we have these things called "aircraft carriers"

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

Interesting how the self proclaimed pacifists, after finding out that he was actually talking about Obama, are still willing to vote for him anyway. Obama has no problem killing innocent people in the most inane way, and people will support him cause "people are gonna get killed anyway". Like I said, change is never gonna happen as long as we continue down the more of the same road. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and getting the same results.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Starla

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.

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 Future Boy

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

Its not like shes voting Ron Paul.

yes she is, she's voting Ron Paul with a different name, and he also happens to be a shithead who doesn't think civil rights need to be enforced and if a state wants to have white only lunch counters well that's their choice

Originally Posted by Order 66

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

I am against assassination as a combat tactic, but you're correct in that it is no different than an airstrike or a missile. They kill people who aren't the target all the time. So do ground troops. So do economic sanctions. UN/US sanctions in the 90s starved at least 100,000 people in Iraq. But Starla's candidate is going to break with the history of the US, he is not going to kill anyone. He promises.

[redbreegull]

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

say your prayers rmoney

[redbreegull]

http://media.philly.com/images/20110...ristie_400.jpg

[Order 66]

dear god next tuesday is going to be fucking hysterical

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Post-Obama-Era

[MyOneAndOnly]

I can't wait to watch the fallout. Wednesday's Fox and Friends will be epic.

[Order 66]

Mitt Romney is now running away with this election, freeing Christie to praise the president without fear that doing so will tip the scales.

i mean... how the fuck could somebody even begin to write a sentence like that... i dont even... i...

[redbreegull]

if Obama wins I may be drunker than I have ever been on Tuesday night

http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blog...n-537x358.jpeg

[Order 66]

i only drink wine coolers

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

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

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.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

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

say your prayers rmoney

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

[FutureBoy]

message: I care.

[MyOneAndOnly]

i remember 2000. I went to bed that night with a good buzz on, thinking Al Gore would be president.

wednesday was one hell of a hangover

[hnibos]

Originally Posted by Starla

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

A little cynical, eh?

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

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

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.

[Eulogy]

and i maybe do think citizens should have the ability to waive their right to counsel, to be totally honest (although i would need to think about this a lot more to give you my real opinion). if they're later found to be incompetent or ill or whatever then the statements can be excluded. but i don't see a need to make that determination right then and there.

[MyOneAndOnly]

i've heard more than a few conservatives I know complain (as if it was Obama's fault) regarding SCOTUS decisions that were decided by the republican majority.

it ranks right up there with blaming obama for the stimulus package passed under Bush

[Eulogy]

the biggest criminal procedure problem right now is that you can be taken in and strip searched after committing a traffic violation. both obama appointees in the minority on that one.

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.

[MyOneAndOnly]

I blame the cold war. It turned the US electorate into a idiots on foreign policy. The US has always had an insular perspective on foreign policy, but people are still viewing the world in terms of a cold war mentality. everything here is black and white in terms of perspective. No nuance. IT allows the Israel lobby, the anti Castro Cuba lobby, etc. to dictate the shape of foreign policy. Not to mention that a third of the electorate is in lock step with Dick Cheney's view of the world

[MyOneAndOnly]

the biggest problem with America is that at least a hundred million of it's citizens are totally fucking idiots

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

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.

that's a good point. not that my vote matters

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

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.

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.

[Future Boy]

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.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Starla

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.

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

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

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.

DOMA is not part of criminal law. That is a relevant difference.

And that shouldn't be how it works. Blaming Obama for a Scalia-penned opinion (for example) is utter nonsense. I'm not going to bow to the idiots who can't realize that.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

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.

I just did not think that the ability to waive right to counsel had been in dispute that recently. I was wrong.

[Eulogy]

the bigger point with that particular case that i would like to make is that i don't think it has any practical effect, for the most part. if a person is found to have been incompetent at the time of questioning, subsequent statements will be excluded.

[FutureBoy]

I don't believe the criticism is based on the opinion/decision, but on the recommendation submitted by Kagan. at least that's how I took it. I wasnt talking about any SC decision falling on whoever happens to be president.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

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

I've already said Obama will probably win this.

Nader's votes were not the entire reason for Gore's loss. You realize that at least half of the registered dems in FL that election never bothered to vote? I voted Gore that year, even though I didn't really care for him. We need to keep a third party option open..... we need to get rid of a two party system.

[Starla]

By the way, Didn't Gore also lose TN? If he had won his own home state, he would have had all the electoral votes needed to win.