|
Okay Michelle Obama, show what your worth! Will you stand up and fight for millions of women who are being ravaged by misogyny? Or will you be petulant and weak, just like your husband?
|
|
|
|
You're so full of bs
Where are the damages in not issuing a parking ticket......where are the damages that warrant a parking ticket....there have to be damages for a crime to be committed correct......
You believe there are no damages when the rule of law isn't followed....duly noted
There aren't any, which is why I don't attempt to sue my meter maid for not issuing one. Generally speaking one can express damages in dollar or utility terms for a wide variety of crimes: including illegal parking or driving. |
|
|
|
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions? So in your eyes the president is above the law? I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car? The president breaking the law is frivolous? And btw, it's not against the law for a meter aid to not ticket. Where in the law was the text that allowed the president to extend the deadlines? You still haven't expressed damages in any way shape or form. Feel free to at any time. It's telling that your only capable of responding to my initial question by making up stances for me to believe in. What's telling is that Obama, a lawyer, fought for and passed a law and then thought nothing of breaking it, and you're ok with it. You don't need damages, just mandamus or an injunction. Exactly, but that also isn't really aimed at punishing the president that's just forcing him to hurt other people through the fines; not the best PR stunt for conservative politicians. Really, what's the end goal in seeking a mandamus? Hurting others in an attempt to make people dislike the Affordable Care Act more? Seems like a pretty petty thing to do for the purpose of attempting to score political capital. if someone believes obamacare is shit (and there's plenty of reason to) then getting more people to see that it's shit and also not like it is pretty smart. It takes an exceptionally shitty person to enjoy accumulating political capital at the malicious expense of the people they are supposed to represent. Motives matter, and what I have been asking you for here is a motive outside of the child-like belief that occasionally being lenient and not following the letter of the law (through punitive action) regardless of the situation is always terrible. Or more likely: outside of the malicious desire to gain points no matter who it hurts. The latter is also rather dumb as it could easily backfire. |
|
|
|
|
I should also point out I think it will be very chaotic if the infighting in the House of Saud starts while Obama is still in power. Perhaps it's bias, but I don't think he has a game plan to take advantage of events to edge towards an outcome most beneficial to the US. No one could guarantee one, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
You're seeming to want to conflate uncontrollable circumstance with allowing situations to develop. I wasn't particularly saying that the US would do everything in it's power to keep any dictator in control, because the individual dictators are of little consequence. One of the differences in Egypt was disinterest in supporting Mubarak even a little, and not trying to push another dictator in behind. Unless you're indicating that Obama structured the Muslim Brotherhood to fail so that another military dictator could waltz in a year or so later in a coup with American support.
If I believed that, I would gain a lot of respect for Obama's Machiavellian-ism, although maybe not his ethics.
|
|
|
|
In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.
Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway. Before I go any further, I don't recall you talking about Sudan and Reagan...what was your point there? Because as you know, Sudan was at most a pawn in issues relating to Ethiopia. And the Leadership in Ethiopia making close connections with the Soviet Union. If you're talking about Reagan possibly picking winners and losers in a peripheral fight in Ethiopia, then that isn't exactly the same as letting hand picked dictators fall. I mentioned Sudan under Reagan which I mentioned the last time we discussed Egypt, because it is located in the same geo-political region, and was part of our triple alliance between the US - Egypt -and Sudan. I reference the Nimeiry Administration which was probably the most pro-US administration to ever exist in the Sudan, and one that fell to populist protests / demands for democracy while Reagan was in office (the military intervened to form a transitional government much like Egypt's military did). Despite how heavily we relied on Sudan to check Gaddafi's growing influence in Chad and his moves in eastern Libya (Sudan is a historical and current weapons smuggling route to both the Middle East and North Africa) the US has to and did, under Reagan pay homage to a more democratic process even though it left us with a leader who was much more adverse to the Untied States, not to mention the subsequent toppling of that administration by Bashir in 1989 (a coup which took place under HW Bush). President Obama pretty much followed the same standard course with Egypt, only we've maintained better working relations with the end result (Sisi's government) than we managed to with the end result in Sudan (though we still do share intelligence there). I also think that saying that we "let him fall" rather suggests that we had more control over the issue than we actually did. It would be like saying that Reagan "Let Nimeiry fall" when I think it would be more appropriate to simply say that we rolled with what was largely happening on the ground and defaulted during unstable times to our general talking points which favor democratic reform. We saw the same process under HW Bush in Africa starting in 1989 and especially in the early 1990s with the fall of many of Africa's notorious big men (even those that had been aligned with us during the Cold War). Kaunda fell in 1991, Siad Barre also in 1991, etc Under Clinton Hastings Banda fell in 1994, Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, etc. Under Bush W: Pervez Musharraf fell in 2008. Well, the Reagan/Sudan thing is not as one dimensional as you seem to be saying. This isn't particularly an area I'm overly familiar with, but saying the Nimeiry admin was "the most pro American" is a bit disingenuous. He came to power as a pro socialist/pro pan Arabist, neither of which was particularly pro American foreign policy. He did become somewhat of an American ally, but when he started with the Sharia law thing, he essentially caused a civil war that he couldn't be protected from. |
|
|
|
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions? So in your eyes the president is above the law? I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car? The president breaking the law is frivolous? And btw, it's not against the law for a meter aid to not ticket. Where in the law was the text that allowed the president to extend the deadlines? You still haven't expressed damages in any way shape or form. Feel free to at any time. It's telling that your only capable of responding to my initial question by making up stances for me to believe in. What's telling is that Obama, a lawyer, fought for and passed a law and then thought nothing of breaking it, and you're ok with it. You don't need damages, just mandamus or an injunction. Exactly, but that also isn't really aimed at punishing the president that's just forcing him to hurt other people through the fines; not the best PR stunt for conservative politicians. Really, what's the end goal in seeking a mandamus? Hurting others in an attempt to make people dislike the Affordable Care Act more? Seems like a pretty petty thing to do for the purpose of attempting to score political capital. |
|
|
|
In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.
Probably the largest venue in which we let ideology get in the way of "good business" has been with China and its human rights record, but even there he has been much more vocal about things like Chinese theft, Chinese cyber attacks, and in Asian sea disputes which has strained relations anyway. Before I go any further, I don't recall you talking about Sudan and Reagan...what was your point there? Because as you know, Sudan was at most a pawn in issues relating to Ethiopia. And the Leadership in Ethiopia making close connections with the Soviet Union. If you're talking about Reagan possibly picking winners and losers in a peripheral fight in Ethiopia, then that isn't exactly the same as letting hand picked dictators fall. |
|
|
|
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions? So in your eyes the president is above the law? I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car? The president breaking the law is frivolous? And btw, it's not against the law for a meter aid to not ticket. Where in the law was the text that allowed the president to extend the deadlines? You still haven't expressed damages in any way shape or form. Feel free to at any time. It's telling that your only capable of responding to my initial question by making up stances for me to believe in. |
|
|
|
|
In Egypt, he allowed the dictator previously supported to fall. This is specific to Egypt, and has caused some issues, none of which are terribly important to the US at this time. Other presidents have done different things in different countries because it probably made sense at the time, in that particular place. Letting dictators fall is rare, even though it has been done when the dictator tried to bite the hand etc. I'm not familiar with any hand biting in Egypt.
|
|
|
|
|
The general policy of injecting instability into countries, and either publicly or privately assisting tough dictators hold on to power. And inserting them into power in some cases. I'm not speaking of public policy, but rather the pragmatic side of it.
|
|
|
|
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
Are you suggesting that Obama can make a law that includes dates, ignore the dates (which means ignoring the law), and there should be no repercussions? So in your eyes the president is above the law? I'm asking for a motive to bring it to court that isn't frivolous. Would you attempt to sue a meter maid for not ticketing your car? |
|
|
|
|
he does not have a point. he wanted the employer mandate delayed. but now that obama delayed it, he is suing. obama is an imperial president but im not interested in wasting tax payer dollars in a bullshit lawsuit. these turds are about to go on recess and boehner pulls this lawsuit gem deep out of his asshole. i don't think he thought it through that far.
|
|
|
|
|
..Oil field service companies are hiring just about anything that is breathing and can pass a piss test in the Dakotas, Texas, and to a smaller extent, Pennsylvania. Only problem is that the work is outside, it's hard, nasty, dirty, and physically demanding work.......The hours are long, days off few and far between, and the work goes on, rain or shine, heat or cold......Most people in this country simply are net willing to work that hard or long......
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Bitty VS Uncle Sam FIGHT!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Still some hard to prove infos but a state like Russia would not compromise itself by presenting false or modified evidences. What Ukraine is doing on the other hand is stupidity and desperation.... ps: and about that shot in the leg.... they did it before..... way worse than ud believe... they bombed their own troops a couple of times since this crap is on. the rebels werent any better either tbh , they also colided in very unpleasant ways to say so.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgS7-b3FLn8So is Russia saying a Ukrainian fighter jet shot down Flight MH17? In the fog of war, it's hard to tell. A thorough investigation should hopefully straighten all of this out. However, having said all that, a Ukrainian fighter jet and a Ukrainian military transport were both shot down by surface-to-air missiles fired by pro-Russian separatists. It seems more likely that the third plane, MH17, was also shot down by a surface-to-air missile fired by pro-Russian separatists. Let's not get silly here. US surveillance watched exactly what happened. There is really no doubt it was shot down by a surface to air missile, and the area it was launched from was observed also. And to say that Russia wouldn't compromise themselves, perhaps you need to read a little history. |
|
|
|
Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.
The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them. When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective. If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq. Lol "I didn't know that Assad supported AQI, so it must be propaganda despite the fact that the intelligence industry has a lot of data on it and have reported on it for years." Look, you were wrong about Syria, no big deal. No need to try to justify not knowing, you don't specialize in this stuff so who cares? There is no proof Assad supported AQ. AQ was hostile to Assad why would he ever support them. I'm still not convinced. No one is. Stop being a apologetic for every aspect of US foreign policy. Next thing you'll tell me is that we invaded Iraq because it had WMDs and I'm supposed to believe the obvious propaganda |
|
|
|
|
Should it stay or should it go? It is little more than thinly disguised corporate welfare.
|
|
|
|
Saudi Arabia turned pretty hard against radical Islamist funding in 2003 after they were attacked by such groups. The Al Sauds purged over 2000 of their preachers after that and really cracked down on a lot of its official funding programs. Of course, there are still a lot of Saudi elements that have deep support for Salafi movements so funding still seeps out and Saudi policy is inconsistent in terms of how heavily it cracks down on that based on what is going on internally at the time. The 2009 flooding for example caused such uproar against the Al Sauds that they gave religious sects more freedom and control. It is a back and forth game with Saudi Arabia.
The Gulf states have long supported extremist Syrian rebels and Iraqi terrorism. Only recently have the Saudis changed their strategy, when ISIS actually became an existential threat to them. When you say 'major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East', that's a pretty weak statement that doesn't quantify or put anything into perspective. If Assad supported AQ (which is probably based on flimsy propaganda since Assad is considered 'evil' by the US), then by the same logic, not only did the US support terrorism, but it funded it with training and weapons, which now spilled over into Iraq and has undone most of the 'progress' the US has made Iraq. |
|
|
|
It's worth remembering that, unlike the Iraqi government that we actually toppled, the Assad Regime that became embattled in a domestic conflict against its own people actually was a widespread supporter of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, it was probably one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East if you don't count Saudi religious missionary spending. I've been a bit surprised at how nostalgic some people have seem to become for the good old days of enemy dictatorship past. Source on Assad supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq? It wouldn't make sense for him to do so. Reality check: The Saudis\Wahhabis (US allies) have been the highest source of terror\suicide bombings in Iraq since the US invasion. Lets not try to spin too much here. Syria has long been a major state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Iran Is a pretty large supporter of external militant and terrorist organizations as well in both central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. The other large one was Libya under Gaddafi. The role that many Gulf States like Qatar, the U.A.E. etc play tends to be different than Iran, and Syria. Saudi Arabia was a mix of the two strategies. A lot of money for terrorism is funneled through non-state actors in the Gulf. So the U.A.E. was a big staging point for funds for Al Qaeda Central, and a lot of Gulf Charities can redirect funds to terrorism organizations as well as individual financiers. Syria's role has been reported for years by the Combating Terrorism Center, IHS Janes, The Institute for the Study of War, the Jamestown Foundation's Terrorism Monitor, SITE intelligence, and the Long War Journal. It isn't really a secret or unknown aspect of the Assad regime's past state sponsoring of terrorism. We've also conducted several raids against AQI stationed in Syria long before the current civil war. Even now though Assad still funnels money to the ISIS in exchange for oil (as reported by the Terrorism Monitor of the Jamestown Foundation) even as they fight each other. I'd be happy to find more detailed sources for you when I have more time later, but here is one small article from the Long War Journal detailing one incident: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...an_officia.phpIsrael's stake in the situation plays a bigger role in US decision making. A weak Syria gives Israel a stronger position in occupying the Golan Heights. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
