POL Politiek
Discussies en diepgaande gesprekken over de politiek in de breedste zin van het woord kun je hier voeren.
Open er een topic over.quote:Op zondag 20 januari 2013 13:14 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
[..]
Het een sluit het ander niet uit. Sterker, naïviteit is vaak erg koddig.
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Ik heb je toch niet aan het huilen gemaakt, hoop ik.quote:
Op maandag 3 februari 2014 08:10 schreef Enchanter het volgende:[/b]
In discussie gaan met Koos Vogels :') , een grotere mongool is er niet :r
In discussie gaan met Koos Vogels :') , een grotere mongool is er niet :r
Wat denk je zelf?quote:
[..]
Ik heb je toch niet aan het huilen gemaakt, hoop ik.
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Kan de discussie tussen heiden6 en koosvogels niet privé gevoerd worden?
In ieder geval: http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/1.1530204
Ik keek even hoe het eraan toe ging in Washington DC, en blijkbaar is dit de nummerplaat van de auto waarin Obama en Biden stapten?
Blijkbaar is dit allemaal gepland en ook gesteund door Obama zelf:
http://newsfeed.time.com/(...)ation-license-plate/
In ieder geval: http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/1.1530204
Ik keek even hoe het eraan toe ging in Washington DC, en blijkbaar is dit de nummerplaat van de auto waarin Obama en Biden stapten?
Blijkbaar is dit allemaal gepland en ook gesteund door Obama zelf:
http://newsfeed.time.com/(...)ation-license-plate/
quote:President Obama has lived in the District now for four years, and has seen first-hand how patently unfair it is for working families in D.C. to work hard, raise children and pay taxes, without having a vote in Congress,” said the White House in a statement. ”Attaching these plates to the presidential vehicles demonstrates the president’s commitment to the principle of full representation for the people of the District of Columbia and his willingness to fight for voting rights, home rule and budget autonomy for the District.” The District of Columbia was founded when George Washington signed the Resident Act on July 16, 1790; in 1801, D.C. was placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. Since the capital district isn’t formally beholden to a U.S. state, it lacks a voting member in Congress. And yet D.C. residents still must pay Federal taxes: a sore subject for many of the city’s residents, who number over 630,000 — more than the entire population of Vermont or Wyoming.
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
En de zogenaamde heilige democraten doen er vrolijk aan mee.quote:
Patience is not one of my virtues, neither is memory. Or patience for that matter.
Als ik het goed begrijp hebben John Kerry and Jacob Lew hun hoorzittingen in de Senaat al gedaan, maar komt de (controversiële?) van Chuck Hagel voor defensie pas op 31 januari.
http://www.senate.gov/pag(...)mmittee_hearings.htm
Klopt het dat dit nog niet hetzelfde is als de eigenlijke goedkeuring krijgen van de Senaat? Wanneer gebeurt dat?
http://www.senate.gov/pag(...)mmittee_hearings.htm
Klopt het dat dit nog niet hetzelfde is als de eigenlijke goedkeuring krijgen van de Senaat? Wanneer gebeurt dat?
Ik zou voor geen goud op de Democraten stemmen als ze in Nederland meededen aan de verkiezingen. In Amerika heb je echter geen keus, daar is het een keuze tussen een corrupte partij en een corrupte partij met gelovigen.quote:
[..]
En de zogenaamde heilige democraten doen er vrolijk aan mee.
Choking on those tossed salads and scrambled eggs
Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens
The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen.
Since then, senior Obama officials including Attorney General Eric Holder and John Brennan, Obama's top terrorism adviser and his current nominee to lead the CIA, have explicitly argued that the president is and should be vested with this power. Meanwhile, a Washington Post article from October reported that the administration is formally institutionalizing this president's power to decide who dies under the Orwellian title "disposition matrix".
When the New York Times back in April, 2010 first confirmed the existence of Obama's hit list, it made clear just what an extremist power this is, noting: "It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing." The NYT quoted a Bush intelligence official as saying "he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president". When the existence of Obama's hit list was first reported several months earlier by the Washington Post's Dana Priest, she wrote that the "list includes three Americans".
What has made these actions all the more radical is the absolute secrecy with which Obama has draped all of this. Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability. The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark.
In fact, The Most Transparent Administration Ever™ has been so fixated on secrecy that they have refused even to disclose the legal memoranda prepared by Obama lawyers setting forth their legal rationale for why the president has this power. During the Bush years, when Bush refused to disclose the memoranda from his Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that legally authorized torture, rendition, warrantless eavesdropping and the like, leading Democratic lawyers such as Dawn Johnsen (Obama's first choice to lead the OLC) vehemently denounced this practice as a grave threat, warning that "the Bush Administration's excessive reliance on 'secret law' threatens the effective functioning of American democracy" and "the withholding from Congress and the public of legal interpretations by the [OLC] upsets the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government."
But when it comes to Obama's assassination power, this is exactly what his administration has done. It has repeatedly refused to disclose the principal legal memoranda prepared by Obama OLC lawyers that justified his kill list. It is, right now, vigorously resisting lawsuits from the New York Times and the ACLU to obtain that OLC memorandum. In sum, Obama not only claims he has the power to order US citizens killed with no transparency, but that even the documents explaining the legal rationale for this power are to be concealed. He's maintaining secret law on the most extremist power he can assert.
Last night, NBC News' Michael Isikoff released a 16-page "white paper" prepared by the Obama DOJ that purports to justify Obama's power to target even Americans for assassination without due process (the memo is embedded in full below). This is not the primary OLC memo justifying Obama's kill list - that is still concealed - but it appears to track the reasoning of that memo as anonymously described to the New York Times in October 2011.
This new memo is entitled: "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force". It claims its conclusion is "reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a US citizen". Yet it is every bit as chilling as the Bush OLC torture memos in how its clinical, legalistic tone completely sanitizes the radical and dangerous power it purports to authorize.
I've written many times at length about why the Obama assassination program is such an extreme and radical threat - see here for one of the most comprehensive discussions, with documentation of how completely all of this violates Obama and Holder's statements before obtaining power - and won't repeat those arguments here. Instead, there are numerous points that should be emphasized about the fundamentally misleading nature of this new memo:
[zie link voor de rest, is te lang om hier helemaal te posten]
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door heiden6 op 06-02-2013 01:11:42 ]
The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen.
Since then, senior Obama officials including Attorney General Eric Holder and John Brennan, Obama's top terrorism adviser and his current nominee to lead the CIA, have explicitly argued that the president is and should be vested with this power. Meanwhile, a Washington Post article from October reported that the administration is formally institutionalizing this president's power to decide who dies under the Orwellian title "disposition matrix".
When the New York Times back in April, 2010 first confirmed the existence of Obama's hit list, it made clear just what an extremist power this is, noting: "It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing." The NYT quoted a Bush intelligence official as saying "he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president". When the existence of Obama's hit list was first reported several months earlier by the Washington Post's Dana Priest, she wrote that the "list includes three Americans".
What has made these actions all the more radical is the absolute secrecy with which Obama has draped all of this. Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability. The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark.
In fact, The Most Transparent Administration Ever™ has been so fixated on secrecy that they have refused even to disclose the legal memoranda prepared by Obama lawyers setting forth their legal rationale for why the president has this power. During the Bush years, when Bush refused to disclose the memoranda from his Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that legally authorized torture, rendition, warrantless eavesdropping and the like, leading Democratic lawyers such as Dawn Johnsen (Obama's first choice to lead the OLC) vehemently denounced this practice as a grave threat, warning that "the Bush Administration's excessive reliance on 'secret law' threatens the effective functioning of American democracy" and "the withholding from Congress and the public of legal interpretations by the [OLC] upsets the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government."
But when it comes to Obama's assassination power, this is exactly what his administration has done. It has repeatedly refused to disclose the principal legal memoranda prepared by Obama OLC lawyers that justified his kill list. It is, right now, vigorously resisting lawsuits from the New York Times and the ACLU to obtain that OLC memorandum. In sum, Obama not only claims he has the power to order US citizens killed with no transparency, but that even the documents explaining the legal rationale for this power are to be concealed. He's maintaining secret law on the most extremist power he can assert.
Last night, NBC News' Michael Isikoff released a 16-page "white paper" prepared by the Obama DOJ that purports to justify Obama's power to target even Americans for assassination without due process (the memo is embedded in full below). This is not the primary OLC memo justifying Obama's kill list - that is still concealed - but it appears to track the reasoning of that memo as anonymously described to the New York Times in October 2011.
This new memo is entitled: "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force". It claims its conclusion is "reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a US citizen". Yet it is every bit as chilling as the Bush OLC torture memos in how its clinical, legalistic tone completely sanitizes the radical and dangerous power it purports to authorize.
I've written many times at length about why the Obama assassination program is such an extreme and radical threat - see here for one of the most comprehensive discussions, with documentation of how completely all of this violates Obama and Holder's statements before obtaining power - and won't repeat those arguments here. Instead, there are numerous points that should be emphasized about the fundamentally misleading nature of this new memo:
[zie link voor de rest, is te lang om hier helemaal te posten]
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door heiden6 op 06-02-2013 01:11:42 ]
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Het is hier zo rustig geworden?
Volgens dit overzichtje is John Kerry het enige nieuwe kabinetslid dat helemaal binnen is, over Jack Lew, Sally Jewell en Chuck Hagel moet nog gestemd worden (kan even niet vinden wanneer)
http://www.senate.gov/pag(...)le/Obama_cabinet.htm
Op 7 februari vond trouwens de hoorzitting voor Brennan plaats, met nogal wat incidenten vanuit het publiek, en vragen over onder andere de meeting in Praag met Atta die Irak moest linken aan 9/11
En verder is Barney, de First Dog onder Bush, gestorven:
http://www.wesh.com/news/(...)/c57fpd/-/index.html
Volgens dit overzichtje is John Kerry het enige nieuwe kabinetslid dat helemaal binnen is, over Jack Lew, Sally Jewell en Chuck Hagel moet nog gestemd worden (kan even niet vinden wanneer)
http://www.senate.gov/pag(...)le/Obama_cabinet.htm
Op 7 februari vond trouwens de hoorzitting voor Brennan plaats, met nogal wat incidenten vanuit het publiek, en vragen over onder andere de meeting in Praag met Atta die Irak moest linken aan 9/11
En verder is Barney, de First Dog onder Bush, gestorven:
http://www.wesh.com/news/(...)/c57fpd/-/index.html
Het gaat mij ook om het constante random posten van activistische of grappig bedoelde plaatjes en filmpjes. Wat moeten we daarr nou mee..quote:
[..]
Het gaat natuurlijk niet over de debt ceiling, maar over de hypocrisie van de politicus in kwestie. Dat zou zelfs jij moeten snappen.
Het is weer tijd voor de "State of the Union" ( )
Ook fraai dat deze engerd de baas van de CIA wordt:
[ Bericht 30% gewijzigd door heiden6 op 13-02-2013 20:36:22 ]
)
Ook fraai dat deze engerd de baas van de CIA wordt:
[ Bericht 30% gewijzigd door heiden6 op 13-02-2013 20:36:22 ]
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Senator Warren is wel chill 
Volledige versie(Senator Warren start op 1:52:30)
[ Bericht 8% gewijzigd door Blue_Panther_Ninja op 15-02-2013 03:57:45 ]
Volledige versie(Senator Warren start op 1:52:30)
[ Bericht 8% gewijzigd door Blue_Panther_Ninja op 15-02-2013 03:57:45 ]
filmpjes die beginnen met 'the truth about' zijn ook zelden overtuigend zeg..quote:
Het is weer tijd voor de "State of the Union" (
Ook fraai dat deze engerd de baas van de CIA wordt:
quote:Ron Paul Sues Supporters for Control of RonPaul.com
In a move that's baffled and enraged his staunchly libertarian fans, three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul has asked the World Intellectual Property Organization to confiscate two domain names currently held by his supporters: RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org. In a Friday blog post, the sites' proprietors fired back at their hero by claiming that they'd already offered to let Paul buy RonPaul.com (and its 170,000-follower mailing list) for a measly $250,000. (RonPaul.org was apparently thrown in as "a free gift.") After all, that's the proper market economy way to handle this situation … right? Instead, their beloved leader has chosen to expropriate private property with the help of a major bastion of liberal tyranny: the United Nations, which controls the WIPA.
http://nymag.com/daily/in(...)l-of-ronpaulcom.html
Op 
¤250.000 ervoor vragen. Dan weet je ook meteen hoe idealistisch die supporters zijn. Een eerlijke compensatie kan ik mij nog voorstellen. 2,5 ton vragen is gewoon zakkenvullen.quote:
Op maandag 29 april 2013 16:56 schreef Moira. het volgende:
Ug, je bent af en toe een (leuke) mafkees, maar ook een wijs man.
Ug, je bent af en toe een (leuke) mafkees, maar ook een wijs man.
Een tweetal websites bouwen inclusief een trouwe schare volgers (want trouw zijn ze wel aan hun geloof, dat moet je ze nageven) vertegenwoordigt natuurlijk best wel een behoorlijke waarde. 250.000 euro is dan niet eens vreemd. Maar het af proberen te dwingen via de as van het kwaad is natuurlijk nog veel dubieuzer.quote:
[..]
¤250.000 ervoor vragen. Dan weet je ook meteen hoe idealistisch die supporters zijn. Een eerlijke compensatie kan ik mij nog voorstellen. 2,5 ton vragen is gewoon zakkenvullen.
Als het een commerciele site was, had ik het volledig begrepen. Maar een politieke campagne steunen doe je volgens mij uit non-profit overwegingen. En je weet natuurlijk dat als je een site over een persoon maakt, dat die persoon dan bepaalde rechten heeft met betrekking tot die site. Wat maar goed ook is trouwens.quote:Op vrijdag 15 februari 2013 12:29 schreef 99.999 het volgende:
[..]
Een tweetal websites bouwen inclusief een trouwe schare volgers (want trouw zijn ze wel aan hun geloof, dat moet je ze nageven) vertegenwoordigt natuurlijk best wel een behoorlijke waarde. 250.000 euro is dan niet eens vreemd. Maar het af proberen te dwingen via de as van het kwaad is natuurlijk nog veel dubieuzer.
Op maandag 29 april 2013 16:56 schreef Moira. het volgende:
Ug, je bent af en toe een (leuke) mafkees, maar ook een wijs man.
Ug, je bent af en toe een (leuke) mafkees, maar ook een wijs man.
Libertariers hebben het niet zo op intellectueel eigendom. Dus welk recht denkt Ron Paul volgens zijn ideologie eigenlijk te hebben?quote:
[..]
Als het een commerciele site was, had ik het volledig begrepen. Maar een politieke campagne steunen doe je volgens mij uit non-profit overwegingen. En je weet natuurlijk dat als je een site over een persoon maakt, dat die persoon dan bepaalde rechten heeft met betrekking tot die site. Wat maar goed ook is trouwens.
Dit is volledig overeenkomstig hun ideologie. "Let the free market decide" is zowat de slagzin van Ron Paul en zijn volgelingen.quote:
[..]
¤250.000 ervoor vragen. Dan weet je ook meteen hoe idealistisch die supporters zijn. Een eerlijke compensatie kan ik mij nog voorstellen. 2,5 ton vragen is gewoon zakkenvullen.
Oh, ik had eigenlijk verwacht dat libertariërs al het eigendom hoog hadden staan.
Op maandag 29 april 2013 16:56 schreef Moira. het volgende:
Ug, je bent af en toe een (leuke) mafkees, maar ook een wijs man.
Ug, je bent af en toe een (leuke) mafkees, maar ook een wijs man.
Oh nee, patenten zijn een duivelse uitvinding bijvoorbeeld, net als de VN overigens.quote:
Oh, ik had eigenlijk verwacht dat libertariërs al het eigendom hoog hadden staan.
Hm, dan verliezen ze toch wat sympathie bij mij. Ik wil niet zeggen dat het huidige patentrecht goed werkt, maar om intellectueel eigendom geheel af te schaffen gaat mij te ver. Eigendom is eigendom, of je iets nou met je handen of met je hoofd maakt.quote:
[..]
Oh nee, patenten zijn een duivelse uitvinding bijvoorbeeld, net als de VN overigens.
Op maandag 29 april 2013 16:56 schreef Moira. het volgende:
Ug, je bent af en toe een (leuke) mafkees, maar ook een wijs man.
Ug, je bent af en toe een (leuke) mafkees, maar ook een wijs man.
|
|
