Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

Commo_Soldier 09-22-2011 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2533773)
Every court that ever saw the case reaffirmed his conviction by a properly seated jury. How much more time would you propose to waste? You can whine until hell freezes over but this SOB got a small taste of what he deserved & should have gotten years ago.

The only pity here is that he wasn't executed years ago.


The problem is you have a court saying the testimony by people recanting was not compelling, but to whom? There were at least two jurors that thought it was compelling enough where they had doubt. I just think with all the doubt they should have at least seated another jury, or redone the sentencing phase. If a person is really guilty nothing will change. As for wasting time, if it means an innocent person doesn't die, why not. As for him getting what he deserved, what makes you the arbiter of justice? I'll stop now because you are clearly one of those people that is just dead set in your beliefs and can never accept change.

RainMaker 09-22-2011 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier (Post 2533817)
The problem is you have a court saying the testimony by people recanting was not compelling, but to whom? There were at least two jurors that thought it was compelling enough where they had doubt. I just think with all the doubt they should have at least seated another jury, or redone the sentencing phase. If a person is really guilty nothing will change. As for wasting time, if it means an innocent person doesn't die, why not. As for him getting what he deserved, what makes you the arbiter of justice? I'll stop now because you are clearly one of those people that is just dead set in your beliefs and can never accept change.


Read through the ruling. The recants weren't even really recants.

molson 09-22-2011 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier (Post 2533817)
I just think with all the doubt they should have at least seated another jury, or redone the sentencing phase. If a person is really guilty nothing will change.


There has to be limits to the granting of a new trial. It's not just wasted time - though that's a big consideration. Should we let defense investigators harass jurors for decades after the fact, hoping for a recantation? What about state witnesses? If you are brave enough to testify in a murder trial should you be pressured and harassed into recanting for the rest of your life? What about the memories of eye witnesses? The further we get away from the event, there will be fewer witnesses still alive, and memories will fade. There will also be the idea in the heads of some jurors that someone "has already done enough time" - which of course is not supposed to be a consideration for jurors. Not to mention what the victims' family goes through - a new trial potentially every few years? Maybe the defense could try different strategies, coach witnesses in different ways, because hey, if you lose this one, try try again....What's the point of putting people under oath and allowing cross-examination, and having rules of evidence if we're going to put just as much stock in outside-the-court statements made by witnesses years later at a coffee shop late at night with no rules of evidence in place, no cross-examination, with unknown pressure applied by defense investigators, etc. Still, with all these reasons courts strongly prefer "1 trial", new trials are ordered very often, all the time. (Much more often on the grounds of trial error than "new evidence").

I've read a lot of the appellate opinions on this and this guy, of course, tried everything. My favorite argument is that the "aggravated factor" of killing a police officer carrying out his duties (which led to the death penalty) shouldn't have applied because this officer was only working in a private capacity, and that Davis didn't know he was a cop anyway, he just thought he was trying to break up a fight.

DaddyTorgo 09-22-2011 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commo_Soldier (Post 2533817)
I'll stop now because you are clearly one of those people that is just dead set in your beliefs and can never accept change.


The sooner you learn this about Jon and the less time you waste arguing with him, the more enjoyable your time on the board will be. He believes he is absolutely right on everything, and that compromise and changing one's mind is unconscionable.

JonInMiddleGA 09-22-2011 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2533944)
The sooner you learn this about Jon and the less time you waste arguing with him, the more enjoyable your time on the board will be. He believes he is absolutely right on everything, and that compromise and changing one's mind is unconscionable.


C'mon, can't you get this shit straight after all these years?

-- If I didn't believe I was right, I'd take a different position. (After all, who the hell sets out to be wrong intentionally ... other than liberals I mean)

-- Compromise is an option when your situation is absolutely & irrevocably unwinnable. That's an exception the would supersede* the unconscionable nature of it.

-- Changing your mind is often an indication of positions set with insufficient examination in the first place. More of a character flaw than unconscionable.

Damn DT, how many times do I have to explain this shit to you?

*I always thought that the word was spelled "supercede" rather than "supersede". But spellcheck can't be wrong, can it?

sterlingice 09-22-2011 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2533955)
*I always thought that the word was spelled "supercede" rather than "supersede". But spellcheck can't be wrong, can it?


Learned something new today:

Supercede - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
"Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error."

Cede - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
For some reason, in my mind, I had always tied it to cede and I always thought supercede was correct, too. In the end, I guess it doesn't make a lot of sense as they are different words and different ideas.

Totally different Latin roots:
Cede: "French or Latin; French céder, from Latin cedere to go, withdraw, yield"
Supersede: "Middle English (Scots) superceden to defer, from Middle French, from Latin supersedēre to sit on top, refrain from, from super- + sedēre to sit"

So, like so many things, we can blame the French. They took supersedere and made it superceden and English was just trying to correct back to the Latin root with supersede.

SI

JonInMiddleGA 09-22-2011 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2533979)
So, like so many things, we can blame the French. They took supersedere and made it superceden and English was just trying to correct back to the Latin root with supersede.


And naturally the French version surrendered ;)

JediKooter 09-22-2011 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2533955)
(After all, who the hell sets out to be wrong intentionally ... other than liberals I mean)



That statement is full of juicy irony...

Mac Howard 09-22-2011 11:39 PM

It's another of those "corrections" made when they produced the American dictionary. Supercede is certainly the English English spelling but as with the replacement of "s" with "z" for the "zzz" sound (as in the analyze/analyse thread) the "c" was replaced with "s" for the "sss" sound (soft c) to rationalise (that is flagged as a spelling mistake) American English spelling.

According to spelling checkers my spelling is awful - they don't like my "s" and prefer a "z", don't like my "c", they prefer an "s" or "k". Any text I write is a sea of red underlining :)

I suspect that the "cede" in "supercede" is the same root. Cede means to accept an alternative argument and supercede that one thing replaces another. Both are about the replacement of one thing by another.

Edward64 09-22-2011 11:59 PM

Didn't get a chance to watch the debate so catching up on the internet.

This one was funny. Was it as awkward as it reads?

Romney, Perry go after each other in debate - politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com
Quote:

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota told one questioner, "You should get to keep every dollar you earn," then backpedaled. "Obviously we have to give money back to the government so we can run the government," she said.

Edward64 09-23-2011 12:02 AM

Ron Paul seems to always do well.

Who Won The Debate? | Fox News
Quote:

Who won the debate?

Mitt Romney 23.35% (10,493 votes)
Rick Perry 12.72% (5,715 votes)
Newt Gingrich 7.24% (3,254 votes)
Ron Paul 37.98% (17,067 votes)
Rick Santorum 1.44% (649 votes)
Gary Johnson 2.04% (915 votes)
Herman Cain 11.43% (5,138 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.17% (973 votes)
Jon Huntsman 1.64% (738 votes)

Total Votes: 44,941


stevew 09-23-2011 12:19 AM

"Gary Johnson" sounds more like a gay sex act than Santorum ever will.

Mac Howard 09-23-2011 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2534610)
Didn't get a chance to watch the debate so catching up on the internet.

This one was funny. Was it as awkward as it reads?

Romney, Perry go after each other in debate - politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com


I'm not sure about "awkward" but yes they did have a go at each other - though the most common response was to avoid a question by attacking Obama :)

Romney hit home with his "you'd better find the other Rick Perry and stop him saying that" and Perry was clearly embarrassed by that. Mind you, Romney saying "there are many reasons for not voting for me" struck me as giving a hostage to fortune should he make the nomination. If Fox will release the video I can see a whole series of Democrat attack ads using that as an intro in an election campaign.

Laugh of the debate came when one said "my next door neighbour's dog has created more shovel-ready jobs than Obama".

I'm not sure why they saw Paul as the "winner" but then I'm not part of the choir when it comes to his particular music :rolleyes:

stevew 09-23-2011 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Howard (Post 2534606)
It's another of those "corrections" made when they produced the American dictionary. Supercede is certainly the English English spelling but as with the replacement of "s" with "z" for the "zzz" sound (as in the analyze/analyse thread) the "c" was replaced with "s" for the "sss" sound (soft c) to rationalise (that is flagged as a spelling mistake) American English spelling.

According to spelling checkers my spelling is awful - they don't like my "s" and prefer a "z", don't like my "c", they prefer an "s" or "k". Any text I write is a sea of red underlining :)

I suspect that the "cede" in "supercede" is the same root. Cede means to accept an alternative argument and supercede that one thing replaces another. Both are about the replacement of one thing by another.



We need this character ---ç for words like supersede.

And oddly enough I had a similar reaction to Jon when I was using supersede in a paper today. It doesn't look correct.

Mac Howard 09-23-2011 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2534618)
We need this character ---ç for words like supersede.


Yes, though the use of "s" is perfectly rational as are the other changes introduced for the American dictionary. English kids do have a lot of problems with traditional English spelling and I often have to think and even write down words before knowing the "correct" spelling. Traditional English spelling can be a pain in the butt.

Quote:

And oddly enough I had a similar reaction to Jon when I was using supersede in a paper today. It doesn't look correct.

Yes it does look "wrong". Maybe because it's not a word in too much common use and you've mainly seen it in text books or older texts in which the English spelling is used. I'm pretty sure an English English teacher would flag it as incorrect but the spelling checker on this board rejects "supercede".

JonInMiddleGA 09-23-2011 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2534611)
Ron Paul seems to always do well.


Look no further than the sentence at the bottom of the linked page.
This is not a scientific poll.

The Paulbots are consistent voters in online polls & the like.

Mac Howard 09-23-2011 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2534627)
Look no further than the sentence at the bottom of the linked page.
This is not a scientific poll.

The Paulbots are consistent voters in online polls & the like.


Cynical b*#stard! :)

But I watched the debate and I must admit I can't see why they saw Paul as the winner and the audience interviewed after were in no doubt that they believed Romney won it. A few did suggest they'd moved away from Perry.

sterlingice 09-23-2011 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Howard (Post 2534606)
II suspect that the "cede" in "supercede" is the same root. Cede means to accept an alternative argument and supercede that one thing replaces another. Both are about the replacement of one thing by another.


But that's the thing, according to merriam-webster above, they aren't:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice
Totally different Latin roots:
Cede: "French or Latin; French céder, from Latin cedere to go, withdraw, yield"
Supersede: "Middle English (Scots) superceden to defer, from Middle French, from Latin supersedēre to sit on top, refrain from, from super- + sedēre to sit"


That's what surprised me a little but cede does have a bit of a different connotation

SI

JPhillips 09-23-2011 05:40 PM

It got lost given the Israel/Palestine stuff, but this seems like a really big deal. Now that the government has said this, won't there have to be changes to our relationship?

Quote:

The nation’s top military official said Thursday that Pakistan’s spy agency played a direct role in supporting the insurgents who carried out the deadly attack on the American Embassy in Kabul last week. It was the most serious charge that the United States has leveled against Pakistan in the decade that America has been at war in Afghanistan.

Mac Howard 09-23-2011 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2534658)
But that's the thing, according to merriam-webster above, they aren't:



That's what surprised me a little but cede does have a bit of a different connotation

SI


Just looked up the spelling of supercede/supersede in the Oxford dictionary and it does include supercede but says that, while often used, is generally regarded as an error in spelling and the correct spelling is supersede. That would back the argument that sedere and not cedere is the Latin root. I stand corrected and will change my spelling from now on :)

Autumn 09-23-2011 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2535067)
It got lost given the Israel/Palestine stuff, but this seems like a really big deal. Now that the government has said this, won't there have to be changes to our relationship?


I think it's part of a diplomatic game. What we see in the press is just a move by our government or theirs. The geopolitical reality is what it is, and our relationship is going to be based on that. This news makes me think just that there's some reason we want to put the heat up, or put some distance between us at this point. The Pakistani generally like that as well, as they can't look like they're too close to us.

Edward64 09-24-2011 08:28 PM

I think I've moved from GWB's fault to still GWB's fault but Obama shares blame for not getting us better. I get the GOP has been fighting him and not giving him what he wants but this pending double dip is definitely on his watch.

Poll: Majority of Americans blame Obama for economy – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Quote:

For the first time ever, a slight majority of Americans blame President Barack Obama for the country's struggling economy, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday.

But the same poll showed even more Americans fault former President George W. Bush, a trend that's remained since Bush left the White House in January 2009 amid the recession.

When asked how much responsibility Obama bears for the economy's conditions, about 53 percent blamed Obama either a great deal or a moderate amount. That number is up from the roughly 32 percent who gave the same answer six months after Obama took office in 2009.

The poll results come two weeks after Obama announced his jobs plan, a $447 billion proposal aimed at jumpstarting job growth.

But in the public's eye, Bush shoulders more of the burden when it comes to the economy, with nearly seven in 10 Americans blaming the former president either a great deal or a moderate amount. That number is down from 80 percent who assigned fault to Bush six months after he finished his second term in 2009.


Edward64 09-24-2011 08:33 PM

The article wasn't very detailed on the changes but sounds as if we knew we weren't going to make it so we moved the goalposts.

Obama making big changes to Bush-era education law - politics - White House - msnbc.com
Quote:

In Obama's plan, states granted waivers would have more control over how troubled schools are handled, although to qualify for a waiver they would have to show they had a plan to help low-performing schools. A majority of states are expected to apply for waivers, which will be given to qualified states early next year.

Critics say the law placed too much emphasis on standardized tests, raising the stakes so high for school districts that it may have driven some school officials to cheat. In particular, the requirement that all students be on grade level in math and reading by 2014 has been hugely unpopular.


Edward64 09-24-2011 08:43 PM

I had friends in the military in prior century and they were adamantly against gays in the military. I think the millenials are ready for this.

End of 'don't ask, don't tell' brings relief, celebration - CNN.com
Quote:

Reactions ranged from gloom-and-doom predictions to celebrations to ho-hum business-as-usual as the U.S. military changed its rules Tuesday to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly.

A minute into the new day, at 12:01 a.m., the old "don't ask, don't tell" rule that has been in force since the Clinton administration was gone.

In its place was a policy designed to be blind to sexual orientation and one that the Pentagon brass insists will maintain the military in fighting trim, with no negative impact on "military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention."


SportsDino 09-25-2011 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2532170)
Discussion on actual tax percentages paid by income level.........

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? - Yahoo! News


I'm not sure, but to hit that 29.1 percent number I almost think they are counting only income that is taxed by the income tax which doesn't cover the $1 salary CEO who gets most of his money through investment income which is taxed differently. Most of the numbers the article starts out with are highly biased ones (total share of taxes has nothing to do with individual rates when you look at wealth disparity gaps).

I think the 'FACT CHECK' needs to put up a list of say the Forbes 100 in the USA and put their effective tax rate next to it. Enough of the numbers are public that even without accounting for weird deductions you can get a raw estimate based on how they earned their income for the year (salary versus stock net worth, etc.). Even if you take that list down to every millionaire in the United States you will see a large number under 29.1 percent.

In fact, the only way I think the math works out for 29.1 percent counting all income is if they are taking an average based on each person's individual taxes. Maybe there are enough millionaires paying at 35% plus (I know of at least one, damn daytrading) to balance out the billionaires at 18%. My guesstimates are based on the whole pool of money which certainly is not being taxed at 29.1 percent (if it was our budget deficit would disappear instantly, that is how much money is sitting in that pool at a lower than 29% rate even for private individuals).

gstelmack 09-27-2011 12:18 PM

Linked from TMQ, political pundits no better than a coin flip:

Hamilton College - Pundit - Executive Summary

Liberals are better predictors than conservatives, and lawyers are the least accurate. My conclusion: there are too many lawyers in the Republican party.

No word if MBBF was one of those they checked and if he skewed the results.

Galaxy 09-27-2011 12:30 PM

BBC News - Trader was not a hoaxer, says BBC

DaddyTorgo 09-27-2011 01:52 PM

Five Of Boehner's Six "Fiscal Experts" Agree: Deficit Reduction Requires Revenue Increases | Political Correction

Quote:

Originally Posted by article
While five of the six "fiscal experts" cited by Boehner's office didn't actually say what Boehner's staff claims they said, they have said that deficit reduction will require revenue increases, in direct contradiction of GOP dogma. And they've also done so in blunt language that leaves no doubt about the Republicans' irresponsibility. Former Government Accountability Office head David Walker, for example, has said: "Anybody that passed basic math would have known that you cannot end up dealing with our structural problems in our deficits without having more revenues." Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Budget has noted, "You can not get to any reasonable goal without new revenues," and "Policies that exempt tax cuts from budget constraints are not only economically dangerous, they are cowardly." Former CBO director Rudolph Penner says the problem "cannot be entirely solved on either the tax or spending side of the budget," and "If one wanted to balance the budget without any increase in tax burdens, there would have to be draconian cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other programs." And Robert Bixby of the Concord Coalition thinks deficit reduction will require spending cuts and revenue increases, adding, "It's long past time for partisan purists in Washington to recognize that."


SteveMax58 09-27-2011 01:59 PM

Well, I think Boehner & the Republicans' response to that would be that you have to grow the economy in order to increase the revenues. And in principle, I agree that "raising taxes" isn't always the best way to cut a deficit (a deficit I don't think should be there in the first place...but I digress).

Its the reality of the world economy which makes me disagree that there is a realistic opportunity, within 8 years (and perhaps much longer), to grow the economy enough to make that approach viable.

miked 09-27-2011 02:49 PM

I was watching the politicians talk all week and learned it's all the fault of job killing regulations by the EPA. Job killing tax increases will never work if the job killing regulations are repealed. But the primary thing to do is cut taxes on job creators making 1M so the economy can be fixed.

The democrats response to that was maybe.

gstelmack 09-28-2011 07:41 AM

I caught the tail end of an interview on CBS Nightly News with some bigwig African-American business leader. He came out and said what I think I've tried to say in here: the way to fix this is to have some politicians, House, Senate, and President, willing to be one-term politicians and make the hard choices that will fix the issues no matter what it means to their re-election chances. Nice to see someone nationally say that.

JPhillips 09-28-2011 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2537222)
I caught the tail end of an interview on CBS Nightly News with some bigwig African-American business leader. He came out and said what I think I've tried to say in here: the way to fix this is to have some politicians, House, Senate, and President, willing to be one-term politicians and make the hard choices that will fix the issues no matter what it means to their re-election chances. Nice to see someone nationally say that.


But that won't work. Those one term politicians will be replaced by people who vow to overturn those decisions. Without buy-in from the public any changes will be temporary.

That's without getting into the deeply undemocratic fantasy of "fixing" the problems in ways that ignore popular will.

RainMaker 09-29-2011 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2537002)
I was watching the politicians talk all week and learned it's all the fault of job killing regulations by the EPA. Job killing tax increases will never work if the job killing regulations are repealed. But the primary thing to do is cut taxes on job creators making 1M so the economy can be fixed.

The democrats response to that was maybe.

It still amazes me that people buy that stuff. Tax cuts don't create jobs, demand does. All we need to do to prove this is point out the top percentile is paying less than in any time in history and we have high unemployment.

Grammaticus 09-29-2011 06:20 AM

There is plenty of demand out there. But there is not a magic button that will tell you, there is demand for 100,000 units of energy saving household light bulbs at $5.45 per unit. An investor / entrepreneur has to figure out what will fulfill a potential demand and at what price point to cost ratio. That means they have to invest time/effort and risk capitol to do that.

It is a fact that regulation, taxes, fees, licenses and other barriers to entry are a factor in whether or not someone spends their time and money on a venture.

It is more likely that someone like a Steve Jobs or Michael Moore will engage in a developing a new product or movie concept than someone like me or you. They have are already successful in their respective fields and can afford to pay the barrier costs. But even those guys are not going to risk time and funds on a venture they are not pretty sure will be a winner.

Bottom line, increased regulation and taxes reduce new development efforts and support the status quo because it is tougher for new people to enter the field. That touches on two things. One, the argument on regulation and taxes and two, the argument on how unfair it is that rich people have an unfair advantage. More regulation and taxes just increase their advantage by decreasing competition.

Edward64 09-30-2011 05:47 AM

Okay, I think this one is a legit #2 or #3.

U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed: Yemeni officials - CNN.com
Quote:

CNN) -- American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, the public face of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has been killed in Yemen, the nation's Defense Ministry said Friday.

The U.S. regards al-Awlaki, who was believed to be hiding in Yemen, as the biggest threat to its homeland security. Western intelligence officials believe al-Awlaki is a senior leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), one of the most active al Qaeda affiliates.

Al-Awlaki was killed about 8 kilometers (5 miles) from the Yemeni town of Khashef, east of the capital city of Sanaa, Mohammed Basha, a Yemen Embassy spokesman in Washington D.C., told CNN. Basha said the operation was launched at about 9:55 a.m. local time, though he did not say what type of operation was conducted or how al-Awlaki was killed.

A senior U.S. administration official confirmed al-Awlaki was dead, though no details surrounding the operation that led to the cleric's death were released. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to CNN. The official was not authorized to release the information.

Flasch186 09-30-2011 06:43 AM

I think the idea that a democrat would be weaker on terror or weaken our national defense against Al Qaeda has been debunked over the last few years. Its nice to see that BOTH Republicans and Democrats can now both run for office without the ridiculousness that pervayed.

gstelmack 09-30-2011 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2538368)
I think the idea that a democrat would be weaker on terror or weaken our national defense against Al Qaeda has been debunked over the last few years. Its nice to see that BOTH Republicans and Democrats can now both run for office without the ridiculousness that pervayed.


Yeah, funny how continuing Bush's foreign policy is getting him kudos now. However, he's still got a ways to go to overcome what Clinton did to our defense back in the 90's. But agreed that it's POSSIBLE for a Democrat to be sane about these things.

DaddyTorgo 09-30-2011 08:37 AM

Interesting - I'm sure I'll take heat for this, and I in no way shed any tears that this guy is dead (yay USA!), but did he ever renounce his citizenship? I assume so, right?

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-30-2011 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2538409)
Interesting - I'm sure I'll take heat for this, and I in no way shed any tears that this guy is dead (yay USA!), but did he ever renounce his citizenship? I assume so, right?


If he's running at you with a gun, you're not going to stop to check his papers. I think it's pretty clear where he stood.

cartman 09-30-2011 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2538380)
Yeah, funny how continuing Bush's foreign policy is getting him kudos now. However, he's still got a ways to go to overcome what Clinton did to our defense back in the 90's. But agreed that it's POSSIBLE for a Democrat to be sane about these things.


So what about Rumsfeld's speech on Sept. 10th, 2001 that talked about continuing and extending the military cuts started during the Clinton administration?

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/spee...x?speechid=430

lcjjdnh 09-30-2011 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2538409)
Interesting - I'm sure I'll take heat for this, and I in no way shed any tears that this guy is dead (yay USA!), but did he ever renounce his citizenship? I assume so, right?


Nope. Due-process free assassination of an American citizen.

DaddyTorgo 09-30-2011 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2538422)
If he's running at you with a gun, you're not going to stop to check his papers. I think it's pretty clear where he stood.


My point wasn't about where he stood, it was more about what lcjdnh says right above as far as assasination of an American citizen.

Slippery slope.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not shedding a tear or complaining that he's dead - I just think it's a significant line that we should all recognize has been crossed.

lcjjdnh 09-30-2011 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2538422)
If he's running at you with a gun, you're not going to stop to check his papers. I think it's pretty clear where he stood.


Irrelevant hypothetical. Long on the "targeted killing" list despite his American citizenship and lack of due process.

DaddyTorgo 09-30-2011 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2538422)
If he's running at you with a gun, you're not going to stop to check his papers. I think it's pretty clear where he stood.


Sets a dangerous precedent is all.

If the government decides you're a terrorist now, don't expect to be notified. They'll just send an assasin to take you out and you'll be dead before you know it.

Now was this guy a POS who deserved his fate...yup. Not arguing that. But it's a dangerous precedent.

BrianD 09-30-2011 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2538473)
Now was this guy a POS who deserved his fate...yup. Not arguing that. But it's a dangerous precedent.


I'm not sure how this is a dangerous precedent. If we'd targeted this guy in a come in Connecticut, I'd have a problem. Targeting him (was he the main target) in an Al-Qaeda camp in Yemen seems less dangerous.

Edward64 09-30-2011 04:35 PM

Vast majority supported it in an unscientific poll. Hope he's enjoying his virgins otherwise he's in hell.

Open Channel - Vote: Should U.S. kill citizens overseas without affording them due process?

lcjjdnh 09-30-2011 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 2538487)
I'm not sure how this is a dangerous precedent. If we'd targeted this guy in a come in Connecticut, I'd have a problem. Targeting him (was he the main target) in an Al-Qaeda camp in Yemen seems less dangerous.


Not sure I see the distinction. Do you lose your due process rights as an American citizen by leaving the country's borders? This was not a we-tried-to-capture-but-had-killed-him. It was an actual assassination.

JPhillips 09-30-2011 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 2538487)
I'm not sure how this is a dangerous precedent. If we'd targeted this guy in a come in Connecticut, I'd have a problem. Targeting him (was he the main target) in an Al-Qaeda camp in Yemen seems less dangerous.


What about Padilla, a US citizen who was arrested in the US, tortured to the point of madness and when it came time to charge him as the "dirty bomber" the government backed out rather than proving the original charges.

SteveMax58 09-30-2011 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh (Post 2538709)
Not sure I see the distinction. Do you lose your due process rights as an American citizen by leaving the country's borders? This was not a we-tried-to-capture-but-had-killed-him. It was an actual assassination.


I think the distinction is that unlike, say a Finnish barber shop for instance, a Yemeni Al Qaeda training camps are a pretty good place to put some level of "trust" into the military killing somebody.

I understand the slippery slope argument and I'm usually on that side of it. In this case, I'm indifferent due to "where" this man was killed. He certainly wasn't there trying to talk them into surrendering and turning over a new leaf. Is there a line to be drawn somewhere between witch hunts & bureaucracy run-wild? I think so...this just isn't it imho.

BrianD 09-30-2011 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2538711)
What about Padilla, a US citizen who was arrested in the US, tortured to the point of madness and when it came time to charge him as the "dirty bomber" the government backed out rather than proving the original charges.


Already answered.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.