|
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 September 13 2017 11:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday on a proposal by Sen. Rand Paul to repeal the 2001 and 2002 war resolutions.
A vote is anticipated to table — or kill — Paul's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to repeal the two authorizations for the use of military force, which provided the legal framework for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as military action in a slew of other countries.
The amendment would put an end to both war authorizations six months after the bill becomes law.
Paul (R-Ky.) had blocked procedural attempts to speed debate on the annual defense policy legislation in order to force a vote on the amendment. He has also threatened to block all other senators' amendments from receiving votes if the Senate leadership didn't grant him a vote.
The measure has drawn support from members of both parties — including Democratic senators such as Tim Kaine of Virginia and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois — who argue that a vote on war powers is well past due. But the amendment is expected to draw fierce opposition from senators who oppose sunsetting the two authorizations without a replacement — and using the sprawling defense policy bill to do so.
On the Senate floor Tuesday, Paul said the missions for which the two war resolutions were passed are "long since over."
"I don't think that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes that these authorizations from 16 years ago and 14 years ago ... authorized war in seven different countries," Paul said. Source
For once I agree with Paul Ryan. But what are the 7 countries? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen(?) Pakistan(?) Syria(?)
|
On September 13 2017 13:16 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +IN A STUNNING MOVE, the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved an amendment to the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act that will roll back Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s expansion of asset forfeiture.
Amendment number 126 was sponsored by a bipartisan group of nine members, led by Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash. He was joined by Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California; Washington state’s Pramila Jayapal, a rising progressive star; and Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard.
Civil asset forfeiture is a practice by which law enforcement can take assets from a person who is suspected of a crime, even without a charge or conviction. Sessions revived the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, which allowed state and local police agencies to take assets and then give them to the federal government — which would in turn give a chunk back to the local police. This served as a way for these local agencies to skirt past state laws designed to limit asset forfeiture.
The amendment would roll back Sessions’ elimination of the Obama-era reforms.
Amash, the prime mover of the amendment, spoke forcefully in favor of the Obama-era rules on the House floor and the need to bring them back.
“Unfortunately these restrictions were revoked in June of this year. My amendment would restore them by prohibiting the use of funds to do adoptive forfeitures that were banned under the 2015 rules,” he explained.
Virginia Democratic Rep. Don Beyer reached across the aisle to voice support for Amash’s effort “Civil asset forfeiture without limits presents one of the strongest threats to our civil, property, and Constitutional rights,” he said on the flood. “It creates a perverse incentive to seek profits over justice.”
The amendment passed with a voice vote, meaning it had overwhelming support.
Republican Reps. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Raul Labrador of Idaho and Dana Rohrabacher of California joined in the effort, along with Democrat Earl Blumenauer of Oregon.
theintercept.com
NICE bipartisanship
|
|
|
On September 13 2017 13:26 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2017 13:16 Nevuk wrote:IN A STUNNING MOVE, the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved an amendment to the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act that will roll back Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s expansion of asset forfeiture.
Amendment number 126 was sponsored by a bipartisan group of nine members, led by Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash. He was joined by Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California; Washington state’s Pramila Jayapal, a rising progressive star; and Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard.
Civil asset forfeiture is a practice by which law enforcement can take assets from a person who is suspected of a crime, even without a charge or conviction. Sessions revived the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, which allowed state and local police agencies to take assets and then give them to the federal government — which would in turn give a chunk back to the local police. This served as a way for these local agencies to skirt past state laws designed to limit asset forfeiture.
The amendment would roll back Sessions’ elimination of the Obama-era reforms.
Amash, the prime mover of the amendment, spoke forcefully in favor of the Obama-era rules on the House floor and the need to bring them back.
“Unfortunately these restrictions were revoked in June of this year. My amendment would restore them by prohibiting the use of funds to do adoptive forfeitures that were banned under the 2015 rules,” he explained.
Virginia Democratic Rep. Don Beyer reached across the aisle to voice support for Amash’s effort “Civil asset forfeiture without limits presents one of the strongest threats to our civil, property, and Constitutional rights,” he said on the flood. “It creates a perverse incentive to seek profits over justice.”
The amendment passed with a voice vote, meaning it had overwhelming support.
Republican Reps. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Raul Labrador of Idaho and Dana Rohrabacher of California joined in the effort, along with Democrat Earl Blumenauer of Oregon.
theintercept.com NICE bipartisanship
Hopefully that gets through the senate and isn't vetoed. Civil asset forfeiture is a nightmare and should never have been allowed to get as bad as it has gotten.
|
Asset forfeiture is probably one of those things where the originators didn't realize how willing people would be to abuse the system. I can't imagine it occurred to them that US police would use it as a sort of letter of marque to provide legal cover for literal highway robbery.
|
United States15977 Posts
don't we have a policy about not posting random tweets? if you're gonna bash hillary at least put some effort into it dude.
also, the horror of being a person who considers qualifications for a job an important reason for running.
|
On September 13 2017 14:28 ticklishmusic wrote:don't we have a policy about not posting random tweets? if you're gonna bash hillary at least put some effort into it dude. also, the horror of being a person who considers qualifications for a job an important reason for running.
Are you not familiar with the crazy level of zealotry for Hillary Peter Daou is known for?
They try to pretend his Verrit disaster wasn't designed as a propaganda arm for Hillary and her quoting his tweet in her book is just the type of thing she would do.
As for the MLK article, it's trash. I'd sign a letter just to make sure people didn't think they got any of that incredible stupidity from me.
I'm not sure what's more concerning, that those individuals thought it was a good article or that people actually published it unironically.
For those (like the author) who apparently don't know, MLK was anti-Vietnam war, and a Democratic socialist (more or less). + Show Spoiler +“[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966
So yes, the author was effectively calling the part of MLK he's unfamiliar with, childish. As for the racism part I'd chalk this one up to utter stupidity facilitated by a white supremacy culture that lets such ignorance flourish.
Also + Show Spoiler +
|
I have to chuckle at Cons who insist MLK was some kind of raceless race rights crusader. MLK spent years in jail. He wrote some of his most radical works in jail. The BLM guys usually don't even do anything that would get them in jail, and to the extent they get arrested it is almost always catch-release-fine. If you are upset at BLM for being too about identity politics, you would have hated MLK who kept breaking laws and ending up in jail for what was a specifically race based campaign (and even further MLK advocated for breaking laws that were unjust). // MLK was right the whole time btw
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
|
On September 13 2017 15:15 Wulfey_LA wrote:I have to chuckle at Cons who insist MLK was some kind of raceless race rights crusader. MLK spent years in jail. He wrote some of his most radical works in jail. The BLM guys usually don't even do anything that would get them in jail, and to the extent they get arrested it is almost always catch-release-fine. If you are upset at BLM for being too about identity politics, you would have hated MLK who kept breaking laws and ending up in jail for what was a specifically race based campaign (and even further MLK advocated for breaking laws that were unjust). // MLK was right the whole time btw Show nested quote +We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
I used to think it was malicious manipulation but I've come to realize they literally have no idea what MLK was about or how people responded at the time. Otherwise I would have a hard time reconciling them using sometimes verbatim the same trash that was used then and being ignorant of how stupid it sounds.
|
MLK wrote and spoke at great lengths. There are all these primary source documents that would enlighten you in less than 5 minutes. But Cons try to prop up some alt reality of him being the acceptable limit of all race issues. If you take the Republican argument seriously, all race issues in the country died with MLK and everyone after him who talks about race issues is a racist.
|
I'm guessing its the mythos people are taught in schools. MLK was a nice dude and because he was so nice he eventually got his way because people like giving a nice fella things.
People have no actual idea what he did, the bullshit he put up with, the things he was accused of, his annoyance of moderate white people dragging their feet. You can draw direct lines between MLK and BLM. The same old song and dance from team status quo. The same people that hate on BLM for blocking streets or rioting were the same people pointing the finger at MLK for the same things back then. The people now days point that finger and say "be more like MLK! He was one of the good ones" without a hint of irony. Moderate white folks are still dragging their feet. We're reliving the same garbage.
|
Time to stop filling social studies positions with coaches looking for an excuse to stay in the school....
|
On September 13 2017 15:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2017 14:28 ticklishmusic wrote:don't we have a policy about not posting random tweets? if you're gonna bash hillary at least put some effort into it dude. also, the horror of being a person who considers qualifications for a job an important reason for running. Are you not familiar with the crazy level of zealotry for Hillary Peter Daou is known for? They try to pretend his Verrit disaster wasn't designed as a propaganda arm for Hillary and her quoting his tweet in her book is just the type of thing she would do. As for the MLK article, it's trash. I'd sign a letter just to make sure people didn't think they got any of that incredible stupidity from me. I'm not sure what's more concerning, that those individuals thought it was a good article or that people actually published it unironically. For those (like the author) who apparently don't know, MLK was anti-Vietnam war, and a Democratic socialist (more or less). + Show Spoiler +“[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966 So yes, the author was effectively calling the part of MLK he's unfamiliar with, childish. As for the racism part I'd chalk this one up to utter stupidity facilitated by a white supremacy culture that lets such ignorance flourish. Also + Show Spoiler +
I guess I don't disagree with any of this. My initial perception might have been different for the fact that I'd been hearing for weeks from my parents about how obvious and inoffensive the op ed is, and how ridiculous the outrage against it is. It still seems more like just another stupid op ed to me, not so much a "protest to get someone fired" kind of outrageousness.
|
How comparable is the situation in the US now to the situation in the time of MLK? The examples I read above in the quoted letter of MLK, about "colored people" not being allowed in certain places etc, are things of history, right?
|
On September 13 2017 21:37 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2017 15:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 13 2017 14:28 ticklishmusic wrote:don't we have a policy about not posting random tweets? if you're gonna bash hillary at least put some effort into it dude. also, the horror of being a person who considers qualifications for a job an important reason for running. Are you not familiar with the crazy level of zealotry for Hillary Peter Daou is known for? They try to pretend his Verrit disaster wasn't designed as a propaganda arm for Hillary and her quoting his tweet in her book is just the type of thing she would do. As for the MLK article, it's trash. I'd sign a letter just to make sure people didn't think they got any of that incredible stupidity from me. I'm not sure what's more concerning, that those individuals thought it was a good article or that people actually published it unironically. For those (like the author) who apparently don't know, MLK was anti-Vietnam war, and a Democratic socialist (more or less). + Show Spoiler +“[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966 So yes, the author was effectively calling the part of MLK he's unfamiliar with, childish. As for the racism part I'd chalk this one up to utter stupidity facilitated by a white supremacy culture that lets such ignorance flourish. Also + Show Spoiler + I guess I don't disagree with any of this. My initial perception might have been different for the fact that I'd been hearing for weeks from my parents about how obvious and inoffensive the op ed is, and how ridiculous the outrage against it is. It still seems more like just another stupid op ed to me, not so much a "protest to get someone fired" kind of outrageousness.
One way or another, that op-ed is bad history clearly written by folks not practiced in actually supporting comparative historical claims. Any time someone looks back at history and points at something in the vein of "culture" without tons of lip service paid to the problems inherent to that method of historiography, it's safe to assume that they're simply dressing up a political view.
|
On September 13 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2017 15:15 Wulfey_LA wrote:I have to chuckle at Cons who insist MLK was some kind of raceless race rights crusader. MLK spent years in jail. He wrote some of his most radical works in jail. The BLM guys usually don't even do anything that would get them in jail, and to the extent they get arrested it is almost always catch-release-fine. If you are upset at BLM for being too about identity politics, you would have hated MLK who kept breaking laws and ending up in jail for what was a specifically race based campaign (and even further MLK advocated for breaking laws that were unjust). // MLK was right the whole time btw We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html I used to think it was malicious manipulation but I've come to realize they literally have no idea what MLK was about or how people responded at the time. Otherwise I would have a hard time reconciling them using sometimes verbatim the same trash that was used then and being ignorant of how stupid it sounds.
The lack of education about black history in this country is ridiculous. In high school I took a black studies elective and was shocked by how much was left out. We have an entire month specifically for that purpose and the most that schools can muster is a few things about george washington carver, malcolm x, Rosa Parks, and MLK.
|
|
|
Yep, those tax cuts sure will stimulate those small business owners into rebuilding two states.
|
On September 13 2017 21:37 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2017 15:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 13 2017 14:28 ticklishmusic wrote:don't we have a policy about not posting random tweets? if you're gonna bash hillary at least put some effort into it dude. also, the horror of being a person who considers qualifications for a job an important reason for running. Are you not familiar with the crazy level of zealotry for Hillary Peter Daou is known for? They try to pretend his Verrit disaster wasn't designed as a propaganda arm for Hillary and her quoting his tweet in her book is just the type of thing she would do. As for the MLK article, it's trash. I'd sign a letter just to make sure people didn't think they got any of that incredible stupidity from me. I'm not sure what's more concerning, that those individuals thought it was a good article or that people actually published it unironically. For those (like the author) who apparently don't know, MLK was anti-Vietnam war, and a Democratic socialist (more or less). + Show Spoiler +“[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966 So yes, the author was effectively calling the part of MLK he's unfamiliar with, childish. As for the racism part I'd chalk this one up to utter stupidity facilitated by a white supremacy culture that lets such ignorance flourish. Also + Show Spoiler + I guess I don't disagree with any of this. My initial perception might have been different for the fact that I'd been hearing for weeks from my parents about how obvious and inoffensive the op ed is, and how ridiculous the outrage against it is. It still seems more like just another stupid op ed to me, not so much a "protest to get someone fired" kind of outrageousness.
The problem with the op-ed is that it is a law professor wandering into other areas of academia and offering up the borderline revisionist history. Any student in a 200 level history course wouldn’t be able to state this stuff out loud in class without some strong pushback. And these two are professors, so the bar is higher. Professors don’t get to put their views out into the world and expect them not to be challenged. Especially when they wander outside of the expertise.
|
United States44371 Posts
On September 13 2017 09:25 xDaunt wrote:
the cultural Marxism of the past fifty years
Quick question. Have you started using terms like "cultural Marxism" unironically? If so, what does that term mean to you? Am I a cultural Marxist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
