The BigAss 2nd term thread

[KevinNYC]

Bin Laden's Son in Law is in a jail in NYC.

This guy is going to be in a federal court about a mile from where I work.

I might try to go over there, if I can find out when it scheduled for.

[reppy]

I don't think it has to be everyone who agrees on it to be centrist position.

You do bring up good points though and part of the problem is left-right doesn't really capture all the dimensions of politics. Nazis and Communists believe in the murder of their political enemies while Republicans and Democrats generally do not. So how do you rate them? by their acceptance of political murder or their support of nationalism? or their support of social programs.

I like the 4 quadrant system that is used on sites like politicalcompass.org

Left/right doesn't really capture everything.

[KevinNYC]

The last word had a good bit on Sen. Paul's paranoia
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/n...rd/vp/51092205

I think my favorite bit was that the government was going to kill you if had more than 7 days of food in your house. Yes. he said that.

He actually made John McCain and Lindsay Graham look wise yesterday.

[kNicKz]

It's more so the government having the ability to attack it's own citizens at anytime is the real reason.

Luckily for our sake, power has never been abused in the history of mankind

[KevinNYC]

Also in the last two week, two of three biggest Obama political strategist have quit the administration and joined MSNBC.

[Patrick Chewing]

Also in the last two week, two of three biggest Obama political strategist have quit the administration and joined MSNBC.

So they got promoted then

[KevinNYC]

So they got promoted then

That's pretty good.

You also wonder who they will favor in a Biden-Clinton race in 2016

[sunsfan1357]

Elizabeth Warren continues to push for bankers to get jail time for money laundering.

"If you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to jail. If it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life," an exasperated Warren said, as she wrapped up her questioning. "But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night - every single individual associated with this - and I just think that's fundamentally wrong."

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id...&sid=77&cid=77

[KevinNYC]

Rand Paul said this on twitter yesterday

The President is advocating a drone strike program in America.

It's pretty clearly false and Politifact ruled it false.

We asked the White House for its response to Paul’s assertion that the president was "advocating a drone strike program in America."

"On the record, that claim is false," said Caitlin Hayden, spokesperson for the National Security Council...............


We reviewed earlier Brennan speeches — such as the one in which he acknowledged the government’s overseas drone program — as well as speeches and news briefings by Obama and his press secretaries Robert Gibbs and Jay Carney.

We found nothing to indicate the administration was "advocating" domestic drone strikes. The most direct statements we saw from the administration on the idea of domestic drone strikes came from Brennan’s nomination testimony and Holder’s letters.

....
We also asked eight experts in drone-strike policy and law whether they thought Paul was correct that the Obama administration was "advocating a drone strike program in America." None of them did.

[Rose]

Rose, there's a fallacy at the heart of what you said. Think about the above and see if you can recognize it. I think this fallacy clouds a lot of the discussion on drones.

I referred to the government as it?

Whether or not a president ever uses drones on Americans is one thing. The fact that they think the constitution allows them to is another. Generally speaking I'll defend the democrats more than the republicans. But this is terrible, and one of the times I'm glad someone is talking about it even if it is Rand. Hell even if it may be an attempt to squash stories about the effects of the sequester. I didn't like it when we did it to so called terrorists either, for the exact same reasons.

[Ne 1]

Rand Paul said this on twitter yesterday

It's pretty clearly false and Politifact ruled it false.

First Response from Eric Holder:

[DonDadda59]

The economy adds c. 240K jobs and the unemployment rate drops to its lowest level since December of '08:

[INDENT]US economy adds 236,000 jobs in February; jobless rate falls to 7.7 pct., lowest in 4 years

By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, March 8, 11:43 AM

WASHINGTON

[Rose]

I think the Times (or maybe the washington post) had an article a few weeks ago about how if we kept getting positive jobs reports that eventually the money companies have been saving might be spent on new jobs. I hope so.

[KevinNYC]

I referred to the government as it?
.

I wanted to make a new thread just to discuss drone stuff, but I'm super busy at work these days and I know I won't get around to it. However this is the the fallacy I was referring to

It's more so the government having the ability to attack it's own citizens at anytime is the real reason.

The fallacy is acting like this is new.
Lawyers often simplify an argument to principles to clarify the issues at stake and you can do this with drones. What, in principle separates from a drone from a crossbow? The government already possessed the ability to attack its own citizens at anytime for decades before drones etc. Drones are just the ability to kill at a distance. The government already possess a lot of ways to kill at a distance. Pistols, Rifles, tanks, artillery, B-29's, cruise missiles etc. Drones are simply a new technology. Illegitimate use of drones is not all that different from the illegitimate use of a crossbow

So the question becomes why hasn't the government done this and the answer is still pretty much we are government of laws and not men. And it's illegal to use force except in certain circumstance. The government can't just go ahead and kill you whether by drone or by crossbow. This was true before Rand Paul's filibuster and it's true now. Paul portrayed Holder's answer to him as some sort of policy shift and that's just not true. He simply asked a different, more direct question. A cop on the beat has the right to use force to prevent an attack. So does the President. In Holder's first letter to Paul, it's quite, quite obvious that the two examples he cites, the Pearl Harbor Attacks and the 9/11 attacks are examples of COMBAT against the United States. Paul tried to portray it as Holder being evasive, when the truth was Paul asked a very tendentious question and then pretended not to understand the answer. Holder also made it very clear, that there would need to be a reason that law enforcement or the regular military couldn't act.

As for Paul raising this issues, you make want to look into Senator Wyden. He has a way of addressing the civil liberty issues without implying the government is going bomb you while you sleep or sit in a cafe.

I liked Charlie Pierce's 5 Minute Rule for Ron or Rand Paul. For the first 5 minutes what they are saying is perfectly sensible, then at 5:01 the train goes off the tracks straight to crazytown. Rand Paul kept coming up with examples where the person could be easily apprehended by law enforcement, like when they are sleeping in their bed or sitting in a cafe.

[KevinNYC]

Also Paul Ryan has introduced his new budget. I don't know if this is the official Republican budge yet. But his critics say it's more of the same thing we saw from him before.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3920
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...mflam-forever/

If the Republicans do get behind this, you can simply ignore all that talk about changing the party and reaching out to voters. Here's where their money, not their mouth is.