HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » StrictlyRockers » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

StrictlyRockers

Profile Information

Name: Christo
Gender: Male
Hometown: Santa Cruz, CA, USA
Home country: USA
Current location: Santa Cruz, CA
Member since: Thu Aug 31, 2006, 04:14 AM
Number of posts: 1,951

Journal Archives

Chris Christie - "I know nothing! Nothing!"

Rouse! Schnell!




Explanation for the under 40 crowd....
This is a caricature of Gov. Chris Christie as the perennially daft and willfully ignorant guard, Sgt. Schultz, on the 1970's TV show Hogan's Heroes.
Posted by StrictlyRockers | Thu Jan 9, 2014, 08:15 PM (8 replies)

California Nullifies NDAA Indefinite Detention - Assembly Bill No. 351, CHAPTER 450

Source: California Legislative Information

Assembly Bill (AB) 351 was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown yesterday. California is the third state to have passed legislation, which nullifies the unpopular federal provision. A selection of AB 351 reads:

The United States Constitution and the California Constitution provide for various civil liberties and other individual rights for a citizen of the United States and the State of California, including the right of habeas corpus, the right to due process, the right to a speedy and public trial, and the right to be informed of criminal charges brought against him or her.

Certain provisions of federal law affirm the authority of the President of the United States to use all necessary and appropriate force to detain specified persons who engaged in terrorist activities.

This bill would prohibit an agency in the State of California, a political subdivision of this state, an employee of an agency or a political subdivision of this state, as specified, or a member of the California National Guard, on official state duty, from knowingly aiding an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person within California pursuant to (1) Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), (2) the federal law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, enacted in 2001, or (3) any other federal law, except as specified, if the state agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the California National Guard would violate the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any law of this state by providing that aid. The bill would also prohibit local entities from knowingly using state funds and funds allocated by the state to those local entities on and after January 1, 2013, to engage in any activity that aids an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention of any person within California for purposes of implementing Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA or the federal law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force , if that activity would violate the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any law of this state, as specified.
The billís common name is ďThe California Liberty Preservation Act.Ē Californiaís legislation takes things a step further than other states, which have implemented nullification legislation with regard to the NDAA.

The bill specifically states:
It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California. (emphasis added)

This meaning the legislation takes aim at not only the NDAA provision, but any federal law, which seeks to disregard oneís constitutional rights.

Democrats and republicans worked together to sponsor and pass the legislation. The bill was introduced by ultra-conservative Tim Donnelly, and managed by San Francisco liberal-democrat Mark Leno.



Read more: http://benswann.com/breaking-california-nullifies-ndaa-indefinite-detention/#ixzz2nsY1RzRZ


Read more: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB351



I think it's great that my state is fighting back against the overreach of the Federal government in the "War on Terror". As Glenn Greenwald recently stated, the US does just about anything it wants and claims "terror" as the justification. Indefinite detention, the suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay Prison - these things need to stop. We need to fight for our civil liberties before they are all gone. This is a step in the right direction.
Posted by StrictlyRockers | Wed Dec 18, 2013, 08:17 PM (8 replies)

How long did the government shut down of 1995-96 last? 21 days (and straight through Christmas)

http://www.policymic.com/articles/65859/how-long-did-the-government-shutdown-last-in-1995-depends-on-which-time

The scenario was a Newt Gingrich-led House of Representatives, at war with a Democratic-led Senate and Bill Clinton in the White House. Gingrich had recently unveiled his "Contract With America," and having trouble pushing it through the Senate, he threatened not to have the chamber vote on raising the debt ceiling as a negotiating tactic.

Disaster was averted when a continuing resolution was passed, giving the parties another month to negotiate. But at the end of it, they were still at odds. As a result, on November 13, 1995, the federal government shut down. On November 19, Clinton and Congress agreed on the broad concept of balancing the budget in seven years, and another continuing resolution was passed.

The talks yielded no progress and on December 15, 1995, the most recent federal government shutdown went into effect and lasted 21 days, which only ended on January 6, 1996, when President Clinton and Congress agreed to a seven year balanced budget, with modest spending cuts and tax increases.

In the end, Gingrich and the Republicans managed to wrangle Clinton into negotiations over the budget, but lost heavily in a political sense. A plurality of Americans were deeply unhappy about the shutdown itself, which they blamed on Republicans.

If you look at the polls, a similar scenario could play out this time. Will it be another policy win, but political loss, for Republicans?
________________________________

I remember people calling Newt "The Gingrinch who Stole Christmas". The shutdown cost the Republicans politically, but they only lost a couple of seats in Congress in the 1996 elections. I really want to hope for the best, and I would love to see Nancy Pelosi back in charge of the House, but the cynic in me says that history often repeats itself. Also, the way the House districts are currently gerrymandered means that the Reapers have a virtual headlock on about 190+ of those districts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1996

Posted by StrictlyRockers | Sat Oct 5, 2013, 04:34 AM (2 replies)

Shutdown fulfills GOPís Confederate fantasies

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/02/shutdown_fulfills_gops_confederate_fantasies/singleton/

It's a way of acting out a deeply held secessionist dream
BY STEVEN ROSENFELD
WEDNESDAY, OCT 2, 2013 07:41 AM PDT

<...>

The most apt historical precedent for todayís marauder Republicans is the old Confederacy, where the provocateurs are not merely intent on stopping federal governance, but withdrawing from it or sabotaging it if they canít get their way. Todayís Tea Party darlings like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and the House right-wingers driving the federal shutdown are cut from the same disunionist cloth as the old Southerners who fomented secession and the Civil War.

They have branded Obamacare as their Tariff of Abominations, which were export taxes imposed by Northern industrial states the South railed against before the Civil War. Fox News is the disunionistsí Charleston Mercury,egging on the rebels, and seeking to convey legitimacy to their crusade to save government not by fixing things, but by blowing it up piece-by-piece.

The Republican confederates donít want to follow any law or election result they donít like. Whether itís Obamacareís coverage of the poorest of the poor, federalgun control, reproductive choice or even the Voting Rights Act, thereís been a parade of red-state politicians in recent years working to exempt themselves and their states from federal rights, laws and remedies.

This is not a new list or trend, but it is growing and is ominous. At its base, it does not share a belief in national government. It includes the 28 states that sued to overturn Obamacare or not participate in it. It includes the two dozen states that passed so-called firearms freedom legislation, which thumbs its nose at federal gun controls. It includes states that donít want new voter suppressionlaws subject to the 1965 Voting Rights Act. They include states whose public health options do not include family planning.

<...>
Posted by StrictlyRockers | Fri Oct 4, 2013, 01:33 PM (1 replies)

Man Shoots Off Gun In Pants During Hug, Accidentally Kills Girlfriend

Man Shoots Off Gun In Pants During Hug, Accidentally Kills Girlfriend
Posted: 10/02/2013 1:22 pm EDT | Updated: 10/02/2013 1:49 pm EDT

An Arizona woman died after her boyfriend accidentally shot off a handgun he had tucked into his waistband Tuesday morning.

The 18-year-old man had been hugging his 24-year-old girlfriend when she complained that the weapon was making her uncomfortable, according to KTVK.

The man discharged the gun while attempting to remove it, shooting the woman, according to police.

The woman was rushed to an area hospital and later pronounced dead. Police have not released names in the shooting. Phoenix Police Department spokesman Sgt. Tommy Thompson told ABC Phoenix that the shooting appears to be accidental, but is still under investigation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/man-shoots-off-gun-pants-kills-girlfriend_n_4030640.html

Why was he carrying, anyway?
Posted by StrictlyRockers | Thu Oct 3, 2013, 01:23 AM (61 replies)

Slimdown? SLIMDOWN??!! What kind of Orwellian doublespeak is this?

I mean what the f'n fuck, Faux News? You guys come up with some doozies, but this one is so...irksome!

Every other source out there is calling it a shutdown, but in your bubble of Rethuglican slant and spin, you are choosing to portray this as some kind of "slimdown" diet for the government?

God, I hate you people. Why don't you call it what it really is, which is a full-on assault on the poor of this country.

Personal anecdote: I went to the EDD office today in Watsonville, California to apply for a Worker's Retraining program where the government will pay for classes to get you into a field which is currently in high demand. I went there hoping they could help me to complete a paralegal certificate course. (I worked as a paralegal for several years prior to being laid off a few months ago.) There were 20 people in line for 30 spots when I showed up at 7:55 AM. The doors opened for us at 8:30 and the enrollment class was supposed to start at 9:00 AM.

Guess what they told us? Their funding comes from the federal government at the beginning of every month, and due to the government shutdown, the enrollment was cancelled until they get their funding. They had us fill out the forms and told us they would contact us as soon as the funding is provided. I am quite sure that similar cases are being played out for millions of people around the nation.

When the director asked if there were any questions, I raised my hand and said, "Yes, I have a question. Why does anyone still vote Republican?" It got a big laugh from everyone, even him, although he did maintain his professional demeanor.


Anyway, there's my rant. Thanks for reading.

And, so how the F does, Faux Snooze get by with calling this a "slimdown", like the Rethugs are just putting the bloated Federal gubment on a diet and feeding it some Slimfast? What they are really conducting is a blatant assault on Americans and especially poor Americans because the big babies did not get their way in the last election, except in one house of one branch of government.

God, it's so obvious. They are immature little brats, children, who are basically saying, "If you don't play the game by my rules, I am taking my ball and going home with it. And I don't care how many of my countrymen's lives are adversely affected by this. I just want my way! Wahhhhhh!"


Posted by StrictlyRockers | Wed Oct 2, 2013, 12:08 AM (6 replies)

The Worst State Legislators of 2013 on Marijuana Policy



These guys are so far behind the times...it's like they are living in the Stone Age. (no pun intended)
Posted by StrictlyRockers | Sat Aug 31, 2013, 07:20 AM (0 replies)

Found on FB: Not Relevant Anymore



So long NRA.

We've got you in our sights... (or some other, better, more appropriate analogy...)

Posted by StrictlyRockers | Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:37 AM (5 replies)

www.friendsofhamas.com

http://www.friendsofhamas.com/

Chuck Hagel needs to reveal his browser history to prove that he has never visited this web site.


Posted by StrictlyRockers | Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:35 AM (6 replies)

BOOM! Cartoonist David Horsey completely nails the Tea Baggers!

Posted by StrictlyRockers | Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:56 AM (30 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »