Member Profile

Total number of comments: 36 (since 2013-11-28 15:36:23)

Ray

Showing comments 36 - 1
Page:

  • 5 Ways Nevada Rancher Militia Resembles Pakistan's Taliban
    • Here is what I don't understand: Homeland Security and the national security state has been built up to unprecedented levels in the last 12 years; however, if, as you say, Bundy and his followers are advocating/threatening violence and terrorism, why aren't they arrested under the Patriot Act? Forget the grazing fees, how about terrorism charges? I have the answer: Bundy and his militia have popular support across the country, even many elected officials are coming to his aid. Interesting comparison.

  • US Press once again Declines to Call White Terrorism in Kansas, Nevada, White Terrorism
  • Top Ten Things Ted Cruz did to the NSA and other Security Agencies that Edward Snowden Couldn't
    • "...his quest to stop the working poor from being able to see a doctor"

      Maybe it's just my part of the country, but Obamacare DOES not make it easier or less expensive for the working poor to see a doctor.

  • Ted Cruz and America's Super-Rich say "Let them eat Cake"
    • The cheapest healthcare/obamacare premium for me and my family is $625 with 40 copay. I checked it this morning. It seems the democrats and insurance companies are also saying, "let them eat cake." I cannot afford Obamacare.

  • Ghoul's Glossary: Shutdown
    • Let's see a Ghoul's glossary definition of "Peace candidate" "Peace prize". Then we can look up "Transparency" while we're at it! oh, "Change" and "Hope" would be great ones as well.

  • I lived to See the Day when the Pope and the President of Iran are more doctrinally Flexible than the GOP
    • Juan Cole is a published author. I can think of three of his books off the top of my head. Also, he has written some fascinating scholarly articles on religion. Don't quit your day job for this trolling gig.

  • Iran's Rouhani: Not Seeking the Bomb, Willing to show Flexibility
    • If the US can oust the PNAC politicians from winning elections, and Iran can show progress and flexibility, and Russia and the US can work together diplomatically, there is a great chance that we can live in a peaceful planet!

  • The Hubris of the Syria Interventionists
    • Most observers say that air strikes on Syria will not produce a regime change. Even the pro-strike folks admit this. Boots on the ground along with strikes will produce a regime change.

      The American people are overwhelmingly against military air strikes and even more against "boots on the ground". The President is lucky that the Syria vote was cancelled in Congress because it became real clear that the votes were not there, even in the Senate.

      Basically what you're saying is President Obama should unilaterally, against the wishes of the international community, congress and the America people, proceed with an uncertain war on Syria.

      Now, let's say the war happened without the Russian cw agreement. You have a situation where the Al-Qaeda factions amongst the rebels could theoretically get their hands on CWs. Not to mention air strikes could inadvertently explode the Cws on civilian populations.

    • You don't have to be an Assad apologist to be against military strikes on Syria. I think that is a simplistic, ad-hominem argument. It is also unfair and simplistic to label everyone who supports a strike on Syria as Al-Qaeda sympathizers or apologists.

      The question is: would a US strike/and or war on the Syrian government end or reduce the bloodshed? If you think it would reduce the violence let's hear your arguments. Looking at recent history of US wars in the middle east I don't think military intervention reduces violence.

  • The World after the Kerry-Lavrov accord on Syria
    • "This is a damning episode that shows Obama can’t handle foreign policy well, that weakens the US’ stature internationally even more than the Iraq and Afghan Wars or drone strikes could have, that really marks a low point for post-Cold War America."

      I'm not one to defend Obama but a unilateral attack on Syria would have devastated the US’ stature internationally.

    • Syria is already saying that they will give up their CWs only when the US stops sending weapons to AlQaeda rebels in Syria. Honestly I don't think Syria will give up their weapons anytime soon. Russia and Syria just stopped a war that had already lost its momentum. And as time goes by I don't think Obama can convince the world and the American people the need for strikes on Syria. President Obama is happy all the same because he got to save face.

  • Top Ten things Americans need to Know about Syria if they're going to Threaten to Bomb It
    • I could be wrong but here is how I see it: If President Obama orders an attack without UN support he is harming the International Law movement, and if he attacks without Congressional approval, he is hurting the movement for Constitution checks and balances. The only group of people benefits from an attack on Syria is the PNAC boys and the movement for an imperial president: Bolton, Kristal, the Bushes, etc.

  • President Obama's Doubtful Grounds for Military Action against Syria
    • Why would he put himself at a disadvantage? Hmm, I don't know, the US is threatening war and if he takes a look at Iraq, Libya and others countries he might want to do whatever it takes to avoid a situation where the most powerful military in human history doesn't pound him into the stone age.

      Also, the rebels are not making that much head way. The rebels are losing badly in Syria and retreating for the most part, which means they had the most to gain by a chem attack.

    • I think a stronger case (but still weak) can be made for military action against the Al-Qaeda groups fighting the Syrian government. The only other thing worse than a secular authoritarian leader is Al-Qaeda taking over Syria and getting its hands on lethal weapons. At least a secular government has some self-interest to do the right thing and a sense of self-preservation; however, the Al-Qaeda extremists amongst the rebels are beheading Christians and killing kids are actively seeking "martyrdom".

  • How US Grand Strategy in Syria led to the idea of Missile Strikes
    • I "love" how John Mccutchen characterizes opposition to war on Syria as "neo-isolationist tea partiers and left wing Democrats". According to this type of attitude, any rational opposition to MORE WAR is from backwater, fringe, marginalized wing nuts.

      I think Mr. Mccutchen should look at the polls on the war issue. More than 80% of the American people in some polls are against the Syria strike/war.

      Well allow me some hyperbole: those who support another war are neo-conservative and neo-libral Project for a New American Century dick Cheney lover.

  • Syrian and Middle Eastern Christians Condemn US Strike Plans
    • Assad keeps Al-Qaeda from beheading the Christians. How selfish of those pesky Christians! They are all in it for themselves. They don't want to lose their head, literally. And, btw, I have immense respect for peaceful Muslims and even the Quran but the only things the Christians can do to satisfy Al-Qaeda is to renounce their faith and convert to their brand of Islam.

  • A US attack on Syria will Prolong the War
    • In my humble opinion, looking at all the wars and military adventures the US has conducted (especially the last 10 years though one should never forget Vietnam ) doing nothing is the best route if minimizing human suffering is the goal. The whole minimizing human suffering is not a US military strong point.

    • Let me get this straight. The NSA violates every American's rights in the name of fighting Al Qaeda; however, if we bomb Syria we are essentially Al Qaeda’s air force. Isn't it an act of terror to support Al Qaeda militarily?

  • Israeli Press on Syria Delay: History will Mock Obama (OSC)
    • What do you think of Jack Goldsmith's (Harvard Law Professor) piece on the proposed Authorization to Use Military Force in Syria which he describes as very broad and could include ground troops. Specifically, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...". It basically gives the President a blank check. It is not a vote to authorize a limited strike on Syria; instead it authorizes the President to use military force against Syria in any manner the President deems necessary and appropriate. Of course, this is expected. Lawyer typically try avoid to avoid specifics and write very broadly so that their client has the maximum amount of freedom to do whatever they want. But I think this lessons the chance the Authorization will pass in congress. Congress doesn't want to sign their name to an open-ended war authorization. I could be wrong.

  • Obama goes to Congress on Syria as his International Support Collapses
    • I'll be interested to see how Rand Paul votes; he does a lot of talking and has a base that is more anti-war than pro-war, but he also vying for the presidency in 2016. I don't think he is as anti-war as some would think. And we all know what the GOP did to his father when he took anti-war stances. Sadly, the GOP and even the Tea Party are, at the end of the day, pro-war and imperialism. Tough guys. Of course, Ran Paul is risking aliening his energetic base if he votes "yes".

  • Rush to Western Strike on Syria slows, but does not Stall
    • According to the constitution, only congress can declare war. If this principle is violated, then why do we even have the constitution anymore? And if bombing another country is not considered an act of war then words no longer have any meaning. If the constitution is dead and words don't have meaning, then how can the government expect to run a civil society? Capricious law.

  • Why US Media will focus on Pope's 'Gay' Remarks but Ignore those on the Poor, Amazon Environment
    • Evangelicals say that lusting after people of the opposite sex is also sinful (outside of marriage), and the Bible says that mere act of looking at a women in a lustful way is adultery in the heart.

      "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. - Matthew 5:27-28

      So evangelicals should conclude “Who am I to judge?” And Jesus said in John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

      And to be quite honest, the Bible does condemn the act of homosexuality. It is easy to bash Christians for their beliefs but that is what their holy book teaches. Just as I don't understand or agree with many of the passages of the Qur'an, that is their holy scripture and it is very dear to their heart.

  • Congress betrays vow to Uphold Constitution, abrogates 4th Amendment; Snowden is Better
    • Egregious to whom?

      Violating the 4th amendment is egregious, too.

      Let me ask you this: Was it egregious for Daniel Ellsberg to leak the Pentagon Papers?

  • How America has Failed African-American Youth, by the Numbers
    • How do we change the culture? Millionaire rap artists singing about poppin' caps in blankers and the lyrics that dehumanize women, etc. Trying to get a job wearing pants around your ankles is also a really bad idea.

  • The Backlash against Political Islam is not a Backlash against Islam: Egypt and Bangladesh
    • How do you divorce Islam from politics? Islam is a religio-political system and Muslims say that Islam informs every aspect of life religion, legal/the law, politics, culture, ect.

  • Sen. Rand Paul: Snowden's 'Civil Disobedience' seeks "to defend the Fourth Amendment"
    • X group is bad. Everything X groups says is therefore bad.

      I think the above attitude is one of the reasons we are in so much trouble as a world.

      I don't agree with Juan Cole half the time, but when he is right he is right and his analysis is valuable.

  • Is LindJohn's notion of an Enemy Combatant Racist? How about attempted Assassination of the Commander in Chief?
    • Here is what I don't understand: Even if you declare him an enemy combatant, he still doesn't have to talk. Unless, of course, McCain and Graham are suggesting that he should be tortured. But even is one is tortured they don't have to talk or they can lie to the torturer. It seems like certain politicians politicize these horrific events. They're are also using it to stop immigration reform, ect.

  • CNN Fail: Imaginary "Dark Males," "Accents," and "Arrests" Haunt Reporters
    • It's sad that both sides want to place blame on a certain skin color. The right wants it to be a Muslim or Arab so that they can further the whole "war on terror" agenda. Some left wingers want the person to be "right and white" so they can demonize the tea party, which has its problems but i dont think they are terrorists.

      "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King

  • Can the Boston Bombings increase our Sympathy for Iraq and Syria, for all such Victims?
    • I hope our government handles this tragedy well. Justice is key but the cynical Machiavellianism philosophy of “You never let a serious crisis go to waste" must be avoided. The American people are tired of war. I sure hope this isn't used as a pretext for more war in the middle east or elsewhere.

  • If Guns were as Regulated as Cars . . . (Poster)
    • Let's take it further.

      License and birth certificate to vote.

      Citizen training to vote.

      Written citizen test to vote.

  • Phoenix, Az.: Climate Change Denial HQ will be First Urban Victim of ... Climate Change (deBuys)
    • I lived in Phoenix the first 18 years of my life. I remember when it hit 122 degrees in 1990. It hasn't been quite that hot since.

  • Gun Murders vs. Terrorism by the Numbers
    • Approximately 10,000 die each year in the United States from drunk driving, which is 100,000 a decade (similar to your firearm stats). The US tried to prohibit the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol in the 1920s. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, it doesn't work for drugs, and it probably wouldn't work for guns either. Banning something does not stop people from possessing something. And in fact some say it makes it worse. If they banned guns in America, guns would pour into the streets from mexico and the black market would create more crime. Sure, law biding citizens wouldn't buy the illegal guns, but criminals would. Those who would use a gun to kill an innocent person would not think twice about a gun law. If they break murder laws why not gun laws?

  • Everything You Always Wanted to Know about US Drone Strikes *but Were Afraid to Ask (Currier)
  • 8,775 Firearm Murders a Year in US, Equiv. of 290 in UK
    • I agree that it is strange and alarming that civilians have semi-automatics; however, many of the people with these types of guns are ex-military, copr or former cops, private government contractors, wealthy people and history channel type gun enthusiasts who like to shot up old cars in the desert.

      Now, my only worry is this: How do we propose gathering up all these military guns? There will be a lot of upset ex-cops. ex-marines, ex government type people.

      And one more thing: regular hand pistols account for the vast majaority of murders and crimes in this county. semi-auto guns are a small percentage.

    • That's because most home invaders are armed with guns and are experienced criminals or at least have no qualms about killing others. But, regardless, I would rather have a fighting chance. Do you suggest just hiding under a bed while waiting 15-20 minutes for the police? It goes badly for most people stranded in the ocean but it does slightly help if you have a life jacket

  • Alex Jones, Gun control, and White Terrorism
    • I do think the Founders believed that an armed populace is necessary to keep government tyranny in check. The bill of rights were written in a certain context (war of independence against a tyrannical government). Their main focus was to potect "natural rights of liberty and property". This is not to say we have to adopt the same mindset as the founder because, after all, most of them also believed in salvery and other bad things.

      I think we delude ourselves when he assert that the 2nd amendment is only about hunting and sports. We have to be truthful. We mock conservatives for saying "Guns are to keep tyrannical governments in check and for self defense against government." However, that is what the founders believed too. We need to challenge the mindset and argbue that times have changed, not rewrite history and claim that thery founder had duck hunting in mind.

Showing comments 36 - 1
Page: