CreativeDominant
Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
So why would conservatives in Texas...if they do...have a distrust of the President's military? Hmmmm...could it be his comments about certain segments of the population clinging to their Guns and Bibles? Could it be the clashes between their state and the Feds over issues such as border control? Could it be the President declaring what happened at Fort Hood a "workplace tragedy" rather than the terrorist act it was?
First off, its not the President's military. Its the United States of America's military. The President's army, if you were to call it that, is called the Secret Service. Their job is not to be the private army of the guy in the Oval Office. I think the distrust among the population of Texas has more to do with the man's skin color, rather than his policies, viewpoints, or even token moments of speech taken out of context.
It is the President's military to command. While a good soldier knows that they do not have the obligation to follow a clearly unlawful order, the problem comes in when you're trying to determine what exactly is unlawful. Orders from your Commander in Chief to do something...such as implement martial law...without an explanation? Seems unlikely, doesn't it? I imagine rounding up citizens and shipping them inland minus their property does too...except it happened.
No, its the President's to control for up to 90 days. After that, the President has to get Congress's approval for further military actions. This was created on the assumption that when 'shit hits the fan' and we can not convene Congress, the whole nation doesnt go to shit during a sneak attack. Most intelligent, educated, and reasonable people understand this concept.
Since the Military has not gotten any orders to conduct 'martial law' or any other form of law enforcement to the population; there is no need to question whether its an unlawful order. There is a concept we have in reality, its called LOGIC. Its both surprising and worrisome that so many Texans are without this concept or ability. Do Texan schools not teach the ability to think for one's self? Oh forgot, most Texans never get to college to learn 'critical thinking skills' or 'logic'.... I tried to have a reasonable argument with you and you just went right on by the things you don't have an answer to. So, I'll refer to them when need be and just go over the rest this way:
Cite your evidence that "most Texans" don't have critical thinking skills. Cite your evidence that you must be college-educated to develop critical thinking skills. Cite your evidence that logic is a skill acquired only in college.
I'm college-educated, Joether. You know what? I've met an awful lot of college-educated idiots in 42 years of serving the public.quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
As for Texans' distrust of the man based on his skin color? I've absolutely no doubt that you can find people in any state in this country...including Texas...who don't like Obama because of his skin color. Do you have any proof that this...rather than his policies, his viewpoints, his moments from speeches...is the overriding factor amongst conservatives? Bring it forward. That's become a lazy, dismissive comment. I don't like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken and they're as white as I am. I don't like them because I think their policies and viewpoints are wrong. Most of their policies and viewpoints line up with Obama's. Are you seriously going to still tell me it's his skin color that makes me dislike him?
Where is concerns conservatives, the man's skin color is more of a factor than anything else. Bill Clinton did not have 1/4th the problems President Obama does now with conservatives. Many different racist organizations not only reside in Texas, they vote conservative and libertarian. While I have to contend with an organization like Greenpeace on the liberal side; you have it many thousands of times worst! If you need evidence you simply only need to watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart Or consult with the Southern Poverty Law Center. Again, your statement that it's about the man's skin color more than his policies and views. I didn't ask you to state YOUR belief, Joether...I asked for proof. Otherwise...it's just your opinion. And an opinion without proof is not fact...it's an opinion.
Bill Clinton did not have 1/4 of the problems? How many rapes has Obama been accused of? How many Whitewater-type scandals? How many genuine impeachment trials? Ask your friends on here how many policy fights Bill had. One thing Bill was better at than your guy? He did understand that compromise meant each side gave up something to get something.
Proof that these "many racist organizations" vote Conservative and Libertarian?quote:
Each President has had their share of images and writings that did not place them in a positive light. You could combine all of those and it still wouldn't be half as bad as our current President. Awwww...poor Barry. Why do you suppose that is, Joether? All because of his skin color? Or is it because he's the most leftist, autocratic, image-obsessed president to come down the pike?quote:
Its no surprise that racist runs high and deep in conservative political thought process. An not just towards blacks but all other minorities. Conservatives are even hateful towards women. And anyone making less than $40,000/year. The only think with more hate than the average conservative or libertarian is the Devil! Its a surprise to me. But there again, the fact that most conservatives stand for reasonable immigration policies and sensible use of welfare makes them racist in a the eyes of many bleeding hearts. As for our hate towards women...that's a talking point, Joether. Bring proof. Oh...And tell Condoleeza Rice and Dana Perino and Sarah Palin how they hate women.
The only thing with more hate is the devil? Really, Joether? That's a mature statement.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
The issue with the Fed and their state handling border security is the by product of the two parties not agreeing on a decent compromise on immigration. That the issue is used like Abortion; something to bitch about to gain votes but accomplish nothing on it. The ACA for example could use improvements. All the conservatives have to do is offer those improvements but get better border security and immigration reforms.
And what do you do about the fact that when changes to the ACA are brought forward, they get shot down? Why should the Federal Government be able to hold a state hostage to its demands..."you do what we want on the ACA and we'll get around to your border issue"? Obama got his ACA, flawed as it is. What's been done about the border situation? Basically...nothing. Because Obama and the liberals don't see a big problem with open borders. Can you deny that, Joether?
JOETHER:
Is this a tirade on 'States Rights'? An argument the Confederacy lost while trying to find the moral justification to keep a whole section of people enslaved? Its not. The supremacy clause in the US Constitution overrules state's right as it concerns federal rights. That's why the federal system overturned all those segregation laws in the South back in the 1960s. And how anti gay laws have been overturned in the court system in the last decade. . How does a question about the President and the Federal government playing hardball with a state to get what the President wants while not helping the state turn into a tirade against states rights???quote:
There exists people that use state power to unleash hatred and evil upon a citizens while using that same state power to shield themselves from retribution or lawsuit. Unfortunately, unlike some Central American countries that masked a dictatorship within socialism; states can not create nor enforce laws that violate the US Constitution. Which is why Texans are effectively 'leashed' on prisoner control under the 8th amendment.
What i was stating clearly (and you did not understand apparently) is that conservatives had a golden opportunity to get some strong border control and immigration reforms. All they had to do was make a deal with the moderates and liberals in the nation. Instead they pissed it away (as usual for them) inventing ideas and concepts that had nothing to do with the written material within the bill. I did read each of those bills, Creative; There was no mention even remotely or implied to Sarah Palin's 'Death Panels'. That conservatives and libertarians even to this day, five years later, have even bothered to read the law and be fully informed of how it works. Its easier for them to listen to people who manipulate them on a daily basis....
The concept of a compromise is so basic that I have serious concerns on conservatives and libertarians just not understanding the concept. You want a can of Pepsi? It costs $0.70 from the person selling it. When you give your $0.70 to the person with the can, you get the can. At the federal level, the Democrats wanted the President's Healthcare Plan; Republicans and Tea Partiers wanted tighter border security and improvements on immigration. Sounds like a deal could have been rolled out to which all sides would have been happy. Each getting something they wanted, but at the cost of something they had to give up.
Tell me this is not a hard concept to understand, Creative. Because I have the impression (given the evidence on the table) that conservatives and libertarians do not understand a concept so central to Capitalism. Its a good idea when your in favor of something (as conservatives are to Capitalism) to understand the concepts of that idea (giving something to get something). Oh, I understood it, Joether...apparently you did not.
Obama and the libs got their ACA, didn't they? Is it not the "law of the land", as you and others often proclaim? Are there not fines if you don't carry health insurance? They got it, despite conservative grumbling and bitching. Each time that anyone has tried to repeal it since 2009, the number of Republicans seeking to do so has shrunk.
Where's the Border Reform, Joether? Where's the Border Control and Illegal Immigration issue your President promised to take up?quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
What happened at Fort Hood was awful. The President does have a freedom to speak his mind just like anyone else. Do you see me saying Gov. Abbott and Sen. Ted Cruz should be disallowed to talk? Of course not! If we declare what happened at Fort Hood an act of terrorism, we'd have to state the same of many more moments in which conservatives behaved beyond 'a tragedy'. How exactly would that heal the ever growing metaphorical rift between the political views in this nation?
No one said Obama or any political figure should not speak his mind. The difference between them and us? They're supposed to have advisors to point things out to them.
I'm taking this section away from the original paragraph because I think it needs a specific 'understanding'.
The President has many advisers whom give him good information and insight to problems facing the nation. The grand majority of the time he states good things with reliable and verifiable information. And yet conservatives and libertarians accuse the man on a daily basis of lying here and there. And still ignore it when other people point out that what the President stated somewhere was true and gives the evidence. FOX 'news' is known for this behavior.
In addition, this is a nation of laws (I'm assuming for purposes here, you know this). Those laws do dictate in some circumstances how we define one thing as opposed to something else. A 'terrorist' attack by federal terms is defined. That the President is a lawyer and a Constitutional Scholar at that, understands that his words not only have effects, but also determine how laws operate in the nation. Its something most people do not pick up on. Gee...do you mean picked up on like this, Joether?
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
What part of the Fort Hood attack and killing does not fit the above, Joether?quote:
Recall the US Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act? That it ruled that the cost for not paying for insurance and instead paying the fee was a considered a tax and not a fine as explained in the bill. That's because in the federal system 'taxes' and 'fines' behave in different ways. Granted it all sounds like bullshit; but there is a legal discussion on it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Like the difference between a military installation and a post office or a restaurant. Like the difference between a soldier...an officer...going on a shooting spree against other soldiers and a man shooting up his fellow workers over being dismissed from his job or a man who got turned down by the waitress. The difference between a soldier doing it for a religious, political reason and a man doing it for a personal vendetta. Like the difference between soldiers serving in the military and living on that base and putting themselves in harm's way at our behest and civilians going to work every day.
Were do we draw the line in the definition of 'terrorist attack' and just 'domestic violence'? I ask this question in all seriousness.
I would have to contest that many more police officers (including sheriffs) place themselves in more danger than most US military personnel on bases here in the states on a daily basis. I'll amser you in all seriousness then , Joether...
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:
Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
Workplace violence is an act of aggression, physical assault, or threatening behavior that occurs in a work setting and causes physical or emotional harm to customers, coworkers, or managers. Broad definitions of workplace violence also often include acts of sabotage on work-site property.
Finally:
We define domestic violence as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.
Physical Abuse: Hitting, slapping, shoving, grabbing, pinching, biting, hair pulling, etc are types of physical abuse. This type of abuse also includes denying a partner medical care or forcing alcohol and/or drug use upon him or her.
Sexual Abuse: Coercing or attempting to coerce any sexual contact or behavior without consent. Sexual abuse includes, but is certainly not limited to, marital rape, attacks on sexual parts of the body, forcing sex after physical violence has occurred, or treating one in a sexually demeaning manner.
Emotional Abuse: Undermining an individual's sense of self-worth and/or self-esteem is abusive. This may include, but is not limited to constant criticism, diminishing one's abilities, name-calling, or damaging one's relationship with his or her children.
Economic Abuse: Is defined as making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, withholding one's access to money, or forbidding one's attendance at school or employment.
Psychological Abuse: Elements of psychological abuse include - but are not limited to - causing fear by intimidation; threatening physical harm to self, partner, children, or partner's family or friends; destruction of pets and property; and forcing isolation from family, friends, or school and/or work.
Domestic violence can happen to anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender. Domestic violence affects people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels. Domestic violence occurs in both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships and can happen to intimate partners who are married, living together, or dating.
Domestic violence not only affects those who are abused, but also has a substantial effect on family members, friends, co-workers, other witnesses, and the community at large. Children, who grow up witnessing domestic violence, are among those seriously affected by this crime. Frequent exposure to violence in the home not only predisposes children to numerous social and physical problems, but also teaches them that violence is a normal way of life - therefore, increasing their risk of becoming society's next generation of victims and abusers.
Sources: National Domestic Violence Hotline, National Center for Victims of Crime, and WomensLaw.org.
Now...of the three definitions given, which one most closely fits Fort Hood, Joether?
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
You mention "many more moments" in which conservatives behaved beyond a tragedy. Why don't you bring forth some of those moments? You know...some moments when a conservative soldier shot his fellow soldiers down in a politically/religiously-motivated killing.
JOETHER:
Oklahoma City Bombing, 4/19/95.
Timothy McVeigh was active duty? Except...he wasn't. He was discharged from the service in 1991. The Oklahoma City Bombing took place in 1995.
McVeigh was a far, FAR right loony with no ties to any reputable conservative group...he'll, he didn't even belong to a right wing lunatic militia.
So. One moment you bring forth. And you're wrong about that moment...not about it being terrorism...but about it being a conservative soldier who carried it out. Care to try again?
Because I know I was a conservative and a soldier and I resent him being mentioned in the same way you would me.
< Message edited by CreativeDominant -- 5/20/2015 3:32:57 PM >
|
RE: Jade Helm 15 - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread