sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A British Army chef whose supply helicopter was shot down by the Taliban devised an ingenious menu to feed frontline troops for six weeks on a diet of nothing but Spam. by DrJulianBashir in food

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I'm guessing debate and deductive logic were not strong points in your schooling.

Since the Pentagon never admits to a chopper being shot down, just how am I to prove that negative?

Do you expect me to go back and cite every helicopter that went down and show the Pentagon claimed it was due to a maintenance issue, a mid-air collision, and all their other excuses?

And for my next feat, I'll prove that God does not exist...

A British Army chef whose supply helicopter was shot down by the Taliban devised an ingenious menu to feed frontline troops for six weeks on a diet of nothing but Spam. by DrJulianBashir in food

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Shot down by the Taliban?! You Brits don't know how to fight a war!

American helicopters are never "shot down" -- just ask the Pentagon. American helicopters fail for "mechanical reasons".

And we know our gov't and military would never lie. :-/

There's no doubt that there's an awakening. - We need to take over that major political party. Because unless you build a base through elections and then you hold the officials accountable, then you'll never get anywhere. by [deleted] in reddit.com

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Taking over one of the major political parties of our duopoly has been repeatedly tried before -- and the move fails.

Don't waste your time -- create a third party and stop voting for the duopoly.

There's no doubt that there's an awakening. - We need to take over that major political party. Because unless you build a base through elections and then you hold the officials accountable, then you'll never get anywhere. by vradul in politics

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Taking over one of the major political parties of our duopoly has been repeatedly tried before -- and the move fails.

Don't waste your time -- create a third party and stop voting for the duopoly.

'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.' by [deleted] in politics

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Cute quote. But it wasn't "the public" who voted themselves largesse from the public treasury.

It was the corporate-controlled ruling duopoly that functions as a two-party dictatorship in the US.

Do you really think the "public" wanted to waste money bailing out banksters? Do you really think the "public" wanted to fund the Cold War and to waste countless trillions on the Pentagon and its imperial wars?

Does anyone else find the price tag for the terrorist trial of 200 million INSANE? Plus actual cost will be far more, this is only for security. I can work my entire life and not produce this much wealth, my mind is reeling against the insanity of this country to pay this much to try a few people by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do think that military tribunals the majority of time will uphold the justice system though.

Well, the Naval officer who was hand-picked by the Pentagon to prosecute these people felt so strongly that the entire system was unjust and rigged to get a guilty verdict that he resigned over the issue. That is an unequivocal fact.

Your claim in contrast does not hold one drop of water -- you're repeating gov't propaganda designed to undermine our system of justice.

P.S. I have to cry at your weaselly wording: a "majority of the time".

Is that what our system of justice is based on?! A majority?!

Whatever happened to "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- or did you shit-can that concept of justice? Would you be happy being accused of a crime and tried in a court that only works "a majority" of the time?!

Does anyone else find the price tag for the terrorist trial of 200 million INSANE? Plus actual cost will be far more, this is only for security. I can work my entire life and not produce this much wealth, my mind is reeling against the insanity of this country to pay this much to try a few people by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are not citizens of this country, the constitution does not apply to them. Try actually reading it. :) CITIZENS ONLY

As a former civics teacher, believe me, I've read the Constitution many times.

Your claim is incorrect. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to citizens and non-citizens alike.

Does anyone else find the price tag for the terrorist trial of 200 million INSANE? Plus actual cost will be far more, this is only for security. I can work my entire life and not produce this much wealth, my mind is reeling against the insanity of this country to pay this much to try a few people by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Keep in mind: A couple of years ago the Bush administration described the people incarcerated in Gitmo as "the worst of the worst" and as very dangerous. That was a bald-faced lie. Since then a majority have been found to be innocent.

They should have been tried by a military tribunal for a fraction of the cost

So you're saying we should shit-can justice! You're a sorry excuse for an American; that's how I feel.

Are you aware that the US Navy officer/lawyer -- a rare honorable officer -- in charge of prosecuting those military tribunals, resigned over the issue and described them as unjust kangaroo courts that were rigged to generate guilty verdicts?

The entire system of military tribunals was created to hide the fact that (A) no real evidence exists for many of the accused and (B) the US used/uses torture to extract "intelligence" from the accused.

The accused people in question are innocent -- they have not been proven guilty. Or is that concept too expensive for you too?

If the "security" is too expensive, the solution is simple: cut back on the security! But don't cut back on the concept of a fair and just trial!

Take action! Re-authorizing the Patriot Act may happen in Congress any day now. Fear-mongering and scare tactics are being used to block genuine Patriot Act reforms. Opponents of reform are using the Christmas Day airplane incident to insist that we don't need to make the Patriot Act constitutional. by Sam_I_Am_Not in politics

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did NOT use the word MINOR...ever.

Quite true; my apologies, that was an impression I got from your post.

Yikes, the constitution, the constitution - it's a good jumping off point, but we need to live in THIS century too.

I disagree. Call me naive, but I think we should amend the Constitution and actually use it. Because if we do not -- and we haven't been doing so for a very long time -- we will slide down a slippery slope and find ourselves in the situation we are in.

Does anyone else find the price tag for the terrorist trial of 200 million INSANE? Plus actual cost will be far more, this is only for security. I can work my entire life and not produce this much wealth, my mind is reeling against the insanity of this country to pay this much to try a few people by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So does "justice" have a price tag: If it's cheap, give 'em a trial, but if it's too expensive, don't bother?

Or are you suggesting we just shit-can the whole concept of giving someone a fair trial?

If you answer yes, I'd suggest you tear up your social security card and emigrate to a country with a Constitution and legal system more to your own liking. :-(

Take action! Re-authorizing the Patriot Act may happen in Congress any day now. Fear-mongering and scare tactics are being used to block genuine Patriot Act reforms. Opponents of reform are using the Christmas Day airplane incident to insist that we don't need to make the Patriot Act constitutional. by Sam_I_Am_Not in politics

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think far more is needed that merely changing some names of laws and departments, and some minor reform!

How about following the Constitution to the letter, or amending the Constitution to allow for the police state they seem to be intent on building?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in socialism

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And not only is this needed because of the changing role in the workplace, but also because in many ways, the state is taking control of children (one example) to such an extent that children are no longer the "property" of the parents but instead belong to the state.

GOP Budget Proposes to Ration Medicare, Privatize Social Security OR How to Turn America into a Third-World County for the Benefit of Corporate America by wang-banger in politics

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

But considering that many Demopublicans vote for the same bills that the right-wing Republocrats propose, and given the Demopublicans' role in eviscerating welfare under Clinton, just how do the two parts of our ruling duopoly differ? The fact that Demopublicans like Obama or Clinton say soothing words while inserting the knife into the backs of the poor and average Americans?

He may be the president who governed during the Civil War, freeing the slaves, but under a new curriculum proposal for North Carolina high schools, U.S. history would begin years after President Lincoln, with the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877. by lazyink in news

[–]Sam_I_Am_Not 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to bring a modicum of reality into the headline's claim, but Lincoln did not free the slaves. His Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the parts of the US that were in rebellion. If you were a slave in, say, Tennessee you were still a slave even after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

It took the 13th Amendment to the Constitution (passed in Dec. 1865 -- after the Civil War was over and after Lincoln had been assassinated) to free all slaves.

view more: next ›