Your butthurt at being called out for your crap noted. You were making pronouncements on the unwashed masses (smug elitism) with assertions that were dependent on the basis for those assertions being true, since they came without any evidence or reasoning behind them - a tautology.
If the bus/train goes when I where I want and when I want, I'll take it. Problem is that they hardly ever go where I want to go, when I want to go.
Again with the "open road" meme instead of the "daily commute" reality. Okay, lets go ahead and say the transportation is shitty in your area. If the roads were also shitty, would you be poo-pooing the idea of driving a car, or would you want better roads?
Be careful with systems like BART though... They usually are not self supporting but highly dependent on revenue from government or taxes.
Holy shit dude would you give a coffee warning when you're going to post something that funny? Where do you think public roads come from?
Folks in the USA want to go, when they want to go. They will gladly take the bus, if it's going where they want, when they want and they are assured they can get back when they want, but if any of these requirements are not met, they will take a car.
Except this meme is dependent on the "open road" fantasy, rather than the "daily commute" reality. And the convenience argument goes out the window in a metro area in rush hour. What are you really going to pick, a half-hour trip by BART into San Francisco, or a two hour ride by car plus $20 for parking when you get there?
Yep....range anxiety is a red herring. You don't hear about "towing anxiety" on sedans or "passenger anxiety" for two-door pickups. Different products for different needs....remedial news at 11.
They are not singled out. The same rules apply to everybody.
That's not a response, that's a mantra.
It is a sin for blah blah blah
Where are you passing laws to discriminate against any of those people? I'm afraid you'll have to clear me into the part of Prop 8 that forbid women over sixty from getting married, because they could obviously no longer have children. Or to annul the marriage of a Jewish couple if it's found out they've used condoms. Etc.
The root of all sexual teaching is the same: non-procreative sex acts are sinful.
And John Hagee will explain at great length why you are going to hell because you are a Catholic. Or are you going to be "devoured by the Anti-Christ" first? Do tell me why it's unreasonable for the Christian by the name of John Hagee to harbor those views on Catholics, but why it's totally reasonable for you to hold similar views towards gays. And why you keep substituting the issue of sex for the issue of marriage.
Completely the same reasoning behind both fake memes: pretend something is a problem when it's not to shove through a right-wing agenda.
The *possibility* of a frivolous lawsuit causes a lot of stupid, wasteful things to be done (such as draining a reservoir or throwing away food instead of giving it to the homeless guy who is asking for it while watching hopelessly as it goes in the trash).
Does nothing of the kind. Real lawsuits are hard enough to bring to court, much less fake ones. You do know this is the same month where it came out that GM killed at least a dozen people because they were too cheap to spend an extra 50-odd cents a vehicle for a better ignition switch?
"Frivolous lawsuits" are a right-wing boogyman, like "vote fraud" or "teacher's unions".
Why is it so important for you to be so wrong about this?
Because I'm not wrong. One more time: what part of "both liberal AND conservative groups were investigated by the IRS, and the ONLY group to be DENIED tax exempt status was a LIBERAL one" did you guys not understand?
If you ask me the drone part is but a very minor (worrisome but minor) change in details.
Then you haven't spent any time thinking about it. CIA black ops can be killed or captured, while flying robots carry no such risk. Remember all the shit Clinton and Carter got for downed helicopters?
Sure, maybe Obama hasn't done everything perfect, but I know one thing: throwing Obama under the bus for what clearly started under Bush/Cheney is 100% bullshit.
Actually, that's the bullshit. Because Bush will never be president again, Cheney's not running, but Obama is continuing the abuses now. When Hillary is president, she'll be the focus, since she'll be the one doing it at the time.
I am only pointing out that people who are up in arms about what he is doing were, for the most part, completely silent when Bush did it.
You have this exactly backwards: a large number of Democrats who were anti-war suddenly became Superfans of the Imperial Presidency as soon as it was their guy doing it. Dirty Fucking Hippies and the odd Libertarian have been making the same complaints at both presidents, for the same reasons.
Here's your citation: got to a used book store and get a grade school book on U.S. history, and read the chapter on alcohol Prohibition. About how it did nothing to help problem drinkers, but created a whole lot of violence and corruption.
What's the difference between alcohol prohibition and pot/cocaine/heroin/meth prohibition? Less drug use, less crime...nope and nope. The only difference is that municipalities and private prisons have figured out who to monetize those convicted of victimless crimes.
How is it different from killing them without drones?
What the fuck does a drone (just tool) have to do with it other than its a new reason to be uppity?
How about you think about it for a couple seconds. Drones remove risk - remember all the shit Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton got for downed helicopters? You send in some SEALS, they might be captured or killed. With a Predator drone, the most you risk is a weaponized robot on the way to getting your bug splats.
You do know that the AUMF only applies to those who directly aided and abetted in 911, right? Which means it doesn't apply to most of the neocon boogeymen, I mean Al Qaeda groups, that the U.S. is bombing throughout the world.
The whole thing was a farce to begin with, since the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laddin if the U.S. bothered to present evidence that he was guilty of what we were accusing him of doing. And when the hell are we invading Saudi Arabia? You know, where the 911 terrorists were actually from?
If you can't tell the difference between a "secret law" and a secret legal opinion given to the President, then you're going to be appalled at all sorts of imaginary things, sorry to say.
Not only is it not imaginary that the presidency slaps the "classified" label on its "interpretation" of laws, it's old news by now. And, btw, the subject of the story your posting in.
The act of treason arguably means the convicted is an enemy combatant.
If you're using treason in this context, you arguably missed out on the fact that treason was the only crime spelled out in the Constitution, and that there was a good reason for that.
Not the same since that was proven to be nothing more than a Teabagger conspiracy theory years ago. What part of "both liberal AND conservative groups were investigated by the IRS, and the ONLY group to be DENIED tax exempt status was a LIBERAL one" did you guys not understand?
There's no shortage of real abuses of power from Reagan's 8th term in office without having to make up stupid bullshit.
Suppose the US was at war with Country X. Men with guns attacked a US military base in Country X. The US troops fire back, killing the forces of Country X. But aha! One of the enemy was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot shoot at that one person?
Suppose...there was a relevant analogy here. Because none of the people being assassinated are killed on the battlefield - that's why they're assassinations. Markets, weddings, apartment buildings...those are the sites of your typical drone strikes, where people are minding their own business. Not in a firefight with Marines or plotting the next strike with the Legion of Doom. Like Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was blown up at a cafe with his cousin because he was born to the wrong father.
Why is it okay to target non-US citizens with drones, but not US citizens? Why is it okay to shoot them, but not with drones?
It's not that it's "okay", it's that the Constitution provides greater protections for citizens than for non-citizens. But even for non-citizens, it's not okay to target them with signature strikes, where we don't even know who we're killing,
None of this is new. Start here to get your feet wet. Continue on at the Guardian, and finally to the presdent day. If that's too tl;dr, just know that the USG didn't stop being full of shit at every level with the invasion of Iraq. That if a "senior administration official" tells you that water is wet, you just might want to verify their claims.
A non-problem much like statistically insignificant voter fraud. Voter ID is really about keeping the "wrong" sort of people from voting, and tort reform is really about immunizing the powerful from liability for even the most grievous corruption or negligence.
That includes the fuel. Everyone just assumes it comes from the store as if its being produced on site and the price is something the clerk behind the counter makes up on an hour to hour basis.
Another smug tautology. A two-for-one special this weekend?
What you fail to realize is that most of them could care less if the oil companies get rich or not. They are more concerned with controlling you and getting your vote.
Painfully facile, even for you. You could try and make counter-arguments that the mining of the tar sands wont trash the environment, that the pipeline will somehow be built without eminent domain, that the constant leaks that happen with every other pipeline of length wont happen with this one, how the processed fuel wont be the dirtiest petroleum product you can make, or how it will drop the energy costs of Americans by so much as a cent.
But why do any of that when you can attack some giant mind-controlling hippie straw man?
Thinking Paul gets you out of the why-are-you-picking-and-choosing-sins Old Testament trap? Okay, let's put aside Leviticus and the origin of the word "sodomy" for a minute. And pretend that teenagers aren't lectured with the "If a man lies with a male as with a woman" line if there is a hint they might be interested in the opposite sex.
Actual, Paul condemns homosexual acts in Romans 1:25-27.
Is that before or after Paul endorsed slavery? So, are you trying to repeal the 13th Amendment, or did you trade one cherry tree for another to be picked?
Jesus condemns "fornicators," and gay sex is fornication.
The core of the belief structure surrounding sex is simple: sex is a gift from God to be used for procreation. Uses of sex that are not open to the possibility of new life are perversions of the gift and therefore verboten.
Which is why you guys and the Mormons have also passed laws forbidding couples to get married when one partner is infertile, or once the woman has passed menopause. Oh wait, you're aren't. You're only targeting gays.
But I don't see in what way I'm bigoted.
John Hagee doesn't think he's a bigot, when he's calmly quoting the Bible to show that you Meta Monkey the Catholic, is a follower of the Whore of Babylon, an idol worshiping cult that will be devoured by the Antichrist. The only difference between you and Hagee is the cherries you pick and people you target. Now, care to try telling me how you're not a bigot to use a translation of a translation of a translation of 3,000 year old stories to discriminate against people living today?
Yeah...American Exceptionalists. It takes some serious chutzpah/willful ignorance to accuse Russia of violating Ukraine's sovereignty while ignoring the long term efforts of the west to subvert Ukraine's democracy and install a sufficiently capitalist regime, all of which predated any moves from Putin.
U.S. officials met with the junta before they seized power, are on tape picking Ukraine's leaders, and braged about spending $5 billion to give the country "the future it deserves" - in front of banners for Chevron and Exxon - and immediately pledging a billion dollars to support the junta before the next set of elections. And of course there's the Fox News Bush-kept-us-save-from-terrorists style brazenness to pretend an illegal coup less than six months before the next set of elections has legitimacy, but ignore the fact that the people of Crimea - including the Tartars - overwhelmingly voted to join Russia.
Now, this is the point where the American Excpetionalist starts projecting with cries of "propaganda", without bothering to find counterexamples of Putin spending $5 billion of Russian taxpayer money to subvert a pro-west democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Your butthurt at being called out for your crap noted. You were making pronouncements on the unwashed masses (smug elitism) with assertions that were dependent on the basis for those assertions being true, since they came without any evidence or reasoning behind them - a tautology.
Again with the "open road" meme instead of the "daily commute" reality. Okay, lets go ahead and say the transportation is shitty in your area. If the roads were also shitty, would you be poo-pooing the idea of driving a car, or would you want better roads?
Holy shit dude would you give a coffee warning when you're going to post something that funny? Where do you think public roads come from?
Much cooler, you mean, like..."fashionable"? Just pointing out the latest repetition of the price bait-and-switch comparison by Fandroids.
Nevermind that a comparable Android costs just as much as an iPhone.
Except this meme is dependent on the "open road" fantasy, rather than the "daily commute" reality. And the convenience argument goes out the window in a metro area in rush hour. What are you really going to pick, a half-hour trip by BART into San Francisco, or a two hour ride by car plus $20 for parking when you get there?
Yep....range anxiety is a red herring. You don't hear about "towing anxiety" on sedans or "passenger anxiety" for two-door pickups. Different products for different needs....remedial news at 11.
That's not a response, that's a mantra.
Where are you passing laws to discriminate against any of those people? I'm afraid you'll have to clear me into the part of Prop 8 that forbid women over sixty from getting married, because they could obviously no longer have children. Or to annul the marriage of a Jewish couple if it's found out they've used condoms. Etc.
And John Hagee will explain at great length why you are going to hell because you are a Catholic. Or are you going to be "devoured by the Anti-Christ" first? Do tell me why it's unreasonable for the Christian by the name of John Hagee to harbor those views on Catholics, but why it's totally reasonable for you to hold similar views towards gays. And why you keep substituting the issue of sex for the issue of marriage.
Completely the same reasoning behind both fake memes: pretend something is a problem when it's not to shove through a right-wing agenda.
Does nothing of the kind. Real lawsuits are hard enough to bring to court, much less fake ones. You do know this is the same month where it came out that GM killed at least a dozen people because they were too cheap to spend an extra 50-odd cents a vehicle for a better ignition switch?
"Frivolous lawsuits" are a right-wing boogyman, like "vote fraud" or "teacher's unions".
Because I'm not wrong. One more time: what part of "both liberal AND conservative groups were investigated by the IRS, and the ONLY group to be DENIED tax exempt status was a LIBERAL one" did you guys not understand?
Then you haven't spent any time thinking about it. CIA black ops can be killed or captured, while flying robots carry no such risk. Remember all the shit Clinton and Carter got for downed helicopters?
Actually, that's the bullshit. Because Bush will never be president again, Cheney's not running, but Obama is continuing the abuses now. When Hillary is president, she'll be the focus, since she'll be the one doing it at the time.
You have this exactly backwards: a large number of Democrats who were anti-war suddenly became Superfans of the Imperial Presidency as soon as it was their guy doing it. Dirty Fucking Hippies and the odd Libertarian have been making the same complaints at both presidents, for the same reasons.
Here's your citation: got to a used book store and get a grade school book on U.S. history, and read the chapter on alcohol Prohibition. About how it did nothing to help problem drinkers, but created a whole lot of violence and corruption.
What's the difference between alcohol prohibition and pot/cocaine/heroin/meth prohibition? Less drug use, less crime...nope and nope. The only difference is that municipalities and private prisons have figured out who to monetize those convicted of victimless crimes.
How about you think about it for a couple seconds. Drones remove risk - remember all the shit Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton got for downed helicopters? You send in some SEALS, they might be captured or killed. With a Predator drone, the most you risk is a weaponized robot on the way to getting your bug splats.
You do know that the AUMF only applies to those who directly aided and abetted in 911, right? Which means it doesn't apply to most of the neocon boogeymen, I mean Al Qaeda groups, that the U.S. is bombing throughout the world.
The whole thing was a farce to begin with, since the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laddin if the U.S. bothered to present evidence that he was guilty of what we were accusing him of doing. And when the hell are we invading Saudi Arabia? You know, where the 911 terrorists were actually from?
Not only is it not imaginary that the presidency slaps the "classified" label on its "interpretation" of laws, it's old news by now. And, btw, the subject of the story your posting in.
If you're using treason in this context, you arguably missed out on the fact that treason was the only crime spelled out in the Constitution, and that there was a good reason for that.
Not all Americans, but all American Exceptionalists fit that bill. Greenwald nicely calls out their bullshit on a regular basis:
US Takes a Break From Condemning Tyranny to Celebrate Obama's Visit to Saudi Arabia
Not the same since that was proven to be nothing more than a Teabagger conspiracy theory years ago. What part of "both liberal AND conservative groups were investigated by the IRS, and the ONLY group to be DENIED tax exempt status was a LIBERAL one" did you guys not understand?
There's no shortage of real abuses of power from Reagan's 8th term in office without having to make up stupid bullshit.
Suppose...there was a relevant analogy here. Because none of the people being assassinated are killed on the battlefield - that's why they're assassinations. Markets, weddings, apartment buildings...those are the sites of your typical drone strikes, where people are minding their own business. Not in a firefight with Marines or plotting the next strike with the Legion of Doom. Like Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was blown up at a cafe with his cousin because he was born to the wrong father.
It's not that it's "okay", it's that the Constitution provides greater protections for citizens than for non-citizens. But even for non-citizens, it's not okay to target them with signature strikes, where we don't even know who we're killing,
None of this is new. Start here to get your feet wet. Continue on at the Guardian, and finally to the presdent day. If that's too tl;dr, just know that the USG didn't stop being full of shit at every level with the invasion of Iraq. That if a "senior administration official" tells you that water is wet, you just might want to verify their claims.
A non-problem much like statistically insignificant voter fraud. Voter ID is really about keeping the "wrong" sort of people from voting, and tort reform is really about immunizing the powerful from liability for even the most grievous corruption or negligence.
Another smug tautology. A two-for-one special this weekend?
Painfully facile, even for you. You could try and make counter-arguments that the mining of the tar sands wont trash the environment, that the pipeline will somehow be built without eminent domain, that the constant leaks that happen with every other pipeline of length wont happen with this one, how the processed fuel wont be the dirtiest petroleum product you can make, or how it will drop the energy costs of Americans by so much as a cent.
But why do any of that when you can attack some giant mind-controlling hippie straw man?
Thinking Paul gets you out of the why-are-you-picking-and-choosing-sins Old Testament trap? Okay, let's put aside Leviticus and the origin of the word "sodomy" for a minute. And pretend that teenagers aren't lectured with the "If a man lies with a male as with a woman" line if there is a hint they might be interested in the opposite sex.
Is that before or after Paul endorsed slavery? So, are you trying to repeal the 13th Amendment, or did you trade one cherry tree for another to be picked?
Which is why you guys and the Mormons have also passed laws forbidding couples to get married when one partner is infertile, or once the woman has passed menopause. Oh wait, you're aren't. You're only targeting gays.
John Hagee doesn't think he's a bigot, when he's calmly quoting the Bible to show that you Meta Monkey the Catholic, is a follower of the Whore of Babylon, an idol worshiping cult that will be devoured by the Antichrist. The only difference between you and Hagee is the cherries you pick and people you target. Now, care to try telling me how you're not a bigot to use a translation of a translation of a translation of 3,000 year old stories to discriminate against people living today?
Yeah...American Exceptionalists. It takes some serious chutzpah/willful ignorance to accuse Russia of violating Ukraine's sovereignty while ignoring the long term efforts of the west to subvert Ukraine's democracy and install a sufficiently capitalist regime, all of which predated any moves from Putin.
U.S. officials met with the junta before they seized power, are on tape picking Ukraine's leaders, and braged about spending $5 billion to give the country "the future it deserves" - in front of banners for Chevron and Exxon - and immediately pledging a billion dollars to support the junta before the next set of elections. And of course there's the Fox News Bush-kept-us-save-from-terrorists style brazenness to pretend an illegal coup less than six months before the next set of elections has legitimacy, but ignore the fact that the people of Crimea - including the Tartars - overwhelmingly voted to join Russia.
Now, this is the point where the American Excpetionalist starts projecting with cries of "propaganda", without bothering to find counterexamples of Putin spending $5 billion of Russian taxpayer money to subvert a pro-west democracy.