|
Mr Hootington posted:Who says this? My guess is people on Freep. Or do they still call them "Amish"?
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
Boon posted:So... I feel that the bill in Congress prohibiting terror watch list individuals from purchasing firearms should be a slam dunk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:My guess is people on Freep. Or do they still call them "Amish"? Freep largely goes with "Amish" and "ferals," but they've been slipping more and more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Freep largely goes with "Amish" and "ferals," but they've been slipping more and more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Boon posted:So... I feel that the bill in Congress prohibiting terror watch list individuals from purchasing firearms should be a slam dunk. We probably shouldn't be stripping people of legal rights without due process, even if the legal right in question is COLD DEAD HANDS. It would set a horrible legal precedent for the treatment of other constitutional rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Isn't the terrorist watch list awful garbage though? Possibly, seems to be the answer. It was loosely managed and took inputs from various places. It was discovered and challenged last year and the FBI tightened up management. Best as can be said, it is 98% foriegners but as of March, over 2000 individuals on that list, or 94% of those who tried to purchase firearms, were able to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Boon posted:Possibly, seems to be the answer. It was loosely managed and took inputs from various places. It was discovered and challenged last year and the FBI tightened up management. Yeah, but for all we know all that means is that 2000 people who attended anti-george bush rallies while also being Muslim happened to buy guns. Which isn't a problem ( or rather is no more a problem than any other legal gun purchase). I have friends who found themselves on the no fly list simply for going to anti war rallies or for taking photographs of federal buildings while being libertarian. I have yet to see any evidence that the "terrorism watch list" has any better gatekeeping. For all we know, its just a list of brown people who talk funny and has as much relation to actual terror suspects as your mom's email contact list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Freep largely goes with "Amish" and "ferals," but they've been slipping more and more. So not people in real life. Just internet people. Gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:We probably shouldn't be stripping people of legal rights without due process, even if the legal right in question is COLD DEAD HANDS. It would set a horrible legal precedent for the treatment of other constitutional rights. No it wouldn't, until someone figures out a way to create a killing word. Not to mention that a whole bunch of people on those lists are also already not supposed to have guns due to being previously convicted of things, which lead to them being on the list in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:We probably shouldn't be stripping people of legal rights without due process, even if the legal right in question is COLD DEAD HANDS. It would set a horrible legal precedent for the treatment of other constitutional rights. It seems to me that the logic follows the same process that prohibits mental illness purchasees. Though I would welcome someone to explain to me why I'm a loving idiot about that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Yes, but Lobjan still uses Latin script! Incorrect! It can also be written in Elvish script. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:I knew some people who preferred to use Mondays or Celebrities as their totally not racist euphemism for blacks. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/07/26/leominster-police-officer-fired-for-racial-slur-against-carl-crawford/ quote:LEOMINSTER (CBS) – The Leominster police officer accused of aiming racial slurs at Red Sox outfielder Carl Crawford was fired Thursday. https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2...Z4NO/story.html quote:When news emerged earlier this month that Boston Red Sox outfielder Carl Crawford said he’d been called a racial epithet by an off-duty Leominster police officer before a minor league game in New Hampshire, reaction was swift. After an internal investigation, which turned up additional racist comments, the Leominster mayor fired the officer on Thursday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Not to mention that a whole bunch of people on those lists are also already not supposed to have guns due to being previously convicted of things, which lead to them being on the list in the first place. [cite please] Last article I saw there were 700,000 people on the "terrorism watch list." There aren't 700 actual terrorists in this country, much less 700,000. It's a bloated bullshit list of everyone who's vaguely brown, that's all, not a reasonable basis for removing protected rights. "Anyone who is barred from purchasing a firearm due to existing actual federal or state criminal charges should already be barred from purchasing a firearm by the Instant Background Check System. That system *does* have flaws and needs better funding and better reporting -- see the Charleston shooter, Dylann Roof, who should have been barred from purchasing a firearm by the system -- but that's an entirely separate issue from "terrorism watch list" bullshit, because the ICBS is based on actual criminal charges and actual judicial process, which is something we have in this country because we aren't a goddam banana republic (yet). If you're buying into "watch list" hysteria you're part of the goddam problem. The place for that poo poo is a Trump rally. Boon posted:It seems to me that the logic follows the same process that prohibits mental illness purchasees. Though I would welcome someone to explain to me why I'm a loving idiot about that. Involuntary mental commitment is also a legal, judicial process in which the committed person has legal rights and is defended by an attorney. That's the issue here: you can end up on one of these "watch lists" without any due process or judicial review, and once you're on said list, it's almost impossible to get your name taken off of it. So what happens is that anyone who is vaguely annoying gets put on a list. Seriously, all you had to do to get on the "No Fly List" was attend an anti-Dubya protest, and I know this because I know several people it happened to, all of whom were the most whitebread inoffensive college kid types imaginable apart from their activism. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
The codeword of choice in South Carolina is usually 'democrats.' A few years ago I heard lots of people in the fire service using 'neighbors,' which was explained as n-word and annoying. God i hate people. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:The codeword of choice in South Carolina is usually 'democrats.' Just call a spade a spade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:[cite please] You do understand that crimes exist besides "terrorism" right? And that a ton of the people on the watch list aren't even American - so they really shouldn't be buying guns in America either, right? In fact 98% of the people on the terrorism watch list are foreign nationals. God only knows why you're freaking over non-citizens not being able to purchase guns in America. Also sorry, I don't give a poo poo about people being allowed to have guns. It's wrong, in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:God i hate people. I'm hoping for some really good freeper Thanksgiving tears this year to counterbalance all the bad news lately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You do understand that crimes exist besides "terrorism" right? And that a ton of the people on the watch list aren't even American - so they really shouldn't be buying guns in America either, right? In fact 98% of the people on the terrorism watch list are foreign nationals. God only knows why you're freaking over non-citizens not being able to purchase guns in America. There are 700,000 people, at least, on the "terrorism watch list." So even if your assertion that 98% are foreign nationals is correct -- again, cite please -- that leaves (2x7) 14,000 people who are American citizens on said list. If, then, a mere one-seventh of those people tried to buy guns -- which would actually be a kinda low rate, given rates of gun ownership in America -- that's your 2,000 people, right there. And we know for a fact that many of the people on said list are only on it because they happen to have some vague association with someone else on the list, such as attending the same mosque, being in an email address book or phone contact list, etc. And the reason this bothers me is because, like it or not, the right to purchase a firearm is a legally protected right, and stripping people of legal rights without due process of law is wrong and bad. Either charge people with an actual crime or don't. Either we're a nation of laws or we aren't. If your issue is just "people shouldn't have guns" then get a constitutional amendment passed so that gun ownership isn't a protected right. Right now it is, just like the right to trial by jury and the right to not be tortured and the right to not have your home searched without a warrant. Stripping American citizens of one of those rights without due process establishes a precedent for stripping all the others. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
If you make it illegal for terrorists to buy guns then only criminal terrorists can buy guns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:It's sort of an urban legend thing that purportedly started in the food service industry. Right? I've heard that from a couple of classmates who worked as waiters. Fun fact, they always assumed that black people wouldn't tip, so they'd give them half-assed service while they focused on white customers, then they wouldn't get a good tip from the black customers they ignored, thus reinforcing their belief that black people don't tip. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, basically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
I was introduced to the term "Canadian" in 2004 at a South Carolina TexMex restaurant. Some friends worked there and we were visiting so we hung out after close. Even the head cook (who was black) was complaining about "Canadians." I thought it was weird but then I saw the movie Crash and they talked about the exact thing that all the workers were complaining about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
So now we know why Ted Cruz wanted to build a wall on the Canadian border.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There are 700,000 people, at least, on the "terrorism watch list." So even if your assertion that 98% are foreign nationals is correct -- again, cite please -- that leaves (2x7) 14,000 people who are American citizens on said list. If, then, a mere one-seventh of those people tried to buy guns -- which would actually be a kinda low rate, given rates of gun ownership in America -- that's your 2,000 people, right there. The numbers come from here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/individuals-fbis-terrorist-watchlist-allowed-legally-purchase-firearms/story?id=35264669 And http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/564fec70e4b0258edb31b652 But your point is well taken.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:this. I believe that even if he wins the nomination(which he has a decent chance at) he is screwed in the general election. i mean he is a loud radical dickhead bigot who lives in a literal palace of Versailles and with a trophy wife and probably a few bastards. the man is a bully and rear end in a top hat. and most of my moderate conservative relatives hate his guts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MbSaKgt5RE the comments of this video are amusing. anyway, i honestly dont think moderates/bluedogs/minorities/liberals/lefties will vote for him. Elections are never about getting people to cross over, they are about decreasing turnout for your opponent and increasing turnout for your side. I also think you are greatly underestimating how many moderates are willing to put up with the nonsense to get someone who is 'tough on terrorism' or whatever. An unfortunate high profile attack at the wrong time and you can bet your rear end any R is going to have a strong chance in the election- republicans always do better in foreign policy oriented elections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:republicans always do better in foreign policy oriented elections. Except for the one right after we killed Bin Laden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Boon posted:So... I feel that the bill in Congress prohibiting terror watch list individuals from purchasing firearms should be a slam dunk. I'm gonna be honest, I'm not real thrilled with that bill because there are several terrorist watch lists, most of the time they won't describe why someone is on them, and they won't let people get off - there basically is no due process there. Which means that a constitutional right is being abrogated without due process. Note that said list can be as loose as 'shares some of a name with someone suspected as a terrorist.' I think Ted Kennedy wound up on one once. Checking... yep. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/08/kenn-a21.html Horrible precedent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:If you make it illegal for terrorists to buy guns then only criminal terrorists can buy guns. Well us Real Americans are finding it harder and harder to buy guns, but these terrorists can sail through the process easily. President Ben Ghazi's plan is working 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There are 700,000 people, at least, on the "terrorism watch list." So even if your assertion that 98% are foreign nationals is correct -- again, cite please -- that leaves (2x7) 14,000 people who are American citizens on said list. If, then, a mere one-seventh of those people tried to buy guns -- which would actually be a kinda low rate, given rates of gun ownership in America -- that's your 2,000 people, right there. I don't care that those 2000 people couldn't buy a gun, and you shouldn't either, because guns are toys for idiots, and not a right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
there's a nice book about that sort of shift in politicking to really be focusing on polls, gamifying elections, and doing things like intentionally reducing voter turnout, called Politics Lost. there's an anecdote about how Pat Caddell, in one local campaign he was taking, he was trying to figure out how to win an election for an old, uncharismatic dork. And he did so by realizing that, instead of trying to drum up support for a turd, he could just turn the campaign so toxic and negative that he could drive young voters, who supported his candidate's opponent, away from the polls by just how odious the whole process was. And, as he said, he wound up "nuking" that demographic so totally that he was left feeling disgusted with himself; his job in a system that held the idea of citizen participation as part of its sort of mythological ethos, and he wound up finding ways to get people to just not want to engage with the system by turning it into a loving poo poo show. But even though he backed off of that tactic, people saw that it worked pretty well. So, basically, low voter turnout, despite the hang wringing people like to do, is pretty much "by design". Even beyond cases of outright disenfranchisement like voter ID, there's a general intent to make the whole process as repulsive to certain demographics as possible, to keep them at home on election day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I don't care that those 2000 people couldn't buy a gun, and you shouldn't either, because guns are toys for idiots, and not a right. ahem, excuse me have you forgotten about this thing called the constitution???
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Except for the one right after we killed Bin Laden. Nope? 2008 /12 were clearly economic focused elections according to the data, which democrats do better in. Additionally, incumbents always have a strong advantage regardless. And it's not like I'm saying every ___ focused elections are going to go to ___ party, that's dumb-- it does give advantages depending on the focus though. TROIKA CURES GREEK fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
quote:Due Process Chat Wrong context of due process. Google Substantive Due Process. Second Amendment rights would be considered fundamental rights under judicial review, and thus laws restricting them need to pass a test of a compelling government interest (keeping lethal weapons out of the hands of terrorists) narrowly tailored (people with specific flags saying this person might be bad news) and in the least restrictive manner possible. That last one I admit stumps me, in that I can't think of a less restrictive manner than "No, you can't have a gun" for keeping guns out of a person's hands. You're right in arguing the point that this list might not be the best classification, but that's a problem with the list, not with restricting rights to forward a compelling state interest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:Wrong context of due process. Google Substantive Due Process. Only allow them to buy flintlock long rifles. Muzzle loading only too! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Only allow them to buy flintlock long rifles. Muzzle loading only too! If only our forefathers had the foresight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Warmachine posted:
Well, yes, theoretically it's possible to restrict even a fundamental right, BUT even then you need some actual judicial proceeding. Due process of any kind necessitates a process. These "lists" are inherently process-free. People can end up on them for any reason or for none, there's no oversight, no way to ask for a review or to get yourself taken off the list or dispute your listing. That's the core of the issue . I'm not disputing that rights can be restricted with a compelling state interest. But even with a compelling state interest some kind of process is still due, and these lists don't have any. They're utterly arbitrary, and that's unjustifiable. edit: Oh I get what you're saying; yeah you can have a general law that restricts a right generally for everyone. But that's not this; this is an essentially arbitrary and unreviewable restriction applied to a small fraction of the population (based on what is mostly likely a religious criteria in most cases). I don't think there's any constitutional test under which such is justifiable. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Here's the source for my preceding post: http://www.gallup.com/poll/158267/economy-dominant-issue-americans-election-nears.aspx I hardly even remember BL being brought up more than once or twice, it was all about economics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Has anyone brought up Trump resurrecting that old and nearly forgotten "Arabs in NJ cheered when the towers fell" myth? Because he did that this weekend too. He's really whipping up the full-blown racist vote and isn't even attempting to sugarcoat it. And everyone's Thanksgiving dinner is going to end up as collateral damage 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Has anyone brought up Trump resurrecting that old and nearly forgotten "Arabs in NJ cheered when the towers fell" myth? Because he did that this weekend too. He's really whipping up the full-blown racist vote and isn't even attempting to sugarcoat it. Nah. Don't ruin your family's racist hugbox.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Nope? 2008 /12 were clearly economic focused elections according to the data, which democrats do better in. Additionally, incumbents always have a strong advantage regardless. Which elections have been "foreign policy focused"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Which elections have been "foreign policy focused"? 2006.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:17
|
|