US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2329

On September 22 2015 11:02 IgnE wrote:


Are Arab women not human?

Would you say that it's perfectly alright for a person who had grown up in a cage and never been let out since the very beginning of childhood to want to stay in the cage, even after being freed at the age of 45?

On September 22 2015 11:00 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:

you started it, though. and as a non-white dude, i'd have to say your theory is quite questionable as well.

also referring to the US as like a homogeneous culture is misleading

and all of those countries (turkey/pakistan/egypt) are most definitely generally worse for women relative to men than china

On September 22 2015 11:14 Plansix wrote:

I didn't start this discussion. Someone said Muslims were a threat the world faced and I challenged the opinion. People then went down the classic lines of citing problems in the Arab work that are not unique to that world. Including woman's rights, which is not a problem that only the middle east has. I have no problem with the discussions about the problems in the middle east. I have a problem with citing the religion as a cause for problems that are not unique to the area in any way. It's a myopic and useless discussion, since the religion itself rarely the root cause of the majority of these issues. Much like claiming the Christianity was the root cause of the crusades. The discussion is so simplistic it is useless.

On September 22 2015 11:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:


wasn't like the third crusade like the direct result of a fake prophecy or something? (this is probably going way off topic though)

On September 22 2015 08:27 xDaunt wrote:

Do you think Obama has made a good president? What exactly did Obama have to show for himself back in 2007-2008 beyond the ability to give a really good speech? From the perspective of skillsets and experience, Trump is infinitely more qualified to be president than Obama was back then. People don't get to where to Trump is unless they are incredibly impressive on a multitude of levels.

In short, I can't say that I know that Trump would make a good president. But I don't see anything that immediately disqualifies him from that possibility.

On September 22 2015 11:06 KwarK wrote:

Cultural background is not comparable to a cage unless you group all cultures within that. I don't believe all cultures are equal, far from it, and I believe that some bullshit is normalized by cultures but the arbitrary distinction that their culture is a cage and that our culture is freedom is nonsense.

On September 22 2015 11:14 Plansix wrote:

I didn't start this discussion. Someone said Muslims were a threat the world faced and I challenged the opinion. People then went down the classic lines of citing problems in the Arab work that are not unique to that world. Including woman's rights, which is not a problem that only the middle east has. I have no problem with the discussions about the problems in the middle east. I have a problem with citing the religion as a cause for problems that are not unique to the area in any way. It's a myopic and useless discussion, since the religion itself rarely the root cause of the majority of these issues. Much like claiming the Christianity was the root cause of the crusades. The discussion is so simplistic it is useless.

On September 22 2015 10:32 Cowboy64 wrote:

I actually agree with that though. I think it is a dangerous precedent to willingly hand over sovereignty with no clear benefit, especially so when most international groups have at least some members who are, if not openly allied against us, at the very least unfriendly. Further, I don't think it is right to expose our government to the momentary whims of the international mob. Bush could be said to be guilty of overstating the case of WMDs (though it was technically the media that hyper-focused on WMDs, the Bush administration gave a much more broad justification for war), but to accuse him of being guilty of war-crimes is a bit much. This is even ignoring the fact that many of the "war-crimes" are outright silly.

And yes, I do think there is definitely some value in America, being the world's only super-power, to hold itself somewhat above the demands and concerns of the rest of the world. Let us put it this way, when America stops subsidizing Western Europe's defense, then they can begin to question our methods, until then my opinion is that European nations can just keep their opinions to themselves, thank you very much.

Of course, I am of the opinion that much of the "globalization" that's occurred since WW2 has not only been a serious mistake in terms of grand-strategy, but is also largely wishful thinking. It was silly to ever presume an effective world-governing body, or that international law outside of individual treaties would have any true meaning.

A new bipartisan bill would eliminate a controversial source of funding for one federal marijuana seizure program. Last week, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) introduced the “Stop Civil Asset Forfeiture Funding for Marijuana Suppression Act.” The bill is quite simple: It would prevent the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from using federal forfeiture funds to pay for its Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program. Additionally, the bill would ban transferring property to federal, state or local agencies if that property “is used for any purpose pertaining to” the DEA’s marijuana eradication program.

Under this program, the DEA receives federal forfeiture funds ($18 million in 2013), which it then funnels to over 120 local and state agencies to eliminate marijuana grow sites nationwide. Last year, the program was responsible for over 6,300 arrests, eradicating over 4.3 million marijuana plants and seizing $27.3 million in assets. More than half of all plants destroyed were in California, which also accounted for over one-third of seized assets and nearly 40 percent of the arrests.

Across the country, drug cops have ensnared countless innocent Americans. In February 2014, the DEA seized a college student’s entire life savings, without finding any drugs or charging him with a drug crime. The student, Charles Clarke, has since partnered with the Institute for Justice and sued to win back his cash. In Georgia, the Governor’s Task Force for Drug Suppression raided an Atlanta retiree’s garden last year after spotting suspicious-looking green plants. But the plants weren’t marijuana: They were okra. The task force received federal forfeiture funding through the DEA’s Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program.

Groups that want to reform the nation’s drug laws, like the Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Policy Project, are backing Lieu and Amash’s legislation. But regardless of how one views legalizing marijuana or the war on drugs, funding programs with civil forfeiture is unconscionable. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which occurs after a criminal conviction is obtained, under civil forfeiture, law enforcement does not need to convict, much less charge people with a crime to take their property.

Federal agencies pursue both civil and criminal forfeiture cases, but the former is far more common. Analysis by the Institute for Justice found 78 percent of properties in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) system were seized for civil forfeiture, compared with 22 percent for criminal forfeiture.

On September 22 2015 10:14 zlefin wrote:

which source(s) are you using for this? While I agree there's numerous questionable issues with the drone strikes, I'm not entirely sure of the facts you're alleging.

On September 22 2015 11:40 Paljas wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
The statistics vary depending on the sources. However, the amount of civilians killed is well into the hundreds.

On September 22 2015 11:26 IgnE wrote:


I didn't say our culture is freedom and their culture is a cage. It was an analogy to illustrate a point. Plansix saying that some Arab women who are rooted in a particular community, culture, and religion prefer their particular rootedness to an uprooted state of existence in the comparatively freer, permissive cultures of Europe or the United States is not controversial. But for him to extend that argument to say something like, well we white men shouldn't and can't make distinctions about which cultures are more desirable to a philosophical creature we can call Acultural Woman is another thing entirely.

You said yourself that you don't think "all cultures are equal" so I wish you wouldn't just come out pointing the obvious to the apparent aid of Plansix's anemic line of argument.




Maybe you are right, but listing a bunch of countries that are oppressive to women as examples of enlightened Islamic countries is kind of self-defeating. Maybe you should couch your arguments with better examples, or perhaps pursue a different line of argument to make your point.

On September 22 2015 11:43 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:


Aren't the laws not really set up to handle drone strikes? I mean isn't this more of an issue of technology passing faster then we can handle it (or at least legislate it)? although I suppose civilian casualties in a place where not technically at war in is a problem

On September 22 2015 11:47 IgnE wrote:
Like who?

On September 22 2015 11:14 Plansix wrote:



Drones do not seem to be as awesome as we thought. They are effective at their job, but also cause the general population of Pakistan to "fear the sky" and not really like us. I'm willing to bet they are a weapon that is great short term, but over a long enough time line they will end up creating more anti american sentiment in the countries they are employed.

On September 22 2015 11:54 Plansix wrote:

I don't really feel like educating you on the topic, as this discussion is pretty one sided. Type "female genital mutilation in Africa" into google and then look at the nations with primary christian populations. Then type in women's rights in South America and learn some shit on your own.

On September 22 2015 11:55 Paljas wrote:

Hundred of dead civilians is "great short term" to you?

On September 22 2015 12:01 Plansix wrote:

Well they live with civilians for just this reason. They are terrorist in hiding and they don't have military bases like we do. And the 200 civilian deaths that are reported are over a nearly 10 year period.