Random Political Thoughts

[RedMichael]

Well my angle was that I thought them actually talking about it with the press was the actual stratagem, not killing him. It seemed really obvious to me that the US was really open and forthcoming with this even though it seemed VERY early in discussions. The other point was the media not even scrutinizing this. "Hmmm they'd never just let us in on stuff like this before...oh well, what a scoop!" Either way, the press buying this one hook, line, and sinker (if thats the case, my opinion) makes it more likely to work.


But it does raise some interesting questions. Since he is a US citizen, would it be illegal to kill him without a trial? However, that question/debate wasn't the point of my post.

[FightTheFuture]

Will be more interesting to see if they keep their "righteous indignation" of defense of the minority when previous normal things like Christians, married people, small business owners, farmers, gun owners, businessmen, etc become the minority. Will they defend us with such vigor?

You mean like the Egyptians defended the Coptic Christians post-Mubarak?

[FightTheFuture]

Well my angle was that I thought them actually talking about it with the press was the actual stratagem, not killing him. It seemed really obvious to me that the US was really open and forthcoming with this even though it seemed VERY early in discussions. The other point was the media not even scrutinizing this. "Hmmm they'd never just let us in on stuff like this before...oh well, what a scoop!" Either way, the press buying this one hook, line, and sinker (if thats the case, my opinion) makes it more likely to work.


But it does raise some interesting questions. Since he is a US citizen, would it be illegal to kill him without a trial? However, that question/debate wasn't the point of my post.

Two things:

First, someone in the Obama administration, a civilian   DOD appointee most likely, leaked this information because they have a fundamental difference with Obama in regards to conducting drone strikes on US citizens abroad.

Which leads to the second point. It is perfectly legal to take out an American citizen abroad if there is overwhelming evidence that an attack is imminent which would be orchestrated by, or  conducted by, the person in question. This is especially true if the threat is originating from a country, or area, that is not easily accessible by United States forces, thus preventing a reasonable attempt at live capture.



What this all boils down to is, somebody betrayed their oath, the President, and their country.

[b_dubb]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/02/mask/?cid=18382154

[Little Hater]

What difference does it make if the target is a US citizen?

Presumably because US Constitution protections about things like due process wouldn't apply to non-US citizens (a position with which I disagree, but I seem to be in a very small minority).

[wr250]

Presumably because US Constitution protections about things like due process wouldn't apply to non-US citizens (a position with which I disagree, but I seem to be in a very small minority).

i agree, the constitution in the 5th amendment states "no person" not "no citizen" . this includes all persons inside US borders and territories, legally here or not.
i would add that this only applies within us borders and territories, and not in other sovereign nations (we are not entitled to enforce our laws on other nations,period.) 

link to archive.gov bill of rights

[NowhereInTime]

We already did that with Reagan.  Remember how frustrated the D's were when the economy boomed and Soviet expansion was reversed?  Instead of being happy the disastrous Carter era was over, they bitched and lied about what was happening.

History has a way of repeating, your wish may come true.  Let's hope so, we really need it.

Yes.  Those "frustrated D's" who bitched and lied about the stinkhole economy and the Savings and Loan scandal during GHWB's administration.  Man didn't even know the price of a gallon of milk, but he had the middle class' back, right?

Frustrated when Soviet expansion was reversed?  You cannot find a single quote or thought of any Democrat who pined away for the good ol' days of Brezhnev or Andropov.  That's absolute crap. 
Oh, wait, that's you making up your own facts to substantiate your weak argument!  As a True Conservative (you are like the Worf of conservatives) would do!  Carry on!

[NowhereInTime]

My next question is about the Tea Party.  I've seen posts that just slam them, and I wonder why.

To me the Tea Party stands for returning to a smaller more limited government, reducing annual deficits and the national debt, reducing the size of government, reducing taxes, increasing opportunity.

And certainly part of that is opposing anything Obama - or anyone else - is doing not in agreement with the above.

Most of these issues are things many if not most people agree with. 


I get that some people don't agree with the Tea Party with some of these issues, but what is it that makes them the worst people in the world?

Simple.  They are a minority of well heeled, white property owners who have the gall to accuse everyone around them of "taking" from them. 

They lie about economic statistics (like the absurd lie Cantor made about Obamacare (using the CBO report) "cutting jobs" when it was discussing many people being able to opt out of the work force (which would open up jobs), they oppose anybody else trying to get a piece of the pie (ie: minimum wage increase), they blame the unemployed for their predicament as they lay off workers, and they blame "government" (which is really code for liberals, minorities, environmentalists, and regulators) for all of their "problems".

They have the audacity to think that they are self-made, that the very structure and ethos of our nation didn't give them a tremendous hand-up in their success and that, by God now that they're rich, they've "won". And why don't we "celebrate" them, as Jamie Dimon and Jeffrey Immelt have both complained?

They create mythology about their political opponents to demonize them (Kenyan Socialist), rather that stacking up positions side by side, because they always lose in educated states (have at thee in Alabama).

Most importantly, the values they espouse about "lower taxes and smaller government" only appeal to people who have much to gain not having Uncle Sam looking over their shoulder as they commit insider trading or dump chemicals into the water.

Most people, when polled, want the wealthy to start kicking back in to this society instead of demanding more of it. (That includes creating opportunity, but all they create is exciting new ways to make money on money then stuff it offshore.)

I would go on and on but the point is made.   Exactly why are these such great   people?

[PB the Deplorable]

Yes.  Those "frustrated D's" who bitched and lied about the stinkhole economy and the Savings and Loan scandal during GHWB's administration.  Man didn't even know the price of a gallon of milk, but he had the middle class' back, right?

Frustrated when Soviet expansion was reversed?  You cannot find a single quote or thought of any Democrat who pined away for the good ol' days of Brezhnev or Andropov.  That's absolute crap...

Well lets see - we were talking about electing a true Conservative so the Libs could start bitching before he even began his term, and I pointed out we'd already experienced that with Reagan. 

What's GHWB got to do with any of that?  I realize the Libs started in bitching about him before he took office as well, but he was the quintessential insider Establishment Globalist Repub, not a Conservative.


About the Libs supporting the USSR - who was it constantly insisting we unilaterally disarm in the face of Soviet expansion?  Who was it that stood against us in Congress from supplying arms and other support to those in our hemisphere fighting Soviet/Cuban backed guerillas militarily?  Who was it supporting people like Castro, the Sandinistas, Maurice Bishop (Grenada), the FMLN, and the rest?  Who was it always angry with our UN ambassadors like Jeanne Fitzpatrick when they voted for bills blocking and opposing Soviet actions?  Who as it that never had a bad thing to say about the Soviet government, their system, or their policies or actions?

[PB the Deplorable]

Simple.  They are a minority of well heeled, white property owners who have the gall to accuse everyone around them of "taking" from them. 

They lie about economic statistics (like the absurd lie Cantor made about Obamacare (using the CBO report) "cutting jobs" when it was discussing many people being able to opt out of the work force (which would open up jobs), they oppose anybody else trying to get a piece of the pie (ie: minimum wage increase), they blame the unemployed for their predicament as they lay off workers, and they blame "government" (which is really code for liberals, minorities, environmentalists, and regulators) for all of their "problems".

They have the audacity to think that they are self-made, that the very structure and ethos of our nation didn't give them a tremendous hand-up in their success and that, by God now that they're rich, they've "won". And why don't we "celebrate" them, as Jamie Dimon and Jeffrey Immelt have both complained?

They create mythology about their political opponents to demonize them (Kenyan Socialist), rather that stacking up positions side by side, because they always lose in educated states (have at thee in Alabama).

Most importantly, the values they espouse about "lower taxes and smaller government" only appeal to people who have much to gain not having Uncle Sam looking over their shoulder as they commit insider trading or dump chemicals into the water.

Most people, when polled, want the wealthy to start kicking back in to this society instead of demanding more of it. (That includes creating opportunity, but all they create is exciting new ways to make money on money then stuff it offshore.)

I would go on and on but the point is made.   Exactly why are these such great   people?

Thanks for responding - I don't really recognize the Tea Party in any of that, but at least now I know what some people think there is in the Tea Party's message of limited government, lower taxes and personal responsibility to oppose.

Office holders and candidates who have your same mindset of punishing the successful people instead of learning from them and encouraging others are exactly the people we need to defeat at election time in this country.

[PB the Deplorable]

... They lie about economic statistics (like the absurd lie Cantor made about Obamacare (using the CBO report) "cutting jobs" when it was discussing many people being able to opt out of the work force...

Only a 'Progressive' would think it's a good thing when jobs are lost due to their policies.

They even came up with a word - 'job lock' - to demonize people getting up and going to work everyday instead of staying home and enrolling in their handout programs.  Now they describe job loss as 'opting out'.

This is a sickness.

[Ben Shockley]

They even came up with a word - 'job lock' - to demonize people getting up and going to work everyday instead of staying home and enrolling in their handout programs.  Now they describe job loss as 'opting out'.
This is a sickness.

YOU SO FUNNY,  MISTAH JOHN BIRCH MAN--

How is it NOT a "sickness" when people are forced to slave away at jobs that neither they nor maybe even their employers want them to be in just to get some half-assed version of "health insurance?"
How does that "strengthen the country" (which I guess you are all about) unless you just advocate full-on slavery?

[Lunger]

Frustrated when Soviet expansion was reversed?  You cannot find a single quote or thought of any Democrat who pined away for the good ol' days of Brezhnev or Andropov.  That's absolute crap. 

Maybe it was that shitbag Kennedy when he went hat in hand to the soviets begging for money to keep the democrat party alive.

[Birdie]

Only a 'Progressive' would think it's a good thing when jobs are lost due to their policies.

They even came up with a word - 'job lock' - to demonize people getting up and going to work everyday instead of staying home and enrolling in their handout programs.  Now they describe job loss as 'opting out'.

This is a sickness.

That logic just doesn't fly. If someone wanted to sit on their ass and collect handouts, they would have quit their job long ago and applied for Medicaid. You get more handouts when you do not work. So why would these miserable slackers have had a job in the first place? 
Job lock refers to people stuck in crappy jobs only so they can have insurance through their employer. $7.25 an hour sure ain't paying a lot of bills or supporting anyone. Many people work a full time job for minimum wage just to get the benefits. I have done it myself. 
This is about situations such as an unmarried couple where the primary earner's insurance won't cover their partner. It is cheaper to have a 'hobby' job with benefits than to pay for an individual insurance plan out of pocket.

[Yorkshire pud]

That logic just doesn't fly.

Logic, schmogic...C'mon, where's your sense of fun? PB doesn't look at logic, he finds things to hit Democrats/ liberals, or anyone who doesn't see things his way with.

[PB the Deplorable]

That logic just doesn't fly. If someone wanted to sit on their ass and collect handouts, they would have quit their job long ago and applied for Medicaid. You get more handouts when you do not work. So why would these miserable slackers have had a job in the first place? 
Job lock refers to people stuck in crappy jobs only so they can have insurance through their employer. $7.25 an hour sure ain't paying a lot of bills or supporting anyone. Many people work a full time job for minimum wage just to get the benefits. I have done it myself. 
This is about situations such as an unmarried couple where the primary earner's insurance won't cover their partner. It is cheaper to have a 'hobby' job with benefits than to pay for an individual insurance plan out of pocket.

The Administration has been slammed for months about people losing their jobs, or having their hours cut to part time, or some employers eliminating insurance benefits for dependents, or even eliminating insurance benefits for the entire company, due to huge expense increases.

And now the CBO is projecting more of the same.

The rhetoric about 'job lock' and people opting out, and these being lousy jobs and all the rest are responses from people still supporting the President and still supporting ObamaCare.  It's spin.  As with any spin coming out of DC, there is a certain amount of truth to it, but it isn't the truth.

Yes, getting a benefits package with a job is part of the decision of which job to take or whether to take one or whether to keep one, and some people claim to be stuck in jobs solely because they need the insurance (but we all wish we could win the lottery and not go to work every morning - so these people are working for benefits instead of the pay, or instead of fulfillment, so what?), but passing a bill that destroys jobs and benefits is not a good thing.  Certainly not during tough economic times.  No matter how it's spun.

[PB the Deplorable]

YOU SO FUNNY,  MISTAH JOHN BIRCH MAN--

How is it NOT a "sickness" when people are forced to slave away at jobs that neither they nor maybe even their employers want them to be in just to get some half-assed version of "health insurance?"
How does that "strengthen the country" (which I guess you are all about) unless you just advocate full-on slavery?

So we take people who are supporting themselves and paying their way through life and put them on the dole.  Now the rest of us can support them instead.  Except the rest of us aren't supporting them, we are borrowing the money to support them - and putting that debt on the backs of the next generation and the one after that, our children and grandchildren.

Only a Lib would think that's a really wonderful idea.

[b_dubb]

So we take people who are supporting themselves and paying their way through life and put them on the dole.  Now the rest of us can support them instead.  Except the rest of us aren't supporting them, we are borrowing the money to support them - and putting that debt on the backs of the next generation and the one after that, our children and grandchildren.

Only a Lib would think that's a really wonderful idea.

No Republican President since WWII has balanced the budget or paid down the debt or behaved in any fashion that approached TRUE CONSERVATISM. You act like Dems are the only problem.  They aren't.

[NowhereInTime]

About the Libs supporting the USSR - who was it constantly insisting we unilaterally disarm in the face of Soviet expansion?  Who was it that stood against us in Congress from supplying arms and other support to those in our hemisphere fighting Soviet/Cuban backed guerillas militarily?  Who was it supporting people like Castro, the Sandinistas, Maurice Bishop (Grenada), the FMLN, and the rest?  Who was it always angry with our UN ambassadors like Jeanne Fitzpatrick when they voted for bills blocking and opposing Soviet actions?  Who as it that never had a bad thing to say about the Soviet government, their system, or their policies or actions?

Um, that's what I asked you...

[PB the Deplorable]

Um, that's what I asked you...

Seriously?  That's some of what our friends the 'Progressives' were doing, before the Berlin Wall fell.  They even managed to convince a few Libs to go along.  Certainly the Libs in DC on many of those issues.  Was that before your time? 

Some are still visiting Castro, and were giving Hugo Chavez the reach-around right up until he had the good manners to die.


Same people now supporting CAIR, same people who don't seem to mind Obama cozying up to the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt (and entertaining them 200 times in the White House), and al-Qaeda in Libya and in Syria.

[NowhereInTime]

Seriously?  That's some of what our friends the 'Progressives' were doing, before the Berlin Wall fell.  They even managed to convince a few Libs to go along.  Certainly the Libs in DC on many of those issues.  Was that before your time? 

Some are still visiting Castro, and were giving Hugo Chavez the reach-around right up until he had the good manners to die.


Same people now supporting CAIR, same people who don't seem to mind Obama cozying up to the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt (and entertaining them 200 times in the White House), and al-Qaeda in Libya and in Syria.

Seriously.  For the third time, Paper*Boy, give me some names.  Don't accuse "progressives" of something that wasn't done.  No one called for unilateral disarmament, not Ted Kennedy, not Tip O'Neill, not Dick Gephardt, not Bella Abzug, for Heaven's Sake! 

Yes, do people like Michael Moore (holding what elected office now?) visit Cuba?  To proove a point that our embargo should end and that Cuba manages to supply health care to its people?  Yes.  Are they calling for an end to embargo?  Yes.  Michael Moore loves this country and its people  a hell of a lot more than you do.

And who is "cozying up" to Al-Qaeda? What the hell does that even mean?

You can't just say shit to say shit, dude.

[PB the Deplorable]

Seriously.  For the third time, Paper*Boy, give me some names.  Don't accuse "progressives" of something that wasn't done.  No one called for unilateral disarmament, not Ted Kennedy, not Tip O'Neill, not Dick Gephardt, not Bella Abzug, for Heaven's Sake! 

Yes, do people like Michael Moore (holding what elected office now?) visit Cuba?  To proove a point that our embargo should end and that Cuba manages to supply health care to its people?  Yes.  Are they calling for an end to embargo?  Yes.  Michael Moore loves this country and its people  a hell of a lot more than you do.

And who is "cozying up" to Al-Qaeda? What the hell does that even mean?

You can't just say shit to say shit, dude.

I consider it progress when the Libs and Left abandon their positions and try to write themselves out of some of their history.  The biggest example of this was burying and denying their early support of Hitler.

The problem is once that history is re-written, younger people are unaware of it and support the Left, thinking they are on the right side.



I would suggest Obama wanting to strike military targets within Syria on behalf of al-Qaeda is 'cozying up' to them.  Notice how fast that incident disappeared from any Media scrutiny after the whole country rose up and told him 'No'.

[NowhereInTime]

I consider it progress when the Libs and Left abandon their positions and try to write themselves out of some of their history.  The biggest example of this was burying and denying their early support of Hitler.

Now you really look like a "crafty left hander" late in his career using KY to get his curve to break.  Your slider is flat an your fastball has no zip.  So, like a pitcher late in season with a dead arm, you'll do anything to get the ball over the plate one more time. 

Can't wait until I see your list of "libs" who supported Hitler.  Hell, I'll give you a head start.  Old Joe Kennedy himself seemed awful fond of that Addie chap.  Except Joe wasn't a lib.  He was a strident anti-Commie and rumrunner who literally supported Hitler (for a while) because of his anti-Commie position.

Ok, ball's on the mound waiting for you to bring it home, ace.

[Little Hater]

So much for the current bete noire of the Left:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2544025


And another interesting (if obvious) study that especially applies to this forum:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html

[Lunger]

Now you really look like a "crafty left hander" late in his career using KY to get his curve to break.  Your slider is flat an your fastball has no zip.  So, like a pitcher late in season with a dead arm, you'll do anything to get the ball over the plate one more time. 

Can't wait until I see your list of "libs" who supported Hitler.  Hell, I'll give you a head start.  Old Joe Kennedy himself seemed awful fond of that Addie chap.  Except Joe wasn't a lib.  He was a strident anti-Commie and rumrunner who literally supported Hitler (for a while) because of his anti-Commie position.

Ok, ball's on the mound waiting for you to bring it home, ace.

Another History revisionist who thinks that Hitler was some sort of Right-Winger!

[Yorkshire pud]

Another History revisionist who thinks that Hitler was some sort of Right-Winger!

Hitler was a right wing fascist. It's why he was supported by the right wing Daily Mail (proprietor Lord Rothermere) in the 30's.. Unless it's believed he had a vision of everyone in Germany (and eventually the world) having self determination and in control of their own means of production; Hmmm, don't think so.

This is him having a tête-à-tête with the vicious bastard, and his comment in his paper at the time.

[onan]

So much for the current bete noire of the Left:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2544025

I don't think the Examiner is telling the whole story. How much they personally donated, as opposed to how much their funded agencies donated and spent to get their positions out. According the the New York Times they spent 122 million dollars. The group Americans for Prosperity spent "tens of millions of dollars" (more than 33.5 million) to defeat Obama.

Hell, they spent over 7 million on Kay Hagan in NC.

[NowhereInTime]

Another History revisionist who thinks that Hitler was some sort of Right-Winger!

Another uneducated conservative voter trying to rewrite established fact and history for politcal gain.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it ." - history's favorite conservative, Adolf Hitler.

[PB the Deplorable]

Another uneducated conservative voter trying to rewrite established fact and history for politcal gain.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it ." - history's favorite conservative, Adolf Hitler.

The ONLY reason the American Left dropped support for Hitler was because Hitler violated the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of1939 by invading the Soviet Union in 1941 (also known as the Hitler-Stalin Pact).

When Germany lost the war and the whole world learned of the Nazi atrocities, the American Left cut their losses and began to insist Hitler was somehow a 'Right-winger'.  They are still making these claims right up to today.  Which makes sense, he certainly has to be bad for recruiting.

Speaking of bad for their image - thanks to the internet and the information age, perhaps it will be impossible for them to someday claim they never supported their fellow Leftists in the Soviet Union, Mao's China, or places like Castro's Cuba and Pol Pot's Cambodia.


The hard radical Left is pretty much the same everywhere.  They have the same goals and use the same tactics, say the same things.  That's why they should be easy to spot - a couple of current examples being Occupy and the Obama Administration. 

[NowhereInTime]

The ONLY reason the American Left dropped support for Hitler was because Hitler violated the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of1939 by invading the Soviet Union in 1941 (also known as the Hitler-Stalin Pact).

When Germany lost the war and the whole world learned of the Nazi atrocities, the American Left cut their losses and began to insist Hitler was somehow a 'Right-winger'.  They are still making these claims right up to today.  Which makes sense, he certainly has to be bad for recruiting.

Speaking of bad for their image - thanks to the internet and the information age, perhaps it will be impossible for them to someday claim they never supported their fellow Leftists in the Soviet Union, Mao's China, or places like Castro's Cuba and Pol Pot's Cambodia.


The hard radical Left is pretty much the same everywhere.  They have the same goals and use the same tactics.  That's why they should be easy to spot - a couple of current examples being Occupy and the Obama Administration.

The "American Left" it should go without saying never supported Hitler.  You have not yet supplied an example of any leftists supporting the Nazis (proof against your point is how many Americans supported Communism then and were blackballed in the 50's)

It was rascists, big money, and war mongers (in other words, conservatives) like Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, William Randolph Hearst, and Allen Dulles who voiced support for Hitler.  The DuPont family financed the Black Legion, an activist group of American Nazis closely affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan. 

You make these wholly inaccurate, grand sweeping condemnations of leftists with neither proof nor names of "leftists who supported Hitler".  Leaving the appalling demagougery aside, I commend for your adherence to the fuhrer's teachings...

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it ."  -Conservative star Adolf Hitler.