexed/

 

This is about the clearest and best explanation of the parts in contention that I've seen so far.

Edited September 11, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[Rosedamai]

But...how? Aside from potential issues related to the detention provision, what exactly is in the NDAA that makes you think this?

 

"The president might make decisions I don't like" does not equal "the president is turning the country into a dictatorship". Checks and balances, man. They serve a purpose. Unless there's a massive federal government level hostile takeover, the US is not going to become a dictatorship anytime soon. I honestly cannot wrap my brain around the thought that people genuinely believe this.

 

 

For the edification of anyone interested, here's my favourite explanation of the NDAA for 2012.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-fa...-the-perplexed/

 

This is about the clearest and best explanation of the parts in contention that I've seen so far.

Thanks for the link!!

[Vhale]

I'd also like to point out, that if bombing the bad guys worked, the US wouldn't still be involved in a certain war, after eleven years.

 

Also CNN ran an article on a man that's been working on ending the drug war. He's a Mexican who's son was killed by drug trafficers and has been traveling the US because he believes what we are doing right now isn't the way to end the violence.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/10/opinion/sici...html?hpt=hp_bn7

 

I don't know much about this organization, but it's all ex-police that think the drug war is a losing battle and are lobbying to end it. I've heard of them here and there.

http://www.leap.cc/

[LascielsShadow]

Thanks for the link!!

You're welcome! I already had a basic understanding of what was in there (the part about no citizens being included [at least on paper] and the fact that yes, there is a possibility for indefinite detention), but that link was really helpful in clarifying the rest of the details.

 

 

 

ETA: Yeah, I've never thought that the "war on drugs" was a good idea. It's not a "war" that's winnable, and a lot of innocent people have died because of it. There are better ways to deal with the problem.

Edited September 12, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[Wantdew]

The NDAA takes away peoples rights for the protection of others.

 

Freedom is dangerous.

[Rosedamai]

The NDAA takes away peoples rights for the protection of others.

 

Freedom is dangerous.

That does not equal "dictatorship." And after reading LascielsShadow's link I would think that that hardly constitutes such a gigantic infringement of rights as you claim.

 

Just stop this dictatorship thing. You've never ever ever ever had to live under something even close to resembling a dictatorship. OK?

[Fuzzbucket]

Killing them all in the way you have wanted to is a terrorist act in itself. Yes they should be dealt with but dealing with them in that way is not much better than a terrorist act itself.

THANK YOU ! Spot on.

NO, it would not be a terrorist act on the part of the military that could deal with them, or any other good organizations who would rid the world from scum like this. These are bad people hurting and killing innocent people.

Yes, it would. Even if I were not anti-war – it is illegal by ANY standards to go into another country and shoot civilians – whatever they are doing. That is what terrorists do.

Fuzzbucket, it is not we disagree with the Mexican Drug Cartels, it is because of their drugs they are giving to kids and everyone else and it is killing people. What they are doing is wrong and it is bad.

 

I can not believe what I am hearing from some of you.

Oh but we do disagree. What they are doing is wrong – sure - as are the actions of VAST numbers of US criminals within the USA who also use concrete boots and the rest. But what is JUST as wrong is to suggest the USA should be acting like terrorists. I cannot believe what I am hearing from you. Why ARE you so afraid ?

 

I do actually know what they are doing. I have already said that the best way to deal with them is simply to legalise drugs. Then they would lose their markets and their influence just like that.

As demi said:

Yes it is a terrorist act. You are WIPING OUT PEOPLE JUST like they do. It is the EXACT SAME THING. It is NO better than what they do.

 

It's hard to believe some of the things you say. You say you are against terrorists yet would sink as low as them and wipe people out just like they would. Military or not it is not the correct way to go about it. You are wasting lives either way. They are human believe it or not and do have rights as hard as it is to believe.

I have been around law enforcement all my life. The guys on the force will tell you if the bad guys cuss, you act as bad as them. You go in meek and mild, you are likely to get killed.

 

I guess some just read the newspapers and watch tv, but if you had to deal with these types of people, then maybe you might understand.

 

You can not be nice to these types of people. Thery know the hard world, and the good people that have to take them down understand this and I do to.

I am sorry if you have ever worked in law enforcement. But it is exactly this kind of attitude that encourages crime of all kinds to proliferate. We have ALL lived in this hard world; I imagine MANY of us have known serious crime etc at close quarters. You do NOT have a monopoly on that. No-one “has to take them down”. ANYONE who would just go out and just kill them is as bad as they are. Sure – jail them – when they are in the US. You have no right to do that when they are in their own country, nor to go in there and take any action at all against them, actually.

 

You don’t have to be nice to them. You do have to treat them as humans and you absolutely do NOT go out there and descend to their level. A culture that is OK with doing that is the kind of culture that later leads its members to rape civilians and piss on prisoners of war and other atrocities

You think it's not a terrorist attack to wipe out the people you like well let me point out something.

 

What the terrorists did 11 years ago today is the exact same thing to us. They did not like us and they attacked.

 

Doing so would be a act of terrorism and would be the exact same thing we are fighting against.

EXACTLY ! WE have to learn from our mistakes and those of others, not repeat them.

 

ETA: Yeah, I've never thought that the "war on drugs" was a good idea. It's not a "war" that's winnable, and a lot of innocent people have died because of it. There are better ways to deal with the problem.

This too.

 

And too right, ylang – the US is NOT a dictatorship in ANY shape or form. Though I suspect Romney might like it to be… At least over women. But ALL governments take away people's rights for the protection of others. Even in tiny things like which side of the road to drive on, and not allowing you to murder the guy who bullied your kid.

 

[hazeh]

Hahaha, every time you quote Demi I'm like, "Hey I didn't say that..."

/name is Demitra, goes by Demi

 

I wish we would legalize MJ already. u_u It's ridiculous it's still illegal.

 

[NixAyum]

I--what?

 

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/09/11/8...u-had-families/

 

You did not just say that.

 

How the can someone think like that?

[hazeh]

I--what?

 

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/09/11/8...u-had-families/

 

You did not just say that.

 

How the can someone think like that?

I read that last night, and it made me want to throw up. I just cannot believe how anyone could justify voting for him. He's a sick, awful man, and the farthest thing from an American that I know of.

 

Yes, I have a family, you ***. My moms are better parents than you could ever dream to be. You are not President material, and will never be President material, so please just spare us all the trouble and go back to running a corporation. The United States isn't a company, it's a nation of people from different walks of life that deserve to be treated and regarded in the same light as everyone else. We don't need you. We will never need you.

[Zaxian]

I--what?

 

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/09/11/8...u-had-families/

 

You did not just say that.

 

How the can someone think like that?

Eeesh, the more I hear about Romney, the worse he sounds... Most politicians are slimey SOBs, but he really takes the biscuit.

 

Relevant comic about gay marriage: SMBC.

[Vhale]

Ouch, did this come out due to Barney Franks Uncle Tom comments?

There are a lot of people that have said that Romney is his own worst enemy. The things he says are just... tactless. There's no good way to spin them.

 

(for those that may not be aware) Barney Frank is a congressman who is gay and married and well known for being very blunt and outspoken. He came out and called the GOP LGBT group, the Log Cabin Republicans, Uncle Toms. Uncle Tom references a book by Harriet Beecher Stowe that was written about a slave, Uncle Tom, who was sympathetic to his masters. So, calling someone an Uncle Tom is akin to a race traitor. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81059.html

 

Here's what he said yesterday:

I am not surprised that members of the Log Cabin Republicans are offended by my comparing them to Uncle Tom. They are no more offended than I am by their campaigning in the name of LGBT rights to elect the candidate and party who diametrically oppose our rights against a president who has forcefully and effectively supported our rights.

 

That is the first reason for my admittedly very harsh criticism. This election is clearly one in which there is an extremely stark contrast between the two parties on LGBT rights. The Democratic President and platform fully embrace all of the legal issues we are seeking to resolve in favor of equality. The Republican candidate for president and the platform on which he runs vehemently oppose us in all cases. On the face of this, for a group of largely LGBT people to work for our strong opponent against our greatest ally is a betrayal of any supposed commitment to our legal equality.

 

But my use of "Uncle Tom" was based not simply on the awful fact that they have chosen to be actively on the wrong side of an election that will have an enormous impact on our right to equality, both in fact and in the public perception of the popularity of that cause. If the Log Cabin Republicans -- or their even more outlandish cousins, the oddly-named GOProud -- were honestly to acknowledge that they let their own economic interests, or their opposition to strong environmental policies, or their belief that we need to be spending far more on the military or some other reason ahead of any commitment to LGBT equality, and on that ground have decided to prefer the anti-LGBT candidate to the supportive one, I would disagree with the values expressed, but would have no complaint about their logic.

 

The damaging aspect of the Log Cabin argument, to repeat the most important point, is that they may mislead people who do not share their view that tax cuts for the wealthy are more important than LGBT rights into thinking that they are somehow helping the latter by supporting Mitt Romney and his Rick Santorum platform.

 

It is a good thing for Republicans to try to influence other Republicans to be supportive of LGBT rights. The problem is when they pretend to be successful when they haven't been, and urge people to join them in rewarding the Republicans when they have, in fact, continued their anti-LGBT stance. I have been hearing the Log Cabin Republicans proclaim for years that they were improving the view of that party towards our legal equality. In fact, over the past 20 years, things have gotten worse, not better. Most recently, on DOMA, when the House Republicans offered an amendment to reaffirm it, they voted 98 percent in favor of it, while Democrats voted more than 90 percent against the amendment. And it is not surprising that they have not been successful. Giving strong political support to people who are maintaining their anti-LGBT stance is hardly an effective strategy for getting them to change it.

 

The argument Mr. Cooper and the others in the Log Cabin Republicans have put forward in their defense is that they have succeeded in getting the Republicans to reduce the extent to which they denounce us, and, in Mr. Cooper's phrase, the fact that Paul Ryan is "willing to engage" with gay Republicans. That is where Uncle Tom comes to mind. They are urging people to vote for the anti-LGBT candidate over the most supportive LGBT candidate and platform imaginable because the "antis" are calling us fewer names and are willing to talk to some of us. It is this willingness to acquiesce in a subordinate status as long as the masters are kinder in tone, although in substance, that emulates Uncle Tom.

 

I note Mr. Cooper points to a couple of Republicans as reasons for supporting that party and helping advance its anti-LGBT crusade. As to Representative Ryan, in addition to his "willingness to engage with them," Mr. Cooper cites his vote for the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. In fact, Paul Ryan has an overwhelmingly anti-LGBT voting record, including opposition to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and a transgender-inclusive hate crimes bill, and support for a constitutional amendment not just to ban future same-sex marriages but to dissolve existing ones. It is true that on one occasion he voted for ENDA, but he did so only after voting minutes before for a Republican procedural maneuver -- a motion to recommit the bill -- which falsely invoked the specter that passage of ENDA would compel same-sex marriage and which, if it had passed, would have killed the bill. In other words, Paul Ryan has always voted against us, except for one occasion when he voted for us only after first trying to make the bill he theoretically supported inoperative.

 

Mr. Cooper also cites Susan Collins. She was very good on the question of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." But the argument that supporting Susan Collins advances LGBT rights ignores the fact that Senator Collins has twice defeated Democrats who were far more supportive of our issues than she was. And an example of that is the current referendum in the state of Maine on marriage. We have a very good chance of winning in Maine, and winning a referendum is important both for the substantive rights of the people in Maine and for the political point that it demonstrates. Unlike the two Democratic Representatives from Maine, Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud, Susan Collins has been stubbornly silent. That is, in a state where marriage is on the ballot, and in a year in which she is not up for reelection, Senator Collins is withholding her support from us, unlike any Democrat who would have run against her. And remember, these are the best that the Log Cabin Republicans can cite.

 

Some have complained that in comparing the Log Cabin Republicans to Uncle Tom, I was ignoring the fact that they are nice. I accept the fact that many of them are nice -- so was Uncle Tom -- but in both cases, they've been nice to the wrong people.

 

 

ADDENDUM

 

Recent headlines in the Washington Blade make the point as clearly as I did. In the August 10th issue, a headline proclaims that the "Log Cabin seeks to purge anti-gay language from Republican [platform] document." In the August 31st issue, another headline states that "Republicans affirm anti-gay views in platform, speeches." In the September 7th issue, a third headline reports that "Democrats embrace marriage; hundreds of LGBT delegates take part."

 

 

[Rosedamai]

I--what?

 

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/09/11/8...u-had-families/

 

You did not just say that.

 

How the can someone think like that?

God, Romney sounds like a second George W. Bush, only without the southern accent.

[~Kat~]

Libya Attack May Have Been Planned, U.S. Officials Say

 

WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) - The attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, may have been planned and organized in advance, U.S. government officials said on Wednesday.

 

The officials said that there were indications that members of a militant faction calling itself Ansar al Sharia - which translates as Supporters of Islamic Law - may have been involved in organizing the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya's second-largest city.

 

They also said some reporting from the region suggested that members of Al-Qaeda's north Africa-based affiliate, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved.

 

"It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack" and appeared to be preplanned, one U.S. official said.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/l...26pLid%3D204591

 

Should we forgive these attackers that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya!!!

 

Goes to show they have no respect. This is a serious offense.

[RheaZen]

Kinda stating the obvious there. They did KILL people. Not exactly a minor offense.

 

But what point are you trying to make, exactly?

[philpot123]

Hahaha, every time you quote Demi I'm like, "Hey I didn't say that..."

/name is Demitra, goes by Demi

 

I wish we would legalize MJ already. u_u It's ridiculous it's still illegal.

I know right?? How on earth did we reach a point where our government can tell us that a naturally occurring plant is illegal, and they have the authority to eradicate its natural growth and imprison people who decide to use it for recreation? Heck, when did the government get the right to tell us what we can and can't put in our bodies? I don't necessarily condone usage, but gosh people, it's a plant for heavens sake... There's really no rationale for allowing alcohol to be legal when marijuana isn't. Super frustrating.

 

 

 

Side note, did anyone else think President Obama's acknowledgment of the deaths of Americans in Libya was very... neutral? Maybe not the words, but the tone... I'm sorry, but this is kind of a situation deserving of outrage. An American ambassador was KILLED on foreign soil... and his speech sounded like he was reading a lunch menu... no emotion.

Edited September 12, 2012 by philpot123