Politics And Current Events

Postby **dodint** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:02 pm

Is the German plane disaster an act of terror? Why or why not?
No, it was suicide/mass murder without a political statement being made.
So terrorism must include a political agenda?

I was trained that terrorism has political, religious, or ideological objectives. Interestingly terrorism has no internationally recognized definition because certain countries won't opt-in on a definition that includes all three of those motivations.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:36 pm

Postby **Factorial** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:42 pm

Is the German plane disaster an act of terror? Why or why not?
No, it was suicide/mass murder without a political statement being made.
So terrorism must include a political agenda?
I was trained that terrorism has political, religious, or ideological objectives. Interestingly terrorism has no internationally recognized definition because certain countries won't opt-in on a definition that includes all three of those motivations.

I would include religious and ideological under political.

Postby **count2infinity** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:57 pm

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102541217?__sour ... =102541217

Antarctica may have experienced its warmest day ever recorded on Tuesday, with the temperature reading of 63.5°F, reports The Weather Underground.

Postby **columbia** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:00 pm

I believe in science, except when it doesn't support my beliefs.

Postby **dodint** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:31 am

Is the German plane disaster an act of terror? Why or why not?
No, it was suicide/mass murder without a political statement being made.
So terrorism must include a political agenda?
I was trained that terrorism has political, religious, or ideological objectives. Interestingly terrorism has no internationally recognized definition because certain countries won't opt-in on a definition that includes all three of those motivations.
I would include religious and ideological under political.

Okay.

Postby **redwill** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:37 am

RE: Financing elections

What do you think would have happened if in 2011-2012 -- in the wake of Citizens United v. FEC -- Obama had said that he would accept NO campaign contributions. NO money. Support NO ads. Etc.

Just run on his record, which was out there and everyone was gonna talk about anyway.

Do you think it would have made a difference in the election? I tend to think not. But I dunno. He would have got a bump for not taking money, but he would have presumably lost all those votes he might have gained from 24/7 ads on TV, radio, and the interwebz. That's a joke, in a way. I suspect that candidates break even in votes gained/lost through overexposure.

In any case, my question only applies to Obama in that he was an incumbent POTUS with the bully pulpit and all that. Certainly a no-name couldn't succeed with a no-money campaign.

Anyhoo, just a question about why we assume money MUST play such a huge role in national elections.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:41 am

I read an article not too long ago (I'll try and find it again) that in there is a diminishing return (as with all advertising) with 24/7 radio, tv, print, etc... to the point that you actually can spend too much money on those kinds of things and do damage to your candidacy, that what the "money" really buys you (no pun intended) is a larger staff, which does make a difference.

I also am of the school that "money in politics" is one of those things that when compared to what Americans spend on candy at Halloween it really is not that big a deal.

Postby **columbia** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:14 am

I also am of the school that "money in politics" is one of those things that when compared to what Americans spend on candy at Halloween it really is not that big a deal.

Well, candy and campaign donations are similar in that they are both useful to get your children politicians to conform to your will.

Postby **NAN** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:20 am

Can someone who follows this stuff summarize the Arab League's new army they are putting together to fight terrorism. I get confused because I would think Iran would be in there, but Iran is supporting some of the terrorist, and it seems some countries have common enemies, and some of common alliances, and some mix and match.

It's just a giant cluster over there.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:30 am

FWIW

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/mee ... -indianas/

Postby **Factorial** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:32 am

Can someone who follows this stuff summarize the Arab League's new army they are putting together to fight terrorism. I get confused because I would think Iran would be in there, but Iran is supporting some of the terrorist, and it seems some countries have common enemies, and some of common alliances, and some mix and match.

It's just a giant cluster over there.

The Arab League's new army is there to fight off Shiite Iran's terrorism/invasions. Whether they will fight their own Sunni terrorism (ISIS) is a good question.

Postby **PFiDC** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:08 am

FWIW

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/mee ... -indianas/

But these laws are strictly for Christians to discriminate against gays right?

Postby **redwill** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:34 am

FWIW

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/mee ... -indianas/

Meet the First Church of Cannabis:

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/loca ... f-cannabis

Next up: The First Church of Donkey-Bonkers ?

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:43 am

FWIW

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/mee ... -indianas/
Meet the First Church of Cannabis:

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/loca ... f-cannabis

Next up: The First Church of Donkey-Bonkers ?

I have seen a lot of my "liberal" (trying to reclaim that word back to its rightful place in a classical sense, hence the quotation marks) posting this as if it is some big refutation. Good for them, the more the merrier.

Postby **redwill** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:46 am

I have seen a lot of my "liberal" (trying to reclaim that word back to its rightful place in a classical sense, hence the quotation marks) posting this as if it is some big refutation. Good for them, the more the merrier.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:53 am

This week in Politicians Don't Know Their Own State Laws

I don’t know how many staffers, lawyers, and advisers currently work for Malloy, but it’s a real shame that not a single one of them told the governor that Connecticut has had an expansive RFRA on the books for over two decades. That’s right: Connecticut passed its own RFRA law on June 29, 1993. You can read the law for yourself here. The inanity of Malloy’s move doesn’t stop there, though. What makes his grandstanding particularly absurd is the fact that Connecticut’s RFRA provides far greater religious liberty protections than Indiana’s or even the federal government’s.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/con ... ates-rfra/

Postby **tifosi77** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:58 pm

I also am of the school that "money in politics" is one of those things that when compared to what Americans spend on candy at Halloween it really is not that big a deal.

Considering the tub-o-lard childrens that come to my neighborhood do not have the authority to commit the United States to war or sign treaties, I'd say this analysis is perhaps a touch off the mark.

I've seen some estimates that suggest the 2016 presidential race will see close to $5 billion being spent. That's double what was spent in 2008.

Postby **tifosi77** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:00 pm

Can someone explain how Indiana's law differs from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993?

>>>New in National Review: “Is Indiana Protecting Discrimination?” and Responding to Criticisms<<<

The main difference between RFRA and Indiana is that when RFRA was passed the country was still ten years removed from having a jurisdiction in which same-sex marriage was legal. The Indiana law was passed in the context of a time in our country where about 75% of the population lives in states where same-sex marriage rights are fully recognized or recognized in part, and where the SCOTUS is about to hear argument on four cases that will more or less end the discussion of constitutionality once and for all. Consequently, an outcome of the Indiana law is that it can effectively nullify rights that have been recognized for a party or parties; that really wasn't the case when RFRA was passed.

Bear in mind also the context of the passage of the two laws: RFRA was passed in large part owing to debates about the use of peyote by American Indians in certain tribal ceremonies. It was intended to protect religious practice of individuals, even if there has been some application of the law to businesses. The Indiana law is not nearly so magnanimous, as its intent is to empower business owners to discriminate against individuals.

Postby **NAN** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:08 pm

Can someone who follows this stuff summarize the Arab League's new army they are putting together to fight terrorism. I get confused because I would think Iran would be in there, but Iran is supporting some of the terrorist, and it seems some countries have common enemies, and some of common alliances, and some mix and match.

It's just a giant cluster over there.
The Arab League's new army is there to fight off Shiite Iran's terrorism/invasions. Whether they will fight their own Sunni terrorism (ISIS) is a good question.

So Iran is backing forces fighting ISIS, while also backing forces fighting our allies in Yemen, Saudi, etc, and have the stronghold goverments in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

So it is truly a cluster.

Postby **grunthy** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:10 pm

Who cares. Just don't frequent an establishment you don't like. It isn't hard.

Postby **tifosi77** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:12 pm

So Iran is backing forces fighting ISIS, while also backing forces fighting our allies in Yemen, Saudi, etc, and have the stronghold goverments in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

So it is truly a cluster.

I think it was Jon Stewart who pointed out that it basically took 30+ years of meddling with affairs in the Middle East, but we finally managed to get into a war against ourselves.

Postby **NAN** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:14 pm

So Iran is backing forces fighting ISIS, while also backing forces fighting our allies in Yemen, Saudi, etc, and have the stronghold goverments in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

So it is truly a cluster.
I think it was Jon Stewart who pointed out that it basically took 30+ years of meddling with affairs in the Middle East, but we finally managed to get into a war against ourselves.

Yeah, I was reading the paper today and even our Arab allies are confused as to why we are in talks with Iran on one side, but supporting those same allies in a fight against Iranian backed rebels on the other side.

Postby **Sarcastic** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:16 pm

FWIW

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/mee ... -indianas/
Meet the First Church of Cannabis:

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/loca ... f-cannabis

Next up: The First Church of Donkey-Bonkers ?
I have seen a lot of my "liberal" (trying to reclaim that word back to its rightful place in a classical sense, hence the quotation marks) posting this as if it is some big refutation. Good for them, the more the merrier.

Somewhere along the line, the word "liberal" became dirty. I think it's a great word.

Postby **Sarcastic** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:19 pm

So Iran is backing forces fighting ISIS, while also backing forces fighting our allies in Yemen, Saudi, etc, and have the stronghold goverments in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

So it is truly a cluster.
I think it was Jon Stewart who pointed out that it basically took 30+ years of meddling with affairs in the Middle East, but we finally managed to get into a war against ourselves.

That's kinda what it is, though. We're fighting guys we backed and are on the same side, at least for the moment, of guys we hated. All in the name of American quest to shape and control the whole planet.