|
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 April 07 2014 00:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 23:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 06 2014 09:46 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical. The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao. Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain. I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should. On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
/facepalm
If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all  ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized.. Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples. I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage. Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it. http://www.allsides.com/about-biasLiberally biased? That list just looks wrong.
NPR and CNN left or center-left. Otherwise, that right sidebar lists looks close.
|
On April 07 2014 00:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 23:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 06 2014 09:46 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical. The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao. Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain. I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should. On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
/facepalm
If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized.. Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples. I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage. Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it. http://www.allsides.com/about-biasLiberally biased? That list just looks wrong.
This list seems to include a lot of crank/fringe sources is "Right" leaning. Comparing outlets like WND and Newsmax to Huffington Post doesn't make much sense.
|
On April 07 2014 08:01 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2014 04:35 IgnE wrote:On April 06 2014 07:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
NSA is not related to the US being a democracy. the US just happens to be more technologically advanced/has better infrastructure in place than any dictatorships. And frankly even though USA is capable of recording and processing data at a rate completely impossible 20 years ago, I would be far more worried about government surveillance if I lived in any part of the soviet union back then, and basically any "dictatorship" today (to include states that are like, inbetween-y, where they have kinda manipulated elections, which is pretty common.) Everyone prefers a benevolent Watcher to a malevolent one. That depends of course on your point of view. It helps that the American public is largely pacified through a factory-line school system, crippling student debt, inane media, petty political squabbles, and externalized fear in the form of high unemployment, low job security, and unknown omnipresent terrorist threats. But the power and reach of our benevolent Big Brother is indisputably greater than any other state in history, and is rapidly approaching Orwellian status, even if it has gone down a weird corporate-consumer pathway. The contractual agreement to exchange privacy for convenience made by individuals is destroying the privacy ecosystem that is a requirement for democracy. Democracy will be nothing but a fiction in our society when the last vestiges of privacy have disintegrated against the powers of silicon valley and a government that appropriates those powers as its own. The issue of privacy is where it has always been. The government has access to even more data, while citizens have access to tools that increase privacy. The difference is that Google is sharing information about you instead of the Wilson's down the street.
What does that even mean? It's the same or the difference is? What is your point?
|
On April 07 2014 10:09 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2014 00:56 xDaunt wrote:On April 06 2014 23:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 06 2014 09:46 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing.
You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis.
Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical. The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao. Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain. I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should. On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized.. Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples. I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage. Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it. http://www.allsides.com/about-biasLiberally biased? That list just looks wrong. This list seems to include a lot of crank/fringe sources is "Right" leaning. Comparing outlets like WND and Newsmax to Huffington Post doesn't make much sense.
It's almost as absurd as comparing Fox to CNN or NPR.
|
On April 07 2014 10:53 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2014 10:09 ziggurat wrote:On April 07 2014 00:56 xDaunt wrote:On April 06 2014 23:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 06 2014 09:46 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
[quote]
Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic.
furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical. The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao. Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain. I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should. On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized.. Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples. I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage. Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it. http://www.allsides.com/about-biasLiberally biased? That list just looks wrong. This list seems to include a lot of crank/fringe sources is "Right" leaning. Comparing outlets like WND and Newsmax to Huffington Post doesn't make much sense. It's almost as absurd as comparing Fox to CNN or NPR.
I never compared Fox to NPR. But I think its reasonable to compare Fox to CNN.
|
The list compares them, despite the absurdity.
|
The former Port Authority of New York and New Jersey executive who orchestrated the George Washington Bridge lane closures is cooperating with federal prosecutors investigating the scandal, Esquire reported on Monday.
According to Esquire's Scott Raab, sources close to the investigation say that David Wildstein has been cooperating with Paul Fishman, the U.S. attorney in New Jersey. Raab also reported that Fishman has increased the number of investigators working the case, and has been presenting evidence and witnesses to a grand jury. (On Friday, ABC News reported that Michael Drewniak, press secretary to Gov. Chris Christie (R), testified before the grand jury.)
Esquire isn't the only outlet to get word of Wildstein's interactions with prosecutors. On Sunday night, the website Main Justice reported that Wildstein “was camped at the U.S. Attorney’s office” in Newark last week meeting with prosecutors. In January, Wildstein's attorney, Alan Zegas, said that his client would talk if given "immunity from the relevant entities."
Main Justice also reported that Charlie McKenna, former chief counsel to Christie, met with federal investigators in mid-January. Christie announced on Dec. 19 that McKenna was leaving the chief counsel position to become CEO of the New Jersey Schools Development Authority (SDA), a position he was officially elected to by the SDA board of directors on Jan. 2. McKenna could not immediately be reached for comment by TPM on Monday.
Source
|
|
|
There is coherence in his discourse. It's the language of belief, and I like that in a politician, even if I'm far far away from his point of view.
|
What would Rand Paul have been like if he had been born into Iran or Palestine as the son of a wealthy and influential doctor?
|
On April 08 2014 04:17 IgnE wrote:
What would Rand Paul have been like if he had been born into Iran or Palestine as the son of a wealthy and influential doctor?
Different like they would of been had he been born into pretty much any of the other millions of potential birth circumstances...
Some people look at
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
And read it like this
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Americans are created equal, that they are endowed by Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (So long as it doesn't interfere with whatever interpretation of 'Christianity' is contemporary and popular enough)"
Paul is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He disagrees with the vast majority of the Republican base he needs to have a shot at national office, but is actually representative of the moneyed Republican interests when it comes to his libertarian views on business.
I mean Paul prefers a world where there was never a law passed to require businesses to serve blacks, Jews, or any other minority the owner's bigotry inclines them to hate or disdain.
|
Rand's views have "evolved" since then:
Last month, the Associated Press reported Senator Paul saying:
“They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending and their “Gimme, gimme, gimme—give me all the Sandy [Hurricane Sandy] money now,’ those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.”
|
On April 08 2014 06:23 Mindcrime wrote:Rand's views have "evolved" since then:Show nested quote +Last month, the Associated Press reported Senator Paul saying:
“They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending and their “Gimme, gimme, gimme—give me all the Sandy [Hurricane Sandy] money now,’ those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.”
The sentiment seems similar. What's different?
|
On April 08 2014 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2014 06:23 Mindcrime wrote:Rand's views have "evolved" since then:Last month, the Associated Press reported Senator Paul saying:
“They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending and their “Gimme, gimme, gimme—give me all the Sandy [Hurricane Sandy] money now,’ those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.” The sentiment seems similar. What's different?
Did we watch the same video? In the video, he indicated that he was willing to put national defense funding on the chopping block as well.
|
On April 07 2014 09:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2014 00:56 xDaunt wrote:On April 06 2014 23:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 06 2014 09:46 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing.
You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis.
Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical. The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao. Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain. I realize you could take it that way. I'm really arguing for sensible laws. Either both should have I.D. laws and such, or neither should. On April 06 2014 05:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? No, I think the american democracy is flawed in very many ways. In addition to your presented reasons for dissatisfaction (although I disagree on your media only feeding the liberal side of things - from my perspective the leftist perspective is hardly touched upon at all ), I think your entire first past the post-two party system module is pretty terrible and the root for many of the challenges your democracy faces. But several of these aspects are actually absent in many functional democracies, and they certainly cannot be attributed to elections. I mean, please find me a dictatorship where the following are less prevalent than in your average democratic country: 1: surveillance 2: media control 3: police brutality 4: corruption which, along with dismal approval ratings, was basically what you criticized.. Well, Cuba I guess. But you're right, I dont have many examples. I also hate the 2-party system as well, especially since the parties are only different in the promises they make then break. Once they're elected they both do the same garbage. Also, you don't see the liberal bias in the media because you're in Scandinavia, which is like, Leftist-Land compared to the US. I see the bias because I'm experiencing the change myself, and I don't really like it. http://www.allsides.com/about-biasLiberally biased? That list just looks wrong. NPR and CNN left or center-left. Otherwise, that right sidebar lists looks close.
Calling CNN left makes me chuckle since they are so aggressively neutral that its often a flaw of there's.
|
On April 08 2014 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2014 06:23 Mindcrime wrote:Rand's views have "evolved" since then:Last month, the Associated Press reported Senator Paul saying:
“They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending and their “Gimme, gimme, gimme—give me all the Sandy [Hurricane Sandy] money now,’ those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.” The sentiment seems similar. What's different?
In the video: "Hey if we want to cut spending, we need to spend less money everywhere! and btw, why do we own a bazillion military bases all over the world?"
In the article: "Why are these whiny hurricane victims stealing all our money?"
|
On April 08 2014 11:52 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2014 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 08 2014 06:23 Mindcrime wrote:Rand's views have "evolved" since then:Last month, the Associated Press reported Senator Paul saying:
“They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending and their “Gimme, gimme, gimme—give me all the Sandy [Hurricane Sandy] money now,’ those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.” The sentiment seems similar. What's different? Did we watch the same video? In the video, he indicated that he was willing to put national defense funding on the chopping block as well.
Yeah, ... and?
From "and not letting enough money be left over for national defense" I'm to infer that's completely changed? It's just one sentence and there isn't a whole lot of context behind it.
|
On April 08 2014 12:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2014 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 08 2014 06:23 Mindcrime wrote:Rand's views have "evolved" since then:Last month, the Associated Press reported Senator Paul saying:
“They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending and their “Gimme, gimme, gimme—give me all the Sandy [Hurricane Sandy] money now,’ those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.” The sentiment seems similar. What's different? In the article: "Why are these whiny hurricane victims stealing all our money?"
Lol, he didn't say that. Don't be dumb 
|
On April 08 2014 12:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2014 11:52 Mindcrime wrote:On April 08 2014 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 08 2014 06:23 Mindcrime wrote:Rand's views have "evolved" since then:Last month, the Associated Press reported Senator Paul saying:
“They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending and their “Gimme, gimme, gimme—give me all the Sandy [Hurricane Sandy] money now,’ those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.” The sentiment seems similar. What's different? Did we watch the same video? In the video, he indicated that he was willing to put national defense funding on the chopping block as well. Yeah, ... and? From "and not letting enough money be left over for national defense" I'm to infer that's completely changed? It's just one sentence and there isn't a whole lot of context behind it.
also
A few days later on August 6, Senator Paul was at Fort Campbell in Kentucky where he said: “If we were to cut somewhere else in the budget, I would try to restore some money to the military.”
|
On April 08 2014 12:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2014 12:05 Nyxisto wrote:On April 08 2014 11:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 08 2014 06:23 Mindcrime wrote:Rand's views have "evolved" since then:Last month, the Associated Press reported Senator Paul saying:
“They’re precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending and their “Gimme, gimme, gimme—give me all the Sandy [Hurricane Sandy] money now,’ those are the people who are bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for national defense.” The sentiment seems similar. What's different? In the article: "Why are these whiny hurricane victims stealing all our money?" Lol, he didn't say that. Don't be dumb
`Gimme, gimme, gimme — give me all my Sandy money now.’” Paul said, referring to federal funding after the hurricane last year
Not only is he literally saying it, but it seems like as soon as he is filmed by more than one smartphone camera he's not willing to say what he said to the students.(which was actually surprisingly moderate and reasonable)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
