US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1557

On January 03 2015 07:42 aksfjh wrote:

I find that claim highly suspect, since a great way to silence a lot of political opponents of that day was to slap a Communist/Socialist tag on them.

On January 03 2015 07:42 aksfjh wrote:

I find that claim highly suspect, since a great way to silence a lot of political opponents of that day was to slap a Communist/Socialist tag on them.

On January 03 2015 07:53 Introvert wrote:
That's an awkward telling of the "Southern Strategy," but that's not surprising either. For instance to say that they were "generally associated" with the Democrats isn't strong enough. The KKK was basically an arm of the Democrat party in their prime.

The SS is more complicated than "all the racist people moved parties" and without going into too much detail, we can easily point to Robert Byrd, someone people loved the whole time up to his death. He did more than give a few speeches.

On January 03 2015 06:29 silynxer wrote:

To be honest, I don't know a lot about Martin Luther King and all that but I am a bit confused. Isn't the Martin Luther King Day in honor of MLK Jr. who was not a republican? Are you confusing him with his father or am I missing something?

[EDIT]: Wikipedia certainly doesn't mention it and additionally I found this: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/08/28/2540251/martin-luther-king-republican/
It appears however that several republicans have made this claim before, which is as absurd as it is heinous. Must be a strange world you live in Danglars.

On January 03 2015 10:00 Danglars wrote:
You can ask his niece, or examine the surrounding historical time period where it was the Democrats enforcing Jim Crow laws and predominantly segregationist. I don't know how far we've come to not recognize where the message of personal responsibility fits. Under heavy scrutiny, perhaps not enough either way. Nice ThinkProgress link too. You might've done just as well choosing a DNC link.

Keep the holiday just as well.

On January 03 2015 10:08 Mindcrime wrote:


bitches about thinkprogress, points to Alveda King as a reliable source

lol

Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke issued a warning to Republicans who have criticized House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) for speaking to a white nationalist group in 2002, saying they "better be looking over their shoulders."

In an interview with Fusion, Duke said he has ties to politicians on both sides of the aisle, and he is ready to release names if criticism of Scalise continues:

Overall, Duke was rather flabbergasted by the new focus on Scalise. He said he has hosted both Democratic and Republican legislators at everything from conferences to his children’s birthday parties. He said he has met with Democratic legislators at least 50 times in his political life.

And he delivered a warning to both Republicans and Democrats: Treat Scalise fairly, and don’t try to make political hay out of the situation. Or he said he would be inclined to release a list of names of all the politicians — both Republicans and Democrats — with whom he has ties.

“If Scalise is going to be crucified — if Republicans want to throw Steve Scalise to the woods, then a lot of them better be looking over their shoulders,” Duke said.

Scalise has struggled to distance himself from Duke since a Louisiana blogger revealed earlier this week that the GOP leader had associated with the former KKK Grand Wizard and had spoken to a group Duke founded, the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, in 2002.

Federal regulators looking to place restrictions on Internet providers will introduce and vote on new proposed net neutrality rules in February, Federal Communications Commission officials said Friday.

President Obama's top telecom regulator, Tom Wheeler, told fellow FCC commissioners before the Christmas holiday that he intends to circulate a draft proposal internally next month with an eye toward approving the measure weeks later, said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the agency's deliberations are ongoing. The rules are meant to keep broadband providers such as Verizon and Comcast from speeding up or slowing down some Web sites compared to others.

FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart declined to comment on Wheeler's communications with his colleagues, but confirmed the February timetable, which ends weeks of speculation as to when the FCC would make its next move.

It's still unclear what rules Wheeler has in mind for Internet providers. Analysts and officials close to the agency say that momentum has been building recently for far more aggressive regulations than Wheeler had initially proposed. Advocates of strong net neutrality, including President Obama, have urged the FCC to begin regulating Internet service providers using the same law it uses to oversee telephone companies — Title II of the Communications Act. Industry advocates have resisted that call, saying the FCC should continue to lightly regulate Internet providers under Title I of the act.

Republican lawmakers are expected to introduce legislation this month to preempt any FCC rule on the subject.

Republicans may find it difficult to attract enough conservative support for a net neutrality bill that updates the FCC's powers. Many of the most outspoken critics of the agency, such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) or Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), ardently oppose any new regulations on Internet providers.

But with enough bipartisan support, Republicans could quickly move a bill to Obama's desk. Whether the president signs it could hinge on whether he could claim it as a political victory, policy analysts say. If the bill is seen as not aggressive enough, Obama will likely veto the legislation, observers said. Cast as a compromise giving the FCC wide latitude over net neutrality, the bill could pass — particularly if industry officials offer not to sue the FCC over its proposed rules, analysts have said.

On January 03 2015 14:18 Millitron wrote:
I'm so torn on Net Neutrality. I love the open-ness and freedom of the internet, so I'm worried about FCC regulation of the internet. But I hate how ISP's are some of the most vile companies around right now and also don't care about the freedom of the internet. Like, how can I argue in favor of the free market when the free market itself is what's threatening the freedom of the internet?

The only way to keep ISP's from de facto censoring the internet would be to regulate them, but giving the FCC the authority to regulate the internet is just as bad. I guess maybe you could break out the anti-trust laws and smack down Comcast and friends, but that's not gonna happen since basically everyone with any authority on the issue in the FCC used to work for this or that ISP.

On January 03 2015 14:57 coverpunch wrote:

Yeah, I'm similarly ambivalent. There's no doubt that ISPs are exploitative companies willing to sell out their customers to the NSA for the right price, but I can't help but feel that FCC regulation will basically lead to SOPA through the backdoor, i.e. slippery sloping ourselves to stiff punishments for file-sharers in the name of cracking down on internet piracy.

On January 03 2015 14:18 Millitron wrote:
I'm so torn on Net Neutrality. I love the open-ness and freedom of the internet, so I'm worried about FCC regulation of the internet. But I hate how ISP's are some of the most vile companies around right now and also don't care about the freedom of the internet. Like, how can I argue in favor of the free market when the free market itself is what's threatening the freedom of the internet?

The only way to keep ISP's from de facto censoring the internet would be to regulate them, but giving the FCC the authority to regulate the internet is just as bad. I guess maybe you could break out the anti-trust laws and smack down Comcast and friends, but that's not gonna happen since basically everyone with any authority on the issue in the FCC used to work for this or that ISP.

There's no doubt that ISPs are exploitative companies willing to sell out their customers to the NSA for the right price,...

On January 03 2015 15:17 Yurie wrote:


What would be wrong with putting the things ISPs are allowed or not allowed to do into rulings that the FCC then enforce? Meaning you don't make FCC all powerful, you simply make them an enforcement arm. Similar to DEA or other agencies under the U.S. Department of Justice.

On January 03 2015 15:17 Yurie wrote:


What would be wrong with putting the things ISPs are allowed or not allowed to do into rulings that the FCC then enforce? Meaning you don't make FCC all powerful, you simply make them an enforcement arm. Similar to DEA or other agencies under the U.S. Department of Justice.

On January 04 2015 05:07 Danglars wrote:
Their discretion and interpretation in enforcement could easily be as damaging as the ISP practices originally criticized. If the danger is real and fears well-founded, then the real recourse is to pass a law delineating offenses, period. I see no sense in letting this agency be legislator, judge, and jury when hardly a soul can even name one member.

In his latest estimate of when he'll make a 2016 decision, Ben Carson said Friday he'll announce "before May 1" whether he will seek the Republican presidential nomination.

The renowned neurosurgeon and conservative activist said on NewsMaxTV's "America's Forum" that he's now studying up on the issues and preparing for the intellectual rigor of a presidential campaign.

Ben Carson: Political phenomenon

"I would just say that I am listening extremely carefully. I don't want to do something that the American people do not want me to do," he said, also saying he'll decide "in a few months."

Inside the push to draft Ben Carson for president

Carson rocketed to conservative fame in 2013 after criticizing the president's policies at a national prayer breakfast. While he's enjoyed a vocal and loyal following since expressing interest in a presidential campaign, he's made headlines for controversial comments about issues like same-sex marriage and Obamacare.

Ben Carson stands by comparison of U.S. to Nazi Germany

Still, Carson placed third in a recent CNN/ORC International Poll measuring support for potential Republican presidential contenders, falling behind former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Previously Carson has said "the likelihood is strong" that he'll seek the nomination.

On Friday afternoons, several dozen people line up in the narrow hallway of Prevention Point Philadelphia. The men and women, all ages, hold paper and plastic bags full of used syringes.

"We obviously have a space challenge, but people come in, they drop off their used syringes and they ask for what they need," says Silvana Mazzella, the director of programs at the service center for injection drug users.

Most people are coming in with just a few needles, and get a small bag of several new needles and supplies in return. But participants can take as many new syringes as they want, as long as they turn in a dirty needle in for every new one they receive.

People who inject drugs risk contracting a number of different illnesses, including HIV and Hepatitis C, if they share used needles. As a prevention strategy, many cities have organizations like Prevention Point that give out clean syringes.

But because needle exchange sites are not always available where and when people inject, an unusual black market emerges — people bring in large numbers of used needles, and then resell the clean ones they receive.

One Prevention Point client who exchanges dirty needles in bulk does business on a corner about half a mile away, a block from where users can buy drugs and near some wooded train tracks where many people go to inject.

"You can exchange pretty much one old needle off the ground for a new set right there. Some people come in with 300, 400 works at a time," he says. NPR is not using his name because he's admitting to illegal activities, including selling needles.

This man gets $1 apiece for the clean syringes he receives from the exchange. Though banned under Pennsylvania law, the practice of needle resale is tolerated by the city, and he says he's the not the only one who does it.

"Like, it's their hustle, that's how they survive out here and support themselves," he says. "So that's how I do it. Sell a couple of these — sell a ton of 'em, you can get a bag to get high."

This post-industrial neighborhood of North Philadelphia is dotted with empty factories and homes. It's one of the city's most active areas for buying and using cocaine and heroin at all hours.

Paul Yabor, an AIDS activist and educator at Prevention Point, says that makes it important that drug users can get clean needles right here, too.

"It's two o'clock in the morning, and a guy's saying, 'here's a syringe for a dollar.' You know, there's a lot to be said for that," Yabor says.

Yabor, who was diagnosed with AIDS and Hepatitis C years ago, says some people don't feel comfortable picking up needles from the exchange. Others are looking to drop into the neighborhood, inject and get out fast.

On January 04 2015 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:


First I'll say that the DEA is a horrible model, at least when it comes to behavior.

I think the issue is if it's not the FCC enforcing the rules/laws than who would/should it be? Are we going to send the NYPD to arrest people/a company if they break the rules? Not likely, so which arm of the government if not the FCC would you like to monitor and enforce those rules?

No one has been stopping Republicans from writing their own legislation to counter the bill that has already been proposed (Lord knows they haven't been doing much). So it's nice to say they want it to be done legislatively but they are the only reason it hasn't already been done. It's Republicans that are breaking from the position of supporting openly and intentionally allowing companies to set up tiered pricing access for certain sites that gives them a sliver of hope of actually functioning in Congress on this issue.

In other news:



Source

Do conservatives really think this guy is remotely qualified for president?

On January 04 2015 06:23 farvacola wrote:
Jonny, to what degree do you think the United States is like or is heading towards Nazi Germany?