This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The National Defense Authorization ACt for Fiscal Year 2012
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Whatever the case, for or against, the ACLU is one of the most biased organizations. To have them as your sole source of information is disingenuous.
I think the ACLU understands the same thing as the Founding Fathers: that one’s appreciation of the right to free speech is tested at its limits, rather than in the middle. The freedom to say inoffensive things is precisely the freedom enjoyed by people under the mutaween in Saudi Arabia or under the Democratic Republic of North Korea. They’ve supported the right of children to wear shirts that say “Islam is of the devil” and for the right of corporations to sponsor candidates as corporations are legally people and to limit a person’s right to spend their money is a limitation of their speech (an interpretation I’d actually disagree with).
I don’t think the word “disingenuous” means what you think it means: if facesmasher knew of another source that contradicted the ACLU and chose to focus on the source from the ACLU I’d agree. By the way, I think that if one has Fox as a source (perhaps even a secondary source), one is inclined to have a skewed approach to the ACLU: Fox supports ACLJ, an organisation set up by Pat Robertson (the guy that thinks 9/11 is God’s punishment for homosexuality and abortion and that Alzheimer’s is a good reason to divorce one’s wife). Here is a partisan source exposing Fox’s distortions in relation to the ACLU:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBig928zYgY
. He also has other videos relating to how the founding fathers did not apportion themselves extra powers in times of war (4th amendment being a good example of their consistency) and how due process equally applies to enemy combatants.
What a well worded 'nou'! It's like a reflex. My pointing out that the ACLU is biased... well.. if any conservative points out the biases of an organization, liberals everywhere will scream "NO, FOX". It's like bias and Fox go hand in hand, and nothing else matters. I didn't even mention Fox in my post, or whether it is biased or is not biased.
And I don't care what you think the ACLU is doing right... they are still biased. Check out their
website
, and scroll to the bottom. They will list many many political topics, and their biases for or against. I'm not even saying being biased is BAD. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be an only source. Why does that necessitate this sort of reaction?
Post by
Monday
It's simple. Liberals act like their news sources aren't biased, then bash conservatives.
As we should all know
, both sides' sources are biased.
Post by
MyTie
both sides' sources are biased.
Agreed.
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, Funden brought up Fox News in order to equivocate. Fox News has a vested interest in attempting to delegitimize the ACLU as a source, whereas I can't find any evidence of the ACLU attempting to do anything other than present their stances on issues. The ACLU is certainly a liberal organisation in that it is interested in protecting liberty, but they extend the defence of liberty to organisations that would probably be very stridently against the ACLU if it weren't for their invaluable help. I've never seen Fox News support liberty in instances where said liberty did not comply with the Republican party's stance.
I don't deny that the ACLU have a slant (namely equal application of the Bill of Rights to everyone), but I want you to reevaluate your decision as to whether they are a legitimate source based on the fact that a news source you utilise misrepresents their position (something that the ACLU has no interest in doing in turn).
Edit: Tense fix.
Post by
MyTie
I don't deny that the ACLU have a slant (namely equal application of the Bill of Rights to everyone), but I want you to reevaluate your decision as to whether they are a legitimate source based on the fact that a news source you utilise misrepresents their position (something that the ACLU has no interest in doing in turn).
I don't look at fox solely. The quick links to news I have available to me are: CNN and Foxnews. I read both every morning. I kind of dislike Fox because of all the celebrity nonsense in it, and I kind of dislike Cnn because it has all these sympathy peices that make no sense to me. They both irritate me, but I think it's a pretty good way to get a well rounded view.
Anyway, I try not to use Fox as my only source on information in a debate. So, I don't know that I need to reevaluate anything.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
It means that all of Randomness has fallen to the Australians.
Post by
79224
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
Is the activity in this thread indicative of how little Americans care about politics? Because this is shocking.
Personally, I feel that the atmosphere of this board in recent weeks has been borderline hostile. Whenever constructive conversation tries to happen, it's been increasingly drowned out by 'loudness' of a few (usually extreme) views or the rebuttal of those views. As such, I've lost a lot of motivation to discuss anything with the potential to stir up controversy, because I rarely get anything of value from extremist arguments -- it's become like Wikipedia: trustworthy and reliable as long as the topic is boring; unreliable and skewed (nearly to the point of irrelevance) if the topic is controversial.
That aside, this bill has my attention. The White House has been audibly silent about its veto threat since the Senate passed it, which is worrying.
White House officials declined to comment Tuesday on the conference committee report, which was released Monday evening, saying they were still reviewing the bill. The conference committee made concessions on the detainees issue in the final bill, in hope of neutralizing the veto threat.
While I think the right thing for the President to do would be veto it (should it pass the House), something tells me that "
Obama Vetoes Must-Pass Defense Authorization
" isn't a headline that Obama is willing to create (paint me unconfident in his Spine) -- especially when there may enough support as-written for Congress to override the Veto.
What an interesting fight that has most of the Senate in both parties on one side, and Barack Obama and Ron Paul on the other. The roll call vote on the bill is also interesting, the 7 NAYs were:
Sen. Thomas Coburn
Sen. Mike Lee
Sen. Rand Paul
Sen. Thomas Harkin
Sen. Jeff Merkley
Sen. Ron Wyden
Sen. Bernard Sanders
Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul agreeing on something is enough to make me pay close attention.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gnomerdon
i found a interesting youtube clip from senator jeff merkley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhjw7ZT7pU&feature=related
Post by
gnomerdon
Update: Obama isn't going to veto it.
As expected from president barack obama. =
Post by
Gone
Blah Blah liberal bullsh!t
Blah Blah conservative fascists
I know this makes me sound like a tool, but I have too much other &*!@ in my life right now to worry about politics. Atm at least.
Also
As stated by someone.
Post by
Heckler
So the House passed H.R.1540 and the Senate passed S.1867 , but these aren't actually the same bill right? So either the House still has to pass the Senate version unamended, or vice versa; or the two bills must be reconciled in conference committee before they go to the President, right? I believe H.R.1540 will just go to the Senate, since it was amended with text from S.1867 after it passed the Senate. So there's still a little time to make a change (though I doubt anyone will).
Does anyone have a substantive comparison between the original offending language and the new changes?
My Representative voted yes. Perhaps it's time I wrote another letter.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
I'm not too worried about being mistaken for one myself.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Well excuse my ignorance, but can't the government sorta already do this?
Actually, the USA Patriot Act didn't include indefinite detention. Indefinite detention without trial was something the George W Bush Administration asserted as part of the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief using force under Congress' September 18, 2001, Authorization for Use of Military Force (see
law
) which didn't specifically mention detention. The current National Defense Authorization Act provision will be the first time the US Congress has codified that indefinite detention authority that GW Bush just asserted
Post by
819424
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gnomerdon
NDAA passed :)
we can now sleep at night while the government takes care of terrorism in our country.
Post by
Pwntiff
NDAA passed :)
we can now sleep at night while the government takes care of terrorism in our country.
How politically literate are you, actually?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.