Highest Rated Comments

moralnihilist495 karma

What about civil unions for all? Do you think it would help if, as far as the government were concerned, all marriages--gay or straight--were, officially, "civil unions?"

moralnihilist161 karma

You sir, run the only website I have ever actually paid money to access.

moralnihilist148 karma

I live in your district so you're my representative. I disagree with you on a lot of things, but I still think you're one of the best Representatives in congress. Thank you for your commitment to transparency in government. We sure as hell need more of that regardless of policy.

My question: what surprised you the most about Congress and/or D.C. Culture in general? I've seen you comment on how corrupt it is on your Facebook page; so was it better or worse than you imagined it was before you got elected? What kind of opposition do you come across when you're building coalitions to fight these laws like the NDAA that seem to be popular with most of congress? I mean, when you go up to your fellow legislators, asking them to support something that would seemingly make sense, what do they say when they don't support you? What's their excuse?

Finally, I've seen a lot of arguments that seem convincing about how the NDAA doesn't actually authorize the President to indefinitely detain American Citizens like you and many others claim it does. I know Carl Levin at one time claimed it doesn't but also opposed your amendment claiming it was "soft on terrorists" or something (which is strange because if the NDAA doesn't allow it anyway, what's his problem?). At any rate, I've read the relevant section of the NDAA, and it seems like the argument goes like this.

Section 1031(b)(2) says that a "covered person" under the section includes:

"A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

As far as I know, the offending phrase is "substantially supported," which I agree is very ambiguous. However, 1031(e) says:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld specifically states that U.S. Citizens detained as enemy combatants still have the right to a trial before an impartial judge. Since this decision was made in 2004, this falls under "existing law" at the time of the bill's passing and therefore makes the entirety of Section 1031 non-applicable to U.S. Citizens.

What is your rebuttal to this?

A lighter question: What's your favorite Grand Rapids restaurant?

moralnihilist23 karma

What about aggression? Are they more aggressive than dogs generally? Are they generally aggressive in the wild and friendliness towards humans has to be trained?

moralnihilist15 karma

"Awwww, Germany has a 'capitol of crime.' That's cute." - America