|
Accretionist posted:That's some [Anyone who runs, is a VC. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined VC!]-poo poo Obama's got going right there. Well since that was pretty much a reference to rules of engagement then in use, there's no reason to think they would have changed between Vietnam and now.
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:If he has to answer for it, it will only benefit the Right. edit: Is Obama really so lost in lawyerland that he thinks legal = morally right? His explanation sounded kinda like that. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 18:21 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
I know it hasn't developed to this point yet, but I have a hard time seeing Christie getting to 2016 without his record getting tarnished. He has like 3 open federal investigations into his administration and that's not including the George Washington Bridge scandal. Maybe he can get all his subordinates to fall on their swords for him and dodge these investigations, but even if he does, he's gonna get hammered on them in the primaries. I'll be shocked if he ends up being the nominee in 2016.
ATP_Power fucked around with this message at 18:22 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
zoux posted:Some of you may have been following the Lt. Governor's race in Texas. Whereas in most states, the Lt. Gov's office is comparable to the US Vice President, in Texas, the Lt. Governor sets the agenda of the Senate, so he has real power. There is a runoff at the end of May between the two top candidates from the primary, incumbent David Dewurst and state Senator and right-wing radio talk-show host Dan Patrick. Patrick, who is as Tea Party as you can get, has been far ahead in the runoff polls and everyone thought Dewhurst was dead in the water. This turn has honestly made me very sad, well sadder than Texas Politics usually does. Patrick is a loving maniac who shouldn't be trusted with a babysitting job let alone setting our senate's agenda, but the reason he doesn't deserve to be there isn't that he had mental trauma and did the objectively correct thing and sought help.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:We live in a stupid, stupid world. The thread title is truly appropriate commentary on American politics in general.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:This turn has honestly made me very sad, well sadder than Texas Politics usually does. Patrick is a loving maniac who shouldn't be trusted with a babysitting job let alone setting our senate's agenda, but the reason he doesn't deserve to be there isn't that he had mental trauma and did the objectively correct thing and sought help. Thank you Ronald Reagan! Your legacy is intact!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:That is baffling, even setting aside how repugnant it is, what on earth would you hope to get out of it? Like how would bringing that up and trotting it around be anything but a big sympathy plug for the guy? The opponent even has the sense to run the gently caress away from the whole thing. I read (from the comments section of a different article, so take it with a grain of salt) that the piece was trying to paint him as having an affair and being unfaithful by showing him running around and meeting a lot with an attractive female aid while his poor wife is in a nursing home.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:This turn has honestly made me very sad, well sadder than Texas Politics usually does. Patrick is a loving maniac who shouldn't be trusted with a babysitting job let alone setting our senate's agenda, but the reason he doesn't deserve to be there isn't that he had mental trauma and did the objectively correct thing and sought help. I get where you're coming from but on the other hand would you kill baby Hitler?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Yeah I think that the idea of the article is that the guy is a scumbag for leaving his wife in a crappy nursing home.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:We live in a stupid, stupid world. Unfortunately many people would agree that legal does mean morally right. Miltank posted:The analogy is sound. The cross is a weapon of terror the same way that a drone strike is. Its just that now the terror of torturous death is replaced by the terror of your whole family being killed in their home. In that case water boarding is also analogous to crucifixion, except it only makes you believe you are experiencing torturous death, allowing you to suffer for a lot longer. Also waiting at the DMV is analogous to crucifixion because it makes you wish for torturous death. When you break things down enough then anything becomes analogous with anything or everything else and it all becomes meaningless.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:That's some [Anyone who runs, is a VC. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined VC!]-poo poo Obama's got going right there. The free-fire zone is anywhere within the blast radius of any individual on a secret list of people the US wants to kill.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Unfortunately many people would agree that legal does mean morally right.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:But was he talking to people like them, or people like me? From my perspective he responded to accusations that drone strikes were cold-blooded murder with "It's okay guys! I've checked thoroughly and it's completely legal!". That sure isn't an argument I want to hear. It probably was not meant to ease your mind on a drone strike's morality, no. -EDIT- I meant you as in people like you, and that yes it was actually meant for people who believe that legal=moral. VVVVVVVV Yes, they are both torture. But I don't believe water boarding was meant to send the same message as crucifixion was, just as drone strikes don't send the same message as water boarding. At least not unless you boil down what their "messages" are until it's all meaningless anyway. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 18:37 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:In that case water boarding is also analogous to crucifixion, Well, yeah. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:This turn has honestly made me very sad, well sadder than Texas Politics usually does. Patrick is a loving maniac who shouldn't be trusted with a babysitting job let alone setting our senate's agenda, but the reason he doesn't deserve to be there isn't that he had mental trauma and did the objectively correct thing and sought help. With early voting starting today it's a pretty last minute release. I wonder if it will really have much effect with Dewhurst's campaign and the media not pushing it hard. I'm sure it will come back up in the general if Patrick wins but this being Texas...
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Obama's talk about how he's convinced that drone strikes are legal just infuriated me. Doesn't a head of state have to hold themselves to a higher standard than simply whether something is legal to do? I hope he does have to answer for it someday, but I'm sure a Republican-run impeachment attempt would deliberately avoid getting to the meat of the problem. IMO there is only one good thing about the Obama drone policy, which is that it has always been unambiguously non-deniable. That is, the Administration explicitly says that the legal responsibility for the killings rests with the President, not the CIA or the military. That's important because should congress or the US public actually decide they care about kill lists and drone strikes, the policy can be attacked and defeated. The Administration has consistently declined to move this authority into a black box. The only reasonable justification for Drone use that the administration has ever made is that it makes it politically viable to draw down overseas US troop deployments, and it has been undoubtedly successful in doing that. It is also fair to say that total volume of drone strikes has also been reduced over time. I do not think on balance that peak use of US drones has justified itself morally or operationally however. It is at best useless and at worst actively detrimental as a counterterrorism method, and it is morally despicable as a tool of foreign policy (though no more so than similar non-drone US foreign policy killings throughout history). The difference here is that there seems to have been political cover available to draw down US troops and limit drone use significantly without being "forced" to escalate US troop commitments again. I hope that the current de-escalation of drone strikes will continue.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nra-bringbackourgirls-hashtagA Gaping rear end in a top hat posted:"Ms. Psaki's and Mrs. Obama's naiveté--thinking that Vladimir Putin or Boko Haram terrorists will change their ways because of tweets--would provide ample fodder for their ridicule, were we so inclined," the NRA said. "But while we appreciate the value of maintaining a sense of humor in the face of things that are disagreeable, we do so only within reasonable limits. There is nothing funny in this instance."
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Yeah I think that the idea of the article is that the guy is a scumbag for leaving his wife in a crappy nursing home. http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2014/05/18/kelly-bond-remains-police-seek-others-possible-conspiracy/9260015/ Clayton Kelly is the individual in questions name, he's from the same hometown as me, and in looking at Facebook we have 17 friends in common so this kinda hits close to home for me. No I don't know him, but based on his Facebook profile he's a strong Christian Conservative Libertarian, who supported Ron Paul in 2012. McDaniel has been running a fairly negative campaign, and Thad has been hitting back pretty hard. This is like a textbook example of establishment vs. Tea Party in this primary. I have no doubt that he was planning to anonymously hand it over to he McDaniel Campaign before getting caught. His wife presented the press with a parking pass from the nursing home, but I don't think that have him any license to do what he did. He's currently being charged with conspiracy and held on $100,000 bond. As for St. Catherine's being lovely, eh I guess they're all bad in their own way, but it's by no means substandard: http://www.stcatherinesvillage.com/services-and-amenities It's in the richest town in the entire state, so I highly doubt that it's some awful place. That the McDaniel campaign has used the presence of one of his senior aides on foreign trips to smear Cochran is no secret, so this kind of plays right into that. They'll run away from it and condemn it, but it really doesn't look good that a supporter of his did this, certainly not 3 weeks away from the election.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Prosopagnosiac posted:http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2014/05/18/kelly-bond-remains-police-seek-others-possible-conspiracy/9260015/ Can anyone explain to me why LOLbertarians don't just identify as Republican? They are pretty much the exact same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Can anyone explain to me why LOLbertarians don't just identify as Republican? They are pretty much the exact same thing. Weed and goldbug paranoia, from what I can tell.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Because LOLbertarians are special snowflakes who would never be associated with a mainstream party, gently caress you dad.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
I think the self-image for a lot of them is 'Smart Republicans.'
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I think the self-image for a lot of them is 'Smart Republicans.' Yeah, the same-old crap cloaked in psuedo-academic lingo.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
A lot of them are probably also militant atheists.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Can anyone explain to me why LOLbertarians don't just identify as Republican? They are pretty much the exact same thing. That's how they vote; who cares how they identify? The main revelation that made me stop referring to myself as a libertarian in the late '00s was when I realized the entire movement is basically just a way for people who should know better to justify voting Republican to themselves and others. (of course, then the Tea Party happened and I went full Dem; same old story)
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Aren't a lot of "libertarians" very socially conservative, anyway (whether explicitly or whether they prioritize ARE ECONOMIC FREEDUMBS over socially liberal causes)?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Aren't a lot of "libertarians" very socially conservative, anyway (whether explicitly or whether they prioritize ARE ECONOMIC FREEDUMBS over socially liberal causes)? Yeh, most want the "freedom" to do whatever they want, even if it's tramping on the freedoms of others.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
I am socially libertarian.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Weed and goldbug paranoia, from what I can tell. With an even bigger emphasis on DEBT will kill us all and enslave our children and grandchildren. This guy has a daughter, so his doing this was doubly irresponsible, because he may end up actually doing time because of this stunt. Note to all would be secret campaign agents out there: there's a high risk in doing something like this, and very little tangible reward, especially when doing it to the sick wife of a long sitting senator, and one of the most powerful men in the state.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
tbp posted:I am socially libertarian. The hell does that even mean? Yay weed, but gays can go to hell?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
tbp posted:I am socially libertarian. Be socially libertine instead, that's way more interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The hell does that even mean? Yay weed, but gays can go to hell? A lot of libertarians think weed should be decriminalized/legalized and that gays should have the same rights as straights, but don't raise taxes on the rich to reduce wealth inequality! That's going too far! Poor people should be free to die in a gutter.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
"Who What Now" posted:In that case water boarding is also analogous to crucifixion, except it only makes you believe you are experiencing torturous death, allowing you to suffer for a lot longer. Also waiting at the DMV is analogous to crucifixion because it makes you wish for torturous death. Water boarding is less analogous to crucifixion because it is less public. Who What Now posted:Yes, they are both torture. But I don't believe water boarding was meant to send the same message as crucifixion was, just as drone strikes don't send the same message as water boarding. At least not unless you boil down what their "messages" are until it's all meaningless anyway. All terrorist actions send the same message: "do not oppose us or you will suffer." You could argue that water boarding doesn't fall in to that category because it was started as a secret means of extracting information, but now the idea of water boarding and other torture at prisons such as Guantanamo and Abu Garib send a very strong message. Water boarding is now well established as a consequence for opposing the the US and as such, serves the same basic purpose as a crucifixion would. ^this all might be what you mean by breaking a message down until it is meaningless, but I disagree. I see it as deconstructing a message to find its meaning. Miltank fucked around with this message at 19:16 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The hell does that even mean? Yay weed, but gays can go to hell? It means please pay attention to me so that I may derail the thread as I, tbp, oft do.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Water boarding is less analogous to crucifixion because it is less public. Also no one takes waterboarding seriously. It's not like we're flaying our enemies, we're just freaking them out a little bit. Turns out 'little bit' is on par with mock executions and violates the Genova Convention, but who cares, it's a bucket of water those people should sack up.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
If you think the point of drone strikes is to instill terror in the surrounding populace instead of kill and destroy a specific target, you are way off in your own bubble and need to reconnect with how people really think. Even in the case of "shock and awe" it was an ancillary goal rather than one that had any influence on prioritizing and choosing targets, and we made a point to hype and broadcast it, the opposite of what we are doing with drone strikes.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
^^^^^ Also this. Yes, I would say that "thing is a bad consequence" is turning a message into something meaningless. Crucifixions were meant to be seen as the State exerting it's power over it's own citizens in order to stop any attempts to disrupt or usurp that power. We do not have sovereignty over the targets of drone strikes*. Nor are drone strikes meant to be a form of torture. I think those two facts add very important context to the two subjects. *US Imperialism and attacks on our own citizens notwithstanding. -EDITx2- Lethal Injections are far more analogous to crucifixion than friggin drone strikes are, and even that is a tortured analogy. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:31 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:A lot of libertarians think weed should be decriminalized/legalized and that gays should have the same rights as straights, Well unless all the straight people in town decide gays shouldn't be allowed to shop in their stores, or use their roads, or live in their neighborhoods, or go to their schools, because that's just the free market and those gays shouldn't demand that men with guns come along and force everyone to let them have education/jobs/homes/freedom to travel. Also, repeat for blacks, women, Muslims, Jews, Irish, Welsh, Chinese, transsexuals, Slavs, Arabs, and various and sundry other subhumans. Ah, glorious Libertarian liberty 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:32 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:If you think the point of drone strikes is to instill terror in the surrounding populace instead of kill and destroy a specific target, you are way off in your own bubble and need to reconnect with how people really think. Even in the case of "shock and awe" it was an ancillary goal rather than one that had any influence on prioritizing and choosing targets, and we made a point to hype and broadcast it, the opposite of what we are doing with drone strikes. Not that it isn't handy to discourage people from taking up arms for fear of flying death robots, but they're not particularly a terror weapon against the uninvolved-and-likely-to-stay-uninvolved population. By intention, anyway. I imagine people sitting across the street from Mr al-Awlaki Junior might have misunderstood some bits. On the torture note, I'm fond of the anecdotes from our less awful units in Iraq where some insurgents (admittedly mostly ones opposed to our proxies rather than us) went "...wait, you're NOT going to pull out my toenails for funsies? Huh, guess you really are a step up from the last guys" and were relatively cooperative. Also, a step up from Maliki, but hey, mistakes happen when you're imperialisting. The only really useful purpose of torture when you're not having a go at show trials is as a terror weapon, and I'm in no way convinced that that justifies the bother and the negatives. Including the moral negatives.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Instead of dropping bombs I think we should parachute in boomboxes, some playing Born to be Wild and some playing Highway to the Danger Zone. Stable democracies would form overnight.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 19:34
|
|