[grover5]

Does catching them on the battlefield planting, building or setting off bombs and killing us and our allies make them perceived or not? Just curious as to how high that bar is. What about actively recruiting homicide bombers or slaughtering villagers who don't attack us on their behalf? What about raping and mutilating those who wish to remain neutral because they are not "real" Muslims. Would getting iris scans and GFR from them in repeated locations of attacks on our troops make them enemies?

Obviously, they are misunderstood and we are ruthless in our oppression. I get that. I'm just not sure that word perceived means what you think it means.

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

We snatched people off the streets of major cities. We grabbed them as they were leaving work. I think I might like a fair trial and to be actually accused of a crime formally if that were me. Your fear is driving your decision making.

[Captain_Hilts]

Does catching them on the battlefield planting, building or setting off bombs and killing us and our allies make them perceived or not? Just curious as to how high that bar is. What about actively recruiting homicide bombers or slaughtering villagers who don't attack us on their behalf? What about raping and mutilating those who wish to remain neutral because they are not "real" Muslims. Would getting iris scans and GFR from them in repeated locations of attacks on our troops make them enemies?

Obviously, they are misunderstood and we are ruthless in our oppression. I get that. I'm just not sure that word perceived means what you think it means.

"I don't think that word means what you think it means."

Not every one was caught planting, building, or setting off bombs. Not every one actively recruited "homicide bombers" or slaughtered villagers. Not every one raped or mutilated those they perceived to be fake Muslims.

You say "I get that" (of course you're trying to use it in a clever manner), but I don't think that phrase means what you think it means, because you don't get much of anything. You seem to think that imprisonment equates to guilt, that people in prison are only in prison because they belong in prison. What would you say to the countless individuals (mostly men of color) freed from unjust imprisonment in America either because of racism inherent in the system or due to faulty evidence or no evidence? Would you tell them to go back, arguing that they are in fact guilty because of the simple fact that they were IN prison?

No one here said that those in Guantanamo are misunderstood while we are ruthless in our oppression. Again, if you want to argue, look at what we actually say instead of spouting this divisive garbage that's only meant to accuse those on the political left of loving terrorists.

Posted via CB10

[grover5]

Not every one was caught planting, building, or setting off bombs. Not every one actively recruited "homicide bombers" or slaughtered villagers. Not every one raped or mutilated those they perceived to be fake Muslims.

You say "I get that" (of course you're trying to use it in a clever manner), but I don't think that phrase means what you think it means, because you don't get much of anything. You seem to think that imprisonment equates to guilt, that people in prison are only in prison because they belong in prison. What would you say to the countless individuals (mostly men of color) freed from unjust imprisonment in America either because of racism inherent in the system or due to faulty evidence or no evidence? Would you tell them to go back, arguing that they are in fact guilty because of the simple fact that they were IN prison?

No one here said that those in Guantanamo are misunderstood while we are ruthless in our oppression. Again, if you want to argue, look at what we actually say instead of spouting this divisive garbage that's only meant to accuse those on the political left of loving terrorists.

Posted via CB10

Innocent until proven guilty. An American staple lost on those filled with fear.

[thurask]

Unrelated to anything, but:

[Herzanyo]

I prefer Trump...

[Captain_Hilts]

Innocent until proven guilty. An American staple lost on those filled with fear.

Exactly. Scary, ain't it? And then they say, "Well, if the tables were turned, would they show US mercy?" Of course they wouldn't! And that's exactly what makes us better than terrorist organizations. We have laws, principles. They don't. We don't (or shouldn't) govern by fear, extreme religious doctrine, or hatred. They do. Why would anyone think that a good way for us to beat terrorists is to compromise our principles?

Posted via CB10

[Soapm]

Does catching them on the battlefield planting, building or setting off bombs and killing us and our allies make them perceived or not? Just curious as to how high that bar is. ."

Wasn't our ship floating in their waters?

[Soapm]

Iran also promotes terrorist activities toward Isreal. .

I lost my program, why is it again we love Israel so much? And treat them better than we do our own citizens?

I'm just wondering why it upsets you that Iran says "boo" to Israel when I thought the objective was eliminate Government, everyone get their own gun and defend what's yours... And since we give Israel all their guns for free, shouldn't we just tell them to build a wall or something?

By the way, I find it funny we now want to build a wall after telling the Russians to tear theirs down...

[ikalinin]

The sad reality is that people dont get out and vote.

Posted via CB10 on the Classic

[Soapm]

The sad reality is that people dont get out and vote.

Posted via CB10 on the Classic

Because we passed laws, like the voter id laws, that makes some shy of the polling place....

But you're right, if everyone would go vote, we could vote out the guys who make those laws...

[Dave Bourque]

Because we passed laws, like the voter id laws, that makes some shy of the polling place....

But you're right, if everyone would go vote, we could vote out the guys who make those laws...

Also people don't vote because they can't afford to take time off work.

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2876

[Captain_Hilts]

Also people don't vote because they can't afford to take time off work.

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2876

Which is exactly why election day should be a national holiday, but republicans know that if they did that, they'd never win another national election ever again and would probably lose a lot of congressional races as well. Their strategy, along with gerrymandering, is therefore to make voting as difficult as possible because voting is apparently a privilege, not a right.

Posted via CB10

[middbrew]

Because we passed laws, like the voter id laws, that makes some shy of the polling place....

But you're right, if everyone would go vote, we could vote out the guys who make those laws...

Low voter turnouts were happening long before any voter ID laws were enacted.

Year	Voting Age Pop	Turnout	Turnout %
1932	75,768	39,817	52.6%
1936	80,174	45,647	56.9%
1940	84,728	49,815	58.8%
1944	85,654	48,026	56.1%
1948	95,573	48,834	51.1%
1952	99,929	61,552	61.6%
1956	104,515	62,027	59.3%
1960	109,672	68,836	62.8%
1964	114,090	70,098	61.4%
1968	120,285	73,027	60.7%
1972	140,777	77,625	55.1%
1976	152,308	81,603	53.6%
1980	163,945	86,497	52.8%
1984	173,995	92,655	53.3%
1988	181,956	91,587	50.3%
1992	189,493	104,600	55.2%
1996	196,789	96,390	49.0%
2000	209,787	105,594	50.3%
2004	219,553	122,349	55.7%
2008	229,945	131,407	57.1%
2012	235,248	129,235	54.9%

[middbrew]

Which is exactly why election day should be a national holiday, but republicans know that if they did that, they'd never win another national election ever again and would probably lose a lot of congressional races as well. Their strategy, along with gerrymandering, is therefore to make voting as difficult as possible because voting is apparently a privilege, not a right.

Posted via CB10

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Thanks for the laugh.

If there was a national holiday enabling everyone to vote without any worry of loss of pay, then both parties would need to reevaluate their political strategies. As would the big corporate machines that drive both the Republican and Democratic parties.

[ikalinin]

Also people don't vote because they can't afford to take time off work.

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2876

I'm sorry, but give me a break! Compare this to black friday lines, iphone sale lines, rioting, etc... we're talking about an hour. Most places open early and close late. If people 'wanted to, they would. People like to complain and say nothing gets done, and at the same time, choose not to do anything about it during the one time that we can actually make a difference.. so it aggravates me that every four years, we get all these "politicians" on facebook and everything demanding change and telling us what they would do, or who they'd support and how this one sucks, and that one sucks etc.. yet, dont go out and vote..

[middbrew]

Top Reasons Cited for Not Voting	Percent
Too busy conflicting schedule	17.5
Illness or disability	14.9
Not interested	13.4
Did not like candidates or campaign issues	12.9
Other	11.3
Out of town	8.8
Don’t know	7.0
Registration problems	6.0
Inconvienient polling place	2.7
Transportation problems	2.6
Forgot	2.6
Bad weather	0.2

[grover5]

I'm sorry, but give me a break! Compare this to black friday lines, iphone sale lines, rioting, etc... we're talking about an hour. Most places open early and close late. If people 'wanted to, they would. People like to complain and say nothing gets done, and at the same time, choose not to do anything about it during the one time that we can actually make a difference.. so it aggravates me that every four years, we get all these "politicians" on facebook and everything demanding change and telling us what they would do, or who they'd support and how this one sucks, and that one sucks etc.. yet, dont go out and vote..

Your line is an hour long. Try voting in a mostly black neighborhood. Some stand in line for several hours up to all day. The more affluent areas have new machines and lots of them. The poor black areas have old equipment and many have been removed. You take away early voting, limit the number of machines and all of the sudden the poor black neighborhoods struggle to get the vote out in the swing states like Ohio. While your orchestrating this subversion of democracy you shout from the rooftops how much you love merica and freedom.

[ikalinin]

Your line is an hour long. Try voting in a mostly black neighborhood. Some stand in line for several hours up to all day. The more affluent areas have new machines and lots of them. The poor black areas have old equipment and many have been removed. You take away early voting, limit the number of machines and all of the sudden the poor black neighborhoods struggle to get the vote out in the swing states like Ohio. While your orchestrating this subversion of democracy you shout from the rooftops how much you love merica and freedom.

There are steps people can take to avoid this. early voting and/or vote at a different location.

[grover5]

There are steps people can take to avoid this. early voting and/or vote at a different location.

You have to vote at your location. You can't just choose one. You missed the part where the early voting was eliminated or severely cut back in the same states due to "cost". I have to be honest, I'm pretty surprised to hear you suggest voting at a different location. Have you voted before?

[middbrew]

You have to vote at your location. You can't just choose one. You missed the part where the early voting was eliminated or severely cut back in the same states due to "cost". I have to be honest, I'm pretty surprised to hear you suggest voting at a different location. Have you voted before?

I missed where early voting was being eliminated or severely cut as well. Last I heard Obama had backed the Presidential Commission on Election Administration's recommendation to expand early voting.

The problem with early voting, according to a study by The Pew Research Center, is that it actually reduces voter turnout.

[grover5]

I missed where early voting was being eliminated or severely cut as well. Last I heard Obama had backed the Presidential Commission on Election Administration's recommendation to expand early voting.

The problem with early voting, according to a study by The Pew Research Center, is that it actually reduces voter turnout.

There are a ton of links out there but here is one...

http://www.thenation.com/article/gop...-swing-states/

[middbrew]

There are a ton of links out there but here is one...

GOP Steps Up Attack on Early Voting in Key Swing States | The Nation

Thanks for the link. But I still see a lot that says early voting is related to a poorer voter turnout. Not to mention it's probably unconstitutional.

[grover5]

Thanks for the link. But I still see a lot that says early voting is related to a poorer voter turnout. Not to mention it's probably unconstitutional.

A poorer voter turnout on election day you mean? As in because many voted early they didn't on election day. That would make sense. I'm not sure how allowing voters to vote early would mean less voting overall. To be honest I don't know how you could even accurately measure that.

[middbrew]

By saying it might be unconstitutional I mean under Article Two of the United States Constitution: Clause 4, it states that

"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

Congress has always set a national election day to be on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, in the year before the President's term is to expire.

[middbrew]

A poorer voter turnout on election day you mean? As in because many voted early they didn't on election day. That would make sense. I'm not sure how allowing voters to vote early would mean less voting overall. To be honest I don't know how you could even accurately measure that.

No, I'm talking the overall results, not just on election day. As a stats person, I find it very easy to run the number and see how to measure it.