Originally Posted by Future Boy (Post 3928135)

Originally Posted by Starla (Post 3928080)

Well, I don't believe in the two party system anymore. I did when I was young like you. I want changes, and I'm starting with my vote. I want there to be more options than just dem or republican. Nothing will change when we keep doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by Future Boy (Post 3928122)

Why does her vote for someone else bother you guys so much.

Its not like shes voting Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by Order 66 (Post 3928132)

i don't want to wade into the same argument i've gotten into time and time again... but i think the main misconception about drones is its strictly some obama thing. the main reason there are more drones is because the technology is cheaper and advanced than it was in the bush or clinton era. the first drone was tested in 1996 and that really wasn't too long ago.

its just analogous to flying a war plane or sending troops to a certain location. but what they're used for is another can of worms i'll leave alone

Originally Posted by redbreegull (Post 3928277)

nothing will change through what you are doing either, you're just trying to make yourself feel better by being "above" the system

Originally Posted by redbreegull (Post 3928304)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...II-hpLarge.jpg

say your prayers rmoney

Originally Posted by Starla (Post 3928352)

I truly care for your plight. Now give me your vote.

Originally Posted by Future Boy (Post 3928116)

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

Anything police learn through such questioning cannot be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.

The justices could decide as early as Friday whether they want to hear arguments on the issue as they wrestle with an ongoing case from Louisiana that involves police questioning of an indigent defendant that led to a murder confession and a death sentence.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

At the same time, the administration acknowledges that the decision "only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions."

The administration's legal move is a reminder that Obama, who has moved from campaigning to governing, now speaks for federal prosecutors.

The administration's position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.

"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration's position "is disappointing, no question."


http://seattletimes.com/html/politic...ntsrights.html

what am I missing that makes this false

Originally Posted by Eulogy (Post 3928415)

we have two possibilities. one is better. it really is that simple. we won't get a progressive foreign policy administration for a generation no matter what any of us does.

Originally Posted by Eulogy (Post 3928412)

i may have missed this happening. but even so, 5-4 decision. no obama appointees joining the majority. so how this reflects poorly on obama is kind of lost on me. the administration sort of has to take the prosecution's side in criminal cases. it's a pretty unavoidable fact of the criminal justice system.

Originally Posted by Starla (Post 3928351)

You don't know that. I don't think I'm above the system, but it makes me feel better to not be voting for Obama again.

Originally Posted by Future Boy (Post 3928454)

I view it like the DOMA thing, which in the end they reversed themselves on and said they'd no longer defend it. Even then though, if it happens under your admin you get the credit or blame, thats just how it works.

Originally Posted by Future Boy (Post 3928455)

but mainly, you went after her on that one point, for something you didnt know about. what did you think it was referring to? did you just think it was 100% bullshit?

i thought it was talking about something else.

Originally Posted by redbreegull (Post 3928456)

so you believe there is some chance Gary Johnson could win the election

edit: or you think that as a damaging third party, Johnson will force the GOP to become more libertarian? Not fucking likely. Name me one third party candidate in the past who has accomplished this in recent times. Nader, from one point of view, cost Gore the election which resulted in the worst president in at least a century, and the Dems have done fuck all to meaningfully help the environment in the 12 years since