Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


View Poll Results: Who are/would you vote for?
Obama 8 72.73%
Romney 1 9.09%
Neither 2 18.18%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 10-23-2012, 03:01 AM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default USA Presidential Election

The final Presidential Debate has just concluded, and I'd like to know everyone's opinions on it and who you will/would elect as President of the United States.

/begin political rant

Personally, I'm going for Obama. Romney and the Republican party has so many contradictions in their policies and decisions, it's frustrating and not worth it. Romney states, "Because if there's a two-parent family, the chance of poverty goes down dramatically." Though, the Republican Party is against the legalization of gay marriage. >.>

Another issue with the Republican party is the connection of Church to State. This DIRECTLY violates the First Amendment. Everyone has freedom of religion. Connect the church to state, and there goes all religions except the church based religions. Not everyone is the same religion. Again, correlating with gay marriage, not everyone is Christian and against gay marriage. It doesn't even affect you if you're heterosexual and christian. You can by all means distant yourself from the homosexual community, but you should let them be happy and be able to marry. One of the hardest things to do is to convert individuals to a different religion, so might as well not even try. Connecting church to state would put many in outrage.

"A 2012 Pew Research Center survey found that doubts about the existence of a god have grown rapidly among younger Americans, with 68% telling told Pew they never doubt God’s existence, a 15-point drop in just five years. In 2007, 83% of American millennials said they never doubted God’s existence." - Wikipedia

There is a rapid increase of atheism, deism, and agnosticism, especially on the younger generation, the ones being able to vote. The Republican Party, which is mainly based on the Christian religion, is losing voters year by year, which eventually will lead to an insufficient population of the Republican Party.

Another issue I would like to address is birth control and abortion. The Republican Party is against it completely, assuming all Democrats are for abortion. "OMG YOU NEED AN ABORTION YOU HAVEN'T HAD ONE YET I LOVE TO KILL BABIES MEHEHEHEH" No, we're not all like that.

Abortion actions should be based on the free will of the woman choosing the abortion. It IS in fact a FREE country, so if women want to have abortions, then by all means let them. It's their choice, not yours. It's no YOUR baby. Yes yes, we've all heard the argument "OMG WEL SHE SHUDN'T HAV HAD SEX IF SHE WASNT GUNNA KEEP DA BABY AND USE PROTECTION". Fact of the matter is, there is no sure way to avoid pregnancy except total abstinence. Protection fails, that's life. What about the victims of rape? They don't want a baby, it's not her fault she was raped. And those who live in deep poverty, the baby's life would be worse off being born. Some don't even qualify for adoption. Some babies contract terrible diseases while in the womb, and won't even live after birth. You mean you went through all of that pain, suffering, time loss, and spent all that money when the baby was going to die outside the womb anyways? Yes. Yes that is EXACTLY what I mean. You wouldn't want to pay the hospital bill, go through that god-awful pain, or lose all of those hours to child birth-- when the baby is going to die right after birth.

/end political rant

So, what's your opinion? Who are you voting for?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-23-2012, 04:47 AM
Pokemon Trainer Sarah's Avatar
Pokemon Trainer Sarah Offline
Expecto Patronum!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Route 1
Posts: 8,137
Send a message via AIM to Pokemon Trainer Sarah Send a message via MSN to Pokemon Trainer Sarah
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

For the sake of humanity, I hope Obama wins.

American politics make no sense to me, though. How someone like Romney can even be up for presidency, let alone in a close race, baffles me. Then again... George Bush. Enough said. xD
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-23-2012, 04:55 AM
mintjelly's Avatar
mintjelly Offline
Father Cat
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Castelia City
Posts: 2,446
Send a message via AIM to mintjelly Send a message via Skype™ to mintjelly
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

Not gonna lie, I wouldn't vote for either candidate.

My political beliefs lie somewhat toward anarchy.
If it worked during the Spanish Civil War, it can work again.
__________________

Shun the non-believer
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-23-2012, 02:34 PM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokemon Trainer Sarah View Post
For the sake of humanity, I hope Obama wins.

American politics make no sense to me, though. How someone like Romney can even be up for presidency, let alone in a close race, baffles me. Then again... George Bush. Enough said. xD
Exactly. XD Everyone is saying Obama hasn't done anything, but it's going to take more than four years to fix what Bush did in his eight...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-23-2012, 03:20 PM
bronislav84's Avatar
bronislav84 Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Posts: 2,414
Send a message via AIM to bronislav84 Send a message via MSN to bronislav84 Send a message via Yahoo to bronislav84
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

I might not even vote this year. It's like voting for the lesser or two evils. They're both bad.

I want to vote Romney simply because of the bills Obama suggested and had passed in his last months in office. They're going to mess up health care and the lives of poor people when they come into play, like me.

But I also know about all the stuff you pointed out in the OP about Romney's and the Republican party's bad policies, too.

No matter who wins, the next four years are going to suck for a large faction of people regardless.
__________________
Code:
Bronislav is my name and 1984 is my birth year. Call me Bron or Slavik if you can't say my full name. Banner/Ava by the illustrious Neo Pikachu Emolga R.I.P. August 13, 2007 3:45AM EST Simkha "Dosha" Bakman I loved you, Grandpa Check this out, it's really cool!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-23-2012, 03:46 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

Well the only logical choice is Obama, if you're talking about the lesser of two evils. The thing is, we don't know what Romney would do outside of him being corporatist, and right now it's better to take the candidate that is more predictable than one that isn't. Obama isn't a good candidate due to him having issues like continuing warantless wiretapping, signing indefinite detention to US citizens, and promoting drone strikes on US citizens in foreign soil. Romney is NOT going to change any of that anyway, so it's not like voting him would fix any of these issues.

However, Obama is a positive influence on health care. Florida is definitely going Obama's way because senior citizens are seeing an improvement in their health care in the past year. While I am a staunch defender of the single payer policy (i.e. cutting out the middle man, the insurance companies), I can see Romney further strengthening the inusrance companies if he is in office.

Neither candidates would do much for the economy. Simply speaking, there just isn't a way for either of the two plans to do anything. Romney's tax cutting plans is the exact same plan as the Republican plans for the past 50 years. It hasn't worked. Obama's plans for increasing taxes on the rich isn't going to work because he's not going to implement it, so again that's not going to help. I VERY much doubt that he will even let the Bush tax cuts expire.

Oil prices: neither candidate seem to remember that 100% of the time it doesn't matter what the president does. It's speculation that has been jacking up oil prices in the past several years. It is more likely that it's Obama that doesn't realize it and Romney is intentionally hiding it.

Deficit: Obama's budget plan makes more sense than Romney. Well, just having a plan by itself would beat Romney's complete lack of having a plan. When Romney states that he can cut taxes by 20% everywhere and then be revenue neutral, that is a lie. Neither him nor Ryan can actually state how much it would cost to cut 20% across the board and how they can balance revenue afterwards by closing loopholes. In fact, they have yet to make a statement about which loopholes to close. I can see Romney ramping up the deficit even faster than Obama does, to which Obama has in fact slowed the deficit growth by 50% in the past 4 years.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-23-2012, 05:20 PM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

A lot of people have a problem with Obamacare, when it's really the best, most logical situation. With Obamacare:

1) Everyone has health insurance
2) Insurance companies don't make a fortune from your money
3) The poverty-stricken sickly can go to doctors.

The only reason people don't like Obamacare is that they get to choose your doctors. I've yet to hear a logical argument from someone stating why Obamacare should be thrown out. Getting to choose doctors means that certain doctors can fix the issue you're having with less cost, and a mutual relationship between the payer and the insurance company.

Obamacare affects people like me, middle class, too much income for medicaid, but not enough income for insurance. That is the situation of the majority of the population. If you can't help everyone, then help the majority. If Romney is elected, it will RUIN the progress we've made. It will put the country right back in the situation we were in after Bush. I guess if people vote for Romney they'll learn the hard way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-23-2012, 07:23 PM
bronislav84's Avatar
bronislav84 Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Posts: 2,414
Send a message via AIM to bronislav84 Send a message via MSN to bronislav84 Send a message via Yahoo to bronislav84
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

And ruin life for the poor, who are NOT a minority.

You forgot:

4. If you have Medicaid, there is a waiting list for lab tests and people could DIE while waiting to find out what's wrong with them. Or something like that. Massachusetts is already on this system.
__________________
Code:
Bronislav is my name and 1984 is my birth year. Call me Bron or Slavik if you can't say my full name. Banner/Ava by the illustrious Neo Pikachu Emolga R.I.P. August 13, 2007 3:45AM EST Simkha "Dosha" Bakman I loved you, Grandpa Check this out, it's really cool!

Last edited by bronislav84; 10-23-2012 at 08:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-23-2012, 08:38 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

Quote:
Originally Posted by mintjelly View Post
Not gonna lie, I wouldn't vote for either candidate.

My political beliefs lie somewhat toward anarchy.
If it worked during the Spanish Civil War, it can work again.
It didn't work, and that is why they are currently a democracy today. -_-


Quote:
Originally Posted by bronislav84 View Post
And ruin life for the poor, who are NOT a minority.

You forgot:

4. If you have Medicaid, there is a waiting list for lab tests and people could DIE while waiting to find out what's wrong with them. Or something like that. Massachusetts is already on this system.
That is not true at all. As a child of a military service member, and a dual citizen, I can tell you that Medicaid does not create such a scenario. There is a reason why countries with "socialist medicine" rank higher than the U.S when it comes to medical care.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Well the only logical choice is Obama, if you're talking about the lesser of two evils. The thing is, we don't know what Romney would do outside of him being corporatist, and right now it's better to take the candidate that is more predictable than one that isn't. Obama isn't a good candidate due to him having issues like continuing warantless wiretapping, signing indefinite detention to US citizens, and promoting drone strikes on US citizens in foreign soil. Romney is NOT going to change any of that anyway, so it's not like voting him would fix any of these issues.
The NDAA bill does not enable indefinite detention to U.S citizens, but only to foreigners (read the bill itself). He watered-down the Patriot Act, and, as far as I can see, has not promoted drone strikes on U.S citizens.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:

Last edited by Kenny_C.002; 10-25-2012 at 01:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-25-2012, 02:49 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

Quote:
Originally Posted by bronislav84 View Post
And ruin life for the poor, who are NOT a minority.

You forgot:

4. If you have Medicaid, there is a waiting list for lab tests and people could DIE while waiting to find out what's wrong with them. Or something like that. Massachusetts is already on this system.
EMTALA ensures that the poor will be stabilized at the cost of your tax dollars. It is an erroneous assumption that you have to wait for anything. We treat medicaid patients the same as private patients and charity patients (covered under EMTALA) with the difference in that we answer to teaching attendings for the continued care of medicare/medicaid patients vs private attendings (and in my hospital, the teaching attendings are better doctors than the majority of the private attendings, but don't go to Lutheran, go to Maimo if you need anything, bro, since Maimo has Jewish backing and should probably have more cash flow than we do).

We treat the poor very well, if they come to us. Our clinic down the street on 2nd Avenue "costs" the people who go there a free metro ticket. That is, we give them a metro ticket for coming to us in addition to the care. The most copay I've seen is 20 bucks at the 6th Avenue clinic and the 7th Avenue clinic. For people who are underinsured like me, 50 bucks copay minumum and I can't go to their dentists.

Medications for poor patients have two major restrictions: the drug must be a generic and the drug must only cost 4 dollars a month. We have social workers actively looking for these deals for patients. This does mean that sometimes we have to use relatively inferior products or tried and true products over sometimes more superior brand named products (or new and risky products), but those come fairly rarely and I can only think of maybe 2-3 cases that has had this problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
The NDAA bill does not enable indefinite detention to U.S citizens, but only to foreigners (read the bill itself). He watered-down the Patriot Act, and, as far as I can see, has not promoted drone strikes on U.S citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 1021
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
The bill does in fact allow for indefinite detention of a person as deemed forth by the military in the circumstance that there is a potential conflict. For example, if I assume someone to be a terrorist, I can detain him as long as terrorism exists, which is forever.

The exception rule states explicitly that this exemption only applies if both conditions are satisfied. That is, you must be an American Citizen and you must be captured in the US to be explicitly exempted from indefinite detention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 1022
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section
shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to
make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering
with regard to persons not already in the custody
or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until
after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing
at the time the determination is made and does not require
the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials
of the United States are granted access to an individual
who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national
security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted
for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a
third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the
United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security
authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other
domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person,
regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection
(a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control
of the United States on or after that effective date.
This subsection does not have a broad statement like in section 1021, to which the rules here are completely exempted for US citizens. Instead, military detention is not a requirement for suspected citizens. What is it meant by not "required"? It certainly is not, "you cannot do military detention", but rather "you can do military detention if you want, but you are not required to do so". In this sense, this provision allows for detention of US citizens on US soil provided that you are suspected to be a terrorist. This detention is without trial.

Therefore, under these provisions, I can detain you as a criminal of war without trial if I suspect you to be a terrorist. To which then you are no longer considered an American citizen, since you are to be dealt with under the law of war. And under these circumstances you are then detained indefinitely. It is written very unclearly and specifically allows for these interpretations to be used.

Examples of drone strikes on US citizens:
Anwar al-Awlaki (40)
He is a confirmed US citizen. Even if he IS connected to terrorists, he should have been captured and tried for his actions, not executed via drone strikes without trial.

Abdulrahman Anwar Al-Aulaqi (16)
Son of Anwar, who was in Yemen for obvious reasons. Born in Denver and was obviously an American citizen. He's a freaking kid who doesn't know anything for goodness sake.

Promotion of drone strike usage was in the third debate itself. President Obama has set precedence over this matter with drone strikes on US citizens abroad already. He needs not say any more.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-25-2012, 03:38 AM
bronislav84's Avatar
bronislav84 Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Posts: 2,414
Send a message via AIM to bronislav84 Send a message via MSN to bronislav84 Send a message via Yahoo to bronislav84
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

Are you people seriously quoting current law? That's what Obama care will do not what it is currently. People could freaking die waiting to find out what's wrong with them. Thanks Obama m.
__________________
Code:
Bronislav is my name and 1984 is my birth year. Call me Bron or Slavik if you can't say my full name. Banner/Ava by the illustrious Neo Pikachu Emolga R.I.P. August 13, 2007 3:45AM EST Simkha "Dosha" Bakman I loved you, Grandpa Check this out, it's really cool!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-25-2012, 11:11 AM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Therefore, under these provisions, I can detain you as a criminal of war without trial if I suspect you to be a terrorist. To which then you are no longer considered an American citizen, since you are to be dealt with under the law of war. And under these circumstances you are then detained indefinitely. It is written very unclearly and specifically allows for these interpretations to be used.
State legislature and the Federal Court have already addressed the "indefinite detention" clause that was vaguely written in the NDAA bill. States are currently allowed to pass resolutions for the bill and, in addition, the Federal Court is currently awaiting an appeal before they pass a ban on sections 1021 and 1022 of the bill.

So far, I do not see any radical change in government policy concerning terrorism since the Patriot Act. I simply laugh because it reminds me of McCarthy era legislation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Examples of drone strikes on US citizens:
Anwar al-Awlaki (40)
He is a confirmed US citizen. Even if he IS connected to terrorists, he should have been captured and tried for his actions, not executed via drone strikes without trial.

Abdulrahman Anwar Al-Aulaqi (16)
Son of Anwar, who was in Yemen for obvious reasons. Born in Denver and was obviously an American citizen. He's a freaking kid who doesn't know anything for goodness sake.

Promotion of drone strike usage was in the third debate itself. President Obama has set precedence over this matter with drone strikes on US citizens abroad already. He needs not say any more.
I've watched all three debates, and I've yet to see this "promotion" you speak of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bronislav84 View Post
Are you people seriously quoting current law? That's what Obama care will do not what it is currently. People could freaking die waiting to find out what's wrong with them. Thanks Obama m.
"Obamacare" is current law. What's more, why did you ignore my post? Did you not read? As I said, from experience, there are not waiting lists that weren't already there with the completely privatized healthcare systems.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-25-2012, 05:25 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
State legislature and the Federal Court have already addressed the "indefinite detention" clause that was vaguely written in the NDAA bill. States are currently allowed to pass resolutions for the bill and, in addition, the Federal Court is currently awaiting an appeal before they pass a ban on sections 1021 and 1022 of the bill.

So far, I do not see any radical change in government policy concerning terrorism since the Patriot Act. I simply laugh because it reminds me of McCarthy era legislation.
The bill, at this moment, must be addressed as indefinite detention. You're the one who says indefinite detention for US citizens isn't in the bill. Don't blame me for quoting the bill and specifically stating where in the bill it says it does. :P

Obama has repeatedly stated he won't use the powers. Doesn't mean that the bill isn't active and thus can be used. This means that the next president can use said powers should he choose to. That's the big difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
I've watched all three debates, and I've yet to see this "promotion" you speak of.
You are right on the matter. Schiffer asked about drones and Romney simply said "I'll do what Obama's doing" and Obama went on some random tangential answer with regards to terrorism. So yes, due to the fact that Obama has set precedence on drone strikes, and Romney saying "yes" with Obama essentially implicitly being in the affirmative, he's doing drone strikes. Obama and Romney both will continue said drone strikes. Again, actions spoke louder than words. Him killing US citizens is an action that he took.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
"Obamacare" is current law. What's more, why did you ignore my post? Did you not read? As I said, from experience, there are not waiting lists that weren't already there with the completely privatized healthcare systems.
Bron simply acknowledges that he wasn't aware of the issue. And that he continues to not be aware of the issue. :3

Last edited by Kenny_C.002; 10-25-2012 at 05:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-25-2012, 07:52 PM
bronislav84's Avatar
bronislav84 Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Posts: 2,414
Send a message via AIM to bronislav84 Send a message via MSN to bronislav84 Send a message via Yahoo to bronislav84
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

Yes I'm sorry Tediursa, but that was way too much to read. It's not current law though, not for everybody. It's up to the states to adopt it on their own time. My state New York hasn't adopted it from what I'm told.
__________________
Code:
Bronislav is my name and 1984 is my birth year. Call me Bron or Slavik if you can't say my full name. Banner/Ava by the illustrious Neo Pikachu Emolga R.I.P. August 13, 2007 3:45AM EST Simkha "Dosha" Bakman I loved you, Grandpa Check this out, it's really cool!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-25-2012, 08:17 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: USA Presidential Election

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
You are right on the matter. Schiffer asked about drones and Romney simply said "I'll do what Obama's doing" and Obama went on some random tangential answer with regards to terrorism. So yes, due to the fact that Obama has set precedence on drone strikes, and Romney saying "yes" with Obama essentially implicitly being in the affirmative, he's doing drone strikes. Obama and Romney both will continue said drone strikes. Again, actions spoke louder than words. Him killing US citizens is an action that he took.
First and foremost, Obama did not kill anyone. Second of all, as far as I can tell, he did not specifically say that he supported the killing of U.S citizens using drones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bronislav84 View Post
Yes I'm sorry Tediursa, but that was way too much to read. It's not current law though, not for everybody. It's up to the states to adopt it on their own time. My state New York hasn't adopted it from what I'm told.
How much is there to read? Not much. And yes, Obamacare has been implemented. Has anyone been put on a waiting list? No. Did medical quality decrease? No. People were concerned over nothing. The Affordable Care Act is possibly one of the best advancements in medical care legislation in years.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com