The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
06-28-2017, 08:13 AM
#9081
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,607
Total Cats: 4,102
today in real news:
As reported previously, the editorial in question (which was corrected a day after publishing)resurrected the conspiracy theory that the shooter responsible for killing six people and severely injuring Rep. Gabby Giffords was inspired by a map Sarah Palin’s PAC released which showed Arizona in crosshairs.
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has reportedly filed a lawsuit against The New York Times in response to its editorial blaming her for the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords.
According to Fox News, Palin’s attorneys “claim that the paper defamed her in the June 14 editorial, published hours after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was shot and wounded while practicing with the GOP’s baseball team in Alexandria, Va.”As reported previously, the editorial in question (which was corrected a day after publishing)resurrected the conspiracy theory that the shooter responsible for killing six people and severely injuring Rep. Gabby Giffords was inspired by a map Sarah Palin’s PAC released which showed Arizona in crosshairs.
Reply
0
0
06-28-2017, 08:20 AM
#9082
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,607
Total Cats: 4,102
how to deal with terrorism:
Police in the UK reportedly forced a Sunderland shop owner to remove a sign reading “DON’T FUND TERRORISM” after a Muslim in the area complained.
According to Rebel Media, Fletcher posted the sign in reference to reports that Muslim corner shops in the area were being used to launder money for terrorist organizations overseas.
Fletcher’s sign apparently “provoked outrage” with a Muslim who owns a shop on the same street as the one with the sign decrying terrorism.
Police reportedly got involved in the matter, threatening to arrest the shop owner if he did not remove the sign.
The shop owner – named Fletcher – reportedly resisted until, according to a Rebel Media video report, police threatened to take away his liquor license, which would have been devastating for his business.
“So, you livelihood, they’re going to stop you earning money and providing for your family,” says Rebel Media’s Tommy Robinson in the video report.
“So basically, they’re working for the Muslim shopkeeper to come and force you, and in the end bully you, for your livelihood to take the sign down.”
“What’s wrong with ‘don’t fund terrorism?'” Robinson proceeds to ask rhetorically in the clip.
Robinson goes on to state that Rebel Media encourages Fletcher to put the sign back up and will raise money to keep a lawyer on retainer in the event that police return to the shop.“I think we have to take a stand on this issue,” Robinson states in the report.
According to Rebel Media, Fletcher posted the sign in reference to reports that Muslim corner shops in the area were being used to launder money for terrorist organizations overseas.
Fletcher’s sign apparently “provoked outrage” with a Muslim who owns a shop on the same street as the one with the sign decrying terrorism.
Police reportedly got involved in the matter, threatening to arrest the shop owner if he did not remove the sign.
The shop owner – named Fletcher – reportedly resisted until, according to a Rebel Media video report, police threatened to take away his liquor license, which would have been devastating for his business.
“So, you livelihood, they’re going to stop you earning money and providing for your family,” says Rebel Media’s Tommy Robinson in the video report.
“So basically, they’re working for the Muslim shopkeeper to come and force you, and in the end bully you, for your livelihood to take the sign down.”
“What’s wrong with ‘don’t fund terrorism?'” Robinson proceeds to ask rhetorically in the clip.
Robinson goes on to state that Rebel Media encourages Fletcher to put the sign back up and will raise money to keep a lawyer on retainer in the event that police return to the shop.“I think we have to take a stand on this issue,” Robinson states in the report.
“Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence, and violence either on the street or on the internet,” Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office president Holger Münch said at the time.
Reply
0
0
06-29-2017, 05:57 PM
#9087
I identify as a bear.
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,206
Total Cats: 6,707
Without commenting on the merits (or lack thereof) of the current President, I can't help but be reminded of the reaction of many ultra-conservatives who felt cheated by the outcome of the 2008 election, feared that the president was going to take singlehandedly away their guns / implement a fully socialized healthcare system / etc.
And how so many of them started into the conspiracy theories about why the former president wasn't a US Citizen and so on...
And how, after eight years, there were still some who just wouldn't let it go.
And yet, despite their worst fears, gun ownership is still legal, medicine is still a semi-public / semi-private industry.
And, of course, the two halves of congress still do their best to not have rational, fact-based discussion of important legislation, the US is still at war abroad, Guantanamo is still open, marijuana is still outlawed at a federal level, and the US still has the second-highest percentage of is population behind bars. (We slipped to #2, behind The Republic of Seychelles, a tiny island off the eastern coast of Africa with a unicameral government.)
And that's what annoys me about the fact that the two-party system is so deeply ingrained in the American psyche. It creates an "us vs. them" mentality, in which "the other side" is wrong and, if elected, dangerous. It causes gridlock in congress, and leads people (both citizens and legislators) to vote along party lines, rather than needing to be troubled to comprehend whatever thing is being voted on. If everyone else on "my side" is voting "yes," then I'd better vote "yes."
I'm a huge fan of the Constitution. I don't really believe that all Americans should be automatically be allowed to vote, but I'd settle for the following compromise as the 28'th Amendment:
And how so many of them started into the conspiracy theories about why the former president wasn't a US Citizen and so on...
And how, after eight years, there were still some who just wouldn't let it go.
And yet, despite their worst fears, gun ownership is still legal, medicine is still a semi-public / semi-private industry.
And, of course, the two halves of congress still do their best to not have rational, fact-based discussion of important legislation, the US is still at war abroad, Guantanamo is still open, marijuana is still outlawed at a federal level, and the US still has the second-highest percentage of is population behind bars. (We slipped to #2, behind The Republic of Seychelles, a tiny island off the eastern coast of Africa with a unicameral government.)
And that's what annoys me about the fact that the two-party system is so deeply ingrained in the American psyche. It creates an "us vs. them" mentality, in which "the other side" is wrong and, if elected, dangerous. It causes gridlock in congress, and leads people (both citizens and legislators) to vote along party lines, rather than needing to be troubled to comprehend whatever thing is being voted on. If everyone else on "my side" is voting "yes," then I'd better vote "yes."
I'm a huge fan of the Constitution. I don't really believe that all Americans should be automatically be allowed to vote, but I'd settle for the following compromise as the 28'th Amendment:
"Neither candidates for elected office, nor their representatives, may adopt or express, as part of their identity or campaign platform, affiliation with any political party. No ballot or official publication of any electoral commission shall make reference to the name, identity, or symbolism of any political party."
Reply
0
0
06-29-2017, 09:08 PM
#9089
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
To be fair, gun ownership was protected only because people fought passionately against restrictions against a much better funded but dumber opposition.
We still lost in a few areas.
Also, despite the fact that so many people hated Obama, there were never riots and militant neo-fascists beating people up for having a different point if view.
We still lost in a few areas.
Also, despite the fact that so many people hated Obama, there were never riots and militant neo-fascists beating people up for having a different point if view.
Reply
0
0
06-29-2017, 09:54 PM
#9091
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
I agree with the first part of what you wrote, but the last bit is almost entirely factually incorrect.
False. Despite a record number of guns and gun ownership (not as a percentage of the population) gun homicide has dropped steadily over the last decade.
This is also in spite of the sunset of the poorly executed "assault weapons" ban of the 90s.
False.
The data is very clear and is easily found on the FBI's website.
Also, the NRA is not the massive lobbying giant it is portrayed to be.
Anti-gun organisations outspent the NRA 14:1 last year.
Bloomberg outspent them 2:1 out of his own pocket.
Yep, kinda. Violent crime dropped at almost the exact same rate as the US over the exact same time frame. Sexual assault skyrocketed almost immediately after the ban.
While mass shootings did drop off (although not entirely), mass killing kept up, also at the same rate as the US. People just simply used different means.
For gun control I like guns as toys like many red blooded males but I don't want to carry one around with me all of the time. With so many guns in the US, I can understand how the second amendment stays. In a perfect world however there really should not be so many guns around. Saying that more guns does not lead to more people getting killed is an absolute joke in my opinion.
This is also in spite of the sunset of the poorly executed "assault weapons" ban of the 90s.
The data is very clear and is easily found on the FBI's website.
Also, the NRA is not the massive lobbying giant it is portrayed to be.
Anti-gun organisations outspent the NRA 14:1 last year.
Bloomberg outspent them 2:1 out of his own pocket.
While mass shootings did drop off (although not entirely), mass killing kept up, also at the same rate as the US. People just simply used different means.
Reply
0
0
06-29-2017, 09:55 PM
#9092
I identify as a bear.
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,206
Total Cats: 6,707
To paraphrase the lauded 20th century philosopher Eric Cartman, "I'm, like, seriously, here."
"We" implies that there is a "they."
And that's kinda the whole point. There needs to be an "us." Eliminating the institutionalization of bicameral politics is the first step to getting there.
"We" implies that there is a "they."
And that's kinda the whole point. There needs to be an "us." Eliminating the institutionalization of bicameral politics is the first step to getting there.
Reply
0
0
06-29-2017, 10:03 PM
#9093
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Huntington, Indiana
Posts: 2,885
Total Cats: 616
To paraphrase the lauded 20th century philosopher Eric Cartman, "I'm, like, seriously, here."
"We" implies that there is a "they."
And that's kinda the whole point. There needs to be an "us." Eliminating the institutionalization of bicameral politics is the first step to getting there.
"We" implies that there is a "they."
And that's kinda the whole point. There needs to be an "us." Eliminating the institutionalization of bicameral politics is the first step to getting there.
I would like there to be some middle ground, but there is not unless it gets fought for tooth and nail these days.
When it comes to a few key issues such as gun control, abortion, or free speech, modern politicians will absolutely go for all or nothing in order to appease their moronic voter base.
Reply
0
0
06-30-2017, 10:34 AM
#9096
I identify as a bear.
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,206
Total Cats: 6,707
And that thought is just hella-eggplant.
Reply
0
0
06-30-2017, 01:40 PM
#9097
I've often thought of the ramifications of it becoming 50 countries. Some thoughts [copied from another forum];
1. It already is 50 small countries effectively. The differences between some states is greater than the difference between some countries.
2. There’d be a million border guards.
3. Country (formerly States) would have a lot more public officials.
4. National Standards would break down.
5. Individual currencies might rely on the Euro.
6. The military would be designed for defense only and there’d no longer be global projection of power.
7. There would be more creativity.
8. States would complain that Canada and Mexico were controlling everything.
9. Federal elections would become way shorter.
10. Fewer people in prison because States couldn’t afford to keep all those people behind bars and laws would become much more liberal in most states so fewer would have to be incarcerated.
11. Large airports would shrink and small ones would get bigger.
12. Taxes would go higher but take less time to fill out.
And... People would start talking about forming a Union.
Food for thought, who would control the nuclear arsenal??
I won't bother ranting on about left/right yada yada...
Reply
0
0
06-30-2017, 01:53 PM
#9098
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,607
Total Cats: 4,102
you wanna know how to kill the west?
spread news.
im not saying the right is always correct, but they are demonized like crazy. Children, and adults, have no idea why they hate Republicans. Just like blacks have no idea why they vote democratic. just like every business is evil. just like america should be built for the poor.
Today, The New York Times removed that portion of the article and stated – way at the bottom of the piece – the following:
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.
im not saying the right is always correct, but they are demonized like crazy. Children, and adults, have no idea why they hate Republicans. Just like blacks have no idea why they vote democratic. just like every business is evil. just like america should be built for the poor.
Reply
0
0
06-30-2017, 02:01 PM
#9099
I identify as a bear.
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,206
Total Cats: 6,707
You make a lot of interesting points. And the specific point above can actually be answered pretty easily. Reference the dissolution of the USSR.
And note how a lot of Russians do seem to be longing for the old Soviet days...
And note how a lot of Russians do seem to be longing for the old Soviet days...
Reply
0
0
06-30-2017, 02:33 PM
#9100
In the case of the dissolution of the USA, likely there would be no "motherland" per se.
Sidenote, heard an interesting term used the other day by a woman describing her political views: "Social Libertarian". I hadn't heard that before. She certainly didn't fit the definition as written.
Social Libertarian
Reply
0
0
