Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
It's also a lie. There was no torture. It was included (and it was left uncertain whether it worked or not) because the director wanted to introduce the "ethical conundrum" of torture. Which Zero Dark Thirty portrays as unpleasant but necessary.
Representative Scalise: Regulating Web companies threatens Internet freedom
Benghazi Hearing:
Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI): Hillary Clinton evaded questions with ‘theatrics’
Senator McCain (R-AZ) to Secretary Clinton: Answers ‘not satisfactory’
Rush Limbaugh: Hillary Clinton hearing a 'puke fest'
edited 23rd Jan '13 7:34:48 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Rand Paul also called the attack the worst disaster in American history since 9/11. Really? Worse than Hurricane Katrina or Virginia Tech?
edited 23rd Jan '13 7:59:07 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Paul was the sole vote to oppose a resolution against Iran
. And the resolution may have been a bit over the line.
Edit: This was posted in the thread last September, for reference.
edited 23rd Jan '13 8:24:09 PM by Trivialis
Iran is an incredibly serious problem: a regional instigator of instability, a major military power, a sponsor of terrorism, a known biological and chemical weapons manufacturer, a would-be nuclear power, a dictatorial jihadist regime, a defier of international law...
(In before someone observes snarkily that some of those apply to the United States as well. I'm here and they are there and to me, they look like a problem.)
I do not, however, think that going to war with them is any kind of solution, except as an absolute last resort.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Trivialis: Rand Paul opposing a bad policy a grand total of once does not make him any more acceptable given just about every other thing he's spouted. He's following right in his dad's footsteps in gunning for policies that, while keeping us out of other people's business, would utterly destroy us here at home. You know, by gutting healthcare and opposing taxation, things we need.
Again, opposing one bad policy doesn't make an otherwise bad politician suddenly palatable.
edited 23rd Jan '13 8:32:07 PM by AceofSpades
Rand Paul is indeed his Daddy's Little Nutcase.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Guys, I'd like to ask a question. What right do we have to stop any country from getting nukes? I ask this totally as a question, for once, I'm not coming at this from any viewpoint.
I mean, we can't prevent a country from develop commerical air travel or electricity. Could we demand a halt to a nation's space program? Or, do you guys believe that when it comes to devices that are basically Apocalypse How made real, then, yes, we get to say who can or can't?
And....why are we so dead set against Iran getting nukes, but not the Police State known as North Korea?
It was an honor![]()
One way to look at it is like this: If it is an issue that will seriously affect the world, then the rest of the world gets a say. One country, especially a particularly violent one, getting a weapon that can cause massive devastation affects the whole globe. So, the rest of the globe should have a say.
Also: The difference between Iran and North Korea is that the latter is, well, completely incompetent in near everything it does.
boopSpeaking of nutbars with nuclear weapons... North Korea is trying to be threatening again.
Err, just noticed that didn't link to anything but the main page, here's why their Facebook page said.
BREAKING NEWS: North Korea said Thursday that it plans to carry out a "high-level nuclear test" and further long-range rocket launches, all of which it said are "aimed at the U.S."
edited 23rd Jan '13 8:43:04 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.North Korea also has China in its corner, kind of sort of policing their policy. And China's not exactly interested in anyone gaining weapons, particularly not such a close neighbor.
Anyway, while we don't have much right (as I understand international law) to decide someone can't have nukes, we do have legal methods to push them in a certain direction. Ah, politics.
Maxima, when looked from a purely neutral perspective, the knowledge to make nuclear weapons is out there, and any nation has the theoretical capability to take that information, dig up (or buy) some uranium, process it, make a bomb with it, and declare themselves members of the nuclear club.
That fact aside, the current players in that club have more or less decided that they're not letting any more members in. Partly because they have managed to establish a mutual, grudging level of respect that gives most people in the world a reasonable level of assurance that they won't suddenly be vaporized.
New entrants to that club axiomatically lack that established trust and as such are a disruption to the status quo, a destabilizing factor that may or may not play nicely with others. Mutually Assured Destruction only works when your enemy cares about his own people enough to not deliberately risk them getting vaporized in retribution.
Iran is, as I said, a tyrannical dictatorship with marked lack of respect for human life and a known sponsor of terrorism. Further, they as a matter of national principle oppose the existence of Israel. Israel also has nuclear weapons. It's all too easy to imagine any conflict between the two nations, both nuclear-armed, ending in (or worse, starting with) a giant mushroom cloud.
Iran has demonstrated its will to be a rogue state, not obeying the mandates of the United Nations, not obeying conventions on human rights, actively calling for the destruction of other nations, etc. They cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
North Korea is a case where they developed their own nukes already (with China's help, we strongly suspect), and as such they kind of snuck their way into the nuclear club. We don't acknowledge them as members or let them participate in talks and they have repeatedly demonstrated a level of irrationality commonly associated with hormone-addled preteens. I think the world in general would love to take their nukes away by almost any means necessary.
edited 23rd Jan '13 8:44:26 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Oh we're against North Korean nukes, it's just uh. North Korea is painfully incompetent and can't even fire missiles worth shit 99% of the time, and generally is too dilapidated and lacking supplies to do anything than wave a stick rudely and stomp their feet.
The problem with Iran is that even if they held nukes merely for self defense: A) They hate Israel B) They are major supporters of terrorism across the Middle East, and if a rogue nuke went off in Israel or the US, it'd probably be from Iran handing it off to some of their terrorist clients.
Fighteer lists the reasons better.
edited 23rd Jan '13 8:45:32 PM by PotatoesRock

edited 23rd Jan '13 5:15:48 PM by Lascoden
boop