U.S. Politics

[mjmooney]

Yep.

[CrackpotForeigner]

_{John Brennan is set to replace Petraeus as CIA chief.}

_{Seemingly being a public advocate of torture is no problem, but having a publicly admitted-to extramarital affair is.}

_{What a} **** _{crazy world this is.}

[peterms]

I like the stuff about Chuck Hagel. They seem to have problems processing the combination of his views and his background. Does not compute...

But it seems he must now demonstrate unswerving obedience to Israel if he's to get support...

[mjmooney]

Kyrsten Sinema Sworn Into Congress without a Bible

[legov]

Kyrsten Sinema Sworn Into Congress without a Bible

And she's from Arizona, of all places.

Edited January 8, 2013 by legov

[AVFCforever1991]

Religion should have no place in Politics.

[maqroll]

I like the stuff about Chuck Hagel. They seem to have problems processing the combination of his views and his background. Does not compute...

But it seems he must now demonstrate unswerving obedience to Israel if he's to get support...

The thing I like about Hagel is that he doesn't give a f*ck if he pisses off his party. And he pisses them off a lot. More importantly, he's not a war hawk.

[maqroll]

The Jewish lobby is in a tizzy over Hagel, because he doesn't kiss their asses like everyone else...

[peterms]

A million homeless students in the US.

Language warning: they use "students" to include children at school, so it's not only those at college and university. I expect that makes it better. Doesn't it?

[Kiwivillan]

"People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. … They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.” - Chuck Hagel

[maqroll]

"People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. … They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.” - Chuck Hagel

Had they framed the argument for invasion in these truthful terms from the get-go, the Iraq War may have gone down a bit better with the Western world. Do you like having petrol in your car so you can drive to work? Do you like having heat in the cold winter months? The West has been angling, scheming and fighting them for 100 years to secure the flow of oil back home.

We should have had the foresight 50 years ago to rely less on oil, but war for any reason is good business after all.

[peterms]

Good piece here on the secret US death squads.

And this on the secret legal opinions purporting to make their drone murders legal. How can a law be secret? The point of a law is that makes known to people generally what is allowed and what isn't. Having a government acting in ways contrary to law, but where they seem to have some clandestine view which allows it, unknown to everyone else, is surely against the basic principle of law.

In both instances, the US government seems to see itself as above the law.

[maqroll]

US government seems to see itself as above the law.

The government of the United States has contradicted itself from day one. "All men are created equal", with the exception of blacks, natives, Chinese, etc., and of course women didn't factor in at all.

 

That the Confederate states maintained a system of Apartheid up until the 1960s, proves that freedom is relative in America.

 

The FBI has acted above the law since it's inception.

 

The CIA has subverted democratic governments in several countries.

 

What is different now, is that they are writing these diabolical practices into LAW, out in the open, and they're getting away with it. Warrantless surveillance drones spying on Americans, drones that were ordered to have the capacity to be weaponized...

 

The suspension of Habeas Corpus...indefinite detention without access to legal counsel. People laugh at the idea of a police state, but it's happening before our very eyes.

[peterms]

US government seems to see itself as above the law.

The government of the United States has contradicted itself from day one. "All men are created equal", with the exception of blacks, natives, Chinese, etc., and of course women didn't factor in at all.

 

That the Confederate states maintained a system of Apartheid up until the 1960s, proves that freedom is relative in America.

 

The FBI has acted above the law since it's inception.

 

The CIA has subverted democratic governments in several countries.

 

What is different now, is that they are writing these diabolical practices into LAW, out in the open, and they're getting away with it. Warrantless surveillance drones spying on Americans, drones that were ordered to have the capacity to be weaponized...

 

The suspension of Habeas Corpus...indefinite detention without access to legal counsel. People laugh at the idea of a police state, but it's happening before our very eyes.

I agree. What's especially strange about the US, in a comedy-horror way, is the yawning gap between the rhetoric of freedom and tolerance, and the conduct they engage in. Like Apocalypse Now, set to a soothing string quartet - utterly dissonant.

I see that in a big concession to free speech, the New York Times has given four paras to the ACLU to make the case against the wide-ranging criminality of the US government. So that's ok, then. Free speech is preserved.

[maqroll]

This is why I understand both sides of the gun debate. The right to bear arms was made law of the land specifically to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, a notion that gets met with widespread ridicule. Surely the benevolent US government would never turn on it's own people? 

[leviramsey]

As long as you're obedient, you're OK.

[leviramsey]

In general, a large proportion of the GOP support and apparatus approves of this on the merits.

And nearly all of the Democrat support and apparatus approves of this because of the Obama personality cult.

BIAD.

[mjmooney]

This is why I understand both sides of the gun debate. The right to bear arms was made law of the land specifically to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, a notion that gets met with widespread ridicule. Surely the benevolent US government would never turn on it's own people? 

Sorry, I just don't buy this.

 

What scenario do you envisage whereby the government would attempt to impose something that was SO unpopular, that the electorate would resist it with small arms?

 

In such a case, NOBODY could win. In a shooting war between the US government and the people, where the people have a bunch of handguns and hunting rifles, and the government has Strategic Air Command, who do you think would triumph? And what kind of triumph would that be? You only have to think of it for a few moments to realise the absurdity of the very concept.

 

It's certainly true that the government is running scared of the gun lobby. But that's for electoral reasons, not firepower ones. Let go of the **** wild west, FFS.

[leviramsey]

In such a case, NOBODY could win. In a shooting war between the US government and the people, where the people have a bunch of handguns and hunting rifles, and the government has Strategic Air Command, who do you think would triumph? And what kind of triumph would that be? You only have to think of it for a few moments to realise the absurdity of the very concept.

Yeah the US has a long history of completely dominating guerrilla wars with air superiority...

Total US domination in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

[mjmooney]

In such a case, NOBODY could win. In a shooting war between the US government and the people, where the people have a bunch of handguns and hunting rifles, and the government has Strategic Air Command, who do you think would triumph? And what kind of triumph would that be? You only have to think of it for a few moments to realise the absurdity of the very concept.

Yeah the US has a long history of completely dominating guerrilla wars with air superiority...

Total US domination in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Sure. But you miss my point. Do you REALLY envisage the possibility of this apocalyptic shooting war between elected politicians (or even the unelected military-industrial-CIA complex) and its citizens?

 

I thought you of all people would be above these Hollywood fantasies, Levi.

 

There is no possible scenario in which privately-owned small arms are a restriction on government behaviour in a first-world country. And if there were, you'd be well and truly ****.

 

 

 

.