Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Fueled by racism? I'd ask if you were serious but it would be a waste, given your extremist views.

 

[Black Mamba]

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.

Arrest people in another country? lol

 

[NYCmetsfan]

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.

This is crap (the racism charge, and most of your post).

And you fall into the thing you criticize in the first paragraph but calling the CIA terrorist just because they are doing something you disagree with

And we're not killing people for ideas. Al Alwaki had planed attacks on US citizens and was continuing to do so. We're not the thought police.

 

[Synth_floyd]

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).

 

[B-Dubs]

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).

That's how long filibusters work. They switch out every so often so it can be maintained, so the main speaker can take a drink or something.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Sounds like Jim Graves is running against Michele Bachmann again. Just got this email

We came so close. I know I’ve said this before, but I have all of you to thank for that.

We fought in last year’s campaign because we believed that our nation’s radical politicians are divided—not 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 isn’t over.

That’s 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.

I’ve spoken with thousands of folks in my district, and they know that our nation’s 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 country’s future. You have a voice. Make sure you continue to use it.

Thank you for your friendship,

Jim

 

[Oblivion]

Ugh, some Wall Street asshole on Morning Joe said that we can't say austerity doesn't work because of the booming economy of

Spoiler

Estonia.

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!

 

[pigeon]

Ugh, some Wall Street asshole on Morning Joe said that we can't say austerity doesn't work because of the booming economy of

Spoiler

Estonia.

 

[Chichikov]

Who would we declare war on, exactly?

Generally on the country you want to attack.
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.

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.

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.

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.

The entire war of terror framework is only accepted because people assume it will only be applied to brown people.
And yeah, fuck the CIA.

 

[empty vessel]

Fueled by racism? I'd ask if you were serious but it would be a waste, given your extremist views.

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. Not to mention that the program mostly kills people who the government doesn't even claim are "bad guys," and that's not because of the "double tap." It's because your government is really shitty at killing "bad guys" from afar (or from up close, for that matter) and doesn't give a shit about the brown Muslims it kills in the process. Racist? You fucking bet.

 

[besada]

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.

Hear, fucking hear.

 

[TCRS]

I'm kind of admiring Rand Paul. 4chan is trying to send a pizza to him.

 

[Black Mamba]

Ugh, some Wall Street asshole on Morning Joe said that we can't say austerity doesn't work because of the booming economy of

Spoiler

Estonia.

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:

 

[Oblivion]

Someone should tell that guy Estonia has engaged in fiscal stimulus after austerity failed:

Damn, you're good, BM.

 

[Angry Fork]

Krugman had a debate with 2 austerity people, one of them mentioning Estonia, it's fun to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r-AKruzmkk&feature=player_embedded

 

[Clevinger]

Fueled by racism? I'd ask if you were serious but it would be a waste, given your extremist views.

You think there'd be this kind of apathy if we were doing it to white Christians?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

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?

(Disclaimer: This isn't an endorsement of the drone program)

 

[pigeon]

We aren't attacking a country. Why would we declare war on Yemen or Pakistan when we aren't attacking those countries?

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?

 

[Oblivion]

Scarborough just said that even though there's no data to back up what he's saying about an imminent debt crisis, we should still plan ahead because we don't know when the bond vigilantes will show up.

 

[KtSlime]

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?

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.

 

[Chichikov]

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)

Which is why that post had a 2nd line -

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.

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.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

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?

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.

 

[Black Mamba]

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.

 

[KtSlime]

Nations are an abstract concept too, though.

Well yeah, but I wasn't trying to get that fine of detail on it. That's what makes all this shit even more stupid. We are all humans, and we treat each other like crap, frankly I think we deserve whatever ends up happening to us. We should be putting our limited resources into trying to mend the planet, educate our brothers and sisters, and feeding the poor. Instead we we ignore our planet's destruction in favor of segregating one another, telling lies, and telling the poor to pull on their bootstraps harder (which coincidently happens to be sage advice for when we ass-rape them).

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

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.

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)

 

[Chichikov]

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.

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)

Those things should never be vague.
If congress want to authorize the president to engage Al Qaeda in Yemen it can definitely do so.

 

[Piecake]

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 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

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Ted cruz is literally reading tweets in the senate now. Peoples tweets are going into the congressional record.


#verbalretweeting

 

[Gotchaye]

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.

I'm not a lawyer, but the AUMF doesn't look very vague to me. Incredibly broad and essentially a blank check, yes, but not vague. The president has permission to go at any nation or organization or person that had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks in even a tangential capacity as long as he does so with the goal of preventing future attacks.

 

[pigeon]

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.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

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.

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?

 

[Chichikov]

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

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.

 

[Black Mamba]

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 don't think people give a fuck about this issue. No rational people think Obama is going to start bombing US cities and no one cares about violence abroad; we're a pretty violent culture.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

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.

 

[pigeon]

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).

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.

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.

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.

 

[The Librarian]

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.

Well, it depends. Are we ruling out all circumstances here, including an invasion force on American mainland?

 

[Black Mamba]

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'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).

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

Well, if an American hijacked a plane to crash, would you be opposed to drones getting involved?

 

[ivysaur12]

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.

It's an issue, but (sadly) it's not one that anyone will care about outside of the denizens of the internet.

 

[Tamanon]

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.

Couldn't you say that about any presence of troops in another country though?

 

[pigeon]

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?

Do I think they're going to run on the Democrats supporting unchecked expansion of government authority and conspiracy theories about the creation of a police state? Yeah, I do, because I was paying attention the last thirty years. There are lots of vaguely libertarian voters out there who oppose the GOP for being generally against freedom, but that doesn't mean all those white college kids in Colorado suddenly figured out social justice and solidarity. I'm not saying it's definitely going to happen, but I am saying that having the Democrats in the position of steamrolling Rand Paul on civil liberties is a bad idea any way you slice it.

 

[Piecake]

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.

Pretty much. I would totally take the choice of not having to worry about healthcare and retirement than having the choice of a bunch of options ranging from no worries to oh fuck, im totally screwed based on your wealth, financial literacy, and health.

Everyone is worry and stress free in the first choice. Only a few are in the second. Pretty easy choice if you ask me

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

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.

Well, yes, but we're talking about this in a modern context. The age of going to war to take land/resources is (hopefully) over.

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.

That's not really an apt comparison because you're assuming the Yemeni legislature opposes these drone strikes and has voted to impeach their President. While you do hear this from a few MPs and even some Ministers, it does not seem as if it's the majority of MPs calling against it. This is not the case, although the Yemeni constitution is expected to be rewritten in a couple years so who knows what will happen there

Well, it depends. Are we ruling out all circumstances here, including an invasion force on American mainland?

Well, that is virtually impossible for nearly any country, let alone non-state actors. But I do see where you're coming from. You'd almost certainly get a law out of Congress authorizing it if that happened, though.

 

[pigeon]

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).

I'm not sure what you're saying here. CL made the suggestion that we're not technically attacking Yemen because the Yemeni president agreed to it. I'm not convinced that matters. If you're saying that we wouldn't bomb Yemen if it were as powerful as, say, Iran, obviously I agree, but I don't think it's relevant to the question of whether we've committed acts of war against Yemen!

Couldn't you say that about any presence of troops in another country though?

I don't think so. An American soldier is still an American citizen, with as much right to visit Yemen as any other citizen, even if they do it as part of their job. It's when they start shooting people that it becomes more problematic.

 

[PhoenixDark]

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

 

[Gotchaye]

There are issues of both consent and legitimacy here. Some countries are probably not in much of a position to object to US military action. An act of war doesn't stop being an act of war just because the country on the other end agrees to let you do it at gunpoint. But I don't think anyone would have a problem with France requesting or the US paying France to allow a US troop presence, for whatever reason.

There's also the question of how much right the governments of Yemen and Pakistan have to consent to military action in the regions in question. I don't know much about Yemen, but it's not hard to argue that the government of Pakistan's consent or lack thereof ought to be irrelevant to the morality of US actions in the tribal regions. The meaningful consent (in some sense, at least) of a body which is actually representative of the tribal regions might be necessary in order to render drone strikes there something other than acts of war.

 

[rocketknight]

I couldn't say. White Christians don't kill thousands of people with suicide attacks or purposely bomb innocent people

Well, I mean, abortion clinics, if we want to be pedantic. And they've bombed black churches in the past as well.

 

[KtSlime]

I couldn't say. White Christians don't kill thousands of people with suicide attacks or purposely bomb innocent people

Much... Any more...

 

[Oblivion]

Oh god, Charlie Rose just asked Krugman why Obama can't make a deal with congress when Eisenhower was able to do so.

 

[Piecake]

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!

 

[Gotchaye]

Ooo, ooo! I know the answer! because democrats back then werent insane!

Nope. It's that Eisenhower, as a general, had Leadership.