#46 President Joe Biden

1179180182184185

Comments

  • tbergstbergs Posts: 8,721
    mrussel1 said:
    how thoroughly was your “checking” 
    I think he means Saudi Arabia.

    I have huge issues with teh Iraq war, but no issues with a successful drone strike to take out someone involved in 9/11.  I don't care that it's extra judicial.  It would be different if this guy was in our control or in control of an ally, but he wasn't and he sure wasn't going to be extradited.  
    Yes, I mean SA. If the US was seeking justice what we did wasn't even an eye for an eye justice, but a fucked up vendetta against only a select few. Yeah, we sure made them pay and I will lose no sleep over the deaths of terrorists, but the US also isn't doing anyone a favor by killing anyone with these drone strikes. New leaders step in all the time and can be even worse than their predecessor (see USA). We can easily justify it because the majority of the US population views this favorably. Internationally? Meh, we don't really care, and most likely neither do most other countries, except the likes of OBL and Al Z are the result of years of US manipulation in the middle east. We can cheer today, but 20 years from now someone else may be using this moment as their motivation for the next 9/11 style vengeance. Justice is a bitch like that. It's a lot easier to take it hard and fast then go through the motions, but wouldn't we want the same if we were on the other end? I mean, can't some other leader/group justify a drone strike on Bush, Obama or Trump? They authorized attacks that killed plenty of innocent lives all in the name of freedom.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    static111 said:
    Was al-Zawahiri legally charged with a crime? 
     Was anyone charged and tried for any crime involving 9/11? 
     Did the killing of al-Zawahiri or for that matter OBL make the world a safer place?  
    Did the killing of al-Zawahiri make the US safer in any measurable way?
    Have any outside organizations not funded by the US or it's subsidiaries been able to verify that there was in fact no collateral damage from 2 hellfire missiles?
    He's not a US citizen nor on US soil.  You are applying rights granted in the Constitution to a terrorist.  I don't view it the same way, where the judicial system needs to try him in absentia and find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 31,454
    static111 said:
    Was al-Zawahiri legally charged with a crime? 
     Was anyone charged and tried for any crime involving 9/11? 
     Did the killing of al-Zawahiri or for that matter OBL make the world a safer place?  
    Did the killing of al-Zawahiri make the US safer in any measurable way?
    Have any outside organizations not funded by the US or it's subsidiaries been able to verify that there was in fact no collateral damage from 2 hellfire missiles?
    I believe there are multiple people that have been charged with crimes and that there are pending indictments. However, they have yet to be turned over, apprehended or found to be served, or arrested, booked and formally charged. If congress would allow for GITMO detainees to be allowed to be transferred to face trial in the US, I'd be all for it. But there are consequences for such things. That said, I believe its what separates us from "them," and is necessary. The Blind Sheik and the CIA gunman trials proved that. Funny, dems conducted the trials and Obama wanted to close GITMO but you no, NO!

    I believe so, yes. Time will tell but their ability to conduct terrorist operations have been greatly diminished.

    I don't know if you've read up on the type of hellfire missile used but it doesn't have an explosive charge. It uses its kinetic energy and six blades that open just prior to impact to basically slice up the target. A set of flying Ginsu knives. Cars hit by it look like tin cans that have been opened with an axe.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    Was al-Zawahiri legally charged with a crime? 
     Was anyone charged and tried for any crime involving 9/11? 
     Did the killing of al-Zawahiri or for that matter OBL make the world a safer place?  
    Did the killing of al-Zawahiri make the US safer in any measurable way?
    Have any outside organizations not funded by the US or it's subsidiaries been able to verify that there was in fact no collateral damage from 2 hellfire missiles?
    He's not a US citizen nor on US soil.  You are applying rights granted in the Constitution to a terrorist.  I don't view it the same way, where the judicial system needs to try him in absentia and find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    If we are saying that he is a terrorist because he orchestrated the 9/11 attacks with OBL that killed nearly 3000 US civilians, does that not make any of our heads of state that orchestrated the retaliatory killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan during our ill conceived "wars" terrorists as well?  Which would of course as Tbergs stated justify western heads of state or military leaders to be targeted by drones for the killings of civilians.

    killing leads to killing leads to killing

    I am not trying to make the case that 9/11 was not a tragedy or that al-Z wasn't a criminal or a leader of a terrorist organization, I'm trying to make the case that any of the standards used to justify his killing could be used to justify the killing of any leaders on the western side responsible for civilian deaths prior to or after 9/11, or going forward anyone deemed by the state as a terrorist for any reason.  The term terrorist is politically loaded as is the use of justifying extra judicial killing in the name of defending against terrorists.  Could a future democratically elected leader of the united states deem dissidents or political enemies terrorists and use this as justification for taking them out?  It could if we normalize morally detached drone killings.

    Going back to the question has anyone been tried or convicted of any crimes involving 9/11?  I'm pretty sure the answer is no.  With trials come exploration and evidence.  It is easier for a government to cover their ineptness by killing anyone that could be tried, and presumably have to deal with evidence presented in court, than potentially bringing sid evidence to the table that perhaps they were completely inept, SA had more involvement than we know, or further proof that 9/11 was used as a way to massively restrict rights and open up untold surveillance power.  If we don't try anyone, we don't know the real motives of the perpatrators, what went wrong in our response and what governmental and military missteps took place before during and after.
    Scio me nihil scire
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    Was al-Zawahiri legally charged with a crime? 
     Was anyone charged and tried for any crime involving 9/11? 
     Did the killing of al-Zawahiri or for that matter OBL make the world a safer place?  
    Did the killing of al-Zawahiri make the US safer in any measurable way?
    Have any outside organizations not funded by the US or it's subsidiaries been able to verify that there was in fact no collateral damage from 2 hellfire missiles?
    He's not a US citizen nor on US soil.  You are applying rights granted in the Constitution to a terrorist.  I don't view it the same way, where the judicial system needs to try him in absentia and find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    If we are saying that he is a terrorist because he orchestrated the 9/11 attacks with OBL that killed nearly 3000 US civilians, does that not make any of our heads of state that orchestrated the retaliatory killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan during our ill conceived "wars" terrorists as well?  Which would of course as Tbergs stated justify western heads of state or military leaders to be targeted by drones for the killings of civilians.

    killing leads to killing leads to killing

    I am not trying to make the case that 9/11 was not a tragedy or that al-Z wasn't a criminal or a leader of a terrorist organization, I'm trying to make the case that any of the standards used to justify his killing could be used to justify the killing of any leaders on the western side responsible for civilian deaths prior to or after 9/11, or going forward anyone deemed by the state as a terrorist for any reason.  The term terrorist is politically loaded as is the use of justifying extra judicial killing in the name of defending against terrorists.  Could a future democratically elected leader of the united states deem dissidents or political enemies terrorists and use this as justification for taking them out?  It could if we normalize morally detached drone killings.

    Going back to the question has anyone been tried or convicted of any crimes involving 9/11?  I'm pretty sure the answer is no.  With trials come exploration and evidence.  It is easier for a government to cover their ineptness by killing anyone that could be tried, and presumably have to deal with evidence presented in court, than potentially bringing sid evidence to the table that perhaps they were completely inept, SA had more involvement than we know, or further proof that 9/11 was used as a way to massively restrict rights and open up untold surveillance power.  If we don't try anyone, we don't know the real motives of the perpatrators, what went wrong in our response and what governmental and military missteps took place before during and after.
    I think the Iraq war had its share of war crimes, so you won't find me defending that.  But I won't criticize Biden's decision either, because I think it's the right one.  The fact that Bush waged a shit war doesn't mean that Biden doesn't have the moral authority to take this guy out. 

    Killing leads to killing.  But history has shown us that not killing also leads to killing.  So I don't buy the argument that we are perpetuating something and that if we stopped, terrorists would stop. 
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 14,051
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    Was al-Zawahiri legally charged with a crime? 
     Was anyone charged and tried for any crime involving 9/11? 
     Did the killing of al-Zawahiri or for that matter OBL make the world a safer place?  
    Did the killing of al-Zawahiri make the US safer in any measurable way?
    Have any outside organizations not funded by the US or it's subsidiaries been able to verify that there was in fact no collateral damage from 2 hellfire missiles?
    He's not a US citizen nor on US soil.  You are applying rights granted in the Constitution to a terrorist.  I don't view it the same way, where the judicial system needs to try him in absentia and find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    If we are saying that he is a terrorist because he orchestrated the 9/11 attacks with OBL that killed nearly 3000 US civilians, does that not make any of our heads of state that orchestrated the retaliatory killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan during our ill conceived "wars" terrorists as well?  Which would of course as Tbergs stated justify western heads of state or military leaders to be targeted by drones for the killings of civilians.

    killing leads to killing leads to killing

    I am not trying to make the case that 9/11 was not a tragedy or that al-Z wasn't a criminal or a leader of a terrorist organization, I'm trying to make the case that any of the standards used to justify his killing could be used to justify the killing of any leaders on the western side responsible for civilian deaths prior to or after 9/11, or going forward anyone deemed by the state as a terrorist for any reason.  The term terrorist is politically loaded as is the use of justifying extra judicial killing in the name of defending against terrorists.  Could a future democratically elected leader of the united states deem dissidents or political enemies terrorists and use this as justification for taking them out?  It could if we normalize morally detached drone killings.

    Going back to the question has anyone been tried or convicted of any crimes involving 9/11?  I'm pretty sure the answer is no.  With trials come exploration and evidence.  It is easier for a government to cover their ineptness by killing anyone that could be tried, and presumably have to deal with evidence presented in court, than potentially bringing sid evidence to the table that perhaps they were completely inept, SA had more involvement than we know, or further proof that 9/11 was used as a way to massively restrict rights and open up untold surveillance power.  If we don't try anyone, we don't know the real motives of the perpatrators, what went wrong in our response and what governmental and military missteps took place before during and after.
    uh....yeah. KSM for starters
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 4
    This all goes back to classifying enemy (or un-lawful)combatants not nation states so the Geneva convention doesn’t apply.  It’s why they are held outside the US in Guantanamo 

    so they don’t have rights 

    it’s not the best example of American ideals 



    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    Was al-Zawahiri legally charged with a crime? 
     Was anyone charged and tried for any crime involving 9/11? 
     Did the killing of al-Zawahiri or for that matter OBL make the world a safer place?  
    Did the killing of al-Zawahiri make the US safer in any measurable way?
    Have any outside organizations not funded by the US or it's subsidiaries been able to verify that there was in fact no collateral damage from 2 hellfire missiles?
    He's not a US citizen nor on US soil.  You are applying rights granted in the Constitution to a terrorist.  I don't view it the same way, where the judicial system needs to try him in absentia and find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    If we are saying that he is a terrorist because he orchestrated the 9/11 attacks with OBL that killed nearly 3000 US civilians, does that not make any of our heads of state that orchestrated the retaliatory killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan during our ill conceived "wars" terrorists as well?  Which would of course as Tbergs stated justify western heads of state or military leaders to be targeted by drones for the killings of civilians.

    killing leads to killing leads to killing

    I am not trying to make the case that 9/11 was not a tragedy or that al-Z wasn't a criminal or a leader of a terrorist organization, I'm trying to make the case that any of the standards used to justify his killing could be used to justify the killing of any leaders on the western side responsible for civilian deaths prior to or after 9/11, or going forward anyone deemed by the state as a terrorist for any reason.  The term terrorist is politically loaded as is the use of justifying extra judicial killing in the name of defending against terrorists.  Could a future democratically elected leader of the united states deem dissidents or political enemies terrorists and use this as justification for taking them out?  It could if we normalize morally detached drone killings.

    Going back to the question has anyone been tried or convicted of any crimes involving 9/11?  I'm pretty sure the answer is no.  With trials come exploration and evidence.  It is easier for a government to cover their ineptness by killing anyone that could be tried, and presumably have to deal with evidence presented in court, than potentially bringing sid evidence to the table that perhaps they were completely inept, SA had more involvement than we know, or further proof that 9/11 was used as a way to massively restrict rights and open up untold surveillance power.  If we don't try anyone, we don't know the real motives of the perpatrators, what went wrong in our response and what governmental and military missteps took place before during and after.
    uh....yeah. KSM for starters
    There are alot of questionable things about KSMs situation.  Secret prisons, confessions under torture( i mean "enhanced interrogation") which even John McCain said provided misleading information, prolonged detainment at Club Gitmo etc. Certainly no access to a speedy and fair trial.  I am not sure I see that as justice in anyway either.  
    Scio me nihil scire
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 14,051
    static111 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    Was al-Zawahiri legally charged with a crime? 
     Was anyone charged and tried for any crime involving 9/11? 
     Did the killing of al-Zawahiri or for that matter OBL make the world a safer place?  
    Did the killing of al-Zawahiri make the US safer in any measurable way?
    Have any outside organizations not funded by the US or it's subsidiaries been able to verify that there was in fact no collateral damage from 2 hellfire missiles?
    He's not a US citizen nor on US soil.  You are applying rights granted in the Constitution to a terrorist.  I don't view it the same way, where the judicial system needs to try him in absentia and find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    If we are saying that he is a terrorist because he orchestrated the 9/11 attacks with OBL that killed nearly 3000 US civilians, does that not make any of our heads of state that orchestrated the retaliatory killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan during our ill conceived "wars" terrorists as well?  Which would of course as Tbergs stated justify western heads of state or military leaders to be targeted by drones for the killings of civilians.

    killing leads to killing leads to killing

    I am not trying to make the case that 9/11 was not a tragedy or that al-Z wasn't a criminal or a leader of a terrorist organization, I'm trying to make the case that any of the standards used to justify his killing could be used to justify the killing of any leaders on the western side responsible for civilian deaths prior to or after 9/11, or going forward anyone deemed by the state as a terrorist for any reason.  The term terrorist is politically loaded as is the use of justifying extra judicial killing in the name of defending against terrorists.  Could a future democratically elected leader of the united states deem dissidents or political enemies terrorists and use this as justification for taking them out?  It could if we normalize morally detached drone killings.

    Going back to the question has anyone been tried or convicted of any crimes involving 9/11?  I'm pretty sure the answer is no.  With trials come exploration and evidence.  It is easier for a government to cover their ineptness by killing anyone that could be tried, and presumably have to deal with evidence presented in court, than potentially bringing sid evidence to the table that perhaps they were completely inept, SA had more involvement than we know, or further proof that 9/11 was used as a way to massively restrict rights and open up untold surveillance power.  If we don't try anyone, we don't know the real motives of the perpatrators, what went wrong in our response and what governmental and military missteps took place before during and after.
    uh....yeah. KSM for starters
    There are alot of questionable things about KSMs situation.  Secret prisons, confessions under torture( i mean "enhanced interrogation") which even John McCain said provided misleading information, prolonged detainment at Club Gitmo etc. Certainly no access to a speedy and fair trial.  I am not sure I see that as justice in anyway either.  
    that's fair
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,856
    tbergs said:
    mrussel1 said:
    how thoroughly was your “checking” 
    I think he means Saudi Arabia.

    I have huge issues with teh Iraq war, but no issues with a successful drone strike to take out someone involved in 9/11.  I don't care that it's extra judicial.  It would be different if this guy was in our control or in control of an ally, but he wasn't and he sure wasn't going to be extradited.  
    Yes, I mean SA. If the US was seeking justice what we did wasn't even an eye for an eye justice, but a fucked up vendetta against only a select few. Yeah, we sure made them pay and I will lose no sleep over the deaths of terrorists, but the US also isn't doing anyone a favor by killing anyone with these drone strikes. New leaders step in all the time and can be even worse than their predecessor (see USA). We can easily justify it because the majority of the US population views this favorably. Internationally? Meh, we don't really care, and most likely neither do most other countries, except the likes of OBL and Al Z are the result of years of US manipulation in the middle east. We can cheer today, but 20 years from now someone else may be using this moment as their motivation for the next 9/11 style vengeance. Justice is a bitch like that. It's a lot easier to take it hard and fast then go through the motions, but wouldn't we want the same if we were on the other end? I mean, can't some other leader/group justify a drone strike on Bush, Obama or Trump? They authorized attacks that killed plenty of innocent lives all in the name of freedom.


    Not looking to cheer. If I had a choice, I’d rather we don’t do killings like this, but in this unique case, it appears the US was very careful to have no civilian loss. And this terrorist was directly responsible for 9/11. And yes, it will suck when the bad guys get this tech, but they will use it no matter how we do. If I had a different choice, I’d hope the Arab community would be slightly tolerant of the right for a teeny tiny country to exist in peace, but since they don’t, we don’t.
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 4
    tbergs said:
    mrussel1 said:
    how thoroughly was your “checking” 
    I think he means Saudi Arabia.

    I have huge issues with teh Iraq war, but no issues with a successful drone strike to take out someone involved in 9/11.  I don't care that it's extra judicial.  It would be different if this guy was in our control or in control of an ally, but he wasn't and he sure wasn't going to be extradited.  
    Yes, I mean SA. If the US was seeking justice what we did wasn't even an eye for an eye justice, but a fucked up vendetta against only a select few. Yeah, we sure made them pay and I will lose no sleep over the deaths of terrorists, but the US also isn't doing anyone a favor by killing anyone with these drone strikes. New leaders step in all the time and can be even worse than their predecessor (see USA). We can easily justify it because the majority of the US population views this favorably. Internationally? Meh, we don't really care, and most likely neither do most other countries, except the likes of OBL and Al Z are the result of years of US manipulation in the middle east. We can cheer today, but 20 years from now someone else may be using this moment as their motivation for the next 9/11 style vengeance. Justice is a bitch like that. It's a lot easier to take it hard and fast then go through the motions, but wouldn't we want the same if we were on the other end? I mean, can't some other leader/group justify a drone strike on Bush, Obama or Trump? They authorized attacks that killed plenty of innocent lives all in the name of freedom.


    Not looking to cheer. If I had a choice, I’d rather we don’t do killings like this, but in this unique case, it appears the US was very careful to have no civilian loss. And this terrorist was directly responsible for 9/11. And yes, it will suck when the bad guys get this tech, but they will use it no matter how we do. If I had a different choice, I’d hope the Arab community would be slightly tolerant of the right for a teeny tiny country to exist in peace, but since they don’t, we don’t.
    If we as a country compromise principles only in unique cases then do we have principles at all? 

    We’ve come a long way since the days of John Adams.

    he defended the Boston massacre soldiers because giving them the best defense possible was important.  Even though the British wouldn’t have offered the same if the situation was reversed probably. 

    he would be called woke today 
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 37,703
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,856
    tbergs said:
    mrussel1 said:
    how thoroughly was your “checking” 
    I think he means Saudi Arabia.

    I have huge issues with teh Iraq war, but no issues with a successful drone strike to take out someone involved in 9/11.  I don't care that it's extra judicial.  It would be different if this guy was in our control or in control of an ally, but he wasn't and he sure wasn't going to be extradited.  
    Yes, I mean SA. If the US was seeking justice what we did wasn't even an eye for an eye justice, but a fucked up vendetta against only a select few. Yeah, we sure made them pay and I will lose no sleep over the deaths of terrorists, but the US also isn't doing anyone a favor by killing anyone with these drone strikes. New leaders step in all the time and can be even worse than their predecessor (see USA). We can easily justify it because the majority of the US population views this favorably. Internationally? Meh, we don't really care, and most likely neither do most other countries, except the likes of OBL and Al Z are the result of years of US manipulation in the middle east. We can cheer today, but 20 years from now someone else may be using this moment as their motivation for the next 9/11 style vengeance. Justice is a bitch like that. It's a lot easier to take it hard and fast then go through the motions, but wouldn't we want the same if we were on the other end? I mean, can't some other leader/group justify a drone strike on Bush, Obama or Trump? They authorized attacks that killed plenty of innocent lives all in the name of freedom.


    Not looking to cheer. If I had a choice, I’d rather we don’t do killings like this, but in this unique case, it appears the US was very careful to have no civilian loss. And this terrorist was directly responsible for 9/11. And yes, it will suck when the bad guys get this tech, but they will use it no matter how we do. If I had a different choice, I’d hope the Arab community would be slightly tolerant of the right for a teeny tiny country to exist in peace, but since they don’t, we don’t.
    If we as a country compromise principles only in unique cases then do we have principles at all? 

    We’ve come a long way since the days of John Adams.

    he defended the Boston massacre soldiers because giving them the best defense possible was important.  Even though the British wouldn’t have offered the same if the situation was reversed probably. 

    he would be called woke today 

    Sure but Adams was from an era that gave us the three fifths compromise which led to civil war and the electoral college which led to many deaths 234 years later on Jan6, so let’s not applaud too loudly.


  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 5
    tbergs said:
    mrussel1 said:
    how thoroughly was your “checking” 
    I think he means Saudi Arabia.

    I have huge issues with teh Iraq war, but no issues with a successful drone strike to take out someone involved in 9/11.  I don't care that it's extra judicial.  It would be different if this guy was in our control or in control of an ally, but he wasn't and he sure wasn't going to be extradited.  
    Yes, I mean SA. If the US was seeking justice what we did wasn't even an eye for an eye justice, but a fucked up vendetta against only a select few. Yeah, we sure made them pay and I will lose no sleep over the deaths of terrorists, but the US also isn't doing anyone a favor by killing anyone with these drone strikes. New leaders step in all the time and can be even worse than their predecessor (see USA). We can easily justify it because the majority of the US population views this favorably. Internationally? Meh, we don't really care, and most likely neither do most other countries, except the likes of OBL and Al Z are the result of years of US manipulation in the middle east. We can cheer today, but 20 years from now someone else may be using this moment as their motivation for the next 9/11 style vengeance. Justice is a bitch like that. It's a lot easier to take it hard and fast then go through the motions, but wouldn't we want the same if we were on the other end? I mean, can't some other leader/group justify a drone strike on Bush, Obama or Trump? They authorized attacks that killed plenty of innocent lives all in the name of freedom.


    Not looking to cheer. If I had a choice, I’d rather we don’t do killings like this, but in this unique case, it appears the US was very careful to have no civilian loss. And this terrorist was directly responsible for 9/11. And yes, it will suck when the bad guys get this tech, but they will use it no matter how we do. If I had a different choice, I’d hope the Arab community would be slightly tolerant of the right for a teeny tiny country to exist in peace, but since they don’t, we don’t.
    If we as a country compromise principles only in unique cases then do we have principles at all? 

    We’ve come a long way since the days of John Adams.

    he defended the Boston massacre soldiers because giving them the best defense possible was important.  Even though the British wouldn’t have offered the same if the situation was reversed probably. 

    he would be called woke today 

    Sure but Adams was from an era that gave us the three fifths compromise which led to civil war and the electoral college which led to many deaths 234 years later on Jan6, so let’s not applaud too loudly.


    I’m sure the republicans today would love to revisit the 3/5 compromise as part of their voting laws. Except just saying only 3 out of every 5 are allowed to vote 

    we are probably still in a similar  place on that.




  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 25,790

    https://apnews.com/article/senate-climate-tax-deal-vote-dbdb3107c4c5e3e0e5af8a58d56c7bc1

    Senate Democrats approve big Biden deal; House to vote next

    By ALAN FRAM and LISA MASCARO


    WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats pushed their election-year economic package to Senate passage Sunday, a hard-fought compromise less ambitious than President Joe Biden’s original domestic vision but one that still meets deep-rooted party goals of slowing global warming, moderating pharmaceutical costs and taxing immense corporations.

    The estimated $740 billion package heads next to the House, where lawmakers are poised to deliver on Biden’s priorities, a stunning turnaround of what had seemed a lost and doomed effort that suddenly roared back to political life. Cheers broke out as Senate Democrats held united, 51-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote after an all-night session.

    “Today, Senate Democrats sided with American families over special interests,” President Joe Biden said in a statement from Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. “I ran for President promising to make government work for working families again, and that is what this bill does — period.”

    Biden, who had his share of long nights during his three decades as a senator, called into the Senate cloakroom during the vote on speakerphone to personally thank the staff for their hard work.

    The president urged the House to pass the bill as soon as possible. The House seemed likely to provide final congressional approval when it returns briefly from summer recess on Friday.


    Continues....




    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    The cap on insulin at $35 failed in the required 60 vote threshold; however, Sen. Warnock's amendment to create the cap for Medicare patients was included in teh bill and not subject to the 60 vote threshold.  It was deemed as reconciliation.  While it's not all Americans, obviously this is really good for medicare patients like my mother who are diabetic.  

    It's been a good month for Team D so far.  

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3591586-democrats-fail-to-overrule-parliamentarian-on-insulin-price-cap-as-gop-votes-no/
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 31,454
    Damn you Brandon! From A Letter From An American:

    The introduction of the Inflation Reduction Act caps what has turned out to be a spectacular week for the Biden administration. Jobs numbers out today showed not the downturn that many expected, but instead the addition of 528,000 new jobs, restoring the U.S. job numbers to where they were before the pandemic and putting unemployment at 3.5%, the lowest rate in 50 years. The United States Chips and Science Act (CHIPS) and the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act (PACT) have both passed Congress. The president authorized and troops achieved the killing of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. And gas prices have hit a 50-day low.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 8
    The inflation reduction act is going to add to inflation unfortunately as it’s a lot of spending.  Job creation is bad news too.

    biden is in a no win as the economy needs to shrink to get inflation down.  The good news is bad news as a soft landing is seemingly increasingly unlikely 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    The inflation reduction act is going to add to inflation unfortunately as it’s a lot of spending.  Job creation is bad news too.

    biden is in a no win as the economy needs to shrink to get inflation down.  The good news is bad news as a soft landing is seemingly increasingly unlikely 
    I don't know.. I think this inflation was caused by the supply chain issues, which most data shows has started to abate.  Second was the steep increase in gas prices because the US had cut production, Russia gas off the market, and OPEC was refusing to increase production until later in the year (now).  We are clearly seeing the drop in oil and gas.  You can have a booming economy without inflation, as we've had for years. 
    So a recession was going to be the immediate 'shot' to reduce inflation, maybe the combination of OPEC increases, strategic reserve release, supply chain improvements and the interest rate increases is already enough.  I don't know why you think a safe landing is increasingly unlikely.  You don't have recessions when you add 500k jobs. 
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    To me interest rake hikes aren’t having the effect they should be having. Any big hike runs the risk of going too far.  It’s going to require several more probably. 

    To me it’s just a numbers game. 4 hikes is less risky than 8 for example especially at .75
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 42,807
    Dark Brandon means business...



    chinese-happy.jpg
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    To me interest rake hikes aren’t having the effect they should be having. Any big hike runs the risk of going too far.  It’s going to require several more probably. 

    To me it’s just a numbers game. 4 hikes is less risky than 8 for example especially at .75
    Well it sure as hell had an effect on the housing market.  I think it's a little early to say how it affected the other CPI stuff.  I think we need to wait and see if we are past peak.  
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 14,051
    I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

    I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 8
    I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

    I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.
    I suspect rentals go inverse to housing even excluding inflation. In your normal (owner occupied) markets.  No idea about SF or NY which has always been rental heavy 

    If less people are buying due to interest rates, more are renting.  Then you’ve got landlords who are more able to increase rents to cover both inflation and the increased demand 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    Dark Brandon means business...



    I keep looking for dark brandon T shirts.  I'm not usually in for political T shirts, but i feel like this would be confusing for everyone.  I prefer glowing red laser eyes dark brandon personally
    Scio me nihil scire
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 37,703
    I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

    I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

    As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up.  Will we see a return to affordable rents?  Hard to say.
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    brianlux said:
    I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now. 

    I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

    As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up.  Will we see a return to affordable rents?  Hard to say.
    This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.
    Scio me nihil scire
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,856
    edited August 8
    The inflation reduction act is going to add to inflation unfortunately as it’s a lot of spending.  Job creation is bad news too.

    biden is in a no win as the economy needs to shrink to get inflation down.  The good news is bad news as a soft landing is seemingly increasingly unlikely 


    This is a GOP talking point, in my opinion it is false. 

    This bill is not similar to all of the recent Covid stimulus, that funneled money immediately into the hands of people adversely affected by Covid, and to employers in general. This spending portion is much lower, only $360m and it is for long term spending, such as new solar and wind generation. These investments take years to implement and build, they are not immediate like all of the stimulus both parties have passed in recent years.

    The reason many consider this climate provision as anti inflation even though it calls for new spending is because it prepares us to rely on oil less, protecting us from the energy price volatility we have seen over the last year. But again, this is an investment, so this benefit takes a lot of time. Congratulations to the democrats willing to invest in something where the benefits could be 5-10 years away.


    The other two main provisions are anti inflationary, the cap on drug prices, and the minimum corporate  profits tax. 

    The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the bill has a "negligible" effect on inflation in 2022 and into 2023. I agree, as there is no easy way to measure a bill designed to benefit over the long term.
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 8
    The jury is out on inflation.  Really a tax hike would be a good thing, definitely not a gop talking point. 

    At this point removing money from circulation is a good thing.  Though, I’m  more worried about the long term effects of inflation, not necessarily the fact stuff costs more today 

    oil prices are really clouding the picture though, coming off the covid supply chain issues. I don’t envy the fed right now 

    i like the bill overall though.  It’s not going to reduce inflation in any case no matter what it’s named at least not anytime soon 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,856
    They’re estimating a 40% emissions reduction off of the bloated 2005 benchmark, which seems like a big deal. We do one of these bills every six years and maybe by 2034 we are close to solving the CO2 problem. $360m per bill seems like a bargain if this works. Paid a ton more for Covid.
Sign In or Register to comment.