Election Day 2012

[Kafein]

That is bullshit, I am afraid. Obama signed the NDAA for the fiscal year of 2012. Google it if you don't know what that is. Here's something from wikipedia

(click to show/hide)

The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism. The controversy was to their legal meaning and potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House[12] and Senate sponsors[13] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.[14][15] The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.

Mmh I agree but the guantanamo thing was back in 2008. He signed the paper one day after the elections iirc. Unlimited detention without a right to a legal court following an arrest of anybody by the military sounds bad enough, but torture does even more, or at least is equally trampling any possible human rights bill on earth. These are comparable, but not to the point of saying Obama never intended to stop torture by US agencies (or at least the least discrete part of it).

I will disagree on that. I really dislike the US's healthcare law amendments but Obama had every right to do it. As will republicans have the right to overturn it when the time is right.

He had the right to do it by law, but that still doesn't mean it's completely right. I have no idea what the actual and precise content of these amendments are, but I think it should have been accepted by the a priori required majority in congress. The US government already seems not to need the approval of the congress for things as critical as war, and that isn't right.

[Miwiw]

I... ehm, would have voted for... ehm Abraham Lincoln?

[Ninja_Khorin]

New Shogun II mod!

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[IR_Kuoin]

Now we just need a Mitt Romney skin and have them fight

[Arathian]

Mmh I agree but the guantanamo thing was back in 2008. He signed the paper one day after the elections iirc. Unlimited detention without a right to a legal court following an arrest of anybody by the military sounds bad enough, but torture does even more, or at least is equally trampling any possible human rights bill on earth. These are comparable, but not to the point of saying Obama never intended to stop torture by US agencies (or at least the least discrete part of it).

Obama tried to sign a law that would close Guantanamo, NOT stop "special interogation techniques" (ie, torture). At no point in the legislation that he tried to pass did he include a provision against torture.

He had the right to do it by law, but that still doesn't mean it's completely right. I have no idea what the actual and precise content of these amendments are, but I think it should have been accepted by the a priori required majority in congress. The US government already seems not to need the approval of the congress for things as critical as war, and that isn't right.

Politics isn't about right and wrong. It is about political capital and power. That is unfortunate, but also true.

I totally agree that a president's power (especially to declare war) are too overextended.

[LordBerenger]

The one with the most charisma wins elections. That's why they need The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Donald Trump or Partyboy to candidate for next presidential elections.

[Ninja_Khorin]

Now we just need a Mitt Romney skin and have them fight

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Kafein]

Omg I NEED this mod

[Ninja_Khorin]

Omg I NEED this mod

Heh. Sure. I was wrong above, though. This is actually a mod for Medieval 2: Total War. But here it is:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=572311
 

[ThePoopy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFJUz1DO20Q&list=UU_fGtUvYTzYWXVQUwGXleDg&index=4&feature=plcp

[Angantyr]

'In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they're really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices. In the 1984 election, for example, there was actually an issue, which often there isn't. The issue was Keynesian growth versus fiscal conservatism. The Republicans were the party of Keynesian growth: big spending, deficits, and so on. The Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism: watch the money supply, worry about the deficits, et cetera. Now, I didn't see a single comment pointing out that the two parties had completely reversed their traditional positions. Traditionally, the Democrats are the party of Keynesian growth, and the Republicans the party of fiscal conservatism. So doesn't it strike you that something must have happened? Well, actually, it makes sense. Both parties are essentially the same party. The only question is how coalitions of investors have shifted around on tactical issues now and then. As they do, the parties shift to opposite positions, within a narrow spectrum.'
- Noam Chomsky, Interview by Adam Jones, February 20, 1990

[Kafein]

'In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they're really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices. In the 1984 election, for example, there was actually an issue, which often there isn't. The issue was Keynesian growth versus fiscal conservatism. The Republicans were the party of Keynesian growth: big spending, deficits, and so on. The Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism: watch the money supply, worry about the deficits, et cetera. Now, I didn't see a single comment pointing out that the two parties had completely reversed their traditional positions. Traditionally, the Democrats are the party of Keynesian growth, and the Republicans the party of fiscal conservatism. So doesn't it strike you that something must have happened? Well, actually, it makes sense. Both parties are essentially the same party. The only question is how coalitions of investors have shifted around on tactical issues now and then. As they do, the parties shift to opposite positions, within a narrow spectrum.'
- Noam Chomsky, Interview by Adam Jones, February 20, 1990

I consider Chomsky to be an authority in Language Theory and Linguistics, but that's about it. You can list hundreds of quotes, as elegant or short as you want, it doesn't make them magically true.

[Angantyr]

Please base your argumentation on specifics in the subject matter, Kafein. No one claimed anything about magical truthfulness, my quote is an argument put forward by another wholly in thread with the political reality of the laws governing campaign financing and lobbying in the United States.

Follow the money trail at opensecrets.

[Kafein]

Please base your argumentation on specifics in the subject matter, Kafein. No one claimed anything about magical truthfulness, my quote is an argument put forward by another wholly in thread with the political reality of the laws governing campaign financing and lobbying in the United States.

Follow the money trail at opensecrets.

I was referring to the first three sentences of the quote. What follows isn't really compelling evidence for such a convoluted theory, as there are much simpler explanations not involving thousands (and probably more) of people lying through their teeth.

[Arathian]

Please base your argumentation on specifics in the subject matter, Kafein. No one claimed anything about magical truthfulness, my quote is an argument put forward by another wholly in thread with the political reality of the laws governing campaign financing and lobbying in the United States.

Follow the money trail at opensecrets.

Fun fact, doubling your spending in the US elections will swing the vote by roughly 1%. Again, DOUBLING the money.

Ron Paul, who was far poorer and far more marginal than the other mainstream republicans, had a very strong showing. Arguably, the 2nd strongest after Mitt Romney himself.

So no. Noam Chomsky can suck my dick.