Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 171 of 2837 FirstFirst ... 166167168169170171172173174175176 ... LastLast
Results 1,701 to 1,710 of 28369

Thread: POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

  1. -1701
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,623
    vCash:
    15342
    Can we start wearing our infractions as medals??? I would be a m0ther****ing 5 star general.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  2. -1702
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    14,862
    vCash:
    41303
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    There’s too much I don’t know about the 40’s to be able to give an educated answer on the matter, but given some of the alternatives we have today, not even in regards to over-all party choices, but simply different candidate choices as well; shouldn’t it seem like someone who wants to digitally track & monitor the entire populous, not be someone the majority of people want to elect to rule them? Is what the NSA doing even remotely defense-able? Is it to be accepted & tolerated as fact of life?

    I understand all candidates are a compromise of sorts, but what’s worth losing some of your basic civil liberties for?
    You make it sound like there's a legitimate a choice between a candidate who's going to preserve civil liberties and one who won't, when everyone knows only one of two candidates is going to win the election. I can understand wanting to vote your conscience, but if what you're really interested in is the result, why not pick the guy who's better on the issue rather than leave that decision up to others?

    I think there are plenty of people (not me, of course, but plenty of people), who would argue that we are right now in a state of war, and that states of war create conditions under which the normal rules don't apply. That's why Lincoln is held up as perhaps the greatest of all presidents despite the fact that he suspended habeus corpus. Similarly, any list of great presidents includes Roosevelt, who detained Japanese-Americans, 62% of which were citizens at the time.

    I'm surprised internment isn't an issue you're more interested in and know more about, given how important civil liberties are to you. Korematsu vs. United States is a landmark Supreme Court case and was part of established precedent for a long time, and still remains an interesting test case for what will be attempted -- and allowed -- during "wartime."

    It’s believed that a large portion of the percentage of civilians killed are in double-tap strikes. It’s where they strike an area, & possibly hours later, will strike again once the people who live in the area begin to clear the rubble & remove the bodies.
    If true, that's terrible. As I said last week, the next book on my reading list is this one:

    http://www.amazon.com/Power-Constrai...and+constraint

    Should be an interesting read and fill in the details on the legality/illegality of lot of this stuff.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/insider-threat/
    http://www.infowars.com/u-s-army-cha...as-terrorists/

    It’s relevant when the bar of suspicion for terroism is so low it could apply to anyone. Remember, the NDAA doesn’t state you need proof to detain someone, just to suspect them of it.
    Two things:

    1.) Members of the military are not afforded the same civil liberties as you and me, which they know and is an accepted part of their job. To infer that because that's the way the military monitors it's own personnel that that is the way the military monitors or is going to monitor civilians is ridiculous. Where's the proof?

    2.) Alex Jones is a complete ****ing buffoon. Literally one of the most odious bull**** shovelers in this country, and that's saying something. He's garbage. Infowars is garbage. He's a Glenn Beck for the paranoid left, where if he isn't making **** up completely out of thin air is distorting the meaning of things to create the product he's selling: fear. No one as self evidently as smart as you should be paying attention to him or anyone like him.

    Just for ****s and giggles I went through the 97 pages on "terrorism indicators" and 17 pages on "legal implications" from this SLATT training thing that's being referenced and not only is most of the stuff on your list not anywhere on there, it is not on the whole some kind of horrible manual for depriving people of their civil liberties. It looks and reads like a pretty standard police manual, with very little you couldn't pick up from watching a lot of Law and Order.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -1703
    JamesBW43's Avatar
    You're standing on my neck
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    4,509
    vCash:
    15023
    Loc:
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post

    ‘The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.’

    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/thre...etention_bill/
    From what I understand, Feinstein offered two separate amendments, one strictly dealing with US citizens and one strictly dealing with detention rules in the US, not both together. That is an important distinction because the failure of those amendments does not imply an intent to indefinitely hold US citizens arrested on US soil.

    Also on a side note, if it did imply it, that wouldn't necessarily be proof.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -1704
    JamesBW43's Avatar
    You're standing on my neck
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    4,509
    vCash:
    15023
    Loc:
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    No it's quite the same conversation I saw in 2004. I really don't see a difference in policies and sh!tty excuses for attacks on liberties.
    I don't consider simply recognizing that the situation isn't black and white as an excuse.
    Last edited by JamesBW43; 11-09-2012 at 11:51 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -1705
    Spesh's Avatar
    #freespesh
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    10,956
    vCash:
    8481
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    Seriously. Where the hell is PhinFreak, Statler, and Trojan? Also, I'd love for Snake to drop by too. I'd love to hear his condescending opinion on what just happened...
    To be fair, Trojan did post some chinese proverb bull**** and talked about how we all must be happy about the last 4 years in the "eat crow" thread. Personally, its obvious what won this past election: Captain Planet.

    And for the conversation going on: tl;dr. Even not knowing the conversation, i hope you all eat **** and die.


    http://www.thedrawplay.com/comic/cam-newton-no-respect/

    Terrorist attack count against the Anything Goes Thread: 5
    Quote Quote  

  6. -1706
    Spesh's Avatar
    #freespesh
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    10,956
    vCash:
    8481
    By the mother****ing way: is Zounds now a mod? I shoot this question at any of the mods in this thread.

    That cocksucker was on my ignore list for a very legitimate reason and now im seeing his posts. I have tried to re-put him on ignore and it keeps saying hes an admin or mod. I havent seen his name turn orange. Whats up?
    Quote Quote  

  7. -1707
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    14,862
    vCash:
    41303
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    To be fair, Trojan did post some chinese proverb bull**** and talked about how we all must be happy about the last 4 years in the "eat crow" thread. Personally, its obvious what won this past election: Captain Planet.

    And for the conversation going on: tl;dr. Even not knowing the conversation, i hope you all eat **** and die.
    When I am King, you will be first against the wall.

    ---------- Post added at 12:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    By the mother****ing way: is Zounds now a mod? I shoot this question at any of the mods in this thread.

    That cocksucker was on my ignore list for a very legitimate reason and now im seeing his posts. I have tried to re-put him on ignore and it keeps saying hes an admin or mod. I havent seen his name turn orange. Whats up?
    Quote Quote  

  8. -1708
    Spesh's Avatar
    #freespesh
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    10,956
    vCash:
    8481
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    When I am King, you will be first against the wall.
    King? Dont you mean Czar!?!?!

    We absolutely need some Dovahkiin to clear up all the confusion.

    Other than that Zounds things, he can suck a dick.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -1709
    JamesBW43's Avatar
    You're standing on my neck
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    4,509
    vCash:
    15023
    Loc:
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    Seriously. Where the hell is PhinFreak, Statler, and Trojan? Also, I'd love for Snake to drop by too. I'd love to hear his condescending opinion on what just happened...
    They'll probably come back when the President does something outrageous, like tell children that school is important.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -1710
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    8,474
    vCash:
    35883
    Loc:
    Georgia
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    You make it sound like there's a legitimate a choice between a candidate who's going to preserve civil liberties and one who won't, when everyone knows only one of two candidates is going to win the election. I can understand wanting to vote your conscience, but if what you're really interested in is the result, why not pick the guy who's better on the issue rather than leave that decision up to others?
    You’re right in that both of the major recent candidates don’t offer that distinction, & therein lies the problem. Apparently most people are ignorant of, or don’t care enough that they’re being spied upon to pick a candidate who doesn’t want to spy on them.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    I think there are plenty of people (not me, of course, but plenty of people), who would argue that we are right now in a state of war, and that states of war create conditions under which the normal rules don't apply. That's why Lincoln is held up as perhaps the greatest of all presidents despite the fact that he suspended habeus corpus. Similarly, any list of great presidents includes Roosevelt, who detained Japanese-Americans, 62% of which were citizens at the time.
    I'm surprised internment isn't an issue you're more interested in and know more about, given how important civil liberties are to you. Korematsu vs. United States is a landmark Supreme Court case and was part of established precedent for a long time, and still remains an interesting test case for what will be attempted -- and allowed -- during "wartime."
    I’ve read about it; not in great detail but enough to know what happened. Shouldn’t civil liberties be everyone’s primary concern though? What could possibly take precedence over your freedoms? I still wouldn’t agree that because we’re at war with countries on the eastern hemisphere that we need to spy on our own citizens, or that the practice should be accepted or tolerated.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Two things:
    2.) Alex Jones is a complete ****ing buffoon. Literally one of the most odious bull**** shovelers in this country, and that's saying something. He's garbage. Infowars is garbage. He's a Glenn Beck for the paranoid left, where if he isn't making **** up completely out of thin air is distorting the meaning of things to create the product he's selling: fear. No one as self evidently as smart as you should be paying attention to him or anyone like him.
    Wasn’t even aware it was his site, it came up in the search; along with the ‘wired’ article, whom I think is a reputable website.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Members of the military are not afforded the same civil liberties as you and me, which they know and is an accepted part of their job. To infer that because that's the way the military monitors it's own personnel that that is the way the military monitors or is going to monitor civilians is ridiculous. Where's the proof?
    Rand Paul:


    Quote Originally Posted by JamesBW43
    From what I understand, Feinstein offered two separate amendments, one strictly dealing with US citizens and one strictly dealing with detention rules in the US, not both together. That is an important distinction because the failure of those amendments does not imply an intent to indefinitely hold US citizens arrested on US soil.

    Also on a side note, if it did imply it, that wouldn't necessarily be proof.
    “Prior to this legislation, a US citizen accused of being allied with al Qaeda or plotting terrorist activity was considered to have committed a crime. Being accused of a crime, these people had civil rights relating to access to a lawyer and the right to remain silent. Floor statements made by Senators indicate that the legislation is intended to change this so that anyone accused of terrorist activity has not committed a crime, but has committed an act of war. In doing this, they do not have the right to remain silent or access a lawyer. In this manner, they can be held indefinitely without the right end this questioning.

    This change in classification is accomplished by classifying the US as a battlefield in the war on terror. The legislation uses the phrase "affirms" when discussing the executive power because the power of the President to arrest and detain enemy combatants on a battlefield is already established. In the case of Jose Padilla and in previous cases during WWII, it was shown that the President can indeed arrest and detain US citizens captured on US soil aiding the enemy in a time of war. However, in the Padilla case, the courts held that since the US is not a battlefield in the war on terror, Padilla must be granted habaes corpus rights and tried as a criminal in the civilian courts. Eventually, Padilla was sentenced to 17 years for his actions.

    One section of the legislation states that nothing in the bill is intended to change existing laws with respect to the arrest and detention of US citizens. This has led to a belief that the bill states that it does not apply to US citizens. This is not the case. That section states that current law is not changed by the legislation, but current law already holds that the President already has the power to arrest and indefinitely detain unlawful enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. This legislation merely adds the US homeland as a battlefield and affirms the Presidents authority under that law. Therefore the effect of the law on US citizens is changed without changing the law itself.”

    --

    “Senator Feinstein of California proposed two amendments to the legislation which both had the purpose of insuring that US citizens captured on US soil would not fall under the provisions of the legisation. The first amendment simply added the word "abroad" to the end of a sentence to ensure that the legislation only applied to those captured abroad. The second simply stated that the provisions did not apply to US citizens captured on US soil.

    Both amendments were defeated easily in votes on December 1, 2011.”

    http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Issues/2012_NDAA/

    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh
    By the mother****ing way: is Zounds now a mod? I shoot this question at any of the mods in this thread.

    That cocksucker was on my ignore list for a very legitimate reason and now im seeing his posts. I have tried to re-put him on ignore and it keeps saying hes an admin or mod. I havent seen his name turn orange. Whats up?
    Not that I’m aware of. I’m not sure what’s up with your dilemma though. I’d toss that question in the questions & suggestions forum (with a little bit more flattering language), & see if one of the more tech-savvy admins can help you out.

    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6718
    Last Post: 08-08-2013, 03:17 PM
  2. Replies: 1725
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 09:16 AM
  3. can we keep this thread alive in the PoFo?
    By Maynard the Hammer in forum Questions and Suggestions Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2006, 11:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •