General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 522

Isn't that the name goign around they said the arrested?

 

No idea

 

Um can someone give him a geography lesson

 

yes, it's also reported here: ISIS claims responsibility for Manchester bombing

 

I saw something interesting about this the other day, in that yeah its a gaffe by our moronic president, but it also but it really speaks to the image Israel projects

 

It means pretty much what it says-ISIS is claiming responsibility for an attack even though they probably had, at most, indirect involvement. In other words, sounds like the person that did it might have thought ISIS had some good ideas, but chances are ISIS had no idea who he was, probably provided no support for the attack, and are claiming it for propaganda purposes.

 

Eating lunch outside, Yglesias can eat me

 

Fucking god damnit.

Republicans know they'd be virtually lost in the state if it happens.

 

Most of the people that engage in this behavior in the west aren't even literate in Islam. Even calling it Islamist is a misnomer. There's nothing particularly dangerous about it, nor is there anything especially foreign about it. It is indigenous to the western world and the ideologies that make its civil society possible, i.e., patriarchy, violence, racism, isolated individualism, etc. There are distinctions to be made, obviously, but it isn't a threat because we don't understand it, nor is it any more of a threat than anything else; rather, it is a threat because we provide the raw materials for folks to lash out in various ways.

 

It's non-binding, meaning it doesn't matter if it is ruled unconstitutional, no?

 

Oo good catch...I don't know? The tone of the article made it seem like it was definitely gonna be stopped. Maybe there's no history of these non-binding things being ignored?

 

Fiscal conservatives

 

Presidenting even though he ain't president anymore.

 

Apparently US officials leaked the identity of the killer to the press against the wishes of UK police and security forces. Not really sure how I feel about that.

 

Kermit probably loves it

 

I believe Courts can issue an opinion on somethings legality/constitutionality without actually ruling on its legality/constitutionality when requested by the two other branches and (perhaps) outside groups. Then that opinion can then be used as a reason for challenging the new voting system in court.