>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.


Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.

Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?

Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.

>> ^BoneyD:

I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".


Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.


I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.


To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.

The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^Let's be honest, you've not put an ounce of thought into 'voting with your wallet'. It's a catchy slogan that you heard someone else say, and now you are regurgitating it here.


In all honesty I've put alot of thought into it, but apparently you haven't even thought about my previous two comments. What's the point in talking about it with you if you state that stopping to buy Foxconn products would prevent you from using computers and the internet altogether? You're either trolling for attention or are completely unable to grasp the very first principle of the idea, which would be to collect information about the company you want to "vote against" and its alternatives.

Go play some more Super Mario Galaxy 2, it'll make you forget all about your fake outrage. Enjoy your Foxconn products and stop worrying about these issues.

P.S. Next time you want to start a discussion don't do it by claiming the other side hasn't put "an ounce of thought" into their idea. It's not only insulting but it'll make people want to ignore you big time.

>> ^ponceleon:

"I imagine you are VERY ANGRY about this?"
"no. not really"
lol... way to try to create outrage!
Damned media, root of all the fake outrage in the world these days.


Noam Chomsky DESTROYS Israel!!!!!!!

"I imagine you are VERY ANGRY about this?"
"no. not really"

lol... way to try to create outrage!

Damned media, root of all the fake outrage in the world these days.

I especially like the references to social security and the fake outrage portion of the video. Has anyone heard of a program in the welfare system where typically single females receiving assistance are required to go to home bound social security patients to help around the house? Things like doing dishes, cleaning up, making sure they take their medications. My parents had a renter recently who claimed she "worked" in the health care field, but the description of her duties sounded amazingly like this program. And then they started noticing 18-25 year old males showing up to her rental house throughout the day and late into the night staying for about 5 minutes tops. So best we can figure is, with these elderly folks these people can steal medications and when the elderly aren't improving they either up the dosage to compensate or switch medications at the doctors office. Leading to a whole other host of problems when the elderly folks don't have someone stealing from their medicine cabinet and their dosages start overpowering them.

It's about the worst possible idea I could think of to have welfare assisted people put in a position where they could steal medications, but Im guessing their back hurt at every other job they tried.

@LarsaruS, without getting too into the weeds, what's happening is that in the Senate you need a 3/5ths majority (60 votes) to pass a motion to end debate and bring a bill to a vote. A filibuster is when people vote against ending debate to prevent legislation from coming to a vote that would otherwise pass.

Reconciliation is a special procedure for introducing budget-oriented bills, and has a built in 20-hour cap on debate, after which the bill automatically proceeds to a vote.

The reason why you can't do everything that way is because of something called the Byrd rule, which limits reconciliation only to things that directly affect the budget -- for example, reconciliation can and has been used to pass tax cuts, or expand existing entitlements, but it can't be for regulatory changes, like individual mandates, a ban on denying people for preexisting conditions, etc.

Of course, there's also an oft discussed end run around that -- the Senate parliamentarian is who judges whether a bill is fit for reconciliation or not, and the majority has the power to fire and replace the parliamentarian...

Basically, long story short, nothing really holds Democrats back except political fallout. At this point, with all the fake outrages being trumped up by the other side, I doubt many would even notice if Democrats did something so mild and defensible as restoring majority rule to the Senate.

It's a little strange, but I suspect it's just something mundane like a technical problem, or depending on what the gap really was (like one file ended, and the next file picked up a minute later), it may have just been cut to save space.

That kind of thing is completely normal, McCain's just a liar who wants to express fake outrage because Democrats are stopping Republicans from using a favorite delay tactic.

In reply to this comment by demon_ix:
Rachel Maddow had a segment on the whole Lieberman-Franken-McCain fiasco you posted: http://videosift.com/video/Rachel-Maddow-Missing-C-SPAN-Video-Of-McCain-s-Objection

That blank spot in the archive footage is very conspicuous, isn't it?

I'm wondering at what point he mentions this on his show directly.

I expect him to play it as being victimized and censored by vicious liberals telling lies, and faking outrage.

Didn't Palin pull this fake outrage shit during the campaign? Meanwhile, she wasted no opportunity to stir up the Brownshirts at her rallies with rhetoric ten times uglier than the supposed insult that Letterman never said or implied.

I've seen smarter things than Palin thrown back over the rail on The Deadliest Catch.

DO NOT QUESTION MY FAKE OUTRAGE OVER THESE BONUSES.

Fake outrage from kleptocrat donkeys, and more targeting of private citizens by the Kenyan bastard's government of statist thugs.

A wonderful lesson from a very simple mind. I wish these small minded thugs would drop the fake outrage routine. They are fine with wire-taps, torture and rules about who can get married to who, but when it comes to Obama they are very sensitive about the constitution.
written by vaporlock

That's what happens when politicians can suddenly respect the Constitution again;)

A wonderful lesson from a very simple mind. I wish these small minded thugs would drop the fake outrage routine. They are fine with wire-taps, torture and rules about who can get married to who, but when it comes to Obama they are very sensitive about the constitution.

Yup - the whole thing smacks of hypocrisy. Fake outrage from a guy that is just upset that some PLUMBER has the gall to go out and prove that the profession of 'journalist' today is nothing but a complete and utter joke. Joe the Plumber. Proving that any blue-collar ignoramous can do the so-called 'work' of being a journalist. All it takes is the ability to string together a sentence. Oh - and a bunch of prejudices and bias that you don't mind trying to pass off as 'news'.