quote:

---

Originally posted by ObamaiskillingAmerica:
It seems like the majority of people have become so dumbed-down and so gullible, that Obama could announce ANYTHING and it seems like people would believe it...

---

Seems to me you are talking about Fox viewers rather than Obama supporters. Fox viewers are the ones with the totally distorted view of reality. Numerous polls and studies have shown this distortion.

Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced", but while they support EVERY major name on the right (Republicans, Conservatives, Tea Partiers, even lunatics) they have virtually no voices from the middle or the left to challenge the Fox ideological pronouncements.

But the lunatic right will believe anything rather than believe a very smart, very capable and personable black man is legally President of the USA. And their feelings poison everything Conservative. So much so that I am embarrassed to admit I am Conservative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ObamaiskillingAmerica:
Not only is it such a lie that the guy was even killed, how does it even make a difference?!

---

You claim to be factual, but have no facts to support the assertion that Obama is lying. Your just making up another tea-party conspiracy. And Bin Laden brought to Justice makes a huge difference to those of us who experienced personal pain as a result of the 9/11 carnage. You weren't here, and were probably much too young to know the horror that man unleashed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ObamaiskillingAmerica:
Barak Obama is trying to use this propaganda to distract the American people from FOCUSING ON THE REAL ISSUES

---

Again you are being anything but factual. Obama is dealing with real issues. The economy, foreign affairs, balancing the budget problems with the needs and legal rights of the citizenry. It is the Republicans who are trying everything possible to hide agendas while focusing on anything but the real issues. At the state level, killing unions; not to balance budgets but to enrich corporations and the rich (who contribute heavily to Republicans). At the Federal level, tax cuts for the rich while killing NPR and Planned Parenthood. Where are the Republican jobs bills? Even Paul Ryan's budget doesn't balance the budget. Instead, it privatizes social programs (meaning they will cost much more and deliver much less) so that rich corporations can get richer. It forces low and middle class individuals to pay much more in the future. It does nothing to control health care costs, the biggest impending budget problem. And under the Ryan plan the government savings don't pay down the Federal deficit; instead they further lower taxes on the rich and on the biggest corporations (many of whom already pay no Federal Income Taxes!).

quote:

---

Originally posted by ObamaiskillingAmerica:
#1 HOW HE HAS CIMINALLY LED THIS NATION INTO WARS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS THAT DEMAND THAT CONGRESS MUST APPROVE ANY COMMITMENT TO WAR?

---

Already answered this - we haven't formally declared war in almost 70 years, but we sure manage to get involved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ObamaiskillingAmerica:
#2 THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OBAMA HAS LET HIS FRIENDS ON WALL STREET STEEL!

---

The proper word is "steal", and where is your proof? You are great at spouting accusations, but accusations, especially those from the lunatic right conspiracy machine, are not facts. Most of Wall Street hates Obama. Obama's "loans" to Wall Street were all documented, and were (or are) required to be paid back, in full, with interest, before corporate execs could get their bonuses. Compare that with George Bush's $1 trillion TARP plan, where we still don't know where the money went, and where we have NO expectations of getting most of it back. Way to go Republicans - deregulate us into horrible financial messes without any clue of how to get out and with virtually no accountability (because there was no functional regulation).

quote:

---

Originally posted by ObamaiskillingAmerica:
#3 THE HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

---

The major bill (Obama-care) hasn't even made it to the Supreme Court. What kool-aid have you been drinking?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ObamaiskillingAmerica:
#4 OBAMA'S SNEAK ATTACKS ON THE 1ST AND 2ND AMMENDMENT.

---

Again, nothing but propaganda from a bunch of paranoid, racist, wackos. George Bush trashed most of the Bill of Rights, but that was okay with your ilk, because he was a "Good Old Boy" and he was the same color as you. Obama has backed off of the Orwellian paranoia that enveloped Bush and Chaney. He has done nothing to infringe 2nd Amendment Rights. And remember that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. The Supreme Court, in affirming the 2nd Amendment, associated limits and responsibilities with that right. But you have to actually read the court proceedings rather than NRA fodder to understand that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ObamaiskillingAmerica:
#5 THE LEGISLATION PASSED TO SELL THE WATER FROM OUR GREAT LAKES TO CHINA.

---

Where do you get this crap? I lived on the banks of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. If someone wants to pay for that water, SELL IT! On a more serious note, Poland Spring bottles water from Maine, and makes a big profit from it. I though profit was allowed by Conservatives. If not, I guess I need a new guide book. And given how much stuff we buy from China, its about time we sell them something back.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ObamaiskillingAmerica:
THE LIST GOES ON AND ONE. OBAMA IS A PUPPET FOR THE GLOBALIST BANKERS WHO ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE ECONOMY OF THIS NATION BY CUTTING OFF OUR ENERGY SUPPLY BY LIMITING THE USE OF COAL POWER AND DRIVING UP THE COST OF OIL THROUGH THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR CURRENCY.

---

You do know that Magic is a game and not reality, right? You can burn all the coal you want so long as you clean up my acid-rain lakes and pay for my respiratory problems from being downwind of all the pollution you spew.

The problems with the US economy are complex. But the primary reasons this economy is in trouble with deficits are:
1. because the rich, and rich corporations, are gaming the system so that they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes. When you include social security payments as a "tax", you find that Federal tax payments (the percentages people actually pay) go down as a percentage of income for the truly rich relative to the upper middle class. You also find that total Corporate taxes (not the listed 30% or 35% maximum rate, but the actual paid rate, is the lowest it has been in 80 years, despite all-time record corporate profits).
2. Speculation has superseded investment across almost all equity classes, and speculation requires deregulation. All the big players, like hedge funds and Wall Street bankers, speculate to make their money. No one "invests" in the US any more, which is why job growth is so difficult. You can thank Republican deregulation of the last decade for this problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
You make a good point, although you're waaaay off the mark over who would visit. A bin laden grave would be a physical symbol for al qaeda to rally and recruit around (much as he was in life). Muslims would probably travel to his grave as well...in order to throw their shoes on his corpse in disgust. The overwhelming reaction of the international muslim community has been "I can't believe they paid any attention to muslim traditions in disposing the body; he was a monster who did not deserve to be a member of our faith". At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, the vast majority of muslims view bin laden and al qaeda with the same disgust and shame that the vast majority of germans view hitler and the nazis.

---

I disagree. It would be incredibly stupid for al qaeda operatives to visit a bin laden grave as it would most likely be under cia surveilance and they'd quickly be assassinated. Only muslim sympathizers would visit of which there are many. There wouldn't be such a problem with fundamentalists if the majority of muslims condemned them and did something about it. The fact is many sympathize with them and are against western ideas and a free Israel and are a huge part of the problem. Why do you think European countries are banning burka's and minarets? I doubt it has anything to do with an imminent threat from al qaeda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
1. because the rich, and rich corporations, are gaming the system so that they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes. When you include social security payments as a "tax", you find that Federal tax payments (the percentages people actually pay) go down as a percentage of income for the truly rich relative to the upper middle class. You also find that total Corporate taxes (not the listed 30% or 35% maximum rate, but the actual paid rate, is the lowest it has been in 80 years, despite all-time record corporate profits).

---

The politics of trying to drop off his body anywhere that is friendly with us within that time frame would have been extremely complicated. I'm pretty certain his family in Saudi Arabia would not have wanted it, even if the Saudi government allowed it (which is quite doubtful). I can promise we would never have given it to the Taliban, or to interests in Yemen, Somalia, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrew777:
I disagree. It would be incredibly stupid for al qaeda operatives to visit a bin laden grave as it would most likely be under cia surveilance and they'd quickly be assassinated. Only muslim sympathizers would visit of which there are many. There wouldn't be such a problem with fundamentalists if the majority of muslims condemned them and did something about it. The fact is many sympathize with them and are against western ideas and a free Israel and are a huge part of the problem.

---

You're lucky obamaiskillingamerica makes you look tame by comparison, but again you are asserting things with no proof. "The fact is?" No, the fact is nothing until you back up your declarations. Burden of proof is on you, buddy.

quote:

---

Why do you think European countries are banning burka's and minarets? I doubt it has anything to do with an imminent threat from al qaeda.

---

Hmm, haven't you answered your own question? The banning of the burqa and hijab I understand, because it's a religious statement that has unfortunate associations with repression of women. But banning minarets? Well gee, if they can't even manage to wrap themselves in the flag as an excuse then I guess that's just out-and-out intolerance then.

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrew777:
Why blame everything on the rich? The poor don't even pay taxes. They give nothing but receive everything. They actually receive much more from the system than the rich do. I blame them. The problem is welfare, healthcare and all this other nonsense. What we need is a Margaret Thatcher style poll tax where everyone pays a flate rate (say $10,000). Can't afford it? No problem you just won't get any government benefits. Its not like you can't join the army and make a career out of that. That is the only fair option. Not demonizing and overtaxing the only hard-working people in the country. The ones who actually keep the economy running.

---

You can't simplify the problem that much. And remember that in the UK health care is a non-isssue, since everyone gets it for free (at half the per-person cost to the government, and equal or better quality, as in the US!).

Welfare is an urban legend. The program is minimal, and the "average" welfare recipient is a white mother with children who has been abandoned or widowed by her husband.

Numerous studies have shown that all but the truly poor pay government taxes. The average total tax burden on a family of 4 making $40,000 (not much above the poverty level) is ~40% and is increasing. The average for someone making $1,000,000 is ~ 40%, and is decreasing.

The poor pay more in hidden fees, while the rich pay more in Federal Income Tax. For example, the $40,000 family will rent, paying 30% of their income ($1,000/month), with a third to a half that amount (or 10% to 15% of income) paying real estate taxes. They also pay 12.4% of income into social security. (note: they pay half, and their employer pays half on their behalf. Most economists consider both payments as taxes paid by the employee, since they are both a cost of employment - in other words, a matter of bookkeeping). None of these tax payments can be used towards itemized deductions.

In contrast, the millionaire pays an average of less than $25,000, or ~ 2.5% of income in real estate taxes annually on the house he owns (with all his mortgage interest and all his real estate taxes qualifying as itemized deductions, meaning the government subsidizes him to the tune of 35% of these expenses). Since social security payments are capped at ~ $110,000 income, the millionaire effectively pays ~1.3%. And if the millionaire owns the house being rented by the poor family, he can use depreciation to actually show a loss on the property, further reducing his Federal taxes, while actually making money on the rental.

From another perspective, just look at where Federal Revenues come from. Corporate Taxes, which were once the biggest single source of revenue, now constitute less than 15% of the total. Corporations have found too many ways to avoid taxes. This is not surprising, since the have the best lobbyists and can pay politicians the most. How do companies like Exxon and GE manage to make tens of billions yet pay no Federal Income Taxes? It is now more than some accounting game that deferred taxes for a year or two.

And look at how much money the government takes in for Medicare and Social Security. It now represents as much, if not more, as the total amount of personal income taxes paid. For Social Security, if I make $110,000 in a year I pay as much in as does Bill Gates or each of the Koch Brothers.

But the Republicans forget that Social Security contributions are a legally mandated tax. So they argue that the rich are unfairly taxed. Its a totally disingenuous argument. If you look at "actual" personal tax rates, and if you include social security payments you will find that the upper middle class (those making ~$75,000 to $125,000 annually, usually as W-2 income) pay much higher rates on actual income than do the truly rich.

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrew777:
Why blame everything on the rich? The poor don't even pay taxes. They give nothing but receive everything. They actually receive much more from the system than the rich do. I blame them. The problem is welfare, healthcare and all this other nonsense. What we need is a Margaret Thatcher style poll tax where everyone pays a flate rate (say $10,000). Can't afford it? No problem you just won't get any government benefits. Its not like you can't join the army and make a career out of that. That is the only fair option. Not demonizing and overtaxing the only hard-working people in the country. The ones who actually keep the economy running.

---

Your ideology is so overwhelming it's staggering. You've been suckered into voting against your own best interests, and what's mindblowing is you think that's how it's supposed to be. You think the wealthy folk whose asses you're so desperately kissing give a damn about you? Not a chance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Your ideology is so overwhelming it's staggering. You've been suckered into voting against your own best interests, and what's mindblowing is you think that's how it's supposed to be. You think the wealthy folk whose asses you're so desperately kissing give a damn about you? Not a chance.

---

You really are crazy. I don't listen to Glen Beck or the tea party. To me they are as crazy as you and your radical liberal friends. The only difference is that they have morals and are less dangerous than you radicals are.

1. andrew 777 is it just me or are you and obamaiskillingamerica the same person? maybe he is just ur other user name you use when ****ed off.

2. i am not going to lie about keeping up with politics, where i did not even vote last election i did not want any of them. but obama does seem to be doing a much better job and heck he can survive salted pretzels.

3. i do find the timing of osama's death to be kinda good for obama but i am not one to question it, it does flag a warning in my head but we shall see.

4.Trump for president, hmm can he just reach into his Vault and end our nations debt? if so then elect him for goodnessake, if not then okay. it seems to me our nation's debt would be a drop in the bucket for him.

5. normally politices is the one feild i shay away from as i usally do not care as much. i was in the navy but i got out just before 9-11 and i was very happy i did. i did not believe in this war, the reasons for going in and messing up their country while ours falls worse and worse did not seem right to me, i believe we should clean our own house before we try to clean theirs.

6. this is actually the first non-mgic commit i am going to do, it may be the last. to the guy thats said osama died in g3 to infect i agree but it was mostly cause of his misplaying and trying to pyroclam a phyrexian crusader.

7. another commit to obamaiskillingamerica, every president in the past century atleast has been the same. america beggs to get him in offce to replace the last idiot and then calls the new guy an idiot and begs the next person into office. up until they get into office they are fine but once the power is in their hands we (americans in general) blame them for everything going wrong. being president of over a billion people is hard enough without most of those people getting mad at every single decision you make, you left the toliet seat down, thousands of people now hate you. Sheesh

sadly i cannot think of anymore to say so i will let it be and let you guys fire away the comments, i tried hard to not offend anyone if i did i am sorry i just wanted to use my freedom of speech and say what was on my mind. PEACE.

p.s oh yeh that health bill thing i hope it does not get passes as i do not like forced health care but thats another issue for another time.

__________________
welcome to the wonderful world of card-board crack, please sit down and prepare to get mana-screwed.

things i am working on with friends
http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/Luminosity

http://www.squidoo.com/mmmm-knowledge-bookstore

http://myworld.ebay.com/unixarcade/

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrew777:
You really are crazy. I don't listen to Glen Beck or the tea party. To me they are as crazy as you and your radical liberal friends. The only difference is that they have morals and are less dangerous than you radicals are.

I also don't vote since I don't believe in democracy. If I were to vote, I would vote based on my principles. I know thats hard for someone like you to understand since you just sell your vote to the highest bidder. Whomever will offer you more is who you will vote for. You completely disregard all the damages they will cause to other innocent people as long as you get something in return. You then justify it as being democratic because it is what the majority wanted. Guess what. Hitler was democratically elected too.

---

You are sick in the head if you think I am in any way "radical". Do you know me? Have I justified ANYTHING ever with "well it was a majority"? Do I vote for more more more for myself? Am I below the poverty line? Do I plan on raiding welfare for all my life? The answer to every single question is no.

Keep strawmanning me into the nonexistent far left radical who dwells in your fantasies, I guess that's the only route left for someone who isn't smart enough to debate with facts like an adult.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
You've been suckered into voting against your own best interests,

---

Don't start being vague and throwing out your usual nonsense about me not knowing you or not stating hard facts. You write nonsense without backing it up constantly so I'm not going to sit here and back up everything I write or the assumptions I make.

Also from the above quote I am going to assume you vote for what is in your best interest. You don't care about principles (if you even have any). I have no respect for people who do this and don't actually care to debate. I will state my opinion because I want to, but thats it. I don't care about arguing with you. I also realize it won't get anywhere. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours so stop getting your panties in a bunch.

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrew777:
Currently WE are moving towards a govt that will take care of and even to exert unnecessary control over its citizens. This is unacceptable.

---

"We"? You don't vote, so there is no "we". Unless you're too young or too sick to vote, you vote. If you don't vote because you don't want to you don't get to bitch about this country's problems, the politicians that we elect, or the stuff they do and don't do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
"We"? You don't vote, so there is no "we". Unless you're too young or too sick to vote, you vote. If you don't vote because you don't want to you don't get to bitch about this country's problems, the politicians that we elect, or the stuff they do and don't do.

It's simple. Vote or stfu.

---

For once, I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you skizzik.

as a citizen of this country, you and your rights will be protected by our government. In return you participate in the electoral process, pay taxes, and serve jury duty. That's the social contract.

I really don't care at all about this event, but I do have one outstanding question: was this man's murder legal (by American or international) standards? I haven't read up on it (because it's largely irrelevant, and we have our own worries up north now), so it's a genuine question. Were all rules of engagement and so on respected?

EDIT: If you want to read some reflections on the topic, there are a number of links (and some discussion) here.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
...so what? (As Bugger and others have said).

I really don't care at all about this event, but I do have one outstanding question: was this man's murder legal (by American or international) standards? I haven't read up on it (because it's largely irrelevant, and we have our own worries up north now), so it's a genuine question. Were all rules of engagement and so on respected?

EDIT: If you want to read some reflections on the topic, there are a number of links (and some discussion) here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
Are you asking this question from an aspect of International Law? Or perhaps delving into an existential debate on ethics? And are you asking specifically about Bin Laden, or an individual, regardless of how heinous his actions, in general?

---

I'm asking specifically about Bin Laden's killing, and how it relates to both American and International law. And I'm asking because I don't know, not because I want to motivate one point or another.

If we were talking ethics, I'd be much more well-placed to comment, even though it's not my area of specialization.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
...so what? (As Bugger and others have said).

I really don't care at all about this event, but I do have one outstanding question: was this man's murder legal (by American or international) standards? I haven't read up on it (because it's largely irrelevant, and we have our own worries up north now), so it's a genuine question. Were all rules of engagement and so on respected?

---

Ummm hate to be a cynic or something like that....but it doesn't matter at all because nobody will ever think to bring up the legality of it that is in a position to do something about it. Its a legal grey area...as is everything in the war on terrorism because nothing is really concretely legally defined.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Ummm hate to be a cynic or something like that....but it doesn't matter at all because nobody will ever think to bring up the legality of it that is in a position to do something about it. Its a legal grey area...as is everything in the war on terrorism because nothing is really concretely legally defined.

---

Like I said, it's not a question motivated by anything other than curiosity. If it is a grey area (or straight up black), however, then it's a point upon which Americans should probably be reflecting.

So yeah, again, I'm just asking: how does the event hold up against what's supposed to be legal protocol at different levels? I have zero law background, so I don't quite know where to begin looking.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by paragondave:
just read Thanos'

Trump demands Bin Laden's death certificate.

LMAO!

and then there's Skwirlnutz calling the kettle black....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.C:
You know what's funny? The human rights groups speaking out and saying the action violated international law. Excuse me, what? Who the **** cares about international law when you're going after the world's most wanted terrorist?

Some people...

---

Due process is a cornerstone of Western (and American) society. People care because when we abandon our values when times are tough, it shows that we don't hold them too strongly. Thousands have been tortured and wrongly imprisoned in Guantanamo, Bagram, and other 'black spots' in the name of capturing this man and others like him: they deserve the rights guaranteed them by law, but they haven't got them. These violations (or pseudo-violations, in some cases) are extremely important, and matter a great deal to those wrongfully imprisoned and tortured, as well as to the US's international standing, relations, and reputation. It's not enough to have your heart in the right place when your actions are absolutely vile: ends, meet means, means, ends.

People don't care because they're concerned for Bin Laden; they care because they're concerned for the US.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

Bin Laden was the subject of world-wide warrants, which were valid. We have known, formal agreements with Pakistan which would have allowed extradition. Obviously these would have required that we let Pakistan handle the pickup and initial incarceration. And with the strong likelihood that Bin Laden had influential protectors within Pakistan's ruling class, the logistics of using this type of capture would have been problematic at best.

We also have "secret" agreements that allow us to bypass the normal rules, conditions and limitations of sovereignty where Pakistan is concerned. They are a product of the schizophrenic relationship we have with Pakistan, and are the basis for our ability to operate drone strikes and other military incursions along the Afghanistan Border. They allow Pakistan to formally claim ignorance at what we are doing even as they (apparently) condone the results. These secret agreements may have allowed us to do what we did. Unfortunately, only a few Americans and a few Pakistani Leaders know the specifics of these agreements.

From a practical perspective, if we violated a law, then it was a Pakistani Law. So only the Pakistani government can promote a claim against us. If they don't, then the presumption needs to be that we didn't violate a law. If they do file a claim against us (perhaps at the UN or the International Law Court in Belgium) then each specific allegation can be contested.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
International Law gets murky when you are dealing with stateless "terrorists" as opposed to a "terrorist state" or a formal enemy. The situation is further complicated given that nations rarely have formal war declarations. Unfortunately we don't have the necessary information to determine if the Bin Laden affair is "legal".

Bin Laden was the subject of world-wide warrants, which were valid. We have known, formal agreements with Pakistan which would have allowed extradition. Obviously these would have required that we let Pakistan handle the pickup and initial incarceration. And with the strong likelihood that Bin Laden had influential protectors within Pakistan's ruling class, the logistics of using this type of capture would have been problematic at best.

We also have "secret" agreements that allow us to bypass the normal rules, conditions and limitations of sovereignty where Pakistan is concerned. They are a product of the schizophrenic relationship we have with Pakistan, and are the basis for our ability to operate drone strikes and other military incursions along the Afghanistan Border. They allow Pakistan to formally claim ignorance at what we are doing even as they (apparently) condone the results. These secret agreements may have allowed us to do what we did. Unfortunately, only a few Americans and a few Pakistani Leaders know the specifics of these agreements.

From a practical perspective, if we violated a law, then it was a Pakistani Law. So only the Pakistani government can promote a claim against us. If they don't, then the presumption needs to be that we didn't violate a law. If they do file a claim against us (perhaps at the UN or the International Law Court in Belgium) then each specific allegation can be contested.

Any outside groups that attempt to promote legal challenges against the US over the Bin Laden situation are likely doing it for the publicity, as they would have a very tough time proving they have any kind of standing relative to the individuals or the incident itself.

---