Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Remember that story about the IRS commissioner signing in for 157 visits to the White House in Obama's first term? Yeah, just kidding it was actually 11   (theatlantic.com) divider line 298
    More: Followup, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, President Obama, White House, IRS, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Douglas Shulman, situation room, Easter Egg Roll  
•       •       •

2382 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 May 2013 at 1:07 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



298 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-31 12:36:17 PM  
Indeed, of the 157 events Shulman was cleared to attend, White House records only provide time of arrival information -- confirming that he actually went to them -- for 11 events over the 2009-2012 period, and time of departure information for only six appointments.

Oh my god. Oh my god, do you know what this means. Shulman is still in the White House! HE'S STILL IN THE WHITE HOUSE. GET OUT, GET OUT NOW
 
2013-05-31 12:43:54 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Indeed, of the 157 events Shulman was cleared to attend, White House records only provide time of arrival information -- confirming that he actually went to them -- for 11 events over the 2009-2012 period, and time of departure information for only six appointments.

Oh my god. Oh my god, do you know what this means. Shulman is still in the White House! HE'S STILL IN THE WHITE HOUSE. GET OUT, GET OUT NOW


You know, that was exactly what I thought when I read that part. What if he's got his own living quarters in there? He could just be living there full time working on the scandal, and those six departures are the only times he's ever left the place! We're not just through the looking glass, we've shattered it.
 
2013-05-31 12:48:21 PM  
On Thursday, Andrew Sullivan wrote: "I'd be grateful for reader scrutiny of this data -- simply because I do not trust the source, and there may be context I'm missing. But if the Caller is right that in the Bush years, 'Shulman's predecessor Mark Everson only visited the White House once during four years of service in the George W. Bush administration,' we need an explanation -- and fast."

I'm getting really tired of Andrew Sullivan.

So here is some more context: There is no Bush Administration public-records data about who went to the White House. As incomplete as it is, the Obama White House data is more public information than we have about any other administration, or the visits of any other IRS commissioner.

Most transparent administration ever! Oh, wait.

Investor's Business Daily accused Shulman of having scurried "to the West Wing more than 100 times" in the piece "IRS Chief's 118 White House Visits Must Be Explained." But the publicly available data shows that the assertion of more than 100 West Wing visits is plainly wrong.

I'm sure IBD, Fox, Daily Caller, et al, will be offering retractions promptly.
 
2013-05-31 12:50:38 PM  

Car_Ramrod: On Thursday, Andrew Sullivan wrote: "I'd be grateful for reader scrutiny of this data -- simply because I do not trust the source, and there may be context I'm missing. But if the Caller is right that in the Bush years, 'Shulman's predecessor Mark Everson only visited the White House once during four years of service in the George W. Bush administration,' we need an explanation -- and fast."

I'm getting really tired of Andrew Sullivan.

So here is some more context: There is no Bush Administration public-records data about who went to the White House. As incomplete as it is, the Obama White House data is more public information than we have about any other administration, or the visits of any other IRS commissioner.

Most transparent administration ever! Oh, wait.

Investor's Business Daily accused Shulman of having scurried "to the West Wing more than 100 times" in the piece "IRS Chief's 118 White House Visits Must Be Explained." But the publicly available data shows that the assertion of more than 100 West Wing visits is plainly wrong.

I'm sure IBD, Fox, Daily Caller, et al, will be offering retractions promptly.


The breakdown of points with some witty banter thrown in? We're done here, right everyone?
 
2013-05-31 12:58:21 PM  
11, 118, 157, what does it matter? Why was this guy talking to his boss in the first place?
 
2013-05-31 01:09:17 PM  
"Indeed, of the 157 events Shulman was cleared to attend, White House records only provide time of arrival information -- confirming that he actually went to them -- for 11 events over the 2009-2012 period, and time of departure information for only six appointments."

He spent 5 nights in the Lincoln Bedroom as payment for his dastardly political witchhunt!!
 
2013-05-31 01:11:55 PM  
Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.
 
2013-05-31 01:12:45 PM  
He's still Hitler though, right?
 
2013-05-31 01:13:02 PM  
So basically Atlantic has no more idea than anyone else does and is just spewing liberal talking points to help cover up another Obama administration scandal.
 
2013-05-31 01:13:07 PM  
Was there another spreadsheet error?
 
2013-05-31 01:13:14 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.


"Conservative propagandists have, once again, been caught lying their asses off for the bazillionth time! THIS IS BAD NEWS FOR OBAMA!"
 
2013-05-31 01:13:19 PM  

Hetfield: He's still Hitler though, right?


Ten Hitlers and a Stalin to be named later.
 
2013-05-31 01:14:53 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.


randomjsa: So basically Atlantic has no more idea than anyone else does and is just spewing liberal talking points to help cover up another Obama administration scandal.


Y'all are adorable.
 
2013-05-31 01:14:54 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.


Watching Johnny Popcorn show off his stupidity is also as entertaining as watching paint dry.
 
2013-05-31 01:17:37 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.


You are as accurate here as you are about hockey.
 
2013-05-31 01:18:26 PM  
hmm looks like a lot of people need to apologize and or kill themselves
 
2013-05-31 01:19:59 PM  
1157, you mean, AMIRITE??/

Shulman is obviously one of Fartbama's many, many gay lovers, which also includes every single person who voted for him, because they're all sucking on his dick, AMIRITE???.?/

Hetfield: He's still Hitler though, right?


GAY Hitler, AMIRITE????/?????;//
 
2013-05-31 01:20:11 PM  
I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?
 
2013-05-31 01:20:23 PM  

Jackson Herring: hmm looks like a lot of people need to apologize and or kill themselves


Well, yeah, but we're discussing a visitor log.
 
2013-05-31 01:20:30 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.


This, right here, is why I rarely come on this site any more. I don't know if you're trolling or retarded or what but there is nothing to your post whatsoever. The president is doing just fine, The Big Bang Theory is in no way entertaining and you just waste everyone's time reading your half-baked brain farts based on nothing remotely factual.

And I don't want you to think I'm singling you out. The number of posts that come from people who obviously have the brain capacity and attention span of a fruit fly are multiplying daily.
 
2013-05-31 01:20:34 PM  
This can't be true because chain e-mails never lie.
 
2013-05-31 01:20:52 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Indeed, of the 157 events Shulman was cleared to attend, White House records only provide time of arrival information -- confirming that he actually went to them -- for 11 events over the 2009-2012 period, and time of departure information for only six appointments.

Oh my god. Oh my god, do you know what this means. Shulman is still in the White House! HE'S STILL IN THE WHITE HOUSE. GET OUT, GET OUT NOW


No, this clearly means that he and his clone army of 4 are still there, lurking. Its far worse than you can imagine.
 
2013-05-31 01:20:58 PM  
Lying sacks of shiat? In my repub Party? Unpossible!
 
2013-05-31 01:23:10 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: 1157, you mean, AMIRITE??/

Shulman is obviously one of Fartbama's many, many gay lovers, which also includes every single person who voted for him, because they're all sucking on his dick, AMIRITE???.?/

Hetfield: He's still Hitler though, right?

GAY Hitler, AMIRITE????/?????;//


more like fartler

if you know what I mean
 
2013-05-31 01:23:24 PM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-05-31 01:23:30 PM  
www.positivepins.com
 
2013-05-31 01:23:53 PM  
I heard he was there over 9000 times. WHY 0BAMA WHY
 
2013-05-31 01:24:01 PM  
Remember, the idea here is to create an atmosphere of scandal. Each scandal point is less important than the impression of "where there's smoke there's fire." Not that you don't have to knock this nonsense down. But there is never any end to it, once the right gets it into their heads that they can completely cripple a president.

Everyone thinks trumped up scandals work against the right, but even if they lose in the short term it feeds their long term project. It's such a beautiful scam. They are the greatest practitioners of that which they claim to loathe but the more they demonstrate their own dishonesty and decadence, the more they convince the general public of their central thesis that government is unresponsive to the people's needs, too big and essentially corrupt. Link
 
2013-05-31 01:24:19 PM  

max_pooper: Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.

Watching Johnny Popcorn show off his stupidity is also as entertaining as watching paint dry.


You should have seen him in the hockey threads. His mommy didn't give him enough attention or all those participation trophies got lost in the last move.
 
2013-05-31 01:27:28 PM  

2wolves: max_pooper: Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.

Watching Johnny Popcorn show off his stupidity is also as entertaining as watching paint dry.

You should have seen him in the hockey threads. His mommy didn't give him enough attention or all those participation trophies got lost in the last move.


His name is Popcorn Johnny... Popcorn Johnny. Almost as bad as people to respond to LeTrole
 
2013-05-31 01:28:30 PM  

BafflerMeal:


I like the Fox News corrections but they need to have a correction for the corrections: John Quincy Adams was the 6th president, his father John Adams was the 2nd.
 
2013-05-31 01:29:41 PM  
Subby. No it wasn't just 11
Re-read tfa
 
2013-05-31 01:29:57 PM  

studs up: I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?


It's almost as if you didn't read the article and just started asking questions.
 
2013-05-31 01:29:59 PM  

skullkrusher: 2wolves: max_pooper: Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.

Watching Johnny Popcorn show off his stupidity is also as entertaining as watching paint dry.

You should have seen him in the hockey threads. His mommy didn't give him enough attention or all those participation trophies got lost in the last move.

His name is Popcorn Johnny... Popcorn Johnny. Almost as bad as people to respond to LeTrole


Eh.  "Johnny Popcorn" rolls more trippingly off the tongue.
 
2013-05-31 01:30:26 PM  

studs up: I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?


So before it really meant something and now IT REALLY MEANS SOMETHING!111
 
2013-05-31 01:30:30 PM  

max_pooper: BafflerMeal:

I like the Fox News corrections but they need to have a correction for the corrections: John Quincy Adams was the 6th president, his father John Adams was the 2nd.


ah yes, John Quincy Adams the founding toddler
 
2013-05-31 01:30:35 PM  

studs up: I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?


FTA:

He was cleared 40 times to meet with Obama's director of the Office of Health Reform, and a further 80 times for thebiweekly health reform deputies meetings and others set up by aides involved with the health-care law implementation efforts. That's 76 percent of his planned White House visits just there, before you even add in all the meetings with Office of Management and Budget personnel also involved in health reform.

The vast majority of Shulman's scheduled meetings were to take place in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building -- 115 of them. Another three were slated for the NEOB. That leaves just 25 percent of the meetings in the White House itself, or on its South Lawn.


One of the points of the article is that we can't know for sure how many times he was at the White House COMPLEX, which includes non-White House buildings. But a conclusion we can draw from the given information, is that a wide majority of the visits he was scheduled for were with people involved in Obamacare implementation. Which is what you were told yesterday. So, there's that.

Oh, and most of the scheduled meetings weren't even in the White House itself.
 
2013-05-31 01:31:00 PM  
Solyndra'd right in the Benghazi.
 
2013-05-31 01:31:19 PM  

mediaho: This, right here, is why I rarely come on this site any more. I don't know if you're trolling or retarded or what but there is nothing to your post whatsoever. The president is doing just fine, The Big Bang Theory is in no way entertaining and you just waste everyone's time reading your half-baked brain farts based on nothing remotely factual.

And I don't want you to think I'm singling you out. The number of posts that come from people who obviously have the brain capacity and attention span of a fruit fly are multiplying daily.


WELL said.  Thread over
 
2013-05-31 01:31:38 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: skullkrusher: 2wolves: max_pooper: Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.

Watching Johnny Popcorn show off his stupidity is also as entertaining as watching paint dry.

You should have seen him in the hockey threads. His mommy didn't give him enough attention or all those participation trophies got lost in the last move.

His name is Popcorn Johnny... Popcorn Johnny. Almost as bad as people to respond to LeTrole

Eh.  "Johnny Popcorn" rolls more trippingly off the tongue.


He's no Johnny Bravo, that's for sure
 
2013-05-31 01:32:17 PM  
Republicans will have tolie in order to push their failed ideologies and narrative.
 
2013-05-31 01:32:39 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.


img37.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-31 01:33:38 PM  

Car_Ramrod: I'm sure IBD, Fox, Daily Caller, et al, will be offering retractions promptly.



...not to mention Farkers who were enraged about this the other day. Like the guy whose username refers to a three-toed tree-dwelling mammal or a deadly sin, for example.
 
2013-05-31 01:35:49 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Subby. No it wasn't just 11
Re-read tfa


So according to you having clearance to meet and NOT actually meeting is counted as "meeting"
 
2013-05-31 01:36:07 PM  
The only person who visited the White House more than him was Obama's coke dealer!
 
2013-05-31 01:36:10 PM  

simplicimus: 11, 118, 157, what does it matter? Why was this guy talking to his boss in the first place?


There's an extent to which he shouldn't be.  My personal opinion is that auditors should technically be part of the judicial system, since they are making assessments about guilt and liability, but I don't think you'd get much support for more "activist judges" from the republicans.
 
2013-05-31 01:44:07 PM  

simplicimus: 11, 118, 157, what does it matter? Why was this guy talking to his boss in the first place?


You must work at a dysfunctional shiathole of a business.
 
2013-05-31 01:44:34 PM  

ikanreed: simplicimus: 11, 118, 157, what does it matter? Why was this guy talking to his boss in the first place?

There's an extent to which he shouldn't be.  My personal opinion is that auditors should technically be part of the judicial system, since they are making assessments about guilt and liability, but I don't think you'd get much support for more "activist judges" from the republicans.


So prosecutors should be part of the judicial system too? That makes no sense. Should the FDA who verify the rules also be part of the judicial system. You seem not to get how our judicial system/government works.
 
2013-05-31 01:45:13 PM  

regindyn: simplicimus: 11, 118, 157, what does it matter? Why was this guy talking to his boss in the first place?

You must work at a dysfunctional shiathole of a business.


You must not understand sarcasm.
 
2013-05-31 01:45:54 PM  

vernonFL: The only person who visited the White House more than him was Obama's coke dealer!


There is no evidence Treyvon Martin was anywhere near the White House.  Pretty sure those deals went down at Camp David.
 
2013-05-31 01:45:57 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.


Annnd, *plonk*.
Farking trolltards.

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-31 01:46:41 PM  
Damn guys, I'm sorry, didn't mean to rustle some Jimmies. I like Obama, but you have to admit, there's some very questionable shiat going on in his administration.
 
2013-05-31 01:47:06 PM  
What, is 0bummer too good to meet with his IRS honcho from time to time? Could only clear his busy schedule of golf and Hawaiian vacations eleven times in all these years? Who's driving this boat, anyway? Who's minding the henhouse?(Oh, that's right - eggs and chicken are food, so that's MooChelle's department.) Damned uppity layabout can't be bothered to do a damned thing except put his feet up on the that desk and ruin everything forever.
 
2013-05-31 01:47:16 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining.


obama's approval rating since the "scandals" broke: up
the GOP's approval rating since the "scandals" broke: down

yup, sounds like crashing and burning to me...
 
2013-05-31 01:48:16 PM  

Car_Ramrod: studs up: I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?

FTA:

He was cleared 40 times to meet with Obama's director of the Office of Health Reform, and a further 80 times for thebiweekly health reform deputies meetings and others set up by aides involved with the health-care law implementation efforts. That's 76 percent of his planned White House visits just there, before you even add in all the meetings with Office of Management and Budget personnel also involved in health reform.

The vast majority of Shulman's scheduled meetings were to take place in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building -- 115 of them. Another three were slated for the NEOB. That leaves just 25 percent of the meetings in the White House itself, or on its South Lawn.

One of the points of the article is that we can't know for sure how many times he was at the White House COMPLEX, which includes non-White House buildings. But a conclusion we can draw from the given information, is that a wide majority of the visits he was scheduled for were with people involved in Obamacare implementation. Which is what you were told yesterday. So, there's that.

Oh, and most of the scheduled meetings weren't even in the White House itself.


Yeah, I got all that. But, the terms bolded are not saying anything at all. Cleared, slated, "were to" don't really mean anything. Did anybody answer how many Obamacare meeting were held by anyone with the IRS in this time frame? I'm hoping a lot, but, I'm not seeing a definitive (or even reasonably close) number.
 
2013-05-31 01:48:37 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Damn guys, I'm sorry, didn't mean to rustle some Jimmies. I like Obama, but you have to admit, there's some very questionable shiat going on in his administration.


Can you give details instead of just vague allegations?

And if you like Obama why do you call the "scandals" "entertaining"?
 
2013-05-31 01:50:14 PM  

FlashHarry: obama's approval rating since the "scandals" broke: up


Why would you lie about something that was so easy to fact check.
 
2013-05-31 01:50:45 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: I heard he was there over 9000 times. WHY 0BAMA WHY


And they were all raping children.
 
2013-05-31 01:51:26 PM  

skullkrusher:

His name is Popcorn Johnny... Popcorn Johnny. Almost as bad as people to respond to LeTrole

There ARE no trolls here, didn't you know that?

Just people with a difference of opinion.


*ahem*




i865.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-31 01:51:53 PM  
Obama only has to meet the guy once to use his slick, Chicago, political power to order the guy to illegally audit the taxes of millions of Right-wing patriots, right?  Right?

There are no number of meetings the Republicans will accept as the responsible number of meetings a Democrat president should have with the I.R.S. commissioner.  1, 10, 100, it doesn't matter.  It's not about the number, it's that whatever the Democrat did was wrong, and he should be investigated and impeached for it.  And, no, Democrats have not behaved the same way when the president was a Republican.
 
2013-05-31 01:52:40 PM  

studs up: I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?


11 is still 11 times more than the IRS commish visited Bush.
 
2013-05-31 01:52:44 PM  
So he was in the White House more that Obamma??
 
2013-05-31 01:53:41 PM  
When this story first came out and I heard it reported on NPR and based on their coverage I was thinking, that's pretty farked up going after your political opponents like that, I hope that it is delt with in a way that makes this kind of stuff more difficult. Now after a couple weeks of right wing spin it has become just another communist muslim kenyan usurper witch hunt. So even if you think something bad happened pushing for something to be done now just makes it a win for republican derpers and nothing more. So fark em, sorry.
 
2013-05-31 01:54:58 PM  

Maud Dib: skullkrusher:

His name is Popcorn Johnny... Popcorn Johnny. Almost as bad as people to respond to LeTrole

There ARE no trolls here, didn't you know that?Just people with a difference of opinion.
*ahem*


[i865.photobucket.com image 519x224]


Since when is Fark concerned with the nuances of reality?
 
2013-05-31 01:55:51 PM  

Maud Dib: skullkrusher:

His name is Popcorn Johnny... Popcorn Johnny. Almost as bad as people to respond to LeTrole

There ARE no trolls here, didn't you know that?Just people with a difference of opinion.
*ahem*


[i865.photobucket.com image 519x224]


a little from column A and a little from column B
 
2013-05-31 01:56:28 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Damn guys, I'm sorry, didn't mean to rustle some Jimmies. I like Obama, but you have to admit, there's some very questionable shiat going on in his administration.


You're too young to have lived through Nixon, Iran-Contra, the Iran hostage crisis, the 1972 Munich massacre, and so much more, aren't you?

If you honestly think this, or any of the other trumped up scandals the conservatives have vomited up in the last four + years is 'questionable', I suggest you stay inside, lock the doors and cower in fear until your mama comes home.
 
2013-05-31 01:56:44 PM  

karmaceutical: So he was in the White House more that Obamma??


You either need to stop taking drugs or take drugs, I can't tell which.
 
2013-05-31 01:56:48 PM  

randomjsa: So basically Atlantic has no more idea than anyone else does and is just spewing liberal talking points to help cover up another Obama administration scandal.


Nobody really knows how many times the IRS commissioner visited the White House based on the gate records, therefore Obama directly ordered him to audit your taxes.
 
2013-05-31 01:57:40 PM  
And what would have happened if Obama meet him a small amount of times?

"OMG Obama is never meeting these people he has no idea what is going on!!! He is just an empty suit!!"

Hourly (or at the same time) Republicans change from allegations that Obama is this devious mastermind villain  controlling all parts of the government to attack his political enemies to Obama is this empty suit with no clue what anyone is doing in his administration.

It shows you are being dishonest and partisan switching between those two positions but I see it every day.
 
2013-05-31 01:57:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: studs up: I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?

11 is still 11 times more than the IRS commish visited Bush.


Yeah true, but, the IRS under Bush wasn't dealing with implementing Obamacare, right? Doesn't seem equitable.
 
2013-05-31 01:57:59 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Indeed, of the 157 events Shulman was cleared to attend, White House records only provide time of arrival information -- confirming that he actually went to them -- for 11 events over the 2009-2012 period, and time of departure information for only six appointments.

Oh my god. Oh my god, do you know what this means. Shulman is still in the White House! HE'S STILL IN THE WHITE HOUSE. GET OUT, GET OUT NOW


You brilliant bastard. I laughed so hard, I had to change my undies.
FU
With love
 
2013-05-31 01:58:43 PM  

studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?

11 is still 11 times more than the IRS commish visited Bush.

Yeah true, but, the IRS under Bush wasn't dealing with implementing Obamacare, right? Doesn't seem equitable.


Why not? He was cleared for a bunch of other meetings that were not on the White House proper. Do you think he needs to work with Obama on every single aspect of that implementation? If so, why?
 
2013-05-31 01:58:53 PM  
I have a Facebook friend who is going to be absolutely crushed that his latest rant has proven to be just more of the same bullshiat.
 
2013-05-31 02:01:07 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: I like Obama, but you have to admit, there's some very questionable shiat going on in his administration.


i agree that extrajudicial executions via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "scandals" that the GOP have ginned up.

that was what you were referring to, wasn't it?

or are you just another concern troll?
 
2013-05-31 02:02:43 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I have a Facebook friend who is going to be absolutely crushed that his latest rant has proven to be just more of the same bullshiat.


No, he won't be.

Doublethink, Comrade.
 
2013-05-31 02:03:23 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Damn guys, I'm sorry, didn't mean to rustle some Jimmies. I like Obama, but you have to admit, there's some very questionable shiat going on in his administration.


You sound concerned.
 
2013-05-31 02:03:30 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: FlashHarry: obama's approval rating since the "scandals" broke: up

Why would you lie about something that was so easy to fact check.


that's funny, gallup has him up. i guess it's easy when you cherry-pick.
 
2013-05-31 02:03:35 PM  

FlashHarry: Popcorn Johnny: I like Obama, but you have to admit, there's some very questionable shiat going on in his administration.

i agree that extrajudicial executions via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "scandals" that the GOP have ginned up.

that was what you were referring to, wasn't it?

or are you just another concern troll?


Obama needs to get court approval for military strikes? Or because it's a drone not a missile it has some magical extra judiciary unicorn magic?
 
2013-05-31 02:05:02 PM  

Deucednuisance: AdolfOliverPanties: I have a Facebook friend who is going to be absolutely crushed that his latest rant has proven to be just more of the same bullshiat.

No, he won't be.

Doublethink, Comrade.


And doubling down.
 
2013-05-31 02:05:42 PM  

studs up: Car_Ramrod: studs up: I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?

FTA:

He was cleared 40 times to meet with Obama's director of the Office of Health Reform, and a further 80 times for thebiweekly health reform deputies meetings and others set up by aides involved with the health-care law implementation efforts. That's 76 percent of his planned White House visits just there, before you even add in all the meetings with Office of Management and Budget personnel also involved in health reform.

The vast majority of Shulman's scheduled meetings were to take place in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building -- 115 of them. Another three were slated for the NEOB. That leaves just 25 percent of the meetings in the White House itself, or on its South Lawn.

One of the points of the article is that we can't know for sure how many times he was at the White House COMPLEX, which includes non-White House buildings. But a conclusion we can draw from the given information, is that a wide majority of the visits he was scheduled for were with people involved in Obamacare implementation. Which is what you were told yesterday. So, there's that.

Oh, and most of the scheduled meetings weren't even in the White House itself.

Yeah, I got all that. But, the terms bolded are not saying anything at all. Cleared, slated, "were to" don't really mean anything. Did anybody answer how many Obamacare meeting were held by anyone with the IRS in this time frame? I'm hoping a lot, but, I'm not seeing a definitive (or even reasonably close) number.


What does that have to do with anything? Or are you just asking questions?
 
2013-05-31 02:05:49 PM  

Corvus: Obama needs to get court approval for military strikes? Or because it's a drone not a missile it has some magical extra judiciary unicorn magic?


sorry, i should have added OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.

i thought most people were aware of the controversy.
 
2013-05-31 02:07:25 PM  

Maud Dib: skullkrusher:

His name is Popcorn Johnny... Popcorn Johnny. Almost as bad as people to respond to LeTrole

There ARE no trolls here, didn't you know that?Just people with a difference of opinion.
*ahem*


[i865.photobucket.com image 519x224]


well to be fair I definitely don't agree with people who frequently submit lying right wing propaganda headlines, and think that the president should be lynched
 
2013-05-31 02:07:57 PM  

FlashHarry: Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining.

obama's approval rating since the "scandals" broke: up
the GOP's approval rating since the "scandals" broke: down

yup, sounds like crashing and burning to me...


Obama is such a failure, he can't even crash and burn correctly.
 
2013-05-31 02:08:30 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Obama needs to get court approval for military strikes? Or because it's a drone not a missile it has some magical extra judiciary unicorn magic?

sorry, i should have added OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.

i thought most people were aware of the controversy.


Yes. It was still a military strike.

Are you saying if it's a US citizen in the "battlefield" (somewhere you can't get them and arrest them) and they are siding with the enemy against the US, we have to have a trial for them and have to have have arrested them?
 
2013-05-31 02:09:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?

11 is still 11 times more than the IRS commish visited Bush.

Yeah true, but, the IRS under Bush wasn't dealing with implementing Obamacare, right? Doesn't seem equitable.

Why not? He was cleared for a bunch of other meetings that were not on the White House proper. Do you think he needs to work with Obama on every single aspect of that implementation? If so, why?


um, what?
Do I think that the people in charge of taking over Obamacare should be having a lot of meetings (BHO not required, but, somebody at the WH needs to be there) to ensure the implementation of a new bureaucracy runs smoothly? Yeah, I think that's important.
That's not the point of the post you made about comparing the visits of the IRS with the Bush WH v. Obama WH though, is it? I've noticed you often like to red herring a discussion when an "uncomfortable" question is asked or point is made. I'm sure they taught you how to re-frame the question in sophistry 101 but you know everyone can see right through that, don't you?
You are just not a person to be taken seriously at all.
Enjoy your day.
 
2013-05-31 02:09:22 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Subby. No it wasn't just 11
Re-read tfa


NO U.

Shulman was cleared primarily to meet with administration staffers involved in implementation of the health-care reform bill. He was cleared 40 times to meet with Obama's director of the Office of Health Reform, and a further 80 times for the  biweekly health reform deputies meetings and others set up by aides involved with the health-care law implementation efforts. That's 76 percent of his planned White House visits just there, before you even add in all the meetings with Office of Management and Budget personnel also involved in health reform.

Complicating the picture is the fact that just because a meeting was scheduled and Shulman was cleared to attend it does not mean that he actually went.


How many did Shulman actually attend? 11.

i48.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-31 02:09:53 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Link


Interesting.
 
2013-05-31 02:10:34 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Indeed, of the 157 events Shulman was cleared to attend, White House records only provide time of arrival information -- confirming that he actually went to them -- for 11 events over the 2009-2012 period, and time of departure information for only six appointments.

Oh my god. Oh my god, do you know what this means. Shulman is still in the White House! HE'S STILL IN THE WHITE HOUSE. GET OUT, GET OUT NOW


www.esplatter.com
 
2013-05-31 02:10:49 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Obama needs to get court approval for military strikes? Or because it's a drone not a missile it has some magical extra judiciary unicorn magic?

sorry, i should have added OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.

i thought most people were aware of the controversy.


So I have a question.

Lets say I am on the battlefield and someone says "Hey wait I am an American" are we no longer allowed to attack them until we verify they are not an American?

Or how about the legal challenges that were brought up against Lincoln that he was attacking Americans without a trial? (you are familiar with those right?)

You think those should have gone through and Lincoln could be on trial for targeting US Citizens without a trial?
 
2013-05-31 02:11:17 PM  
THEN WHO WAS WHITEHOUSE??!?
 
2013-05-31 02:11:53 PM  

Corvus: Are you saying if it's a US citizen in the "battlefield" (somewhere you can't get them and arrest them) and they are siding with the enemy against the US, we have to have a trial for them and have to have have arrested them?


are you defining battlefield as "somewhere you can't arrest" someone? that's pretty much the entire globe outside the US. that's the trouble with the war on terror. it's perpetual war on a global scale, which gives extraordinary power to the president.

that being said, i do trust that the americans who were killed were actively plotting against the US, but would i trust a president romney? a president santorum? a president palin with that same power? no farking way.
 
2013-05-31 02:12:42 PM  

Corvus: Lets say I am on the battlefield and someone says "Hey wait I am an American" are we no longer allowed to attack them until we verify they are not an American?


is a car a battlefield? is an apartment building?
 
2013-05-31 02:15:16 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Are you saying if it's a US citizen in the "battlefield" (somewhere you can't get them and arrest them) and they are siding with the enemy against the US, we have to have a trial for them and have to have have arrested them?

are you defining battlefield as "somewhere you can't arrest" someone? that's pretty much the entire globe outside the US. that's the trouble with the war on terror. it's perpetual war on a global scale, which gives extraordinary power to the president.

that being said, i do trust that the americans who were killed were actively plotting against the US, but would i trust a president romney? a president santorum? a president palin with that same power? no farking way.


Have you read what the AUMF has defined as the "enemies" and where that is?

So if you don't want the president with WAR POWERS don't give them WAR POWERS but don't try to pretend war powers are not war powers like you are doing right now.
 
2013-05-31 02:15:18 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: FlashHarry: obama's approval rating since the "scandals" broke: up

Why would you lie about something that was so easy to fact check.


and the other half:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?"

Approve: 24%
Disapprove: 67%
Unsure: 9%

keep farking that chicken, republicans!

 
2013-05-31 02:15:31 PM  

Corvus: FlashHarry: Corvus: Obama needs to get court approval for military strikes? Or because it's a drone not a missile it has some magical extra judiciary unicorn magic?

sorry, i should have added OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.

i thought most people were aware of the controversy.

Yes. It was still a military strike.

Are you saying if it's a US citizen in the "battlefield" (somewhere you can't get them and arrest them) and they are siding with the enemy against the US, we have to have a trial for them and have to have have arrested them?


Just like we would have done for any American who joined the Viet Cong, or fought for North Korea, or defended Saddam Hussein's palace in Baghdad.

American citizenship is apparently a force-field of magic - but Obama's voodoo is penetrating it to make them vulnerable to attack..

How about if we know an American is in a certain terrorist base and then attack the base and just so happen to kill the American? Is that OK? Or does an American's presence create a human shield that we just can't breach? If so, Bin Laden royally farked up by not having any close American friends.
 
2013-05-31 02:15:35 PM  

studs up: That's not the point of the post you made about comparing the visits of the IRS with the Bush WH v. Obama WH though, is it? I've noticed you often like to red herring a discussion when an "uncomfortable" question is asked or point is made. I'm sure they taught you how to re-frame the question in sophistry 101 but you know everyone can see right through that, don't you?
You are just not a person to be taken seriously at all.
Enjoy your day.


Huh? What did you think my point was, exactly? I think you just misunderstood me in order to feel superior.
 
2013-05-31 02:15:41 PM  

theknuckler_33: studs up: Car_Ramrod: studs up: I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?

FTA:

He was cleared 40 times to meet with Obama's director of the Office of Health Reform, and a further 80 times for thebiweekly health reform deputies meetings and others set up by aides involved with the health-care law implementation efforts. That's 76 percent of his planned White House visits just there, before you even add in all the meetings with Office of Management and Budget personnel also involved in health reform.

The vast majority of Shulman's scheduled meetings were to take place in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building -- 115 of them. Another three were slated for the NEOB. That leaves just 25 percent of the meetings in the White House itself, or on its South Lawn.

One of the points of the article is that we can't know for sure how many times he was at the White House COMPLEX, which includes non-White House buildings. But a conclusion we can draw from the given information, is that a wide majority of the visits he was scheduled for were with people involved in Obamacare implementation. Which is what you were told yesterday. So, there's that.

Oh, and most of the scheduled meetings weren't even in the White House itself.

Yeah, I got all that. But, the terms bolded are not saying anything at all. Cleared, slated, "were to" don't really mean anything. Did anybody answer how many Obamacare meeting were held by anyone with the IRS in this time frame? I'm hoping a lot, but, I'm not seeing a definitive (or even reasonably close) number.

What does that have to do with anything? Or are you just asking questions?


It has to do with the actual number of meetings that the IRS had with the WH regarding Obamacare? It's a fairly large bureaucratic change that probably requires quite a lot of oversight. I'm assuming that would mean a good number of meetings to ensure a smooth implementation. I honestly asked if anyone had the actual number of meetings (visits, Skype, whatever) anywhere.
Or are you just obtuse for the sake of "my team"?
 
2013-05-31 02:15:52 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Lets say I am on the battlefield and someone says "Hey wait I am an American" are we no longer allowed to attack them until we verify they are not an American?

is a car a battlefield? is an apartment building?


Depends on what country it's in.

Now are you going to answer my questions?
 
2013-05-31 02:16:58 PM  

Corvus: Have you read what the AUMF has defined as the "enemies" and where that is?

So if you don't want the president with WAR POWERS don't give them WAR POWERS but don't try to pretend war powers are not war powers like you are doing right now.


did you read my post earlier? the one in which i said, "that's the trouble with the war on terror. it's perpetual war on a global scale, which gives extraordinary power to the president."

the AUMF is bad policy. obama himself has said so recently.

my point is, the drone thing is a real controversy and worthy of discussion. this other stuff isn't.
 
2013-05-31 02:17:10 PM  

studs up: I honestly asked if anyone had the actual number of meetings (visits, Skype, whatever) anywhere.


42
 
2013-05-31 02:17:48 PM  

FlashHarry: that being said, i do trust that the americans who were killed were actively plotting against the US, but would i trust a president romney? a president santorum? a president palin with that same power? no farking way.


So then what Lincoln did was illegal because you wouldn't want Romney, Santorum or Palin to have the power to send troops against US citizens like he did?

That makes no farking sense.

(also George Washington sent troops also to quash a rebellion)
 
2013-05-31 02:18:12 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: studs up: I honestly asked if anyone had the actual number of meetings (visits, Skype, whatever) anywhere.

42


lol
 
2013-05-31 02:19:56 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Have you read what the AUMF has defined as the "enemies" and where that is?

So if you don't want the president with WAR POWERS don't give them WAR POWERS but don't try to pretend war powers are not war powers like you are doing right now.

did you read my post earlier? the one in which i said, "that's the trouble with the war on terror. it's perpetual war on a global scale, which gives extraordinary power to the president."

the AUMF is bad policy. obama himself has said so recently.

my point is, the drone thing is a real controversy and worthy of discussion. this other stuff isn't.


So is the AUMF NOT LAW because you don't like it?

Ok lets. discuss it!! But yu refuse to answer any of my questions. You are the one refusing to discuss it.

Why are you concerned about the drone strikes but not the Clitions 70 some strikes of guided missiles under his administration?

What makes drones magically different then a guided missile? Are you ok with guided missiles killing Americans with no trial?
 
2013-05-31 02:21:24 PM  

make me some tea: Interesting.


Digby is a seasoned progressive blogger who I'm constantly learning from. Highly recommended.
 
2013-05-31 02:21:31 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Have you read what the AUMF has defined as the "enemies" and where that is?

So if you don't want the president with WAR POWERS don't give them WAR POWERS but don't try to pretend war powers are not war powers like you are doing right now.

did you read my post earlier? the one in which i said, "that's the trouble with the war on terror. it's perpetual war on a global scale, which gives extraordinary power to the president."

the AUMF is bad policy. obama himself has said so recently.

my point is, the drone thing is a real controversy and worthy of discussion. this other stuff isn't.


Got it. if I kill American as a president with troops like Washington did (Rum rebellion) or Lincoln did (civil war) or probably many many other presidents did during armed rebellions or wars it's ok but as soon as someone use DRONES, that magically changes everything?
 
2013-05-31 02:21:38 PM  
Oh and Not Only is the OEB (which I can look out my window at) part of the "white House Campus" So is the New Executive Office Building at 17&G...AND...wait for it...The HQ building for the US dept of Treasury (of which the IRS is a sub agency) which is at 1700 Peenslyvania Avenue, (which is why the rent-acops checking your badge are actually US Secret Service, and if you are in the stairwells at just the right time you can have the exciting exerience of running into a group of men in fatigues with Barret 50 cal rifles  slung over thier shoulders-which is a startling occurance for your first week on a new job)
 
2013-05-31 02:22:18 PM  

Corvus: Depends on what country it's in.


what if it's on a city street in yemen? a country with whom we are not currently at war. or pakistan.

my point is, your definition of "battlefield" is the entire planet, basically. and the war on terror has no end. that means that the president can kill any american anywhere whenever he deems it necessary. and that is patently unconstitutional.

now if you're in an actual battle on an actual battlefield and you're fighting actual american troops, then, fark yes, you deserve to die. but if you're not currently making war against the us - say you're riding in an SUV through the streets of lahore - then you should at least have a right to some sort of trial.
 
2013-05-31 02:22:59 PM  
you should be careful poking around for the Truth.  It might bite you in the butt.
 
2013-05-31 02:23:53 PM  

Corvus: What makes drones magically different then a guided missile? Are you ok with guided missiles killing Americans with no trial?


drone strikes are no different. no, i'm not ok with killing americans with guided missiles without a trial. UNLESS THEY ARE ACTIVELY TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST AMERICAN TROOPS ON AN ACTUAL BATTLEFIELD.
 
2013-05-31 02:24:54 PM  

FlashHarry: that being said, i do trust that the americans who were killed were actively plotting against the US, but would i trust a president romney? a president santorum? a president palin with that same power? no farking way.


I don't trust these people being the Commander in chief THEREFOR it must be illegal for all presidents to be commander in chief.

Ummmm, no. Presidents have lots of power as commander in chief. That is done on purpose so courts do not second guess them running the military in times of war (or rebellion) that's how it is always been. Which is what you want to be done.
 
2013-05-31 02:25:04 PM  

FlashHarry: my point is, the drone thing is a real controversy and worthy of discussion. this other stuff isn't.


Yes, it would be, if the Republicans did not already support the use of drones by Obama.  You cannot have a political controversy in the U.S. when both the major parties agree with each other on the policy.  That would be a very short discussion.  That's why they have to try to gin up controversies over this other type of stuff.
 
2013-05-31 02:25:21 PM  

Corvus: Got it. if I kill American as a president with troops like Washington did (Rum rebellion) or Lincoln did (civil war) or probably many many other presidents did during armed rebellions or wars it's ok but as soon as someone use DRONES, that magically changes everything?


my point has nothing to do with drones. but you know that, don't you. you obviously haven't read a single thing i've written. drones. missiles. bombs. bullets. i don't care. that's not the point.

but go ahead and argue that. obviously a straw man is easier to attack.
 
2013-05-31 02:27:37 PM  

Corvus: Presidents have lots of power as commander in chief.


only congress had the power to make war prior to 9/11. of course this didn't stop us getting into 'police actions' and the like... but it's not what the founders wanted.

and i'm not comfortable with the president of the us, whomever he or she may be, having the power to kill an american without a fair trial. unless, of course, that american is taking up arms against the US and actively doing so on a bona fide battlefield.
 
2013-05-31 02:27:58 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: What makes drones magically different then a guided missile? Are you ok with guided missiles killing Americans with no trial?

drone strikes are no different. no, i'm not ok with killing americans with guided missiles without a trial. UNLESS THEY ARE ACTIVELY TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST AMERICAN TROOPS ON AN ACTUAL BATTLEFIELD.


That's what it is!

Are you saying someone running military operations against the US is not "taking up arms against the US"?
If we can't get to them how do you think we can have a trial? How is a "command and control" location not part of the battlefield?

What do you think we should do with these people exactly? You tell us.
 
2013-05-31 02:28:29 PM  

FlashHarry: and the other half:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?"

Approve: 24%
Disapprove: 67%
Unsure: 9%

keep farking that chicken, republicans!


This might come as a shock to some of you, but I'm not a Republican, they're responsible for just as much dumb shiat as Democrats. Unlike most people I like to look at everything independently instead of just going with the "my side good, your side bad" way of thinking that you see from most people. If you can't admit your side farks up and the other side does something right from time to time, you have a lot of growing up to do.
 
2013-05-31 02:28:36 PM  

Corvus: I don't trust these people being the Commander in chief THEREFOR it must be illegal for all presidents to be commander in chief.


nowhere did i say commander in chief. i was talking about the power to kill noncombatant americans without trial.
 
2013-05-31 02:29:12 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: What makes drones magically different then a guided missile? Are you ok with guided missiles killing Americans with no trial?

drone strikes are no different. no, i'm not ok with killing americans with guided missiles without a trial. UNLESS THEY ARE ACTIVELY TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST AMERICAN TROOPS ON AN ACTUAL BATTLEFIELD.


But but but "heritage not hate".
 
2013-05-31 02:29:36 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I have a Facebook friend who is going to be absolutely crushed that his latest rant has proven to be just more of the same bullshiat.


Was that the one about how the 157 meetings all involved necessary government business so people should shut up? Yeah, he's going to feel like such a fool when he realises they never took place.
 
2013-05-31 02:30:47 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Got it. if I kill American as a president with troops like Washington did (Rum rebellion) or Lincoln did (civil war) or probably many many other presidents did during armed rebellions or wars it's ok but as soon as someone use DRONES, that magically changes everything?

my point has nothing to do with drones. but you know that, don't you. you obviously haven't read a single thing i've written. drones. missiles. bombs. bullets. i don't care. that's not the point.

but go ahead and argue that. obviously a straw man is easier to attack.


Then why do you keep saying DRONES in all your statements?

Stop saying it then!!!

FlashHarry: i agree that extrajudicial executions via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "scandals" that the GOP have ginned up.



FlashHarry: my point is, the drone thing is a real controversy and worthy of discussion. this other stuff isn't.

 
2013-05-31 02:31:33 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: I don't trust these people being the Commander in chief THEREFOR it must be illegal for all presidents to be commander in chief.

nowhere did i say commander in chief. i was talking about the power to kill noncombatant americans without trial.


What noncombatant Americans have been targeted and killed exactly?
 
2013-05-31 02:31:37 PM  

Corvus: That's what it is!

Are you saying someone running military operations against the US is not "taking up arms against the US"?
If we can't get to them how do you think we can have a trial? How is a "command and control" location not part of the battlefield?

What do you think we should do with these people exactly? You tell us.


• a street in yemen is not a battlefield. we are not at war with yemen. or pakistan. or somalia. or [insert country here]
• somebody accused of terrorism isn't "running military operations against the US" if they were, they would be running military operations rather than engaging in terrorism.
• gee, i don't know, cooperate with local police agencies to have them picked up and detained pending trial?
 
2013-05-31 02:33:06 PM  

Corvus: Stop saying it then!!!

FlashHarry: i agree that extrajudicial executions via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "scandals" that the GOP have ginned up.


FlashHarry: my point is, the drone thing is a real controversy and worthy of discussion. this other stuff isn't.


i'm sorry you're fixated on a single word and are having trouble digesting my point, which is the EXTRAJUDICIAL killing of americans by any means.

the word "drone" is  being bandied about because that's the current preferred method of execution.

i'm sorry it threw you off; i'll try to keep it simpler next time.
 
2013-05-31 02:33:22 PM  

FlashHarry: Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining.

obama's approval rating since the "scandals" broke: up
the GOP's approval rating since the "scandals" broke: down

yup, sounds like crashing and burning to me...


Look up.  Do you see what's up there?  And on fire?  It's crashing straight into the sun.
 
2013-05-31 02:34:08 PM  

Corvus: What noncombatant Americans have been targeted and killed exactly?


four of them, from what i understand.

noncombatant meaning that they weren't engaged in combat at the time of their deaths.
 
2013-05-31 02:34:27 PM  

studs up: Yeah, I got all that. But, the terms bolded are not saying anything at all. Cleared, slated, "were to" don't really mean anything. Did anybody answer how many Obamacare meeting were held by anyone with the IRS in this time frame? I'm hoping a lot, but, I'm not seeing a definitive (or even reasonably close) number.

What does that have to do with anything? Or are you just asking questions?

It has to do with the actual number of meetings that the IRS had with the WH regarding Obamacare? It's a fairly large bureaucratic change that probably requires quite a lot of oversight. I'm assuming that would mean a good number of meetings to ensure a smooth implementation. I honestly asked if anyone had the actual number of meetings (visits, Skype, whatever) anywhere.
Or are you just obtuse for the sake of "my team"?


The only reason anyone ever brought up the number of Shulman's 'meetings' at the WH was in an attempt to demonstrate collusion between the WH and IRS regarding the scrutiny given to tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status. The only thing I'm 'obtuse' about is why you would suddenly be concerned about the number of meetings different departments had about Obamacare 3 years after it passed, but immediately following a lame attempt to use the number of meetings in a witch hunt.
 
2013-05-31 02:34:29 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: That's what it is!

Are you saying someone running military operations against the US is not "taking up arms against the US"?
If we can't get to them how do you think we can have a trial? How is a "command and control" location not part of the battlefield?

What do you think we should do with these people exactly? You tell us.

• a street in yemen is not a battlefield. we are not at war with yemen. or pakistan. or somalia. or [insert country here]
• somebody accused of terrorism isn't "running military operations against the US" if they were, they would be running military operations rather than engaging in terrorism.
• gee, i don't know, cooperate with local police agencies to have them picked up and detained pending trial?


Sorry according to the AUMF (which you can say you don't like but is still law) you are wrong.

Give me this "noncombatant" American you say exists that was targeted and killed.
 
2013-05-31 02:36:00 PM  

theknuckler_33: the number of meetings different departments had about Obamacare 3 years after it passed,


1776
 
2013-05-31 02:36:19 PM  
btw, before we go further:

battlefield |ˈbatlˌfēld|(also battleground |-ˌground|)
noun
the piece of ground on which a battle is or was fought: death on the battlefield | [ as modifier ] : battlefield conditions.

just to be clear. you cannot deem the entire planet as a battlefield. just as you cannot declare war on a tactic (e.g. terror). doing so gives you extraordinary powers that are ripe for abuse.
 
2013-05-31 02:36:56 PM  

And I've just finished my milk: AdolfOliverPanties: I have a Facebook friend who is going to be absolutely crushed that his latest rant has proven to be just more of the same bullshiat.

Was that the one about how the 157 meetings all involved necessary government business so people should shut up? Yeah, he's going to feel like such a fool when he realises they never took place.


This "scandal" was pure horse manure from the start. Nobody, except the tiny fraction of the population who work at that level of the federal govt, has any idea what a "normal" number of meetings should be. It's sheer idiocy to try to gauge the number of meetings the IRS commissioner should have with the White House based on, say, one's experience managing a Quiznos franchise. But people did it anyway, because they HAD to find a way to politicize it, facts be damned.
 
2013-05-31 02:37:31 PM  

FlashHarry: you cannot deem the entire planet as a battlefield


A challenger appears.
 
2013-05-31 02:38:15 PM  
That was Travolta in Battlefield Earth in preview.

GODDAMN IT.
 
2013-05-31 02:38:17 PM  

Corvus: Sorry according to the AUMF (which you can say you don't like but is still law) you are wrong.


obama doesn't like it either. and, yes, in my opinion (this is fark, remember?), the AUMF is wrong.

that's the whole point of the argument. not drones per se.

and my point in this thread was that the extrajudicial killing of americans is an actual controversy, whereas benghazi, IRS and AP aren't.
 
2013-05-31 02:38:20 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.


You might want to lower the light on that projector.
 
2013-05-31 02:39:25 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: theknuckler_33: the number of meetings different departments had about Obamacare 3 years after it passed,

1776


More like 1980-1988.
 
2013-05-31 02:41:29 PM  
And not a single teabagger will ever change the number. It will be 157 visits in every email, every speech, every show. The correction will never be seen.
 
2013-05-31 02:43:43 PM  

FlashHarry: and my point in this thread was that the extrajudicial killing of americans is an actual controversy,


In another thread I proposed a drone strike on Fox and Friends when Stossel was on and I didn't see any controversy such as you have described.
 
2013-05-31 02:45:12 PM  

FlashHarry: btw, before we go further:

battlefield |ˈbatlˌfēld|(also battleground |-ˌground|)
noun
the piece of ground on which a battle is or was fought: death on the battlefield | [ as modifier ] : battlefield conditions.

just to be clear. you cannot deem the entire planet as a battlefield. just as you cannot declare war on a tactic (e.g. terror). doing so gives you extraordinary powers that are ripe for abuse.


The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy - everything.
 
2013-05-31 02:47:05 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: And not a single teabagger will ever change the number. It will be 157 visits in every email, every speech, every show. The correction will never be seen.


"Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
 
2013-05-31 02:47:51 PM  

theknuckler_33: studs up: Yeah, I got all that. But, the terms bolded are not saying anything at all. Cleared, slated, "were to" don't really mean anything. Did anybody answer how many Obamacare meeting were held by anyone with the IRS in this time frame? I'm hoping a lot, but, I'm not seeing a definitive (or even reasonably close) number.

What does that have to do with anything? Or are you just asking questions?

It has to do with the actual number of meetings that the IRS had with the WH regarding Obamacare? It's a fairly large bureaucratic change that probably requires quite a lot of oversight. I'm assuming that would mean a good number of meetings to ensure a smooth implementation. I honestly asked if anyone had the actual number of meetings (visits, Skype, whatever) anywhere.
Or are you just obtuse for the sake of "my team"?

The only reason anyone ever brought up the number of Shulman's 'meetings' at the WH was in an attempt to demonstrate collusion between the WH and IRS regarding the scrutiny given to tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status. The only thing I'm 'obtuse' about is why you would suddenly be concerned about the number of meetings different departments had about Obamacare 3 years after it passed, but immediately following a lame attempt to use the number of meetings in a witch hunt.


Ah I see your confusion. My fault. I was referring to discussions yesterday. The issue of the number of visits the IRS had at the WH initially was eyed by the GOP as proof that the IRS and WH colluded to oppress right wing 501(c)s as you mentioned. This was explained away as meetings required to implement Obamacare that was indeed passed years ago but is really just starting to roll out in Jan14. I assumed that a great number of these meetings would be required for the reasons above. I thought the GOP was scandal hunting to pin something evil on BHO and make him out to be the "lead from behind" puppeteer of this issue. I accepted the explanation regarding the need for these meetings regarding Obamacare. Now yo'u'e caught up, sorry I left you out of the loop.
 
2013-05-31 02:47:57 PM  
You know, I try. I tell my teabagger peeps to not get all excited and start slinging poo like monkeys every time another "scandal" from Fox News comes up, but they never listen. Ever. Then I'm forced to rub their little noses in it every damn time. It's my burden, and I'm willing to bear it. I'm a giver like that.
 
2013-05-31 02:48:38 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: FlashHarry: and my point in this thread was that the extrajudicial killing of americans is an actual controversy,

In another thread I proposed a drone strike on Fox and Friends when Stossel was on and I didn't see any controversy such as you have described.


well, fox is an actual battlefield and stossel is an actual enemy combatant. i would have no problem seeing him and his mustache droned to high heaven.
 
2013-05-31 02:57:13 PM  

studs up: It has to do with the actual number of meetings that the IRS had with the WH regarding Obamacare? It's a fairly large bureaucratic change that probably requires quite a lot of oversight. I'm assuming that would mean a good number of meetings to ensure a smooth implementation. I honestly asked if anyone had the actual number of meetings (visits, Skype, whatever) anywhere.
Or are you just obtuse for the sake of "my team"?

The only reason anyone ever brought up the number of Shulman's 'meetings' at the WH was in an attempt to demonstrate collusion between the WH and IRS regarding the scrutiny given to tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status. The only thing I'm 'obtuse' about is why you would suddenly be concerned about the number of meetings different departments had about Obamacare 3 years after it passed, but immediately following a lame attempt to use the number of meetings in a witch hunt.

Ah I see your confusion. My fault. I was referring to discussions yesterday. The issue of the number of visits the IRS had at the WH initially was eyed by the GOP as proof that the IRS and WH colluded to oppress right wing 501(c)s as you mentioned. This was explained away as meetings required to implement Obamacare that was indeed passed years ago but is really just starting to roll out in Jan14. I assumed that a great number of these meetings would be required for the reasons above. I thought the GOP was scandal hunting to pin something evil on BHO and make him out to be the "lead from behind" puppeteer of this issue. I accepted the explanation regarding the need for these meetings regarding Obamacare. Now yo'u'e caught up, sorry I left you out of the loop.


I'll admit to not having read all the posts in that/those threads, but my take away from them was not that people were saying that all those meetings were so much 'necessary', but rather than Shulman's presence at the white house, regardless of how often, makes a lot more sense in light of Obamacare meetings rather than a nefarious plot to target right-wing groups.
 
2013-05-31 02:59:55 PM  
That's it.  This is the last straw.

  From here on out I'm going to be highly dubious of the contents contained within the forwarded chain emails sent to me from my unemployed drunk racist uncle.
 
2013-05-31 03:01:24 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: theknuckler_33: the number of meetings different departments had about Obamacare 3 years after it passed,

1776


666
 
2013-05-31 03:01:33 PM  

InmanRoshi: That's it.  This is the last straw.

  From here on out I'm going to be highly dubious of the contents contained within the forwarded chain emails sent to me from my unemployed drunk racist uncle.


That's ok, as long as you believe facebook status updates that remind you to like and share them, I'm sure you want accumulate too much bad luck.
 
2013-05-31 03:07:45 PM  

FlashHarry: is a car a battlefield? is an apartment building?


Is love a battlefield?
 
2013-05-31 03:10:03 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: And not a single teabagger will ever change the number. It will be 157 visits in every email, every speech, every show. The correction will never be seen.


Actually it will probably just grow, since the records aren't 100% complete.  157 will become at least 157, which will become something along the lines of 500.  This is also how the conservative math on illegal immigrants and money Obama has spent on hiding his past has come about.
 
2013-05-31 03:14:40 PM  

BSABSVR: FlashHarry: is a car a battlefield? is an apartment building?

Is love a battlefield?


well, pat benetar does tend to drone on and on.
 
2013-05-31 03:18:41 PM  

BSABSVR: This is also how the conservative math on illegal immigrants and money Obama has spent on hiding his past has come about.


It's also useful for counting your rallys
 
2013-05-31 03:18:47 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Damn guys, I'm sorry, didn't mean to rustle some Jimmies. I like Obama, but you have to admit, there's some very questionable shiat going on in his administration.


I believe what the copter whisperer is trying to tell us is:
images.nationalgeographic.com
 
2013-05-31 03:20:49 PM  

studs up: Soup4Bonnie: studs up: I honestly asked if anyone had the actual number of meetings (visits, Skype, whatever) anywhere.

42

lol


I too applaud this magnificent answer.
 
2013-05-31 03:23:16 PM  
I gotta say, only 11 times, less than once a quarter?

I think the valid criticism here is that maybe President Obama was a little too hands off with the IRS.
 
2013-05-31 03:23:56 PM  
I find his attendance at the Easter Egg Roll highly suspicious.
 
2013-05-31 03:33:41 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: What noncombatant Americans have been targeted and killed exactly?

four of them, from what i understand.

noncombatant meaning that they weren't engaged in combat at the time of their deaths.


What?

So if someone stops for 1 hour fighting they become a non-combatant?

Who are they again?
 
2013-05-31 03:36:32 PM  

FlashHarry: btw, before we go further:

battlefield |ˈbatlˌfēld|(also battleground |-ˌground|)
noun
the piece of ground on which a battle is or was fought: death on the battlefield | [ as modifier ] : battlefield conditions.

just to be clear. you cannot deem the entire planet as a battlefield. just as you cannot declare war on a tactic (e.g. terror). doing so gives you extraordinary powers that are ripe for abuse.


So is a command and control center not part of the "battlefield"?

Are you saying we can't attack areas that doing run military operations during war? Think about what you say.
 
2013-05-31 03:37:55 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Sorry according to the AUMF (which you can say you don't like but is still law) you are wrong.

obama doesn't like it either. and, yes, in my opinion (this is fark, remember?), the AUMF is wrong.

that's the whole point of the argument. not drones per se.

and my point in this thread was that the extrajudicial killing of americans is an actual controversy, whereas benghazi, IRS and AP aren't.


Is the AUMF law? Did SCOTUS throw out the AUMF? You saying it's "wrong" legally doesn't mean shiat!


Who were these 4 Americans that you say were non-combatants? Why won't you tell us?
 
2013-05-31 03:39:49 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: What noncombatant Americans have been targeted and killed exactly?

four of them, from what i understand.

noncombatant meaning that they weren't engaged in combat at the time of their deaths.


So people who are running military operations according to you can no be targeted? Because according to you they are not on the "battlefield" and are "non-combatants". So Hitler in WWII to you was a "non-combatant"?

That's hilarious.
 
2013-05-31 03:40:06 PM  

Aldon: I gotta say, only 11 times, less than once a quarter?

I think the valid criticism here is that maybe President Obama was a little too hands off with the IRS.


I think there's a little something wrong with your math.....

11 =/= less than once a quarter

1/4 year = 3 months, if that helps.
 
2013-05-31 03:41:17 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Aldon: I gotta say, only 11 times, less than once a quarter?

I think the valid criticism here is that maybe President Obama was a little too hands off with the IRS.

I think there's a little something wrong with your math.....

11 =/= less than once a quarter

1/4 year = 3 months, if that helps.


NEVERMIND I'M STUPID IT'S LATE ON A FRIDAY!
 
2013-05-31 03:43:22 PM  
So now righties must apologize for being wrong about the number of visits and for being angry that someone checked out political organizations that wanted the tax status of a non-political organization...and still got it.
 
2013-05-31 03:44:01 PM  

Corvus: So if someone stops for 1 hour fighting they become a non-combatant?


did i say that? i don't believe i said that at any point.

Corvus: So is a command and control center not part of the "battlefield"?


is a car a "command and control center?" is an apartment in a city in a country with which we are not at war?

Corvus: Is the AUMF law? Did SCOTUS throw out the AUMF? You saying it's "wrong" legally doesn't mean shiat!


just because it's a law, doesn't mean that it's right. and this is fark - we have opinions here. i never even suggested that mine meant anything "legally." you really need to stop putting words in my mouth and arguing with straw men. it's not helping your case any.

Corvus: Who were these 4 Americans that you say were non-combatants? Why won't you tell us?


In his letter to Congressional leaders, Mr. Holder confirmed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who died in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen. Mr. Holder also wrote that United States forces had killed three other Americans who "were not specifically targeted." (emphasis mine)
 
2013-05-31 03:46:59 PM  

Corvus: So people who are running military operations according to you can no be targeted? Because according to you they are not on the "battlefield" and are "non-combatants". So Hitler in WWII to you was a "non-combatant"?

That's hilarious.


are you deliberately being facile? i can't tell.

in case you aren't, hitler was the leader of a country with which we were at war. it was a thing called world war two - you might look it up.
 
2013-05-31 03:48:21 PM  

FlashHarry: just to be clear. you cannot deem the entire planet as a battlefield. just as you cannot declare war on a tactic (e.g. terror). doing so gives you extraordinary powers that are ripe for abuse.



AUMF:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Umm actually they did. And until the SCOTUS says they can't it's law no matter if you think it's unfair or nor. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. Repeat that until you get it.

I am not saying I agree with it or not. That point is irrelevant.
 
2013-05-31 03:49:12 PM  

Corvus: So people who are running military operations according to you can no be targeted? Because according to you they are not on the "battlefield" and are "non-combatants". So Hitler in WWII to you was a "non-combatant"?

That's hilarious.


by the way, using your own tactic of ridiculous extrapolation, the AUMF allows the president to kill any citizen anywhere at any time for any reason without trial.

are you ok with this? why do you hate the constitution?
 
2013-05-31 03:51:54 PM  
Anyone else surprised that they provided a screenshot that includes user ID's and badge numbers?
 
2013-05-31 03:52:11 PM  

Corvus: Umm actually they did. And until the SCOTUS says they can't it's law no matter if you think it's unfair or nor. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. Repeat that until you get it.

I am not saying I agree with it or not. That point is irrelevant.


when i said, "you cannot..." i meant that you cannot morally. as in "you cannot just go up to somebody and shoot them." of course it's physically possible. it's just wrong.

and my whole point - going back to the topic of the thread - is that the extrajudicial killing of americans is a bona fide controversy - meaning that there is a real argument as to whether or not it's morally or ethically allowable. the IRS, AP and especially the benghazi "scandals" are not.
 
2013-05-31 03:54:12 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So if someone stops for 1 hour fighting they become a non-combatant?

did i say that? i don't believe i said that at any point.


Actually you said exactly that:

Corvus: So is a command and control center not part of the "battlefield"?

is a car a "command and control center?" is an apartment in a city in a country with which we are not at war?


It can be sure! What country are we at war with under the AUMF? You tell me where it says what country we are at war with.

Corvus: Is the AUMF law? Did SCOTUS throw out the AUMF? You saying it's "wrong" legally doesn't mean shiat!

just because it's a law, doesn't mean that it's right. and this is fark - we have opinions here. i never even suggested that mine meant anything "legally." you really need to stop putting words in my mouth and arguing with straw men. it's not helping your case any.


So then you are admitting that what Obama is doing is legal?

Corvus: Who were these 4 Americans that you say were non-combatants? Why won't you tell us?

In his letter to Congressional leaders, Mr. Holder confirmed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who died in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen. Mr. Holder also wrote that United States forces had killed three other Americans who "were not specifically targeted." (emphasis mine)


So then your 4 is actually one?

Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي Anwar al-'Awlaqī; April 21, 1971 - September 30, 2011) was an American[7] and Yemeni imam.[8][9] U.S. government officials said that he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda.[2][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] With a blog, a Facebook page, the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, and many YouTube videos, the Saudi news station Al Arabiya described him as the "bin Laden of the Internet."[17][18] After a request from the U.S. Congress, in November 2010 YouTube removed many of Awlaki's videos.[19]

So someone planning attack operations to you is a NON-COMBATANT?
 
2013-05-31 03:55:35 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So people who are running military operations according to you can no be targeted? Because according to you they are not on the "battlefield" and are "non-combatants". So Hitler in WWII to you was a "non-combatant"?

That's hilarious.

by the way, using your own tactic of ridiculous extrapolation, the AUMF allows the president to kill any citizen anywhere at any time for any reason without trial.

are you ok with this? why do you hate the constitution?


Yes. it does. I don't like that. Congress can make a change if they think it's wrong. I realize just because I don't like something that doesn't make it illegal.
 
2013-05-31 03:57:54 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Umm actually they did. And until the SCOTUS says they can't it's law no matter if you think it's unfair or nor. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. Repeat that until you get it.

I am not saying I agree with it or not. That point is irrelevant.

when i said, "you cannot..." i meant that you cannot morally. as in "you cannot just go up to somebody and shoot them." of course it's physically possible. it's just wrong.

and my whole point - going back to the topic of the thread - is that the extrajudicial killing of americans is a bona fide controversy - meaning that there is a real argument as to whether or not it's morally or ethically allowable. the IRS, AP and especially the benghazi "scandals" are not.


Why is something that many other presidents have done before a "bona fide" scandal?

Heck to me the AP is much more a real scandal then the military strikes that most president have done.

More presidents I think have actually used military strikes in the way Obama has then investigated reporters for leaks.
 
2013-05-31 03:58:09 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Umm actually they did. And until the SCOTUS says they can't it's law no matter if you think it's unfair or nor. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. Repeat that until you get it.

I am not saying I agree with it or not. That point is irrelevant.

when i said, "you cannot..." i meant that you cannot morally. as in "you cannot just go up to somebody and shoot them." of course it's physically possible. it's just wrong.

and my whole point - going back to the topic of the thread - is that the extrajudicial killing of americans is a bona fide controversy - meaning that there is a real argument as to whether or not it's morally or ethically allowable. the IRS, AP and especially the benghazi "scandals" are not.


The difference between the real scandal of the targeted killings and the other "scandals" is that the targeted killings are aimed at scary brown people and the GOP loves killing brown people.
 
2013-05-31 04:01:37 PM  

Corvus: Actually you said exactly that:


i said that "if someone stops for 1 hour fighting they become a non-combatant?" please tell me where i said "exactly" that (your word, not mine)

Corvus: It can be sure! What country are we at war with under the AUMF? You tell me where it says what country we are at war with.


we aren't at war with any country. that's my farking point.

Corvus: So then you are admitting that what Obama is doing is legal?


i've never said otherwise. i have said that it may be wrong.

Corvus: So then your 4 is actually one?


what part of "three other americans" do you not understand? are you dim?

Corvus: So someone planning attack operations to you is a NON-COMBATANT?


do we know for sure he was planning attack operations? if we do for sure, then, yes, he would be a combatant. my worry is that it is very easy to apply this to somebody who is merely "suspected." after all, bush and rumsfeld said that all the inmates at guantanamo bay were so dangerous that they could never have trials let alone ever be released. then they released half of them. i guess we weren't so sure, were we.

Corvus: I realize just because I don't like something that doesn't make it illegal.


i have never said that it was illegal. the fact that it is legal is the problem. why are you having such trouble grasping this?
 
2013-05-31 04:02:00 PM  

FlashHarry: • gee, i don't know, cooperate with local police agencies to have them picked up and detained pending trial?


Are you really this uninformed about whats going on? They refuse to pick these people up. Read more about this subject. They tried this. They were told to fark off.
 
2013-05-31 04:03:40 PM  
Corvus: So someone planning attack operations to you is a NON-COMBATANT?

Well...if we're being lawyers about it.... the Geneva conventions reserve combatant status for official soldiers and " civilians who take a direct part in combat and do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section "

So, no?  Not legally.
 
2013-05-31 04:04:06 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Aldon: I gotta say, only 11 times, less than once a quarter?

I think the valid criticism here is that maybe President Obama was a little too hands off with the IRS.

I think there's a little something wrong with your math.....

11 =/= less than once a quarter

1/4 year = 3 months, if that helps.


The article mentions 2009 to 2012
I will leave it to smart people like you to figure out how many quarters that is.

Because I can't figure out if you misread my post or you are just super special.
 
2013-05-31 04:05:14 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Aldon: I gotta say, only 11 times, less than once a quarter?

I think the valid criticism here is that maybe President Obama was a little too hands off with the IRS.

I think there's a little something wrong with your math.....

11 =/= less than once a quarter

1/4 year = 3 months, if that helps.

NEVERMIND I'M STUPID IT'S LATE ON A FRIDAY!


whoops, nevermind my last post.
 
2013-05-31 04:05:55 PM  

Corvus: Are you really this uninformed about whats going on? They refuse to pick these people up. Read more about this subject. They tried this. They were told to fark off.


first of all, i was under the impression you were speaking broadly when you said "these people," referring to americans suspected of terror ties abroad. we have many assets in many countries. local police is only one possibility. but i can see the appeal - killing somebody remotely doesn't risk the lives of american troops or intelligence assets.

but easy doesn't necessarily mean right.
 
2013-05-31 04:06:55 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Actually you said exactly that:

i said that "if someone stops for 1 hour fighting they become a non-combatant?" please tell me where i said "exactly" that (your word, not mine)


Here you go:

FlashHarry: noncombatant meaning that they weren't engaged in combat at the time of their deaths.


Corvus: It can be sure! What country are we at war with under the AUMF? You tell me where it says what country we are at war with.

we aren't at war with any country. that's my farking point.


So according to you any military action is illegal on the war on terror?

Corvus: So then you are admitting that what Obama is doing is legal?

i've never said otherwise. i have said that it may be wrong.

Corvus: So then your 4 is actually one?

what part of "three other americans" do you not understand? are you dim?


The part that is says they were not targets. Are you now saying any strike that MAY cause collateral damage to an american is also illegal?

Corvus: So someone planning attack operations to you is a NON-COMBATANT?

do we know for sure he was planning attack operations? if we do for sure, then, yes, he would be a combatant. my worry is that it is very easy to apply this to somebody who is merely "suspected." after all, bush and rumsfeld said that all the inmates at guantanamo bay were so dangerous that they could never have trials let alone ever be released. then they released half of them. i guess we weren't so sure, were we.

Corvus: I realize just because I don't like something that doesn't make it illegal.

i have never said that it was illegal. the fact that it is legal is the problem. why are you having such trouble grasping this?


Then how is it Obama's scandal that Congress passed a law and Obama is doing what ever other president would do or has done?

Was Washington send troops to quash the Whiskey Rebellion a "scandal"?
Was Lincoln sending troops down to fight the south a "scandal"?
 
2013-05-31 04:07:00 PM  

studs up: Car_Ramrod: studs up: I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?

FTA:

He was cleared 40 times to meet with Obama's director of the Office of Health Reform, and a further 80 times for thebiweekly health reform deputies meetings and others set up by aides involved with the health-care law implementation efforts. That's 76 percent of his planned White House visits just there, before you even add in all the meetings with Office of Management and Budget personnel also involved in health reform.

The vast majority of Shulman's scheduled meetings were to take place in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building -- 115 of them. Another three were slated for the NEOB. That leaves just 25 percent of the meetings in the White House itself, or on its South Lawn.

One of the points of the article is that we can't know for sure how many times he was at the White House COMPLEX, which includes non-White House buildings. But a conclusion we can draw from the given information, is that a wide majority of the visits he was scheduled for were with people involved in Obamacare implementation. Which is what you were told yesterday. So, there's that.

Oh, and most of the scheduled meetings weren't even in the White House itself.

Yeah, I got all that. But, the terms bolded are not saying anything at all. Cleared, slated, "were to" don't really mean anything. Did anybody answer how many Obamacare meeting were held by anyone with the IRS in this time frame? I'm hoping a lot, but, I'm not seeing a definitive (or even reasonably close) number.


The details of at least one of the meetings he was scheduled to be at stated it was a bi-weekly meeting on implementing the ACA. Not sure hoe often IRS officials attended those though.
 
2013-05-31 04:08:14 PM  

Corvus: FlashHarry: • gee, i don't know, cooperate with local police agencies to have them picked up and detained pending trial?

Are you really this uninformed about whats going on? They refuse to pick these people up. Read more about this subject. They tried this. They were told to fark off.


btw - i have no doubt that Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad guy, and i shed no tears knowing of his demise. my problem, as i have stated over and over here, is that the AUMF could be used to kill any american anywhere any time for any reason. and while legal, i believe that it is wrong because it removes due process.
 
2013-05-31 04:09:57 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Are you really this uninformed about whats going on? They refuse to pick these people up. Read more about this subject. They tried this. They were told to fark off.

first of all, i was under the impression you were speaking broadly when you said "these people," referring to americans suspected of terror ties abroad. we have many assets in many countries. local police is only one possibility. but i can see the appeal - killing somebody remotely doesn't risk the lives of american troops or intelligence assets.

but easy doesn't necessarily mean right.


So Lincoln should have sent troops down to arrest those in the uprising in the south?
 
2013-05-31 04:11:17 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: FlashHarry: • gee, i don't know, cooperate with local police agencies to have them picked up and detained pending trial?

Are you really this uninformed about whats going on? They refuse to pick these people up. Read more about this subject. They tried this. They were told to fark off.

btw - i have no doubt that Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad guy, and i shed no tears knowing of his demise. my problem, as i have stated over and over here, is that the AUMF could be used to kill any american anywhere any time for any reason. and while legal, i believe that it is wrong because it removes due process.


You said he was a NON-COMBATANT and that means he should not have been targeted. Are you still saying that yes or no?

You also said 4 American non-combatants were targeted (which turned out to be not true)
 
2013-05-31 04:14:05 PM  

FlashHarry: btw - i have no doubt that Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad guy, and i shed no tears knowing of his demise. my problem, as i have stated over and over here, is that the AUMF could be used to kill any american anywhere any time for any reason. and while legal, i believe that it is wrong because it removes due process.


But you seem to think there is no difference from a guy sitting in a coffee shop with no terrorists ties getting killed in that manner and some guy who is working with the enemy planning military operations against the US in a country where we can't have authorities round him up.

To pretend one is like the other is completely dishonest. Saying I think the later is OK is not saying I think the former is ok and you are trying to pretend that is what I am saying.
 
2013-05-31 04:14:09 PM  

Corvus: Here you go:

FlashHarry: noncombatant meaning that they weren't engaged in combat at the time of their deaths.

Corvus: It can be sure! What country are we at war with under the AUMF? You tell me where it says what country we are at war with.


ok, you got me - i was going to hammer you on your use of "exactly," but that would be disingenuous.

Corvus: So according to you any military action is illegal on the war on terror?


i have NEVER said that it is illegal. i have said that it may be wrong. but as you have pointed out several times, my opinion "doesn't mean shiat."

Corvus: The part that is says they were not targets. Are you now saying any strike that MAY cause collateral damage to an american is also illegal?


i never said anything about targeting. i said only that four americans were executed. either way, they're dead without trial or due process.

Corvus: Then how is it Obama's scandal that Congress passed a law and Obama is doing what ever other president would do or has done?


it is less of a scandal and more of a controversy. i will concede you this point of semantics. congratulations!

Corvus: Was Washington send troops to quash the Whiskey Rebellion a "scandal"?


yes, at the time.

Corvus: Was Lincoln sending troops down to fight the south a "scandal"?


ask the south. i'd bet more than a few would say so even today.
 
2013-05-31 04:15:20 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: FlashHarry: • gee, i don't know, cooperate with local police agencies to have them picked up and detained pending trial?

Are you really this uninformed about whats going on? They refuse to pick these people up. Read more about this subject. They tried this. They were told to fark off.

btw - i have no doubt that Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad guy, and i shed no tears knowing of his demise. my problem, as i have stated over and over here, is that the AUMF could be used to kill any american anywhere any time for any reason. and while legal, i believe that it is wrong because it removes due process.


So you have a problem with the AUMF - How is the AUMF an "Obama scandal" again?
 
2013-05-31 04:16:43 PM  
You mean the rightwing media lied about this?
 
2013-05-31 04:17:47 PM  

Corvus: You said he was a NON-COMBATANT and that means he should not have been targeted. Are you still saying that yes or no?


i'm saying that we don't know that for sure. as i said earlier, we were sure all the gitmo detainees were combatants. then we released half of them. we've been wrong before.

Corvus: You also said 4 American non-combatants were targeted (which turned out to be not true)


i said executed, not targeted. which was true.

Corvus: But you seem to think there is no difference from a guy sitting in a coffee shop with no terrorists ties getting killed in that manner and some guy who is working with the enemy planning military operations against the US in a country where we can't have authorities round him up.


i never said that at all. my point is, depending on who the president is, he or she can designate anyone a combatant and then legally kill them without due process. that is wrong - in my opinion. which is why i made my point about a president santorum or bachmann. i trust obama, but just because i trust him, i don't think that presidents should have that power - and he doesn't either.
 
2013-05-31 04:18:54 PM  

Corvus: So you have a problem with the AUMF - How is the AUMF an "Obama scandal" again?


i conceded earlier that perhaps scandal was the wrong word and that i should have used controversy instead.

controversy |ˈkäntrəˌvərsē|
noun ( pl. controversies )
disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated: he sometimes caused controversy because of his forceful views | the announcement ended a protracted controversy.
 
2013-05-31 04:20:56 PM  

FlashHarry: i never said anything about targeting. i said only that four americans were executed.


Huh?

Executed implies targeting!!! That's so dishonest.

If I say someone is "executed" that implies he is purposely being targeted. So know you are saying we can not accidentally kill Americans without a trail? How the fark would that work?

FlashHarry: Corvus: Was Washington send troops to quash the Whiskey Rebellion a "scandal"?

yes, at the time.

Corvus: Was Lincoln sending troops down to fight the south a "scandal"?

ask the south. i'd bet more than a few would say so even today


Wow now were are getting to the "Yes Lincoln SHOULD HAVE been tried for war crimes for attacking the south". I guess this proves how ridiculous your argument actually is.

FlashHarry: Corvus: Then how is it Obama's scandal that Congress passed a law and Obama is doing what ever other president would do or has done?

it is less of a scandal and more of a controversy. i will concede you this point of semantics. congratulations!


Your the one play semantics.

You said it was a "bona fide scandal" so how is him doing what most president have done or will do a "Scandal"? You are the one saying "ok it's a controversy" I never brought up the term "controversy".

Well all the other things you mentioned are "controversies" too so why again is this one different?
 
2013-05-31 04:21:49 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So you have a problem with the AUMF - How is the AUMF an "Obama scandal" again?

i conceded earlier that perhaps scandal was the wrong word and that i should have used controversy instead.

controversy |ˈkäntrəˌvərsē|
noun ( pl. controversies )
disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated: he sometimes caused controversy because of his forceful views | the announcement ended a protracted controversy.


Well then the AP, IRS, and Benghazi are big "controversies" so what is your point then?
 
2013-05-31 04:23:15 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: But you seem to think there is no difference from a guy sitting in a coffee shop with no terrorists ties getting killed in that manner and some guy who is working with the enemy planning military operations against the US in a country where we can't have authorities round him up.

i never said that at all. my point is, depending on who the president is, he or she can designate anyone a combatant and then legally kill them without due process. that is wrong - in my opinion. which is why i made my point about a president santorum or bachmann. i trust obama, but just because i trust him, i don't think that presidents should have that power - and he doesn't either.


Well that's how war powers works it's not an "bona fide Obama scandal".
 
2013-05-31 04:25:29 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: You also said 4 American non-combatants were targeted (which turned out to be not true)

i said executed, not targeted. which was true.


Executed implied targeted.

When someone says "I executed your dog". It implies the person willfully killed the dog, not accidental.

So once again how do you think war operations would work if no American can be accidentally killed ever?
 
2013-05-31 04:29:38 PM  

Corvus: Wow now were are getting to the "Yes Lincoln SHOULD HAVE been tried for war crimes for attacking the south". I guess this proves how ridiculous your argument actually is.


there you go putting words in my mouth again. but, yes, straw men are much easier to fight.

i said, "ask the south." i side with the north, so, no, i don't thing lincoln "SHOULD HAVE been tried for war crimes."

Corvus: If I say someone is "executed" that implies he is purposely being targeted. So know you are saying we can not accidentally kill Americans without a trail? How the fark would that work?


they were killed by the US government without due process. yes, three of the four died as collateral damage and weren't "targeted."

Corvus: Well all the other things you mentioned are "controversies" too so why again is this one different?


they're not legitimate controversies -- not inasmuch as they reach the president, which republicans are trying so desperately to do. that's my point.

Corvus: Well that's how war powers works it's not an "bona fide Obama scandal".


i have conceded many times that perhaps "scandal" was the wrong word. it is a bona fide obama "controversy," however.

but if you want to win on purely semantic grounds, go ahead. you win. congratulations. enjoy your glorious victory!
 
2013-05-31 04:31:33 PM  

Corvus: Executed implied targeted.

When someone says "I executed your dog". It implies the person willfully killed the dog, not accidental.

So once again how do you think war operations would work if no American can be accidentally killed ever?


i amend my previous statements. please replace "executed" with "killed by the US government without due process."
 
2013-05-31 04:33:44 PM  

Corvus: So once again how do you think war operations would work if no American can be accidentally killed ever?


ok, my point, revised for improved semantics:

i agree that extrajudicial killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

now that i've revised my initial statement, would you care to argue against it?
 
2013-05-31 04:37:46 PM  

FlashHarry: they were killed by the US government without due process. yes, three of the four died as collateral damage and weren't "targeted."


Tillman died by American hands too, so does many Americans from friendly fire. So then why are you ignoring them?

FlashHarry: Corvus: Well all the other things you mentioned are "controversies" too so why again is this one different?

they're not legitimate controversies -- not inasmuch as they reach the president, which republicans are trying so desperately to do. that's my point.


They are controversies. Ahh new weasel word detected "legitimate" added that wasn't there before. So Obama doing something most president have done or would do and according to you is legal is a "legitimate controversy"? You keep flipping on this.

FlashHarry: Corvus: Well that's how war powers works it's not an "bona fide Obama scandal".

i have conceded many times that perhaps "scandal" was the wrong word. it is a bona fide obama "controversy," however.

but if you want to win on purely semantic grounds, go ahead. you win. congratulations. enjoy your glorious victory!


I have NO idea the difference between a bona fide obama "controversy,"  and a "bona fide Obama scandal". You're the one playing the semantics game not I.

Are you saying Obama has done something wrong, yes or no?

You seem to be the one trying to play semantics about it. I NEVER brought up the word controversy and I have no idea what the difference between a "legitimate controversy" is and a "bona fide scandal" they seem to mean the same thing to me. You are the one seeming to being making some semantic distinction not I.
 
2013-05-31 04:37:57 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.


The Conservative idiots plainly lied about how many times he was in the White House, but it is bad for Obama?
 
2013-05-31 04:39:03 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So once again how do you think war operations would work if no American can be accidentally killed ever?

ok, my point, revised for improved semantics:

i agree that extrajudicial killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

now that i've revised my initial statement, would you care to argue against it?


Yes once again, if you don't care it's about DRONES why do you keep saying it is about DRONES!
 
2013-05-31 04:42:38 PM  

Corvus: Tillman died by American hands too, so does many Americans from friendly fire. So then why are you ignoring them?


i'm not ignoring them. this was about obama. tillman died under bush.

Corvus: They are controversies. Ahh new weasel word detected "legitimate" added that wasn't there before.


my initial statement - the one that got you all frothed up talked about "fake scandals." and while i admit i should have said "controversies" instead of "scandals," the use of the word "legitimate" is NOT a 'weasel word,' IT WAS MY WHOLE F*CKING POINT. try to keep up.

Corvus: Are you saying Obama has done something wrong, yes or no?


i'm saying that he may have done something wrong though not illegal.

once again,  my point, revised for improved semantics:

i agree that extrajudicial  killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

once again, would you care to argue against it?
 
2013-05-31 04:45:00 PM  

Corvus: Yes once again, if you don't care it's about DRONES why do you keep saying it is about DRONES!


the operative word was killing - i simply copy/pasted my initial statement, amended for semantics. i have MANY TIMES said that drones weren't my point. but if you are too lazy to take that into account, here is my statement, amended a SECOND time:

i agree that extrajudicial  killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

again, for the third time, i invite you to argue my point. which has not changed in substance.
 
2013-05-31 04:49:30 PM  

randomjsa: So basically Atlantic has no more idea than anyone else does and is just spewing liberal talking points to help cover up another Obama administration scandal.


You seem disappointed.  Better luck next time, champ.
 
2013-05-31 04:50:55 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Tillman died by American hands too, so does many Americans from friendly fire. So then why are you ignoring them?

i'm not ignoring them. this was about obama. tillman died under bush.

So any friendly fire deaths in war is a "legitimate controversy" against the president?

FlashHarry: my initial statement - the one that got you all frothed up talked about "fake scandals." and while i admit i should have said "controversies" instead of "scandals," the use of the word "legitimate" is NOT a 'weasel word,' IT WAS MY WHOLE F*CKING POINT. try to keep up.


Yes it was your original point. Then you said it was wrong and you meant controversy and then when I pointed out that made no sense you went to "legitimate controversy".  So now you are back to your original point that later you said was misstated?

FlashHarry: i agree that extrajudicial killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.


Once again why are you only upset about the American deaths that were done via drone? You are aware more have been caused by NON-drones in friendly fire?


You actually think the people who are upset in this controversy are upset for even the friendly fire deaths like you are portraying? I don't think that is the case.
 
2013-05-31 04:53:57 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Yes once again, if you don't care it's about DRONES why do you keep saying it is about DRONES!

the operative word was killing - i simply copy/pasted my initial statement, amended for semantics. i have MANY TIMES said that drones weren't my point. but if you are too lazy to take that into account, here is my statement, amended a SECOND time:

i agree that extrajudicial  killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

again, for the third time, i invite you to argue my point. which has not changed in substance.


Sorry why are the troubling again? You haven't explained except for bringing you points that have been misleading at best.
 
2013-05-31 04:56:12 PM  

Corvus: So any friendly fire deaths in war is a "legitimate controversy" against the president?


did pat tillman die as the result of president bush directly ordering the assassination of an american citizen? if not, then STFU

Corvus: Yes it was your original point. Then you said it was wrong and you meant controversy and then when I pointed out that made no sense you went to "legitimate controversy".  So now you are back to your original point that later you said was misstated?


wtf are you talking about? can you read? i have reposted my amended statement three times so far - why do you refuse to address it?

Corvus: Once again why are you only upset about the American deaths that were done via drone? You are aware more have been caused by NON-drones in friendly fire?


Corvus: Once again why are you only upset about the American deaths that were done via drone? You are aware more have been caused by NON-drones in friendly fire?


i have said MULTIPLE TIMES that drones aren't the issue. i have amended my initial statement MULTIPLE TIMES to reflect this.

for the fourth time, i post it here:

i agree that extrajudicial killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

you'll notice that the corrections i have made to satisfy you have not changed its initial meaning. why do you refuse to address it?
 
2013-05-31 04:57:51 PM  

FlashHarry: UNLESS THEY ARE ACTIVELY TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST AMERICAN TROOPS ON AN ACTUAL BATTLEFIELD.


So we can't shoot at the quartermasters and supply depots, or communications assets, or command and control centers, or the commanders and upper echelon of a nation's army that we are at war with because they're not "on an actual battlefield"?

That's no way to win a war, soldier.
 
2013-05-31 04:59:03 PM  

Corvus: Sorry why are the troubling again? You haven't explained except for bringing you points that have been misleading at best.


for the fifth time, rephrased this time to remove any ambiguity:

i agree that extrajudicial killings is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

the only things that have changed are the following:

• i changed "executions" to "killings"
• i changed "scandals" to "controversies"
• i removed "via drone strikes" (which was only in there because that was the current preferred method of extrajudicial killing)

so.... for the fifth time - will you or will you not argue against the above bolded statement?
 
2013-05-31 05:00:33 PM  

regindyn: simplicimus: 11, 118, 157, what does it matter? Why was this guy talking to his boss in the first place?

You must work at a dysfunctional shiathole of a business.


the joke flew right by you
 
2013-05-31 05:01:48 PM  

Deucednuisance: So we can't shoot at the quartermasters and supply depots, or communications assets, or command and control centers, or the commanders and upper echelon of a nation's army that we are at war with because they're not "on an actual battlefield"?


no we don't. it's against the geneva conventions, i believe, to go into a rear area and simply shoot somebody who is not trying to kill at you (walking up to the quartermaster and executing him, for instance). i'm not saying it hasn't happened; i'm sure it has. but at the very least, you'd be investigated.
 
2013-05-31 05:04:08 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So any friendly fire deaths in war is a "legitimate controversy" against the president?

did pat tillman die as the result of president bush directly ordering the assassination of an american citizen? if not, then STFU


NEITHER DID THE OTHER 3 GUYS YOU LISTED!!!!

You are being so dishonest. The 3 Americans dead count for Obama who were NOT targeted but they don't magically count for anyone else. Why is that?
 
2013-05-31 05:06:59 PM  

FlashHarry: Mr. Holder also wrote that United States forces had killed three other Americans who "were not specifically targeted." (emphasis mine)


Accidents are not executions, you know.
 
2013-05-31 05:09:56 PM  

FlashHarry: no we don't. it's against the geneva conventions, i believe,


I believe you are mistaken.  Feel free to cite anything you got to support your claims.

Change "supply depots" to "ammo dumps".    That change anything?  If so, why?

Don't take further silence as shiatting and running.  It's quitting time on the East Coast, I'm going home.
 
2013-05-31 05:10:18 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So any friendly fire deaths in war is a "legitimate controversy" against the president?

did pat tillman die as the result of president bush directly ordering the assassination of an american citizen? if not, then STFU



But they count for Obama, why again?

FlashHarry: In his letter to Congressional leaders, Mr. Holder confirmed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who died in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen. Mr. Holder also wrote that United States forces had killed three other Americans who "were not specifically targeted." (emphasis mine)


You keep doing this where your rules change from if we are talking about Obama "Non-targeted" victims count but if we are talking about other presidents they don't.

You admitted 3 of the 4 of your "non-combatant" Americans were not even targeted. And the 4th you refuse to say if they are a combatant or not even though they ran military operations for the enemy against the United States and admit they could not just be rounded up by law enforcement like you said should have been done.

You keep making rules and I point out that those rules either make no sense or a being followed you keep trying to reword the rules or change the rules.
 
2013-05-31 05:10:32 PM  

FlashHarry: Deucednuisance: So we can't shoot at the quartermasters and supply depots, or communications assets, or command and control centers, or the commanders and upper echelon of a nation's army that we are at war with because they're not "on an actual battlefield"?

no we don't. it's against the geneva conventions, i believe, to go into a rear area and simply shoot somebody who is not trying to kill at you (walking up to the quartermaster and executing him, for instance). i'm not saying it hasn't happened; i'm sure it has. but at the very least, you'd be investigated.


lolwhat?
If you're in uniform (minus the red cross on your lid) you have a bullseye on you.
Of course, the Geneva convention is about as relevant as quantum entanglement is to gophers.
 
2013-05-31 05:13:16 PM  

Corvus: NEITHER DID THE OTHER 3 GUYS YOU LISTED!!!!


YES THEY DID

THEY DIED AS THE RESULT OF A DIRECT ASSASSINATION ORDER FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA

pat tillman did not die as the result of a direct assassination order from president bush. he died in a friendly fire incident DURING A WAR.

for the SIXTH time:

i agree that extrajudicial killings is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

will you or will you not argue against the above bolded statement?
 
2013-05-31 05:14:01 PM  

FlashHarry: Deucednuisance: So we can't shoot at the quartermasters and supply depots, or communications assets, or command and control centers, or the commanders and upper echelon of a nation's army that we are at war with because they're not "on an actual battlefield"?

no we don't. it's against the geneva conventions, i believe, to go into a rear area and simply shoot somebody who is not trying to kill at you (walking up to the quartermaster and executing him, for instance). i'm not saying it hasn't happened; i'm sure it has. but at the very least, you'd be investigated.


That's wrong. Your impression on how wars are fought is very naive. We bomb the shiat out of places to get at military targets the idea we don't if someone is not actively holding a gun to you is bullshiat.

Sure if his hands are up and he gives up we take prisoners but if they are stationed at some military target we bomb the shiat out of them.

Look at WWII we leveled entire towns.
 
2013-05-31 05:19:12 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: NEITHER DID THE OTHER 3 GUYS YOU LISTED!!!!

YES THEY DID

THEY DIED AS THE RESULT OF A DIRECT ASSASSINATION ORDER FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA

pat tillman did not die as the result of a direct assassination order from president bush. he died in a friendly fire incident DURING A WAR.

for the SIXTH time:

i agree that extrajudicial killings is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

will you or will you not argue against the above bolded statement?


So you are trying to say this isn't a war again? I thought you said the AUMF was legal even though you didn't agree with it?

This is frustrating because you say something one moment and then go back the other way later.

Once again I do disagree with your statement because I don't think it is troubling and you have not shown me why it is.I have already said this to you.

You said we had "executed" 4 American non-combatants which IS troubling and which turned out to be NOT TRUE.

The reality of what you said was we executed 1 American who was working with the enemy and planning operations against the US and we could not use normal law enforcement of the region to get.

I do not find that troubling at all. And so far you have been unable to say why it is troubling except for talking about issues that have nothing to do with that issue.
 
2013-05-31 05:19:48 PM  

Corvus: That's wrong. Your impression on how wars are fought is very naive. We bomb the shiat out of places to get at military targets the idea we don't if someone is not actively holding a gun to you is bullshiat.


ok, fair enough. i'm being naive. i was talking about walkng up to a "quartermaster" and shooting him in the head. if it's ok to do that, then i'm wrong.

why won't you answer my question:

for the SEVENTH time:

i agree that extrajudicial killings is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

will you or will you not argue against the above bolded statement?
 
2013-05-31 05:20:54 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: NEITHER DID THE OTHER 3 GUYS YOU LISTED!!!!

YES THEY DID

THEY DIED AS THE RESULT OF A DIRECT ASSASSINATION ORDER FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA

pat tillman did not die as the result of a direct assassination order from president bush. he died in a friendly fire incident DURING A WAR.

for the SIXTH time:

i agree that extrajudicial killings is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

will you or will you not argue against the above bolded statement?


Yes. like I have said already. It is NOT troubling when it is used to get people who are siding with the enemy during times of war and planning attacks against the US. Which is what Obama has done.

I have said this 3 or 4 times already and you keep putting your fingers in your ears.
 
2013-05-31 05:22:45 PM  

Corvus: This is frustrating because you say something one moment and then go back the other way later.


BULLSH*T the only things i changed made ZERO bearing on my statement, which you refuse to address. 

Corvus: You said we had "executed" 4 American non-combatants which IS troubling and which turned out to be NOT TRUE.


i changed "executed" to killed about two hours and twenty posts ago. but if you want to hang onto this as a semantic victory, congratulations.
 
2013-05-31 05:23:12 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: That's wrong. Your impression on how wars are fought is very naive. We bomb the shiat out of places to get at military targets the idea we don't if someone is not actively holding a gun to you is bullshiat.

ok, fair enough. i'm being naive. i was talking about walkng up to a "quartermaster" and shooting him in the head. if it's ok to do that, then i'm wrong.

why won't you answer my question:

for the SEVENTH time:

i agree that extrajudicial killings is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

will you or will you not argue against the above bolded statement?


Corvus: Sorry why are the troubling again? You haven't explained except for bringing you points that have been misleading at best.


Corvus: Once again I do disagree with your statement because I don't think it is troubling and you have not shown me why it is.I have already said this to you.


Corvus: Yes. like I have said already. It is NOT troubling when it is used to get people who are siding with the enemy during times of war and planning attacks against the US. Which is what Obama has done.

I have said this 3 or 4 times already and you keep putting your fingers in your ears.


I have told you mean times already. And you keep ignoring it.
 
2013-05-31 05:24:26 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: This is frustrating because you say something one moment and then go back the other way later.

BULLSH*T the only things i changed made ZERO bearing on my statement, which you refuse to address. 

Corvus: You said we had "executed" 4 American non-combatants which IS troubling and which turned out to be NOT TRUE.

i changed "executed" to killed about two hours and twenty posts ago. but if you want to hang onto this as a semantic victory, congratulations.


So then Tillman counts too then? Which is it?
 
2013-05-31 05:24:52 PM  
Both of you should stop now and start drinking.
Circular....study it out.
 
2013-05-31 05:25:06 PM  

Corvus: It is NOT troubling when it is used to get people who are siding with the enemy during times of war and planning attacks against the US.


finally. thank you.

i believe that you are wrong - primarily because "during times of war" in an unending war is literally forever, giving the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time.

but thank you for finally addressing the statement.
 
2013-05-31 05:27:30 PM  

Corvus: So then Tillman counts too then? Which is it?


so you think pat tillman, a uniformed soldier dying in a friendly fire incident during a battle in a theater of war is the SAME as an american dying in a country with which we are NOT at war as collateral damage from an assassination order from the president?

holy fark.
 
2013-05-31 05:28:43 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: It is NOT troubling when it is used to get people who are siding with the enemy during times of war and planning attacks against the US.

finally. thank you.

i believe that you are wrong - primarily because "during times of war" in an unending war is literally forever, giving the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time.

but thank you for finally addressing the statement.


Finally I said it 4 times and you were ignoring it!!

Hey, I never said that was fine. I said that has nothing to do with Obama.

What has Obama done? What's the scandal or "legitimate controversy" he made?

Once again OBAMA DID NOT PASS THE AUMF LIKE YOU KEEP PRETENDING.
 
2013-05-31 05:30:22 PM  

Corvus: I said that has nothing to do with Obama.


he ordered it. i'd say that it has a bit to do with him.

Corvus: OBAMA DID NOT PASS THE AUMF LIKE YOU KEEP PRETENDING.


i have never once suggested he did. in fact, i have stated several times that he has recently come out against it. but keep putting words in my mouth; it's so much easier than arguing the actual point.
 
2013-05-31 05:31:21 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So then Tillman counts too then? Which is it?

so you think pat tillman, a uniformed soldier dying in a friendly fire incident during a battle in a theater of war is the SAME as an american dying in a country with which we are NOT at war as collateral damage from an assassination order from the president?

holy fark.


Nope. I don't but he was an American killed without a trail accidentally just like those you are counting as Obama "extrajudicial killings" in your statements.

Are you saying people fighting for the enemy have more rights than people fighting on the side of the US? We can kill people in the US military accidentally but those fighting for the enemy accidentally killing is not ok? That once again makes no farking sense.
 
2013-05-31 05:33:29 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: I said that has nothing to do with Obama.

he ordered it. i'd say that it has a bit to do with him.


He didn't order their deaths. You really don't understand the diffence?

Corvus: OBAMA DID NOT PASS THE AUMF LIKE YOU KEEP PRETENDING.

i have never once suggested he did. in fact, i have stated several times that he has recently come out against it. but keep putting words in my mouth; it's so much easier than arguing the actual point.


So then how are you justifying the powers the the AUMF gives Obama is Obama's fault? His "Scandal" or "controversy"? How does it make him responsible for it then?
 
2013-05-31 05:33:44 PM  

Corvus: Nope. I don't but he was an American killed without a trail accidentally just like those you are counting as Obama "extrajudicial killings" in your statements.


the only similarity is the accidental nature of their deaths. tillman was a uniformed soldier on an actual battlefield in an actual war. to equate that with some noncombatant american citizen (remember - not targeted) abroad dying as the result of the collateral damage from an assassination order from the president is patently ridiculous.
 
2013-05-31 05:35:32 PM  

Corvus: He didn't order their deaths. You really don't understand the diffence?


he ordered the assassination that caused their deaths. this is different than a uniformed soldier dying on the field of battle.

Corvus: So then how are you justifying the powers the the AUMF gives Obama is Obama's fault? His "Scandal" or "controversy"? How does it make him responsible for it then?


so you admit putting words in my mouth. that's big of you.
 
2013-05-31 05:36:26 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: OBAMA DID NOT PASS THE AUMF LIKE YOU KEEP PRETENDING.

i have never once suggested he did. in fact, i have stated several times that he has recently come out against it. but keep putting words in my mouth; it's so much easier than arguing the actual point.


You did right here:

FlashHarry: Corvus: It is NOT troubling when it is used to get people who are siding with the enemy during times of war and planning attacks against the US.

finally. thank you.

i believe that you are wrong - primarily because "during times of war" in an unending war is literally forever, giving the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time.

but thank you for finally addressing the statement.



You here are describing the AUMF and using it say the Obama's actions are wrong. You are saying the AUMF makes Obama wrong. If not take back that statement because you are now saying the AUMF has nothing to do with Obama's actions.
 
2013-05-31 05:37:17 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Nope. I don't but he was an American killed without a trail accidentally just like those you are counting as Obama "extrajudicial killings" in your statements.

the only similarity is the accidental nature of their deaths. tillman was a uniformed soldier on an actual battlefield in an actual war. to equate that with some noncombatant american citizen (remember - not targeted) abroad dying as the result of the collateral damage from an assassination order from the president is patently ridiculous.


Was Tillmane a extrajudicial killing? yes or no?
 
2013-05-31 05:38:47 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: He didn't order their deaths. You really don't understand the diffence?

he ordered the assassination that caused their deaths. this is different than a uniformed soldier dying on the field of battle.

Corvus: So then how are you justifying the powers the the AUMF gives Obama is Obama's fault? His "Scandal" or "controversy"? How does it make him responsible for it then?

so you admit putting words in my mouth. that's big of you.


No you did it here:

FlashHarry: Corvus: It is NOT troubling when it is used to get people who are siding with the enemy during times of war and planning attacks against the US.

finally. thank you.

i believe that you are wrong -

primarily because "during times of war" in an unending war is literally forever, giving the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time.

but thank you for finally addressing the statement.

I was talking about Obama's actions, you described the AUMF. The bolded is you describing the AUMF. I was talking about Obama's actions.
 
2013-05-31 05:40:38 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.



Please provide us with more predictions about the Blackhawks.
 
2013-05-31 05:40:38 PM  

Corvus: You here are describing the AUMF and using it say the Obama's actions are wrong. You are saying the AUMF makes Obama wrong. If not take back that statement because you are now saying the AUMF has nothing to do with Obama's actions.


wow. ok, i'll say it again, and i'll use small words: i believe that the AUMF is wrong. i believe that obama's ordering of extrajudicial killings under AUMF may also be wrong.

but i never said that "obama passed AUMF" as you said i did. obviously it was passed in the wake of 9/11, many years before obama took office. and even barring that temporal technicality, saying "obama passed AUMF" suggests that it was his idea, which it was not.
 
2013-05-31 05:42:35 PM  

Corvus: Was Tillmane a extrajudicial killing? yes or no?


no. he was a uniformed soldier on the field of battle in a theater of war.

this is in no way the same thing as being an american civilian in a country with whom we are not at war.
 
2013-05-31 05:46:04 PM  

FlashHarry: wow. ok, i'll say it again, and i'll use small words: i believe that the AUMF is wrong. i believe that obama's ordering of extrajudicial killings under AUMF may also be wrong.


Ok then one again: Which specific killings that Obama did were wrong and why? (and don't describe the AUMF like you did before)
 
2013-05-31 05:48:19 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Was Tillmane a extrajudicial killing? yes or no?

no. he was a uniformed soldier on the field of battle in a theater of war.

this is in no way the same thing as being an american civilian in a country with whom we are not at war.


Was he an extrajudicial killing?

Neither is someone who is accidentally killed and someone targeted on purpose. That is very different too but you seem to enjoy blurring those lines?

Why do you think a US uniformed Soldiers should have MORE rights than Americans working with the enemy and planning attacks against the US?
 
2013-05-31 05:49:25 PM  

Corvus: Which specific killings that Obama did were wrong and why? (and don't describe the AUMF like you did before)


what do you mean, "like i did before?" i believe the AUMF is wrong. and i believe that obama's using it to kill americans without trial may also be wrong. the two are inextricably linked.
 
2013-05-31 05:49:27 PM  

Corvus: Why do you think a US uniformed Soldiers should have MORE rights than Americans working with the enemy and planning attacks against the US?


Sorry I meant:
 

Why do you think a US uniformed Soldiers should have LESS rights than Americans working with the enemy and planning attacks against the US?

You are saying it's ok to accidentally kill US soldiers but not those fighting against us. How does that make any farking sense?
 
2013-05-31 05:51:42 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Which specific killings that Obama did were wrong and why? (and don't describe the AUMF like you did before)

what do you mean, "like i did before?" i believe the AUMF is wrong. and i believe that obama's using it to kill americans without trial may also be wrong. the two are inextricably linked.


I've showed you twice already.

Are you trolling or really this obtuse?

FlashHarry: i believe that you are wrong - primarily because "during times of war" in an unending war is literally forever, giving the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time.


What are you describing here? Do you think Obama "gave the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time. " or was that the AUMF?
 
2013-05-31 05:52:39 PM  
The Corvus and FlashHarry show will return after these messages.
 
2013-05-31 05:52:48 PM  

Corvus: You are saying it's ok to accidentally kill US soldiers but not those fighting against us. How does that make any farking sense?


jesus christ. i'm not saying that, and you farking well know it. talk about being disingenuous.

i'm saying that there is an inherent difference between being an american civilian abroad and being a uniformed american soldier on the field of battle in the theater of war.
 
2013-05-31 05:53:29 PM  
I'm sure O'Reilly will start the show tonight with a correction.


not
 
2013-05-31 05:53:48 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Which specific killings that Obama did were wrong and why? (and don't describe the AUMF like you did before)

what do you mean, "like i did before?" i believe the AUMF is wrong. and i believe that obama's using it to kill americans without trial may also be wrong. the two are inextricably linked.


So now we are back to this statement? So George Washington and Lincoln were wrong to send troops against Americans without trials?

Or are you going to go once again and pretend what you said isn't actually what you said?
 
2013-05-31 05:55:19 PM  

Corvus: What are you describing here? Do you think Obama "gave the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time. " or was that the AUMF?


the AUMF, which was passed in 2001, gave the president the power, and obama, as the president, used the power. i believe both are wrong - the passing of the AUMF and the president's using it to kill americans without trial. are you really this dim? i've said this over and over again. i don't know how i can be more plain.
 
2013-05-31 05:56:07 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: You are saying it's ok to accidentally kill US soldiers but not those fighting against us. How does that make any farking sense?

jesus christ. i'm not saying that, and you farking well know it. talk about being disingenuous.

i'm saying that there is an inherent difference between being an american civilian abroad and being a uniformed american soldier on the field of battle in the theater of war.


Then why can't we count Tillman again? Wasn't his rights taken away by also being an "extrajudicial killing"?

Why are you pretending it was unfair to kill those working with the enemy accidental without trial but not for US soldiers accidentally killed without trial?
 
2013-05-31 05:58:00 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: What are you describing here? Do you think Obama "gave the president the power to kill any american anywhere at any time. " or was that the AUMF?

the AUMF, which was passed in 2001, gave the president the power, and obama, as the president, used the power. i believe both are wrong - the passing of the AUMF and the president's using it to kill americans without trial. are you really this dim? i've said this over and over again. i don't know how i can be more plain.


Then why did you describe the AUMF (Not Obama's actions) for saying Obama is wrong?

I think your trolling now. No one can be this dense.

Once again. What of Obama's actions is wrong. Give me a SPECIFIC not a generalization and don't use the AUMF description like you have.
 
2013-05-31 05:58:05 PM  
zOMG Shulman only met with B. Hussein Osama ELEVEN times!!1!1!ELEVENTYONE!  How out of touch can that dagburn Dimmycrat varmint get?
 
2013-05-31 05:58:20 PM  

Corvus: So George Washington and Lincoln were wrong to send troops against Americans without trials?


i cannot speak to the whiskey rebellion as i do not know enough about it.

but in the case of the civil war, the southern states seceded from the union. at that point, they became, by their own secession an enemy country with its own uniformed army that was making war against the united states.

to equate that with an anti-american cleric in yemen or wherever is patently asinine.
 
2013-05-31 05:58:56 PM  

FlashHarry: the AUMF, which was passed in 2001, gave the president the power, and obama, as the president, used the power. i believe both are wrong - the passing of the AUMF and the president's using it to kill americans without trial. are you really this dim? i've said this over and over again. i don't know how i can be more plain.


Was Lincoln and Geroge Washington also wrong to send troops against US citizens with no trial?
 
2013-05-31 06:00:30 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So George Washington and Lincoln were wrong to send troops against Americans without trials?

i cannot speak to the whiskey rebellion as i do not know enough about it.

but in the case of the civil war, the southern states seceded from the union. at that point, they became, by their own secession an enemy country with its own uniformed army that was making war against the united states.

to equate that with an anti-american cleric in yemen or wherever is patently asinine.


WRONG. We didn't consider them a new country if we did the emancipation proclamation would have been bullshiat.

Serious like I said before you need to learn more about history and war. You have a very naive belief about it.
 
2013-05-31 06:00:51 PM  

Corvus: What of Obama's actions is wrong. Give me a SPECIFIC not a generalization and don't use the AUMF description like you have.


ORDERING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WITHOUT TRIAL.

you cannot be that stupid.
 
2013-05-31 06:01:08 PM  

FlashHarry: to equate that with an anti-american cleric in yemen or wherever is patently asinine.


So people's beliefs give people different sets of rights as US citzens?
 
2013-05-31 06:02:15 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: What of Obama's actions is wrong. Give me a SPECIFIC not a generalization and don't use the AUMF description like you have.

ORDERING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WITHOUT TRIAL.

you cannot be that stupid.


You said before they were not "Executions". Now you are back to this BS?

Who tell me specifically who and why it was wrong.
 
2013-05-31 06:02:50 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: What of Obama's actions is wrong. Give me a SPECIFIC not a generalization and don't use the AUMF description like you have.

ORDERING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WITHOUT TRIAL.

you cannot be that stupid.


Funny before you said there were not "executions" now your back to this bullshiat.
 
2013-05-31 06:03:08 PM  

Corvus: WRONG. We didn't consider them a new country if we did the emancipation proclamation would have been bullshiat.


they considered themselves a new country. however, conceding that we didn't, they were still an organized, uniformed force that took up arms against the united states with the goal of secession.

the fundamental difference is, terrorism isn't the same thing as war.
 
2013-05-31 06:04:18 PM  

Corvus: You said before they were not "Executions". Now you are back to this BS?


jesus farking CHRIST: it was the ordering of the execution that caused the other three NON-TARGETED americans to die.

i was talking about the radical cleric, WHO WAS EXECUTED WITHOUT TRIAL.
 
2013-05-31 06:05:10 PM  

Corvus: Funny before you said there were not "executions" now your back to this bullshiat.


funny how i said "AN american citizen." now you're back to your bullshiat.
 
2013-05-31 06:06:26 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: WRONG. We didn't consider them a new country if we did the emancipation proclamation would have been bullshiat.

they considered themselves a new country. however, conceding that we didn't, they were still an organized, uniformed force that took up arms against the united states with the goal of secession.

the fundamental difference is, terrorism isn't the same thing as war.


Holy shiat dude. We are officially at war. You even admitted to this earlier.

So you are once again pretending the AUMF does not put us at war?
 
2013-05-31 06:07:17 PM  
i think the discrepancy here is, i believe that terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war, because it is carried out, typically, by a non-state entity. this is why i believe that those accused of terrorism deserve due process and why pat tillman's death, though tragic, isn't the same as the death of an american abroad in a country with which we are not at war.
 
2013-05-31 06:07:38 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: You said before they were not "Executions". Now you are back to this BS?

jesus farking CHRIST: it was the ordering of the execution that caused the other three NON-TARGETED americans to die.

i was talking about the radical cleric, WHO WAS EXECUTED WITHOUT TRIAL.


OK then so the other 3 no longer count then? I am trying to keep track. Or your definitions just magically change when they become convenient for you?
 
2013-05-31 06:08:19 PM  

Corvus: We are officially at war. You even admitted to this earlier.

So you are once again pretending the AUMF does not put us at war?


HOLY F*CK. I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT, WHILE LEGAL, I BELIEVE THE AUMF TO BE WRONG.

*headdesk*
 
2013-05-31 06:10:54 PM  

Corvus: OK then so the other 3 no longer count then? I am trying to keep track. Or your definitions just magically change when they become convenient for you?


you're shifting and slithering so much, it's hard to keep track. you asked me what obama did that was wrong, and i answered you. you asked me how the three who died as collateral damage were different from pat tillman's death and i answered you. i have answered you over and over and over and over again, yet you fail to understand or don't want to.
 
2013-05-31 06:12:29 PM  

FlashHarry: i think the discrepancy here is, i believe that terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war, because it is carried out, typically, by a non-state entity. this is why i believe that those accused of terrorism deserve due process and why pat tillman's death, though tragic, isn't the same as the death of an american abroad in a country with which we are not at war.


Sure, now what does this have to do with Obamas actions? NOTHING

Once again you are saying you don't like the AUMF making us fight Terrorism as a WAR. But that has NOTHING to do with Obama. It is a war. You might not like that. I might not like that. Obama might not like that. But that's what it is.

That IS the reality!!! You don't farking get that. I and Obama understand that's the reality and we move on from there. So to us it's "we need to fight this war". To you it's "I don't want this to be a war so I am going to complain about those who acknowledge it as war and treat it like one". You instead are blaming those accepting the reality of the situation.

Serious take a deep breath and read what I said. It's why you keep conflating the two things. They are two separate things.
 
2013-05-31 06:14:06 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: We are officially at war. You even admitted to this earlier.

So you are once again pretending the AUMF does not put us at war?

HOLY F*CK. I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT, WHILE LEGAL, I BELIEVE THE AUMF TO BE WRONG.

*headdesk*


Then why do you keep saying we are not at war? You keep making that distinction in your comments and it's wrong.
 
2013-05-31 06:15:11 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: OK then so the other 3 no longer count then? I am trying to keep track. Or your definitions just magically change when they become convenient for you?

you're shifting and slithering so much, it's hard to keep track. you asked me what obama did that was wrong, and i answered you. you asked me how the three who died as collateral damage were different from pat tillman's death and i answered you. i have answered you over and over and over and over again, yet you fail to understand or don't want to.


I don't think I did. I asked if Tillman was an "extrajudicial killing" and you have refused to answer.
 
2013-05-31 06:17:01 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: You said before they were not "Executions". Now you are back to this BS?

jesus farking CHRIST: it was the ordering of the execution that caused the other three NON-TARGETED americans to die.

i was talking about the radical cleric, WHO WAS EXECUTED WITHOUT TRIAL.


My real problem to that is that the US does not do trials in absentia, and being in a country which doesn't have control within its own borders means that no one can arrest him for us. This means that any American joining al qaeda and working against the US in a country that doesn't have control within its own borders would be untouchable. Actually the entire cell he'd be with would be untouchable, because we'd have a high risk of killing him by attacking said cell.


Honestly on this my view is basically that if I wouldn't have a problem with us going after him if he wasn't a US citizen, then I am not sure why accident of birth should change the entire military policy of the US. Of course if he were in our custody, he should get a trial, no questions asked. On the other hand, I believe that anyone we have in our custody should get a trial, but I understand a military tribunal if they were captured in combat.
 
2013-05-31 06:17:27 PM  

Corvus: Serious take a deep breath and read what I said. It's why you keep conflating the two things. They are two separate things.


they ARE two separate things, and they are both, i believe wrong:

• the AUMF is inherently wrong, for reasons i've stated above, though legal
• obama's use of the AUMF to justify the extrajudicial execution of the cleric (and the collateral killing of three other americans) is also wrong, though legal

but my ORIGINAL point was, unlike the IRS, the AP and benghazi "scandals," this is a legitimate controversy involving obama personally and, as such, deserves discussion. the other issues mentioned run the gamut from witch hunt (benghazi) to worrisome (AP/IRS), but they don't involve obama.
 
2013-05-31 06:19:57 PM  
this is in no way the same thing as being an american civilian in a country with whom we are not at war.

Corvus: I asked if Tillman was an "extrajudicial killing" and you have refused to answer.


if by "refused to answer," you mean, "answering you directly and unequivocally":

FlashHarry: Corvus: Was Tillmane a extrajudicial killing? yes or no?

no. he was a uniformed soldier on the field of battle in a theater of war.

 
2013-05-31 06:20:58 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: OK then so the other 3 no longer count then? I am trying to keep track. Or your definitions just magically change when they become convenient for you?

you're shifting and slithering so much, it's hard to keep track. you asked me what obama did that was wrong, and i answered you. you asked me how the three who died as collateral damage were different from pat tillman's death and i answered you. i have answered you over and over and over and over again, yet you fail to understand or don't want to.


I don't understand how it's hard for you to keep track what you are saying or what you believe.

I asked you what you were upset about that Obama did. You mentioned 4 "executions"
Then when I had you tell me more you admitted 3 were not executions but "killings" so then you said you meant "killings" not "executions"
So then you started describing what you are really upset about is the authorization of force given to the president
I pointed out this is AUMF and has nothing to do with Obama
Then you threw a fit saying you never said Obama is responsible for the AUMF even though you used it to justify blame to Obama
So since we were getting of topic I asked once again for what OBAMA is at fault for.
You know said "Execution" again. So since this is different then your "killing" terminology you used earlier I asked for clarification on if we are not counting the 3 who were killed and not executed.
 
2013-05-31 06:21:11 PM  

Corvus: Then why do you keep saying we are not at war? You keep making that distinction in your comments and it's wrong.


that is why i believe the AUMF to be wrong. terror is a tactic. you cannot be at war with a tactic. i have said this over and over again, but you refuse to listen.
 
2013-05-31 06:23:12 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Serious take a deep breath and read what I said. It's why you keep conflating the two things. They are two separate things.

they ARE two separate things, and they are both, i believe wrong:

• the AUMF is inherently wrong, for reasons i've stated above, though legal
obama's use of the AUMF to justify the extrajudicial execution of the cleric (and the collateral killing of three other americans) is also wrong, though legal

but my ORIGINAL point was, unlike the IRS, the AP and benghazi "scandals," this is a legitimate controversy involving obama personally and, as such, deserves discussion. the other issues mentioned run the gamut from witch hunt (benghazi) to worrisome (AP/IRS), but they don't involve obama.


Why is killing the cleric wrong? You still have not given a coherent answer for that.

You say it's because it's an "extrajudicial killing" but when I mention other extrajudicial killings you say those don't count.

Can you please clarify why you think the killing was "wrong"? Because you have never given a reason that is consistent.
 
2013-05-31 06:24:30 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Then why do you keep saying we are not at war? You keep making that distinction in your comments and it's wrong.

that is why i believe the AUMF to be wrong. terror is a tactic. you cannot be at war with a tactic. i have said this over and over again, but you refuse to listen.


There is a difference between saying you do not agree with something and saying something is not legal.

You can't figure that out? I don't like the AUMF but I realize it's the law. I explained the up above.
 
2013-05-31 06:25:58 PM  

Corvus: I asked you what you were upset about that Obama did. You mentioned 4 "executions"
Then when I had you tell me more you admitted 3 were not executions but "killings" so then you said you meant "killings" not "executions"
So then you started describing what you are really upset about is the authorization of force given to the president
I pointed out this is AUMF and has nothing to do with Obama
Then you threw a fit saying you never said Obama is responsible for the AUMF even though you used it to justify blame to Obama
So since we were getting of topic I asked once again for what OBAMA is at fault for.
You know said "Execution" again. So since this is different then your "killing" terminology you used earlier I asked for clarification on if we are not counting the 3 who were killed and not executed.


if you're going to be this blatantly dishonest, there's no point in arguing with you.

but to answer all your points:

• i conceded that the term "execution" was incorrect as it relates to the three americans who died collaterally, which is why i amended it to "killing"
• i have said multiple times that i believe that the AUMF itself is wrong AND obama's use of it is wrong - though both are legal. these are two different things, only one of which is "obama's fault."
• i said "execution" again, because, as was made clear by my use of the singular article "A," i was referring to the death of the cleric, which was an extrajudicial targeted killing AKA "EXECUTION"
 
2013-05-31 06:26:06 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Then why do you keep saying we are not at war? You keep making that distinction in your comments and it's wrong.

that is why i believe the AUMF to be wrong. terror is a tactic. you cannot be at war with a tactic. i have said this over and over again, but you refuse to listen.


By the way you know the AUMF doesn't really put us at war against "terrorism" it puts us at war with those who caused 9/11 and those working with them and protecting them.

Like I said you really need to learn more about what you are talking about you have been very wrong on many points you have made in this thread.
 
2013-05-31 06:27:11 PM  

Corvus: Why is killing the cleric wrong? You still have not given a coherent answer for that.


i have said it multiple times: it was wrong because it was extrajudicial. are you blind?
 
2013-05-31 06:28:13 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: I asked you what you were upset about that Obama did. You mentioned 4 "executions"
Then when I had you tell me more you admitted 3 were not executions but "killings" so then you said you meant "killings" not "executions"
So then you started describing what you are really upset about is the authorization of force given to the president
I pointed out this is AUMF and has nothing to do with Obama
Then you threw a fit saying you never said Obama is responsible for the AUMF even though you used it to justify blame to Obama
So since we were getting of topic I asked once again for what OBAMA is at fault for.
You know said "Execution" again. So since this is different then your "killing" terminology you used earlier I asked for clarification on if we are not counting the 3 who were killed and not executed.

if you're going to be this blatantly dishonest, there's no point in arguing with you.

but to answer all your points:

• i conceded that the term "execution" was incorrect as it relates to the three americans who died collaterally, which is why i amended it to "killing"
• i have said multiple times that i believe that the AUMF itself is wrong AND obama's use of it is wrong - though both are legal. these are two different things, only one of which is "obama's fault."
• i said "execution" again, because, as was made clear by my use of the singular article "A," i was referring to the death of the cleric, which was an extrajudicial targeted killing AKA "EXECUTION"


So you believe in times of war no American can be killed without a trial? Even if he is working with the enemy and has taken up arms against the enemy?
 
2013-05-31 06:29:07 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Why is killing the cleric wrong? You still have not given a coherent answer for that.

i have said it multiple times: it was wrong because it was extrajudicial. are you blind?


So then Tillmans death was also wrong because it was an extrajudicial killing?

And so where the deaths in the civil war?
 
2013-05-31 06:30:06 PM  

Corvus: By the way you know the AUMF doesn't really put us at war against "terrorism" it puts us at war with those who caused 9/11 and those working with them and protecting them.


That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

this clause can be construed to mean anyone beyond the 9/11-connected actors.
 
2013-05-31 06:30:17 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Why is killing the cleric wrong? You still have not given a coherent answer for that.

i have said it multiple times: it was wrong because it was extrajudicial. are you blind?


I know you have given an answer but it was one you later contradicted yourself about.

You later said other "extrajudicial killings" were not the same like Tilmans. So that can't be it.
 
2013-05-31 06:30:56 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: By the way you know the AUMF doesn't really put us at war against "terrorism" it puts us at war with those who caused 9/11 and those working with them and protecting them.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

this clause can be construed to mean anyone beyond the 9/11-connected actors.


Ok. That's correct.
 
2013-05-31 06:31:11 PM  

Corvus: So you believe in times of war no American can be killed without a trial? Even if he is working with the enemy and has taken up arms against the enemy?


I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE LEGITIMATELY AT WAR, DESPITE WHAT THE AUMF SAYS.

are you farking BLIND?
 
2013-05-31 06:32:22 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Why is killing the cleric wrong? You still have not given a coherent answer for that.

i have said it multiple times: it was wrong because it was extrajudicial. are you blind?


You've said this and then said many other extrajudicial killings during war do not count like Tilman or the civil war... basically any others except for Obama's.
 
2013-05-31 06:34:20 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So you believe in times of war no American can be killed without a trial? Even if he is working with the enemy and has taken up arms against the enemy?

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE LEGITIMATELY AT WAR, DESPITE WHAT THE AUMF SAYS.

are you farking BLIND?


Are we legally at war or not?

Are you seriously saying Obama should have just pulled back all the troops back home because you think the war is not legitimate?

Why are you just arguing about this then? Why not complain about us having troops in Afghanistan too?

Sorry the reality is we are at war. You need to come to grips with reality.
 
2013-05-31 06:35:17 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So you believe in times of war no American can be killed without a trial? Even if he is working with the enemy and has taken up arms against the enemy?

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE LEGITIMATELY AT WAR, DESPITE WHAT THE AUMF SAYS.

are you farking BLIND?


Serous are you like 13?
 
2013-05-31 06:37:38 PM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: So you believe in times of war no American can be killed without a trial? Even if he is working with the enemy and has taken up arms against the enemy?

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE LEGITIMATELY AT WAR, DESPITE WHAT THE AUMF SAYS.

are you farking BLIND?


Are you:

Corvus: FlashHarry: i think the discrepancy here is, i believe that terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war, because it is carried out, typically, by a non-state entity. this is why i believe that those accused of terrorism deserve due process and why pat tillman's death, though tragic, isn't the same as the death of an american abroad in a country with which we are not at war.

Sure, now what does this have to do with Obamas actions? NOTHING

Once again you are saying you don't like the AUMF making us fight Terrorism as a WAR. But that has NOTHING to do with Obama. It is a war. You might not like that. I might not like that. Obama might not like that. But that's what it is.

That IS the reality!!! You don't farking get that. I and Obama understand that's the reality and we move on from there. So to us it's "we need to fight this war". To you it's "I don't want this to be a war so I am going to complain about those who acknowledge it as war and treat it like one". You instead are blaming those accepting the reality of the situation.

Serious take a deep breath and read what I said. It's why you keep conflating the two things. They are two separate things.


I think I am over. Obviously you are just having a fit that we are at war (not saying I agree with it or like it) and because others don't play along in your delusional world you are throwing a fit and blaming them because they are accepting the reality of it.

It's impossible to discuss the with you because you are incapable of accepting the reality of the current situation.
 
2013-05-31 07:03:51 PM  

Corvus: I think I am over. Obviously you are just having a fit that we are at war (not saying I agree with it or like it) and because others don't play along in your delusional world you are throwing a fit and blaming them because they are accepting the reality of it.

It's impossible to discuss the with you because you are incapable of accepting the reality of the current situation.


one last time:

• i believe that we are legally at war, according to the AUMF
• i believe this to be wrong (not illegal), for reasons i've stated above, ad nauseam
• i believe that obama was wrong to order the execution of an (singular) american citizen and through his actions cause the deaths (plural) of three more american citizens
• i believe that, while wrong, his actions were legal
• i believe that, counter to the AUMF, terrorism is a criminal activity, not a military one
• for this reason, i believe that the deaths of pat tillman and the deaths of the three unnamed americans mentioned above are not in the same category

you obviously disagree with me on all these points.

that proves my initial point, that this is a subject that is a bona fide controversy (i originally said scandal, which was wrong) as it relates to the president and his powers.

so far, i have answered your every question honestly, dozens of times over. i have admitted when i was wrong. you have put words in my mouth and ignored my statements. there is no point in arguing with you.

but you win. congratulations.
 
2013-05-31 07:16:29 PM  
Combine this with the doctored Benghazi emails, and you have an idea why all of these "scandals" have been non-starters from the beginning. Of course the Right tries to play it like the media is in Obama's pocket, when in reality it's just that they are in this plane of reality...
 
2013-05-31 07:26:26 PM  
see what happens when they cancel Intervention?
 
2013-05-31 08:53:28 PM  

FlashHarry: so far, i have answered your every question honestly, dozens of times over. i have admitted when i was wrong.


Really where did you admit you were wrong? You never did.

FlashHarry: so far, i have answered your every question honestly, dozens of times over.


That's BS you never answered most of my questions. Like you have never answered if Tillmans death was a "extra-judiciary killing" (according to your definition which is one that can happen by accident) which I have asked you many times instead you say he is a US soldier which has nothing to do with the question.

And I never said I supported that a BS statement you keep pretending I am arguing I am just saying it is the law unlike you who keeps pretending it doesn't exist.

Changing the subject is not "answering the question".
 
2013-05-31 09:48:41 PM  

Corvus: Really where did you admit you were wrong? You never did.


here

FlashHarry: it is less of a scandal and more of a controversy. i will concede you this point of semantics.


and here:

FlashHarry: i amend my previous statements. please replace "executed" with "killed by the US government without due process."


Corvus: That's BS you never answered most of my questions. Like you have never answered if Tillmans death was a "extra-judiciary killing" (according to your definition which is one that can happen by accident) which I have asked you many times instead you say he is a US soldier which has nothing to do with the question.


i did, right here:

FlashHarry: Corvus: Was Tillmane a extrajudicial killing? yes or no?

no. he was a uniformed soldier on the field of battle in a theater of war.

this is in no way the same thing as being an american civilian in a country with whom we are not at war.


his being a soldier has everything to do with the question, which i have explained countless times, but you refuse to listen.

Corvus: I am just saying it is the law unlike you who keeps pretending it doesn't exist.


i have never pretended it didn't exist. i have acknowledged it over and over and over again. you refuse to listen. i merely said i think it's wrong.

please point out where i pretended it doesn't exist. go ahead; i'll wait.
 
2013-05-31 11:44:45 PM  
You two need to either get a room or take out mutual restraining orders.
 
2013-06-01 02:24:21 AM  
If I were President, I wouldn't only keep close contact with my cabinet members, but all of the direct underlings of the cabinet members as well and maybe some of their direct underlings, depending on the department.  There are things you'll tell your boss's boss, but not your boss, after all.
 
2013-06-01 04:22:00 AM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: Really where did you admit you were wrong? You never did.

here

FlashHarry: it is less of a scandal and more of a controversy. i will concede you this point of semantics.

and here:

FlashHarry: i amend my previous statements. please replace "executed" with "killed by the US government without due process."

Corvus: That's BS you never answered most of my questions. Like you have never answered if Tillmans death was a "extra-judiciary killing" (according to your definition which is one that can happen by accident) which I have asked you many times instead you say he is a US soldier which has nothing to do with the question.

i did, right here:

FlashHarry: Corvus: Was Tillmane a extrajudicial killing? yes or no?

no. he was a uniformed soldier on the field of battle in a theater of war.

this is in no way the same thing as being an american civilian in a country with whom we are not at war.

his being a soldier has everything to do with the question, which i have explained countless times, but you refuse to listen.

Corvus: I am just saying it is the law unlike you who keeps pretending it doesn't exist.

i have never pretended it didn't exist. i have acknowledged it over and over and over again. you refuse to listen. i merely said i think it's wrong.

please point out where i pretended it doesn't exist. go ahead; i'll wait.


Sorry that's not admitting your wrong. You later said it was "Executed" again so saying you admitted you were wrong is BS.

If it is tell me what you were wrong about.

So what court found Tillman guilty of what crime exactly?

So you believe the US government can kill US uniformed soldier on the battlefield with no trial? They can kill them as often as the want with no trial?
 
2013-06-01 04:23:05 AM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: I am just saying it is the law unlike you who keeps pretending it doesn't exist.

i have never pretended it didn't exist. i have acknowledged it over and over and over again. you refuse to listen. i merely said i think it's wrong.

please point out where i pretended it doesn't exist. go ahead; i'll wait.


Right here:

FlashHarry: Corvus: So you believe in times of war no American can be killed without a trial? Even if he is working with the enemy and has taken up arms against the enemy?

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE LEGITIMATELY AT WAR, DESPITE WHAT THE AUMF SAYS.

are you farking BLIND?

 
2013-06-01 04:28:16 AM  

FlashHarry: Corvus: I am just saying it is the law unlike you who keeps pretending it doesn't exist.

i have never pretended it didn't exist. i have acknowledged it over and over and over again. you refuse to listen. i merely said i think it's wrong.

please point out where i pretended it doesn't exist. go ahead; i'll wait.


You have pretended it doesn't count because you don't like it. Which for all intents and purposes is the same thing.
 
2013-06-01 09:23:32 AM  

Corvus: You have pretended it doesn't count because you don't like it. Which for all intents and purposes is the same thing.


considering something wrong isn't pretending it doesn't exist. even a child understands this.

Corvus: You later said it was "Executed" again so saying you admitted you were wrong is BS.


why do you feel you have to lie like that? it undermines your point and makes you look weak.

i very clearly stated that when i used the word 'executed' again, it was because i was referring to the cleric, who was indeed executed, and NOT the three americans who were killed inadvertently.

since you are a serial liar and have no interest in actual discussion, i don't believe that i'll continue this conversation, as it is quite clear at this point that i've been mega-trolled. so, congratulations, you got me. you win.
 
2013-06-01 09:27:04 AM  

Corvus: So you believe the US government can kill US uniformed soldier on the battlefield with no trial?


once again you lie and put words into my mouth. once again, this makes you look like a troll.

pat tillman was a uniformed soldier who died in a friendly fire incident on an active battlefield in a war. nowhere did i say this was ok. i merely said that it was different than a noncombatant american abroad getting blown up accidentally by a predator strike in a country with which we are not at war.

if you think these things are the same, which you seem to do, you are an idiot.
 
Displayed 298 of 298 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report