• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know . . . the fucking Jesus freaks that fight health care reform really fucking piss me off. Jesus! Jesus was a fucking healer! And he talked all about helping the poor and the sick. Try being a fucking CHRISTian and emulate him by helping provide healthcare to the poor you stupid cunt.

Atheists are better Christians than Christians.

I just really don't get it. I mean things like that seem like proof that religion is bogus. What kind of real religion would have its followers doing the exact opposite of the religion's prophet? FFS.

You know what? Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all that if we somehow could get the TRUE beliefs of Congressman and Senators that at least half of them would be agnostic or atheists.

Saying that dumb religious shit helps them "connect" with the voter.

Truly a cancer on national politics.
 
Minnesota has its own public radio music station, The Current. Beat that ;)
I've noticed during my work when I was in redder states, the NPR during morning is made up of classical music. The programming starts some time after noon. It's so dumb. When you got Hannity, Savage, Laura Ingraham and Limbaugh braying like donkeys all day, NPR is playing Beethoven's 5th. I've got nothing against Beethoven, but c'mon, during the morning time when you have the highest chance of getting heard and informing people the most, you play this stuff?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I've noticed during my work when I was in redder states, the NPR during morning is made up of classical music. The programming starts some time after noon. It's so dumb. When you got Hannity, Savage, Laura Ingraham and Limbaugh braying like donkeys all day, NPR is playing Beethoven's 5th. I've got nothing against Beethoven, but c'mon, during the morning time when you have the highest chance of getting heard and informing people the most, you play this stuff?

Probably because no one would listen to it.
 

Aaron

Member
You know what? Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all that if we somehow could get the TRUE beliefs of Congressman and Senators that at least half of them would be agnostic or atheists.

Saying that dumb religious shit helps them "connect" with the voter.

Truly a cancer on national politics.
If they were atheists, they would be more reasonable. They're religious because they operate on faith, and faith doesn't have to make sense. In fact, it usually doesn't. Wouldn't have to call it faith otherwise.
 

Jooney

Member
NYT: Obama, in a Shift, to Limit Targets of Drone Strikes

WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to open a new phase in the nation’s long struggle with terrorism on Thursday by restricting the use of unmanned drone strikes that have been at the heart of his national security strategy and shifting control of them away from the C.I.A. to the military.

In his first major speech on counterterrorism of his second term, Mr. Obama hopes to refocus the epic conflict that has defined American priorities since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and even foresees an unspecified day when the so-called war on terror might all but end, according to people briefed on White House plans.

As part of the shift in approach, the administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged for the first time that it had killed four American citizens in drone strikes outside the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, arguing that its actions were justified by the danger to the United States. Mr. Obama approved providing new information to Congress and the public about the rules governing his attacks on Al Qaeda and its allies.

A new classified policy guidance signed by Mr. Obama will sharply curtail the instances when unmanned aircraft can be used to attack in places that are not overt war zones, countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The rules will impose the same standard for strikes on foreign enemies now used only for American citizens deemed to be terrorists.

Lethal force will be used only against targets who pose “a continuing, imminent threat to Americans” and cannot feasibly be captured, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a letter to Congress, suggesting that threats to a partner like Afghanistan or Yemen alone would not be enough to justify being targeted.

The standard could signal an end to “signature strikes,” or attacks on groups of unknown men based only on their presumed status as members of Al Qaeda or some other enemy group — an approach that administration critics say has resulted in many civilian casualties. In effect, this appears to be a step away from the less restricted use of force allowed in war zones and toward the more limited use of force for self-defense allowed outside of armed conflict

Good. Moving the drone program from the CIA to the military is the right step to start limiting these extreme powers of the Executive. I also hope that these moves can be done exlusively by the President and not have to go through Congress.

Obama also re-initiating the process to transfer gitmo detainees onshore.

More at the link.
 
You know what? Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all that if we somehow could get the TRUE beliefs of Congressman and Senators that at least half of them would be agnostic or atheists.

Saying that dumb religious shit helps them "connect" with the voter.

Truly a cancer on national politics.

No, I think they are religious. But the thing is, by saying they are religious and thinking they are religious that allows them to not actually give a shit about poor people and yet think they are good people. They use religion as a short-cut to being ethical and empathetic. Why pay a little more in tax to help poor people when you can just believe in Jesus and that automatically makes you a good person. And if you are not good . . . THEN JUST ASK JESUS FOR FORGIVENESS! Hey look . . . Mark Sanford cheated on his wife . . . no problem! Vitter cheated on his wife with prostitutes . . . no problem!

I knew this one guy who had a devout Christian wife and she cheated on him. I told him I was shocked because she was religious and I didn't expect that of her. He said "Why not? Being religious allows her to cheat and absolve herself." Why feel guilty when Jesus forgives. As Christopher Hitchens liked to point out, that makes it an immoral system.
 

FyreWulff

Member
It's not exactly on-topic, but I have been wondering waht NeoGaf does for a living, and in what industries.

I'm a tech manager in the financial industry, for instance.

Occurred to me over lunch in terms of how we intersect with society at large.

I wish I could talk about my main job, but it's related to the video games industry.

I also developed games and contracted assistance work on other games before this one.

Bideogrames.
 
NYT: Obama, in a Shift, to Limit Targets of Drone Strikes



Good. Moving the drone program from the CIA to the military is the right step to start limiting these extreme powers of the Executive. I also hope that these moves can be done exlusively by the President and not have to go through Congress.

Obama also re-initiating the process to transfer gitmo detainees onshore.

More at the link.

That all sounds like good news, though I'd prefer more Congressional oversight of drones.
 

thcsquad

Member
NYT: Obama, in a Shift, to Limit Targets of Drone Strikes



Good. Moving the drone program from the CIA to the military is the right step to start limiting these extreme powers of the Executive. I also hope that these moves can be done exlusively by the President and not have to go through Congress.

Obama also re-initiating the process to transfer gitmo detainees onshore.

More at the link.

I wonder if Rand Paul will publicly acknowledge this as a good thing? I'll respect him a little more if he has the balls to praise the president when he does something that falls in line with his beliefs.
 

Blatz

Member
I've noticed during my work when I was in redder states, the NPR during morning is made up of classical music. The programming starts some time after noon. It's so dumb. When you got Hannity, Savage, Laura Ingraham and Limbaugh braying like donkeys all day, NPR is playing Beethoven's 5th. I've got nothing against Beethoven, but c'mon, during the morning time when you have the highest chance of getting heard and informing people the most, you play this stuff?

I'm in SC and we have 2 NPRs. A news and a classical station. The Classical is like you described and the News is filled with ToTN, On Point, etc.

And BTW: I'm a Mechanical Engineer - Automotive Product Design Industry.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
It's not exactly on-topic, but I have been wondering waht NeoGaf does for a living, and in what industries.

I'm a tech manager in the financial industry, for instance.

Occurred to me over lunch in terms of how we intersect with society at large.

Engineer here, just finishing up the last semester of my undergrad in the fall. Probably looking at going into product design.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
So, republicans found a way to replicate the success of our variable interest rate mortgage fiasco, except with students!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/22/house-student-loan-rates/2351199/

The House Republicans' proposal would tie loan rates to the interest rate on a 10-year Treasury note, plus 2.5%, with a cap that would prevent the interest rate on Stafford loans from rising above 8.5%. Obama's proposal would have set the rate at slightly less than 1% above the Treasury note rate. The GOP plan would also reset the loan rate for all borrowers every year based on market fluctuations, while under Obama's proposal, any borrower's initial loan rate would remain fixed for the life of the loan.

But, both parties are the same... so don't bother voting.
Going to post it in OT.
 

Jackben

bitch I'm taking calls.
Yes let's just fuck students some more. Textbook industry and Universities are making out like bandits, Uncle Sam wants a larger slice of cake too.
 
You know . . . the fucking Jesus freaks that fight health care reform really fucking piss me off. Jesus! Jesus was a fucking healer! And he talked all about helping the poor and the sick. Try being a fucking CHRISTian and emulate him by helping provide healthcare to the poor you stupid cunt.

Atheists are better Christians than Christians.

I just really don't get it. I mean things like that seem like proof that religion is bogus. What kind of real religion would have its followers doing the exact opposite of the religion's prophet? FFS.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. People in power use religion to control their base. That's not to say Bachman has some sort of absolute power, but the GOP has been in bed with the religious right since what, the 70's now? There's all that scandal crap regarding her campaign practices that she's involved in too. She's a giant, hypocritical piece of shit. The fac t that religion is used in such a negative way was part of the reason I've become agnostic.

I mean ... I've actually read religious people's arguements (in Poligaf I believe) that Jesus wasn't a socialist but more of a capitalist and use bible references to prove that point. Absolutley rediculous.


You know what? Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all that if we somehow could get the TRUE beliefs of Congressman and Senators that at least half of them would be agnostic or atheists.

Saying that dumb religious shit helps them "connect" with the voter.

Truly a cancer on national politics.

I would not be surprised if this were true. Or at least that they're not as relgious as they come off.

No, I think they are religious. But the thing is, by saying they are religious and thinking they are religious that allows them to not actually give a shit about poor people and yet think they are good people. They use religion as a short-cut to being ethical and empathetic. Why pay a little more in tax to help poor people when you can just believe in Jesus and that automatically makes you a good person. And if you are not good . . . THEN JUST ASK JESUS FOR FORGIVENESS! Hey look . . . Mark Sanford cheated on his wife . . . no problem! Vitter cheated on his wife with prostitutes . . . no problem!

I knew this one guy who had a devout Christian wife and she cheated on him. I told him I was shocked because she was religious and I didn't expect that of her. He said "Why not? Being religious allows her to cheat and absolve herself." Why feel guilty when Jesus forgives. As Christopher Hitchens liked to point out, that makes it an immoral system.


How religious is a person who can do such a thing?
 

Angry Fork

Member
4 Americans killed... good grief.

Deserves it's own thread. And I guarantee a shitload of people here will defend Obama on this, I don't understand it.
 

Menelaus

Banned
Headline really did write itself...

OBFEkS8.png
 

Snake

Member
4 Americans killed... good grief.

Deserves it's own thread. And I guarantee a shitload of people here will defend Obama on this, I don't understand it.

What do you mean? This is the Anwar al-Awlaki case. There have been many threads about it, and they happened over a year and half ago. The news here was that the US was officially declaring what had happened, and they were doing it to frame the unveiling of new limits on their drone strike program.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
Have you guys heard about the German Homeschoolers that are in danger of being deported?
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-15/national/39270101_1_asylum-immigration-appeals-federal-appeals-court

Does anybody know why their asylum was appealed in the first place? I would've thought that once asylum was granted, the case would be closed. Just curious.


I haven't read through the whole story, but just at a glance, I don;t really like that they were granted asylum just because Home-Schooling is not allowed in their country. Seems to make a bit of a mockery of the whole asylum concept.
 
4 Americans killed... good grief.

Deserves it's own thread. And I guarantee a shitload of people here will defend Obama on this, I don't understand it.

Why does it seem to me that most of the drone debate,including the al-Alwaki case, people care more that AMERICANS were killed by the Drones (accidental or not) rather than their deaths themselves.

So if they were of Middle Eastern citizenry, than fuck 'em?
 

AndyD

aka andydumi

I read a different article the other day that suggested a way to avoid it still if there is even one non-participating state/country.

Apple sells all its Iphones at retail price to Apple Shell (based in the non participating location). So Apple can pay nominal/negotiates taxes as they do now in the non participating location. Then Apple Shell sells them to customers in the US at retail price. Because Apple Shell bought and sold at the same price as it sold, it had no profit, and its tax burden is lower or eliminated.

Does not seem to make sense though, because this article makes it seem like it would be a sales tax based on retail price, not a corporate tax on profits only.
 
Why does it seem to me that most of the drone debate,including the al-Alwaki case, people care more that AMERICANS were killed by the Drones (accidental or not) rather than their deaths themselves.

So if they were of Middle Eastern citizenry, than fuck 'em?

Yeah this. The fact that they were Americans really shouldn't matter much. What we should be massively concerned about is INNOCENT people being killed. Most of these 4 had it coming.
 
Why does it seem to me that most of the drone debate,including the al-Alwaki case, people care more that AMERICANS were killed by the Drones (accidental or not) rather than their deaths themselves.

So if they were of Middle Eastern citizenry, than fuck 'em?

I've been arguing with my mom about this. Which is odd becaus she's very lib for the most part. We agree on most things. But yeah, her basic stance is that, "If American boys are saved then it's a good policiy." She considers innocent life being lost due to drones collateral damage and thinks that sending in troops would be just as bad, but with American lives being lost as well. She an old flower child who used to protest vietnam and lost a lot of friends in that war. It's hard for me to have her persepcetive.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
Why does it seem to me that most of the drone debate,including the al-Alwaki case, people care more that AMERICANS were killed by the Drones (accidental or not) rather than their deaths themselves.

So if they were of Middle Eastern citizenry, than fuck 'em?

Because Americans have constitutional due process rights that need to be followed before being targeted by our government, whereas foreign nationals do not.

Plainly, constitutionally, American citizens have more protections/are more important than non-American citizens.

Is that right? Probably not.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Because Americans have constitutional due process rights that need to be followed before being targeted by our government, whereas foreign nationals do not.

Plainly, constitutionally, American citizens have more protections/are more important than non-American citizens.

Is that right? Probably not.

It's not right.

These rights are guaranteed to all persons, not all citizens.

Citizenship is arbitrarily defined by the government (meaning it is granted, taken away, and recognized at the whim of the government). It doesn't really mean a damn thing legally except that:
1. You can vote
2. You can serve jury duty
3. You can run for office.


If the rights were granted to citizens only, then people here as tourists, on student visas or work visas could be thrown in jail by any cop without any investigation or trial or charges. They'd be FUCKED.
 

pigeon

Banned
Because Americans have constitutional due process rights that need to be followed before being targeted by our government, whereas foreign nationals do not.

Plainly, constitutionally, American citizens have more protections/are more important than non-American citizens.

Is that right? Probably not.

Even if this argument is valid, which I'm not 100% sure of, we have treaty obligations to foreign countries and to the UN that require us to recognize the rights of foreign nationals. That's kind of the basis of international law. Otherwise, what gives us the right to complain when Libyans (to choose a country entirely at random) kill our citizens?
 

besada

Banned
This. I love NPR to death but can't stand how many conservative think tanks they get to comment on everything. It's why I literally laugh out load when people tell me NPR is super liberal (or even communist lol).

They make me listen to David Brooks, which is unforgivable. I just want to punch my radio in his smug little face.
 
Dunno if I agree with it – he does put up a pretty good argument – but it's good to see Obama defend his decision to assassinate Awlaki. Wish he had done this a long time ago.
 
Because Americans have constitutional due process rights that need to be followed before being targeted by our government, whereas foreign nationals do not.

Plainly, constitutionally, American citizens have more protections/are more important than non-American citizens.

Is that right? Probably not.

It is right, in a way. Not that Americans are "more important" in any humanistic sense, of course, but that the US government has greater obligations towards American citizens than non-citizens. That said, I oppose targeted assassinations of both Americans and non-Americans--and think both are illegal--but I do not think it is incorrect to take special aim at the government for assassinating its own citizens.

Dunno if I agree with it – he does put up a pretty good argument – but it's good to see Obama defend his decision to assassinate Awlaki. Wish he had done this a long time ago.

It's totally indefensible. When I hear Obama defend his killing of Americans without due process, it makes my skin crawl. I'd relish seeing him impeached over it. It'll never happen of course given that assassinating Americans has bipartisan support. It makes me ashamed to be American.
 
It's not right.

These rights are guaranteed to all persons, not all citizens.

Citizenship is arbitrarily defined by the government (meaning it is granted, taken away, and recognized at the whim of the government). It doesn't really mean a damn thing legally except that:
1. You can vote
2. You can serve jury duty
3. You can run for office.


If the rights were granted to citizens only, then people here as tourists, on student visas or work visas could be thrown in jail by any cop without any investigation or trial or charges. They'd be FUCKED.

Those apply to people under US jurisdiction, not the entire world. Yemenis are not under US jurisdiction
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom