http://tv.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-p...Gxlcnk-;_ylv=3Just two days after being re-elected as Vice President of the United States, Biden will make a guest appearance on NBC's Parks and Recreation. The cameo -- which was filmed this summer when the cast shot scenes in Washington -- will involve an opening segment in which Biden meeting with Amy Poehler's hyperactive, civic-obsessed city councilwoman Leslie Knope.
It will be a big moment for Knope; though Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are her political role models, Biden -- and Biden alone -- comprises her celebrity sex list.
"Vice-President Biden is both Leslie's political hero and her number-one celebrity crush, so meeting him is obviously a huge moment for her," Mike Schur, the show's EP, said in a statement. "We looked at a number of actors to OK the role of 'Vice-President Joe Biden,' and ultimately, Joe Biden himself gave the best audition."
I didnt think i could love Joe Biden more....and then this happened. Dear god that man is ****ing awesome.
Gary Johnson only got 1% of the vote. That's hardly "sending a message" and as a practical matter means you left the election to be decided by others, where there was a real possibility that a guy worse on civil liberties than the president could have won.
I think you're betraying your age here. The vast majority of people are not ideological, they're practical. And the #1 practical concern is and always has been money/the economy. Nothing takes precedence over being able to feed your kids, put a little away for their college education and your retirement, and do it on a budget. As for civil liberties, most people consider themselves law abiding and with nothing to hide. They don't like it when it intrudes on them but it's not a top concern. Any exit poll will tell you that.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.
Wired is reputable, but the article you linked to is irrelevant. The criteria the military uses to observe/spy on it's own has nothing to do with the NDAA or the Patriot Act.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.
As for the Rand Paul thing, the profiling of criminal behavior is a long established aspect of law enforcement. Sure, there's nothing inherently sinister about missing fingers. But bomb makers often have missing fingers, which means that if you put it together with other behaviors can be an indication of criminal behavior.
The question is when these behaviors become sufficient for probable cause. That specific line -- whether it's changed and how -- is information I don't have and haven't seen.
As I said earlier, the most important question is whether US soil is considered -- or is going to be considered -- a battlefield. That doesn't seem to be something that's been settled legally, though it appears the attempt is being made to classify it that way, which would allow well established precedent over the essentially unchecked power of the president and military on the battlefield to take hold.
We'll see, I guess. It seems unlikely to me that it would hold, especially considering how close the Padilla ruling was. If strict scrutiny attached, that would make it harder for it to be upheld (a good thing), but the problem with that is that since the "right to privacy" isn't in the Constitution in the explicit way the right to liberty and free speech is (especially relative to electronic communication), the chance that a "rational basis" test (which is easier to pass) would be used is higher.
Last edited by TheWalrus; 11-10-2012 at 09:52 PM.
is the fiscal cliff anywhere near mount rushmore ?
I’m not questioning your decision of Obama over Romney. I understand from a pragmatic stand-point you felt forced to vote for one of the two major candidates (probably like most other people). However, that doesn’t change what I said in that most people are either ignorant of, or don’t care enough about being spied upon to not vote for certain candidates. I'm sure a lot of people don't necessarily like it, but not enough so to vote for another party, or nominate a candidate in their own party who doesn't hold those aspirations.Originally Posted by TheWarlrus
So dissapointing. We might be a couple years away from changing the star-spangled banner to “O'er the land of the free-ish and the home of the tame.”Originally Posted by TheWalrus
You left out things like having 7 days of food, or owning several fire-arms, or owning weather proof amunition for hunting. I’m sure a staggering number of people fall into that category. I have more than 7 days of food in my house as we speak; what’s to say they’re not justified in suspecting you or I of terrorism if that’s one of the criteria? Rand Paul wouldn’t lie, or get away with lying about such criteria on the senate floor.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
It is currently deemed a battle-field. Despite James’ contention, U.S citizens on U.S soil can still be detained indefinitely. You also have far more faith than I that this decision won’t stand.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
Am I making too much of having our every digital move be tracked & recorded? I don't really think I am. I'm sure most people think of themselves as such a non-factor in the eyes of the government that they aren't overly concerned about such monitoring, but shouldn't this be a matter of principle?
The Walrus...I must ask. Do you also post under The Walrus on TMB?
I'm going to assume this is a joke.You left out things like having 7 days of food, or owning several fire-arms, or owning weather proof amunition for hunting. I’m sure a staggering number of people fall into that category. I have more than 7 days of food in my house as we speak; what’s to say they’re not justified in suspecting you or I of terrorism if that’s one of the criteria? Rand Paul wouldn’t lie, or get away with lying about such criteria on the senate floor.
Secondly, as I said, the profiling of criminal behavior is a long established practice. I don't think you're objecting to that, more that the result of profiling in lieu of hard evidence can be used to justify indefinite detention where before it might have only lead to questioning, surveillance or a search warrant.
I wouldn't call it faith. It just my read on the law. I'm far from an expert but I do a bit of reading on the subject. I don't think it will stand.It is currently deemed a battle-field. Despite James’ contention, U.S citizens on U.S soil can still be detained indefinitely. You also have far more faith than I that this decision won’t stand.
Well, allow me to play devil's advocate. Why do you have an expectation of privacy about information you put out on the internet? Forget how silly it is to expect message board posts or facebook to be private, but why do you think the "privacy agreement" you clicked "yes" on with your email provider is legally binding? They're hosting your emails on their servers, after all. And everyone knows that. And they're not lawyers or doctors or psychiatrists. You have no explicit, legally protected relationship with them, anymore than you do with a friend you swear to secrecy about something.Am I making too much of having our every digital move be tracked & recorded? I don't really think I am. I'm sure most people think of themselves as such a non-factor in the eyes of the government that they aren't overly concerned about such monitoring, but shouldn't this be a matter of principle?
You're not required to have a digital presence. No one makes you use a cell phone or write emails or use Google specifically or the internet generally. If you're going to venture out into a largely unregulated area, which the internet is, and put information out there of your own free will, why assume the government won't be listening when no law exists to stop them and the fourth amendment only covers your person, house, papers and effects?
@Cedar. Great pics. Looks sort of like the beach from the end of Planet of the Apes.
@tyler. Nope. Sorry. This is the only board I post at with this name. I'm sort of scared to ask what the other Walrus is like.
And we also talk bout sports.
News to me.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
Yes, absolutely. I also do have a problem with some of the criteria itself; seven day’s food? Several guns? C’mon feds.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
I’m far from an expert on Football but I still take it on faith that Texans are going to beat the Jaguars next week. Nevermind that though, it’s semantics anyway. Fienstein proposed 2 amendments to the bill that would expressly prohibit such behavior, both were easily voted down. I see no reason why such measures would happen in the future. We'll have to see.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
There’s a reason why the NSA is claiming their not monitoring the information they’re obtaining.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
Cedar you Californians are slacking on those legalization amendments. & Great pics as well, is that a Sonoma beach?