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
Well, that's largely agreed to be because of the shiny new tactic of simply blocking everything Obama supports that goes through Congress. With the drone attacks, he appears to not have that problem preventing him from taking that action.
At least the active resistance to the exchange thing to set up the ACA seems to be dying down a bit. That was a fucking rigamarole.
That was something the Heritage Foundation cooked up, and yet, when Obama tried to implement it, we needed the goddamned Supreme Court to weigh in on it. Even with that, we still have governers and corporations that wanna make sure people don't get coverage under that law.
This is all related solely to they for some reason really hate Obama, and it goes against increasingly dogmatic, unwaverable views in their own party.
I think the point: "The Republicans are more ideologically now than they were in the 1990s" seems to be missing you. A lot of the increasingly crazier pushes against the PPACA were after the Tea Party became a thing.
Fundamentally speaking, the GOP hasn't changed in style. Only in tone. See the Whitewater bullshit with Clinton, or the "Traitor to his class" stuff with Roosevelt. Also the Taft-Hartley union-busting bill.
Also found something new. At least 53 countries were involved
in the Extraordinary Renditions program. And before you ask, Obama is continuing that policy, as well. I'm honestly starting to think that he's the Real Life equivalent to Lawful Neutral - "as long as it's already the law, I will support it, no matter what, even after saying I wouldn't".
edited 5th Feb '13 11:05:58 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.The Republican Party is generally obstructionist to some degree, yes. But the current iteration of Republicans are obstructionist to the point that old-guard Republicans, who have been in Congress for decades, are appalled by their behavior for blocking things that would be standard "yeah we'll do that" shit.
edited 5th Feb '13 11:05:48 PM by PotatoesRock
Jay Carney, the Press Secretary, claims that the drone strikes are "legal, ethical and wise," and constitutionally sound
.
Reality says otherwise. He was asked about Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the 16 year old American citizen who was killed by a drone. The reporter asked if Abdulrahman met the definition of a "senior operation leader." Carneys response "I'm not going to talk about individual operations that may or may not have occurred."
I got news for you - we did kill Abdulrahman with a drone. He's ignoring the question, because he knows his answer wouldn't have cut it.
edited 6th Feb '13 12:42:25 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Or much more likely he's ignoring the question because it's generally regarded as policy to not talk about specific covert operations, even when they are done in an incredibly non covert manner. Things that are classified are still classified even if they leek, and you can still get in trouble for talking about them.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSerrocco - I live in an apartment which was built in the 1950's, because the previous house was destroyed by the WW 2 equivalent of a drone. I promise you, the only way the survivors here see drones differently to any other kind of explosive is that they found it a bit annoying that there was no pilot to shoot at.
Oh, and the supersonic ones were scary because you couldn't hear them coming.
I couldn't care less whether Abdul Rahman al-Aulaqi was killed by accident in a firefight, by accident with a drone, or by accident with an IED. He was with eight other people (who seem to have been legitimate targets) at the time - and more importantly, the Yemeni government allows the drone strikes. Even if they are concerned that the targeting has gotten sloppy recently.
edited 6th Feb '13 5:18:20 AM by Bluesqueak
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.![]()
V-1
, right? In a way, Cruise Missiles are Drones too — just ones on a one-way mission...
edited 6th Feb '13 5:35:52 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On"Hey, uh, terrorist dudes? I'm not, like, on your side or anything, but I heard my dad died around here and I was wondering if you could help me find him? I'm, like, totally cool with your cause and everything and totally not a spy. Could you help... hey, what's that whistling noise?"
I'm not sure which speaks more highly of his intelligence — that he'd travel into a war zone with the intention of joining the terrorists or that he'd wander into a war zone looking for a lost relative, knowing that the place is infested with terrorists that might get bombed at any second. The term Too Dumb to Live comes to mind.
edited 6th Feb '13 5:36:20 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"They're not even willing to say whom he was with, either. It's only a "maybe they were other terrorists?" officially speaking.
He was actually killed, last I checked, during a barbecue. There were reports that there was only one guy who might've even been considered an Al-Qaeda guy, but they're not saying a word.
edited 6th Feb '13 5:37:44 AM by Sledgesaul
I get what you're saying, even if I have my doubts as to its veracity. I am merely questioning the sanity of anyone who would willingly travel to such a hellhole.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm pretty sure that's part of the press secretary's job description, to not allow the heat of the moment to overwhelm them and to always be thinking official government policy on what they comment on and what they don't.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
With this I agree. There is stuff he's allowed to talk about and stuff he isn't, and he knows exactly what is what going into those briefings.
Correct. The V-2
was on the opposite side of the street.
Not releasing the names works both ways. It could be they hit an innocent party, or it could be that the reason we only know two names is that they were the only two people who can't be definitely traced to Al-Quaeda - so their relatives aren't after the publicity; they're staying quiet and letting the relatives of the sixteen year old do all the talking.
That said, it is incredibly difficult to avoid civilian casualties with any kind of remote weapons. That's their main weakness. Bombs can't ask for a US passport.
Actually, it's very difficult to avoid civilian casualties with troops on the ground. 'Can we see your identification before we shoot you' has its own problems.
edited 6th Feb '13 6:00:51 AM by Bluesqueak
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.Namely, they shoot you first, or launch an ambush etc...
Not that that situation might be for military reasons — they could just be your standard Criminal.
Keep Rolling OnWell, As You Know, the thing about insurgent fighters is that they don't give you the courtesy of declaring their intentions prior to shooting at you or detonating a bomb beneath you. The problem of target identification is immense when your enemies blend into the civilian population and/or deliberately employ civilians as shields.
Frequently the choice is between killing a known terrorist target now, despite the presence of civilians, and letting them go, thereby indirectly contributing to the deaths of more civilians later.
Maybe we will manage to develop area suppression technology that can non-lethally disable every human being in a target zone, such that we can walk in and disarm them. I'd be all for that, in fact. But until then, we have what we have.
edited 6th Feb '13 6:38:34 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Cost him his job? You're rather underestimating the impact that leaking classified intelligence information can have (and that's what commenting when the order from above is to not comment is). You knowingly release classified intelligence information to the enemy and they've got a case for treason.
Not really, it follows that there is someone the government doesn’t want to know that information, be that the public or an enemy of the state, hell at times things will be kept classified simply because if they only don't comment on stuff they want kept secret then a "no comment" becomes a "Yeah you're right but we can't admit that", you have to consistently not comment so as to ensure that the enemy doesn’t know if you're not commenting because it's true or if you’re not commenting because it's procedure to not comment so as to knock them of their game.
edited 6th Feb '13 6:45:09 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

That was something the Heritage Foundation cooked up, and yet, when Obama tried to implement it, we needed the goddamned Supreme Court to weigh in on it. Even with that, we still have governers and corporations that wanna make sure people don't get coverage under that law.
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.