|
Defenestration posted:Erick Son of Erick is a responsible gun owner who used his second amendment rights to express his displeasure with the first. responsibleandmaturegunownership.png
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
Maarek posted:Wait, is D&D against student loan debt forgiveness now? I'm not against it in theory but it seems like it would add a perverse incentive for universities to continue to jack up tuition at absurd and obviously unsustainable rates. I haven't seen any good suggestions on how to stop that huge problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Rand Paul says the solution to ISIS is to "monitor people who speak Arabic."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Erick Son of Erick is a responsible gun owner who used his second amendment rights to express his displeasure with the first. i had an uncle who did this to his television, turned out to be during the 2000 bush/gore debates
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm not against it in theory but it seems like it would add a perverse incentive for universities to continue to jack up tuition at absurd and obviously unsustainable rates. I haven't seen any good suggestions on how to stop that huge problem. Impose tuition fixing and/or ceilings? My alma mater is implementing a new plan to fix tuition rates for new students for 4 years from the time they enter so they don't keep rising as they work on their degree. Luigi Thirty posted:Rand Paul says the solution to ISIS is to "monitor people who speak Arabic." I want to keep my government small enough to observe second-class citizens sight unseen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Rand Paul says the solution to ISIS is to "monitor people who speak Arabic." How, exactly, does Rand Paul think we monitor and collect intelligence? because I'll give him a lot of it involves speaking arabic!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:03
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:How, exactly, does Rand Paul think we monitor and collect intelligence? He said in his filibuster that the government might use drones to spy on the mail you receive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Joementum posted:He said in his filibuster that the government might use drones to spy on the mail you receive. Jesus for some reason it took until now for me to realize just how mind boggling stupid this is. Is Rand aware the USPS isn't privatized yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
LGD posted:Yes, I'm suggesting that we clearly assign blame to those who thought that they were entitled to kill an office full of people, just as we're happy to assign blame to a rapist- they committed an act that is unconscionable regardless of how underprivileged or badly treated they may have been relative to their victim. The "behavior of the privileged" is only the main area of dispute if you're indeed seeking to justify what they did as a consequence of misbehavior on the part of "privileged" victims- i.e. they "deserved it" because the poor agency-less mass murderers had no choice in the face of their oppression but to lash out and murder 14 people. We can absolutely choose how we respond to this, in ways both good and bad. I think that minimizing the killer's responsibility for their own behavior so we can better speculate about how animus they *might* have faced from their victims led naturally to the victim's deaths is a very, very bad way to do that, and reflects quite poorly on the people doing so, regardless of how laudable their ends may be. People who perpetrate such attacks want to be held responsible. In the case of say, Adam Lanza, who dressed as The Joker and shot up a theater full of people at a Batman movie, that is a significant aspect of their motivation for the attack in the first place. The Paris killers wanted themselves and other Muslims to be held responsible. That was their entire goal. By all means, shout to the heavens that these are bad people. It's not unlike responding to a troll online. Except instead of feeding the troll, you feed the terrorist. To be crystal clear: provoking your reaction is exactly what the killers want. You are as essential an aspect of their plan as their guns and bullets were. Without your reaction, their plan ultimately fails as surely as had their bullets been blank. My question is, why are you so focused on giving terrorists the response they desire, and so determined to denounce discussion of how to undermine their fundamental goals? Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:My question is, why are you so focused on giving terrorists the response they desire, and so determined to denounce discussion of how to undermine their fundamental goals? Now send this in a time machine back to 2002
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Take, for example, the infamous "shoe bomber." His plan failed, his device did not detonate. The people on the plane were not relevant to this. Obviously, this it is better that they didn't die. In terms of his goals, however, this barely matters compared to the fact that instead of becoming an infamous villain to some and martyr to others, he became an infamous joke. It would be a better world if all such attacks failed. But we can't make every bullet fail to fire. No one on the plane could have done that. We can make a society in which Muslims feel that their place in our society is something other than pariah and, perhaps, notorious villians. Given that choice, some people will always choose the latter. The people on that plane, had the bomb went off, would also have died regardless of how they reacted to terrorism or treated Muslims. But they did have agency. Their actions contributed to a world in which terrorism is or is not a desireable strategy. Just as ours do. That is the agency we actually have. I am interested in how we use it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:People who perpetrate such attacks want to be held responsible. In the case of say, Adam Lanza, who dressed as The Joker and shot up a theater full of people at a Batman movie, that is a significant aspect of their motivation for the attack in the first place. Lanza was Sandy Hook. James Holmes did Aurora.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why is O'Malley still running? Carcetti is going to Underwood his way to the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
foobardog posted:Carcetti is going to LBJ his way to the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
First tragedy, then farce
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:But Biden is still alive and popular? I think Biden has missed some filing deadlines at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Rand Paul says the solution to ISIS is to "monitor people who speak Arabic." what exactly does paul want. he seems to be against "da evil government spying" but he wants arabic speakers monitored.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:But Biden is still alive and popular? Biden has pretty much been destroyed by the death of his son personally, and has every desire to retire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
radical meme posted:Lanza was Sandy Hook. James Holmes did Aurora. D'oh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:D'oh. Don't feel too bad, there are a lot of mass shootings to keep track of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
1stGear posted:The outstretched arms thing is basically Bernie's "Let me be clear", isn't it? It means he's about to unleash his Mega Flare attack. Your best bet is to mash X to raise your defense. Once the Mega Flare ends Sanders is vulnerable to lightning based attacks for 10 seconds. Go get him!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:what exactly does paul want. he seems to be against "da evil government spying" but he wants arabic speakers monitored. The standard libertarian motto: "Rights are for whites"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Um excuse me have you even seen the link getting passed around on facebook that lists twelve (12) whole times where someone stopped a crime with their concealed carry??
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
LGD posted:Yes, I'm suggesting that we clearly assign blame to those who thought that they were entitled to kill an office full of people, just as we're happy to assign blame to a rapist- they committed an act that is unconscionable regardless of how underprivileged or badly treated they may have been relative to their victim. The "behavior of the privileged" is only the main area of dispute if you're indeed seeking to justify what they did as a consequence of misbehavior on the part of "privileged" victims- i.e. they "deserved it" because the poor agency-less mass murderers had no choice in the face of their oppression but to lash out and murder 14 people. We can absolutely choose how we respond to this, in ways both good and bad. I think that minimizing the killer's responsibility for their own behavior so we can better speculate about how animus they *might* have faced from their victims led naturally to the victim's deaths is a very, very bad way to do that, and reflects quite poorly on the people doing so, regardless of how laudable their ends may be. OK. So how do you think we should respond to this? Accept that it's inevitable and do nothing? Change something? Please respond with something specific, not vague generalities about changing someone's mind retroactively.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
It was just announced Obama's making an Oval Office speech tomorrow at 8.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:It was just announced Obama's making an Oval Office speech tomorrow at 8.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Is it good news or bad news? Banning all guns. Surrender all firearms or face the purge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Is it good news or bad news? Something about keeping the American people safe: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/05/president-obama-addresses-nation-keeping-american-people-safe
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Most likely just an update on the San Bernardino shooting, but he very, very rarely gives Oval Office speeches. He uses the corridor podium when he has good news to announce.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Obama's only two Oval Office Addresses have been to announce the end of combat operations in Iraq and to talk on the BP Oil Spill. Given that these sort of things are usually only used for bad news, I'm not really sure what to expect tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Obama's only two Oval Office Addresses have been to announce the end of combat operations in Iraq and to talk on the BP Oil Spill. Given that these sort of things are usually only used for bad news, I'm not really sure what to expect tomorrow. HE'S DOING IT HE'S TAKING YOUR GUNS
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Obama's only two Oval Office Addresses have been to announce the end of combat operations in Iraq and to talk on the BP Oil Spill. Given that these sort of things are usually only used for bad news, I'm not really sure what to expect tomorrow. Call for an AUMF for ISIL that has everything the White House wants. "That's why I am asking tonight, for Congress to...." etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
fosborb posted:Call for an AUMF for ISIL that has everything the White House wants. He did that already congress said get hosed
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
fosborb posted:Call for an AUMF for ISIL that has everything the White House wants. Given the carte blanche that is the 2001 AUMF, is there any reason he would actually want a new AUMF? I understand that Congress has been trying to write a new authorization for some time, but there's little agreement about what restrictions that would entail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Given the carte blanche that is the 2001 AUMF, is there any reason he would actually want a new AUMF? Isis had nothing to do with 911.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
I can't stress this enough congress refused to give Obama an Aumf for Isis!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I can't stress this enough congress refused to give Obama an Aumf for Isis!! Lindsey Graham introduced one this week. It gives the President authorization to declare war anywhere for any amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Lindsey Graham introduced one this week. It gives the President authorization to declare war anywhere for any amount of time. What happened to that bill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Lindsey Graham introduced one this week. It gives the President authorization to declare war anywhere for any amount of time. Ah, the Jar Jar Binks model of foreign policy legislation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Isis had nothing to do with 911. Obviously. An Oval Office Address over the issue just seems late, given that we are now almost a year and a half into the campaign against the Daesh. Whatever Obama may personally feel, the White House has been using the 2001 AUMF as legal justification for its current actions. EDIT: Looking back, the President didn't even make a formal request for war until February of this year. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 01:30
|
|