P&R

I understood just thought that was funny.

Pretty sure they are also for no more taxes, and getting rid of some. Tax money is spent on stuff that it should not be, yet another problem.

Which would be admirable, if they actually gave a crap about it... It also doesn't change the definition of "anti-tax", and you attacked multiple posters for your misuse of the word. Do you not understand how you generate the reaction you do?

Most people don't. I'll admit I've been guilty of it (you may recall that argument you and I had several months back). Some people seem more prone than others, though.

Would you be mad if I said yes? xD Also to be fair, they attack me just as badly.

I generally approach each post with the poster deliberately outside of the viewing area, but I am rarely surprised by who an incendiary remark is coming from.

Meaning you are a troll? You don't actually care about the debate as much as getting a rise out of people?

Not at all, you and Aman are just alike, post nothing, derail, deflect, run away. Also, you aren't being attacked. Again with the victim thing?

OK Jassik is being a peacekeeper, lets have a redo! Pretty sure this will turn out the same exact way but hey, lets give it a go!

I am for No more taxes, and getting rid of some. Tax money is spent on stuff that it should not be, yet another problem. Plus, I'm Anti-Big government. Oh and the militarization of the police and fed. agency's piss me off to.

Bring on the love.

I don't Blist anybody, but you are asking for it by doing exactly what you say I do. (see bold)

HAHAHA you ninja edited the *** outta that!

Militarization of the police? This is a new talking point. Do explain.

As for the rest of your stuff, you've now made defensible and rational statements. Are you looking for someone to agree/disagree? Unless it's the topic of debate (which it presently isn't), mostly all that many of us demand is that your position be sensible regardless of whether we share it.

Thats nice. You still haven't posted anything. How did I ninjaedit that when it still says what you quoted?

lol

Militarization of police is a catchphrase, but the effect is real. More and more, police are involved in aggressive action and the stories just keep piling up. The guy from Colorado being detained and illegally searched with no probable cause, the East Indian guy in AZ being detained and harassed for hours about being an illegal Mexican immigrant and then suspicion of being a terrorist, protesters being attack (not the morons in NV), the guy that was arrested and forcibly cavity searched multiple times for suspicion of drug trafficking...

I've been stopped multiple times for having a tail-light or license plate light out, that wasn't out, and asked to take a sobriety test or told they smell pot and want to search the car, etc. I'm sure other people have had these experiences.

Is that new, though? I've never had anything remotely like that happen: when I've been pulled over, I had definitely done something to deserve it. But I'm also white and relatively non-threatening in appearance.

But, seriously, is "abuse of power" really new, whether we call it militarization or not? As a literature buff, I've read no end of stories about cops in the big city who not only know everyone's business but, because populations were small even just a century ago, knew everyone by face and name and could basically strong-arm their way into doing whatever they wanted (within limits, of course). I know literature isn't real life, but I'm not sure I see a big difference between Office O'Grady "checking up on me" or the police showing up in Gestapo uniforms and face-obscuring helmets. One is just more immediately intimidating than the other.

Or, hell, let's just go to simple case law: you're familiar with the case that gave us "Miranda" rights, correct? That was, what, 60 years ago now?

Wow first person problem whinging.

If you really think a civil war occuring in the worlds richest country would be better than what we have now then you should really check out the recent civil wars in other countries.

Those have not turned out well so far and it will be years if not decades before they will turn out for the "better".

There are many things I do not like about the US but hoping for a civil war is just.....I guess you hate freedom.

I'm sorry dude, I know I'm technically "on your side", but it's time for a reality check. Even if Republicans take the Senate, Obama will not be impeached. If Democrats hold it, there won't be any civil wars. It'll just be the same old song and dance we're already used to.

Republicans will gain seats, it's just something that happens with midterm elections. Don't get your hopes up for any meaningful change regardless of the outcome, though.

Impeach doesn't mean recall. You can't recall a president, sorry-oes!

Speaking of civil wars anyone else notice the complete media blackout of Syria since Obama humiliated himself and the United States with his "red lines" tough guy talk?

Thousands still dying, Assad remaining in power as predicted. Not a peep about the humanitarian disaster. One day I hope liberals look back with honesty about the huge assist this President has gotten from the media before and during his entire Presidency. Though the more likely scenario will be teachers and professors rewriting history and brainwashing students.

Can we ask the same thing of conservatives, Iraq, and Bush's Presidency, then?

Uh, for someone who claims to be informed, you are far from it. I've seen about 5 stories on various major US outlets, heck, NPR had a multi-part story on Syria yesterday. Just because Fox hasn't run a story...

Can we please stop derailing threads and see whether or not the mods will look into this? Seriously this is not a P&R thread, take your crap elsewhere.

The mods have answered this question already, derailment is inevitable... just sit back and enjoy the show.

As I said, the US is halfway done destroying Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, while Putin does nothing. Obama took the lead on the issue the day after Putin wrote his cute little op-ed. Nice try tho.

The problem with this is that neither major party, nor the splinter group of the Republican party: the tea party, are interested in fixing any such thing.

Aside from the idea of "no new taxes" being irrational, as times change.

You'd need to find a party who's both anti-fascist (aka anti-corporatist) and anti-wasteful spending, but at the same time one who isn't going to waste time by attacking useful programs, and actually try to improve things.

@the SCOTUS thing earlier: As we should all know, I'm very much against the precedent set forth by Marbury Vs. Madison, and that the SCOTUS really should be put in their place. While at the same time I wish states would finally understand the Supremacy clause and stop with pointless arguments over laws passed by the US Congress. (I'm looking at you VA).

The police have militarized, and you can thank the (lol) war on drugs for that one. People really should pay attention to history and realize that nothing good comes out of deregulating something by making it illegal. I mean prohibition made certain families wealthy and pretty much progressed organized crime several fold.

We could sit around all day and make note of where both parties get things wrong, and prioritize what each party does to society and how they effect us and what we hold as to more important. As I realize there isn't anyone being elected that I'd like to throw my support behind, I literally elect those who get more points in my book.

Yes.

Read all 6 pages, Yuukari. You'll understand our predicament.

Objection! Modcat posting without lolpics.

Fine...



This is how I moderate political threads.

/Hadouken!

Clearly you need a mod that moderates with an iron fist!