How many is the right number of personnel and materiel to lose for this war that isn't war and seems to have been either purchased for a few hundred million by political bribes or is just a distraction from the administrations involvement in a monstrous child sex ring? Also didn't we already win this war last year, last month, and last week? It is really easy to wave away our fellow dead citizens (and Iranians, including a school full of children!) from an internet comment form but damn, real people are dead here and it's an actual tragedy.
For me, zero deaths seems like the right answer for these objectives and anything else is egregious abuse of power.
I'd love it if everyone stopped being happy with people lying to them. When you catch people lying to you, be angry and stop trusting them!
I hate to interrupt a good rant, but we actually agree on this. To spell it out: the abject failure of the war is not a failure of the US military, it's a failure of its executive leadership, meaning Trump and his coterie of yes-men.
> the abject failure of the war is not a failure of the US military, it's a failure of its executive leadership
It's a bit of both. Our lack of mine-clearing and anti-drone technology is a legitimate weakness, as are our defence-production gaps. The damage done to our system of alliances, moreover, directly weakens our military standing.
I don't think parent claimed that simply using certain words is more important than dealing with the real problems.
You sound frustrated with the American situation. I am too but that doesn't mean someone saying "resist" is somehow condoning or ignoring the important issues.
I think the message of "don't submit in advance" is a great one and it actually makes sense to me to include that ethos in all things, including your speech. I think we all agree that speech alone is not enough.
Just "doing war" and calling it something else because you find the "right" way inconvenient or impractical is ridiculous, immoral, and illegal.
If the government acts on behalf of and derives its authority from the will of the people then do it according to our shared governance. If not then the people claiming autocracy or oligarchy or techno-feudalism has supplanted our democracy are probably on to something.
Tl;dr - no shit following the law is less convenient than just doing whatever you want
Is there something about the War Powers Act that's unconstitutional? If so, what specifically? I'm struggling here to understand what is being alleged to be unconstitutional.
Separately, I actually think Congress has been dysfunctional and has been outsourcing its power to the Executive and Judicial branches, but these claims about constitutional breaches seem to be, at best, wrong.
Distinctive hammers and other tools get brand recognition and free marketing out in the field, ostensibly increasing sales - that's why all the tool companies have their distinct colors and you can see the type of tool someone uses from a distance. Matching chargers/batteries incompatible with other brands perpetuate this even further.
Someone IS designing all this, they just aren't optimizing for what you wish they were.
Since your point seems to be that not all the founding fathers parent was referring to were actually slave owners do you have a claim for a rough ratio? I think that would be interesting and would be a more informative thing regardless of where on the scale it lands from "everybody but Adams" all the way up to "only a big names like Washington, Jefferson".
To a first order approximation half the founders were from New England (no slavery) and the other half were from Virginia (no realistic chance of being important/rich enough to be a signatory without owning slaves). So call it 50-50
Equal sounds like a terrible argument given all the other problems with replacing engineering thought with ai. I don't know where the line is but I expect it's far beyond equal AND there needs to be a level of "this can debug effectively in production" before that makes any sense for a real business case.
This is a funny take. I'm imagining you unironically telling yourself that ONLY immigration laws matter and you're happy the administration is breaking other ones.
It is going to be tough to get me to think the plaintiff is responsible for John Deere the company continuing to be dickheads.
When I hear these kinds of "blame the consumer" apologetics it never resonates with me - I'm just not going to get on board with some hypothetical natural state where corporations are inherently bad like some sort of sick animal and it's on consumers to sacrifice and plan with care in order to help the rest of society deal with them.
Corporations are just big groups of people. If their victims can choose self sacrifice in order to help the group then the corporation people could just as easily do the same and that feels far more just to me.
I'm not saying John Deere isn't responsible for their own bad behavior. I'm responding to the bit about John Deere not admitting wrongdoing. It'd basically be legal malpractice for a lawyer to allow their client to do such a thing if they didn't have to.
Wanting them to behave better is really a very different topic, and I wholeheartedly agree that they should. I also don't mind that the plaintiffs took settlement money instead of going to trial; that's certainly their right.
Propaganda is the difference between rebels and freedom fighters.
reply