Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 16 of 45 pages
I don't "dislike" Clinton as much as I find it bizarre that you people don't see her for who she is.
Hearts and minds. We've ensured we're going to be fighting this war forever, because every drone strike, every dead cousin/sibling/child/parent, breeds anti-US sentiment and future generations of "terrorists".
But in any event, your reading of the AUMF would easily legitimize Bush's invasion of Iraq and torture of prisoners.
Capture them and put them on trial.
There are dozens of other reasons she might not want to run.
There's no principle of law or morality that says you can kill 10 civilians so long as you kill a "terrorist" with them.
And why do they think that? Because they prefer a Caesar, as long as he's a Democrat, to a Republican chief executive bound by the principles of the Constitution.
To the contrary, you have seen several liberals post about their belief that AUMF should be restrained or ended, while also acknowledging that--like lots of other bad laws--it is the law. You have a Democratic president who--while he has done things I dislike on this front--has for the first time called for it to be modified and eventually repealed.
And your only responses have been to deny there is a difference between a law's constitutionality and its wisdom, and to trumpet false equivalence.
Intentionally killing 16-year-old Americans on your own whim isn't just stupid; it's immoral.
I don't really understand why the issue of presidential power is being made into a partisan argument. Both parties are increasingly guilty of expanding the power of the executive far beyond what was previously agreed to as constitutional. Defending the Obama administration on this point is disgusting, but pretending that a republican president would not be as bad or worse is delusional.
Because they prefer a Caesar, as long as he's a Democrat, to a Republican chief executive bound by the principles of the Constitution.
Nearly half a billion dollars in federal money has been spent developing four state Obamacare exchanges that are now in shambles — and the final price tag for salvaging them may go sharply higher. Each of the states — Massachusetts, Oregon, Nevada and Maryland — embraced Obamacare, and each underperformed. All have come under scathing criticism and now face months of uncertainty as they rush to rebuild their systems or transition to the federal exchange.
Not too many months ago, Gov. John Kitzhaber's re-election chances looked bulletproof. A string of legislative victories, capped by an early October "grand bargain" to trim the bulging cost of public worker pensions, burnished the three-term Democrat's reputation as a deal-maker and kept top-tier Republican candidates from mounting a challenge.
Then came the stories about the colossal breakdown of Cover Oregon, a key component of the governor's health care innovations. They were the first of what turned into a gusher of bad press for Kitzhaber, 67, and the state's bug-ridden insurance exchange. Now a new poll shows about half of registered voters say the governor should not be re-elected.
The strikes against al-Alwaki were taken to court, by the ACLU. The lower court dismissed the suit, based on the longstanding tradition of the courts refraining from making decisions on what are legally termed "political questions" -- the same doctrine that kept them out of a lot of issues regarding Vietnam. The courts don't decide one way or the other on the constitutionality of the act -- here the "order" calling for al-Alwaki's killing -- but leave it to the "political branches" to work out.
The case was dismissed in April. I haven't heard one way or another if there will be an appeal.
So let's not pretend no constitutional issues are raised by AUMF or its application.
Even if true, which it isn't -- it's easy to note that Obama is exercising his powers immorally. You must agree.
Didn't say a word about God or gods
Oregon didn't sign-up a single person on its disastrous exchange, which might cost the Governor his job:
I'm sure you have. George W. Bush was president for 8 years, Obama for only 5.
Free-thinking Democrats don't believe the Republicans can come up with anybody who respects the principles of the Constitution.
Both parties are increasingly guilty of expanding the power of the executive far beyond what was previously agreed to as constitutional.
You're a complete fraud.
Wasn't Clinton a lifelong Cub fan till she ran for the Senate and suddenly realized her love for the Yankees? That says it all right there.
I am the one calmly pointing out that by every existent metric of constitutionality in the world, barring "things that make SugarBear sad inside," Obama's actions have been legal and constitutional.
My morality: The President targeting and killing particular Americans, including minor Americans with no due process and at his own whim is immoral.
Your morality: The President is Caesar, anything bad a Democratic president does, including murdering minor Americans at his own whim, is Republicans' fault.
And this will continue to be true as long as Congress fails to actually govern. Politics abhors a vaccuum.
Howard Dean, who was born on Park Avenue and was a life-long Yankee fan, claimed to be a Red Sox fan while campaigning in New Hampshire.
Now granted, Red Sox fans were pretty riled up in the winter of 2003 & early 2004
drone murders of 16-year-old Americans swell -- Barack Obama stroked his chin and thought really hard before he did it.
No doubt, but lately they've also decided that it will never be peacetime again.
Infidels will never, ever win hearts and minds anyway so there's no real point in trying.
I've done no such thing. It's illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral.
Impossible to comprehend.
Of course it's totally immoral. But that sure as hell doesn't make it illegal. And it being legal doesn't make it GOOD.
So you've been arguing all this time about the essentially irrelevant point that a morally abhorrent act was technically "legal"?
Because of the political question doctrine. You remember that doctrine, right? It's the one a bunch of people, perhaps rightly, argued should have bound the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.
When courts can't fashion a workable remedy even if they find a law unconstitutional, they pass. And that's what appears to have happened here (at least according to press accounts).
"It’s important that we look at this from a more systematic approach," said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven in an interview with the Monitor.That requires better integrating all the components and sectors that make up an energy system – from low-carbon fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, from energy efficiency to smart grids, and from better cars to better buildings.
"If you think that only by having more renewables you can save the world – I think this is an illusion," Ms. Van der Hoeven said via telephone. "You have to do more than that. You have to look at the whole system of electricity generation and to see to it where you have the benefits and where the costs will be."
Among registered voters, 42% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents currently say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting, while 50% are less enthusiastic, resulting in an eight-point enthusiasm deficit. But Democrats are even less enthusiastic, with a 23-point deficit (32% more enthusiastic vs. 55% less enthusiastic).
Typically, the party whose supporters have an advantage in enthusiasm has done better in midterm elections. Republicans had decided advantages in enthusiasm in 1994, 2002, and especially 2010 -- years in which they won control of the House of Representatives or expanded on their existing majority. Democrats had the advantage in 2006, the year they won control of the House. Neither party had a decided advantage in 1998, a year Democrats posted minimal gains in House seats.
but what if, instead of coming out in an article in SI, jason collins had a press conference and he stood at a podium and came out of the closet by kissing another man.
the reaction to that is what i want to see.
Well, unfortunately for you, Jason Collins is a mature adult.
Well, unfortunately for you, Jason Collins is a mature adult.
I would guess it's because 2014's fait is pretty much accompli. The GOP is going to make gains; the question is whether they'll be enough to almost take the Senate, or to just barely take the Senate. Either way, those gains will be erased in 2016. The House is unlikely to careen anywhere. Republicans can't do #### to stop Obamacare; Democrats can't do #### to stop Benghazi IX; nobody can do #### about the economy. So the first genuinely unpredictable GOP nomination fight of our lifetimes and Hillary's brain scans are more attractive hypotheticals, for those who like to hypotheticate.
That said, what's with all the guys -- straight and gay -- bawling and crying after they got drafted?
Gallup measures the 2014 enthusiasm gap:
for anyone who wants to read the BBTF perspective on the michael sam kissing "controversy", this is from the jason collins thread about a year ago (the specific conversation starts with post 306):
Nice trolling attempt.
Also, it's doubtful Eisenhower violated the Constitution when he sent the troops into Little Rock. There's a pretty strong precedent in the Whiskey Rebellion.
I think Eisenhower relied upon the 1866 civil rights act, didn't he? I don't think he issued a proclamation of a domestic insurrection, right?
But when a guy kisses a guy, it must have been arranged by the PC Equal-Time Osculation Police.
The Collins thing was heavily "arranged," as was the other college athlete who came out on twitter after that (I'm blanking on his name; it might even have been Sam), and if the Sam draft thing wasn't, if the people who make it their job -- I mean that literally - to be concerned about these things just let it happen spontaneously, it would be a surprise indeed.
No, but she didn't choreograph her refusal to move back -- it was completely genuine -- nor did she call in a bunch of TV cameras to mark the event.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 1.0357 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed