O.K., suppose he's started to obviously threaten people, but there's no clear shot without endangering an innocent? There was the incident in NYC where bystanders were shot by police trying to stop a shooter. The President would be acting like a cop. Is he allowed to do that under the Constitution?
Have you actually seen the Empire St. Building shooting?
The cops were the most dangerous people on the street. Everyone of the 9 people shot were shot by once again cops who can't shoot straight.
P.S. For someone with an alleged real job (seriously, just who goes there? That really is low in this day and age for many others who don't have jobs.)....you seem to spending more than 10% of your time.
Last edited by Blue Train; March-7th-2013 at 03:19 PM.
"There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind."
- Duke Ellington
“Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated.”
- George Bernard Shaw
"As iron is eaten away by rust, so the envious are consumed by their own passion."
Have you actually seen the Empire St. Building shooting?
The cops were the most dangerous people on the street. Everyone of the 9 people shot were shot by once again cops who can't shoot straight.
P.S. For someone with an alleged real job (seriously, just who goes there? That really is low in this day and age for many others who don't have jobs.)....you seem to spending more than 10% of your time.
I didn't mean to slight anyone here who is out-of-work. Didn't realize I was hitting you below the belt. Just explaining that I can't give this my full concentration during the day.
Last edited by groover; March-7th-2013 at 03:29 PM.
I hope everyone's contacting their reps now to lodge their opposition. Demonizing me isn't going to change anything.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not demonizing you. Nor do I think anyone else is.
Just trying to get you to honestly ponder some of the really silly things you've been posting in this thread.
What we're all essentially trying to say here is that some incredibly dangerous precedents are being set here, and to simply give them a free pass by way of false equivalency, or otherwise, is also very dangerous. Also that our country is founded upon our Bill of Rights. Which if you choose to simply give away, means we no longer have a true foundation for this union. Once you go down that road of saying, "well, in certain cases", you've stripped those rights from us all.
While I tend to actively avoid slippery slope-ism, the trend doesn't look particularly promising. Remember when Bush suspended Habeas Corpus, among many of the other vile things he did? And how many folks talked about how his consolidation of power was even more dangerous because it would never be given back by the office of the President? Possibly only expanded upon?
Well, that has come to fruition.
Now think about how Obama's expansion of that power will play out in future administrations. No matter how you choose to look at all of this, the projected end result isn't pretty.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not demonizing you. Nor do I think anyone else is.
Just trying to get you to honestly ponder some of the really silly things you've been posting in this thread.
What we're all essentially trying to say here is that some incredibly dangerous precedents are being set here, and to simply give them a free pass by way of false equivalency, or otherwise, is also very dangerous. Also that our country is founded upon our Bill of Rights. Which if you choose to simply give away, means we no longer have a true foundation for this union. Once you go down that road of saying, "well, in certain cases", you've stripped those rights from us all.
While I tend to actively avoid slippery slope-ism, the trend doesn't look particularly promising. Remember when Bush suspended Habeas Corpus, among many of the other vile things he did? And how many folks talked about how his consolidation of power was even more dangerous because it would never be given back by the office of the President? Possibly only expanded upon?
Well, that has come to fruition.
Now think about how Obama's expansion of that power will play out in future administrations. No matter how you choose to look at all of this, the projected end result isn't pretty.
I appreciate your concern on my behalf, Scott. When I have time to do more reading, I'll give this subject more consideration.
Right now, I need to figure out what's eating up all the memory on a UNIX box. Chat with you later!
Last edited by groover; March-7th-2013 at 03:39 PM.
I didn't mean to slight anyone here who is out-of-work. Didn't realize I was hitting you below the belt. Just explaining that I can't give this my full concentration during the day.
Is this some kind of hearts and mind campaign?
Sorry, brother. This kind of snottery simply isn't necessary.
You've been firing a lot of opening salvos lately. Two of them have been directed at me. If there is a problem there, I hope you pm me directly so we can get things worked out.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
There is a moral bankruptcy on display in most of politics these days. It was probably always there but 24 hour news cycles bring it into sharp relief. Is Barry O doing anything that the US hasn't sanctioned for 100 years (or at least the last 70)? Is it just because right now the hand is closer to the trigger than through sponsored death squads or supported governments? The US always acts in its own interest (and in the main its citizens wouldn't have it any other way). Whether a drone kills an innocent or a state sponsored CIA funded security service does the outcome is the same.
So Bourne you would argue that many American citizens would argue that their country should act against its own interests? I am yet to see this ever shown in any demonstrable way.
Henry, "acting in its own interest" is a loaded term to begin with. And one that I don't buy into.
"Acting in our own interest" is the reason given for all of our intervention and preemptive wars, for example. Drone wars and assassinations, are further examples. Bailing out Wall Street. The list could go on and on.
And in those cases, no, I mostly certain would like us NOT to "act in our own interest".
Also, to address your previous question, assassinating U.S. citizens without judicial oversight has never been sanctioned.
Last edited by Bourne; March-8th-2013 at 12:29 PM.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
Not sure how it's in our own interests to be creating more terrorists than we're killing? The drone program is probably the best recruiting tool for whatever group. As well as getting even people around the world to hate us even more.
Last edited by Blue Train; March-8th-2013 at 01:41 PM.
"There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the other kind."
- Duke Ellington
“Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated.”
- George Bernard Shaw
"As iron is eaten away by rust, so the envious are consumed by their own passion."
It most certainly isn't. A commentator friend of mine mentioned on a recent show that considering the fragile state of Pakistan, it could easily flip similar to the way that Iran did in '79 due to the further radicalization our drone wars are fermenting. And if it does, Obama should be charged with criminal negligence.
Perhaps a little too outside of the box, but it's an interesting thought.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
So extrajudicial assassinations of U.S. citizens was previously sanctioned? When?
I did not say it was but to get bent all out of shape because Awlaki had an American passport you gotta be some kind of superpatriotic tea party progressive, imho.
Both al-Awlaki's and Khan were U.S. citizens that were born here. They didn't simply have U.S. passports.
And yes, whenever a U.S. citizen is assassinated without due process that is indeed something to get bent out of shape over. But you just go ahead and continue to parrot the neoconservative line from the Bush era that "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about".
Because I'm 100% positive you'll feel equally comfortable when this further consolidation of power and shredding of our founding document moves along into the hands of a Republican President.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
People like me? You mean people who actually care for what's in the constitution as opposed to those who consistently wrongfully invoke it for their political purposes?
OK, I'll bite, uli. Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and Samir Khan were United States citizens. they were assassinated without officially being charged, standing trial, or being convicted of a crime. All major violations of their unalienable rights as spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
Now, your turn. Tell me how I'm "wrongly invoking" the Constitution.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
The GOP’s Bush Baggage
By DANIEL LARISON • March 10, 2013, 1:22 PM
So it seems that Jeb Bush isn’t nearly as politically savvy as his admirers would have us think:
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says a possible 2016 run for president would not be affected by his brother’s lingering unpopularity.
“I don’t think there’s any Bush baggage at all [bold mine-DL],” Bush said on “Fox News Sunday” when confronted with a poll that showed almost a full majority of Americans have an unfavorable impression of former President George W. Bush.
What to make of this? This is a clear misreading of his brother’s political legacy. Of course, no one expects him to denounce or attack his brother, but minimizing the difficulties he would face as the third presidential candidate from the same dynasty just makes him seem clueless. Even if George W. Bush had been a merely mediocre, unremarkable president instead of a disastrous failure, it seems unlikely that the public would have much appetite for a third Bush presidency in less than thirty years. It isn’t entirely the fault of the dynasty, but since the Bushes started running the GOP the party has gone from routinely winning landslide victories to not being able to fight its way out of a wet paper bag. How stupid would the Stupid Party have to be to go back for a third helping of such brilliant political leadership?
It might seem unfair to punish Jeb Bush because of how his brother governed, but Jeb Bush never showed any signs publicly or privately that he disagreed with what his brother was doing. It’s not as if his preferred policies are meaningfully different from those his brother pursued. He isn’t likely to repudiate anything that his brother did. So it would be entirely appropriate to view a Jeb Bush candidacy as an attempt to revive the Bush era and to rehabilitate the Bushism that his brother promoted. Bushism was a huge liability for both of the last two Republican nominees, and it would become a bigger one if the next nominee actually bore the name. A Republican Party that allowed its nomination to go to another Bush so soon after the failures of the last decade would effectively be declaring its political bankruptcy as a national party. If Republicans don’t think that their opponents will keep using George W. Bush as a club with which they bludgeon the party in the next few elections, they forget how much they have relied on trying to paint every Democratic nominee as the next Carter. Bush is their Carter, and the longer it takes them to break with what Bush represented the longer their political woes will last.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
Thanks. Here is one for you. An authority on the constitution of your class. Other than that I am done with you.
So once again you were simply posting to see yourself post.
Now then, back to the subject of the thread.
OP-ED COLUMNIST
What Hath Rand Paul Wrought?
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: March 9, 2013 273 Comments
THE Republican Party built an advantage on foreign policy across generations, and then began demolishing it 10 years ago this month. What the cold war made, the invasion of Iraq largely unmade: beginning in 2003, a party that had long promised — and mostly delivered — peace through strength became identified with an intelligence fiasco, a botched occupation and the squandering of American resources, credibility and lives.
Two Republicans running for president in 2012, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul, seemed to have some grasp of what Iraq had done to their party’s reputation. But they were both niche candidates who spoke to small constituencies (libertarians in Paul’s case, journalists in Huntsman’s). Paul’s isolationism was hectoring and eccentric, with a “we had it coming” view of terrorism that the Republican electorate was never likely to embrace. Huntsman’s attempt to rehabilitate foreign policy realism was as passionless and flat-footed as his entire campaign. Neither had much influence on Mitt Romney, whose foreign policy rhetoric left the impression that his party had learned nothing from the Bush era.
But where Huntsman and Paul the elder mostly failed, Rand Paul has been enjoying remarkable success. The Kentucky senator’s recent ascent to prominence, which achieved escape velocity with last week’s 13-hour filibuster delaying the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to lead the C.I.A., hasn’t just made the younger Paul one of the most talked-about politicians in Washington today. It has offered the first real sign that the Republican Party might someday escape the shadow of the Iraq war and enter the post-post-9/11 era.
Officially, Paul’s filibuster was devoted to a specific question of executive power — whether there are any limits on the president’s authority to declare American citizens enemy combatants and deal out death to them. But anyone who listened (and listened, and listened) to his remarks, and put them in the context of his recent speeches and votes and bridge-building, recognized that he was after something bigger: a reorientation of conservative foreign policy thinking away from hair-trigger hawkishness and absolute deference to executive power.
Exactly where such a reorientation would take the party is unclear. Depending on the context, Paul can sometimes sound like a libertarian purist, sometimes like a realist in the Brent Scowcroft mode and sometimes like — well, like a man who was an ophthalmologist in Bowling Green, Ky., just a few short years ago.
But if his ideas are still evolving, his savvy is impressive. Paul has recognized, as a figure like Huntsman did not, that to infuse new ideas into a moribund party you need to speak the language of the base, and sell conservatives as well as moderates on your proposed course correction. (There’s a reason his recent foreign policy speech was delivered at the Heritage Foundation — normally a redoubt of Cheneyism — and his two big interviews after his filibuster were with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.) And he’s exploited partisan incentives to bring his fellow Republicans around to his ideas, deliberately picking battles — from the Libya intervention to drone warfare — where a more restrained foreign policy vision doubles as a critique of the Obama White House.
Those incentives, rather than an intellectual sea change on the right, explain why his filibuster enjoyed so much Republican support. (Most of the senators who gave him an assist were just looking for a chance to score points against a Democratic White House.) But if Paul hasn’t won the party over to his ideas, he’s clearly widened the space for intra-Republican debate. And if he runs for president in 2016, that debate will become more interesting than it’s been for many, many years.
There’s a lesson here for his fellow Republican politicians — though that lesson is not, I repeat not, that they should all remake themselves as Paul-style libertarians. One can appreciate the Kentucky senator’s evolution away from his father’s crankishness without completely trusting that it’s genuine, and on domestic policy a swing to libertarian purism is something the present Republican Party doesn’t need.
Rather, the lesson of Paul’s ascent is that being a policy entrepreneur carries rewards as well as risks — and that if you know how to speak the language of the party’s base, it’s possible to be a different kind of Republican without forfeiting your conservative bona fides.
This is something that the party’s other ambitious officeholders have been slow to recognize. Since the 2012 election, a number of prominent Republicans — Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and so on — have given speeches that tiptoe toward new ideas, new policies, new visions of what their party might stand for and support. But ultimately they’ve all stopped short of actually breaking with the policy consensus that sent Romney down to defeat.
Paul, by contrast, has actually challenged that consensus in a substantive and constructive way. And far from being excommunicated for it, he’s been rewarded with greater prominence and increased conservative support.
For those with ears, let them hear.
Last edited by Bourne; March-10th-2013 at 01:56 PM.
"A crucial task is to perceive how our compassion is channeled towards some and away from others. It's the foundation of all mass violence."
Originally Posted by groover
Reply With Quote
