Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/04/15 22:16:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Let's stop the voter ID train before it derails this fascinating thread.
Did anyone watch the Bern/Rodham show yesterday? I missed it but have heard reports that Bernie took HRC to task.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/04/15 22:41:35
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It is, if they're deliberately unclear on which sorts of ID are permissible, if there are costs involved or if the offices that issue permissible ID are open four days in a year. Demanding a particular kind of ID is absolutely meant to make it increasingly difficult for people to vote. That's why it's being pushed.
I know in the state I currently live in (NC) and where I lived last year (GA) there is really no reason to be confused, the states are very clear on what sorts of ID are permissible. Both offer free voter ID to folks who need it as well.
Jake, remember that was put into place after the USSC came down like a ton of bricks on NC for their law.
Additionally, there was actually confusion because the law allowed for certain things or persons to be used as ID that were bizarre. For example, there was an age threshold(in the 60s+ I believe) that allowed for persons to vote with expired driver's licenses...provided it had expired within a 'reasonable amount of time'.
After that court case, the NC State Board of Elections was required to send out a bright green mailer to ALL registered voters that did not have a valid driver's license or ID.
It gave you 3 options:
"Yes, I have an acceptable form of Photo ID(must be unexpired, unless the expiration date is after your 70th birthday)."
"No, I do not have an acceptable form of Photo ID, but I don't need assistance."
"No, I do not have an acceptable form of Photo ID, and I need help obtaining one."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/15 22:57:32
2016/04/15 22:43:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
But, I refuse to believe VoterID laws makes things "harder" for folks to vote. It's a dumb argument and also,incredibly insulting.
Voter ID laws, like all laws regarding voter eligibility, create a series of hoops for people to jump through in order to determine their eligibility. All such laws, by necessity, make it more difficult to vote.
The question here isn't whether or not voter ID laws make it more difficult to vote, they do. The question is whether or not such added difficulty is necessary.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/04/15 22:46:15
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I know in the state I currently live in (NC) and where I lived last year (GA) there is really no reason to be confused, the states are very clear on what sorts of ID are permissible. Both offer free voter ID to folks who need it as well.
Jake, remember that was put into place after the USSC came down like a ton of bricks on NC for their law.
Additionally, there was actually confusion because the law allowed for certain things or persons to be used as ID that were bizarre. For example, there was an age threshold(in the 60s+ I believe) that allowed for persons to vote with expired driver's licenses...provided it had expired within a 'reasonable amount of time'.
I moved here last summer. Anything prior to that I don't know anything about. I didn't get registered to vote until this past December. I do know the process was simple, and the web site explained it well. Folks at the DMV were probably the best DMV folks I've dealt with (and I've dealt with many in several states).
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/04/15 22:58:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I moved in Jan '15 to a different county, but because I has the US Post Office forward my mail from my old address to new, I got my voter reg card to vote in my old county... AND I got my new voter card to vote. Conceivably, I could've voted in both St. Louis County and St. Charles County.
Simply because you received a voter registration card for your old address does not indicate that your name is still on the rolls in that county. After all, it takes a fair amount of time for document to be sent by mail, while it takes very little time to remove a person's name from a given record.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/04/15 23:17:48
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here Whem'. I looked through about a dozen of those and voter ID wouls not stop any of them.
That voter fraud does, indeed, exists and countering KillKrazy that it doesn't happen.
I moved in Jan '15 to a different county, but because I has the US Post Office forward my mail from my old address to new, I got my voter reg card to vote in my old county... AND I got my new voter card to vote. Conceivably, I could've voted in both St. Louis County and St. Charles County.
Simply because you received a voter registration card for your old address does not indicate that your name is still on the rolls in that county. After all, it takes a fair amount of time for document to be sent by mail, while it takes very little time to remove a person's name from a given record.
Voter Registration card *is* is a valid form of ID in my state. All I have to do is "show" it to the pollster that I'm allowed to vote there is enough. Then, I'd get a non-identifiable voting sheet to make my selections.
I *could've* done it again in my old county. It just to point out that the voter roll isn't the end-all-be-all to ensure a 1 person-to-vote concept and that it's ripe for abuse.
But, I refuse to believe VoterID laws makes things "harder" for folks to vote. It's a dumb argument and also,incredibly insulting.
Voter ID laws, like all laws regarding voter eligibility, create a series of hoops for people to jump through in order to determine their eligibility. All such laws, by necessity, make it more difficult to vote.
Sure, I'll go with that assessment.
The question here isn't whether or not voter ID laws make it more difficult to vote, they do. The question is whether or not such added difficulty is necessary.
Isn't Federalism a great thing?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/04/15 23:25:24
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/15 23:51:15
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
You have completely missed the point. Voter fraud exist, but not voter impersonation (the only kind voter ID stops). Voter impersonation is basically non-existent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/15 23:52:59
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/04/15 23:56:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: You have completely missed the point. Voter fraud exist, but not voter impersonation (the only kind voter ID stops). Voter impersonation is basically non-existent.
Not accordings to the wall-o-text I posted previously... it's a lil' more than non-existent.
Having a rigorous review of the voter rolls AND supplying a valid ID can only be a good thing.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/16 00:13:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: You have completely missed the point. Voter fraud exist, but not voter impersonation (the only kind voter ID stops). Voter impersonation is basically non-existent.
Not accordings to the wall-o-text I posted previously... it's a lil' more than non-existent.
Having a rigorous review of the voter rolls AND supplying a valid ID can only be a good thing.
Let's see then
1. Voter ID would not stop 2. Voter ID would not stop 3. Voter ID would not stop 4. Voter ID would not stop 5. Voter ID would not stop 6. Allegations, and Voter ID would not stop 7. Voter ID would not stop 8. Voter ID would not stop 9. Voter ID would not stop, and it doesn't seem to actually be vote fraud (although I guess it depends on that state's rules) 10.Voter ID would not stop 11. Voter ID would not stop 12. Voter ID would not stop 13. Voter ID would not stop 14. Voter ID would not stop 15. Voter ID would not stop 16. Voter ID would not stop 17. Voter ID would not stop 18. Voter ID would not stop 19. Voter ID would not stop 20. Voter ID would not stop 21. Voter ID would not stop 22. Voter ID would not stop 23. Voter IDwould stop... if he wasn't caught while registering, negating the whole issue. If the false ID was accepted, it actually wouldn't, as it would be good enough to pass anyway. 24. Does not appear to be voter impersonation, thus Voter ID would not stop 25. Voter ID would not stop 26. Voter ID would not stop 27. Voter ID would not stop 28. Voter ID would not stop 29. Voter ID would not stop 30. Voter ID would not stop 31. Weird. Also, Voter ID would not stop
I'd do them all, but I don't have the time.
edit: I'm wondering, did you miss "voter impersonation" or are you just playing dumb.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/16 00:30:35
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/04/16 00:36:31
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Voter Registration card *is* is a valid form of ID in my state. All I have to do is "show" it to the pollster that I'm allowed to vote there is enough. I *could've* done it again in my old county. It just to point out that the voter roll isn't the end-all-be-all to ensure a 1 person-to-vote concept and that it's ripe for abuse.
Unless polling places in your State don't check IDs against a roll of eligible voters, which would defeat the purpose of providing ID in the first place, I highly doubt you could've done what you describe.
That depends. Are you of the position that States have the right to independently determine the eligibility requirements to vote in a Federal, direct election?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/04/16 00:48:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Voter Registration card *is* is a valid form of ID in my state. All I have to do is "show" it to the pollster that I'm allowed to vote there is enough. I *could've* done it again in my old county. It just to point out that the voter roll isn't the end-all-be-all to ensure a 1 person-to-vote concept and that it's ripe for abuse.
Unless polling places in your State don't check IDs against a roll of eligible voters, which would defeat the purpose of providing ID in the first place, I highly doubt you could've done what you describe.
That depends. Are you of the position that States have the right to independently determine the eligibility requirements to vote in a Federal, direct election?
The USSC ruled it that way... meaning the states determines *how* to implement voter laws/regulations.
@Co'tor Shas: buddy... you're jumping in between me & KK's tiff. Furthermore, you & I don't see eye-to-eye on this, so let's declare an impasse... cool?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/16 01:05:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
In North Carolina, prior to the new ID law, they did. Each polling place has a list of all people eligible to vote there, and when you go in to vote they check that you are on the list (and mark that you have now voted). You would not have been able to vote in your previous county because you would no longer be on the approved list, unless you had not yet switched your registration to your current address.
The ONLY thing NC's voter ID law does is prevents the hypothetical situation where I show up at the polling place where you are registered to vote, say "hi, I'm Whembly", and vote under your name. This theoretically prevents some voting fraud, but in practice the number of cases which would have been prevented by the new law is somewhere between "nonexistent" and "so tiny it would have no effect on any real-world election".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/16 01:05:14
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/04/16 01:40:06
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
As fun as it is watching one side post a list of 30 things and how they don't say what one side thinks they said, and that other side responding with a gif and calling a tie, I think we're getting bogged down in voter ID. We're leaving it there and moving on.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
2016/04/16 03:17:26
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The Guardian wrote:Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, waded into the row by describing Obama as the most anti-British president in history. “Mercifully, this American president, who is the most anti-British American president there has ever been...,” Farage said
Presidents Washington and Madison could not be reached for comment.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/04/16 03:44:45
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The Guardian wrote:Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, waded into the row by describing Obama as the most anti-British president in history. “Mercifully, this American president, who is the most anti-British American president there has ever been...,” Farage said
Presidents Washington and Madison could not be reached for comment.
Bernie Sanders says his platform makes financial sense for most Americans. For example, his campaign says Sanders's single-payer health care system would save an average family of four almost $6,000 per year.
But in order to pay for his proposed programs, Sanders needs to increase taxes on virtually everyone in America. So if you're a voter, the question is simple:
Are you willing to pay more taxes for his proposals, like nationalized health care and free public college tuition?
How much more?
When we polled voters, we found most Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for his biggest proposals. That's well short of how much more the average taxpayer would pay under his tax plan.
We asked voters how much more they are willing to pay for nationalized health care and free public college
We conducted a poll the week of April 4 in partnership with the nonpartisan technology and media company Morning Consult. In it, we asked voters how much more they would be willing to pay for two of Sanders's big propositions: a universal health care system covering all Americans and free tuition at public colleges and universities.
Most Americans say they are willing to pay something extra for these programs:
Nationalized health care: Around 80 percent of Sanders supporters are willing to pay more in federal taxes for universal health care coverage, compared with about 70 percent of Clinton supporters and about 40 percent of those supporting a Republican candidate.
Free public college tuition: A slightly lower percentage of people were willing to pay more for free public college tuition: 80 percent of Sanders supporters, 60 percent of Clinton supporters, and about 40 percent of those supporting a Republican candidate.
But when we look at how much more voters are willing to pay, we get a better idea of how voters view Sanders's plan.
Two in three Sanders supporters don't want to pay more than $1,000, or at all, for universal health care
About 66 percent of Sanders supporters said they wouldn't be willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for universal health care. This includes the 8 percent of Sanders supporters who aren't willing to pay anything at all.
How much more are you willing to pay in federal taxes for a universal health care system that covers all Americans? <see website for dynamic graph on this>
When we asked what percentage of their income they would pay, rather than a dollar figure, voters seem to be a bit more generous.
While half of Sanders supporters said they aren't willing to pay or that they're only willing to pay less than 5 percent of their income, a quarter said they would pay between 5 and 10 percent.
What Sanders supporters are willing to pay isn't enough for his health care plan
In 2015, the average person on an employer-sponsored health plan paid a little more than $1,000 annually in premiums, and the average family paid nearly $5,000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
In other words, even Sanders supporters are saying they don't want to pay as much to the federal government for health care as they are paying right now in the private sector.
But Sanders's plan to pay for universal health care coverage would increase taxes on most voters by more than $1,000. He wants to:
Add a 2.2 percentage point surcharge on individual incomes. This means marginal tax rates go up for everyone. (After a standard deduction, about a quarter of households won't have to pay this surcharge.)
Add a new 6.2 percent tax on earnings, which employers pay — but will be passed on to workers over time in the form of lower wages, according to the Tax Policy Center's Roberton Williams.
The kicker for all of this? Some analysts believe Sanders's plan will cost twice as much as his campaign estimates.
Older people and wealthier people don't want to pay as much When you break down the poll results by age, rather than by candidate, it appears older people don't want to pay as much for universal health care. This is especially interesting because older people have higher premiums, use the health care system more often, and spend a larger portion of their money on health care. So a universal health care system would curb their spending a lot more. Still, they either don't want Sanders's health care plan or they want to pay less for it:
How much more are you willing to pay in federal taxes for a universal health care system that covers all Americans? <see website for dynamic graph on this>
Exit polls have shown older people are much less likely to support Sanders compared with younger people, and this shows that a big part of that might be older people unwilling to hand over more money to the federal government to provide services.
But the other factor might be income. Older people generally make more money and are more likely to be employed, and our poll shows that people who earn more money would pay less for Sanders's health care plan — both as a percentage of their income and in dollars.
How much more are you willing to pay in federal taxes for a universal health care system that covers all Americans? <see website for dynamic graph on this>
About two in three Sanders supporters don't want to pay extra, or no more than $1,000, for free public college tuition Sanders supporters are far and away the most likely to want free public college tuition. Still, 14 percent said they don't want to pay additional taxes for it — and another half said they would only pay up to $1,000 a year:
How much more are you willing to pay in federal taxes for free tuition at public colleges and universities? <see website for dynamic graph on this>
That said, in a theoretical world where every Sanders policy comes true, they might not even have to pay a dime. The way Sanders proposes paying for free public college tuition is by levying a tax on Wall Street speculators.
Older and wealthy people do not want to be taxed more for higher education
One reason so many Sanders supporters might be willing to pay more for higher education is that for many of them, it is a large burden right now.
Sanders has consistently polled well among voters under 30, who are recent college graduates, and those are the voters who said in our poll that they were willing to pay more taxes for free public college tuition.
Meanwhile, a larger portion of older people said they did not want to pay more for free public college tuition:
How much more are you willing to pay in federal taxes for free tuition at public colleges and universities? <see website for dynamic graph on this>
This is also reflected in people of higher income brackets, who were similarly less willing to pony up to fund higher education:
How much more are you willing to pay in federal taxes for free tuition at public colleges and universities? <see website for dynamic graph on this>
Many Sanders supporters don't want to Feel the Bern in their wallets
Sanders's plan would put an additional $5,000 of federal tax liability on households earning $50,000, but in exchange he would nationalize vital services currently in the private sector.
That means at least some of the money we're now paying private companies would be paid to the federal government instead.
But the majority of Sanders supporters in our poll (much less all voters) aren't willing to pay enough to actually support those nationalized services.
This isn't a question of whether Sanders's ideas are valid. This is a question of how voters are thinking about Sanders's revolution, which is a radical increase in the scope of what government is responsible for, versus the private sector.
To their credit, some Sanders supporters have done the math and figured out that even with big tax increases, they would end up saving more money from Sanders's new programs. But many other people were surprised when they used our candidate tax calculator and found out how much additional taxes they would pay under Sanders's plan.
Yet that's the revolution — one that promises Medicare for all, public college tuition for all, massive investments in infrastructure, expanded Social Security, etc. Those services require higher taxes, but could also save people money in the long run.
It's a shift in the way we think about how we pay for social services. But right now, it appears that even Sanders supporters haven't gotten their heads around what that means for their finances.
Kinda scary when you think about it...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/16 03:59:33
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
About 66 percent of Sanders supporters said they wouldn't be willing to pay more than an additional $1,000 in taxes for universal health care.
...
In 2015, the average person on an employer-sponsored health plan paid a little more than $1,000 annually in premiums, and the average family paid nearly $5,000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
In other words, even Sanders supporters are saying they don't want to pay as much to the federal government for health care as they are paying right now in the private sector.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/04/16 04:16:54
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
What's the point of even responding to him anymore? Best case scenario, he posts a big wall of garbage that doesn't prove his point, gets called out on it, and posts a gif saying it's a mulligan.
I'm not trying to restart that discussion, just pointing out that if this thread is going to stay open, maybe we should just ignore the worst parts of it, the parts that have a 2+ save to rational discussion.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/16 05:07:41
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/04/16 05:18:21
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
What's the point of even responding to him anymore? Best case scenario, he posts a big wall of garbage that doesn't prove his point, gets called out on it, and posts a gif saying it's a mulligan.
EDIT: acknowledging that reasonable people can have differences in opinions is NOT an attempt to walk back by posting a gif mulligan.
I'm not trying to restart that discussion, just pointing out that if this thread is going to stay open, maybe we should just ignore the worst parts of it, the parts that have a 2+ save to rational discussion.
So, let me know if I understand you correctly...
Vox isn't to be used in any rational discussions?
Jesus... what source can I used?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/16 05:25:26
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/16 05:37:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
FDR is my personal fave , so yeah, I’d have to agree. Teddy I’m not so well informed on, outside of the ‘Teddy was an awesome man of action’ stuff. I understand he fought a lot of corruption, but that’s about all I know.
The story goes that, during the days of Teddy, getting the VP job was basically political suicide, if your ambition was to be president one day. So, to basically get him away from "real" politics, the Republicans got Teddy the VP job. Little did they know that their president was gonna croak, and give Teddy the job he always wanted.
One particular big reason why they didn't want a Teddy presidency was because not only was he anti-corruption, he was anti-"Big Business". Namely, in that his previous campaign promises were extremely heavy handed and very anti-trust (The Carnegies and Rockefellers donated/bribed a bunch of people to keep him out of office, because they were worried about their position, should he have gotten into power)
Today, Sanders' platform is very reminiscent of the first Roosevelt's in that he's "promised" to go after, and dismantle the huge banks on wall street, get Glass-Steagel (or a more modern version of it) put in place... It's kind of a modern anti-trust stance.
2016/04/16 06:58:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Did anyone watch the Bern/Rodham show yesterday? I missed it but have heard reports that Bernie took HRC to task.
I didn't see it...
But, I did see Obama's former advisor tweet this:
David AxelrodVerified account
@davidaxelrod
Unless she genuinely feels none, shouldn't @HillaryClinton express some regrets or lessons learned on Libya? #demdebate
So... that prompted me to read CNN's debate transcript.
Dayum... Sanders got some zingers in...
EDIT: this is one thing I respect out of Sanders:
SANDERS: We're going to work with state governments all over this country. And you know what? In a very divided Congress, and a very divided politics in America, actually the one area where there is some common ground is conservatives understand that it's insane to be spending $80 billion a year locking up 2.2 million people.
With federal and presidential leadership, we will work with state governments to make sure that people are released from jail under strong supervision, that they get the kind of job training and education they need so they can return to their communities. On this one, Errol, actually I think you're going to see progressive and conservative support. We can do it, if we're prepared to be bold.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/16 07:14:38
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/16 23:13:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
SANDERS: ...that they [captives in gitmo] get the kind of job training and education they need so they can return to their communities.
Wow. Just... wow. I know Sanders is ignorant when it comes to the war on terror, but this is taking idiocy to a whole new level.
Err, I think you got the context on that wrong. The quote is referring to prisons in the US and domestic criminals, not the ridiculous mess of "we can keep you in prison forever without any kind of trial as long as we declare that you're a Bad Person" we have with "terrorists".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/04/16 23:31:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ahtman wrote: Not sure what makes him an American Hero but Ok.
"OH GOD OH GOD ANYONE BUT TRUMP"?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/04/17 01:23:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
SANDERS: ...that they [captives in gitmo] get the kind of job training and education they need so they can return to their communities.
Wow. Just... wow. I know Sanders is ignorant when it comes to the war on terror, but this is taking idiocy to a whole new level.
I am incredibly curious as to where you got your quote from. Particularly the insertion of "[captives in gitmo]", which was not present in the actual transcript, and is not even what they were talking about at the time.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2016/04/17 13:49:43
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
, so yeah, I’d have to agree. Teddy I’m not so well informed on, outside of the ‘Teddy was an awesome man of action’ stuff. I understand he fought a lot of corruption, but that’s about all I know.
