>>374503
>So you don't think the elected REPRESENTATIVES who were elected to REPRESENT us shouldn't REPRESENT us?
I have yet to see an elected federal Congressman actually represent me. Sometimes the state congress will (like the recent CO legalization of marijuana, where I live, though that was also through a voter referendum). But so far they mostly represent giant corporations or special interests, depending on which side of the coin they land.

>So you are perfectly ok with personhood bills, even though places like Mississippi roundly reject them when voting on them.
Bills aren't the problem, passing them is. You'll always have some district soundly crazy and they'll hire a soundly crazy person to represent them, which gets bills like that and saying that conception begins two months before it begins. And, no, I'm not okay with that bill in the least.

>After all since Congress no longer needs to abid by what the people want.
That's the great thing about a Representative Democracy: the people can't vote directly. California does that, they have problems all over the damn place. They want everything and they want it all free. While elected representatives are supposed to represent the public, the public's demands should not be the only concern. Congressmen should be able to decide what is best for everyone, including those they represent, and have the fortitude to vote against the public if they understand that doing so is best in the long term. Yes, I know this means you get things like the personhood bill, but as you said that's soundly rejected.

I'm not saying that a long process always results in good, but that it's more likely to do so than quick, knee-jerk reactions.

>>374510
>But so far they mostly represent giant corporations or special interests, depending on which side of the coin they land.
You are right. That's why we need to abolish Congress entirely. In fact outside of Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, and a few others the entire US Congress was representatives of wallstreet and Federal Reserve.

>That's the great thing about a Representative Democracy: the people can't vote directly. California does that, they have problems all over the damn place. They want everything and they want it all free.

So you agree that Congress is corrupt and dominated by corporations and special interests and yet want to continue it? In Pennsylvania, under the far right wing Tom Corbet, he has privatized the schools, passed a voter suppression law, and now trying to change the electoral college. And there is nothing we Pennsylvanians can do about it because we don't have direct democracy here unlike CA. I think everyone should be left to the will of the people, other than people's civil rights of course.

As for CA, they passed higher taxes this election which will help pay for more programs there. We could give everyone in this country healthcare if we removed all of the troops in just Afghanistan alone.

>Congressmen should be able to decide what is best for everyone, including those they represent, and have the fortitude to vote against the public if they understand that doing so is best in the long term.

So you would be ok with your Congressman/women voting for the Iraq War? I'm not comfortable with electing people who don't represent me. They put the interests of corporations and special interests above the American people.

>Yes, I know this means you get things like the personhood bill, but as you said that's soundly rejected.

In Ohio, they are trying to pass it there. They also are tying to ban abortion in Arkansas. In Mississippi, the state legislator is making it impossible to have abortion clinics in the state open.

>>374512
>abolish congress

See this is what I was saying with the crazy shit.

The system is unfortunate but it is necessary, and the money feeds it. The money will feed whatever system you place in power, regardless of how you structure it. There will never be a system without graft. There will never be a system without violence. If US is not top dog, someone else is.

You say you don't like being represented by somebody who doesn't have your interests at heart? That's the same way everyone who's trying to pass the anti-abortion bills feels. Never mind that proper sex education, with condoms and a good bit of explicitness, would do more than they ever could to prevent abortions. But they find the notion abhorrent either way.

Demanding the full-out evaporation of a constitutional amendment is silly. So is demanding the dissolution of congress. There are some fucked up things in the system and I do agree that not all of them should tolerated, but the whole point of this is that the system is supposed to be modifiable. We're trying to find something that works for everyone, not burn one group in effigy because we decided they weren't working out.

I'd be all for a modern rewrite of the Constitution to more accurately define what is represented by what, what is protected under law,etcetera, etcetera, but I'm terrified as to what the results would actually end up being. Either way, an absolute document designed in modern parlance would help to quell some of the debates over certain issues (or be the last straw that makes people pack up and head out).

As far as Congress goes, I'm in favor of what Autonymoose is saying, and anon here. People in large groups aren't as stupid as we make them out to be, but if it were up to a large chunk of the population they'd abolish all taxes and still require free things. We need people on top that can choose what to sacrifice from column A to appease column B, and vice versa, and compromises are not something that the general voting populace is good at.

>>374520
>See this is what I was saying with the crazy shit.

You know what is actually crazy? President Obama having the right to kill American citizens without trail, but it's ok when a Democrat does it right guys?

>The system is unfortunate but it is necessary, and the money feeds it. The money will feed whatever system you place in power, regardless of how you structure it. There will never be a system without graft. There will never be a system without violence. If US is not top dog, someone else is.

No it's not necessary. If the American people voted do you think they would have voted for the 2012 NDAA which allows the US government to detain any US civilian without trail forever? Oh course not. So why did Congress vote overwhelming for it? Congress voted for our entire enslavement by the government forces.

>You say you don't like being represented by somebody who doesn't have your interests at heart? That's the same way everyone who's trying to pass the anti-abortion bills feels. Never mind that proper sex education, with condoms and a good bit of explicitness, would do more than they ever could to prevent abortions. But they find the notion abhorrent either way.

American politics has swung so far right. Richard Nixon is to the left of Obama on everything. They are so beyond the realm of reality it's shocking.

>Demanding the full-out evaporation of a constitutional amendment is silly.

Well than I guess Bush/Obama are silly because they already got rid of habeas corpus, and going to Congress for a declaration of war. But at least we got our guns rights guys!

>>374523
>Obama has the right to kill any American citizen without trial
[Citation Needed]

>If the people could vote on these things do you think they'd vote in the NDAA?
Seeing as most of the population probably can't understand lawyerspeak, if you handed it to them and asked them to vote on it, I'd say they might.

>American Politics has swung so far right
And Obama's on the relative shallow end of that. However "bad" a job he's doing, I'm willing to give him a lot of credit for actually being good at the job. Whatever rights you feel are violated now would have been so much worse under any republican candidate thrown up in the last 10 years.

You think this bill is going to throw people in jail with no trial. For 98% of Americans, they will never actually encounter this bill in action. We worry about freedom, piece of mind, but then we flip out when some nutter shoots up a school. We don't want to be monitored, but certain levels of monitoring can be useful, even necessary. The thing is, for the vast majority of the populace, we don't ever do anything so wrong that the FBI or the Police really have to worry about.

When the system works, that is when it's not staffed by raging incompetents a la the Bush era, we actually do target people who represent threats to the general population.

You see no disconnect between calling for the abolition of guns and congress at the same time. I'd love to hear your plan. You're panicking all over this "They can do WHAT" shit and they could do it since the 1950s. I'm happy they're writing it into law and putting it up for public review, rather than just quietly hiring death squads.

You scream about all this shit and it's like what have you done? What are you truly afraid of with these guys? Your Habeas Corpus rights are only null and void when you're suspected of Terrorism, they're not just thrown out the window.

Much as you feel like it's broken, the system is still very much in motion, and trying to force massive ground-up structural changes in it right now is going to hamper us internationally and grant us a new government with new words for the same problems we have now. There is no gain to be had from drastic restructurings of our government.

And please, drop the troll name. I have no intention of arguing with someone who wears their stubbornness on their sleeve with such bravado.

>>374523
>Obama has the right to kill any American citizen without trial
[Citation Needed]

>If the people could vote on these things do you think they'd vote in the NDAA?
Seeing as most of the population probably can't understand lawyerspeak, if you handed it to them and asked them to vote on it, I'd say they might.

>American Politics has swung so far right
And Obama's on the relative shallow end of that. However "bad" a job he's doing, I'm willing to give him a lot of credit for actually being good at the job. Whatever rights you feel are violated now would have been so much worse under any republican candidate thrown up in the last 10 years.

You think this bill is going to throw people in jail with no trial. For 98% of Americans, they will never actually encounter this bill in action. We worry about freedom, piece of mind, but then we flip out when some nutter shoots up a school. We don't want to be monitored, but certain levels of monitoring can be useful, even necessary. The thing is, for the vast majority of the populace, we don't ever do anything so wrong that the FBI or the Police really have to worry about.

When the system works, that is when it's not staffed by raging incompetents a la the Bush era, we actually do target people who represent threats to the general population.

You see no disconnect between calling for the abolition of guns and congress at the same time. I'd love to hear your plan. You're panicking all over this "They can do WHAT" shit and they could do it since the 1950s. I'm happy they're writing it into law and putting it up for public review, rather than just quietly hiring death squads.

You scream about all this shit and it's like what have you done? What are you truly afraid of with these guys? Your Habeas Corpus rights are only null and void when you're suspected of Terrorism, they're not just thrown out the window.

Much as you feel like it's broken, the system is still very much in motion, and trying to force massive ground-up structural changes in it right now is going to hamper us internationally and grant us a new government with new words for the same problems we have now. There is no gain to be had from drastic restructurings of our government.

And please, drop the troll name. I have no intention of arguing with someone who wears their stubbornness on their sleeve with such bravado.

>>374529
>[Citation Needed]
He's referring to NDAA. The rules for how it can be implemented were leaked--they're not quite as dire as he's making it out, but they're still pretty fuckin' dire. The government needs to suspect an American citizen of being in league with Al Quaeda, and consider it impossible to detain them before they can aid in a terrorist attack or something (this apparently means they have to be in a foreign country that's difficult to reach people in, according to some sources), and it can't. But yes, NDAA does apparently give Obama and his administration the power to assassinate American citizens without trial via dronestrike. And that's completely unacceptable regardless of the rationale or the justification. There should never be a situation where the government can kill someone without both a trial and a pile of paperwork a mile long that any citizen can access.

>>374528
>[Citation Needed]
Guess you haven't been paying attention to the news lately.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/politics/us-memo-details-views-on-killing-citizens-in-al-qaeda.html?_r=0

>Seeing as most of the population probably can't understand lawyerspeak, if you handed it to them and asked them to vote on it, I'd say they might.

>And Obama's on the relative shallow end of that. However "bad" a job he's doing, I'm willing to give him a lot of credit for actually being good at the job. Whatever rights you feel are violated now would have been so much worse under any republican candidate thrown up in the last 10 years.

I never said Republicans candidates would have been better. Mitt Romney would have been a catastrophe compared to Obama. However doesn't change the fact that, as Cornel West said, Obama is a Rockefeller Republican in blackface in the white house. Let me sum up the few things I actually glad Obama did as president:

* Lilly Led Better Act
* Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
* Repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell
* Killed Osama Bin Laden
* Ending the Iraq War (finally)
* Supporting gay marriage (however screwed up when he said "state by state")

And that's about it. Besides that Obama is to the right of Richard Nixon.

>You think this bill is going to throw people in jail with no trial. For 98% of Americans, they will never actually encounter this bill in action. We worry about freedom, piece of mind, but then we flip out when some nutter shoots up a school. We don't want to be monitored, but certain levels of monitoring can be useful, even necessary. The thing is, for the vast majority of the populace, we don't ever do anything so wrong that the FBI or the Police really have to worry about.

LGBT make up somewhere between 5% of the US population. I'm part of that 5% myself. We can't marry in 41 of the 50 US state as of February 2013. Should we not care about LGBT rights simply because they are a minority? I thought the US Constitution was made to protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. You know in Nazi Germany first they came for the Jews and they said nothing. And than they came for the socialists and trade unionists and they said nothing. And finally they came for the priests and pastors and by than there was no one left to speak out for them.

You know when Obama first got elected I thought comparing Obama to Hitler was insane. However everything changed with the passage of the NDAA of 2012.

>When the system works, that is when it's not staffed by raging incompetents a la the Bush era, we actually do target people who represent threats to the general population.

You have clearly been brainwashed by the media into believing we are killing just terrorists with these drones strikes. When Bush did unconstitutional shit he was whipping his ass with the Constitution, but now that Obama is doing it, it's because of our national security.

>You see no disconnect between calling for the abolition of guns and congress at the same time. I'd love to hear your plan. You're panicking all over this "They can do WHAT" shit and they could do it since the 1950s. I'm happy they're writing it into law and putting it up for public review, rather than just quietly hiring death squads.

So you would rather have a president who has a secret list of people he personally chooses himself to send a drone and kill?

>You scream about all this shit and it's like what have you done? What are you truly afraid of with these guys? Your Habeas Corpus rights are only null and void when you're suspected of Terrorism, they're not just thrown out the window.

What if Obama declares that Occupy movement is a terrorist organization and starts detaining them indefinitely? If I even speak up against that I'm be in jail or they are gonna kill me. If we don't speak out for the rights of terrorists to a right to trail than who will speak out for our rights? If we don't stop this now we won't have an American anymore.

>There is no gain to be had from drastic restructurings of our government.

There are such as civil liberties, more democratic representation, etc.

>And please, drop the troll name. I have no intention of arguing with someone who wears their stubbornness on their sleeve with such bravado.

I don't want to become another anon. Ok which new name would you suggest?

>>374543
If you want to have a discussion I'/d rather you not act like a massive cock about it, but having a name like "REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT" does not lend itself to someone to be taken seriously in a political case.

>LGBT make up somewhere between 5% of the US population. I'm part of that 5% myself. We can't marry in 41 of the 50 US state as of February 2013. Should we not care about LGBT rights simply because they are a minority? I thought the US Constitution was made to protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. You know in Nazi Germany first they came for the Jews and they said nothing. And than they came for the socialists and trade unionists and they said nothing. And finally they came for the priests and pastors and by than there was no one left to speak out for them.
You know when Obama first got elected I thought comparing Obama to Hitler was insane. However everything changed with the passage of the NDAA of 2012.

wow, such a shocking misunderstanding of history and high school level arguing, this is the perfect shitposting right here.

I'm going to assume you have the understanding of why making a emotional appeal in the form of a godwin argument is stupid and move on to this part
>You know when Obama first got elected I thought comparing Obama to Hitler was insane. However everything changed with the passage of the NDAA of 2012.

I guarantee you every single president has done soundly unconstitutional(in hindsight) acts. Basically all of Lincoln for one, FDR for internment camps,
if you want you can even blame Eisenhower for the most massive case of eminent domain in history, the freeway.

Simply put your talking about something that has systematically been happening since the birth of these united states.

>Greenland
Open Prison - Greenland

>>374548
>If you want to have a discussion I'/d rather you not act like a massive cock about it, but having a name like "REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT" does not lend itself to someone to be taken seriously in a political case.

You should know that I came up with that name a few days after the Sandy School Shooting. Fine I changed it. Happy?

>wow, such a shocking misunderstanding of history and high school level arguing, this is the perfect shitposting right here.

>I'm going to assume you have the understanding of why making a emotional appeal in the form of a godwin argument is stupid and move on to this part

>I guarantee you every single president has done soundly unconstitutional(in hindsight) acts. Basically all of Lincoln for one, FDR for internment camps,

>if you want you can even blame Eisenhower for the most massive case of eminent domain in history, the freeway.

Eisenhower also overthrow the democratic government of Iran and install a psychopathic Shah into power. I'm fully well aware of the crimes of the American empire. As for Lincoln and FDR they were both fighting against legitimate threats of slavery by Confederates and Axis Powers. They also gave up those special powers after the wars. Obama however is gonna keep the war on terror around forever. It will be a permanent war just as foretold in George Orwell's 1984.

>Simply put your talking about something that has systematically been happening since the birth of these united states.

Obama is however is so made with power he's starting illegal wars across the world, in Libya, in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, and god only knows where else. Obama has the power to kill or detain any US citizen when ever he feels like it. No president before him has had that kind of power. Do you really want just one man to have all of that power? Obama could easily declare the Occupy movement as terrorists and send them to Guantanamo Bay. Wake up! Why do you think Obama learned to be Constitutional law professor? Simply so he maneuver around the Constitution. Under Obama we got: extend Patriot Act, extended 2008 FISA, 2012 NDAA, a drone war in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalia. And yet the liberal establishment hasn't said a word about this. Where did all of the anti-protesters go? If Bush had done what Obama did there would have been a revolt in this country.

If we don't stop this now we won't have any more civil liberties. We are already a quasi-police state. You can not rely on Congress, you cannot rely not the judges or the courts, and we can not rely on he media. All we have left is civil disobedience to the corporate state.

>>374555
>You should know that I came up with that name a few days after the Sandy School Shooting. Fine I changed it. Happy?
Yes.

>I'm fully well aware of the crimes of the American empire. As for Lincoln and FDR they were both fighting against legitimate threats of slavery by Confederates and Axis Powers. They also gave up those special powers after the wars

They didn't give those powers up, they merely set the standard for future presidents as to what is accept use of the presidents power.

>Obama however is gonna keep the war on terror around forever. It will be a permanent war just as foretold in George Orwell's 1984.

The only thing that is does actually last forever is the fact that there will conflicts on the world stage. the world does not operate in a vacuum, Your going to have to define exactly what the war on terror is. Also 1984 is a book not a prophecy, its intellectually lazy to reference it in that sort of way.


>s starting illegal wars across the world

reference; every presidential administration since Regan.

> Obama has the power to kill or detain any US citizen when ever he feels like it.

gross exaggeration address earlier in this thread.

>Wake up
Don't you dare bring this condescending horseshit here when you sound exactly like someone who is painfully politically not self-aware

> yet the liberal establishment hasn't said a word about this.

Of course not, that why the right says it. Are you blind to the people who don't like obama?

>If we don't stop this now we won't have any more civil liberties. We are already a quasi-police state. You can not rely on Congress, you cannot rely not the judges or the courts, and we can not rely on he media. All we have left is civil disobedience to the corporate state.

This is exactly the reason behind having the second amendment.


You sound exactly like a disenfranchised liberal. Half of the stuff you are talking about is inherent about institutional power since the birth of politics, the other half of the time you sound like a patronizing ass. I mean just reading this thread is mostly people disagreeing with you, hell most of 4chans /pol/ has better arguments.

I'm bowing out of this thread, nothing interesting here.

>>374556
>Your going to have to define exactly what the war on terror is.
It'd be lovely if the people who started it and perpetuate it would do that, too.

>>374561
Also, the war on drugs.

Look, we just have to wait for all the old people to be dead, it's not that hard. Hell, they hate healthcare and medical research, they're basically killing themselves for us!

once the parasites are gone, we can start fixing things properly

>>374567
That's the same policy the Baby Boomers lived by. Then they turned INTO the old people.

Think of it--Baby Boomers have more or less absolute power in this country right now, and marijuana hasn't even started moving towards legalization until they started retiring. Corporations are more powerful than they've ever been, despite the people who founded the hippie movement being in charge. We're still fighting pointless, stupid, unending wars over nothing and sacrificing our young people to keep fighting them. It's fairly clear that the fact that young people actually have principles and ideals is something that goes away when they get older.

>>374568
You make a good point.

Nothing for it but revolt I guess.

>>374556
>They didn't give those powers up, they merely set the standard for future presidents as to what is accept use of the presidents power.

Not true.

>The only thing that is does actually last forever is the fact that there will conflicts on the world stage. the world does not operate in a vacuum, Your going to have to define exactly what the war on terror is. Also 1984 is a book not a prophecy, its intellectually lazy to reference it in that sort of way.

The war on terror is just like the war on drugs. It's created by the US government in order for the military industrial complex to grow completely out of control. Hell al-qaeda doesn't even really exist anymore, at least not it's 2001 version of al-qaeda. As for 1984, it has become a model if you will for all totalitarian dictators. As long as there is a war or a state of war it gives the government the ability to strip us of our rights.

>reference; every presidential administration since Regan.

So because everyone does it, that makes it ok?

>gross exaggeration address earlier in this thread.

Not true. All you have to be is "associated" in order to be killed like the Imam who spoke out against al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda members meet him and they all got killed in a drone strike. For all we know the government could label Code Pink as associate forces of al-Qaeda.

>Of course not, that why the right says it. Are you blind to the people who don't like obama?

Actually the right supports this too.

>This is exactly the reason behind having the second amendment.

Lot of good that hand gun will do when a drone come out of no were and kills you.

>You sound exactly like a disenfranchised liberal.

And you sound like you have been brainwashed by the msm.

>>374556
>They didn't give those powers up, they merely set the standard for future presidents as to what is accept use of the presidents power.

Not true.

>The only thing that is does actually last forever is the fact that there will conflicts on the world stage. the world does not operate in a vacuum, Your going to have to define exactly what the war on terror is. Also 1984 is a book not a prophecy, its intellectually lazy to reference it in that sort of way.

The war on terror is just like the war on drugs. It's created by the US government in order for the military industrial complex to grow completely out of control. Hell al-qaeda doesn't even really exist anymore, at least not it's 2001 version of al-qaeda. As for 1984, it has become a model if you will for all totalitarian dictators. As long as there is a war or a state of war it gives the government the ability to strip us of our rights.

>reference; every presidential administration since Regan.

So because everyone does it, that makes it ok?

>gross exaggeration address earlier in this thread.

Not true. All you have to be is "associated" in order to be killed like the Imam who spoke out against al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda members meet him and they all got killed in a drone strike. For all we know the government could label Code Pink as associate forces of al-Qaeda.

>Of course not, that why the right says it. Are you blind to the people who don't like obama?

Actually the right supports this too.

>This is exactly the reason behind having the second amendment.

Lot of good that hand gun will do when a drone come out of no were and kills you.

>You sound exactly like a disenfranchised liberal.

And you sound like you have been brainwashed by the msm.

i heard politics and came running
/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdP-mbswSc0

John Brennan is a war criminal and needs to be jail. John Brennan's actual war philosophy is that you have to take lies in order to save lives. He conducted war-boarding under the Bush regime and now is killing countless innocent civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan. The biggest threat to national security is John Brennan because he's making millions of people around the world hate the USA with these drone strikes.

All of those 100 Senators need to publicly apologize on tv to the entire population of USA, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan that have allowed this hearing to happen and also apologize for every single civilian that has lost their lives at the hands of drone strikes. I'm so sick and disgusted by the silence of the liberals when it comes to John Brennan. You don't say anything because there is a Democrat in office, even though there is not a lick of difference between George W. Bush and Barrack Obama. Obama is Bush's 4th term.

>>374589
> even though there is not a lick of difference between George W. Bush and Barrack Obama.
Except for competence.

Creationist Senator wants to k…

So President Obama will deliver his state of the union address tonight. Here's some things Obama has to address in his speech:

Wealth inequality:

* Poverty - With the exception of a few black people in the middle to upper class, most black people in America are doing worse now than they were in the 1960s. There are many things to contributed to this mainly the so called "war on drugs", greedy plutocrats, runaway access to guns in urban communities, cuts in social programs, overseas imperial wars for the amercian empire, so called "welfare reform", and other neo-liberal policies implemented from 1970s to the present. There needs to be massive trillions of dollars spent in investments in jobs, infrastructure, education, etc. to help not just the black community but also he Latino, Asian, and white community.

* Unregulated market corporate capitalism - The 2008 rescission was caused mainly due to the repeal of Glass–Steagall Act. Since the 2008 rescission and the bailout of the big banks, wallstreet is now doing better than ever. 1 out of 4 corporations don't pay taxes. There needs to be arrests for the criminals of wallstreet. We need to nationalize all of those big bangs we bailout with our tax payer dollars. And stop with the corporate welfare for the big banks and oil companies.

* Political reform - Both parties are tied to corporate oligarchy. All of US legislation is written by big corporations. We need to not only overturn Citizens United by overturn the two party state in general and get big money and special interests out of policies and stop the never ending political campaigns and endless amounts of collecting of campaign money while at the same time 41% of children in the USA are living in poverty.

Foreign policy:

* Afghanistan - Compete and total withdraw of US forces immediately.

* Kurdistan - The largest stateless minority on the entire planet. Outside of autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan, there are millions of Kurds in Turkey, Iran, and Syria live under impressive repression. There should be a support for a self determined democratic secular state for Kurdish people.

* Israel - The "official" US policy towards the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a two state solution. However in practice the US government will allow Israel to do whatever it feels like it and give it's veto approval in the UN. The US government is very two faced when it comes to Palestine. Personally I support a one state solution myself with both Israel and Palestinian borders abolished and both groups have equal representation in parliament. Best way towards peace is to put pressure/sanctions on the Zionist regime every time they continue to build settlements in the West Bank and stop vetoing overwhelming UN resolutions on Israel.

* Iran - The best way to deal with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is to purpose a nuclear free zone in the middle. There is overwhelming support in the international community for this. All middle eastern countries, including Israel, will give up their nuclear weapons or their pursuit to obtain nuclear weapons. In fact to discourage nuclear weapons, the USA should get get rid of them as well.

* Syria - It's important to condemn both the Assad regime and terrorists actions of some of the rebels. Stay out of the Syrian civil war at all costs.

LGBT rights:

* Marriage equality - The US Supreme Court will hear to major cases for the first time on marriage equality. There needs to be a declaration from our president that marriage equality is a constitutional right and should be protected by the federal government.

* Equal protection - Currently 16 US states have laws protecting sexual orientation and gender identity and 21 protecting sexual orientation only in the workplace from discrimination. There needs to be federal employment discrimination laws for sexual orientation and gender identity for gay brothers and sisters in places like North Carolina, in Texas, in West Virginia, etc. Repeal so called "right to work laws" that allow bosses to fire their employers without cause.

Civil liberties:

* Drones - We need to stop dropping drones on innocent Muslim people around the world and creating more terrorists with these illegal and unconstitutional acts.

>>374725
>With the exception of a few black people in the middle to upper class

Almost all NBA Players, a big chunk of NFL players (who avoid bankruptcy), Samuel L. Jackson and a host of other black celebrities who make upper-class wealth even for the C-List stars is NOT an exception. That is a goddamn sizable and powerful group.

The inequality is falling prey to lacking ambition, and all the money anyway you want spent for "education" and "jobs", how much of those would be for 20 million dollars a film, or a 30 million dollar sports contract? Until I see some money being spent on average people somehow breaking into Hollywood where the real money is, and where you don't need to necessarily know what you're doing to be getting paid handsomely, unlike any other profession, then it's just a waste of money.

>>374725
I can't take anything you say seriously when you're avataring like that.

>>374729
>Almost all NBA Players, a big chunk of NFL players (who avoid bankruptcy), Samuel L. Jackson and a host of other black celebrities who make upper-class wealth even for the C-List stars is NOT an exception. That is a goddamn sizable and powerful group.
No. As Chris Rock pointed out, there's a difference between "rich" and "wealthy." Wealth lasts generations, gets spread out to others, and affects the economy--wealthy people don't play basketball or act in movies, they own basketball teams and movie studios. The fact that there are so few black people who meet those criteria is a problem.

>>374729
>Almost all NBA Players, a big chunk of NFL players (who avoid bankruptcy), Samuel L. Jackson and a host of other black celebrities who make upper-class wealth even for the C-List stars is NOT an exception. That is a goddamn sizable and powerful group.

What you fail to realize is that group of upper class blacks could care less about the rest of black community. It's kinda like in South Africa and the end of apartheid. Nelson Mandela didn't get out of prison without first striking a deal which established an elite class of wealthy blacks in South Africa and the white National Party will hold a certain number of seats in parliament no matter what. More blacks are worse off due to this deal than they were under apartheid. So it's less about race and also more about class struggle.

The problem with African Americans in the USA is they have to deal with the legacy of white racism, along with two political parties both controlled by the plutocrats and the oligarchy. Neither Obama nor the Congressional Black Caucus really care about the black community. Blacks mainly vote Democrat simply because they are community that historically is persecuted, just like how Hispanics, Asians, Jews, homosexuals, atheists, Muslims, women, etc. all vote Democrat. Because the persecuted groups all stick together.

>The inequality is falling prey to lacking ambition, and all the money anyway you want spent for "education" and "jobs", how much of those would be for 20 million dollars a film, or a 30 million dollar sports contract? Until I see some money being spent on average people somehow breaking into Hollywood where the real money is, and where you don't need to necessarily know what you're doing to be getting paid handsomely, unlike any other profession, then it's just a waste of money.

What about the billions we spend on corporate welfare? What about the billions on foreign illegal wars? What about the billions we spend on military industrial complex? What about the billions spend on the failed war on drugs?

Notice how Congress never brings up cutting any of these things I brought up. However every chance they get they want to cut welfare programs for the poor. Also notice how Obama never says poor. It's always 'middle class'.

Bill Cosby.

>>374737
>The problem with African Americans in the USA is they have to deal with the legacy of white racism, along with two political parties both controlled by the plutocrats and the oligarchy. Neither Obama nor the Congressional Black Caucus really care about the black community. Blacks mainly vote Democrat simply because they are community that historically is persecuted, just like how Hispanics, Asians, Jews, homosexuals, atheists, Muslims, women, etc. all vote Democrat. Because the persecuted groups all stick together.
I disagree. I think minorities vote democrat because a party that pretends to, but doesn't really give a shit about you is still better than a party that is actively working against you.

>>374735
The wealthiest person in the world is Mexican.

>>374741
One person is not equal representation. If the racial makeup of any given economic class does not resemble the racial makeup of the country fairly well (within the expectations of statistical significance, as it's difficult for smaller subgroups to exactly reflect the makeup of the larger groups they are part of) as a whole, it's indicative of systemic inequality. According to the census, 13% of Americans are black, which means it's not unfair to expect at least one in ten of the wealthiest individuals of the country to be black. If you get a list of the 200 wealthiest people in the US, if the US has equality in place, you should get somewhere around 20 black people in it, as well as about 10 asians, 4 people of mixed race, and 30 hispanic or latino people in it. On top of that, it should be a little over one hundred women (as women are actually a slight majority of the population) and a little under one hundred men.

This is all based on data from 2011, mind, and I'm giving conservative figures. Again, a certain degree of wiggle room is to be expected because the sample size is so much smaller, but it is reasonable to expect figures not terribly removed from what I've listed here in an equal society. If it doesn't match that, it's indicative of systemic inequality built into the system, and often the most difficult kind to fight--the insidious kind that comes not from overt policy, but from things like low expectations or other intangibles. You can't really write laws to fight that stuff (other than to treat the symptoms maybe), since a lot of it is cultural, but it's a fairly clear indicator of lack of equality.

>>374740
>I disagree. I think minorities vote democrat because a party that pretends to, but doesn't really give a shit about you is still better than a party that is actively working against you.

Ding ding. I'm black and can cosign this message.

>>374743
there are a bunch of people who care who just can't do anything because of cock blocks and red tape

but i agree

i'm brown

i know the drill

>>374744
>there are a bunch of people who care who just can't do anything because of cock blocks and red tape

Politics are fun times, aren't they?

>>374745
yup.

>Daily Show
John's pissed at Cheney and DID HE JUST MAKE A PULGASARI JOKE

>>374742
Well Asians are about 4.8% and I believe they score a higher household income than whites, and that's after disregarding some of the inferior subgroups from that percentage, so it's even smaller...but I don't have a figure in front of me to back that up precisely, just something I remember reading.

The reason I brought up the Mexican tycoon is I feel one is enough of a representation when it comes to such ridiculously anomalous income. I find that whole comment about how there is racial inequality when it comes to who is in the 99.999999999999 percent with vast multi generational wealth versus the 99.0 percent of millionaires who are still leaps and bounds better off than than the average median income earner, just nothing to be sad or bothered about. I don't exactly find it disturbing or unjust that even though there are plenty of rich people of color, there might be more white-only super-super unreal rich fuckers out there. I really wouldn't see it as income equality when that wealth at that absurd level is evenly dispersed through the races, it's an anomaly and I find it disgusting and unnecessary for any human being to have in the first place. If I had it my way there would be a legacy wealth cap to a certain point, but I certainly don't see it as inequality that there's not more minorities who have hundreds of millions instead of hundreds of thousands more than Joe Schmo.

>>374749
Bah, I meant 1 percent vs 0.00001 percent. Had 99 on my mind for some reason.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm

>TFW you realize that the US technically counts as a terrorist state

When did you realize it, /baw/?

>>374740
>>374743
>Ding ding. I'm black and can cosign this message.
I never said the Republican party is equal to the Democratic party entirely. I said they were two factions of the business party. There are some very minor differences between the two. I'm just so sick of vote Democrat there is only a choice between a Dem and a Republican on the ballot.

There is no way to vote against the interests of the Goldman Sachs in the corporate state.

>>374744
>there are a bunch of people who care who just can't do anything because of cock blocks and red tape
Not really. Sure maybe there were a few progressive voices of Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson. However the Democratic party as a whole is very right wing compared to political parities in Europe. There is no left wing in American policies. It's a really extremely reactionary country. Hell socialism is a dirty word in America.

You have a Republican party that has become border line proto-fascist and a Democratic party that is incompetent supports the interests of big business. Both parties have adopted the fairy tale of free-market fundamentalism. Now Michigan, the heart of unions and workers for decades, has adopted so called "right to work laws."

>>374754
>When did you realize it, /baw/?
When I learned about the 1953 CIA coup in Iran, Vietnam war, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, support for military regimes in Greece, support Turks in persecuting Kurds, support Israelis in persecuting Palestinians, supporting Saddam Hussein and than sanctioning and invasion of Iraq, etc.

Ironically as a kid I used to be the only one in class to stand and say the pledge of allegiance in class. That was of course before I learned about the America empire.

>>374749
>The reason I brought up the Mexican tycoon is I feel one is enough of a representation when it comes to such ridiculously anomalous income. I find that whole comment about how there is racial inequality when it comes to who is in the 99.999999999999 percent with vast multi generational wealth versus the 99.0 percent of millionaires who are still leaps and bounds better off than than the average median income earner, just nothing to be sad or bothered about.
The reason that it's something to be concerned about is that wealth generates more money. People who are wealthy can put their money into businesses and people they believe in, and hire people who only get a shot because the gatekeepers allowed them in. When all, or even all but one, or anything short of fairly representative of the population at large, of the gatekeepers is a Straight White Male Judeochristian, that's Bad News. Because people tend to give those jobs, investments, what have you, to people who are either already known to them or who are most similar to them among the potential candidates. It's why it's harder to get a job if the name on your application is "Shaneequa" even if the person making the choice would have no objections to you if they met you in person.

Oh, also, the other reason it's important? The wealthy control the government in this country. This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a known thing and no one in government even seems to be trying to deny it anymore. The way you get to affect the laws is not by writing to your congressmen or voting for a given candidate anymore, it's by forming lobbying groups and political action committees that can afford to buy the government's loyalty and positive media coverage. You can't do that with basketball player money. You need "I buy and sell businesses for a living" money for your opinion to matter in government.

>>374761
So what's the solution? What is your stance on capping legacy wealth? I still can't think of one person who would be a righteous "gatekeeper" in such a scenario, who has upstanding character and keeps that much money? You're telling me if there's more people of color at the 0.0001 percent, the bottomline of turning profits is somehow going to be different?

>Because people tend to give those jobs, investments, what have you, to people who are either already known to them or who are most similar to them among the potential candidates. It's why it's harder to get a job if the name on your application is "Shaneequa" even if the person making the choice would have no objections to you if they met you in person.

Are you saying it's mostly all trickle down white privilege from the top? Because for the types of jobs you're describing, discounting family member favors and friendships, it sounds like the pool would already still be narrowed for people holding heavy degrees in finance or an exceptional talent in whatever this profession is, thus eliminating Shaneequa (if she's a commoner in this scenario) and 95 percent of the population.

It makes more sense to me not to lament or try to raise more mega wealthy landowners controlling the 99 percent of plebs, and refine inheritance wealth law.

>>374762
>So what's the solution?
It's pretty much all cultural, and it's all long term. There's no short-term fix for it. You have to have minorities present and visible in society in roles other than things that fit their stereotypes, so that the majority become desensitized to them and stop thinking of other races as "Other" or "Outsiders." We need to be in a situation where if a white man walks into a room full of black people as the only white person, he doesn't even really notice other than as a curiosity because he's so used to the idea of black people being part of his life.

Hollywood can do its part by giving black men who aren't Will Smith, Denzel Washington or Morgan Freeman leading roles in big-budget movies aimed at general audiences (as opposed to movies aimed explicitly at black audiences), and playing things other than criminals, athletes and rappers. And giving asian actors leading roles other than "Kung Fu guy," "Computer programmer," and "Asian sexpot." And giving latinos leading roles other than "Speedy Gonzales." And businesses can do their part by making an effort to hire more minorities into upper management, in visible positions.

Honestly, I think we're already on our way, but it's going to be a long road before we get there. It's possible that by the time the Millenial generation gets old enough that they're running the country, we'll get there (each generation has been better at being integrated, and the millenials are just more racially diverse than previous generations in the first place, even setting aside questions of integration), but that might be overly optimistic. It's a positive feedback loop, but one that moves at glacial speeds. There's no revolution to be had to overcome this sort of racism.

>>374756
this post is unintentionally hilarious with Azula

>>374763
So wait, just to be clear, you're fine with a single family having say more than 500 million or a billion dollars, that they can pass generation to generation within their family and use as a head start for investments and special interests, if they're not white or that kind of small percent group of families is culturally enriched?

>You have to have minorities present and visible in society in roles other than things that fit their stereotypes
>It's pretty much all cultural

None of those things have anything to do with legacy wealth or curtailing the problem described here:

>wealth generates more money. People who are wealthy can put their money into businesses and people they believe in, and hire people who only get a shot because the gatekeepers allowed them in. When all, or even all but one, or anything short of fairly representative of the population at large, of the gatekeepers is a Straight White Male Judeochristian, that's Bad News. Because people tend to give those jobs, investments, what have you, to people who are either already known to them or who are most similar to them among the potential candidates.

These wealthy who you claim control the government and have preferential treatment aren't going to go away or change as long as they control the gate through inheritance and everyone else pays them rent.

If you're speaking more practically about just more racially diverse gatekeepers who will give more jobs to everyone, how exactly is the Walton family for example keeping minorities down? These large businesses already hire people for cheap, and racial harmony isn't going to change the profit system. Minorities are already visible in society beyond stereotypes, those that go to college and get high end jobs exist, Asians for example as I said have a higher median income than whites, and anyway white population in the US is in a decline, in another forty years hispanics will healthily outnumber them.

One day I want to be as batshit as Rainbow Kid.

(incidentally European liberalism is fucking ridiculous and as many issues as I find with our country, I think the concept of removing the death penalty is totally retarded)

>>374764
I don't understand why he does this. If he wants to be taken seriously, it cripples him, if he's trolling, it makes it super obvious. It doesn't work either way.

>>374769
>One day I want to be as batshit as Rainbow Kid.

Ok anon how has anything I said batshit?

Those who are batshit are the ones opposing socialism. Anti-socialism is codeword for anti-democracy and pro-plutocracy.

Also the death penalty is barbaric.

>>374770
>I don't understand why he does this. If he wants to be taken seriously, it cripples him, if he's trolling, it makes it super obvious. It doesn't work either way.

Why do you post as anon? It makes you super obvious you are a tool.

>>374761
>Oh, also, the other reason it's important? The wealthy control the government in this country. This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a known thing and no one in government even seems to be trying to deny it anymore. The way you get to affect the laws is not by writing to your congressmen or voting for a given candidate anymore, it's by forming lobbying groups and political action committees that can afford to buy the government's loyalty and positive media coverage. You can't do that with basketball player money. You need "I buy and sell businesses for a living" money for your opinion to matter in government.

Actually for the average American, as Chris Hedges pointed out in his book, The Death of the Liberal Class, former presidents, like FDR and LBJ, where influenced by public opinion. However due to the raise of globalism and neo-liberalism in the 1970s American politicians stopped caring about what the American people thought and more about what the corporate plutocrats thought. So the traditional liberal class that puts pressure on presidents to get things done has been shut out of the discussion that is dominated by the corporate oligarchs. While European countries certainly have pro-corporate plutocratic governments, none are as reactionary as the America empire. Remember the red scares and the destruction of the socialist, anarchist, anti-statist Marxist, union movements in America?

>>374769
>I think the concept of removing the death penalty is totally retarded)

Why?

>>374772
Because there are people in this world who don't fucking deserve to be here. People like Brevik, or that Australian couple who were given 17 years for beating their son to death. The death penalty needs to exist so that these people can be expunged.

>>374773
>Because there are people in this world who don't fucking deserve to be here. People like Brevik, or that Australian couple who were given 17 years for beating their son to death. The death penalty needs to exist so that these people can be expunged.

Historically the death penalty has been used against oppressed minorities/poor.

What about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nazi Germany, Afghanistan under Taliban, etc. that have the death penalty for homosexuals and other minorities? Do you want us in the same league as those countries?

In the USA, non-white minorities are much much more likely to go on death row than whites. Which seems more fair? Some guy who kills three people getting the death penalty or wallstreet bankers who cause the suffering of millions and get away scot free?

Giving the state the right to kill it's citizens creates a culture of death and changes the morality of the society. In USA, it's perfectly acceptable for people to die without health insurance. It's no surprise the USA also has the death penalty.

>>374774
Having the dealth penalty does not mean you are using it for purges, and bankers doing what bankers have always done has nothing to do with the morality or lack thereof of the death penalty.

>>374775
>Having the dealth penalty does not mean you are using it for purges,

The death penalty has historically been used to oppress and spread fear in a population. Homosexuals have been the historic targets for the death penalty. Political opponents of totalitarian regimes are another target. When you give the state the power to kill someone it changes the morality of the society and makes it less democratic and more totalitarian.

>and bankers doing what bankers have always done has nothing to do with the morality or lack thereof of the death penalty.

No. Those bankers are the ones breaking the laws. However our corrupt government allows them to get away with murder. Why? Because "they are to big to fail." We no longer live in a society of law and order anymore.

>>374776
>The death penalty has historically been used to oppress and spread fear in a population. Homosexuals have been the historic targets for the death penalty. Political opponents of totalitarian regimes are another target. When you give the state the power to kill someone it changes the morality of the society and makes it less democratic and more totalitarian.
Historically a lot of dumb shit has been done that we don't do anymore. The death penalty these days is basically just for serial killers or to use as a bargaining chip to get killers to give up the body in exchange for having it taken off the table.
>No. Those bankers are the ones breaking the laws. However our corrupt government allows them to get away with murder. Why? Because "they are to big to fail." We no longer live in a society of law and order anymore.
Once again, this is not relevant to the death penalty discussion. I get that you have a big rage boner for bankers, but I'm not talking about bankers.

>>374767
No, asshole, I'm not suggesting that people not be able to keep their wealth or redistribution or whatever retarded strawman you're trying to build. Wealth comes about because of opportunity, and from here I am saying the best way to offer equal opportunity (which does not exist right now) is with gradual cultural changes to stop people from seeing one another as "Other." It's not about pulling down the people at the top, it's about making it so the people on the bottom have the same opportunities the people at the top had to reach the heights they have.

>>374789
i want to touch your butt in a romantic and gentle fashion

>>374789
> Wealth comes about because of opportunity

Right, so when someone's uncle accrued the wealth lifetimes ago, every spawn from that family member gets a gigantic preferential leap forward without working for it and sits on inheritance, and doing the entire good old boys network that keeps that power at the top for an elite few. Your "cultural changes" don't have shit all to do with that bloat, and in your broken brain you think it makes sense for resources to be tied to a few individuals like that. Hilarious!

>>374791
As much of a problem as a class of people who are born wealthy with no appreciation of the struggles of the lower classes is, there's no fair way to say that people can't provide for their survivors after their deaths. For starters, it would ruin the whole premise of Breaking Bad.

>>374792
It's not about an "appreciation" for what poor folks' have to do or empathy. They sit on everything from a mere birth right, an elite class that doesn't have an obligation to work is socially unproductive. How much human resource gets wasted by obscene wealth? It's not quite in your face like the pyramids or some monument in the middle of the country but all it represents is wasted labor that could have been put to better causes. There's infinitely better pursuits for money than to build mansions, and surplus needs to be directed better than that.

We as human beings like to be selfish pricks, but the whole point of government is to regulate how prickish we can be, and deciding by birth right is a silly way to decide what someone deserves in society. Birth right should be easily crossed out as what the human race doesn't need.

A real taxation on obscene wealth inheritance wouldn't affect most people, as for the elite class, leave enough to live comfortably only. Keep in mind in Walter White's case it's all just sitting in storage.

Anyway in the future IOUs are going to be turned into garbage because people borrow too much, and someone's going to have to get burned, and whoever has the political clout is going to make sure its not theirs.

>>374779
>Historically a lot of dumb shit has been done that we don't do anymore. The death penalty these days is basically just for serial killers or to use as a bargaining chip to get killers to give up the body in exchange for having it taken off the table.
Only in America, Japan, and Singapore. The rest of the developed democracies don't have the death penalty. A lot of countries still have that dumb shit you talked about. People are killed for homosexuality, adultery, witchcraft, political views, etc. in some of these other backwards countries. Belarus, one of the few dictatorships in Europe and it also has the death penalty.

>Once again, this is not relevant to the death penalty discussion. I get that you have a big rage boner for bankers, but I'm not talking about bankers.
Yes it is. Bankers get away scot free with wreaking the world economy and ruin the lies of millions of human beings and yet say a black kid is found smoking weed and he's in jail. See what I'm trying to get at here? Bankers cause millions to suffer and yet they don't get the death penalty for it.

>>374795
>Only in America, Japan, and Singapore. The rest of the developed democracies don't have the death penalty.
We're only talking about the developed world here so the rest of that shit is, again, irrelevant.

>Yes it is. Bankers get away scot free with wreaking the world economy and ruin the lies of millions of human beings and yet say a black kid is found smoking weed and he's in jail. See what I'm trying to get at here? Bankers cause millions to suffer and yet they don't get the death penalty for it.
You don't seem interested in actually talking about this, so okay, whatever, you win. Have fun with your avatarfagging I guess.

>>374779
>Historically a lot of dumb shit has been done that we don't do anymore. The death penalty these days is basically just for serial killers or to use as a bargaining chip to get killers to give up the body in exchange for having it taken off the table.
That's still the government purging society of its undesirables. You're not saying the government shouldn't have the power to do that, you're just negotiating what traits it is and is not okay for the government to purge citizens for. There are those among us who feel that there are no circumstances in which the government should be able to make that decision.

Also, the death penalty costs taxpayers more money than indefinite imprisonment, often executes people who are later exonerated, and it has been shown through multiple studies that it does not serve as a deterrent to capitol crimes. The only reason we keep it around is to fulfill the lust for revenge that barbarous people feel, which encourages people to continue thinking of barbarous behavior as acceptable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/nyregion/houses-of-worship-seeking-fema-grants-face-constitutional-barrier.html?_r=1&

http://www.aclu.org/blog/religion-belief/protecting-constitutional-principles-even-after-disasters

An Act has been passed that explicitly permits the use of FEMA grants to religious institutions. This means damages to churches and other buildings used for religious worship dealt by Hurricane Sandy will be paid for by taxpayer dollars.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-insane-solutions-to-americas-biggest-problems_p2/

Cracked, as ussual, the lone light in the darkness.

>>374806
I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand--they don't pay taxes, and that means they've contributed nothing to the fund they're drawing from, which is essentially federal Disaster Insurance. On the other hand, they were affected by the disaster too, and are part of disaster relief efforts as much as any other building.

I think what we need to do is--go ahead and implement this as law, but impose a tax on churches that goes only to FEMA. And needless to say, Churches treated the same way as Mosques, Synagogues, Wiccan coven buildings, whatever.

Do Churches have to prove they're involved in Community Outreach or charitable actions to get tax exempt status? If so, I might see my way to accepting them getting FEMA relief without paying taxes, if other charitable organizations get the same treatment.

>>374797
>We're only talking about the developed world here so the rest of that shit is, again, irrelevant.
It is relevant. You can't just ignore places with the death penalty like North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, etc.

>You don't seem interested in actually talking about this, so okay, whatever, you win. Have fun with your avatarfagging I guess.
But I am interested. I'm just trying to show you that big bankers on wallstreet don't get the death penalty for causing the suffering of millions.

>>374820
>On the one hand--they don't pay taxes,
Why do churches not pay taxes in the first place?

>>374819
Best part was when he said that Congress were lazy leeches and we should get rid of them.

>>374820
>And needless to say, Churches treated the same way as Mosques, Synagogues, Wiccan coven buildings, whatever.

This is already in the act. All buildings of religious worship are supposed to be treated equally.

>On the other hand, they [...] are part of disaster relief efforts as much as any other building.

Not really. The purpose of a building has a lot to do with how much the government is supposed to help out.

From the ACLU article:
>All nonprofit organizations (including houses of worship) and for-profit businesses can get low-interest, long-term, government-secured loans—up to $2 million—for losses not fully covered by insurance. Direct FEMA grants of taxpayer funds, however, are intended to serve a certain purpose—those grants are for nonprofits with facilities used for emergency, essential, and government-like activities to the community at large.

FEMA isn't meant to pay for every building that got fucked up. The government has no obligation to rebuild a shopping mall, for example, though the owners of that mall can take out a special low interest LOAN from the government available in these situations. Religious institutions had the same access to these loans as all other businesses and non-profit organizations.

The new act allows FEMA to give houses of worship GRANTS, not loans. These are only supposed to be used for things that are considered essential, like hospitals, schools, shelters, public transport, etc. The NYTimes article stated that "churches and synagogues may apply for reimbursement for social services they provided, including homeless shelters, preschools or feeding programs" BEFORE the new act, meaning that any house of worship being used for these things would have been eligible for assistance even then. With this new act, even religious buildings that weren't used for those things (whether due to being closed, or destroyed, or whatever) are being rebuilt or repaired with taxpayer dollars, and are even being put on the same level of necessity as hospitals and schools.

I'm completely against this. It flies in the face of the separation of church and state, and sets a terrible precedent which may allow for further government/church interactions in the future based on the idea that religious buildings are essential enough to a society to warrant government aid.

>>374825
Man, unless FEMA's rules have changed since Hurricane Ivan, I know for a fact they'll help out homeowners whose houses get damaged in disasters for which they're mobilized. Our house only got a little roof damage, and they gave us a little assistance for that. They don't pay for the whole thing, but they help.

Or are the rules different for commercial/industrial zoned buildings?

>>374827
>Or are the rules different for commercial/industrial zoned buildings?

As far as I'm aware.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/14/us-usa-gaymarriage-illinois-idUSBRE91D1H020130214

>The Illinois Senate, which is heavily Democratic, voted 34-21 to advance the measure to the House in President Barack Obama's home state. The fate of the bill in the state's lower chamber remains uncertain.

>>374837

Illinois Anon here. Been following this.

Now I can marry a man. I'm not gay, but the fact of the matter is I can get married to a man. Good on Illinois.

>>374838
Hope you find the right guy.

>>374838
I'm more concerned by the US Supreme Court will rule this June. In my state of Pennsylvania, our legislators are dominated by Republicans who continue the prohibition on marriage equality for LGBT peoples. We need marriage equality in all 50 state. States don't have the right to discriminate against a minority group. We can't live in a land divided between half free and half slave as Lincoln said.

Why is Bobby Jindal not the face of the Republican party?

Is it because they are hinging the Latino vote on Marco Rubio?

>>374869
marco rubio looks "familiar"

>>374869

Because all he has ever done is the same regressive shit the entire rest of the party has done, and the only difference is his statements about needing to "rebrand".

It's just the Southern Strategy only on a broader scale. Same as the rest of the GOP.

>>374869
Because he tells Republicans in office to not be stupid, and that's one piece of advice that goes against everything the Republican Party stands for.

>>374874
>Because he tells Republicans in office to not be stupid,

Funny because Governor Bobby Jindal is part of the stupid party. He has implemented teaching creationism in his state along with abolishing the income tax which heavily far the rich over the poor.

All of these 2016 GOP candidates are all the same. All of them want austerity, more wars, more corporatism, more wealth redistribution from the bottom 70% and giving that wealth to the top 1% of the population. There is a not a lick of difference between Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bob McDonald, Chris Christie, or Rand Paul. All of them are bigoted neo-cons who are going to rape the country with neo-liberal policies.

Dr. Cornel West calls Obama out for his crimes against humanity.

http://www.pakistankakhudahafiz.com/2013/02/18/cornel-west-obama-is-a-%E2%80%98war-criminal%E2%80%99-who-has-killed-%E2%80%98over-200-children%E2%80%9
9/#.USMKXWeD1ZM

Drone strikes, illegal wars, indefinite detention without trail, etc. Let's face it: Obama is WORSE than Bush, even though all of this happened under Bush as well. Do you know why Obama is worse than Bush? Because he puts a nice face to it all, to US imperialism, to corporate greed, and gives it all with that kind of "feel your pain" Clinton like speeches he gives. He's a poster boy for the corporate state.

Anonex please kill this thread, or make /pol/ again so we don't have to look at it.

>>375021
Just use the hide button.
It's easier.

ITT: People spout stuff they read in a chain-mail

I'd kind of like to be a politician, I think.. but I wouldn't feel comfortable unless I knew the game, inside and out.

I've seen how just not knowing the insides of a car or computer can get you fucked seven ways to sunday by retail prices, schemers, scammers, charlatans and assholes, and if I were in a position of elected power, I'd want none of it. If you don't know how the system you're working with works, you're just a rubber stamp. You aren't adequately equipped to make such decisions for people, because you can't properly discriminate or convey legible thoughts and alternatives to what the salesmen are pitching at you.

I want to know the inside and out of business, government, bureacracy and be able to look up the history and direction of existing, past and future programs, and get some idea of who dwelled in them, and the interrelation between those people. I want to know these things, but I don't know where to start. I don't know any sources of knowledge I can search for that won't bury me in repetitious books by Ann Coulter or some untrustworthy ideological stew from Chomsky. I'm not looking for "you should buy a Macintosh because Macs are better and don't get viruses," I'm looking for dry, factual, technical information that makes no pre-assumptions about the outcomes.

I guess the only way forwards is business school, law and political science.

>>375287
No, knowing the game is how they turn you into one of them. You have to go in with full ignorance of how the system works, and force it to conform to your needs instead of the other way around. MAKE THE SYSTEM YOUR BITCH, ANON.

>>375290
You become like one of them by seeing only the moving goal posts and being lured by the money. Also having little vision, and without money, little hope.
With proper understanding of the system and engagement of the layman, the way Neil DeGrasse Tysen engages people who aren't astrophysicists with astrophysics, I believe conveying groundbreaking solutions is possible.

>>375287
>I'd kind of like to be a politician, I think.. but I wouldn't feel comfortable unless I knew the game, inside and out.

You have to raise money. Lots of money. And sell your soul for votes and corporations.

>some untrustworthy ideological stew from Chomsky.

How is he untrustworthy?

>>375350

or he can just deal drugs, become a kingpin, sit on it for about a decade or so, and then campaign

also note that not getting caught is the way to success.

also, i think the change starts with the people, not the politicians. we need to let them know what does and does not fly, instead of trying to invade politics, because i feel you'll get corrupted in the process.

You're Firelord, aren't you, Rainbow Kid? Either way, you wanna stop constantly using Avatar images while you spout off about politics?

>>375351
>also, i think the change starts with the people, not the politicians.

So do you support direct democracy?

>we need to let them know what does and does not fly, instead of trying to invade politics,

What if the politicians don't care what we want? Over 90% of Americans support background checks for guns and yet we can't get that passed.

>>375475
>Either way, you wanna stop constantly using Avatar images while you spout off about politics?

What about Korra pics?

>>375507
>What about Korra pics?

Still counts, and I'd rather you didn't. It just distracts from your argument, has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and makes you look like you're trying to draw attention to yourself.

Senators Rob Portman (OH), Claire McCaskill (MO), Mark Warner (VA), Jay Rockefeller (WV), Jon Tester (MT), Tim Kaine, and Kay Hagan (NC) have come out for marriage equality. That's amazing. And more is on the way. We need to continue to pressure the nine remanding Democrats to support marriage equality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supporters_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#U.S._Senators

Make sure you guys sign this petition and tell my US senator Bob Casey to support marriage equality:

http://signon.org/sign/tell-sen-casey-to-support

>>375511
He's just an avatarfag, don't respond to him anymore. Avatarfagging is the worst behavior.

>>375593

I don't agree with everything he says, but I'm not going to treat his posts differently than anyone else's just because he has an image for them. That would be stupid. Stop encouraging 4chan-esque behavior here. He's avatarfagging, but his posts have actual content behind them.

>>375593
your statement befuddles me. It's like criticizing a candidate (paul ryan, for instance) on his positions because he says them while wearing high black socks with crocs.

>>375609
That seems like a fair criticism of him, if he does it. How can you take someone seriously if their taste is that bad?

>>375620

Okay, enough of this nonsense. No one respond to this guy again.

>>>/4chan/