tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post2006464777251293648..comments2023-10-30T09:23:42.803-05:00Comments on Some Assembly Required: SAR #16274Charles Kingsley Michaelson, IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04364694465614330540noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-86016506521450574082016-09-30T22:06:53.674-05:002016-09-30T22:06:53.674-05:00Obama fibs again: Libya under Qaddafi? Anyone rem...Obama fibs again: Libya under Qaddafi? Anyone remember that Congress waived State Immunity for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland -- so much for president being set by allowing Saudi Arabia to be sued.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-54057699460333008642016-09-30T18:07:25.446-05:002016-09-30T18:07:25.446-05:00Beyond opening the door to lawsuits by family memb...Beyond opening the door to lawsuits by family members of drone victims, I think there is more at stake for our government by opening the door to litigation and the presentation of evidence in a court of law. I realize people are very touchy about this subject, but if you accept the possibility that individuals in the Saudi government (our ally) played a role in the attacks, you cannot rule out complicity by some US citizens. People have a visceral revulsion to this insinuation; what strikes me as odd is that they don't bother to look into it. There's a large amount of information available, some totally absurd, some quite compelling. What I'm saying is that if it is such a preposterous idea, then there is no harm in looking into it and being able to say that you've informed yourself are able to reject these theories, rather than rejecting them outright. I'm sorry. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-81038419434698738192016-09-30T10:27:58.823-05:002016-09-30T10:27:58.823-05:00FYI. I came across NPR's "fact check&quo...FYI. I came across NPR's "fact check" of the first debate. Man, it's such a pro-Hillary pile-on, it's freaking embarrassing. I'm not saying that Trump doesn't float some easy target, while Hillary is much more practiced at making safer platitude assertions. But read it for yourself.<br /><br />Half the comments are merely endorsed Hillary's vague platitudes, not checking facts. In the few cases where they corrected her, they also offered a helpful "however", as opposed to the few cases where they agreed with Trump, which inevitably came with an "except" addenda to find a way to make him wrong anyway. The rest of the comments were gratuitous snide comments directed at Trump, reaching for something negative to say that didn't even pretend to be checking facts.<br /><br />It was awful. But the way, where were all those outspoken critics in the press during the Bush administration?<br /><br />http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate<br /><br />McMikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-23670060692514404652016-09-30T10:19:02.643-05:002016-09-30T10:19:02.643-05:00Re vocabulary. Oh, THOSE consequences. Kinda like...Re vocabulary. Oh, THOSE consequences. Kinda like every other major international law - war crimes, munitions sales, money laundering, funding terrorism, elections transparency, climate change ... oh wait, you mean the law would apply to us as well?!<br /><br />Re Your move. I have been voting Green with a clear conscience since 2000. The arguments of the party hacks to try and scold us back in line are thin, insulting, and further evidence that they feel entitled to our vote and forgotten that elections are supposed to be won, by earning votes through effectiveness and responsiveness.<br /><br />Every vote for a Dem at this point is an endorsement of the worst long-term failure in modern political history. Even baseball teams change the manager when the club refuses to win.<br /><br />I would love to see a national effort - VoteThird - encourage everyone to vote for a third party, any third party, whatever one that approximates your general policy orientation, or even the Monster Raving Looney party.McMikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-17646413094062825962016-09-30T09:25:35.185-05:002016-09-30T09:25:35.185-05:00Your Move: A rhetorical question if there ever was...Your Move: A rhetorical question if there ever was one considering we have been reduced to a single party since 'Morning in America'!<br /><br />There are no Democrats anymore, the only thing remaining is their 'platform' which none of them actually expect to adhere to.<br /><br />The 'obstructionist' Republican's exist to block governance [read regulation] and lead the 'hand wringing' when it comes to marginal social issues while those who call themselves Democrats fulfill the role of 'enablers' for the military/industrial/prison complex.<br /><br />I'm telling you folks, holding your nose just isn't going to cut it this time because anything even remotely resembling 'sanity' isn't on the table.<br /><br />Gegnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01918737715343158105noreply@blogger.com