Jump to content

US Politics: Another Government Shutdown Looms

Tywin Manderly

By Tywin Manderly,
in General Chatter

Recommended Posts

YoungGriff89 Landed Knight

YoungGriff89

Posted
Posted

Oh no. not this shit again.

if you are going to keep saying this, provide some data to back it up.

here's an example of how you might back up this kind of argument: Guns are used successfully in self defense somewhere between 100k and 500k times a year, depending whose estimates you believe.

now you try.

Keep saying this? When have I said this? If you want cherry picked studies so be it.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-increasing-harvard-research

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5900748

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6326728

Then there's also one anecdote that comes to mind immediately: that right wing couple who were trying to lead a rebellion against the government in Arizona. They took cover in a Wal Mart I think, and a patron who happened to be concealing tried to draw on them and was shot dead because he was outnumbered. I can't remember the names though so if someone knows what I'm talking about help me out here.

UPDATE: I was wrong it was Nevada. Here's the link.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/las-vegas-shooters-idd-as-right-wing-conspiracy-nuts-with-a-deathwish/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Las_Vegas_shootings

From Wikipedia: "The two then fled to a nearby Walmart, where Jerad fired a shot at the ceiling and ordered shoppers to leave. Joseph Wilcox, who was carrying a concealed weapon, drew his weapon and confronted Jerad,[9] but passed Amanda as he did so, not realizing that she was armed and Jerad's accomplice; Amanda shot and killed Wilcox."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ramsay Gimp Council Member

Ramsay Gimp

Posted
Posted

Why would you care? Do you think I invented that quote of his? Or are you of the mindset that attacking the link will somehow make him not a sycophant to homophobes if not a homophobe himself?

Anyway, here you go:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Rand_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm

I suspected you were being disingenuous and cherry-picking quotes, which turned out to be true.

No national law on same-sex marriage; leave it to states

Paul opposes a national law banning same-sex marriage. Paul's view is that same-same marriage should be dealt with at the state level. Paul said he thinks his party and the nation will eventually accept that different parts of the country have different views on certain issues. "My position on this is the same as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams," he said. "Marriage is a state issue."

Source: John McCormick article, "Rand Paul Cuts Own Path" , May 10, 2013

Let states decide same-sex marriage; don't federalize it

Q: You say the federal government should stay out of same sex marriage issue and leave it, as it has been traditionally left, to the states. Should the court, therefore, strike down the Defense of Marriage Act?

PAUL: I think it's a really complicated issue. I've always said that the states have a right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. Marriage has been a state issue for hundreds of years. DOMA is complicated, though, because DOMA does provide protection for the states from the federal government. But, then part of it federalizes the issue. I think the way to fix DOMA is maybe to try to make all of our laws more neutral towards the issue, and I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TerraPrime Council Member

TerraPrime

Posted
Posted

Re: Rand Paul



People in general are understandably frustrated with the current political climate, and that gives people like Rand Paul unearned credential for running as the contrarian insider-from-the-outside. McCain used to capitalize on that, too - remember "the Maverick?" Ted Cruz also makes that play. In general, Libertarian and Tea Party supporters alike flock to these banners because they really do hate both alternatives (centrist Democrats, which to them is leftist, and centrist Republicans, which to them are corrupt). But in reality, they're just supporting a false ideal. These politicians can withstand the ideological purity test because they don't actually govern (much). They showboat and grandstand on principles to whip up votes, but they don't really govern. The same criticism is applicable to Green Party supporters, too. The outsiders are given credits for being independent because they can afford to. True governance in a democracy is dirty. It involves deal-trading, compromises, and wheel-and-deals.



Ultimately, I reject the Libertarian and Republican (sometimes) political outlook of eviscerating central, federal power. So it hardly matters which social-issue troglodyte they put on stage at any one given time. Still, having some candidates that are just batshit crazy (Santorum, Bachmann, Huckabee, etc.) makes rejecting them a lot easier. But if you put a pro-LBGT, pro-abortion, pro-women Republican or Libertarian in front of me, I still wouldn't vote for him/her. I'd vote for a pro-gun, pro-war, pro-corporate Democrat first.


Link to comment
Share on other sites
TerraPrime Council Member

TerraPrime

Posted
Posted

I suspected you were being disingenuous and cherry-picking quotes, which turned out to be true.

Umm... how's that even a valid principle - "I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in."

Really?

Hey, how about the LBG people who are denied a legal right to marry by various states - do they not get a say? But I guess devolving the issue to state level just makes everything ok? It's bad when the Federal government bars laws that unfairly target some citizens, but it's okay if the State implements laws that unfairly target some citizens?

And, as usual, why stop at the State level? Why not devolve the power to municipal level? Maybe Lexington, KY wants to give marriage rights to people? Why is the State's tyranny validated but not the Federal governments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commodore Council Member

Commodore

Posted
Posted

This comes on the heels of news earlier this morning that Cuba had released Alan Gross and that Obama and Castro would both be making official statements on US-Cuba relations at 12pm EST today.

ETA: Probably related, the head of USAID, who's been under investigation for trying to use twitter as a way to stir up domestic unrest in Cuba, resigned today.

Obama letting his leftist freak flag fly now that the election is over.

Gotta legitimize our communist neighbors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lokisnow Council Member

lokisnow

Posted
Posted

the facts bear this out: Rand Paul is a right wing extremist who lies about his extremism. The record clearly shows he's on the far right wing and is also the most egregious liar about his own actions.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bush-president-republican-primary-2016/

The blue dot is what he says the red dot is what he does. Factual proof he is the biggest liar in congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commodore Council Member

Commodore

Posted
Posted

Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is slamming President Obama over his prisoner swap to release an American held in Cuba.
“President Obama's actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government," Menendez, known for his tough stance on Cuba, said in a statement.
"There is no equivalence between an international aid worker and convicted spies who were found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage against our nation."

Rubio:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rubio-lays-into-obamas-cuba-moves-worst-negotiator-in-modern-u-s-history/

“They’ve created no economic openings, no concessions on freedom of speech, no concessions on elections, no alternative political parties. …The idea that this leads to democratic opening is absurd, but it is par for the course for an administration possibly giving away unilateral concessions for Iran or Cuba in exchange for nothing.”

Hillary will have to come out against this as well.

This is all easy to explain when you realize Obama doesn't want Cuba to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lokisnow Council Member

lokisnow

Posted
Posted

Godfather ii tells you all you need to know about pre Castro cuba. It was a den of vice and corruption for organized crime, politicians and the extremely wealthy. They still want their playground of terror back, but we shouldn't kowtow to the mafia's whims, we should do the moral thing and make peace with the people of Cuba who fought to free themselves from Americans keeping them in indentured slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NestorMakhnosLovechild Council Member

NestorMakhnosLovechild

Posted
Posted

Rubio:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rubio-lays-into-obamas-cuba-moves-worst-negotiator-in-modern-u-s-history/

Hillary will have to come out against this as well.

This is all easy to explain when you realize Obama doesn't want Cuba to change.

That is one of the fucking dumbest things I have ever heard. The United States' decades long embargo against Cuba has done nothing to "change" Cuba, other than to provide a convenient bogeyman for the Castro regime to unite public sentiment behind opposing and to contribute to the impoverishment and isolation of the Cuban people from their closest and most powerful neighbor. There is very little evidence to suggest that isolation of the type the United States has tried with Cuba has ever really worked as a tool of foreign policy. How long have we been trying to isolate North Korea? How successful have we been in changing their form of government? Not an iota.

The Administration's move to ease travel restrictions, allow Americans to use credit cards in Cuba, and provide opportunities for Americans to bring back some Cuban goods is going to significantly increase the interaction between Americans and Cubans and serve to highlight the dramatic disparities in their standard of living. My bet is that is going to do more for motivating the Cuban people to address their domestic situation than decades of embargoes. The United States did more to normalize relations with the fucking Soviet Union than they ever did with Cuba, and the effect of openness on the Soviet Union eventually contributed to it crashing to the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shryke Council Member

Shryke

Posted
Posted

Yes, it does. Pedantic snobbery aside, you're just describing the way the word is currently used ("in fact"). I'm saying the way it's currently used is stupid.

If two candidates have "right-wing" economic views, then say so. Don't just list both of them as "right-wing" if they have starkly different views on everything else.

I realize it's comforting for you, Shryke, to put Dick Cheney, the Pauls, and Hitler all in the same political category. Doesn't mean it makes sense

Yes it does. For exactly the reason I described. This is, in fact, one of the very standard definitions of "right-wing".

This isn't "pedantic snobbery", whatever the fuck that means, it's using the actual definitions of words.]

Like, get over yourself, Rand Paul is a right-winger and a republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...