PhoenixDark
Banned
Fueled by racism? I'd ask if you were serious but it would be a waste, given your extremist views.
Not even that. Go arrest them and try them in judicial courts for whatever criminal acts you allege they have committed. Summarily killing people because they are deemed a "bad" person who "hates" the US is fucking atrocious, vile shit.
And I wouldn't trust CIA intelligence as far as I could throw it, which, because that's an abstract concept, is exactly 0 feet, 0 inches. This is a terrorism operation that we are running, pure and simply. And openly. Nobody cares, because the targets of the terror are brown and Muslim (and hate America!). The drone program is fueled by racism and nationalism, both disgusting.
Not even that. Go arrest them and try them in judicial courts for whatever criminal acts you allege they have committed. Summarily killing people because they are deemed a "bad" person who "hates" the US is fucking atrocious, vile shit.
And I wouldn't trust CIA intelligence as far as I could throw it, which, because that's an abstract concept, is exactly 0 feet, 0 inches. This is a terrorism operation that we are running, pure and simply. And openly. Nobody cares, because the targets of the terror are brown and Muslim (and hate America!). The drone program is fueled by racism.
It seems like it's a Rand Paul filibuster and the other guys who are also filibustering are just doing it to get some air time or to make themselves look tough or whatever. According to the Huffington Post, Paul spoke for 3 hours then someone else came on for 15 min, then someone for 20 min, then someone for 5 min and then back to Paul (or something like that).
We came so close. I know Ive said this before, but I have all of you to thank for that.
We fought in last years campaign because we believed that our nations radical politicians are dividednot its people. Together, we sent the message that our common interests far outweigh our differences.
Weeks like these - when Rep. Bachmann voted against the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act and chose partisan gridlock over the American people, refusing to stop the sequester are tough for all of us to watch.
I am appalled that Congress is allowing hundreds of thousands of American families to face losing a job in a slowly recovering economy, as a result of a manufactured crisis.
But I have also never been more optimistic about the future of Minnesota and the United States of America. Thank goodness the rest of the Minnesota delegation and the nation chose not to abandon women and put partisanship aside to vote for VAWA.
And I know that the work we started last year, well, it isnt over.
Thats why I encourage you to join me on Facebook and on Twitter. We can continue to stand up to extremism, share ideas and fight for the Minnesota we deserve.
We can make our voices heard. Trust me, they are growing louder every day.
Ive spoken with thousands of folks in my district, and they know that our nations greatest challenges are not going to be solved with partisanship and obstruction.
No matter how divided radical politicians become, I urge you to remain optimistic about our countrys future. You have a voice. Make sure you continue to use it.
Thank you for your friendship,
Jim
Ugh, some Wall Street asshole on Morning Joe said that we can't say austerity doesn't work because of the booming economy ofEstonia.
Generally on the country you want to attack.Who would we declare war on, exactly?
Yeah, I think what is getting lost in the overly legalistic focus of the Anwar al-Aulaqi story is that the guy wasn't really an acting terrorist, he said bad things about the US on facebook on youtube, which is kinda bad, but not bad enough to get murdered by a flying robot.Not even that. Go arrest them and try them in judicial courts for whatever criminal acts you allege they have committed. Summarily killing people because they are deemed a "bad" person who "hates" the US is fucking atrocious, vile shit.
The entire war of terror framework is only accepted because people assume it will only be applied to brown people.And I wouldn't trust CIA intelligence as far as I could throw it, which, because that's an abstract concept, is exactly 0 feet, 0 inches. This is a terrorism operation that we are running, pure and simply. And openly. Nobody cares, because the targets of the terror are brown and Muslim (and hate America!). The drone program is fueled by racism and nationalism, both disgusting.
Fueled by racism? I'd ask if you were serious but it would be a waste, given your extremist views.
Hear, fucking hear.Of course I'm serious. And I consider support for the extrajudicial assassination of individuals your government alleges to be "bad guys" the extremist belief.
Ugh, some Wall Street asshole on Morning Joe said that we can't say austerity doesn't work because of the booming economy ofEstonia.
Btw, speaking of Scarborough, I just started watching his "debate" with K-thug and he's a lot slimier than I thought. A few minutes in and he said that nobody thinks the debt is the number 1 issue right now, including Paul Ryan!
Someone should tell that guy Estonia has engaged in fiscal stimulus after austerity failed:
Fueled by racism? I'd ask if you were serious but it would be a waste, given your extremist views.
Generally on the country you want to attack.
We aren't attacking a country. Why would we declare war on Yemen or Pakistan when we aren't attacking those countries?
We aren't attacking a country. Why would we declare war on Yemen or Pakistan when we aren't attacking those countries?
(Disclaimer: This isn't an endorsement of the drone program)
I'll bite, because I want to see where you're going with this. How are we not attacking Yemen when we're killing citizens of Yemen on Yemeni soil?
Which is why that post had a 2nd line -We aren't attacking a country. Why would we declare war on Yemen or Pakistan when we aren't attacking those countries?
(Disclaimer: This isn't an endorsement of the drone program)
Though I honestly think we should try very hard to not get into those situations, in the long run the tend to hurt America's interests.And even if we're sending American soldiers to fight in a civil war, I still think this is something that need to be authorized by congress.
I'll bite, because I want to see where you're going with this. How are we not attacking Yemen when we're killing citizens of Yemen on Yemeni soil?
Or put another way, what if the US was harboring some US citizens that North Korea called terrorists, and they (somehow had drone technology) went after those terrorist. Would they be allowed to take out those US citizens without retaliation and the US considering it an act of aggression?
War on abstract concepts is one of the stupidest things the US ever came up with.
Nations are an abstract concept too, though.
Which is why that post had a 2nd line -
Though I honestly think we should try very hard to not get into those situations, in the long run the tend to hurt America's interests.
Those things should never be vague.I don't disagree with your premise (and certainly agree it is probably not in our best interest to be involved in these things), but there is an argument that the authorization Congress passed in 2001 still applies to today and allows the President to authorize drone strikes in Yemen.
I would be curious to know just how much of the outrage about drone strokes is due to the nature of the attacks. If, instead of using a drone to kill al-Awlaki, we sent a team of Navy SEALs to do the job, would this widespread criticism be as prevalent?
(Again, I don't necessarily endorse the use of drone strikes, either)
How many years I want to spend in retirement?
This isn't Logan's Run, we have a rather limited ability to know when we'll die (not to mention that it can be pretty hard to know in advance all of your expenses in retirement, though probably not as hard as predicting inflation rates 30 years in the future).
And even if you're not a materialistic person (good on you by the way) it's still bad that you have to save too much, you could've worked less, you could've give more money to charity or send your kids to a better school, even something as mundane as spending more in local businesses in your town is better than giving it to Wall Street (even non materialistic people's spending tend to correlate with disposable income) seriously, anything is going to be better than giving it to Wall Street.
Think of it like insurance, if you're on your own, you need to have enough money saved for the worst case scenario, if you're sharing the risk with enough people, each have to save only to cover the average cost of retirement.
This is great for the people and bad for Wall Street.
I feel like we're once again getting to bogged down in legal definitions - the framers of the constitution thought it would be good idea for the executive to ask congress' permission before engaging in a military conflict.
I think that's a very good concept we should preserve, if some lawyers are finding ways around it we can either sue or further clarify the language in our laws.
Those things should never be vague.
If congress want to authorize the president to engage Al Qaeda in Yemen it can definitely do so.
Leaving aside merits, this is a potential political disaster for the Democrats. Getting outflanked on civil liberties is a really bad idea that could actually turn swing states red in 2016, depending on what happens next.
I think we're on parallel tracks here.I would be perfectly fine if we increased social security funding to make it a livable income. And I realize I simplified it, but its annual spending times how many years in retirement and adjust for inflation, expected investment returns and social security.
Its either that or the 4% rule. http://www.firecalc.com/index.php You can play around with this to see how little money you could get away with before retiring (obviously depends on spending). Personally, I am fine with taking risks in investment, but dont want to take the risk of running out of money in retirement. So if i did this (havent looked since im a ways off) id give myself a decent amount of give
Leaving aside merits, this is a potential political disaster for the Democrats. Getting outflanked on civil liberties is a really bad idea that could actually turn swing states red in 2016, depending on what happens next.
Generally, attacking a country would imply a goal of taking down the government of a certain country and replacing it (i.e. what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan).
We are indeed killing Yemeni citizens, but that is with the expressed permission of former Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh (as was indicated clearly with a diplomatic cable leaked by WikiLeaks). His successor has also agreed to these attacks.
Well, it depends. Are we ruling out all circumstances here, including an invasion force on American mainland?This wouldn't even be a mainstream issue if the Obama administration didn't attempt to justify the killing of American citizens on U.S. soil with drones. The American public doesn't care as long as it's happening in the Middle East and Central Asia (as bad as that sounds)
It's even worse that Obama and Holder won't explicitly rule this out, either. That is troubling, in my opinion.
Frankly, I'm not convinced that you can agree to another country committing acts of war against yours. If Obama said he gave the Japanese permission to bomb Hawaii, would that really make it okay? I suspect he'd be impeached and tried for treason.
This wouldn't even be a mainstream issue if the Obama administration didn't attempt to justify the killing of American citizens on U.S. soil with drones.
It's even worse that Obama and Holder won't explicitly rule this out, either. That is troubling, in my opinion
This wouldn't even be a mainstream issue if the Obama administration didn't attempt to justify the killing of American citizens on U.S. soil with drones. The American public doesn't care as long as it's happening in the Middle East and Central Asia (as bad as that sounds)
It's even worse that Obama and Holder won't explicitly rule this out, either. That is troubling, in my opinion.
This is a very modern idea, and international law is not a modern field. Nations have gone to war many times in history with aims other than regime change.
Frankly, I'm not convinced that you can agree to another country committing acts of war against yours. If Obama said he gave the Japanese permission to bomb Hawaii, would that really make it okay? I suspect he'd be impeached and tried for treason.
You really think they're gonna run on this?
Really? you think they're gonna run on not killing terrorists without a day in court?
I think we're on parallel tracks here.
You keep explaining me what's the best way to operate under the current system and I'm talking about the problems I have with that system.
And yeah, I would love for Social Security to be a full blown retirement program, the current situation is so fucked up.
And it goes beyond the pain and anxiety we're inflicting on ourselves the name of "choice", so much of the greed in this country is fueled by that stuff, people don't know if they have enough, they freak over it; man, I've seen people making 6 figures (which should be fucking enough) kill themselves for extra money just because they're afraid to die poor or got wiped in a market crash.
This is a very modern idea, and international law is not a modern field. Nations have gone to war many times in history with aims other than regime change.
Frankly, I'm not convinced that you can agree to another country committing acts of war against yours. If Obama said he gave the Japanese permission to bomb Hawaii, would that really make it okay? I suspect he'd be impeached and tried for treason.
Well, it depends. Are we ruling out all circumstances here, including an invasion force on American mainland?
You're under the impression that there's an actual process that matters here.
The US is powerful, Yemen is not. That's all that matters, here (doesn't make it right, just makes it what it is).
Couldn't you say that about any presence of troops in another country though?
You think there'd be this kind of apathy if we were doing it to white Christians?
I couldn't say. White Christians don't kill thousands of people with suicide attacks or purposely bomb innocent people
I couldn't say. White Christians don't kill thousands of people with suicide attacks or purposely bomb innocent people
Oh god, Charlie Rose just asked Krugman why Obama can't make a deal with congress when Eisenhower was able to do so.
Ooo, ooo! I know the answer! because democrats back then werent insane!