(Advertisement)

God help him-and us

A presidential Inaugural passes in review

Posted: January 22, 2013 at 3:35 a.m.

President Barack Obama delivers his Inaugural address at the ceremonial swearing-in at the U.S. Capitol during the 57th Presidential Inauguration Monday in Washington, D.C.

PRESIDENTIAL inaugurations are milestones in American politics and even history. And they may indicate a lot more than how far we have come and may have to go. To borrow a phrase from a president named Lincoln, they may tell us where we are and whither we are tending.

This story is only available from our archives.

Editorial, Pages 12 on 01/22/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Immigration reform can’t wait

Although President Obama promises to make immigration reform an urgent priority in his second term, other issues are taking center stage in Washington, including the debt c... Read »

Next Story »

HOW WE SEE IT: Flu Cases Lead To Tight Lips

When flu season came to Arkansas, one of our recent symptoms was wondering where the “public” is when it comes to public health. Read »

This country has nothing to celebrate - just another 4 years of spending us into a 3rd world country.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 22, 2013 at 1:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The Lord will open for you His good storehouse, the heavens, to give rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hand; and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow."---Deuteronomy 28:12

I'm afraid our can of blessings have been opened up, consumed, and filled up with worthless paper.

Posted by: JailBird

January 22, 2013 at 3:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Right, moneymyst. We had a good thing going at one time, but we blew it when we got 'so smart' and knew more than our creator.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 22, 2013 at 4 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

As an example of 'transient foofaraw" this editorial takes the cake.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

January 22, 2013 at 6:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Would you like icing with that crow cake you are eating, Frankie baby?

Posted by: JailBird

January 22, 2013 at 6:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Certainly a vapid and content free review of the inauguration address. This just reads as grumpy grapes that the paper picked the wrong horse in the race. His speech wasn't as good as Lincoln's? Oh boo! People aren't talking about it? Perhaps you're listening to the wrong channel. I find it hard to find one that's *not* talking about it. Even FOX has Charles Krauthammer noting:

"I thought it was an amazing speech, and historically very important,” Krauthammer said on Fox News in the aftermath of the speech. "This was really Obama unbound. And I think what's most interesting is that Obama basically is declaring the end of Reaganism."
http://www.businessinsider.com/krauth...

I hope he's right about that.

D.
----------
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

And:
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 22, 2013 at 9:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Like Charles Krauthammer was saying thing were good and he a liked it all, FFT? Or, do you have sour grapes because the paper said, "God help him-and us"?

I'm sure you would love to see and end to Reaganism, whatever you think that is.

Hurry up, you can probably still get a t-shirt declaring "It's our turn now!" because it's all about America.... right?

President Ronald Reagan: the man beat Carter Malaise, Stagflation, and the Soviet Union.

God bless President Obama and America. May our prayers be with them.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 23, 2013 at 12:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

God appoints leaders to accomplish His will. Obama is just fulfilling the Lord's plan for this nation that has turned against Him. I'm not saying republicans are right. They are too much for the rich, but we have lost our morals. Living off of other people's labor is not God's way, either.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 23, 2013 at 8:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: "do you have sour grapes because the paper said...">>

Not at all. My grapes are sweet and tasty. Never been better. Remember, I made a nice bonus investing in the notion that Mittens would get spanked. And the important thing was that he lose. America dodged a bullet there.

Who knows why The Good Lord decided to install Obama? We must not question the wisdom of His ethereal ways. But I do think He got it right this time. Maybe He feels a bit bad about the Bush fiasco. As the good book says, even God makes mistakes sometimes.

D.
-------------
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Romans 13:1

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 23, 2013 at 9:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Perhaps these are a few of the reasons this editorial writer didn't like the speech:

"12 Ways Obama Smacked Down the Tea Party and the Right in Inauguration Speech"

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-poli...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 23, 2013 at 10:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT
Where does the Good Book say God makes mistakes??? Please.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 23, 2013 at 10:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent: "Where does the Good Book say God makes mistakes?">>

A few examples of God having regrets, changing his mind, making mistakes, not knowing things, etc.,.

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Gen. 6:6

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. Exod. 32:14

...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. 1 Sam. 15:35

And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. Jonah 3:10

A few things Jesus didn't know:

He didn't know that his disciples would die before his second coming. Matt. 16:28.

He didn't know that the mustard seed is not the "smallest of all seeds." Matt. 13:32.

He didn't know that salt doesn't "lose its savour". Matt. 5:13

He didn't know that hypocrisy is unbecoming when he said that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matt. 5:22) but later called people "fools" (Matt. 23:17).

He didn't know when the end would be (Mark 13:32).

Interesting how people end up concocting gods so very much like themselves.

D.
-------------
"If a triangle could speak, it would say, that God is eminently triangular, while a circle would say that the divine nature is eminently circular." -- Baruch Spinoza, philosopher (1632-1677)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 23, 2013 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"the low, fierce, ugly campaign of 1800,.."
And I bet that the editorial writer and the publisher would NOT have voted for Jefferson.

Posted by: Coralie

January 23, 2013 at 2:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I do not think that he "repented of' was anything more than 'sorry for'.

I do know that Matt. 16:28 was talking about his transfiguration, not his 2nd coming.

Those are good examples, and I did ask I will have to look at those. But, you know I may not be able to explain everything, but will not change my mind.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 23, 2013 at 2:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Freebe, and I agree on only one thing, Mittens should not have been president.

"I may not be able to explain or understand everthing, but I will not change my mind."---Freeby

How would you like to be a passenger on an airplane doing an instrument aproach in dense fog with Freebi as the pilol?

"Thats not right, we are not upside down!" said Captain Free while tapping the instrument panel. The Captain added, "I never have trusted these instruments without independent verification." he exclaimed. "I'm going to use my own better judgment." The next sound heard in the cabin was the stall warning and Capt, Free exclaiming; "Oh God!"

Posted by: JailBird

January 23, 2013 at 4:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Think it was "mycentworth" who isn't up for any mind changing, not Free.

Posted by: Dellmann

January 23, 2013 at 4:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Both, neither can prove anything and neither will change their minds. "They need a Mindmeld."---Mr. Spock

Posted by: JailBird

January 23, 2013 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent: "Those are good examples,...">>

Thanks.

Mycent: "I may not be able to explain everything, but will not change my mind.">>

I understand.

What you are describing is dogmatism. It's a most pitiful situation for a person to be in. And it doesn't matter what the belief is. In your case, you've mentioned you hold onto these beliefs (some anyway) by faith, which means, without good reasons. And now you say you will not change your mind about them as a result of new information. So like a huge swathe of humanity, you're intellectually stuck. And the only tool that could assist you, critical thinking, you have been carefully trained to willfully rule out from the beginning. Otherwise you might not get the reward promised, and you might get a promised punishment instead. Religion, like a mind virus, has successfully high-jacked the punishment/reward system of the brain. It's exceedingly common, and most people don't escape it. Oh well.

I was fortunate in that some folks helped me escape from the JW's as a teenager. Otherwise I might now believe that Jesus returned invisibly to rule the earth in 1914 and a host of other absurdities. And like all witnesses that believe and preach that, like you, they believe it by faith, and they adhere to it dogmatically.

The vast majority of people contract their religion from their parents at a young age, before their skills of discernment and reasoning have developed. This is not by accident, religions go to great effort to do on purpose because it's quite rare for a person to succumb to a boatload of extraordinary and bizarre religious claims as an adult. As the Christian group Barna found:

"...most conservative Christians are "saved" in childhood. A person who is unsaved at
the age of 14 only has a 10% chance of being "saved" later in life.... percent saved within each age range:

5 to 13 years 32%
14 to 18 years 4%
over 19 years 6%

--"Teens and adults have little chance of accepting Christ as their savior," Barna Research press release, 1999-NOV-15."

Incidentally, I have no illusions about changing your mind. I sincerely hope you are having a good time with your religion and it gives you joy while not causing harm to others. I learned a few decades ago that people are going to believe what they want, and usually for emotionally comforting reasons, not because the beliefs are actually true. That's just what brains tend to do, especially when they are trained that way as a child. Oh well, there it is.

D.
-----
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God."
--Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism, quoted in Walter Kaufmann's Critique of Religion and Philosophy

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 23, 2013 at 9:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT - I will not change my mind. Those verses you quoted, I am going to re-read. I remember reading some of those and questioned the word "repent". But it really didn't bother me. That certainly is not enough to change my mind.

I know, that I know, that I know. Now that is reason enough. It is a matter of faith, also, as the Bible tells us. You will never disprove God. Many scholars have long studied the Word and still believe.

I don't know why I keep debating. I know better.

Posted by: mycentworth

January 23, 2013 at 11:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In a foxhole with Charlie firing tracers 5 inches above your head - 100%

"Most people don't think about God when they don't need Him, but when they need Him, they seem to know His name."---ME

Posted by: JailBird

January 24, 2013 at 6:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent; " I will not change my mind.">>

Yes I know, you mentioned that.

Mycent: "I remember reading some of those and questioned the word "repent".">>

I used the KJV because it is the favorite of inerrantists, but it doesn't matter much. The modern common translation (fairly obvious from the context), is "regret." For instance, the NIV (an evangelical translation) has for Genesis 6:6:

"The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth,..."

Regret implies making a mistake.

Mycent: "I know, that I know, that I know. Now that is reason enough. It is a matter of faith,...">>

You may think believing things by faith and with dogmatism is innocuous, but it causes great harm and suffering on the planet. I'll give two examples:

1) "Harry Potter actress's brother jailed for attacking her" http://tinyurl.com/682ke2s

This is where a Muslim beat the crap out of his movie star sister because he thought he heard her talking on her phone to a boy who wasn't a Muslim. This is very common. Muslim women are routinely beaten, maimed with acid to the face or killed, by family members, if they are thought to have broken religious rules that are believed by faith and like you, with fervent dogmatism.

They too "I know, that they know, that they know." And no, that's not reason enough to believe something.

2) The Skoptsy: http://tinyurl.com/b6xg2eq

"The Skoptsy where Russian Christians who split in the 18th century from a group called the “People of God”.

They believed that after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had the halves of the forbidden fruit grafted onto their bodies forming testicles and breasts. Thus, the removal of these sexual organs restored the Skoptsy to the pristine state before the Original Sin."

This was a group that had such dogmatically held faith based beliefs that they cut off their genitals.

Note:

"The Skoptsy may have had as many as 100,000 followers in the early 20th century. After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 genital mutilation was suppressed under the new penal code... by the 1950’s they had faded into obscurity."

D.
----------
“There is no absurdity so palpable but that it may be firmly planted in the human head if only you begin to inculcate it before the age of five, by constantly repeating it with an air of great solemnity.” --Arthur Schopenauer

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 24, 2013 at 9:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

The saying isn't, "There are no aetheists in the military."

Not sure if you would understand, but people in extreme duress, like the kind spawned in a firefight (not the xBox kind) or on the outset of a counter IED clearing mission, has a way of eliciting belief in something greater than one's self ... whatever that may be for different folks.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 25, 2013 at 12:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks for the 1-23-13 teaching on dogma, fayfreethinker. We don't often come to the crux of disagreement in this forum so directly, but you've explained it perfectly. Our arguments back and forth are useless insofar as "changing the mind," of the participants, but hopefully we gain a bit of understanding along the way.

There's another aspect of dogma that's worthy of mention: the connection with authority. Those most susceptible to the persuasive power of dogma are also those who are least likely to challenge authority; thus, they tend to organize into groups with an authoritarian, hierarchical organization. Their views and behavior tends to be determined by group think more than individual think, and there's consequently an intellectual inertia, i.e., new concepts don't penetrate.

We can accept all this as fact, and wish the dogmatic thinkers well, but we also recognize that large groups of intellectually inert people constitute a relentless drag on our collective ability to adapt to our self-inflicted planetary damage.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

January 25, 2013 at 6:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "The saying isn't, "There are no aetheists in the military.">>

I know. The saying is "No atheists in foxholes." Had you bothered to follow my links rather just assume you knew what they addressed from the abbreviated titles, you would have learned that they specifically address the foxhole canard. But you never follow links do you Tank?

First link: "Atheists in Foxholes, in Cockpits, and on Ships"

Second link: "There are no atheists in foxholes" --wiki

Third link: 'Atheists In Foxholes" --FFRF

Tnk: "...people in extreme duress,... has a way of eliciting belief in something greater...">>

That's the myth upon which the "no atheists in foxholes" canard is based. And it's a faithbased believers psychological projection. They assume that if they were to be an unbeliever, they would suddenly wet their pants and believe in a God, just in case, if they were to become spooked or terrified. That's rubbish. Carefully explained at the links provided.

D.
-----------
"The Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers has adopted the catch-phrase "Atheists in Foxholes" to emphasize that the original statement is just an aphorism and not a fact. The over 200 members of this organization publicly display their military service in order to show that there are atheists in foxholes, and on ships, and in planes.[18] The religious convictions of current U.S. military personnel are similar to those of the general American population, though studies suggest that members of the military are slightly less religious.[19]... Due to its opposition to the phrase, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has erected a monument to "Atheists in Foxholes".[21] --ibid

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 25, 2013 at 10:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Are there atheists in Florida directing drones at people thousands of miles away?

Posted by: Coralie

January 25, 2013 at 10:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FrankLloydLeft says "large groups of intellectually inert people constitute a relentless drag on our collective ability to adapt to our self-inflicted planetary damage. "
To the point that they may drag us into species extinction.

Posted by: Coralie

January 25, 2013 at 11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

RE-

"That's the myth upon which the "no atheists in foxholes" canard is based."

No, it is a reality of which you would no nothing about. And yes, I looked at the links.

Coralie,

RE-

"Are there atheists in Florida directing drones at people thousands of miles away?"

I'm not sure how many RPA operators are even Florida, let alone their beliefs or lack their of.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 25, 2013 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I said: "That's the myth upon which the "no atheists in foxholes" canard is based.">>

Tnk: "No, it is a reality of which you would no nothing about.">>

Yes, because only you know what it is like to be an atheist in a foxhole. Oh wait, you don't.
This canard is just a variation of the old death bed conversion lie Xtians have been peddling for centuries. They just can't imagine how a person wouldn't at the last moment become an intellectual coward and give up on a lifetime of contemplation about metaphysical questions. It's simply cowardice projected on to others about a system of thought they don't understand.

Tank: "And yes, I looked at the links.">>

You have now, but you hadn't then. Otherwise you would have already known that each of my links specifically addressed the no atheists in foxholes canard.

D.
------------
"INFIDEL death-beds have been a fertile theme of pulpit eloquence. The priests of Christianity often inform their congregations that Faith is an excellent soft pillow, and Reason a horrible hard bolster, for the dying head. Freethought, they say, is all very well in the days of our health and strength, when we are buoyed up by the pride of carnal intellect; but ah! how poor a thing it is when health and strength fail us, when, deserted by our self-sufficiency, we need the support of a stronger power. In that extremity the proud Freethinker turns to Jesus Christ, renounces his wicked skepticism, implores pardon of the Savior he has despised, and shudders at the awful scenes that await him in the next world should the hour of forgiveness be past."

That's how the story goes anyway. 92 historic examples of people religionists have famously been fond of telling whoppers about with stories of death bed conversions:

http://www.infidels.org/library/histo...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 25, 2013 at 2:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What's an Xtian? Anybody would be a fool to click on a link from someone you don't know and trust. You are neither, Freeby and until you get to that point of death, you don't know how you will act. Most likely you will go out of this life the same way you came into it, knowing nothing and kicking and screaming. Heroic atheists, now there is a concept that is a drag on our collective ability to adapt to our self-inflicted planetary damage.

Posted by: JailBird

January 25, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

My point about the drones, and bombing crews in general, is that if anyone is looking to God for guidance, it should be those who are about to kill numerous other people--not just those who are in mortal fear for their own lives.
Have there been any foxholes since WWII?
What the Pentagon wants is video-game wars, preferably fought by robots in space.

Posted by: Coralie

January 25, 2013 at 4:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"What is an Xtian?">>

"X is the Greek letter Chi. The American Heritage Dictionary notes "X" is an abbreviation for Christ (Christos in Greek).
Thus we get Xian, Xianity, etc. In Catholic and Episcopalian churches you will see the abbreviation XP on vestments, etc. Here they use the first two Greek letters of XPISTOS (Christos). So, X means Christ."
--R. Nielsen

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 25, 2013 at 5:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, learn something new every day. Hope you gather a little sense, there Freeby and find X. He can be your God and you can be Free from your sins. Now wouldn't that ease the anger problem you display?

Posted by: JailBird

January 25, 2013 at 7 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-

"Have there been any foxholes since WWII?"

Yes, and they are a tremendous pain in the back side to construct in sand and rock.

RE-

"What the Pentagon wants is video-game wars, preferably fought by robots in space."

Glad you know what the head shed wants. Have you ever thought about things as an effort to avoid getting our folks hurt if we can.

RE-

"My point about the drones, and bombing crews in general, is that if anyone is looking to God for guidance, it should be those who are about to kill numerous other people--not just those who are in mortal fear for their own lives."

Some of us in the military do pray for our enemies (who are "in mortal fear for their own lives") . I suggest you pray for your aetheist friends.

FFT,

I looked at your links before my last post. Keep enlightening the people you are pooring your anti-gospel out on there hoss.

I feel bad for you having been brought up in a cult, but don't let your hate for anything religious let you start talking about things you don't know anything about, in this case combat.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 25, 2013 at 9:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, his hate for anything religious means that he must engage his brain cell and scout the internet for anything or everything, never mind the credentials of the physco who published it, that he believes might prove us men of faith wrong. Those links, in his own little mind, somehow gives him a credit he cannot and would not be able to gain using his own intellect.

It is a break for for me, while trying to make a living writing western novels, to jump over to Free and mess with him a bit. Freeby reminds me to always keep my bad guys at a fifth grade level so that my heros can always be viewed as superior. Thanks, Freeby!

Posted by: JailBird

January 26, 2013 at 1:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FLL - "Their views and behavior tends to be determined by group think more than individual think, and there's consequently an intellectual inertia, i.e., new concepts don't penetrate. "

I am not lead by any 'think' tank. My only source is the Bible. I am not close minded, but have studied and believed for so long, I believe it on my own validation not by some group. I could say the same thing about atheists. I find atheists "intellectually inert" and much too arrogant..

Posted by: mycentworth

January 26, 2013 at 8:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, in which wars since WW
II have soldiers fought from foxholes?
+++
"the Pentagon's efforts to turn outer space into a battlefield....the Air Force report goes far beyond these defensive capabilities, calling for weapons that can cripple other countries' orbiters.
That prospect worries some analysts that the U.S. may spark a worldwide arms race in orbit."
That's all we need, is another arms race.
And you think that will lead to less deaths, of Americans or of others in the world, who are equally valuable in the eyes of God, are they not?

Posted by: Coralie

January 26, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank says " I suggest you pray for your aetheist friends."
Why? I'm not planning to send drones after them.
Besides, I have a wide range of friends, some of whom are deists, some atheists, some Buddhists, some Unitarian-Universalists, and etc.

Posted by: Coralie

January 26, 2013 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I forgot to include source for comment on world-wide arms race in space:
http://www.wired.com/science/discover...

Posted by: Coralie

January 26, 2013 at 1:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I can't understand how you associate Tank with drones. Tank does not fly or ride on drones.

Posted by: JailBird

January 26, 2013 at 2:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-
“Tank, in which wars since WWII have soldiers fought from foxholes?”

Most, if not all of them (I’m not sure about the jumps into Panama and Grenada). You can read up on the current Army FMs if you want to practice building any defensive fighting positions (“foxholes”) in your yard. Our troops still use defensive fighting position in Afghanistan today, see combat outpost (COP).

RE-
“And you think that will lead to less deaths, of Americans or of others in the world, who are equally valuable in the eyes of God, are they not?”

We are in an arms race now with China, Russia, and a few others. We stay ahead in order to prevent loss of lives down the road. It is called deterrence. Remember, the mission is to protect and defend, not kill everything like you seem to think.

I suggested you pray for your atheist friend because I assume you care about them. Anyone who refers to an American warrior as an “intellectual coward” for going to the Lord when in a fight needs prayer in my book… and some one-on-one counseling.

RE-

“Why? I'm not planning to send drones after them.”

I never suggested you or anyone else was.
For all your hate of “drones” (I hate that stupid media word), maybe, just maybe, you would be happy to know how many lives unmanned systems have saved, including foreign nationals. God bless the CinC for his judicious use of all our airborne platforms.

Moneymyst,

After reading your last comment, I can't help but picture myself riding a pred like Slim Pickens riding that nuke in Dr. Strangelove.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlSQAZ...

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 26, 2013 at 10:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I had actually pictured in my mind, Col Buck in that role.

Posted by: JailBird

January 27, 2013 at 3 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

""My point about the drones, and bombing crews in general, is that if anyone is looking to God for guidance, it should be those who are about to kill numerous other people--not just those who are in mortal fear for their own lives."
Some of us in the military do pray for our enemies (who are "in mortal fear for their own lives.
++
Then Tank suggested I pray for my atheist friends.
This is the exchange that led to my talking about drones.

Posted by: Coralie

January 27, 2013 at 3:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Military men live in a world of order, they follow orders and complete missions. There's not much to think about except the mission. You are trained that way. Drop a bomb that kills thousands, the reply will be "I followed my orders and carried out my mission." If you show a moral problem with the mission, the brass will just find another to take your place, and you will find time to pray and think while cleaning out toilets with a q-tip.

Posted by: JailBird

January 28, 2013 at 3:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

See, Money, you do sometimes say things that I agree with.

Posted by: Coralie

January 28, 2013 at 12:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks, Coralie, maybe my new meds are working.

Posted by: JailBird

January 28, 2013 at 3:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

More about drones and their possible illegality under international law and the Constitution.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinio...

Posted by: Coralie

January 29, 2013 at 5:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So, Coralie, it you are killed by an illegal drone, are you legally dead?

Posted by: JailBird

January 29, 2013 at 5:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

Since when did killing enemy combatant on the battlefield (non-linear these days) become illegal? Taking out the bad guys is necessary sometimes. I applaud the President on his expanded uses of the tools that help keep our folks safe.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 29, 2013 at 9:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/a...

Posted by: Coralie

January 30, 2013 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I like CNN because of their objective studies that reflect such wide ranges of varied opinions.

Posted by: JailBird

January 30, 2013 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I like CNN because of their objective studies that reflect such wide ranges of varied opinions."
The study cited by the article wasn't done by CNN; it was done by Stanford Law School and the New York University School of Law And note: "In contrast to more conservative U.S. statements, the Stanford/NYU report -- titled 'Living Under Drones' -- offers starker figures published by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization based at City University in London." You need either to read the material offered, or, having read it (and reread it), expel your comments more carefully.

Since the study deals not with opinion but with data on targeting effectiveness and numbers of killed and injured civilians, how does this article reflect a bias on the part of CNN?

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 30, 2013 at 5:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I didn't read it at all, Coralie read it and posted it with a CNN link. I retract my compliment of CNN just because of you Cat. Partypooper!

Posted by: JailBird

January 31, 2013 at 2:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'd e like to know where the raw data these reports come from since details surrounding airstrikes in combat are mostly not available to the general public. The Taliban, al qaeda affiliated groups, etc. are always quick to make press releases after we kick the snot out of them and pass off disinformation. More importantly, enemy forces are real quick to kill people, take pictures, then put the pictures out and say the carnage was from a US airstrike.

Not to say that a degree of oversight isn't good, but I just love how some people are so quick to root against the good guys.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 31, 2013 at 8:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This number is posted special for some special folks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXmx_D...

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 31, 2013 at 9:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I'd e like to know where the raw data these reports come from since details surrounding airstrikes in combat are mostly not available to the general public."
Although the Pakistani government might well have provided the information, it could have come from civilian sources such as police departments, hospitals, funeral homes. The report refers to air strikes that have been acknowledged by our government-- hence the ability to compare claimed versus actual casualty numbers. It's not like getting information on, say, civilians who have been accidentally garrotted in the dark of night by U.S. military personnel.

RE "I just love how some people are so quick to root against the good guys."
The link was posted as a direct response to your comment about killing enemy combatants, as if only enemy combatants are killed by our military. This is hardly "rooting against the good guys"; it is noting the consequences of the actions of the good guys. It's part of the responsibility that goes with taking action.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 1, 2013 at 12:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"And why don't you move to Mexico tonight" You tell em' Hank,

Posted by: JailBird

February 2, 2013 at 10:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )