US Politics Mega-thread - Page 867

On February 11 2014 09:35 MstrJinbo wrote:


So let's throw out a hypothetical. We take in a North Korean separatist. We refuse to extradite him to North Korea. So North Korea is totally within their rights to try him in absentia, and kill him in a drone strike in a Burger King parking lot so long as they gave notice that he needs to turn himself in?

On February 11 2014 09:46 zlefin wrote:


If the separatist was an actual criminal, and not just someone declared a criminal illegitimately by the north Korean state, and that individual was actively planning to kill north Koreans in contravention of the laws of war, and we, in addition to being unwilling to turn him over, were unwilling to incarcerate the individual ourselves. Note that it would still be an offense to the nation whose territory you're acting in, but you may decide it is worth that cost.
Mostly though it just feels like you're trying to use north korea to confuse the issue because of the general illegitimacy of their actions, and by creating a false comparison, though I can't recall the exact fallacy.

We all know America pushes the boundaries in going into foreign countries to kill people. I don't think giving someone extra benefits because they're an American is warranted in that process. They should all be given the same benefits, American or not.

edit: kwark, that's why I say they should let it be done by cia, part of the point of covert assassination is to limit the diplomatic fallout, and ultimately cause less damage than other methods would do.

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — Nevada is withdrawing its efforts to uphold the state's gay marriage ban.

Attorney General Catherine Corte Masto filed a motion Monday to withdraw the state's legal arguments in a case pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval says he agrees with the move, saying it's clear the state's arguments supporting the ban are no longer defensible in court.

The decision means Nevada will not argue to uphold the state's constitutional prohibition against same-sex marriage that voters passed in 2002.

Eight same sex couple sued the state, arguing the law is unconstitutional.

Nevada lawmakers last year took the first step toward repealing that law. If legislators approve Senate Joint Resolution 13 again next year, it would go to voters on the 2016 ballot.

Last year, North Carolina’s top environmental regulators thwarted three separate Clean Water Act lawsuits aimed at forcing Duke Energy, the largest electricity company in the country, to clean up its toxic coal ash pits in the state. That June, the state went even further, saying it would handle environmental enforcement at every one of Duke’s 31 coal ash storage ponds in the state — an act that protected the company from further federal lawsuits. Last week, one of those coal ash storage ponds ruptured, belching more than 80,000 tons of coal ash into the Dan River.

Now, environmental groups and former regulators are charging that North Carolina Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, who worked for Duke for 30 years, has created an atmosphere where the penalties for polluting the environment are low.

The Associated Press reports that McCrory’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources blocked three federal Clean Water Act suits in 2013 by stepping in with its own enforcement authority “at the last minute.” This protected Duke from the kinds of stiff fines and penalties that can result from federal lawsuits. Instead, state regulators arranged settlements that carried miniscule financial penalties and did not require Duke to change how it stores the toxic byproducts of its coal-fired power plants. After blocking the first three suits, which were brought by the Southern Environmental Law Center, the state filed notices saying that it would handle environmental enforcement at every one of Duke’s remaining North Carolina coal ash storage sites, protecting the company from Clean Water Act lawsuits linked to its coal waste once and for all.

Most employers won't face a fine next year if they fail to offer workers health insurance, the Obama administration said Monday, in the latest big delay of the health-law rollout.

The Treasury Department, in regulations outlining the Affordable Care Act, said employers with 50 to 99 full-time workers won't have to comply with the law's requirement to provide insurance or pay a fee until 2016. Companies with more workers could avoid some penalties in 2015 if they showed they were offering coverage to at least 70% of full-time workers.

The move came after employers pressured the Obama administration to peel back the law's insurance requirements. Some firms had trimmed workers' hours to below 30 hours a week to avoid paying a penalty if they didn't offer insurance.

A senior administration official said the shift was a response to businesses' concerns, though the official said no one reason was behind the change.

Under the original 2010 health law, employers with the equivalent of at least 50 full-time workers had to offer coverage or pay a penalty starting at $2,000 a worker beginning in 2014. Last year, the administration delayed the requirement for the first time by moving it to 2015.

The new rules for companies with 50 to 99 workers would cover about 2% of all U.S. businesses, which include 7% of workers, or 7.9 million people, according to 2011 Census figures compiled by the Small Business Administration. The rules for companies with 100 or more workers affect another 2% of businesses, which employ more than 74

If republicans were willing to legislate responsibly, Obama wouldn't have to be doing these things.

On February 11 2014 07:12 Simberto wrote:


Yeah, i know that sadly that is how things work out in reality. I just find it weird that apparently there are people who actually embrace that thinking. I can accept that a government acts that way. I can not understand that people think that way. Thus, i simply can not understand why the american government apparently has to deal with a lot more internal fallout when killing american citizen with drone strikes, when compared to killing other people with drone strikes. Because that means that apparently there is a big group of people in america who thinks it is absolutely fine to kill people in other countries, as long as they are not americans. And the only way for that to make any sense is if those people think that americans are worth more than other people.

Once again, i know that that is how this sadly works out in practice all the time. I just can not understand how someone can actually think that that is good, and not just something that you would rather not know about.

On February 11 2014 13:38 zlefin wrote:
If republicans were willing to legislate responsibly, Obama wouldn't have to be doing these things.

On another note, are there any legitimate reasons for Marijuana not being moved to schedule III or so?

On February 11 2014 14:38 oneofthem wrote:
if obstruction and political hostage taking is plastered all over your strategic agenda it's okay to admit that it worked pretty well.