The "Stay Classy, Obama" Thread

[UncleBob]

I, too, would like to see some kind of source for the "Rand Paul wants states to have the right to kill American Citizens via drone attacks" that I keep seeing on here.

 

[CaseyRyback]

[quote name='UncleBob']I, too, would like to see some kind of source for the "Rand Paul wants states to have the right to kill American Citizens via drone attacks" that I keep seeing on here.[/QUOTE]

He said that he has no problem if a criminal robbing a liquor store gets killed by a drone strike as he flees the establishment.

Don't have a link, but that was one of the things he stated during his 12 hour critique on drones.

 

[UncleBob]

But we have a bill that we're going to come forward with that we're working on that would simply say that there has to be a - a real imminent, lethal threat, something you can see. Which then I think people could agree to that. Because it's not so much the drone that we object to. If some guy's robbing a liquor store two blocks from here and the policemen come up and he comes out brandishing a gun, he or she can be shot. They once again don't get Miranda Rights, they don't get a trial, they don't get anything. If you come out brandishing a weapon and people are threatened by it, you can be shot. So it's important to know what we're talking about. We're not talking about the guy coming out of the liquor store with a weapon. Even a drone could kill him if the FBI had drones. So my objection to drones isn't so much the technology. There may be a use in law - for law enforcement here. But there are also potential, great potential for abuses.

I think the key part of that was the "a real imminent, lethal threat" clause. It seems to me, from my understanding of Rand's rant (and no, I haven't read the entire thing, because... blah.) that he's more concerned with the unrestricted, unmonitored and unaccountable use of drones to kill American Citizens. In that same section of the rant I quoted above, he mentions the FBI killing the guy that's representing "a real imminent, lethal threat" - and the FBI isn't a state organization.

 

[IRHari]

I feel like the difference in Paul's is that Ron wouldn't just object to drones being used on American citizens, but anyone.

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='IRHari']I feel like the difference in Paul's is that Ron wouldn't just object to drones being used on American citizens, but anyone.[/QUOTE]

This.
It seems to fall in line with a lot of the reasons I've never been excited about getting behind Rand. I mean, sure, out of the vast majority of the blow-hards that the right pushes out from their collective butt-cheeks, Rand is near the top of that heap... but he's still sitting on a pile of feces.

 

[usickenme]

[quote name='UncleBob']I, too, would like to see some kind of source for the "Rand Paul wants states to have the right to kill American Citizens via drone attacks" that I keep seeing on here.[/QUOTE]

Not sure if he did. It was a tongue in cheek statement given Rand's stance of states rights in everything from pot to abortion to gay marriage, etc.

 

[Clak]

Subtly kinda flies over the heads of some folks. Anyway yeah, it's just following the usual line of it's ok if a state does it, just not the fed.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

[quote name='usickenme']Not sure if he did. It was a tongue in cheek statement given Rand's stance of states rights in everything from pot to abortion to gay marriage, etc.[/QUOTE]

Libertarians believe states should have the right to decide on the issues. We might not necessarily agree with them.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']They are the senior senators in the GOP, they influence the leadership more than you think. Did you know Mitch McConnel bet against Rand Paul and was using his power to make he would lose the first time Rand ran for senator? Rand Paul is currently the most principled senator aside from Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. They are playing politics and therefore picking their issues carefully. Just because sometimes they are playing along does not make them sell outs. Oh and Rubio.. well he is just a tool.[/quote]

Can you match any names with those pics? those assholes.

Could you explain on wtf are you talking about? From the start please.

I'm doing...wait for it...FOR LIBERTY1!!1!!!

Saying so doesn't mean it IS so and I'm not interested in an argument of positive and negative rights. Especially when the things that they promote tend to have negative effects on those on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum.

The reason why I called them Liberty events is because that is what they are called. Libertarians attend these. Really do not see what you find amusing.

Seriously, this is like someone wearing a clown suit, acting like one, and then wondering why everyone is laughing.

Libertarians trying to co-op the word liberty because it's in the name is so unsubtle that it's become a goofy cliche.

Yes, Ron Paul has influence. I do not see your point. Why did you bring this up at all? I never questioned his popularity or influence. Now my point is that both Pauls are great politicians and only brought positive change during their years in office.

I originally said that Ron Paul still exerts influence and you asserted that he no longer does so. Who do you think is the naive one here.

 

[UncleBob]

It's funny. Less than a year ago, all the rage was downplaying Ron Paul because he was a quack that even the right wing establishment doesn't take seriously. Now, he's like the secret covert leader of the Republican party or something.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

[quote name='dohdough']

Can you match any names with those pics? those assholes.[/QUOTE]
Do you know what that bill is about, do you know why these people voted against it? How can you have so much hate for these senators when you do not look at things from their perspective or do you just like the title of the bill? You know what other other bill had a great name? Patriot Act.

I'm doing...wait for it...FOR LIBERTY1!!1!!!

Saying so doesn't mean it IS so and I'm not interested in an argument of positive and negative rights. Especially when the things that they promote tend to have negative effects on those on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum.

You need to grow up. Everyone has a hidden agenda. Rand Paul did it for the publicity and he also believes in liberty and the Constitution. This act killed 2 birds with one stone.

Seriously, this is like someone wearing a clown suit, acting like one, and then wondering why everyone is laughing.

Libertarians trying to co-op the word liberty because it's in the name is so unsubtle that it's become a goofy cliche.

Libertarians are the liberals of the old. Word has been in existence long before the party ever created. The party believes in individual freedom. They advocate bigger freedom than the people on the left and the right combined. If you do not like the fact that they are calling themselves libertarians then too bad, nothing you nor can do about it.

I originally said that Ron Paul still exerts influence and you asserted that he no longer does so. Who do you think is the naive one here.

Yeah.. actually I never did. In fact I believe he is one of the most influential politicians today.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Do you know what that bill is about, do you know why these people voted against it? How can you have so much hate for these senators when you do not look at things from their perspective or do you just like the title of the bill? You know what other other bill had a great name? Patriot Act.[/quote]
LOLZ...the main updates were to extend provisions for LGBT victims and allow non-Native Americans to be prosecuted for it if they commit those acts on tribal land, which were the primary reasons for the opposition. I happen to be very familiar with this piece of legislation, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. If anything, this shows how little YOU actually know about it, muchless me. Double those assholes.

I'm (morbidly)curious though, do you think I support the PATRIOT Act?

You need to grow up. Everyone has a hidden agenda. Rand Paul did it for the publicity and he also believes in liberty and the Constitution. This act killed 2 birds with one stone.

Did you not understand my point? Was the hint about positive/negative rights not big enough for you?

Libertarians are the liberals of the old. Word has been in existence long before the party ever created. The party believes in individual freedom. They advocate bigger freedom than the people on the left and the right combined. If you do not like the fact that they are calling themselves libertarians then too bad, nothing you nor can do about it.

The word isn't the problem; the way libertarians use it in their prose is. It's just a macguffin. Think about the way you're using those terms..."fight for liberty"..."bigger freedom"...seriously, what the does that shit even mean? Are you trying to write a new theme song for a GI Joe cartoon?

I'll give you credit for recognizing that libertarians are classic liberals though. It's the first time I've seen, or at least remember, someone mentioning it here.

Yeah.. actually I never did. In fact I believe he is one of the most influential politicians today.

So you agree that Ron Paul still greases the wheels of congress for his son?

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...the main updates were to extend provisions for LGBT victims and allow non-Native Americans to be prosecuted for it if they commit those acts on tribal land, which were the primary reasons for the opposition. I happen to be very familiar with this piece of legislation, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. If anything, this shows how little YOU actually know about it, muchless me. Double those assholes.

I'm (morbidly)curious though, do you think I support the PATRIOT Act?[/QUOTE]
You are right, I did not even hear about this act until you mentioned it. Yet you make it sound like they are anti-feminists who promote violence against women. Let me ask you a few questions about this act:
1. How much money does it cost to the taxpayers?
2. Which organizations get the money?
3. It is constitutional?
4. Is there vague language within the act? I mean for example if a male in the relationship raises his voice or yells at the female, could it be considered domestic violence?
5. Is this a sexist bill?

I really hope you do not support the Patriot Act but then again I have been wrong before.

Did you not understand my point? Was the hint about positive/negative rights not big enough for you?

Which is why I keep asking you to explain what you were talking about in the first place. English is not my first language nor is it second. I probably should have made it clear first time around or you should have just been straight about the things you are talking about.

The word isn't the problem; the way libertarians use it in their prose is. It's just a macguffin. Think about the way you're using those terms..."fight for liberty"..."bigger freedom"...seriously, what the does that shit even mean? Are you trying to write a new theme song for a GI Joe cartoon?

I'll give you credit for recognizing that libertarians are classic liberals though. It's the first time I've seen, or at least remember, someone mentioning it here.

Can't you use the same argument with Republicans (Fighters of the Republic) or Democrats (Democracy Lovers). I honestly see no problem with using that term, and frankly this shouldn't be such a big issue.

So you agree that Ron Paul still greases the wheels of congress for his son?

I wouldn't say congress is being greased. I think Ron Paul promotes his ideals mostly with college students. So maybe you are right, just in indirect way.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']You are right, I did not even hear about this act until you mentioned it. Yet you make it sound like they are anti-feminists who promote violence against women. Let me ask you a few questions about this act:
1. How much money does it cost to the taxpayers?
2. Which organizations get the money?
3. It is constitutional?
4. Is there vague language within the act? I mean for example if a male in the relationship raises his voice or yells at the female, could it be considered domestic violence?
5. Is this a sexist bill?[/quote]
I suggest you do your own research for those questions. You might learn more about the issue that way.

I really hope you do not support the Patriot Act but then again I have been wrong before.

I don't.

Which is why I keep asking you to explain what you were talking about in the first place. English is not my first language nor is it second. I probably should have made it clear first time around or you should have just been straight about the things you are talking about.

Didn't realize english is like your third language...that explains a lot.

Sorry, I was so glib before. I'll be more mindful about it in future posts.

Can't you use the same argument with Republicans (Fighters of the Republic) or Democrats (Democracy Lovers). I honestly see no problem with using that term, and frankly this shouldn't be such a big issue.

The fact is that other political parties don't. The problem lies in using the words without any context. Saying that someone supports liberty and freedom is using it in a superficial way if they don't explain the types of liberty and freedom they're fighting for.

I wouldn't say congress is being greased. I think Ron Paul promotes his ideals mostly with college students. So maybe you are right, just in indirect way.

College students tend to love Ron Paul as they start becoming politically conscious because they think he wants to legalize drugs, which isn't true, and that he wants to end imperialism, which he doesn't either.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

[quote name='dohdough']I suggest you do your own research for those questions. You might learn more about the issue that way.
[/QUOTE]
Ok I did some research and this is what I found:
http://heritageaction.com/key-votes/no-on-the-violence-against-women-act-vawa/
And a funny video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQMLM4vGbtI

I recommend everyone who is unfamiliar with the issue to click on the links and review.

The fact is that other political parties don't. The problem lies in using the words without any context. Saying that someone supports liberty and freedom is using it in a superficial way if they don't explain the types of liberty and freedom they're fighting for.

How about a liberty in which you are free to do whatever you want as long as it does not intrude upon another man's freedom? Sure not everyone from the party or the movement believe that but that seems to be the general idea.

College students tend to love Ron Paul as they start becoming politically conscious because they think he wants to legalize drugs, which isn't true, and that he wants to end imperialism, which he doesn't either.

He would let the states decide on the issue of drug legalization. I assume he is for drug legalization as this could be interpreted as exercise of the first amendment.

Ron Paul is completely against the necessary wars and military conflicts. He shares the same stance as George Washington who believed in being friendly with everyone but against permanent alliances which could suck us into a unjustified war. If he became president, he would immediately recall all US military from Afghanistan and close down all unnecessary military bases. After 9/11 he was one of the few who voted against going into Iraq and instead proposed that we should go find Bin Laden. He is against imperialism but he is for defense of the country.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Ok I did some research and this is what I found:
http://heritageaction.com/key-votes/no-on-the-violence-against-women-act-vawa/
And a funny video.

I recommend everyone who is unfamiliar with the issue to click on the links and review.[/quote]
Holy ! Not only did you not look to answer your own questions, but instead of looking for an unbiased source or just reading the damn bill, you decided to just take the word of a conservative think tank? This is what you consider research? I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt due to language issues, but this is clearly not a language issue: it's an ideological one.

How about a liberty in which you are free to do whatever you want as long as it does not intrude upon another man's freedom? Sure not everyone from the party or the movement believe that but that seems to be the general idea.

Do you know who else supports that general idea besides libertarians? ing everybody...I'm not joking. The world is more complex then just allowing everyone to follow the golden rule.

He would let the states decide on the issue of drug legalization. I assume he is for drug legalization as this could be interpreted as exercise of the first amendment.

Why is it that Ron Paul fans know almost always know nothing of his stances? It has nothing to do with the free speech and if it was up to him, he'd keep them illegal at the state level if he had a vote.

Ron Paul is completely against the necessary wars and military conflicts. He shares the same stance as George Washington who believed in being friendly with everyone but against permanent alliances which could suck us into a unjustified war. If he became president, he would immediately recall all US military from Afghanistan and close down all unnecessary military bases. After 9/11 he was one of the few who voted against going into Iraq and instead proposed that we should go find Bin Laden. He is against imperialism but he is for defense of the country.

What do you call hiring mercenaries to do the job instead? Cause that's what he would do.

edit: I have a lot of hate for Ron Paul, but despite that, I agree with a few of his conclusions although some of his solutions to them are completely insane.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

[quote name='dohdough']Holy ! Not only did you not look to answer your own questions, but instead of looking for an unbiased source or just reading the damn bill, you decided to just take the word of a conservative think tank? This is what you consider research? I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt due to language issues, but this is clearly not a language issue: it's an ideological one.[/QUOTE]
Do you really expect me to read an entire ing bill at 2 o'clock in the morning?

Do you know who else supports that general idea besides libertarians? ing everybody...I'm not joking. The world is more complex then just allowing everyone to follow the golden rule.

If everyone supported this golden we would not be having this discussion. Think about it.

Why is it that Ron Paul fans know almost always know nothing of his stances? It has nothing to do with the free speech and if it was up to him, he'd keep them illegal at the state level if he had a vote.

You are telling me he would vote against marijuana at the state level?

What do you call hiring mercenaries to do the job instead? Cause that's what he would do.

Colossus savings compared to going to war with a foreign nation who did not contribute to 9/11. Also no imperialism.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Do you really expect me to read an entire ing bill at 2 o'clock in the morning?[/quote]
I expected you to not go straight to a right wing think tank or maybe spend more than 15 minutes to research the issues of domestic violence and the bill. These are not unreasonable expectations. If you wanted to know more about it, it takes more than the 20 minutes it took you to post a reply.

Just because a woman is talking about being against the bill doesn't make it valid.

If everyone supported this golden we would not be having this discussion. Think about it.

I did think about it...and the conclusion I've reached is that it's dumb. It's a fine thought experiment, but nothing more. If that were practical, we could eliminate every single law we have.

You are telling me he would vote against marijuana at the state level?

I'm telling you that he doesn't give a shit how restrictive a state is on anything as long as the federal government can't tell them they can't be.

Colossus savings compared to going to war with a foreign nation who did not contribute to 9/11. Also no imperialism.

How the hell is commissioning an armed force to influence or control a foreign government NOT imperialism?

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

[quote name='dohdough']I expected you to not go straight to a right wing think tank or maybe spend more than 15 minutes to research the issues of domestic violence and the bill. These are not unreasonable expectations. If you wanted to know more about it, it takes more than the 20 minutes it took you to post a reply.

Just because a woman is talking about being against the bill doesn't make it valid.[/QUOTE]
It does not take 20 minutes to read an entire bill and then analyze it for debate. Just because I used those sources does not make the information any less true. You only shot yourself in the foot by not answering my initial questions.

I now see that tribal Indian courts have the power to prosecute the non tribal members. Did I get that right? If so, that seems unconstitutional to me. I am sure this type of motion has already been implemented across states so federal action is not needed.

I find this bill sexist, abuse goes both ways. This only empowers crazy feminists. I would not be surprised to see men falsely accused and prosecuted if this has not already happened.

Who administers the VAWA funds? Which organizations receive the majority of funding? I can not seem to find an answer to these questions.

I am against violence and abuse of women. I support stricter controls but I hate the fact that leftists use these dirty tactics to smear their enemies. Heck thats what happened with the patriot act, to them its part of the game but it my freedom that is being diminished.

I did think about it...and the conclusion I've reached is that it's dumb. It's a fine thought experiment, but nothing more. If that were practical, we could eliminate every single law we have.

I understand the world is highly complex and yet we are no where near and nor have we ever been to this "experiment". I bet if people tried to make things simpler then everyone would get along.

I'm telling you that he doesn't give a shit how restrictive a state is on anything as long as the federal government can't tell them they can't be.

Prove it.

How the hell is commissioning an armed force to influence or control a foreign government NOT imperialism?

When did he ever propose to commission a private military contractor to control a foreign government? I seem to recall he advised us of using Blackwater USA against pirates.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']It does not take 20 minutes to read an entire bill and then analyze it for debate. Just because I used those sources does not make the information any less true. You only shot yourself in the foot by not answering my initial questions.[/quote]
Do I expect you to read 107 pages in 15 minutes? Of course not. But, if you can't find an unbiased or at least less biased source than Heritage, then you're doing it wrong.

If I provided a link from feminaziquarterly.com, how seriously would you take it?

Either way, the bill is worth a look.

edit: Oh and the article has more than a couple things twisted.

I now see that tribal Indian courts have the power to prosecute the non tribal members. Did I get that right? If so, that seems unconstitutional to me. I am sure this type of motion has already been implemented across states so federal action is not needed.

If there were sufficient federal resources directed to those areas, it wouldn't be an issue. Between alcoholism, literacy, and poverty, I'd say those communities are ridiculously underserved.

I find this bill sexist, abuse goes both ways. This only empowers crazy feminists. I would not be surprised to see men falsely accused and prosecuted if this has not already happened.

Can you explain the logic of a "crazy feminist" wanting to be in an abusive relationship with a man? "Crazy feminist" terminology aside, even if men were falsely accused, you'd still have to provide evidence and not just a victim's word.

Who administers the VAWA funds? Which organizations receive the majority of funding? I can not seem to find an answer to these questions.

A simple wikipedia search would tell you that there's a federal department for that and most grants are received by women's shelters, counseling programs, legal help, and miscellaneous aid programs mostly on the city/town level run by non-profit orgs.

I am against violence and abuse of women. I support stricter controls but I hate the fact that leftists use these dirty tactics to smear their enemies. Heck thats what happened with the patriot act, to them its part of the game but it my freedom that is being diminished.

What does being a "leftist" have to do with it? Absolutely nothing.

And in case you've selectively forgotten, the right smeared anyone that wasn't supportive of the massive levels of nationalism after 9/11. They were branded as a treasonous. It went so far as to change "french fries" into "freedom fries."

I understand the world is highly complex and yet we are no where near and nor have we ever been to this "experiment". I bet if people tried to make things simpler then everyone would get along.

If you understand that the world is complex, then you should know that making things "simpler" is not adequate to address most issues.

Prove it.

Wait wut? You're telling me that Ron Paul's raison d'etre isn't to tell the federal government to off and allow states to do as they please?

When did he ever propose to commission a private military contractor to control a foreign government? I seem to recall he advised us of using Blackwater USA against pirates.

Or Osama Bin Laden...but who's paying attention, amirite?

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

[quote name='dohdough']Do I expect you to read 107 pages in 15 minutes? Of course not. But, if you can't find an unbiased or at least less biased source than Heritage, then you're doing it wrong.

If I provided a link from feminaziquarterly.com, how seriously would you take it?

Either way, the bill is worth a look.

edit: Oh and the article has more than a couple things twisted.[/QUOTE]
Can you point out which things are being twisted? Also here are few other sources:
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/s...gainst-women-act-should-outrage-decent-people

http://www.worldmag.com/2013/03/feminists_say_anti_violence_law_victimizes_women

If there were sufficient federal resources directed to those areas, it wouldn't be an issue. Between alcoholism, literacy, and poverty, I'd say those communities are ridiculously underserved.

I am under the impression that it did not has anything to do with the federal resources but native american sovereignty and laws. Now with VAWA the men who could be tried under the Native American court which does not fully follow the constitution and other American laws. Am I not correct?

Can you explain the logic of a "crazy feminist" wanting to be in an abusive relationship with a man? "Crazy feminist" terminology aside, even if men were falsely accused, you'd still have to provide evidence and not just a victim's word.

Here is the excrept from the article I linked above:
"VAWA encourages states to implement policies that require officers to arrest abuse suspects if they have probable cause and allows prosecutors to move forward, all without the cooperation of victims."

I am sure after more digging and I can find cases where men were falsely accused and tried. We have a Constitution and yet it keeps being thrown aside when the government feels it does not need it. That tells us the system is broken and VAWA is not a solution but a waste of resources and time.

When a women claims that she was abused even verbally. I heard that she would receive consoling, care, housing and so on. Is that true?

A simple wikipedia search would tell you that there's a federal department for that and most grants are received by women's shelters, counseling programs, legal help, and miscellaneous aid programs mostly on the city/town level run by non-profit orgs.

I was hoping for something more particular. Here is the thing, half of these things are government run and government is not efficient. It is wasteful and mismanages everything. I think private organizations would do more good in fighting against domestic abuse.

What does being a "leftist" have to do with it? Absolutely nothing.

And in case you've selectively forgotten, the right smeared anyone that wasn't supportive of the massive levels of nationalism after 9/11. They were branded as a treasonous. It went so far as to change "french fries" into "freedom fries."

Of course it does! Liberal media is attacking those Republicans who voted "Nay".

No, I have not forgotten. That is my point exactly, people on both sides attack each other using dirty tactics. Everything becomes political. Good people are unable to work and actually resolve problems.

If you understand that the world is complex, then you should know that making things "simpler" is not adequate to address most issues.

But that is the great experiment that we have not yet tried. It it has been exercised on smaller scales and it worked. Maybe I am just hoping for a perfect world which does not exist.

Wait wut? You're telling me that Ron Paul's raison d'etre isn't to tell the federal government to off and allow states to do as they please?

He does not like the Feds butting in their noses in the business of the states, that would be constitutional. It does not mean that states will be completely restrictive. People have the right to govern themselves and they have a right to elect a government of their own choosing.

Or Osama Bin Laden...but who's paying attention, amirite?

How is it going after one singular man or terrorist organization considered imperialism?

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Can you point out which things are being twisted? Also here are few other sources:
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/s...gainst-women-act-should-outrage-decent-people

http://www.worldmag.com/2013/03/feminists_say_anti_violence_law_victimizes_women[/quote]
Two more conservative sources? Seriously? No thanks.

All Heritage does is use scare quotes around words and cite itself instead of citing the actual bill. This extends to most of the citations 2 to 3 articles DEEP, while cherry-picking quotes.

I am under the impression that it did not has anything to do with the federal resources but native american sovereignty and laws. Now with VAWA the men who could be tried under the Native American court which does not fully follow the constitution and other American laws. Am I not correct?

They've already had authority to prosecute crimes with very limited punishments allowed to begin with because the state and federal governments were not providing enough support to investigate and prosecute crimes. This is an extension of that and tribal lands operate on an amalgam of tribal, state, and federal laws. Even then, any conviction must be reviewed by federal authorities because incarceration and fines are handled by federal facilities. For the most part, tribal lands operate like it's own nation-state with support from the federal government and therefore not exactly subject to every single federal or state law, which worked against Native Americans when the government were taking their children away, trying to destroy their culture, and sterilizing the women upto the 1970's.

Here is the excrept from the article I linked above:
"VAWA encourages states to implement policies that require officers to arrest abuse suspects if they have probable cause and allows prosecutors to move forward, all without the cooperation of victims."

I am sure after more digging and I can find cases where men were falsely accused and tried. We have a Constitution and yet it keeps being thrown aside when the government feels it does not need it. That tells us the system is broken and VAWA is not a solution but a waste of resources and time.

Probable cause still requires proof and no public prosecutor would dare touch it if they thought they would lose the case or thought they were wasting their time. Falsely accused and prosecuted are different from being convicted. The fact is that a false conviction is an extreme rarity and no reason to bury the program. You don't chop off your arm because you get a paper cut.

When a women claims that she was abused even verbally. I heard that she would receive consoling, care, housing and so on. Is that true?

Think about what you're saying for more than a few seconds. You're literally implying that out of all the women that are being physically abused, that a woman that says she's called a bitch will take priority for resources from programs that are always stretched thin.

That said, ask yourself the question again and tell me if you think it's true.

I was hoping for something more particular. Here is the thing, half of these things are government run and government is not efficient. It is wasteful and mismanages everything. I think private organizations would do more good in fighting against domestic abuse.

Read that particular part of my post again. Especially the part about non-profits.

Of course it does! Liberal media is attacking those Republicans who voted "Nay".

No, I have not forgotten. That is my point exactly, people on both sides attack each other using dirty tactics. Everything becomes political. Good people are unable to work and actually resolve problems.

No. This is you back pedaling after you specifically characterized "leftists" for doing it to those poor innocent Republican assholes.

But that is the great experiment that we have not yet tried. It it has been exercised on smaller scales and it worked. Maybe I am just hoping for a perfect world which does not exist.

You mean libertarianism works in hunter-gatherer societies with a couple dozen people because of tiny scales? And that we don't live in a perfect world? No shit?

He does not like the Feds butting in their noses in the business of the states, that would be constitutional. It does not mean that states will be completely restrictive. People have the right to govern themselves and they have a right to elect a government of their own choosing.

This was the argument for slavery, you know.

How is it going after one singular man or terrorist organization considered imperialism?

It's an exercise of power by violating another nation's borders. You're also assuming these things happen in a vacuum. Now if you say that they hate us for our freedoms, then I think I'm done here.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

[quote name='dohdough']Two more conservative sources? Seriously? No thanks.

All Heritage does is use scare quotes around words and cite itself instead of citing the actual bill. This extends to most of the citations 2 to 3 articles DEEP, while cherry-picking quotes.


They've already had authority to prosecute crimes with very limited punishments allowed to begin with because the state and federal governments were not providing enough support to investigate and prosecute crimes. This is an extension of that and tribal lands operate on an amalgam of tribal, state, and federal laws. Even then, any conviction must be reviewed by federal authorities because incarceration and fines are handled by federal facilities. For the most part, tribal lands operate like it's own nation-state with support from the federal government and therefore not exactly subject to every single federal or state law, which worked against Native Americans when the government were taking their children away, trying to destroy their culture, and sterilizing the women upto the 1970's.


Probable cause still requires proof and no public prosecutor would dare touch it if they thought they would lose the case or thought they were wasting their time. Falsely accused and prosecuted are different from being convicted. The fact is that a false conviction is an extreme rarity and no reason to bury the program. You don't chop off your arm because you get a paper cut.


Think about what you're saying for more than a few seconds. You're literally implying that out of all the women that are being physically abused, that a woman that says she's called a bitch will take priority for resources from programs that are always stretched thin.

That said, ask yourself the question again and tell me if you think it's true.


Read that particular part of my post again. Especially the part about non-profits.


No. This is you back pedaling after you specifically characterized "leftists" for doing it to those poor innocent Republican assholes.


You mean libertarianism works in hunter-gatherer societies with a couple dozen people because of tiny scales? And that we don't live in a perfect world? No shit?


This was the argument for slavery, you know.


It's an exercise of power by violating another nation's borders. You're also assuming these things happen in a vacuum. Now if you say that they hate us for our freedoms, then I think I'm done here.[/QUOTE]

I am done arguing with you man. I respect your opinion and I believe you want what is best for America. I myself am completely against a big government, pointless bills and dirty politicians. Maybe one day you will see things from point of view and make a change like I have done a few years ago.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']I am done arguing with you man. I respect your opinion and I believe you want what is best for America. I myself am completely against a big government, pointless bills and dirty politicians. Maybe one day you will see things from point of view and make a change like I have done a few years ago.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh...thanks...I think? Sounds more like an insult about my maturity.s

The more I learn about libertarianism, the more I want to never be apart of it because I'm not a fundamentalist or a dogmatic ideologue.

Anyways, back for more FF13-2

 

[Clak]

[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...the main updates were to extend provisions for LGBT victims and allow non-Native Americans to be prosecuted for it if they commit those acts on tribal land, which were the primary reasons for the opposition. I happen to be very familiar with this piece of legislation, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. If anything, this shows how little YOU actually know about it, muchless me. Double those assholes.

I'm (morbidly)curious though, do you think I support the PATRIOT Act?


Did you not understand my point? Was the hint about positive/negative rights not big enough for you?


The word isn't the problem; the way libertarians use it in their prose is. It's just a macguffin. Think about the way you're using those terms..."fight for liberty"..."bigger freedom"...seriously, what the does that shit even mean? Are you trying to write a new theme song for a GI Joe cartoon?

I'll give you credit for recognizing that libertarians are classic liberals though. It's the first time I've seen, or at least remember, someone mentioning it here.


So you agree that Ron Paul still greases the wheels of congress for his son?[/QUOTE]
Hah, libertarians believe in the individual freedom to everyone else. Run a business? You have every right to refuse service based on race. Don't want to hire minorities? Well sir, that's your right as an American.

It's ing sick to think that anyone supports something like that, but it's their MO. Libertarians are nothing but grown children. People who think they should be able to do whatever they want, and you if you think otherwise.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='Clak']Hah, libertarians believe in the individual freedom to everyone else. Run a business? You have every right to refuse service based on race. Don't want to hire minorities? Well sir, that's your right as an American.

It's ing sick to think that anyone supports something like that, but it's their MO. Libertarians are nothing but grown children. People who think they should be able to do whatever they want, and you if you think otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I think you have libertarians confused with Democrats.

 

[granturismo]

[quote name='Clak']Hah, libertarians believe in the individual freedom to everyone else. Run a business? You have every right to refuse service based on race. Don't want to hire minorities? Well sir, that's your right as an American.

It's ing sick to think that anyone supports something like that, otherwise.[/QUOTE]

I see nothing wrong with that to a certain extent. Affirmative action is forcing people to take people based on race, whats the difference? That's actually worse in my opinion. Some people ARE racist, it's a fact. Both black & white and any other race..all have large sections of people who are racist. It's human nature to see differences and rebel or attract because of them in some occasions.

If racist people have businesses why should it be against the law for them to hire who they want?

It's their business.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='granturismo']I see nothing wrong with that to a certain extent. Affirmative action is forcing people to take people based on race, whats the difference? That's actually worse in my opinion. Some people ARE racist, it's a fact. Both black & white and any other race..all have large sections of people who are racist. It's human nature to see differences and rebel or attract because of them in some occasions.

If racist people have businesses why should it be against the law for them to hire who they want?

It's their business.[/QUOTE]
Ummm...yeah...not even close. When whites experience systemic and social discrimination on the level of any other race, get back to me about how "both sides do it." Otherwise, it might behoove you to learn about the social construction and history of race as good first steps.

 

[Clak]

[quote name='granturismo']I see nothing wrong with that to a certain extent. Affirmative action is forcing people to take people based on race, whats the difference? That's actually worse in my opinion. Some people ARE racist, it's a fact. Both black & white and any other race..all have large sections of people who are racist. It's human nature to see differences and rebel or attract because of them in some occasions.

If racist people have businesses why should it be against the law for them to hire who they want?

It's their business.[/QUOTE]If anyone was going to call bullshit on my previous post, too late.:lol:

 

[egofed]

[quote name='dohdough']Ummm...yeah...not even close. When whites experience systemic and social discrimination on the level of any other race, get back to me about how "both sides do it." Otherwise, it might behoove you to learn about the social construction and history of race as good first steps.[/QUOTE]


If there were no poor white people, then maybe this bullcrap would hold enough water for me to see changing the rules AGAINST equality like affirmative action and "diversity" agendas, but that is not a reality. You guys see race WAY TOO MUCH. The true separation in this country is ambition versus settling for gov't (or others) handouts and decisions. Its rich versus poor way more than black versus white. The gov't should not be legislating rules that apply by race, sex, achievement or sexual preference. How about one rule book for EVERYBODY? And its a shame the gov't can enforce preferential hiring on a privately owned business. If some owner wants to be an ignorant racist versus hiring the BEST person for the job, then that should be their right, as short sighted as it is. Equal opportunity is not the same as equal outcomes.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='egofed']If there were no poor white people, then maybe this bullcrap would hold enough water for me to see changing the rules AGAINST equality like affirmative action and "diversity" agendas, but that is not a reality. You guys see race WAY TOO MUCH.[/quote]
The fact that there are poor whites doesn't discount the fact that black people still generally have it worse compared to whites at the same socio-economic level in terms of income, wealth, opportunity, and health. I'm talking about a socio-economic spectrum that spans from those in poverty to those with post graduate degrees.

The true separation in this country is ambition versus settling for gov't (or others) handouts and decisions.

Not everyone can earning a decent living backed by union power and paid for by the government like you, just like how not everyone can be a doctor or captain of industry.

Its rich versus poor way more than black versus white.

I actually agree with this, but in case you haven't noticed, you're not exactly on the side of the poor and I seriously doubt that you even really know what it's like or else you might exude a little more empathy than demonstrating the complete lack of it so far.

The gov't should not be legislating rules that apply by race, sex, achievement or sexual preference. How about one rule book for EVERYBODY? And its a shame the gov't can enforce preferential hiring on a privately owned business. If some owner wants to be an ignorant racist versus hiring the BEST person for the job, then that should be their right, as short sighted as it is. Equal opportunity is not the same as equal outcomes.

No. Being short sighted is assuming that everyone has equal opportunity to begin with, which is what you seem to think. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't even 50 years old and most people like you either ignore or choose to forget that the "market" never fixed it.

 

[Clak]

ego reminds me of some of the folks my father used to work with. They refused to join the union and pay dues, but expected the union to go to bat for them in the case of any problems. They of course benefited form the negotiated wages and benefits as well. In short, some people leech off unions too, so remember that the next time you go complaining about people leeching off the government.

 

[granturismo]

There's a violent liberalism throughout the western world. Where conservatives are assumed people with racist undertones, and homophobic. It's cult like

 

[Clak]

We don't have to assume, it comes out in your opinions. If you aren't racist yourself, you want things changed so as to enable people who are.

 

[Calipso]

Violence against women act. What a crock of shit. Same thing with hate crimes.

Crime is crime regardless of who it is against. Shit like this along with mandatory minimum sentencing shows why we have so many prison issues in the US.

 

[granturismo]

[quote name='Clak']We don't have to assume, it comes out in your opinions. If you aren't racist yourself, you want things changed so as to enable people who are.[/QUOTE]

What a crock of crap. Nobody should have to prove they're not racist by being violently anti racism in every subject. That leads to self hating and also ignorant kids who actually sometimes do not understand racism properly. I remember saying to some girl i don't really like Kanye too much, seems racist to me. She went racist? isn't he black. Fact is too many people pussyfoot around issues due to racism or fear of being labelled. theft is worse than being racist. Racism is only an issue if it's acted upon or crime is committed due to it. Otherwise who really cares?

 

[usickenme]

[quote name='granturismo']. Racism is only an issue if it's acted upon or crime is committed due to it. Otherwise who really cares?[/QUOTE]

dumb. That assumes people always know 100% the reasoning behind their actions. They don't and they lie to themselves/ others daily.


"black history month is stupid, man. Oh I'm not racist, but we have a black president so it's all good now"

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='Calipso']Crime is crime regardless of who it is against.[/QUOTE]

No, it is not. Nor are hate crimes responsible for our prison capacity being where it is.

Crime is not crime. Ask Wall Street, where nobody is ever charged for anything they do.

 

[Clak]

I didn't realize we lived in a utopia. In that case yeah, racism isn't an issue, carry on.

 

[contradude]

Honestly, black history shouldn't just be considered for a month but year round. I'm all for teaching American history with all of our roots included. Restricting teaching about African American history to primarily one month bothers me and I'm not even black

 

[granturismo]

[quote name='contradude']Honestly, black history shouldn't just be considered for a month but year round. I'm all for teaching American history with all of our roots included. Restricting teaching about African American history to primarily one month bothers me and I'm not even black[/QUOTE]

Black history being given a month is an insult to everybody in America. History is history. When you start defining things by race you create an issue.

 

[granturismo]

[quote name='Clak']I didn't realize we lived in a utopia. In that case yeah, racism isn't an issue, carry on.[/QUOTE]

racism is a largely irrelevant issue, but one talked about so much. How many significant issues happen due to racism in the last 10 years? I cant think of that many.

Many facts are silenced due to the fact they'd appear racist. It's got stupid, and it's only getting worse.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='granturismo']racism is a largely irrelevant issue, but one talked about so much. How many significant issues happen due to racism in the last 10 years? I cant think of that many.

Many facts are silenced due to the fact they'd appear racist. It's got stupid, and it's only getting worse.[/QUOTE]

do go on. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Racism is dead? Some kind of "colorblind society" trope? Something else?

 

[renique46]

[quote name='mykevermin']do go on. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Racism is dead? Some kind of "colorblind society" trope? Something else?[/QUOTE]

This.

 

[Msut77]

[quote name='renique46']This.[/QUOTE]

http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/n...urge-lawmakers-to-expand-medicaid-eligibility

Rep. Kris Crawford, a Republican from Florence and also an emergency room doctor, supports the expansion but expects the Republican caucus to vote as a bloc against the Medicaid expansion.

“The politics are going to overwhelm the policy. It is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House right now, especially for the Republican Party,” Crawford said.

 

[granturismo]

[quote name='mykevermin']do go on. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Racism is dead? Some kind of "colorblind society" trope? Something else?[/QUOTE]

Of course you don't. Racism is simply a non issue that is turned into a huge issue for no good reason. So many self hating white people, and brainwashed teens who do not understand actual racism.

How many actual racial attacks happen? Very very few. It's a tiny crime, unless calling someone a white something or a N is counted as a crime then you're really left in small small small numbers.

Racism will always exist so im not sure what people's aims are, but all the effects are causing is backward mindsets not eradicating racism.

Too many people are accused or assumed racist for opinions or beliefs who are not racist at all.

Too many times racism is used when it is not applicable. Even the thing above this post. the black guy. Republicans will always oppose the president if he's a democrat it's nothing to do with him being black. There is far more support for Obama because he is black than opposition to him because he is black...yet we do not distinguish an issue with 1 yet blow up 2...this is the problem.

It's one or the other you cannot have it both ways. And my point is to go with 1.

I think if you have irish heritage you may be inclined to prefer a person with irish heritage in some weird allegiance way if he was running..to me this is fine. Likewise i can understand why a black person can resonate or connect with someone black maybe more in some instances. Yet i can also see why certain white people cannot... yet other people will see them as racist or label them as such, when often this is not quite the case at all.

Too many ignorant people are deciding what and who is racist and it's causing a complete mindset screw up in a lot of youth.

 

[mykevermin]

Oh, lordy. Another one who things that the cross must be on fire in order for it to be called racism.

Far too many false negatives - a system of false negatives! - would emerge from your vantage point.

I bet you think the ideal society is a "colorblind" one, don't you? You know, because you can recall one sentence from one MLK, Jr. speech, and you'll ignore everything else he ever said or did, and exalt "something something content of character" as the ideal way to approach racial relations, yes?

 

[pyschonerd]

[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, lordy. Another one who things that the cross must be on fire in order for it to be called racism.

Far too many false negatives - a system of false negatives! - would emerge from your vantage point.

I bet you think the ideal society is a "colorblind" one, don't you? You know, [/QUOTE]

You've said this twice and it was stupid the first time. Too many people wanting to resort to labels based on their OWN pre made assumption. You do not understand racism.

The rest of what you said makes no sense to me, i have no clue what you're babbling on about. Too much time with your head in books rather than experiencing reality is all i can think of.

Too many liberal nazi's who want to define racism for their own outlook and use it as a weapon and scared to let it go and just take things at face value. Racism is not an issue people make it an issue.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='granturismo']Of course you don't. Racism is simply a non issue that is turned into a huge issue for no good reason. So many self hating white people, and brainwashed teens who do not understand actual racism.

How many actual racial attacks happen? Very very few. It's a tiny crime, unless calling someone a white something or a N is counted as a crime then you're really left in small small small numbers.

Racism will always exist so im not sure what people's aims are, but all the effects are causing is backward mindsets not eradicating racism.

Too many people are accused or assumed racist for opinions or beliefs who are not racist at all.

Too many times racism is used when it is not applicable. Even the thing above this post. the black guy. Republicans will always oppose the president if he's a democrat it's nothing to do with him being black. There is far more support for Obama because he is black than opposition to him because he is black...yet we do not distinguish an issue with 1 yet blow up 2...this is the problem.

It's one or the other you cannot have it both ways. And my point is to go with 1.

I think if you have irish heritage you may be inclined to prefer a person with irish heritage in some weird allegiance way if he was running..to me this is fine. Likewise i can understand why a black person can resonate or connect with someone black maybe more in some instances. Yet i can also see why certain white people cannot... yet other people will see them as racist or label them as such, when often this is not quite the case at all.

Too many ignorant people are deciding what and who is racist and it's causing a complete mindset screw up in a lot of youth.[/QUOTE]
What makes YOU so qualified to define what is racist or not? Judging from this post, I'd say almost nothing.

But first, I have a more important question for you before I go any further: Do you think there is a war on Christmas?

 

[granturismo]

[quote name='dohdough']What makes YOU so qualified to define what is racist or not? Judging from this post, I'd say almost nothing.

But first, I have a more important question for you before I go any further: Do you think there is a war on Christmas?[/QUOTE]

Judging by what exactly in the post? Describe to me how the current mindset is benefiting society. It's not it's creating zombies who shout RACIST when somebody says white or black. I am not interested in discussing anything with close minded people to be honest with you.