Even the article you cite states that immunity for US troops was a deal killer.
Which is why Obama had to give up his dreams of extending the Iraq occupation. Exactly as I said.
The fact remain that Obama wanted all out at any cost and the immunity was the perfect deal breaker.
The fact is the only thing higher than that on the right wing dumbfuckometer is blaming Clinton for Ruby Ridge, which happened before he was even elected to the presidency, much less took office. You're saying Obama was too chicken to stay in Iraq at the same time he was tripling forces in Afghanistan, and arranging for them to stay there not just through his second term, but Obama's successors second term?
The same president that has spent more on wars and spying than Bush, bombed twice as many countries as Bush, and signed the NDAA into law - along with dozens of other far out batshit crazy right wing warmonger crap actions on his resume - suddenly went all Dennis Kucinich on Iraq? The same Iraq that Obama is bombing right now because ISIS, Obama's own Mujahadin got out of hand?
You're aware you're still comparing apples to batshit irrelevant oranges, yes? Cameras in banks and stores are to prevent malefactors from walking off with money or goods. There aren't going to be malefactors running trains, unless you have an operator like that suicidal co-pilot who crashed that Germanwings flight. Who DGAF that his actions were being recorded, because he was suicidal.
You know "the world" includes America, yes? Where there are 60 million poor whites in generational poverty? Which wouldn't be the case if we spent "more than enough money" addressing it.
When we speak of helping poor students, we generally mean helping them achieve academic success. Not helping them get rich. So "all the poor straight-A students" are actually the success story here, not an object of pity.
Both health care (Medicare) and pensions (Social Security) have not only not been "raided", but are being unsustainably financed by politicians too terrified to attempt any reform.
Repeating fifty-year-old Bircher nonsense doesn't make it true. It just makes you more deluded for repeating it.
I know a "proper" caste system is wrong on several levels
But you like it anyway. That student grades are most dependent on the financial status of one's parents isn't a sign of inequality, it's a sign that we should bring back the system where you are an aristocrat, a member of the bourgeois, or an Untouchable.
If you're mother flipped burgers, the best you will do is flip burgers. If you're fuckup that goes so far as to kill people in a DUI? Forgiveness and an eventual corporate position for you.
We spend more than enough money trying to help the troubled kids.
Generational poverty laughs at your willful ignorance of the world. As do all the poor straight-A students who will never see a hundredth of the earnings of the rich kid who flunked out of high school between his second and third cocaine busts.
I'd say Musk relies far less on tax dollars than Jobs did. Apple, despite all their billions, pays virtually no taxes. Tesla got a government loan and paid it off early with interest.
Your first sentence seems to disagree with the second....as well as the rest of your post. Case in point:
There's a tax subsidy for buying an electric car
There isn't one for buying a Mac or an iPhone. So...who's getting benefits from tax dollars again?
You are aware that plenty of people are monitored for their entire shift in much less safety critical jobs, like bank tellers, grocery or retail store cashiers, dock workers, etc, yes?
You are aware that's because of the risk of theft, yes? What is a train operator going to steal?
There's worse than being monitored by a camera : being monitored by your colleagues in an open space office.
Do you remember what your colleagues were wearing last Friday, before the start of a three day weekend? Most likely not. Unless you do something memorable, whatever it is you are currently doing is going to be out of your colleagues short-term memory in a matter of seconds, and any testimony is hearsay. Whereas video is not hearsay, and lasts as long as it is stored.
Wouldn't these issues be solved by what this post argued for: incorporated marriage?
I don't see how it would solve any of those problems, but I do see one it would create. Sue and Molly could vote to split the kids and assets between them, and leave Rachael out on the street.
How is that any different to the situation for a sick/comatose/senile/end-of-life parent without a living spouse
Having a spouse is the difference. If you die unmarried and without relatives, the state can auction off your possessions, but that's obviously not going to happen if you're married.
Lots of reasons. Because polygamy generally involves powerful men taking lots of wives, and sometimes forcing young men out of the community so they have their pick of women. And no, it's not going to even out of a few Marisa Mayers take on a few "brother husbands."
Because it creates an inherent power imbalance in the relationship - if you call your wife Sue a fat bitch she can stop speaking to you until you've done a few weeks of groveling. But if you're a polygamist, you can tell Sue that if she doesn't get over it, you'll just be fucking your second wife, Molly.
Because it takes issues that are otherwise straightforward and turns them into a mess if there is no will. If you get in a car accident and end up in a coma, your wife can make medical decisions for you. If you die, she inherits everything and has custody of the kids. But if you're a polygamist who adopted, who gets the kids...Sue or Molly? Who gets the house? Which one makes the call to keep you on a feeding tube while you're in the coma?
Well, the marriage benefits are intended to help with child rearing.
You know gay people can have biological kids as well as adopt, right? This was always a red herring from homophobes anyway, as you never had the same Concerns over post-menopausal women or elderly couples marrying.
question of why we're extending benefits for no reason should be asked.
You should be asked if you've ever heard of the word "inheritance". How about the right to make medical choices for your partner in the event of his or her incapacitation.
You're in outer space. The same president that's bombed twice as many Mulsim countries as Bush, the same president that tripled forces in Afghanistan over Bush levels - and arranged them to stay there through two full terms of Jeb or Hillary - the same president that joked about murdering American kids right after murdering American kids with drones, the same president that demanded the right to throw American citizens in military prisons without trial...wanted to 'cut and run from Iraq' cuz he was too liberal?
Regime change in Iraq was stated US policy, signed into law by Bill Clinton.
Never understood the point of this old saw, as Clinton never tried to invade Iraq or actively depose Saddam.
The AUMF was approved by Congress, with a bipartisan vote.
Yes, they voted for it. They didn't talk about voting for it. And the only Dem to offer an unequivocal 'I fucked up' apology is persona non gratta because he only fucked one person he wasn't supposed to.
Obama's desire to abandon Iraq, to not leave a residual force resurrected ISIS/al-Quaeda in Iraq.
This revisionist history was already debunked in this thread before you decided to repeat it.
Obama wanted to extend the occupation, not end it. All that campaign talk about withdrawing within 16 months was a lie, just like his promises to renegotiate NAFTA, that any health care bill he signed must have a public option, and to close Gitmo.
All this Obama bashing from right-wingers, when he's been one of you all along.
My personal theory is Saddam probably thought he had WMD
He didn't, but he wanted his neighbors to think so. If that seems like paranoia, just look at Libya and Syria. If Assad had a powerful military, it's not as likely that Saudi Arabia and Qatar would be sending armed "freedom fighters" over the border.
The only thing the splurge did was get more people killed, both occupier and occupied.
and how the insurgency was defeated sufficiently for Obama to call the war over
Obama wanted to extend the war, not end it. But the Iraqis refused to let U.S. forces go on committing mass murder with impunity, so Obama had to adhere to the withdrawal timeline negotiated by Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why Obama had to give up his dreams of extending the Iraq occupation. Exactly as I said.
The fact is the only thing higher than that on the right wing dumbfuckometer is blaming Clinton for Ruby Ridge, which happened before he was even elected to the presidency, much less took office. You're saying Obama was too chicken to stay in Iraq at the same time he was tripling forces in Afghanistan, and arranging for them to stay there not just through his second term, but Obama's successors second term?
The same president that has spent more on wars and spying than Bush, bombed twice as many countries as Bush, and signed the NDAA into law - along with dozens of other far out batshit crazy right wing warmonger crap actions on his resume - suddenly went all Dennis Kucinich on Iraq? The same Iraq that Obama is bombing right now because ISIS, Obama's own Mujahadin got out of hand?
Dumb. Fuckery.
You're aware you're still comparing apples to batshit irrelevant oranges, yes? Cameras in banks and stores are to prevent malefactors from walking off with money or goods. There aren't going to be malefactors running trains, unless you have an operator like that suicidal co-pilot who crashed that Germanwings flight. Who DGAF that his actions were being recorded, because he was suicidal.
You know "the world" includes America, yes? Where there are 60 million poor whites in generational poverty? Which wouldn't be the case if we spent "more than enough money" addressing it.
Nope.
It's like you're annoyed that you said something completely nonsensical, and someone noticed.
Perhaps you could explain why either of you is going on about freight when the subject is passenger service?
Repeating fifty-year-old Bircher nonsense doesn't make it true. It just makes you more deluded for repeating it.
But you like it anyway. That student grades are most dependent on the financial status of one's parents isn't a sign of inequality, it's a sign that we should bring back the system where you are an aristocrat, a member of the bourgeois, or an Untouchable.
If you're mother flipped burgers, the best you will do is flip burgers. If you're fuckup that goes so far as to kill people in a DUI? Forgiveness and an eventual corporate position for you.
Generational poverty laughs at your willful ignorance of the world. As do all the poor straight-A students who will never see a hundredth of the earnings of the rich kid who flunked out of high school between his second and third cocaine busts.
Your first sentence seems to disagree with the second....as well as the rest of your post. Case in point:
There isn't one for buying a Mac or an iPhone. So...who's getting benefits from tax dollars again?
You're as likely to find Jobs worship on Slashdot as you are to find praise of socialism at a Republican convention, Hateboi.
Yes, the American Exceptionalist Butthurt. Even when your best is half what other countries with far less money can do....'Murica! Fuck yeah!
You are aware that's because of the risk of theft, yes? What is a train operator going to steal?
Do you remember what your colleagues were wearing last Friday, before the start of a three day weekend? Most likely not. Unless you do something memorable, whatever it is you are currently doing is going to be out of your colleagues short-term memory in a matter of seconds, and any testimony is hearsay. Whereas video is not hearsay, and lasts as long as it is stored.
I don't see how it would solve any of those problems, but I do see one it would create. Sue and Molly could vote to split the kids and assets between them, and leave Rachael out on the street.
Having a spouse is the difference. If you die unmarried and without relatives, the state can auction off your possessions, but that's obviously not going to happen if you're married.
Why. He's a bigot. Would you be excusing him if he was championing miscegenation laws or insisting that Jews repent for killing Jesus?
Lots of reasons. Because polygamy generally involves powerful men taking lots of wives, and sometimes forcing young men out of the community so they have their pick of women. And no, it's not going to even out of a few Marisa Mayers take on a few "brother husbands."
Because it creates an inherent power imbalance in the relationship - if you call your wife Sue a fat bitch she can stop speaking to you until you've done a few weeks of groveling. But if you're a polygamist, you can tell Sue that if she doesn't get over it, you'll just be fucking your second wife, Molly.
Because it takes issues that are otherwise straightforward and turns them into a mess if there is no will. If you get in a car accident and end up in a coma, your wife can make medical decisions for you. If you die, she inherits everything and has custody of the kids. But if you're a polygamist who adopted, who gets the kids...Sue or Molly? Who gets the house? Which one makes the call to keep you on a feeding tube while you're in the coma?
You know gay people can have biological kids as well as adopt, right? This was always a red herring from homophobes anyway, as you never had the same Concerns over post-menopausal women or elderly couples marrying.
You should be asked if you've ever heard of the word "inheritance". How about the right to make medical choices for your partner in the event of his or her incapacitation.
Why do you think they aren't?
Because that's where they live, dumbass. Same reason why you spent more time dealing with the laws where you live than what they are in Bumbfuckistan.
You're in outer space. The same president that's bombed twice as many Mulsim countries as Bush, the same president that tripled forces in Afghanistan over Bush levels - and arranged them to stay there through two full terms of Jeb or Hillary - the same president that joked about murdering American kids right after murdering American kids with drones, the same president that demanded the right to throw American citizens in military prisons without trial...wanted to 'cut and run from Iraq' cuz he was too liberal?
Are you out of your fucking mind?
Syria's annual defense spending is around $3 billion dollars. Saudi Arabia's is around 25 times that amount.
Because he's trolling.
Whining about Apple on Slashdot is about as risky, or unpopular, as whining about socialists at a gathering of teabaggers.
Nevermind that competitors charge comparable prices for comparable products.
Never understood the point of this old saw, as Clinton never tried to invade Iraq or actively depose Saddam.
Yes, they voted for it. They didn't talk about voting for it. And the only Dem to offer an unequivocal 'I fucked up' apology is persona non gratta because he only fucked one person he wasn't supposed to.
This revisionist history was already debunked in this thread before you decided to repeat it.
Obama wanted to extend the occupation, not end it. All that campaign talk about withdrawing within 16 months was a lie, just like his promises to renegotiate NAFTA, that any health care bill he signed must have a public option, and to close Gitmo.
All this Obama bashing from right-wingers, when he's been one of you all along.
He didn't, but he wanted his neighbors to think so. If that seems like paranoia, just look at Libya and Syria. If Assad had a powerful military, it's not as likely that Saudi Arabia and Qatar would be sending armed "freedom fighters" over the border.
The only thing the splurge did was get more people killed, both occupier and occupied.
Obama wanted to extend the war, not end it. But the Iraqis refused to let U.S. forces go on committing mass murder with impunity, so Obama had to adhere to the withdrawal timeline negotiated by Bush.
And who wants to die fighting a retreating enemy?