magekillr

As my friend Dubba said, who lives in the region (he lives in Saudi Arabia, and Dubba isn't his real name as he is an apostate): I find this deeply troubling because the ROE, it seems, allows the gunner to shoot anyone who's armed. And to do so from the helicopter without caring to discern who's armed with real weapons and who's just slinging a camera. I find this deeply troubling because the ROE allows for the gunner to shoot the entire group of people when only one or two were armed. I even actually find it troubling that they'd shoot armed people without provocation. What if these guys were worried about sectarian violence? Patrolling the streets to repel thugs or mobs? What do you say, O you who believe in the second amendment? I find this troubling because, it seems to me that had the Reuters cameramen not been amongst the dead, NO ONE WOULD HAVE [bleep]ING HEARD OR CARED. In the end, the real war criminals are the people who started this war, and the man who is protecting them from trial. Edit: Oh, and you apologists, did the soldiers just do this out of stress, too?: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?ref=world

I was against the war but it's not about oil. Talk to petroleum experts and engineers, and they'll tell you the same story. It hasn't helped their business any, that's for sure. That said, I think the war was more about a hot-headed cowboy who had a personal vendetta to finish where his daddy left off. That, mixed with the arrogance that the US could be successful in establishing a democracy there for all of the ME to see how much we love the Muslims by rooting out a brutal dictator. If you're talking about Bush, his administration had strong ties to the oil industry - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1138009.stm Iraq is the second largest (confirmed) oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi who already plays nice (most of the time) with the US. Why would the US want these oil reserves if they can already buy them? Because they want to control the output in production - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7404040.stm So basically what happened with this invasion? The four UK/US oil giants who were banned from Iraq during Saddam's reign is back - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html This is completely ignoring the fact that: a.) Many oil companies operated under Saddam. b.) Those oil companies lost a lot of infrastructure, and had their contracts dissolved after he was toppled. c.) The contracts the US oil companies just recently snagged are pretty awful. d.) The winners were China and Russia, not western oil producers. e.) Totale was also a big winner, and they're French. f.) Shell had operations there under Saddam, and BP indirectly had operations there through Shell. g.) Exxon and Chevron were banned under law from trading with Iraq due to the sanctions, not because of Saddam's iron fist. h.) I'm sure one could argue that with the toppling of Saddam those sanctions would be dropped, but this opens it up for other corporations which leads to renegotiation of all contracts--that's exactly what happened. i.) Reason h.) always results in a large monetary loss in the long run, which is something these companies try to avoid. j.) Exxon walked away from the lucrative fields because the Iraqi government was only going to give them $10/barrel. k.) Once again, for repetition, the infrastructure and logistics were totally destroyed. If it were about oil, the US would have been involved in a bloodless coup, and retained the Iraq national army...or simply thawed relations with Saddam. This would have been an overall win for them, and kept competing Russian and Chinese interests out. Instead, China and Russia are the biggest winners, the Western companies stand to make barely anything, and all of the oil infrastructure was destroyed. Hardly about oil, mate.

Btw, for all of those arguing that this was justified, let's assume that it was. How do you explain to their families that this is happening? Here in the US, you are all sheltered from what this war actually looks like; perhaps if this was shown here more often, Americans wouldn't be such a war mongering people. This is what people in these countries see on a daily basis, and pardon my French, but they don't give a flying [bleep] how you try and justify it. They want their families back, who were killed innocently, when your/our country shouldn't have invaded in the first place. This is far from uncommon. This is the fog of war, these kinds of things happen; even well intentioned soldiers are going to commit acts like this. The point is that we should think about why we continue to invade other countries and occupy them, knowing that these things that we see here are the things that we're going to be doing. This is counterproductive, and has only created more terrorists than we've defeated, and indoctrinated a whole slew of Western haters among the youth. The women in Iraq are less safe now than they were before because rather than a brutal secular dictator, they have a corrupt brutal theocratic government...but they have elections! It's revolting. The key takeaway from this is this: they hate us for our freedom.

or is it just war? Can war ever not be a crime, or ever be humane? While there is human suffering, there will be war. Can war ever be humane? I don't think so, which is why soldiers have to be broken down and prepared before they set off to fight; it's also why PSTD is so prominent among veterans. However, while there is war and while it is a reality, jus in bello and the Geneva Conventions must be followed. This is a clear violation of just war theory, and clearly a war crime. It also shows why I don't trust a word out of the mouths of our military leaders, the Pentagon, or the CIA.

This is a war crime, and nothing less. I was against the war but it's not about oil. Talk to petroleum experts and engineers, and they'll tell you the same story. It hasn't helped their business any, that's for sure. That said, I think the war was more about a hot-headed cowboy who had a personal vendetta to finish where his daddy left off. That, mixed with the arrogance that the US could be successful in establishing a democracy there for all of the ME to see how much we love the Muslims by rooting out a brutal dictator.

I missed this. Does that mean the law is right? Do unborn fetuses get counted in a census? Does your birthday start at conception? That's a foolish argument to make. I am not a woman, but I also don't try and take her rights away. My opinion doesn't matter when she makes her choice; it should be ALL HER choice and opinion. My opinion on the matter, just like yours, is ultimately moot. No, you cannot, as fully born babies are given the rights of persons. This doesn't mean they are persons, however, they have the rights of a person.

Because he/she is her responsibility. Because she had sex. How is it her responsibility? She has a responsibility: to control her own body, and that gives her the right to have an abortion if she so chooses. Let me guess: you're a man. And you accept that you have control over your own body. This is demonstrably false. A fully born baby isn't even self-conscious or self-aware. A fetus is less of a person than most fully born mammals. When you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged with her murder and that of her unborn child, as fakeitormakeit mentioned. Your opinion doesn't matter unless you're a woman, it is her decision over her body. Let me ask you this: if her fully born child, let's say of 10 years old, required her body for 9 months to live. Why should she be FORCED to have her body used to allow that child to live?

This is not about life or death, it is about a woman having control over her body. Why does a non-sentient being, who is not self-aware or self-conscious, have rights to her body?

A human is not self-aware or self-conscious until they're around 2 or 3 years old. It's not a person until that happens. However, they are given the rights of person hood at birth, as they are no longer physically dependent on the woman, nor do they interfere with her self-autonomy. The problem people then have is that you would be killing an organism that has the potential to become a functioning human. A lot of things have the potential; sperm, eggs, zygotes, clumps of cells...

A human is not self-aware or self-conscious until they're around 2 or 3 years old. It's not a person until that happens. However, they are given the rights of person hood at birth, as they are no longer physically dependent on the woman, nor do they interfere with her self-autonomy.

Abortion is a perfectly moral decision, and its legality affects every single woman's equal rights as persons under the law. It should never be illegal, and there shouldn't be any restrictions about when a woman can get an abortion, or why they want it; there should be no forcing of a woman to go to counselling; no delaying the procedure like many states in the US do. Access to abortion is a civil right, and to be against a woman's rights, in my opinion, is being against women.

Finally, someone else sees it. The Republicans are extreme-far-right wingers. The Democrats have a few left-wingers, a lot of centrists, and a few conservatives. YEP! As I said, Americans are great at putting out new drugs...except most of these new drugs are barely improvements on their predecessors. They just tweak the drug slightly, and get decades of patent protection keeping the drug high. Patent protection is important in R&D, but this is why the government should be setting prices on drugs. We pay literally 4-6x, sometimes 10x, what Europeans and Canadians pay for the same drugs...just because the drug companies can get away with it here.

Tell that to the Irish Republican Army and people who live in the Irish Republic. That's like saying that America is part of the UK. ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom Wasn't talking about the Republic Of Ireland. :)

What I find funny is that they are saying "Words are important." Too bad they didn't realize that beforehand, you ignored people before, now they want blood, what the hell do you expect, its kinda hard to ignore a guy when a shotgun is in your mouth. And that protest at the guys house, the lady said "Why don't they protest at the capital where they can be seen and heard?" BECAUSE THEY DID AND WERE IGNORED! I'm sorry that it has come to this but you reap what you sow. So let me get this straight. You support the Patriot Act. You support the monitoring of terrorists; you support invading my rights for the sake of safety; and now, when there are literally far-right people who are being winked and nodded from their Republican leaders like John Boehner ( http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTc1OWI4MjFkY2Y5YWQ5Y2MxMmYxZDc2MDM5N2QxNmM= ) and are actively committing acts of vandalism on people's private property to intimidate them...you actually support and wave them on rather than condemn them? You have got to be a troll. There's no other explanation. Eric Cantor is a real life troll, though: Nonetheless, any threats like this should be taken seriously. These people are maniacs, and they're being cheered on by the likes of Glenn Beck. It's not going to be so cool when someone dies or gets shot, no matter what side of the aisle they're on.

I assume you know that you've forgotten several countries that also has socialized healthcare? France? Not socialized. Canada? Not socialized. Taiwan? Not socialized, and is in fact modeled after the US Medicare system. Wanna count Greenland? Fine. India? Alright. I'm not sure about Israel. Denmark, alright. Germany? No, as it's employees are not government paid. Ireland? ok, but I count them as part of the UK. Italy counts, too. I don't feel like going through every country, dude. The point is, just because it's funded by taxes and universal, it's not socialized. It's only socialized if most of the providers are government hospitals/doctors/nurses. This is not the case in a lot of European countries. And the cartoon is from 1934, not 1994. It was attacking FDR's New Deal, and the Social Security proposal.

And because I just LOVE posting three times in a row, I found this cartoon today. Anyone wanna pose a guess as to when it was drawn? It may as well have been drawn in 2009/2010: And just for fun, Mitt Romney, circa 2007/2008 during the campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0 How quickly they forget...

1.) Abortions were NEVER, EVER, funded by this money, no matter how many lies the Republicans and Bart Stupak told you. 2.) Abortion is NOT illegal to fund with public money, the Hyde Amendment is passed each and every year by appropriation to prevent funds from being distributed for abortions through taxpayer money. It's not illegal, it's just prevented each and every year as the Hyde Amendment is approved. 3.) The executive order just repeated the Senate's language to provide Stupak cover from the misogynist Catholic Bishops, even though countless other Catholic organizations approved of the bill. 4.) The Senate language prevents abortion funding. Lastly, we already subsidize abortion coverage with tax payer money: it's called subsidizing employer-based coverage, which costs the Federal Government $250 billion per year, through a giant tax-break that's been in place for years. You don't see them going after that over abortion, do you? No, why? Because they're liars, hypocrites, and they are continuing to use wedge issues to distract the public from the issues that actually matter. Oh, and they're anti-woman, which is really what the abortion debate is about in the first place; if men could give birth it never would have been an issue. And lastly lastly, why should the Hyde Amendment even be approved of anyway? Why should we get to vote on based on what some people find immoral, and preventing women from accessing a moral medical procedure that's needed for their health? 1/3 of women will need an abortion at some point in their lives. I found the Iraq War to be illegal, and immoral. Where's my tax check for the money spent on that? Do you see how ridiculous this is? And actually, the president CAN issue an executive order to change/clarify the law, but this doesn't change the law. They can act to FURTHER law, not to CREATE law. Read some court cases: Executive Order 10340 Your other post was full of just as many errors, and repeated just about every talking point possible, but I don't feel like addressing it. Except, this: Besides the fact that the government isn't running anything and is only giving subsidies to people, oh and preventing insurance companies from denying people who have pre-existing conditions care (because everyone knows you don't need a "nanny" to disrupt an abusive industry), health care is a right. It is therefore the job of the government to protect that right. If you don't think health care is a right, you should tell Congress to repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Speaking of nanny states, I have some heavy reading for you from economist Dean Baker, the first to spot the housing bubble, "The Conservative Nanny State": http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

Doctors immigrate here for the money, and I don't mean from the rewards to be reaped if they make a breaking discovery. Plus, if they immigrated here to the degree that you are talking about, we wouldn't have a doctor shortage. You actually think that "socializing" the health care system will make innovation go down? What bullocks. Our medical breakthroughs are the result of government intervention, and anyone who knows anything about the medical industry knows that. For one, in a free market, intellectual property isn't protected; this is why the free-market doesn't work with research and development. Have you ever heard of this government entity?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health That entity is responsible for our medical breakthroughs, not the ability for drug companies to charge 4-6x what they charge in other countries just because our government allows it while theirs does not; not the ability for doctors to make 2-3x here what they make in other countries. The drug companies' private money mostly goes towards re-inventing some drug they already invented, making it slightly different, getting another government-protected monopoly for another 6-12 years; wash, rinse, repeat. The NIH actually invests money on worthwhile ventures. The reason this is the case is mostly because of the FDA; once they approve a drug, a company isn't going to risk their newfound fortune trying to get a drug approved that's completely different, so they change it a little, and keep the gravy train going. That's why libertarians want to dismantle it. This is of course stupid, and not worth the possible lowered drug costs as many people would die. Read this: http://newledger.com/2009/07/how-medical-breakthroughs-happen-a-response-to-megan-mcardle/ And if you think that author is a leftist, think again: Ben Domenech founded Red State. Of course, New Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman agree with him: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/go-read-jon-cohn/ The link he posts is broken, some can be recovered here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_11/010249.php Of course, there is opposition to this: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA550MedicareDrugPrices.html Then again, this is the same idiot who wrote this: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528137 The guy's a hack. There is one proven method to bring down costs, and it's as I said: SET PRICES. Even the libertarian paradise for health care, Singapore, has to do this to keep prices down. Health care is not an elastic good; people don't "shop around." They get what they can get, and take it right there...emergency care or not. Lastly, I already said, there are more or less two countries with socialized health care, and they're Britain and Sweden. Finland can also be thrown into the mix, they're mostly public hospitals. Everywhere else relies on the private industry to do most of the work. And about the doctor shortage: medical school and college should be free like everywhere else in the world to meet this demand, assuming your grades are in good order. It's worth the investment, and has been proven that more people graduating college results in a huge return on the investment in GDP. Of course, then you'd hear more about "boot straps," "personal responsibility," and "socialism," but hey, people throwing those buzz words around aren't interested in seriously tackling problems in this country; it's just fear mongering to get people to vote against their own interest, lower taxes until the deficit and debt are so high that the deficit hawks start cutting social security and Medicare.

Dude, no one is saying that. This is socialism, but that doesn't mean that you can just go down the gradient of taxation and call everything socialism. There's a line that's being crossed, as blurry as that line is. How is it socialism when it's private insurance companies? Last I heard, there is no government employed health care providers other than the Veterans Affairs hospitals. There's literally ZERO government take over here. How is it socialism? There is no "blurry" line. It either is, or it isn't. It's easy to distinguish. The UK? Socialized health care. Sweden? Socialized health care. The Netherlands? Not socialized health care. Switzerland? Not socialized health care. Were the Republicans of 1994 socialists? Define socialism for me, Reb. You sure as hell couldn't do it before. Taxing is socialism if you define it as "redistributing wealth," even if it's a flat tax. You're close to joining the libertarian morons who call taxation theft. We know how to solve this health care crisis: it's called price setting on procedures, drugs and medical equipment. Maryland has been doing it on just procedures since the 1970's, and look at their costs compared to the US: However, no one, not even the Democratic party, is prepared to take on the hospitals, doctors, big pharma or medical equipment manufacturers. Until that happens, costs will continue to rise. The only reason to support this bill is to establish that health care is a right, and to help 30+ million individuals by 2019.

Replace picture 1 with this:

So any form of progressive taxation is socialism? Actually, let me rephrase that. So any form of taxation is socialism?

AMG GTFO socialism. I feel somewhat guilty for not giving any real comprehensive argument in this thread as of yet, but you're kidding right? Lol yes. I live in a somewhat wealthy town and it's just hilarious to listen to all the conservative kids complaining about how Obama is taking their (parents') money and nobody supports health care anyways. Why is it hilarious? Because the people in this guy's neighborhood are riled up about something they don't know anything about. If that's their definition of socialism, we've been socialist for over 100 years. Besides, effective tax rates show the wealthiest paying smaller percentages of their income than the middle class.

Someone doesn't know anything about the Constitution. This debate ended a long time ago on the grounds of the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses. Our stupid AG and Governor are just ginning up the most radical far-right portions of the Republican party. It won't amount to anything. In fact, Republicans like Chuck Grassley, who railed against this bill as a "death panel," are now bragging about how great it is: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/grassley-look-how-great-this-health-care-bill-is.php?ref=fbfp Same as the stimulus: say how bad it is, water it down, vote against it, then take credit for it. About the health care bill: It's [cabbage], absolute [cabbage]. And despite all of that, I supported its passage. It's better than nothing, and these millions of people need help. It won't address costs really, but that can't happen without single payer, or all-payer. The Netherlands and Switzerland rely on private insurance, but: a. It's not for profit b. It's heavily regulated c. They have an all-payer that sets prices on drugs, procedures and medical equipment Single payer is much better, as it does all of that, plus it brings everyone into the same pool, reducing health costs for most people. Anyway, this health care bill looks almost exactly like the health care bill of 1993/1994 proposed by the Republican Party, but that's not something the cable news networks or radio hosts will be telling anyone. Don't believe me? Look for yourself: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx And here's a nifty chart for comparison's sake: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx This bill is a Republican health care bill, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

And US citizens would have the right to fight back and sue. Here I think we do agree, if a mistake WAS MADE (or is) made the victim of said mistake should be able to sue to the full extent of the law. That's not the point I was making. The government doesn't have these powers, constitutionally. However, if they were found out to be violating it, citizens who were abused, could sue, including terrorists. Why do you think if police find information regarding a murder illegally that it's tainted evidence? It's because of our protections under the law. That's what the Patriot Act takes away.

And US citizens would have the right to fight back and sue.