U.S. Politics - pre-election ballot hijinx

[TrackerNeil]

Most people can tell if someone is acting suspicious. Since you are asking the question I guess you aren't like most people. :cool4:

Before I consider an activity suspicious I consider my own background, beliefs and prejudices and try to determine if the activity itself is suspicious, or if I am simply reacting to something in my head. So in that, perhaps, I am not like most people.

[Wee baby Shamus]

This is a laughable non-answer. Different people have different thresholds of what they consider suspicious activity. And even then, assigning an underlying motive to "suspicious" activity is going to rely much more heavily on an individual's prejudices and preconceptions than on any actions.

So, for example, in the U.S., a brown person with a Middle Eastern accent taking a picture of the Freedom Tower will likely be considered suspicious by a wider variety of people than a white person with a British accent, but in neither case is such an activity actually suspicious.

I wouldn't consider a brown person with a Middle Eastern accent taking a picture of the Freedom Tower suspicious but if he was looking around nervously, sweating, constantly checking his watch and wearing a backpack at the Freedom Tower then I would consider that suspicious.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SYC,

I wouldn't consider a brown person with a Middle Eastern accent taking a picture of the Freedom Tower suspicious but if he was looking around nervously, sweating, constantly checking his watch and wearing a backpack at the Freedom Tower then I would consider that suspicious.

So, on a hot humid day in Manhattan Amar waiting for his date before they do a walking tour of Lower Manhattan is suspicious?

[Wee baby Shamus]

SYC,

So, on a hot humid day in Manhattan Amar waiting for his date before they do a walking tour of Lower Manhattan is suspicious?

Actually I was just going to edit my post to mention that possibility and state that I would just keep my eye on him but I wouldn't confront him in any way.

He could also be on his way to a job interview. As I stated before I would consider that behavior suspicious.

[Suttree]

Someone else joined the conversation, cool.

Multiple people have joined the discussion before this. Predictably you've ignored them.

To answer your question it won't stop anything unfortunately.

Funny, the whole point of the original post was to question why we are getting sucked into yet another war in response to IS. So you agree there is no reason for us to do it...aside from creating more terrorists. What did Einstein say the definition of insanity is again?

The men and women who belong to ISIS are hard core Muslim extremists. For them it is literally their way or your dead.

So you're not clear on the make up of IS I see. A good deal of people went to Syria, many moderates who thought they were going to be fighting a dictator. When various militias started getting pulled into IS some of these people found themselves trapped in an extremly difficult situation looking for a way out. I know it's easier to go with the "ZOMG evil" but it's a but more complicated than that. It's part of the reason why you're 40 fighters returned article isn't that helpful in proving IS to be more than a limited threat to the US.

You can google news reports to find this information out yourself.

Given your history of regurgitating chain emails and linking conspiracy sites I suggest you start putting it to better use.

This is a laughable non-answer. Different people have different thresholds of what they consider suspicious activity. And even then, assigning an underlying motive to "suspicious" activity is going to rely much more heavily on an individual's prejudices and preconceptions than on any actions.

Get your head out of the sand damn it!

[Wee baby Shamus]

Multiple people have joined the discussion before this. Predictably you've ignored them.

Funny, the whole point of the original post was to question why we are getting sucked into yet another war in response to IS. So you agree there is no reason for us to do it...aside from creating more terrorists. What did Einstein say the definition of insanity is again?

So you're not clear on the make up of IS I see. A good deal of people went to Syria, many moderates who thought they were going to be fighting a dictator. When various militias started getting pulled into IS some of these people found themselves trapped in an extremly difficult situation looking for a way out. I know it's easier to go with the "ZOMG evil" but it's a but more complicated than that. It's part of the reason why you're 40 fighters returned article isn't that helpful in proving IS to be more than a limited threat to the US.

Given your history of regurgitating chain emails and linking conspiracy sites I suggest you start putting it to better use.

Get your head out of the sand damn it!

No, I don't agree. Don't twist my words to make baseless assumptions.

It sure seems like you are the type of person to let evil go unchallenged. ISIS did claim that they want to post their flag on top of the White House but you seem to believe that they aren't a threat. But hey what do I know?

Actually I do know the make up of ISIS. Which is why I have been trying to educate you on the fact that they are a threat to the US. Which is why I also post the 2 links about them. One which was about a New York man trying to finance and recruit new members and the 40 others who are known to be in the US.

At least I know that you are reading my posts and I hope that you are keeping your eyes open.

[Wee baby Shamus]

On a different note this campaign add is hilarious. A buddy of mine from Virginia sent this ad to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/foust-reminds-voters-of-comstocks-vote-for-transvaginal-ultrasounds-in-new-ad/2014/09/15/a62680ca-3cd9-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html

The woman in the ad states that Comstock wants to overturn Roe v Wade, which is her personal opinion but Comstock also knows that it would be pointless to even try to propose a bill to overturn Roe v Wade and isn't going to even try.

The ultrasound part though I'm not a fan of but the ad itself sounds like desperation from John Foust.

[The Fallen]

I wouldn't consider a brown person with a Middle Eastern accent taking a picture of the Freedom Tower suspicious but if he was looking around nervously, sweating, constantly checking his watch and wearing a backpack at the Freedom Tower then I would consider that suspicious.

If I was a brown person with a Middle-Eastern accent and I wanted to take a picture of the Freedom Tower (terrible name) I would probably exhibit those behaviors out of fear that someone would consider me suspicious.

[Wee baby Shamus]

If I was a brown person with a Middle-Eastern accent and I wanted to take a picture of the Freedom Tower (terrible name) I would probably exhibit those behaviors out of fear that someone would consider me suspicious.

You can get therapy for that type of fear. :thumbsup:

[Larry of the Lawn]

Wasn't there(at least pre patriot act) a suprene court case that established you can't be detained for looking suspicious, or at least that acting or looking 'suspicious' is never pc on its own?

Eta : apologies for the delayed comment

[Wee baby Shamus]

Wasn't there(at least pre patriot act) a suprene court case that established you can't be detained for looking suspicious, or at least that acting or looking 'suspicious' is never pc on its own?

Eta : apologies for the delayed comment

Do you mean Terry v Ohio?

That case established that a police officer can do a stop and frisk of someone he/she deems suspicious.

[TerraPrime]

I think we're just talking about difference "danger to the U.S."

ISIS cannot do anything to destablize the United States of America, as a government and political entity.

ISIS members can, however, enact terrorist attacks, car bombs, suicide bombers, poison gas in subways, etc., on U.S. assets both overseas and within the U.S. They have, already, carried out terrorist acts by way of capturing and murdering U.S. citizens.

When people say ISIS is not a threat to the U.S., we mean the first, not the second. We also mean that statistically, we are more at risk of being killed by our own police force than we are from being killed by IS. Both of these statements are true, but neither of these statements refute the possibility that the IS terrorists can continue to hurt *some* U.S. citizens through their terrorist actions.

[Wee baby Shamus]

I think we're just talking about difference "danger to the U.S."

ISIS cannot do anything to destablize the United States of America, as a government and political entity.

ISIS members can, however, enact terrorist attacks, car bombs, suicide bombers, poison gas in subways, etc., on U.S. assets both overseas and within the U.S. They have, already, carried out terrorist acts by way of capturing and murdering U.S. citizens.

When people say ISIS is not a threat to the U.S., we mean the first, not the second. We also mean that statistically, we are more at risk of being killed by our own police force than we are from being killed by IS. Both of these statements are true, but neither of these statements refute the possibility that the IS terrorists can continue to hurt *some* U.S. citizens through their terrorist actions.

Which was my whole point. Thanks for stating it more clearly than I did. :thumbsup:

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I think we're just talking about difference "danger to the U.S."

ISIS cannot do anything to destablize the United States of America, as a government and political entity.

ISIS members can, however, enact terrorist attacks, car bombs, suicide bombers, poison gas in subways, etc., on U.S. assets both overseas and within the U.S. They have, already, carried out terrorist acts by way of capturing and murdering U.S. citizens.

When people say ISIS is not a threat to the U.S., we mean the first, not the second. We also mean that statistically, we are more at risk of being killed by our own police force than we are from being killed by IS. Both of these statements are true, but neither of these statements refute the possibility that the IS terrorists can continue to hurt *some* U.S. citizens through their terrorist actions.

I don't agree with that. If you can destabilize society and the economy, you can in turn destabilize the government. The threats ISIS have been making are primarily aimed at the government. I don't want ISIS killing any Americans, even if it is *some*.

[Larry of the Lawn]

If you want to save American lives you'd be better off hounding GM and Ford about auto safety than trying to root out ISIS. Or maybe you could spend trillions to kill a couple of dozen of them, and then find three more groups like them have sprung up a decade later. It's not like we have forty years of history showing how this plays out.

[Commodore]

If you want to save American lives you'd be better off hounding GM and Ford about auto safety than trying to root out ISIS.

caveat emptor

[Andriy Czarchenko]

All I can think of when reading creepos posts is corporal Strappi.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Or how about banning firearms in the U.S.? Hell, if you could even expect a 25% reduction in deaths from firearms due to a ban, you'd be ahead in spades on the number of lives saved compared to trying to bomb ISIS into extinction.

Of course, I expect American attitudes toward other American citizens more closely resembles the attitude of the abusive partner in an abusive relationship: I can beat the hell out of my partner anytime I want, but, boy howdy, if anyone else puts their paws on my partner, there will be hell to pay.

Well that has nothing to do with anything. Banning swords may be more effective since we're talking ISIS. Points for the liberal talking points...

[Wee baby Shamus]

Or how about banning firearms in the U.S.? Hell, if you could even expect a 25% reduction in deaths from firearms due to a ban, you'd be ahead in spades on the number of lives saved compared to trying to bomb ISIS into extinction.

Of course, I expect American attitudes toward other American citizens more closely resembles the attitude of the abusive partner in an abusive relationship: I can beat the hell out of my partner anytime I want, but, boy howdy, if anyone else puts their paws on my partner, there will be hell to pay.

How about we ban cars in the US? According to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year there were 33,883 homicides from cars but only 8,855 homicides from a firearm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States.

Are better yet we can just ban the 2nd amendment along with the 1st and 4th amendments too.

I take it you haven't been watching the news about the NFL lately. There appears to be a huge change coming when it concerns domestic violence.

[TrackerNeil]

How about we ban cars in the US? According to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year there were 33,883 homicides from cars but only 8,855 homicides from a firearm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States.

Actually, this is the start of a good idea. Way more Americans die in car accidents than as a result of terrorist activity, so if we spent all that Homeland Security money on auto safety we'd actually save more lives. Good thinking.