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.
A Houston man has been arrested in connection with a suspected arson at a mosque on Christmas Day, but the motive for the crime remains a mystery, with the suspect maintaining he was a regular at the mosque.
A spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confirmed that the suspect, 37-year-old Gary Nathaniel Moore of Houston, was arrested early Wednesday. Moore appeared in court at 7 a.m., spokeswoman Nicole Strong said, and bond was set at $100,000.
According to a charging instrument released by the Harris County District Clerk, Moore told investigators at the scene that he has attended the storefront mosque for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week.
Moore said he had been at the mosque earlier on Dec. 25 to pray, and had left at about 2 p.m. to go home, according to authorities and court papers. Moore said he was the last person to leave the mosque and saw no smoke or other signs of fire when he departed, authorities said. He maintained he had returned to the scene after hearing about the fire from a friend. [...]
After collecting evidence, reviewing surveillance video and executing a search warrant, the fire department's arson bureau and the ATF made a joint arrest around 1:30 am Wednesday at Moore's house, where he lives with his wife and kids, according to Hernandez. Moore was charged with first-degree arson, a felony. A motive has not been determined.
On January 04 2016 03:40 ticklishmusic wrote: I'm sure Wyoming will get hit by some sort of toxic catastrophe then simultaneously blame and beg the federal government
If you are blaming an entity, isn't asking them to clean up financially pretty logical? We do that to companies all the time.
Plus its a nonsensical argument because the US government is going to extract the taxes that go to cleanup funds from Wyoming residents regardless of it the state asks for/accepts help from the fund.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.
Initially, responding to the point of "Blame and Beg the Federal Government". If you are blaming them, its not illogical to demand payment from them. Now you might question the correctness of the act of blaming the Feds, but there is nothing logically inconsistent with doing both.
Second, its about the problem of Federal-State coops and what has become a trope here of mocking some small government state or org when they ask for Federal dollars. Perhaps that entity would prefer that such a relief fund, etc did not exist, but given its existence, its citizens are paying into the fund, so its a dereliction of duty to not request the aid.
Its similar to the people who mock "Libertarian group meets in public library, sends kids to public school" thing, or the famous "Rand retired on Social Security". Using resources you are forced to pay for (but don't want to) is not hypocritical.
Yeah it's best to not live near factories, agriculture farms, and chemical plants. It's unfortunate for the wyoming residents that the gag law passed but it did.
On January 04 2016 09:07 Deathstar wrote: Yeah it's best to not live near factories, agriculture farms, and chemical plants. It's unfortunate for the wyoming residents that the gag law passed but it did.
Why is it do you think people live near factories, farms, and chemical plants if they aren't safe (and it's becoming illegal to inform themselves and others of the risks)?
On January 04 2016 09:07 Deathstar wrote: Yeah it's best to not live near factories, agriculture farms, and chemical plants. It's unfortunate for the wyoming residents that the gag law passed but it did.
Why is it do you think people live near factories, farms, and chemical plants if they aren't safe (and it's becoming illegal to inform themselves and others of the risks)?
Probably related to jobs and family. But you gotta go if you care about your health. Higher cancer rates for people living near factories is a documented phenomenon.
I do find the narrative on this Oregon situation most amusing. Do people not realize that you have to shoot people to enforce laws?
If someone is going 90 through school zones and doesn't pull over, you either have to wait till he runs out of gas or force him to crash his car. Then, lets assume he runs out of gas, you have to arrest him to enforce the punishment for violating the law, but assuming he disagrees with you he may come at you with his tire iron. Then, assuming you subdue him without killing him he might try to bite the officers, or charge the judge at his bail hearing. Maybe he starts attacking prison officials. In the end you have to put such a person in solitary confinement indefinitely, or you end up killing them in defense of others. That is the essence of law: that you value the outcome of the proscription highly enough to kill many citizens to maintain it.
Edit: Its freaking Eric Garner all over again. If you don't want people to be killed by police over cigarettes, don't pass laws about cigarettes.
On January 04 2016 10:07 cLutZ wrote: I do find the narrative on this Oregon situation most amusing. Do people not realize that you have to shoot people to enforce laws?
If someone is going 90 through school zones and doesn't pull over, you either have to wait till he runs out of gas or force him to crash his car. Then, lets assume he runs out of gas, you have to arrest him to enforce the punishment for violating the law, but assuming he disagrees with you he may come at you with his tire iron. Then, assuming you subdue him without killing him he might try to bite the officers, or charge the judge at his bail hearing. Maybe he starts attacking prison officials. In the end you have to put such a person in solitary confinement indefinitely, or you end up killing them in defense of others. That is the essence of law: that you value the outcome of the proscription highly enough to kill many citizens to maintain it.
Edit: Its freaking Eric Garner all over again. If you don't want people to be killed by police over cigarettes, don't pass laws about cigarettes.
I am not entirely sure what you are saying in this post. Can you please clarify?
Seriously, if you think there is some conspiracy or effort to cover it up, you're fooling yourself. The media has been using trusted means to poll for candidate numbers. Yes, many times the media missed the real story, and I think this is a case of that, but that story is more about unrest and frustration from (potential) Democrats than Sanders actually having a chance.
Seriously, if you think there is some conspiracy or effort to cover it up, you're fooling yourself. The media has been using trusted means to poll for candidate numbers. Yes, many times the media missed the real story, and I think this is a case of that, but that story is more about unrest and frustration from (potential) Democrats than Sanders actually having a chance.
Yea straw polls are stupid and always have been, but to compare the candidacies of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders is kind of silly. Bernie Sanders has more support (and more importantly) more money than Paul ever had. At his height, Paul took in about $8 million in a quarter. Bernie Sanders just raised $33 million without a SuperPac in a single quarter. Polling wise, I don't think Paul ever went over about 20%.
But yea, GH I'm a huge Bernie support but why would you link an imgur to some random Iowa bean straw poll as evidence for a media cover up? There are plenty of legit examples of this, but not some random bean straw poll lol
On January 04 2016 10:07 cLutZ wrote: I do find the narrative on this Oregon situation most amusing. Do people not realize that you have to shoot people to enforce laws?
If someone is going 90 through school zones and doesn't pull over, you either have to wait till he runs out of gas or force him to crash his car. Then, lets assume he runs out of gas, you have to arrest him to enforce the punishment for violating the law, but assuming he disagrees with you he may come at you with his tire iron. Then, assuming you subdue him without killing him he might try to bite the officers, or charge the judge at his bail hearing. Maybe he starts attacking prison officials. In the end you have to put such a person in solitary confinement indefinitely, or you end up killing them in defense of others. That is the essence of law: that you value the outcome of the proscription highly enough to kill many citizens to maintain it.
Edit: Its freaking Eric Garner all over again. If you don't want people to be killed by police over cigarettes, don't pass laws about cigarettes.
I am not entirely sure what you are saying in this post. Can you please clarify?
I'm not sure what you are unsure about. The TLDR, as best I can for a short post is: Laws inevitably lead to standoffs with/the death of people who do not obey.
In the realm of speculation and generalization: The reaction of the enforcing officers (NYPD vigorous, FBI tentative) are indicative of their belief in the legitimacy of the law they are enforcing; the reaction of the public to the reaction of the enforcing officers is eventually indicative of the public's belief regarding the legitimacy of those laws. That Bundy's initial "victory" was met with yawns means that no one really believed that those were legitimate laws worth killing over. That the death of Garner was met with a near uprising means the public doesn't think cigarette taxes are worth killing over.
Seriously, if you think there is some conspiracy or effort to cover it up, you're fooling yourself. The media has been using trusted means to poll for candidate numbers. Yes, many times the media missed the real story, and I think this is a case of that, but that story is more about unrest and frustration from (potential) Democrats than Sanders actually having a chance.
Yea straw polls are stupid and always have been, but to compare the candidacies of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders is kind of silly. Bernie Sanders has more support (and more importantly) more money than Paul ever had. At his height, Paul took in about $8 million in a quarter. Bernie Sanders just raised $33 million without a SuperPac in a single quarter. Polling wise, I don't think Paul ever went over about 20%.
But yea, GH I'm a huge Bernie support but why would you link an imgur to some random Iowa bean straw poll as evidence for a media cover up? There are plenty of legit examples of this, but not some random bean straw poll lol
It would be interesting to see Ron Paul's numbers if he were running, essentially, 1v1 vs. Mitt Romney. Which is the actual comparison.
The United States is urging leaders in the Middle East to "calm tensions" after an Iranian-Saudi dispute over the execution of a Shia cleric threatened to inflame sectarian violence in the region and undermine President Barack Obama's long-shot efforts to resolve some of its conflicts.
Long-standing tensions between Riyadh and Tehran flared over the weekend after Saudi authorities announced they had executed 47 people, including Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr, a prominent critic of the Saudi royal family. That news was greeted with anger in Shia-majority Iran, where protesters attacked the Saudi embassy in Tehran. In response, Saudi authorities announced they were cutting off diplomatic ties with Iran.
The U.S. encouraged the two countries to keep talking.
"We're aware that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has ordered the closure of Iranian diplomatic missions in the Kingdom," U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement Sunday. "We believe that diplomatic engagement and direct conversations remain essential in working through differences, and we will continue to urge leaders across the region to take affirmative steps to calm tensions."
Saudi Arabia is an important ally of the United States, and the Sunni- majority country has long seen Iran as an archrival. Both are involved in an effective proxy war in Yemen and have been expected to play important roles in efforts to resolve the civil war in Syria, where they are supporting different factions. Both also are battling the Islamic State terrorist group, although the Saudis are more directly doing so alongside the United States.
But the new spat between Saudi Arabia and Iran could damage the Obama administration's fragile peace efforts, especially in Syria, while slowing the fight against the Islamic State. It also could spur more unrest in countries such as Bahrain, where sectarian tensions already run high. There were reports Sunday that other Gulf Arab countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, had summoned Iranian representatives to lodge protests over the attacks on Saudi diplomatic missions, moves that may have come at the request of Riyadh, which escalated its rhetoric as the weekend wore on.
"We have decided to sever our relations with a terror-sponsor country and we urge all countries to consider seriously whether they could tolerate sharing relations with a terror-sponsor country," Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said Sunday, according to the Saudi Press Agency.
In addition, in a lengthy statement distributed to reporters, a Saudi Foreign Ministry source blasted Iran, accusing it of hypocrisy as well as terrorism.
Seriously, if you think there is some conspiracy or effort to cover it up, you're fooling yourself. The media has been using trusted means to poll for candidate numbers. Yes, many times the media missed the real story, and I think this is a case of that, but that story is more about unrest and frustration from (potential) Democrats than Sanders actually having a chance.
To be fair- it isn't some random poll- this is actually a fairly significant part of political history in iowa. But because it's in Iowa City, it always goes super liberal- in 2004, it was (1st/2nd/3rd) Dean/Kucinich/Kerry, and Obama/Edwards/Clinton in 2008. So all it really says is that the most liberal people often support sanders, which is nothing new
Seriously, if you think there is some conspiracy or effort to cover it up, you're fooling yourself. The media has been using trusted means to poll for candidate numbers. Yes, many times the media missed the real story, and I think this is a case of that, but that story is more about unrest and frustration from (potential) Democrats than Sanders actually having a chance.
Why pollsters aren't sampling very many people under 45 probably has a lot to do with traditional voting patterns. The media has been dismissive of Sanders since the beginning, yet more people have given to him than any other candidate in history at this point of the campaign.
The point of the poll wasn't to prove anything, it was just a fun thing. I don't think anyone other than maybe Hillary supporters thinks Sanders has gotten a fair shake in the media though.
On January 04 2016 14:24 GreenHorizons wrote: The point of the poll wasn't to prove anything, it was just a fun thing. I don't think anyone other than maybe Hillary supporters thinks Sanders has gotten a fair shake in the media though.
Hillary supporters are completely delusional.
Anyone who could support the Clintons and has any moral compass must read this:
On January 04 2016 04:21 Mohdoo wrote: Rural Oregon, much like rural Washington, tends to be really resentful of the modernized portion of the state that determines basically every political decision. I'm happy to see their insecurity has boiled over to the point of terrorism. Putting myself in their shoes, they must feel so powerless and insignificant. None of their beliefs are considered in state legislature and they are essentially the bug on the bottom of your shoe that you don't even realize you stepped on. I just sit here, as a Portland resident, and smile knowing how little they matter.
Congratz, this is the mindset which will surely contribute to resolve matters and pacify people
my response is just - what are the simpsons/family guy/south park going to do now? they have to come up with something crazier to make this ad look normal ^^
EPT
