|
Gyges posted:coupes. I agree. The beach boys warned us about this. Sedans or death.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:This doesn't actually mean anything. It actually means exactly what I said it means in the rest of that paragraph, if you'd not just stopped at the buzzword.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Even Bush was able to climb up into the 90's post 9/11. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Do you suppose McCain or Romney administrations would have done better? Or Clinton had she won in 2008? Obama sucks on this issue, but he is the lesser of available evils. I keep wondering when Obama supporters will stop hiding behind the "but he's the lesser evil!" excuse. I still have hope. Warcabbit posted:No, no, all this NSA stuff was happening WAY before Snowden. Yes, the NSA has always conducted surveillance, but like you say, only when said calls and cables involved foreign parties. Because, you see, that's what the NSA's job is: foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence. Today, however, the NSA spies on American citizens, even when said communication does not involve foreign parties. The difference is clear: the state sees its own citizens as potential threats to national security, and is willing to do anything to uphold it, up to and including assassinating them. But yes, let's talk about how awesome Obama is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:The difference is clear: the state sees its own citizens as potential threats to national security, and is willing to do anything to uphold it, up to and including assassinating them. Gotta love the Patriot Act, or as it is now more commonly known, Obama's Evil Surveillance Act That He Personally Put In Place Seven Years Before Being Elected. Also, what assassinations are you talking about here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Re-read the links. The word 'domestic' shows up a few times. It didn't start with Obama, and it didn't start with September 11th, either. Blaming him for it is inappropriate. This does not make it good, it just makes it institutional. E: I'm going to guess targeting various people who were Americans and working, presumably, with the Taliban. We woulda done the same thing any other administration, only with jet fighters and less accuracy. Either way, he's shifting the topic. You can blame Obama for not _stopping_ it, but you can't blame him for starting it. Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Gotta love the Patriot Act, or as it is now more commonly known, Obama's Evil Surveillance Act That He Personally Put In Place Seven Years Before Being Elected. Also, what assassinations are you talking about here? Obama had a choice. He could have fully pardoned Snowden and declared him a national hero for blowing the whistle on NSA's unconstitutional activities. Instead, he further cemented the culture of mass surveillance by shunning him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Yes, he could have done that. He also could have had Snowden assassinated. He could do a lot of things. I think this topic is measuring what he _did_ do. In this case, he _did_ attempt prosecution of Snowden. I'm not... really... sure how that's something any other President wouldn't have done. I'm going to look back... yeah, I think pretty much all of them would have attempted prosecution. Maybe the next president or president after that would have pardoned Snowden decades later, but the active president would probably have prosecuted him. Except maybe Jimmy Carter, and I'm not sure about that - Jimmy _was_ ex-Navy and he had a perspective on state secrets. Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Obama had a choice. He could have fully pardoned Snowden and declared him a national hero for blowing the whistle on NSA's unconstitutional activities. Instead, he further cemented the culture of mass surveillance by shunning him. You're attempting to deflect attention away from the poo poo that the NSA was suddenly legally allowed to do under Bush. enraged_camel posted:up to and including assassinating them. What assassinations were you referring to here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Somfin posted:What assassinations were you referring to here? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Those guys weren't exactly attacked for going to an OWS rally you know. I think when it comes to somebody working directly with the Taliban, "the State" could be forgiven for thinking that citizen is a threat to national security.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Those guys weren't exactly attacked for going to an OWS rally you know. I think when it comes to somebody working directly with the Taliban, "the State" could be forgiven for thinking that citizen is a threat to national security. A citizen may be a threat to national security, but the Constitution says that all citizens are entitled to due process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Gyges posted:There was also the oil crisis and stagflation. Then Kennedy went and tried to primary him. The Iran Hostage crisis wasn't the only thing dragging down his popularity. Stagflation and oil crisis started because of Nixon and continued under Ford, and we don't' remember them for it. With Nixon you can argue that it was overshadowed by Watergate, but nobody remembers Ford for anything
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:I think people's opposition to the drone campaign is less "OH NO ROBUTTS!!!" and more to do with killing large numbers of civilians in countries with which we aren't actually at war. Of course, drone warfare is endlessly more moral than Bush's foreign policy, but it's still pretty much evil. I don't think people were saying poo poo when the US were blowing up stuff with cruise missiles though. People were hardly saying more poo poo when US troops blew up civilians in Iraq in far larger numbers. I was watching this debate between the Pakistani ambassador and some US generals on drones, and it's pretty revealing that the ambassador basically said that drones were especially "insidious" but dodged questions on whether he thinks it would be better if F-16s were doing the bombing instead. I think a large part of the drone controversy really does come down to "killer robots" and it would be far less controversial if F-16s did the bombings even if it did kill more civilians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:A citizen may be a threat to national security, but the Constitution says that all citizens are entitled to due process. The constitution also says that the executive branch has the power to wage war as it sees fit once congress authorizes it. In the US civil war for example you didn't need a warrant to kill every single Confederate soldier even though they are legally US citizens. You might not like it, but drone strike on Awlaki is constitutional. Whether that's a good thing or not is another question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Hang Jonathan Pollard from the nearest tree branch for selling state secrets, a treasonous offense if there ever was one. Also make sure to send in a SEAL team to capture this guyquote:In a video posted to the internet on November 8, 2010, al-Awlaki called for Muslims around the world to kill Americans "without hesitation", and overthrow Arab leaders. He said that no fatwa (special clerical ruling) is required to kill Americans: "Don't consult with anyone in fighting the Americans, fighting the devil doesn't require consultation or prayers or seeking divine guidance. They are the party of the devils." because in spite of the fact that he's surrounded by armed gunmen at all times, blowing him up from orbit violates due process requirements and that he is actively, at this very moment, committing treason has to be proven in a court of lawnever mind that a court case was filed and the dismissal made the point al-Awlaki himself could have challenged it. I mean, of all the ways we've misused drones over the years, this has got to be the least significant one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
Adar posted:Hang Jonathan Pollard from the nearest tree branch for selling state secrets, a treasonous offense if there ever was one. Also make sure to send in a SEAL team to capture this guy If the dude didn't want to get blown up by evil killer robots he shouldn't' have joined an organization which declared war on the US and which the US congress explicitly has authorized military action against, if he just founded al-Gaydar or something instead he would at least have some wiggle room on the language of the AUMF.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
quote:Even Bush was able to climb up into the 90's post 9/11. If Fidel Castro was president during 9/11, his popularity would have hit the 90's. It had nothing to do with Bush.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
Typo posted:Stagflation and oil crisis started because of Nixon and continued under Ford, and we don't' remember them for it. Just because they weren't his fault doesn't mean they didn't get laid on Carter. '79 had gas lines and freak outs because the Iranian Revolution caused oil prices to skyrocket. Also in '79 the FED changed tactics on the economy and went to work on inflation, giving the country record interest rates and unemployment skyrocketed. Of course Carter had also helped fan the inflation through monetary policy when he first took office. The economy was poo poo and people having trouble getting gas for their cars was fresh in voters minds. They certainly weren't going to give Carter a pass on them just because Nixon started it, especially when Carter's actions were directly responsible for where they were then. Of course had Carter managed to beat Reagan he would have gotten the credit for turning it all around that Reagan got. It was Carter's boy Volker's monetary policy that finally reigned in the inflation and set us into the glorious excess of the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Obama had a choice. He could have fully pardoned Snowden and declared him a national hero for blowing the whistle on NSA's unconstitutional activities. Instead, he further cemented the culture of mass surveillance by shunning him. lol Isn't the NSA like, STILL constructing huge hubs in the middle of the desert for purposes of storing documentation of everything that was ever done on the internet, ever? And a loving lion getting shot is making international headlines instead?  The new True Detective slogan applies to the U.S. population perfectly: We get the world that we deserve.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
He's also helping out some of the most vulnerable states such as Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. The friendly, flying Obamabots will surely bring about peaceful, democratic states fully interested in working towards America's national interests.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:A citizen may be a threat to national security, but the Constitution says that all citizens are entitled to due process. No, the Constitution says all persons are entitled to due process. Citizens have no more constitutional protections from drone than anybody else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:killing large numbers of civilians in countries with which we aren't actually at war. Where are we killing large numbers of civilians again?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I keep wondering when Obama supporters will stop hiding behind the "but he's the lesser evil!" excuse. I still have hope. What are you going to compare your political options to except the alternatives? Sure, based on some platonic ideal, Obama is bad on surveillance and privacy. Compared to any other viable candidate this century, he does not stand out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
Spotty foreign policy notwithstanding, it's still pretty cool my cousin was able to marry his longtime boyfriend hassle-free.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Yeah, the comparison space is not 'a decent human being' or even 'a good presidential candidate' but rather 'all previously serving presidents, with special attention paid to the last century.' Clinton bombed that aspirin factory, remember?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:It shouldn't be. Some of the hallmarks of the American center-left are a belief in the power of the state to curb the abuses of private industry (which the PPACA does through its pre-existing conditions regulations among other new requirements for insurance companies) and the validity of wealth transfers to aid the poor (which the PPACA does through the medicaid expansion). I, like literally every liberal/progressive in the country, believe that Single Payer would be better and will continue to fight that battle. I am not naive enough, however, to believe that Obama could've somehow used the magic of THE BULLY PULPIT to transform people like Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman into social democrats. Could he have fought harder for the public option? Did he give away too much to try to court republican support? Perhaps. But lest we forget, Rahm Emmanuel and Biden were both urging him to abandon the fight for healthcare reform after the special election in Massachussetts, but Obama (correctly) ignored their advice. The PPACA was a progressive piece of legislation and very much a step in the right direction. As always, though, la luche sigue. Obama should have stood firm on the public option, though. The original draft of the bill (Medicaid compensation changes, public option, expansion of Medicaid) that was envisioned would have been an excellent thing for politicians to point to in order to build support for single payer. Seriously, what insurance company would be able to compete with the federal government if the public option for a Medicare buy-in was available today? They're running as a non-profit and can't go bankrupt so they can essentially take on infinite risk and would be able to offer lower premiums than private insurers. Instead, Obama hosed that up and let it slip away. I absolutely do not believe the public option was politically nonviable. I do medical billing working with self-pay and privately-insured patients, and PPACA has created this wild variance in employer health plans. Low-wage hourly workers at some of our major employers in the area have trouble even paying their deductibles, much less the rest of their medical bills. We have to deal with rising medical costs, and PPACA isn't doing poo poo. Really the best outcome of PPACA is that it leads to single payer, and...it's not a particularly a good platform for that after it was neutered. The worst is that the GOP's "repeal and replace" leads to Paul Ryan personally distributing Medicare vouchers to the elderly. The weird loving malaise of the left that has them shrugging their shoulders and saying "Well, I guess this was the best we could do!" is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Ferdinand the Bull posted:Spotty foreign policy notwithstanding, it's still pretty cool my cousin was able to marry his longtime boyfriend hassle-free. Thanks to the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Where are we killing large numbers of civilians again? Pakistan, Yemen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
^^^ Afghanistan too. TheImmigrant posted:Thanks to the Supreme Court. Obama appointed two of the judges! So did Bush 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:No, the Constitution says all persons are entitled to due process. Citizens have no more constitutional protections from drone than anybody else. The Constitution is written for America. The implicit context is American citizens. This is why people in Yemen don't have freedom of speech, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:The Constitution is written for America. The implicit context is American citizens. This is why people in Yemen don't have freedom of speech, for example. The implicit context is anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States. Do you really think that foreigners in the US don't have the right to a speedy trial, the right to an attorney, the right to not self-incriminate, etc?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Pakistan, Yemen. mobby_6kl posted:^^^ Large numbers meaning what exactly? Are we launching hellfires at schools and markets or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Large numbers meaning what exactly? Are we launching hellfires at schools and markets or something? 41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed in Pakistan, as of November of last year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The implicit context is anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States. It depends. The government seems to have the power to unilaterally declare someone an "enemy combatant" and extrajudicially murder the poo poo out of them. So I'm not sure if having a bunch of rights matters at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:It depends. The government seems to have the power to unilaterally declare someone an "enemy combatant" and extrajudicially murder the poo poo out of them. So I'm not sure if having a bunch of rights matters at this point. The judicial process is inapplicable to combat, and combat deaths do not fall under the definition of "murder." Reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes "combat," of course, which is the controversy involved here. The Obama Administration has continued Bush's policy of making disingenuous, bad-faith legal arguments to justify erosion of constitutional principles. In this case, it involves an expansion of what is a "combatant." TheImmigrant fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Large numbers meaning what exactly? Are we launching hellfires at schools and markets or something? Nah just sensible military targets like weddings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Obama should have stood firm on the public option, though. The original draft of the bill (Medicaid compensation changes, public option, expansion of Medicaid) that was envisioned would have been an excellent thing for politicians to point to in order to build support for single payer. Seriously, what insurance company would be able to compete with the federal government if the public option for a Medicare buy-in was available today? They're running as a non-profit and can't go bankrupt so they can essentially take on infinite risk and would be able to offer lower premiums than private insurers. Instead, Obama hosed that up and let it slip away. I absolutely do not believe the public option was politically nonviable. Okay, you convinced me. Now convince Joe "almost McCain's running mate and not because he said no" Lieberman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The judicial process is inapplicable to combat, and combat deaths do not fall under the definition of "murder." Reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes "combat," of course, which is the controversy involved here. Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Typo posted:...nobody remembers Ford for anything He pardoned Nixon which immediately ruined any chance at having a non-shameful legacy while arguably setting the tone for modern politics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:52
|
|
