EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 150
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Also C-SPAN2, watched for five hours so far. | ||
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
lol we'll be hearing that again when he runs for president | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On March 07 2013 11:52 KwarK wrote: For the times things happen that you didn't expect. Shooting down one of the hijacked planes on 9/11 is probably illegal as it'd involved murdering a lot of civilians but the government could theoretically justify needing the legal power to do so. Although I'd more put that in emergency powers than in day to day powers. Still, in the age of the forever war there are no longer emergencies, just the ongoing drone strikes, security checkpoints and increasing invasion into privacy. Legal vs. Illegal is irrelevant when the situation is looked at from the perspective of pragmatic outcomes. This is nothing more than a battle over proactive justification vs retroactive justification since no one is (realistically) arguing that it would have been irresponsible to shoot down those hijacked planes. The difference is one requires you to make a moral call and own whatever decision you make entirely (retroactive), the other alleviates you of the burden of being responsible for your choices as a leader (proactive). Proactive justification is nothing but an excuse for cowardice and poor leadership. Conversely, something which is proactively justifying intent of action as opposed to outcome of action I would view as legitimate. But w/e, it's a losing battle no matter how you slice it. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Please don't mention Communism. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On March 07 2013 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: You have to admit, no matter what side of the political isle you are on, this night/filibuster has made Rand Paul into a national figure. That and this is an actual filibuster. No question. I expect Rand will make a presidential bid in 2016. What's more I think he's learned from years of watching his dad skirt the outer edges of the GOP and fail because of it. The son looks in it to win it, even if it means playing along with the very organization which ostracized his father. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Acting like a child that does not get his way and making use of loopholes in the political system to obstruct progress and execution of decissions wich are already made. Then to read he gets aplaud for this and might even be candidate for president in 2016? *shakes head* | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
FallenPrince
8 Posts
On March 07 2013 11:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Someone isn't asking the right questions, particularly the pressing one. If you don't plan on using said powers to kill Americans on American soil then why do you need them? Also C-SPAN2, watched for five hours so far. Usually I would look at something like this as nothing more than a stunt, but given the issue, (Obama's extremely long, practically non-existant leash when it comes to drone use) it absolutely needs to be addressed NOW. I supported Obama in 2008, but since then I have become more and more aware that this man is absolutely not out for the interests of the people no matter how much he pretends to be. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
Suddenly ted cruz 2016. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On March 07 2013 12:37 Rassy wrote: Rand setting an example of how politics should be done. Acting like a child that does not get his way and making use of loopholes in the political system to obstruct progress and execution of decissions wich are already made. Then to read he gets aplaud for this and might even be candidate for president in 2016? *shakes head* The Filibuster (a real one) is a hallmark of American politics and people who undertake such an endeavor, I and many Americans, hold in the highest regard because of the symbolic meaning the action has in the American psyche. It's the idea of the Individual put up to a national spotlight and if there's one thing Americans are bred to love in our culture, it's the individual. It provides the opportunity for the marginalized and meekest of voices to DEMAND to be heard and damn the mob and their howling for rashness they would dress up as boldness. Even the most hated man in that Senate, when he takes the floor, may speak till judgment day so long as his jaw is attached and he's still on his feet. *GLORIOUS AMERICAN NOD OF LIBERTY LOVING AWESOME* | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On March 07 2013 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: You have to admit, no matter what side of the political isle you are on, this night/filibuster has made Rand Paul into a national figure. That and this is an actual filibuster. Perusing HuffPost comments. There are more commenters than normal putting principle before party and agreeing with him, or at least not disagreeing with him. They really approve it being a "talking filibuster." (front page still calls it a "Revolt" however, lololol) | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Reid allow the damn vote and hope it passes so you can then attempt to whitewash before this blister becomes a boil. While at the same time you can get credit for passing a 53% approved measure. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
I don't know who I agree with, but it's damn entertaining. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has launched a nationwide campaign to assess police militarization in the United States. Starting Wednesday, ACLU affiliates in 23 states are sending open records requests to hundreds of state and local police agencies requesting information about their SWAT teams, such as how often and for what reasons they're deployed, what types of weapons they use, how often citizens are injured during SWAT raids, and how they're funded. More affiliates may join the effort in the coming weeks. Additionally, the affiliates will ask for information about drones, GPS tracking devices, how much military equipment the police agencies have obtained through programs run through the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, and how often and for what purpose state National Guards are participating in enforcement of drug laws. "We've known for a while now that American neighborhoods are increasingly being policed by cops armed with the weapons and tactics of war," said Kara Dansky, senior counsel at the ACLU's Center for Justice, which is coordinating the investigation. "The aim of this investigation is to find out just how pervasive this is, and to what extent federal funding is incentivizing this trend." The militarization of America's police forces has been going on for about a generation now. Former Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates first conceived the idea of the SWAT team in the late 1960s, in response to the Watts riots and a few mass shooting incidents for which he thought the police were unprepared. Gates wanted an elite team of specialized cops similar to groups like the Army Rangers or Navy SEALs that could respond to riots, barricades, shootouts, or hostage-takings with more skill and precision than everyday patrol officers. The concept caught on, particularly after a couple of high-profile, televised confrontations between Gates' SWAT team and a Black Panther holdout in 1969, and then with the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1973. Given the rioting, protests, and general social unrest of the time, Gates' idea quickly grew popular in law enforcement circles, particularly in cities worried about rioting and domestic terrorism. Source | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
On March 07 2013 13:26 Nevuk wrote: This is so much better than what congress typically does. Also this filibuster would be a footnote in history if all Paul were doing was reading a phonebook out loud, he's been making arguments that actually concern the reason why he's filibustering. I don't know who I agree with, but it's damn entertaining. Yes. | ||
| ||
