POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
I am saying there is no such thing as a moderate muslim. Mythical.
Because when the shit hits the fan the "alleged" moderat msulim will flip on you in a matter of seconds.
moderate muslims= Telling non-muslims what they want to hear. Point driven home by Bill Maher.
Yes, that is why he was elected. You campaign on certain ideas and policies, which in our country is usually either progressive or conservative policies, you get elected based on those ideas and policies, and the it is your job to implement those ideas and policies. Yes, leading is his primary job. But leading comes in the form of implementing policies and ideas. How is it cheerleadering to point that out. It's the same concept for republicans. You run on conservative ideas and if you get elected it is your job to inact those ideas and policies because presumably those ideas are what got you elected in the first place.
So, if he runs, wins, and does a terrible job, hey, he still did his job... amirite?
The POTUS is supposed to run the country, not just the Dems side.
I mean, he rammed the ACA down our throats with NO bi-partisan support. None. Roughly 1/6 of the economy.
How's that "running the country" properly?
Giving away free stuff while borrowing to do so is hardly good leadership, a concept that seems completely lost on the left.
He's doing the job that the public elected him to do. What are conservatives running on? Closing the borders, torturing terror suspects, letting everyone have a gun, defunding PP, repealing the AFA, etc...if a conservative wins, it's presumably because the people want those idea inacted. Regardless of what the results ultimately end up being, it would be that conservatives job to implement the policies and ideas, to the best of his ability, that he was elected on. Same with the Dems.
I place more blame on the people if a President does a bad job, because again, Presidents typically push policies that the people who voted them in agree with. It's not a secret where most politicians stand.
The right gives away free stuff too. Only difference is they give it to the rich.
I place more blame on the people if a President does a bad job, because again, Presidents typically push policies that the people who voted them in agree with. It's not a secret where most politicians stand.
The right gives away free stuff too. Only difference is they give it to the rich.
When said policies are voted along party lines and/or are not designed to do anything other than increase power. It is cheerleading because it is a wrong approach and one that would only be said if you are a supporter of a politician governing that way....again, against public opinion in many areas. EG, the GOP Congress was voted into control, you would not be so flippant if they shut down govt spending in a showdown using the same rationale.
As far as "implementing policies" you are aware that Congress is the legislative branch?
Okay, this drop in is not a serious person...again pure cheerleader, talking points and contorting to absolve Obama of everything. I would post the exit polling on the "issues" but we know how that goes.
Just go to organizingforaction.com for more viewpoints by uk/wsu.
Just go to organizingforaction.com for more viewpoints by uk/wsu.
It's not cheerleading because the thought I just put out applies to everyone. If a conservative runs and gets elected, it is his job to largely do conservative things. If a progressive or libertarian runs and gets elected, it is their job to do progressive and libertarian things. Obviously there is nuance and you have to make compromises and work with people, but largely you are elected based on your ideology and it is your job as President to inact things that fall in line with your ideology because that is why you were elected. Who am I cheerleading for if Im telling you that concept applies to all parties?
That is just plain silly and pure class warfare. If that were the case, the "right" would only win 1%-2% of the vote instead of holding majorities in the House and Senate.
Because I don't believe you. Your buzz words and summary of issues above show nothing above fanboy motives.
If the public votes different parties in power of the WH and Congress there should be some give and take. You are aware of the sweeping GOP takeover of Congress right? What do you want them to do?
If you don't believe me then that is your problem, but fact remains, in order to get elected you run on ideas. Those ideas usually are conservative or progressive. It is your job, if elected, to push those ideas. If those ideas don't work, then that is the fault of the voters because they knew what they were getting.
WKU, Do you really think that the voters knew that Obama would refuse to enforce our immigration laws? He swore an oath to uphold our laws but refuses to do so. Obama has set a very bad precedent with his selective enforcement of our laws.
Precedent? Which immigration laws did Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan enforce?
Very good read from a liberal NYT columnist on gun control and getting past the buzzwords:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/opinion/sunday/liberalisms-gun-problem.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
With 300 million guns in private hands in the United States, it’s very difficult to devise a non-intrusive, “common-sense” approach to regulating their exchange by individuals. Ultimately, you need more than background checks; you need many fewer guns in circulation, period. To their credit, many gun control supporters acknowledge this point, which is why there is a vogue for citing the Australian experience, where a sweeping and mandatory gun buyback followed a 1996 mass shooting.
The clearest evidence shows that Australia’s reform mostly reduced suicides — as the Brady law may have done — while the evidence on homicides is murkier. (In general, the evidence linking gun ownership rates to murder rates is relatively weak.) But a lower suicide rate would be a real public health achievement, even if it isn’t immediately relevant to the mass shooting debate.
Does that make “getting to Australia” a compelling long-term goal for liberalism? Maybe, but liberals need to count the cost. Absent a total cultural revolution in America, a massive gun collection effort would face significant resistance even once legislative and judicial battles had been won. The best analogue is Prohibition, which did have major public health benefits … but which came at a steep cost in terms of police powers, black markets and trampled liberties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/opinion/sunday/liberalisms-gun-problem.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
With 300 million guns in private hands in the United States, it’s very difficult to devise a non-intrusive, “common-sense” approach to regulating their exchange by individuals. Ultimately, you need more than background checks; you need many fewer guns in circulation, period. To their credit, many gun control supporters acknowledge this point, which is why there is a vogue for citing the Australian experience, where a sweeping and mandatory gun buyback followed a 1996 mass shooting.
The clearest evidence shows that Australia’s reform mostly reduced suicides — as the Brady law may have done — while the evidence on homicides is murkier. (In general, the evidence linking gun ownership rates to murder rates is relatively weak.) But a lower suicide rate would be a real public health achievement, even if it isn’t immediately relevant to the mass shooting debate.
Does that make “getting to Australia” a compelling long-term goal for liberalism? Maybe, but liberals need to count the cost. Absent a total cultural revolution in America, a massive gun collection effort would face significant resistance even once legislative and judicial battles had been won. The best analogue is Prohibition, which did have major public health benefits … but which came at a steep cost in terms of police powers, black markets and trampled liberties.
Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan didn't do a great job enforcing the border. However, none of them went so far as to openly say that they would not enforce the law because they didn't believe in it. Obama has did this on DOMA too. Do we really want our presidents selectively enforcing our laws depending on whether they agree with them or not?
Bush did not try to enforce immigration laws but the GOP in congress did defeat him on his amnesty plan so there is a track record within the party to confront this issue. And immigration exploded with the housing boom and as drug violence spread across mexico in the past 10 years....so the severity of the problem is much worse than past decades. Not unlike healthcare inflation.
I disagree - I can appreciate her resolve, but her takes on militarizing the police force and surrendering privacy to the government are terrible IMO.
The question that must be asked is this: How many civil liberties, how many freedoms are you willing to give up to watch Islam burn?
Has this been confirmed yet? France is apparently doing this under "Emergency Rule"?
Dude really asked what a "mutt" was. What you said is 100% clear. Kids are just trained to play dumb and act all flustered about anything that could be perceived as non PC.
And that's why we is F'd, ladies and boys. Like Willy said, it's an ideology type of thing, and we have created generations, now the majority, that are total PC puss hoes that a) ain't fighting for shit b) ain't stand for shit c) rely on the government for everything d) will vote Hillary into office. E) will likely be overtaken in the distant future as we become Europe...what this current generation aspires to be, and so it will be.
Via USA Today....al Jazeera says up to 100 planned but that has not been confirmed. Even 3 is shocking.
French authorities announced Wednesday they shut down three mosques for an alleged "pattern of radicalization," but terrorism analysts said such tactics are unlikely to be repeated in the USA.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-mosques-state-emergency-crackdown/76655054/
French authorities announced Wednesday they shut down three mosques for an alleged "pattern of radicalization," but terrorism analysts said such tactics are unlikely to be repeated in the USA.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-mosques-state-emergency-crackdown/76655054/
Here is what I think would be the one most import thing that could be done to prevent mass shootings regardless if they're a Jihadists or just general lunatics.
Establish a national hot line to report suspicious activity anonymously. The person that receives the call would get all the details and compile a report that would be forwarded to law endorsement and/or the FBI in the vicinity. Law enforcement would then take action as appropriate. One option they would have would be to contact a local crisis intervention team, composed of volunteers with various backgrounds - law enforcement, psychologists, socialists, clergy, etc. A decision would be made on how to intervene. In some cases a phone call or personal visit to find out whats up might suffice, in other instances a FISA warrant to tape their phone calls might be warranted etc. Obviously you have to be careful becasue if someone hasn't committed a crime you can't to much more than talk or set up surveillance.
The idea here is to nip it in the bud before it happens. A good example of that is someone stated above in this thread that they had heard on the news that a neighbor had observed the San Bernadino shooters getting late night visits and a lot of packages delivered to the apartment, but didn't want to call the police becasue they thought it wouldn't be "PC". But what if they had the option to call an anonymous number. The intervention team can ask a few questions, if it looks suspicious law enforcement could utilize a sniffing dog or just get a warrant. Had they done so they would have discovered the bomb factory and this would never have happened.
We can talk about background checks, and mental health screens and all these other things but while they may slow the criminals down a bit or make their job harder it may have minimal effect on prevention, but intervening directly up front would seem to be highly effective.
Establish a national hot line to report suspicious activity anonymously. The person that receives the call would get all the details and compile a report that would be forwarded to law endorsement and/or the FBI in the vicinity. Law enforcement would then take action as appropriate. One option they would have would be to contact a local crisis intervention team, composed of volunteers with various backgrounds - law enforcement, psychologists, socialists, clergy, etc. A decision would be made on how to intervene. In some cases a phone call or personal visit to find out whats up might suffice, in other instances a FISA warrant to tape their phone calls might be warranted etc. Obviously you have to be careful becasue if someone hasn't committed a crime you can't to much more than talk or set up surveillance.
The idea here is to nip it in the bud before it happens. A good example of that is someone stated above in this thread that they had heard on the news that a neighbor had observed the San Bernadino shooters getting late night visits and a lot of packages delivered to the apartment, but didn't want to call the police becasue they thought it wouldn't be "PC". But what if they had the option to call an anonymous number. The intervention team can ask a few questions, if it looks suspicious law enforcement could utilize a sniffing dog or just get a warrant. Had they done so they would have discovered the bomb factory and this would never have happened.
We can talk about background checks, and mental health screens and all these other things but while they may slow the criminals down a bit or make their job harder it may have minimal effect on prevention, but intervening directly up front would seem to be highly effective.
Interesting - the EU Court of Human rights has also upheld Frances right to ban burqas.
"Emergency Rule" is interesting for France - that smells a little bit like "Reichstag Fire" to me. Any government enacting "emergency rule" can do just about whatever it wants to.
As far as this:
" but terrorism analysts said such tactics are unlikely to be repeated in the USA." - You've got to be kidding me. Another 9/11 type event in the US by some extremest Islam group and it gets quite likely in the USA real fast.
Via The Hill...Homeland Security Committee
“ISIS members in Syria have attempted to exploit it to get into the United States,” McCaul said during a speech at the National Defense University on Monday.
“The U.S. government has information to indicate that individuals tied to terrorist groups in Syria have already attempted to gain access to our country through the U. S. refugee program.”
McCaul would not say specifically who informed him and other lawmakers about the revelation, only describing the sources as “elements of the intelligence community.”
“That was very courageous for them to come forward with this, to tell me about this personally, given the political debate on the Hill,” he added, suggesting that the news did not come from intelligence leaders.
The briefing happened “earlier this week,” McCaul said.
“ISIS members in Syria have attempted to exploit it to get into the United States,” McCaul said during a speech at the National Defense University on Monday.
“The U.S. government has information to indicate that individuals tied to terrorist groups in Syria have already attempted to gain access to our country through the U. S. refugee program.”
McCaul would not say specifically who informed him and other lawmakers about the revelation, only describing the sources as “elements of the intelligence community.”
“That was very courageous for them to come forward with this, to tell me about this personally, given the political debate on the Hill,” he added, suggesting that the news did not come from intelligence leaders.
The briefing happened “earlier this week,” McCaul said.
Maybe his words didnt say it, but his actions surely did. Just look at his approach to ramming through the ACA.
You typed this in about 4 different posts. Just because you say it over and over, doesnt make it true. Hes supposed to lead, govern, protect the country, uphold the constitution, etc.
Instead hes divided, dictated, put us at risk, and ignored the portions of the constitution he doesnt like.
Who couldnt see this coming from 100 miles away? Only true kool aid drinkers still think this is a good idea.
So, you basically want to live in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin?
Terrible, terrible idea that would lead to all kinds of problems. Have you studied history and human nature even just a little bit?
First of all, it's basically been done before in the Soviet Union and it was a dismal human rights failure. The entire idea brokers mistrust of neighbor and begs to be abused/exploited, especially from a position of anonymity.
Please call your local tip line and read this post to them anonymously.
Or, people could just do what Homeland Security currently says to do which is report it to local law enforcement...anonymously if they choose?
"You know, Ashraf down the street has really been acting weird lately....coming and going at all hours of the night, weird cars coming and going...front yard hand to hand combat training daily..ISIS flag in the window...I saw him at Starbucks and he didn't even wave. If only there was a national hotline I could call to take my tip."
One would think the people would have at least reported the target practice in their back yard. I don't know many places that allow shooting within city limits. I could be wrong though.
I'm willing to overlook some of that other stuff, but this is where I draw the line.
He/She is jeopardizing their careers or lives if this administration finds out who they are. Snowden went to Russia for a reason.
Don't have to agree with all parts but, I agree with a lot of it. Not necessarily surrendering privacy to the government no. But, beefing up the police force yes. Giving them the tools to defeat any future terrorist (fire power) not necessarily military vehicles. Also, total freedom is chaos, survival of the fittest if you will. I do agree with you though on not giving government too much power. We must find an equitable medium where rights are protected and security is enhanced.
Similar threads
