Because a hostage-taker is a verifiable imminent threat, and there is documented evidence of how the police ends it, evidence that is then reviewed for any wrongdoing.

The US government's take on imminent threat and evidence is "we just have to use that magic word 'terrorist', and we can kill anyone: citizens, civilians, women, children -- no problem, man!".

I don't see what the deal is quite honestly. We don't wait for due process if a citizen takes a bunch of hostages or goes on a killing spree. If we see the opportunity to end the threat, we end the threat

If it is reasonable to attempt a capture this american actively working with Al Queda, then cool, but I'm guessing that it isn't a realistic plan so I just don't see what the issue is here.

I think it important to weigh both sides...and it really boils down to:
1) the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran.
2) the US funded attacks that killed a huge percentage of Iran's population.
vs
1) Iranians took an embassy staff hostage.
2) Iranian politicians talk mean about the US.

I think the relative faults are pretty clear.

What is helping with that though is that because the right keeps moving the goalposts, so many people who were once Republicans are now RINOs according to the extremists. Just like this video suggests, Will may be a fictional character, but he's describing exactly what a lot of moderate Republicans are going through right now. The right wing extremists have decided to pursue a personal vendetta against Obama and all the moderates in the party are going "wtf?"

Sorry, but that's the most basic sign of a downfall. when you keep purging your ranks for not having enough ideological purity, you're not exactly planning for long term success.

When all the big historical Republicans heroes like Lincoln, Nixon, and Reagan, and maybe even HW Bush couldn't win a Republican primary in today's climate, you know you're losing touch

I dunno though, speaking more generally however, there's got to be some way of inducing politicians to not play games like this. The whole 10% approval yet 90% incumbancy rate should hopefully shock people into doing something. We've got a bill that passed both houses of congress, signed into law by the president AND upheld by the SCOTUS, and yet a small faction is holding gov't hostage over this.

I don't see how it's even legal to defund something that is law. If it's law, how is it legal to interfere with it like that? If you don't like it, pass a new law repealing it....that should be the only way to stop an existing law (other than Supreme Court of course)

I've heard this numerous times before from conservatives that we need to enforce the laws already on the books....well...ok. Let's do that.

The reasons you listed have nothing to do with how the administration sees things. Rather, how the republicans see things.

And you cannot honestly tell me the republicans have any other reason, other than putting this as an issue for 2014 mid-terms, to want to delay the mandate.

The Forbes article you posted is an opinion article from a right-wing thinktank hack. AEI wants nothing other than destruction of any social safety net this country has. You may as well link to a breitbart or Glenn Beck diatribe.

It's fine if you feel so bad about the veterans not getting to have their gathering. But what about all the head start kids who're locked out of school because of the bagger hostage-taking?

The Democrats have already given two enourmous gifts to republicans.

1- CR at sequestration levels
2- The Paul Ryan Budget

There is absolutely no way in hell that our economy needs to suffer more.

The baggers need to be destroyed. Period.

I despise the two party system, but one side, (or to be more specific, one subfaction of one side) is demonstrably more harmful than the other.

I'm all in favor of abolishing parties in this nation, this "but they're equally bad" argument is bull.

Government was actually designed that way though, sure we don't like shutdowns (but then again, here's the problem, some people DO want the gov't to be shut down so that corporations can run everything) but government WAS designed to be slow and not easy to change laws. It has the side benefit of being very resistant to tyranny since it requires so many people and multiple branches to agree

It's one thing to not like how government works, but its quite another to be willing to shutdown gov't over ONE piece of legislation that has the support of the people and the branches of gov't. It's quite another to have a faction completely and utterly oppose the president purely on the basis of the color of his skin.

The big tent GOP is being left behind and that tent is getting smaller and smaller. Gerrymandered districts are pretty much the only reason they are still retaining control. And typically when a company isn't doing so hot, they tend to not actually change tactics, but they do change their name so people with short memories get fooled, so then they called themselves the Tea Party, well that's not working out so well since again, they haven't really changed at all, so now they're rebranding themselves again and calling themselves Libertarians, but it's the same bullshit, just a different name.

No one ever said the ACA is perfect...no one. It was a compromise, What the public WANTED was single payer, but this was the compromise. You want to tweak it? change it? improve it? I'd agree with getting rid of all the exceptions people of talked about,

but you don't threaten to shutdown the gov't over it. especially when you've already failed to repeal it 40+ times in the past. Shutting down the gov't and waging message warfare trying to blame it on the president when it's 100% a congress issue is deranged behavior and basically counts on people being stupid enough to not know how the gov't works (like @lantern53) to believe the message.

People are dumb, but they're not quite THAT stupid, most people do know that it's the Tea Party holding the gov't hostage and not the President. This little stunt is really not helping their chances in the next election so in a weird way, I'm glad they're doing this because it just hastens them getting kicked out in 2014

Anecdotally speaking, a lot of my coworkers are conservatives and every single one of them is saying "fuck the Tea Party"

I see @lantern53 has no idea how gov't works. You see bobknight33, err I mean lantern53, There are three branches of government. Only one of them can create laws.

After much compromise, congress passed a law called the ACA. The President agreed and signed it into Law. It was ALSO upheld by the Supreme Court. So you see, ALL THREE branches of gov't are OK with this law.

Now this faction in the House of Representatives are trying to pass a law that says "sure, we'll fund gov't...but only if you de-fund or repeal the ACA. That's not governing, that's called taking a hostage. The senate isn't going to agree, so there's deadlock. See, the president isn't even involved.

He would ONLY get involved if both housed agreed with this, but guess what, even if congress agreed with the Tea Party, The President has this pesky little thing called a veto, which sends it back to Congress and they need a whopping 2/3rds majority vote to override him.

sorry, ain't going to happen. But hey, I'm happy that I could give you some remedial education since you refused to pay attention in class.

So in actuality, The Tea Party can keep having their little temper tantrum, They're all but digging their graves in the next election.

The US is literally being held hostage by a fringe group of ignorant, stupid, little shits called the Tea Party. The time to be civil and rational is long gone. These morons don't understand logic or history.

oh special ed Bob. your ignorance is showing again.

If a company reduces the hours of an employee just to get out of paying insurance. That's on the company, dumbass. That is the company being a dick for purely political reasons.

It's the classic "don't come any closer or I'll shoot your wife" scenario. It's not the husband's fault if he comes closer and the criminal shoots the wife. It's still the criminal's fault.

it's called holding a hostage. Even republicans have used this term to describe what they're doing.

News flash, you lost. Americans are ok with Obamacare. We settled this in 2012. Obama directly ran against a candidate who was directly against the plan that he himself created.

Dealwithit.jpg

Like @Grimm said, these fellas did not just profit from a flaw in the system. They spent vast amounts of time and money lobbying for changes to the system, changes which made these exploits possible in the first place. Exploits that in most cases are still in violation of the law over here, but the oversight was starved out to a point of non-existence or simply handed over to entities they should be monitoring in the first place.

As a result, the City of London in particular accumulated enough economical leverage to hold the entire country hostage, knowing full well how a sweep of the City would lead to catastrophic ripples not only through the UK and Europe, but the entire bloody world. So now they can do whatever they please without fear of repercussions as seen in the case of HSBC.

This selective application of the law breeds contempt for the law, particularly if compared to the poor who get hammered for the slightest inconsistency in their paperwork. Too big to fail undermines the free market, but too big to jail undermines the basic rule of law.

Even in the very few cases that were prosecuted, only the institution was penalised, never any high level individual. Some of those responsible need to be held accountable, otherwise the riots in Tottenham will look like child's play compared to what will happen the next time these idiots drive the entire economy to the brink of collapse.

By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to end up in jail for the rigging of Libor or ISDAfix.

@ChaosEngine, I'm a big Moore fan, too. He's pretty great, isn't he? Curious what you thought of the Watchmen movie. And if you watched the Ultimate Cut or not. Now on to the more unpleasant stuff...


You wrote: "The problems I'd like to see addressed are what happens when this idyllic utopia breaks down. What happens in the absence of a leviathan when someone robs or steals from you using force? How is that righted? What happens when a crime is perpetrated and there is no single victim, but the act is still damaging? Pollution, for instance."

First off, I'm not sure small "l" libertarianism creates a utopia, idyllic or otherwise, It makes very little promises in that area, because the pragmatic argument is: freedom is dangerous. And libertarianism doesn't seek to create a perfect socially engineered society. It knows human problems are messy and complex, and there's no way to solve them from a monolithic, and often clumsy, top-down approach.

As for redressable damages (wrongs being righted), well, most small "l" libertarians still believe in civil courts and even administrative roles for government, believe it or not. Even Moore thought the government would work best in an administrative role, and he was a bonafide anarchist. This video is about the more extreme anarchist perspective of voluntaryism, which is a political philosophy of non-aggression, and couldn't be leapt into overnight. So, if someone pollutes your air, you have a grievance even in a libertarian society.


You wrote: "The biggest gang was chosen by it's people. And if they start acting like dicks, then we choose another gang. Now whether one gang is as bad as the previous one is another debate..."

Really? I could argue that the two party system holds our electorate system hostage, but let's just assume that's not true. Bush ran on a platform in 2001 that completely contradicted his policies while in office. So has Obama.


You wrote: "It actually describes a potential problem with anarchy, but it doesn't say how the problem would be solved..."

Right. Because anarchist aren't utopians. And small "l" libertarians don't want to replace a bad socially engineered political system with a new socially engineered political system. They really just want to leave it up to the people.

They'll also lock you out of access to every single game in your library if there's a billing issue with just one of your games. Rather than lock just the disputed game, they take your entire library hostage. My brother had it happen to him and he couldn't play any of his games for something like 6 weeks. Steam's side of the story was that my brother's credit card disputed a charge, but when he contacted his CC company they said they did no such thing, which is true, because he owned and had played the game for 3 weeks prior to the account lock, so the charge went through fine at time of purchase, obviously. In the end it was a fuck-up by Steam, and they never offered so much as a "oops, sorry."

If that is the context then the person on whom the cops were called could simply let the cops in, verify that no one is in danger, and then request the cops investigate the asshole who is calling the cops on false pretenses. It is after all a criminal offense to make a false call. However, when you refuse entry in what could be an emergency because you want to stand on principle, you are asking the cops to act in a fashion of utmost precaution and kick your door down to make sure that there is not a women locked in your basement that you and your wife are keeping hostage. The cops had probable cause and no judge in the country would argue that seeing this video. The officers where very clear as to why they were demanding entry.

Crazy. Fighting against a gun and a hostage? A bit dangerous/risky!

Your ideals, his politics, WTF? What you are saying is that you chose an extreme example (like this news organization did) as your offering, inserting through the filter of your experiences in your society as described, what? You obviously have no desire to see anyone with guns, or any society in which this could possibly happen, and you'd be interested in selling a wondrous adjustment or replacement based upon what? Your personal experiences and world view?? Your own country's model for how to get along?? It's sounds just as pontificous any passionate nut job, right left or center.

Now focus on some lobbies wanting to make money, describe their motivations using crude imagery to make what point ??(knowing fuck-all about the gun lobbies in the U.S. I'd hasten to guess you are pulling shit out of your own ass??)?

A point everyone seems to miss is lost in endless banter over this gun issue in a country whose real problems dwarf how many and what type of boomsticks people have.

The people who control policy, who have worked hard to bankrupt this country and rape her human resources, drug them, offer them more laws to create an illusion of safety and fairness? Fuck you.

Problem isn't guns, mine or yours, or the ones you poor fucks in countries who have decided for you that guns are bad for you. The problem is that the world is full of the most part, of ineffectual, programmable, inept automotons when it comes to exercising their rights under natural laws, AS evidenced for me, in the up-voting of grinter's little passionate episode here...

My country is full of broken people, desperate people, seasoned with an inordinate amount of total fuck-ups, and I have to watch the shit in slow-motion while it gets even more fun...with guns, with a political system totally fucking retarded holding her citizens an economic hostage to special interests dwarfing any gun lobby's.

Is YOUR country broken grinter, or have you decided that you are satisfied with elected officials. we don;t have elected officials anymore. We have criminals.

WORLDWIDE, we're headed for a radical democracy or some comfortable, tolerable, illusory freedoms under a Nuevo-Fascist Global Cuntfest at this point.
Fuuuuck! Get a clue!? all I have to do is watch how utterly retarded these hearings are(kangaroo-court-style) to gauge the breakdown of this motherfucker...