Release of Torture Memos- There was no real need for this to happen, so why did it? Obama said he wanted to look forward, not back, but the release of these memos so we can go after the previous administration is petty at best, and dangerous for our national security at worst. This is kind of flip floppy on his part. There's also a possibility that this might blow up in his face, because some of the torture actually did work, and is documented, and was for justice. Now Obama is being pressed to release that information too.
Okay so let's go over how this is wrong. It happened because Americans were torturing people which is wrong. Period. If you are torturing someone you are, in fact, acting like a terrorist. More so, the memo that said torturing helped was pretty much torn apart by the memos that said it would have been just as easy to have used other means and not have near as negative an impact. So I guess this is only bad if you A: Don't want to use better means to obtain information and B: Support torture and, essentially, terrorism since that's what torture is.
The Budget- A fiasco. This thing costs way too damn much and has a shitload of pork. I do not want to see what future tax raises will be needed to pay for this shit. Clearly a product of our subpar Congress (though you can't really blame Obama for their stupidity).
The Economy- It's still shit, jobs aren't getting made fast enough and it's his fault. He said so himself. And don't forget Geithner and the AIG shenanigans.
It's been six months. Show me an economy anywhere that's completely recovered in six months, to say nothing of one that's spent the last six years funneling money into a shit hole.
Bailouts- So far the bailouts have just been a disappointment, and a constant source of irritation for the American public. Nice Job, O-Team. People are getting way too comfortable with talks of "nationalization" of various industries. We also shouldn't have to pay for our irresponsible neighbor's mortgages God damnit.
Shit would have been far, far worse without because the last administration said "Free market whoo!" The free market solution for this has already proven terrible.
Soviet Opacity- It's pretty hypocritical of Obama to say "O YEA GUYS WE'RE GONNA BE TRANSPARENT"... and then hire a shitload of czars who answer to no one. Seriously, what is up with this? Czar's could be doing all sorts of shady shit behind the scenes to get things done and the public would never know about it. And these czar's are just as important as cabinet members? What the hell?
The Hell does this have to do with socialism?
Partisan Politics- Let's face it, Obama has not been very bipartisan, and with Specter switching parties and tilting even more power toward the Dems I would be very surprised if Obama even gave a shit about what Republicans will have to say from now on, though it's reasonable to believe he was only pretending to in the past. The dude is many things, but a uniter is not one of them. Consider the fact that we had more bipartisanship in George Bush's first year than all of Obama's 100 days. I fear what crazy shit the Dems will pass now without the Republicans having an influence. Of all his shortcomings, this is the one that hurts the most.
Ditto here. Partisan politics =/= socialism. You really need to look up the word for socialism because it does not mean "Things I personally do not like" Also, Obama has been gracious compared to the other party over the last eight years. The fact that they refuse to accept any compromise offered is their own fault.
Cabinet Fuckuppetry- What I want to know is how the hell did four people get through the vetting process when they very clearly had not paid some of their damn taxes?
This really blew my mind.
If you're of the party that says "it's your patriotic duty to pay your taxes" well, by God, your cabinet members better pay their taxes in full and on time.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because, as president, you're so damn busy you *have* to delegate shit, like vetting, but still.
Sort of like the airplane flyover of New York. I know he didn't personally approve of it but....wow...that was so fantastically stupid. "Hey, let's fly a big airliner close to tall buildings in New York and not tell anyone!" Did noone consider the natural consequences of that act?
Same with the DHS memo that essentially labeled Iraq veterans, Federalists, and Ron Paul Supporters as potential extremists despite that very same memo stating there was "no evidence" to prove it.
What ever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism? Also, from a professional and, hell, scientific standpoint it's embarassing because when you come to a conclusion you admit you have no evidence for, you look stupid and undermine your own conclusions.
I don't think Obama is a bad guy, but he *does* have a history of having some very bad friends. That might bite him in the ass one day...er...again.
Release of Torture Memos- There was no real need for this to happen, so why did it? Obama said he wanted to look forward, not back, but the release of these memos so we can go after the previous administration is petty at best, and dangerous for our national security at worst. This is kind of flip floppy on his part. There's also a possibility that this might blow up in his face, because some of the torture actually did work, and is documented, and was for justice. Now Obama is being pressed to release that information too.
Okay so let's go over how this is wrong. It happened because Americans were torturing people which is wrong. Period. If you are torturing someone you are, in fact, acting like a terrorist. More so, the memo that said torturing helped was pretty much torn apart by the memos that said it would have been just as easy to have used other means and not have near as negative an impact. So I guess this is only bad if you A: Don't want to use better means to obtain information and B: Support torture and, essentially, terrorism since that's what torture is.
I disagree with the use of torture, but it's not terrorism. Terrorism, in the most broad sense, are policies with the explicit purpose of creating terror. Usually this means a small group of people doing something violent, and then making it so the costs of dealing with the problem outweigh simply settling with terrorist group. Terrorism is a very public thing, and as far as I can tell, American torture policy was geared around secrecy.
I'm still not sure how failing to pay taxes on free car rides is such an affront to the American public.
Also, dissent is only the highest form of patriotism when your dissent is earnest and well-informed. Providing opposition without any fully formed ideas of your own is just getting in the way for the sake of staying in the spotlight.
Same with the DHS memo that essentially labeled Iraq veterans, Federalists, and Ron Paul Supporters as potential extremists despite that very same memo stating there was "no evidence" to prove it.
It said they're more likely than most others. Which they are. The memo simply expanded from the previous profiling selection of "Darkie that ain't Christian."
I disagree with the use of torture, but it's not terrorism. Terrorism, in the most broad sense, are policies with the explicit purpose of creating terror. Usually this means a small group of people doing something violent, and then making it so the costs of dealing with the problem outweigh simply settling with terrorist group. Terrorism is a very public thing, and as far as I can tell, American torture policy was geared around secrecy.
So secret that everyone and their mom knew about it before Obama released the memos? To say nothing of the fact that some of these people were eventually released to the public to go tell their friends that if they get picked up by the Americans they will be tortured?
I'm still not sure how failing to pay taxes on free car rides is such an affront to the American public.
Also, dissent is only the highest form of patriotism when your dissent is earnest and well-informed. Providing opposition without any fully formed ideas of your own is just getting in the way for the sake of staying in the spotlight.
Don't forget it's only patriotism if you're a Republican and you're dissenting against Democrats. If you're a Democrat dissenting against the Republicans, then you're with the terrorists.
Release of Torture Memos- There was no real need for this to happen, so why did it? Obama said he wanted to look forward, not back, but the release of these memos so we can go after the previous administration is petty at best, and dangerous for our national security at worst. This is kind of flip floppy on his part. There's also a possibility that this might blow up in his face, because some of the torture actually did work, and is documented, and was for justice. Now Obama is being pressed to release that information too.
Okay so let's go over how this is wrong. It happened because Americans were torturing people which is wrong. Period. If you are torturing someone you are, in fact, acting like a terrorist. More so, the memo that said torturing helped was pretty much torn apart by the memos that said it would have been just as easy to have used other means and not have near as negative an impact. So I guess this is only bad if you A: Don't want to use better means to obtain information and B: Support torture and, essentially, terrorism since that's what torture is.
I disagree with the use of torture, but it's not terrorism. Terrorism, in the most broad sense, are policies with the explicit purpose of creating terror. Usually this means a small group of people doing something violent, and then making it so the costs of dealing with the problem outweigh simply settling with terrorist group. Terrorism is a very public thing, and as far as I can tell, American torture policy was geared around secrecy.
Same with the DHS memo that essentially labeled Iraq veterans, Federalists, and Ron Paul Supporters as potential extremists despite that very same memo stating there was "no evidence" to prove it.
Bullshit.
I know that the self-martyring poutrage from the right-wing blogosphere really, really, really wanted that DHS report (which was comissioned by the fucking Bush administration) to be some declaration of war against anyone who opposes Obama, but here's the thing.
It was a report on right-wing terrorist groups.
And I hate to break this news to you, but some of the same issues that drive conservatives to non-violent protest are also the same issues that drive right-wing terrorist groups to commit acts of terrorism.
That doesn't mean that taking a certain stance on those issues makes one an extremist or a terrorist, even if you throw in "essentially" as a weasel word. Which is a distinction quite easily made when you read that the DHS report was, again, about right-wing terrorist groups.
What's even more noxious is how conservative blowhards have warped how the DHS report points out that right-wing terrorist groups have and will continue to try and recruit military veterans. If you think this is some slanderous accusation against our proud soldiers by the Obama (oh wait, Bush) administration, I have three words for you:
Timothy Motherfucking McVeigh.
Again, pointing out that right-wing terrorist groups will see returning Iraq and Afghan War vets as potential recruits (especially with reports of the rise in Aryan Nations recruiting amongst the active military) doesn't mean that every single returning vet is a right-wing extremist.
The only it way it does so is if you posit that there is no difference between vocal conservatism (or even military service) and right-wing terrorism. You know, by doing the exact same thing the DHS report is falsely accused of doing.
Oh, and what's even funnier is that previous Bush administration reports about left-wing terrorists pointing out that those groups are driven to violence by issues such as environmentalism, animal rights and socialism didn't result in a tsunami of whining.
Release of Torture Memos- There was no real need for this to happen, so why did it? Obama said he wanted to look forward, not back, but the release of these memos so we can go after the previous administration is petty at best, and dangerous for our national security at worst. This is kind of flip floppy on his part. There's also a possibility that this might blow up in his face, because some of the torture actually did work, and is documented, and was for justice. Now Obama is being pressed to release that information too.
Okay so let's go over how this is wrong. It happened because Americans were torturing people which is wrong. Period. If you are torturing someone you are, in fact, acting like a terrorist. More so, the memo that said torturing helped was pretty much torn apart by the memos that said it would have been just as easy to have used other means and not have near as negative an impact. So I guess this is only bad if you A: Don't want to use better means to obtain information and B: Support torture and, essentially, terrorism since that's what torture is.
I disagree with the use of torture, but it's not terrorism. Terrorism, in the most broad sense, are policies with the explicit purpose of creating terror. Usually this means a small group of people doing something violent, and then making it so the costs of dealing with the problem outweigh simply settling with terrorist group. Terrorism is a very public thing, and as far as I can tell, American torture policy was geared around secrecy.
…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…."
I dunno, unless you're seriously arguing that the purpose of the "enhanced interrogation" was to have an information leak to scare other terrorists, I'm going to have to say that wasn't really the intent of the torture. It's wrong and evil, but let's save the word terrorism for actual terrorism.
There was some website that was keeping up a list of Obama's campaign promises and whether or not he has followed through on them.
Does anyone have the URL for that?
There was some website that was keeping up a list of Obama's campaign promises and whether or not he has followed through on them.
Does anyone have the URL for that?
Release of Torture Memos- There was no real need for this to happen, so why did it? Obama said he wanted to look forward, not back, but the release of these memos so we can go after the previous administration is petty at best, and dangerous for our national security at worst. This is kind of flip floppy on his part. There's also a possibility that this might blow up in his face, because some of the torture actually did work, and is documented, and was for justice. Now Obama is being pressed to release that information too.
Okay so let's go over how this is wrong. It happened because Americans were torturing people which is wrong. Period. If you are torturing someone you are, in fact, acting like a terrorist. More so, the memo that said torturing helped was pretty much torn apart by the memos that said it would have been just as easy to have used other means and not have near as negative an impact. So I guess this is only bad if you A: Don't want to use better means to obtain information and B: Support torture and, essentially, terrorism since that's what torture is.
I disagree with the use of torture, but it's not terrorism. Terrorism, in the most broad sense, are policies with the explicit purpose of creating terror. Usually this means a small group of people doing something violent, and then making it so the costs of dealing with the problem outweigh simply settling with terrorist group. Terrorism is a very public thing, and as far as I can tell, American torture policy was geared around secrecy.
This is absurd. Using non-lethal torture on someone is the perfect definition of terrorism. You are attempting to produce fear and terror in them, and their group. When you torture, you are using the fear of further torture to achieve your ends. You are a terrorist.
Same with the DHS memo that essentially labeled Iraq veterans, Federalists, and Ron Paul Supporters as potential extremists despite that very same memo stating there was "no evidence" to prove it.
What ever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism? Also, from a professional and, hell, scientific standpoint it's embarassing because when you come to a conclusion you admit you have no evidence for, you look stupid and undermine your own conclusions.
You read the memo? It didn't say that vets were potential extremists, but that they were potential targets for recruitment by extremist elements:
DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.
... (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.
While we were waiting Cartwright told me that her husband believed the U.S. Government was conspiring against him. She said he had been severely disturbed that Barack Obama had been elected President.
As for the Paultards and teabaggers, the fact that they saw the memo targeted towards them says a lot more about their mindset than it does about DHS. The memo was clearly discussing violence, not peaceful protest.
Cabinet Fuckuppetry- What I want to know is how the hell did four people get through the vetting process when they very clearly had not paid some of their damn taxes?
This really blew my mind.
If you're of the party that says "it's your patriotic duty to pay your taxes" well, by God, your cabinet members better pay their taxes in full and on time.
I agree it kinda sucks that these people didn't pay their taxes. Although I doubt it was on purpose. At any rate, I don't know why you're blaming Obama's vetting. Isn't that how they found out these people didn't pay those taxes? They vetted them.
I don't think Obama is a bad guy, but he *does* have a history of having some very bad friends. That might bite him in the ass one day...er...again.
Release of Torture Memos- There was no real need for this to happen, so why did it? Obama said he wanted to look forward, not back, but the release of these memos so we can go after the previous administration is petty at best, and dangerous for our national security at worst. This is kind of flip floppy on his part. There's also a possibility that this might blow up in his face, because some of the torture actually did work, and is documented, and was for justice. Now Obama is being pressed to release that information too.
Okay so let's go over how this is wrong. It happened because Americans were torturing people which is wrong. Period. If you are torturing someone you are, in fact, acting like a terrorist. More so, the memo that said torturing helped was pretty much torn apart by the memos that said it would have been just as easy to have used other means and not have near as negative an impact. So I guess this is only bad if you A: Don't want to use better means to obtain information and B: Support torture and, essentially, terrorism since that's what torture is.
I disagree with the use of torture, but it's not terrorism. Terrorism, in the most broad sense, are policies with the explicit purpose of creating terror. Usually this means a small group of people doing something violent, and then making it so the costs of dealing with the problem outweigh simply settling with terrorist group. Terrorism is a very public thing, and as far as I can tell, American torture policy was geared around secrecy.
This is absurd. Using non-lethal torture on someone is the perfect definition of terrorism. You are attempting to produce fear and terror in them, and their group. When you torture, you are using the fear of further torture to achieve your ends. You are a terrorist.
It's a question of the intent. As it stands right now, terrorism is an action with the intent to scare a civilian population so that a government makes changes. You're going to have to show that the leaks were deliberate and that the intent of the torture was not to gather information, but to intimidate. If there's a whistle blower in the CIA or DoD that's willing to come out and say this, then maybe I'll change my mind.
CygnusZ on
0
Options
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
They bit him in the ass so hard that he won a presidential election.
And FOX (who usually pushes those things) didn't even cover the conference from the sound of it.
FOX? Being biased? Who would have thought.
Out of curiosity, did FOX start out like that, or was it a slow shift toward's asshattery and insanity? I never really watched the news on that particular channel, so I don't know what caused them to get as biased as they can be.
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Wasn't that also in regards to the stimulus bill, to something specific that the Republicans wanted changed, AFTER several concessions were already made to the Republicans - who STILL did not vote for it?
And FOX (who usually pushes those things) didn't even cover the conference from the sound of it.
FOX? Being biased? Who would have thought.
Out of curiosity, did FOX start out like that, or was it a slow shift toward's asshattery and insanity? I never really watched the news on that particular channel, so I don't know what caused them to get as biased as they can be.
Fox was always biased. Hannity and especially Glenn Beck definitely brought their own brand of crazy on though.
YodaTuna on
0
Options
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
And FOX (who usually pushes those things) didn't even cover the conference from the sound of it.
FOX? Being biased? Who would have thought.
Out of curiosity, did FOX start out like that, or was it a slow shift toward's asshattery and insanity? I never really watched the news on that particular channel, so I don't know what caused them to get as biased as they can be.
Fox was always biased. Hannity and especially Glenn Beck definitely brought their own brand of crazy on though.
What little i've seen of Glenn Beck seems to point to him having a nervous or physcotic breakdown over the next four years. Dude takes his politics way too seriously.
Then again, he could just be a political/media troll, which I find far more likely. Nothing brings in ratings like belting it out to the backseats.
Back to the economy; its in the shitter after 8 straight years of Republican missmanagment. Remember back in 2000, when the budget under Bill Clinton had a Surplus? Then came a total conservative Lockout of both the Senate, Congress and the White House for 6 years(plus 2 more years of control of the White House). Now Obama is a failure because he hasn't fixed in 100 days what took 8 years to fuck up?
OBS, one word: BULLSHIT
AS for the bailouts: Yeah Obama is a socialist for bailing out AIG.... Wait that was BUSH! Well at least we can blame him for Freddie and Fannie Mae? NOPE, Bush again. The Auto bailouts? Started by Bush. fuck me! Bush is a Commie? (The conservatives on this site will probably try to claim so)
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
And FOX (who usually pushes those things) didn't even cover the conference from the sound of it.
FOX? Being biased? Who would have thought.
Out of curiosity, did FOX start out like that, or was it a slow shift toward's asshattery and insanity? I never really watched the news on that particular channel, so I don't know what caused them to get as biased as they can be.
And FOX (who usually pushes those things) didn't even cover the conference from the sound of it.
FOX? Being biased? Who would have thought.
Out of curiosity, did FOX start out like that, or was it a slow shift toward's asshattery and insanity? I never really watched the news on that particular channel, so I don't know what caused them to get as biased as they can be.
To be fair, there were some Bush prime-time press conferences they bailed out on as well.
I believe Obama did, at some point, tell Republicans something to the effect of "I won, and so I get to do things I want to do." Because, you know, he won. That's sort of how elected contests work. Is McCain supposed to get a say because he was first runner-up, or what?
Wasn't that also in regards to the stimulus bill, to something specific that the Republicans wanted changed, AFTER several concessions were already made to the Republicans - who STILL did not vote for it?
We also shouldn't have to pay for our irresponsible neighbor's mortgages God damnit.
Until your neighbors get foreclosed on and your property values drop like a rock.
I'd rather have my property values drop than have to pick up the slack for my neighbor so I can indirectly avoid my property values dropping, which I don't give a shit about anyway because I'm not interested in my property value right now.
Paying for SDT's, sicknesses, unwanted children, or even children of families who are raised by those families but supported by the government (welfare) are all drains on our economy. There can be an argument regarding the actual impact of these conditions, but I believe that on average preventative actions return on investment.
Now to play the devils advocate a bit with regards to the economy. Alot of the surplus that we saw under the Clinton administration was were directly due to short gains created by loosening of restrictions on the banking systems (think credit default swaps). You can keep placing everything on Red to win, but eventually the balls going to come up black. Sure enough it did during the Bush years. Now the Republican parties "crime" was to let it continue for as long as it did. Whether through poor management, lack of responsiveness, or personal investment in spiked gains the republican controlled government screwed up. But we definitely weren't prosperous due to the machinations of clinton.
With regards to the torture documents, I agree with their release. There was no legal rational to keep them classified, nor did the information released therein provide any useful information with regards to national security. I can't understand the feeling that we shouldn't "dwell on the past (or what has already happened) and look forward to the future". Obama is a reasonably intelligent man, and any educated person knows that history is a tool for developing and understanding the possible outcome for our actions in both the present and future. It's one thing to not dwell on finger pointing regarding which candidate was first to point out a problem. It's another thing to disregard a reprehensible act that the vast majority of the American Public is against, and who's methods to not justify their outcome.
Same with the DHS memo that essentially labeled Iraq veterans, Federalists, and Ron Paul Supporters as potential extremists despite that very same memo stating there was "no evidence" to prove it.
I'd suggest you actually read the memo.
What ever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism? Also, from a professional and, hell, scientific standpoint it's embarassing because when you come to a conclusion you admit you have no evidence for, you look stupid and undermine your own conclusions.
Dissent by peaceable assembly or petition for a redress of grievances is the highest form of patriotism.
Dissent by fertilizer bomb is right wing domestic terrorism.
I never thought this sort of distinction would ever need to be voiced, rather than just tacitly understood, but there you go.
Mortgages and Debt are often times further complicated by the actions of the companies that issue them. Even responsible people get shafted.
Example: I myself have had my credit dropped dramatically due to practices by a single credit card company who mishandled the initial opening of my account. It's taken me almost a year to have it resolved even though only one month in all parties agreed that the fault lied with the creditor. As a result of my lowered credit rating (which will still take another 30-60 days to resolve back to normal) I've been unable to purchase a home, and have been rejected for a few other credit based items (car, home, etc.) which has further impacted my credit rating.
Now this is a small example that I was able to control, completely not my fault, and it still impacted me greatly and took a year to resolve. And the rub is through investigation, I am not the only one affected like this. But what are your options as a consumer. Report to the BBB? Might as well call Oprah. Report to some government entity? Sorry we'll take your information down, put it in a filing cabinet and not ever look at it again ever because we're too busy not being able to spot Multi-billion dollar scam artists.
Imagine the effect on the grand scale. Of people who are dumber, of people who were just outright lied to, of people who have been impacted due to unknown circumstances such as the failing of the economy, or being screwed by some investment banker, or the top CEO's of your employer jetting off to Maui while the employees get a pink slip and the shaft.
I'm not suggesting that the burden of responsibility of buyers is completely off their shoulders, but you can't look at this problem and blame only one end other the other. The buyers, the lenders, the realtors, the bankers, the investors, the lobbyists, the politicians. All had a hand in making this problem. It is kinda shitty that we have to foot the bill for it though.
Posts
Nixon
Steam 3DS: 1160-9885-2554
It's been six months. Show me an economy anywhere that's completely recovered in six months, to say nothing of one that's spent the last six years funneling money into a shit hole.
Shit would have been far, far worse without because the last administration said "Free market whoo!" The free market solution for this has already proven terrible.
The Hell does this have to do with socialism?
Ditto here. Partisan politics =/= socialism. You really need to look up the word for socialism because it does not mean "Things I personally do not like" Also, Obama has been gracious compared to the other party over the last eight years. The fact that they refuse to accept any compromise offered is their own fault.
This really blew my mind.
If you're of the party that says "it's your patriotic duty to pay your taxes" well, by God, your cabinet members better pay their taxes in full and on time.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because, as president, you're so damn busy you *have* to delegate shit, like vetting, but still.
Sort of like the airplane flyover of New York. I know he didn't personally approve of it but....wow...that was so fantastically stupid. "Hey, let's fly a big airliner close to tall buildings in New York and not tell anyone!" Did noone consider the natural consequences of that act?
Same with the DHS memo that essentially labeled Iraq veterans, Federalists, and Ron Paul Supporters as potential extremists despite that very same memo stating there was "no evidence" to prove it.
What ever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism? Also, from a professional and, hell, scientific standpoint it's embarassing because when you come to a conclusion you admit you have no evidence for, you look stupid and undermine your own conclusions.
I don't think Obama is a bad guy, but he *does* have a history of having some very bad friends. That might bite him in the ass one day...er...again.
Margaret Thatcher
I disagree with the use of torture, but it's not terrorism. Terrorism, in the most broad sense, are policies with the explicit purpose of creating terror. Usually this means a small group of people doing something violent, and then making it so the costs of dealing with the problem outweigh simply settling with terrorist group. Terrorism is a very public thing, and as far as I can tell, American torture policy was geared around secrecy.
Also, dissent is only the highest form of patriotism when your dissent is earnest and well-informed. Providing opposition without any fully formed ideas of your own is just getting in the way for the sake of staying in the spotlight.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Don't forget it's only patriotism if you're a Republican and you're dissenting against Democrats. If you're a Democrat dissenting against the Republicans, then you're with the terrorists.
Learn the legal definition of terrorism.
Bullshit.
I know that the self-martyring poutrage from the right-wing blogosphere really, really, really wanted that DHS report (which was comissioned by the fucking Bush administration) to be some declaration of war against anyone who opposes Obama, but here's the thing.
It was a report on right-wing terrorist groups.
And I hate to break this news to you, but some of the same issues that drive conservatives to non-violent protest are also the same issues that drive right-wing terrorist groups to commit acts of terrorism.
That doesn't mean that taking a certain stance on those issues makes one an extremist or a terrorist, even if you throw in "essentially" as a weasel word. Which is a distinction quite easily made when you read that the DHS report was, again, about right-wing terrorist groups.
What's even more noxious is how conservative blowhards have warped how the DHS report points out that right-wing terrorist groups have and will continue to try and recruit military veterans. If you think this is some slanderous accusation against our proud soldiers by the Obama (oh wait, Bush) administration, I have three words for you:
Timothy Motherfucking McVeigh.
Again, pointing out that right-wing terrorist groups will see returning Iraq and Afghan War vets as potential recruits (especially with reports of the rise in Aryan Nations recruiting amongst the active military) doesn't mean that every single returning vet is a right-wing extremist.
The only it way it does so is if you posit that there is no difference between vocal conservatism (or even military service) and right-wing terrorism. You know, by doing the exact same thing the DHS report is falsely accused of doing.
Oh, and what's even funnier is that previous Bush administration reports about left-wing terrorists pointing out that those groups are driven to violence by issues such as environmentalism, animal rights and socialism didn't result in a tsunami of whining.
I dunno, unless you're seriously arguing that the purpose of the "enhanced interrogation" was to have an information leak to scare other terrorists, I'm going to have to say that wasn't really the intent of the torture. It's wrong and evil, but let's save the word terrorism for actual terrorism.
Does anyone have the URL for that?
This is absurd. Using non-lethal torture on someone is the perfect definition of terrorism. You are attempting to produce fear and terror in them, and their group. When you torture, you are using the fear of further torture to achieve your ends. You are a terrorist.
You read the memo? It didn't say that vets were potential extremists, but that they were potential targets for recruitment by extremist elements:
As for the "no evidence", two dead deputies and a firefight resulting in the death of the suspect sort of counts as evidence, don't you think. In the incident report, there was this chilling observation:
As for the Paultards and teabaggers, the fact that they saw the memo targeted towards them says a lot more about their mindset than it does about DHS. The memo was clearly discussing violence, not peaceful protest.
I agree it kinda sucks that these people didn't pay their taxes. Although I doubt it was on purpose. At any rate, I don't know why you're blaming Obama's vetting. Isn't that how they found out these people didn't pay those taxes? They vetted them.
What bad friends? Specific names please.
It's a question of the intent. As it stands right now, terrorism is an action with the intent to scare a civilian population so that a government makes changes. You're going to have to show that the leaks were deliberate and that the intent of the torture was not to gather information, but to intimidate. If there's a whistle blower in the CIA or DoD that's willing to come out and say this, then maybe I'll change my mind.
Until your neighbors get foreclosed on and your property values drop like a rock.
I don't know that there is one. Press conferences are hard to give an adequate response to.
And FOX (who usually pushes those things) didn't even cover the conference from the sound of it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
FOX? Being biased? Who would have thought.
Out of curiosity, did FOX start out like that, or was it a slow shift toward's asshattery and insanity? I never really watched the news on that particular channel, so I don't know what caused them to get as biased as they can be.
Way off topic, but from the article:
Fox was always biased. Hannity and especially Glenn Beck definitely brought their own brand of crazy on though.
What little i've seen of Glenn Beck seems to point to him having a nervous or physcotic breakdown over the next four years. Dude takes his politics way too seriously.
Then again, he could just be a political/media troll, which I find far more likely. Nothing brings in ratings like belting it out to the backseats.
OBS, one word:
BULLSHIT
AS for the bailouts: Yeah Obama is a socialist for bailing out AIG.... Wait that was BUSH! Well at least we can blame him for Freddie and Fannie Mae? NOPE, Bush again. The Auto bailouts? Started by Bush. fuck me! Bush is a Commie? (The conservatives on this site will probably try to claim so)
Roger Ailes
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
To be fair, there were some Bush prime-time press conferences they bailed out on as well.
Y'know what doesn't help the economy? Orphans.
I'd rather have my property values drop than have to pick up the slack for my neighbor so I can indirectly avoid my property values dropping, which I don't give a shit about anyway because I'm not interested in my property value right now.
Now to play the devils advocate a bit with regards to the economy. Alot of the surplus that we saw under the Clinton administration was were directly due to short gains created by loosening of restrictions on the banking systems (think credit default swaps). You can keep placing everything on Red to win, but eventually the balls going to come up black. Sure enough it did during the Bush years. Now the Republican parties "crime" was to let it continue for as long as it did. Whether through poor management, lack of responsiveness, or personal investment in spiked gains the republican controlled government screwed up. But we definitely weren't prosperous due to the machinations of clinton.
With regards to the torture documents, I agree with their release. There was no legal rational to keep them classified, nor did the information released therein provide any useful information with regards to national security. I can't understand the feeling that we shouldn't "dwell on the past (or what has already happened) and look forward to the future". Obama is a reasonably intelligent man, and any educated person knows that history is a tool for developing and understanding the possible outcome for our actions in both the present and future. It's one thing to not dwell on finger pointing regarding which candidate was first to point out a problem. It's another thing to disregard a reprehensible act that the vast majority of the American Public is against, and who's methods to not justify their outcome.
I'd suggest you actually read the memo.
Dissent by peaceable assembly or petition for a redress of grievances is the highest form of patriotism.
Dissent by fertilizer bomb is right wing domestic terrorism.
I never thought this sort of distinction would ever need to be voiced, rather than just tacitly understood, but there you go.
Fox News did, the broadcast network did not.
Example: I myself have had my credit dropped dramatically due to practices by a single credit card company who mishandled the initial opening of my account. It's taken me almost a year to have it resolved even though only one month in all parties agreed that the fault lied with the creditor. As a result of my lowered credit rating (which will still take another 30-60 days to resolve back to normal) I've been unable to purchase a home, and have been rejected for a few other credit based items (car, home, etc.) which has further impacted my credit rating.
Now this is a small example that I was able to control, completely not my fault, and it still impacted me greatly and took a year to resolve. And the rub is through investigation, I am not the only one affected like this. But what are your options as a consumer. Report to the BBB? Might as well call Oprah. Report to some government entity? Sorry we'll take your information down, put it in a filing cabinet and not ever look at it again ever because we're too busy not being able to spot Multi-billion dollar scam artists.
Imagine the effect on the grand scale. Of people who are dumber, of people who were just outright lied to, of people who have been impacted due to unknown circumstances such as the failing of the economy, or being screwed by some investment banker, or the top CEO's of your employer jetting off to Maui while the employees get a pink slip and the shaft.
I'm not suggesting that the burden of responsibility of buyers is completely off their shoulders, but you can't look at this problem and blame only one end other the other. The buyers, the lenders, the realtors, the bankers, the investors, the lobbyists, the politicians. All had a hand in making this problem. It is kinda shitty that we have to foot the bill for it though.