|
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. |
On December 17 2014 05:10 IgnE wrote:Suicide attacks didn't really exist before 1981. I guess ISIS and Boko Haram skew the figures in the last 2 years. It's debatable whether ISIS is a religious or a political movement. In any case ISIS is a response to "foreign" occupation.
Yes, because no one tried to build a caliphate in the middle-east before foreign interventions existed
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
isis fighting against occupation? since when
and yea they had some awful misses on suspects. the rationale for not releasing those guys even when research then indicate they are innocent is basically just a fear of being sued and getting in the news. it's terrible i agree. but this applies to a small portion of the detainees authorized under the al qaeda AUMF
|
Does Jeb Bush really have the best chances to become the next president right now? 300 million US Americans and 3 presidents from the same family?
|
On December 17 2014 06:32 Maenander wrote:
Does Jeb Bush really have the best chances to become the next president right now? 300 million US Americans and 3 presidents from the same family?
As some one who was born and raised in FL, I really, really hope not.
|
On December 17 2014 06:03 oneofthem wrote:
isis fighting against occupation? since when
and yea they had some awful misses on suspects. the rationale for not releasing those guys even when research then indicate they are innocent is basically just a fear of being sued and getting in the news. it's terrible i agree. but this applies to a small portion of the detainees authorized under the al qaeda AUMF
finally we agree on something again 
yes, but how many innocents does it take to say what we are doing is neither effective nor "right"...
and apparently Americans love their "royals". Be it the Clintons or Bush family.
|
Poor Jeb Bush. I listen to him talk and all I can think is "Hmm, this guy shockingly has a good handle on the English language."
That damned big brother of his...
|
It's a great joke of history that the idiot brother, right wing and evangelical, won the presidency, while the intelligent, moderate one was stuck running the place Americans go to die.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 17 2014 06:41 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 06:03 oneofthem wrote:
isis fighting against occupation? since when
and yea they had some awful misses on suspects. the rationale for not releasing those guys even when research then indicate they are innocent is basically just a fear of being sued and getting in the news. it's terrible i agree. but this applies to a small portion of the detainees authorized under the al qaeda AUMF finally we agree on something again yes, but how many innocents does it take to say what we are doing is neither effective nor "right"... and apparently Americans love their "royals". Be it the Clintons or Bush family.
i cant justify it as right.
|
Ted Cruz privately apologized to GOP senators Tuesday for interrupting their holiday schedules by his surprise tactics that effectively brought the Senate into session over the weekend.
According to five senators who attended Tuesday’s caucus lunch, Cruz offered the apology in unsolicited remarks, saying that he regretted if any of his colleagues’ schedules were ruined by his maneuvering. He didn’t say whether he would do something similar again, senators said.
And unlike a contentious lunch last year after GOP senators pointedly blamed Cruz for prompting the government shutdown, no sharp words were directed at the Texas freshman at Tuesday’s lunch, according to the attendees. Republicans do not expect Cruz to prevent the Senate from finishing its work promptly this week.
"Yes, the senator acknowledged that a number of his colleagues had to unexpectedly change their weekend plans, and he apologized to them for inconveniencing their personal schedules. That was not his intention,” Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said. “His intention was to secure a vote on President [Barack] Obama’s illegal executive amnesty, and to use every procedural means to do so.”
Source
|
On December 17 2014 07:51 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 06:41 Doublemint wrote:On December 17 2014 06:03 oneofthem wrote:
isis fighting against occupation? since when
and yea they had some awful misses on suspects. the rationale for not releasing those guys even when research then indicate they are innocent is basically just a fear of being sued and getting in the news. it's terrible i agree. but this applies to a small portion of the detainees authorized under the al qaeda AUMF finally we agree on something again yes, but how many innocents does it take to say what we are doing is neither effective nor "right"... and apparently Americans love their "royals". Be it the Clintons or Bush family. i cant justify it as right.
well, at least you are not Dick Cheney.
|
|
|
On December 17 2014 06:32 Maenander wrote:
Does Jeb Bush really have the best chances to become the next president right now? 300 million US Americans and 3 presidents from the same family?
He has the same chance as Mitt Romney as they are essentially the same, establishment conservative that might appeal to the middle of the country except for the whole populist right not letting them during the primary. Jeb's big advantage is being a guy who Hispanics actually like, but they dont like him so much that they are going to forget the GOP going ballistic about Obama's immigration executive order.
Anyway since Hillary will be president in 2016, running with Bush vs Romney would be sort of foolish. Sure Romney is a double loser but at least the optics wont be as bad.
|
On December 17 2014 08:59 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 06:32 Maenander wrote:
Does Jeb Bush really have the best chances to become the next president right now? 300 million US Americans and 3 presidents from the same family? He has the same chance as Mitt Romney as they are essentially the same, establishment conservative that might appeal to the middle of the country except for the whole populist right not letting them during the primary. Jeb's big advantage is being a guy who Hispanics actually like, but they dont like him so much that they are going to forget the GOP going ballistic about Obama's immigration executive order. Anyway since Hillary will be president in 2016, running with Bush vs Romney would be sort of foolish. Sure Romney is a double loser but at least the optics wont be as bad.
I don't see Hillary winning the democratic nomination. The liberal base won't support her. She's dead in the water if Elizabeth Warren runs.
|
On December 17 2014 05:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2014 05:10 IgnE wrote:Suicide attacks didn't really exist before 1981. I guess ISIS and Boko Haram skew the figures in the last 2 years. It's debatable whether ISIS is a religious or a political movement. In any case ISIS is a response to "foreign" occupation. Yes, because no one tried to build a caliphate in the middle-east before foreign interventions existed
Sorry I thought we were talking about suicide terror attacks. Can't build a caliphate through suicide. Engaging in standard warfare isn't what I was talking about.
On December 17 2014 06:03 oneofthem wrote:
isis fighting against occupation? since when
Since always? Sunni muslims reacting to a history of US-backed minority Alawite regimes along with recent US occupation of the Arabian peninsula and Iraq.
|
LOS ANGELES -- Every Los Angeles police officer will soon be equipped with a body camera, Mayor Eric Garcetti announced Tuesday.
Garcetti said at a press conference that the department will buy 7,000 on-body cameras for Los Angeles Police Department officers to expand transparency and accountability.
"The trust between a community and its police department can be eroded in a single moment," Garcetti said. "Trust is built on transparency."
The announcement comes two weeks after President Barack Obama announced a $363 million package that includes $75 million to pay half the cost of 50,000 officer-mounted cameras. The technology has been widely endorsed as a reform following the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager killed by Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in August.
"No big city department has done this," LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said at the press conference. "Officers will have tremendously powerful evidence and the ability to collect it. We are starting a journey that will go on for decades."
Beck said he didn't expect that the cameras would be recording all the time. For example, cameras would not be used when officers interview victims of sexual abuse, but would likely be used when a suspect is in custody. Policies on proper use of the cameras will be considered in early 2015. The mayor's office said the city hopes to deploy the first 800 cameras within six months.
Source
|
On December 17 2014 10:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +LOS ANGELES -- Every Los Angeles police officer will soon be equipped with a body camera, Mayor Eric Garcetti announced Tuesday.
Garcetti said at a press conference that the department will buy 7,000 on-body cameras for Los Angeles Police Department officers to expand transparency and accountability.
"The trust between a community and its police department can be eroded in a single moment," Garcetti said. "Trust is built on transparency."
The announcement comes two weeks after President Barack Obama announced a $363 million package that includes $75 million to pay half the cost of 50,000 officer-mounted cameras. The technology has been widely endorsed as a reform following the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager killed by Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in August.
"No big city department has done this," LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said at the press conference. "Officers will have tremendously powerful evidence and the ability to collect it. We are starting a journey that will go on for decades."
Beck said he didn't expect that the cameras would be recording all the time. For example, cameras would not be used when officers interview victims of sexual abuse, but would likely be used when a suspect is in custody. Policies on proper use of the cameras will be considered in early 2015. The mayor's office said the city hopes to deploy the first 800 cameras within six months. Source
Not sure allowing the officers to control when the cameras are on or off will mean that they are on when they need to be... Should probably be something they radio in for at a minimum.
LA should be an interesting trial balloon for this. I'm looking forward to seeing how this starts to shape statistics.
|
Could always write a law that if a police officer kills someone while the camera is off the burden is shifted to the police officer to prove it was lawful to a grand jury.
|
On December 17 2014 10:32 IgnE wrote:
Sorry I thought we were talking about suicide terror attacks. Can't build a caliphate through suicide. Engaging in standard warfare isn't what I was talking about.
I think it would be a miss-characterization to treat ISIS like a terror group. Sure some terrorist attacks happen in their name, but first and foremost they're trying to establish a state. Which again seems to be a response to the weak state of Arab nation states rather than foreign intervention. If anything the intervention and destruction of other terrorist groups seem to have helped their course.
|
Romney and Jeb couldn't be more different in their chances. The bush family is one that can actually appeal to Hispanics and the base without having to pivot right in the primary. He also has with his brother the ability to fundraiser super pac dollars on a scale that would make a cartel lord blush.
|
On December 17 2014 11:56 Sermokala wrote:
Romney and Jeb couldn't be more different in their chances. The bush family is one that can actually appeal to Hispanics and the base without having to pivot right in the primary. He also has with his brother the ability to fundraiser super pac dollars on a scale that would make a cartel lord blush.
Jeb won't appeal to the conservative base. That ship sailed during Bush's second term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
