beowulf

Members
  • Content

    5,060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by beowulf

  1. That's the problem - just running the government would be cheap. It's the 90% of the rest of the stuff that is so expensive. Like defense. SocSec is actually solvent, and Medicare has its own tax. Did you know that the average federal tax rate of the richest 400 people in the USA is below that of the average of the top 0.1%, which in turn is less than that of the top 1% So the super duper rich aren't being "soaked" at all compared with the merely rich. How is SS solvent? Check the numbers and you will see. If nothing changes SocSec is projected to become insolvent sometime between 2036 and 2042. Right now it is NOT insolvent. Modest changes (such as raising the earnings ceiling and raising retirement age for full benefits) can even fix the projected insolvency. I have looked at the numbers and it's essentially insolvent as is the Government. They can't pay bills with out having to borrow money. SS has no money, its all treasury bills and it will require more than modest changes for it to be long term solvent as will the government at large. It only appears solvent due to accounting trickery. http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=46984
  2. That's the problem - just running the government would be cheap. It's the 90% of the rest of the stuff that is so expensive. Like defense. SocSec is actually solvent, and Medicare has its own tax. Did you know that the average federal tax rate of the richest 400 people in the USA is below that of the average of the top 0.1%, which in turn is less than that of the top 1% So the super duper rich aren't being "soaked" at all compared with the merely rich. How is SS solvent?
  3. You are assuming that all rich people have stolen their money. It's a big assumption.
  4. Don't have time to right now. I will later on when I do have time. I suspect that I will agree with it, based on your quote.
  5. My short answer is, it's dishonest and is the same thing as stealing. There is no honesty in stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. If you didn't work for it then you don't deserve it.
  6. The question is poorly posed. The 14th Amendment gives the same protections to all persons. And the law doesn't seem to differentiate between offing a person by drone or by any other means. Apparently AG Holder thinks differently.
  7. The use of drones to assassinate Americans was left open to the discretion of the President. And according to them it will only be used in special circumstances. To prevent 9/11 type attack is an example. That leaves a really big door open. Who is to say any use of a drone on US soil would actually prevent a 9/11 type attack? Apparently we are supposed to trust the Presidents judgment on this and due process can be avoided. I don't think that's a good idea.
  8. Rand Paul is fighting this. There is a big difference between battle fields and Police actions and sending a drone kill a American on US soil with out due process.
  9. That could be used to justify pretty much anything, like allowing the President dictatorial powers such as assassinating US citizens.
  10. If this was under the Bush administration would you still have the same opinion?
  11. Your questioning it doesn't mean anything. Congress can question it but that doesn't mean there will be sufficient evidence to impeach. They would have to prove that if the President hadn't ordered the drone strike there would have been some type of 9/11 attack. That is a very tall order. Under the law the Attorney General is wrong. It requires Congressional approval for military action on US soil. Drone strikes ordered by the President looks to me like a military action. He should have Congressional approval before assassinating an American anywhere and especially on US soil.
  12. The President can simply claim it was to stop a 9/11 type attack and it was successful. How would anyone be able to question it?
  13. Abraham Lincoln was the worst president this country ever had. It's illegal for the military to conduct military operations on US soil. See the Posse Comitatus Act. Any military action is to be ordered through Congress not the President. I'm generally sympathetic to the arguments you've been making in this thread. However, you have a commonly-held, overly-broad, and therefore inaccurate, understanding of the Posse Comitatus Act (which, by the way, wasn't enacted until 13 years after Lincoln's death). Here's a pretty fair Wiki synopsis of what it does - and does not - do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act Must be approved by Congress!!!
  14. You are assuming that there will be sufficient evidence for an impeachment. Considering the covert nature of drone attacks it's highly likely there won't be much evidence or any at all.
  15. Fuck yes. That's a no-brainer. There are radical Muslims already in-country. If we are able to track what they are doing or planning, then by all means, terminate the motherfuckers. I don't want another 9/11 attack. That is stopping someone in the commission of a crime and isn't what this is about. I get your point. I was GLAD to see Al-Awlaki, an American-born Muslim get his ass terminated by a drone in Yemen, because he had vowed to attack the USA and had already tried a couple of times. Vowing to attack and trying to attack American's is sufficient for an American to be arrested by the police. It isn't sufficient for a drone strike on american soil.
  16. It's assuming that is how it will be used. There is no reason to think it won't be used in any other circumstance.
  17. Fuck yes. That's a no-brainer. There are radical Muslims already in-country. If we are able to track what they are doing or planning, then by all means, terminate the motherfuckers. I don't want another 9/11 attack. That is stopping someone in the commission of a crime and isn't what this is about.
  18. Abraham Lincoln was the worst president this country ever had. It's illegal for the military to conduct military operations on US soil. See the Posse Comitatus Act. Any military action is to be ordered through Congress not the President.
  19. Bullshit. Not on American soil and not american's. More Bullshit. That's not what this was even about. This is about assassinating american's on US soil. That is one huge assumption. Especially since any drone strike would covert.
  20. That's your opinion. What if the President or any future Presidents don't see it the same way as you? It's all very subjective.
  21. Your are also assuming a best case scenario. What about the scenario's that are not so clear cut and the President decides it's enough?? Who questions his decision?
  22. Is 'maybe' good enough to kill someone and risk possible collateral fatalities??? If a drone operator had a clear shot at one of the planes on 9/11/01, should he have taken it? Blues, Dave That involves huge assumptions and unknowns. Like it's future trajectory, maybe it's not going to hit a building. Just because you shoot it down doesn't mean it's going to just disappear. It will fall to the ground. Now you have to consider the casualties incurred by where it lands. Do you really want someone sitting in front of a TV with a joy stick manipulating a drone to do that? Or someone like the President getting second or third hand information making that kind of decision??
  23. Is 'maybe' good enough to kill someone and risk possible collateral fatalities???
  24. You are trying to justify having one man have the power of judge, jury and executioner and assuming he will have enough information to do so with full justification. I don't care who that one person is it's not right. There must be more then one person making that kind of decision. You are assuming that every time such a decision is made it will be to stop some sort of 9/11 type attack, but that only depends on one persons point of view.