IntenseDebate - Bill Samuel

12 years ago @ Antiwar.com Original A... - Can This War Be Stopped? · 0 replies · +9 points

Sen. Rand Paul has denied that he ever agreed to filibuster the war resolution, and has stated firmly that he will not. We need to use whatever means we can to communicate to him that we really need for him to do this. There is no other Senator on the horizon who would do it.

12 years ago @ Jewish Daily Forward - Chemical Weapons Are D... · 2 replies · -5 points

The attack is not about chemical weapons. That's just a pretext. You mention Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons. These were probably provided by the U.S. - the U.S. considered Saddam Hussein a great hero at the time. The U.S. has used white phosphorus, which isn't technically covered by the chemical weapons treaty but for all practical purposes is, and Turkey has used it against their own people with no U.S. objection (again, the U.S. probably provided it). I have heard from sources with access to secret information that the real reason is to keep a balance of power between Assad and the opposition since both sides are bad from the U.S. point of view, and we want to keep the civil war going as long as possible.

And Obama's Chief of Staff admitted today that the U.S. does not have proof that Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons incident. He maintains that we shouldn't require the kind of evidence needed to convict an individual of a crime in U.S. courts to go to war! That's not a tenable position.

Your basic argument about chemical weapons being different also applies to drones, which this Administration uses. This Administration has no concern for human life.

12 years ago @ Daniel Darling - 5 Reflections for the ... · 1 reply · +1 points

Thanks for this very helpful commentary. I have long felt that the pro-life movement's connection to the right wing ("the conservative movement" as you call it) was a major obstacle to the movement. Glad to see you tackle that head-on. And I'm glad to see that Students for Life of America, which has really disappointed me in the past by mindlessly repeating the right wing party line, has featured your article on their blog. I can see positive winds of change blowing.

In my work with Consistent Life &lt ;http://www.consistent-life.org/> I come into contact with many people who are pro-life in their heart but don't want to be associated with the pro-life movement because of its ties to an ideology that takes positions which are objectively anti-life on most other issues. This needs to be changed if we are to move forward. And the youth are leading the way.

13 years ago @ Jewish Daily Forward - Apple Messes Up Jerusa... · 0 replies · +1 points

There are huge problems with the map program in Apple's new OS used in the new Iphone. However, here we do not have a mistake, but a political issue. Most of the world's nations (including the U.S.) do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the status of Jerusalem is generally considered unsettled by the international community. So Apple is simply reflecting the general international view, not making an error. Of course, this does differ with the view of the government of the State of Israel.

13 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - 13-Year-Old Businessma... · 0 replies · +3 points

This is one of the interesting areas where the libertarian-oriented right and the left agree. Private businesses get governments to use its power on their behalf, at the expense of other citizens. This happens all the time. Both Democratic and Republican politicians participate in these schemes. I regret that Ron Paul and Ralph Nader abandoned their idea of a libertarian-progressive coalition which they spoke of not long before the Presidential campaign began. Both oppose special interests using government to gain special advantage, and the imperialist use of military force where we don't belong. Such a coaltion of the disaffected would have had a chance to upset the political apple cart, while neither part of the coaliton alone can get enough popular support to do so. I regret the missed opportunity because I think circumstances made this a particular good time for this strategy.

13 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - What If 20% of Adults ... · 0 replies · +2 points

The reports indicate it was ballistic armor. This means he had specifically prepared for the possibility of someone shooting at him. Since he did not attempt to escape or resist the police, it appears that he was thinking about someone inside shooting him, not police trying to arrest him. He appears to have ended the incident, and then waited quietly for the police to arrest him. This kind of individual is generally looking for publicity, so he may have had no reason to try to prevent his arrest.

I can not understand how one could think that many people shooting in a crowded, dark movie theater would have been anything but a greater disaster.

13 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - What If 20% of Adults ... · 7 replies · 0 points

This is crazy. The perpetrator was dressed like a SWAT Team member with beaucoup protective gear. He was the only person in the theater who was protected from gun shots. If you had 20% of the theater gun nuts who started shooting, you would have greatly magnified the number of casualties. Far more innocent would have died and been injured.

This is pretty obvious to anyone not warped by a gun-crazy ideology. This is one of the few countries in the world where it is legal for any citizen to buy assault rifles and large gun magazines. It also has more of these lone madmen gun massacres than any other nation. And it has one of the highest rates of casualties from gun violence - or any type of lethal violence - in the world outside contries with active civil wars or drug wars that are the equivalent of civil wars. You folks are a real danger to America.

And don't bring up Switzerland to me. Yes, it has a high rate of gun ownership, but these are militia members and the nature of the weapons and the availability of ammunition is strictly controlled by the Swiss government. There is nothing libertarian in their system.

13 years ago @ The Tea Party Economist - Illegal Immigrants Get... · 0 replies · -2 points

Many of these immigrants send much of what they earn back to their home country to their families. These children really are dependent upon their family working in the U.S. There aren't jobs back home so they come where there are jobs. They're generally willing to do almost any job, and employers like them because of their work ethic.

Why are y'all so against hard working family people just because they came from another country generations after you did, when racist laws limit legal immigration? The rate of immigration is determined by economics, not laws. There are now more immigrants returning to their homeland than coming here because jobs are much scarcer here. Why do you want statist "solutions" for something that's not a real problem anyway? In my area of the country, certain low paid sectors of the economy are deeply dependent on immigrants in order to fill positions for which there are a dearth of American citizen applicants. If all undocumented immigrants were suddenly sent back, it would produce economic crisis here and in some other areas of this country.

13 years ago @ American Vision News - New Obama executive or... · 2 replies · 0 points

I was writing generically. One of the EOs has not yet been published, so I don't know it's content. For the one that has been published, you're correct that it is not issued pursuant to any treaty. But it is described incorrectly in this report. It does not make the U.S. subject to any international regulations at all. It simply asks agencies to consider when drafting a regulation what other nations have done in that area. There is no requirement that they follow the lead of the other nations. They simply must consider whether harmonization of the efforts of different nations is appropriate. That simply makes good sense in today's global environment. It is a policy about considerations when Federal agencies are drafting regulations which simply makes good sense. It does not in any way make the U.S. subject to any regulations promulgated by other nations or any international bodies.

I can't speak about the 2nd regulation until I can see it. But if it is as badly misreported as the one that is available, one can assume what this rant says about it is not correct.

13 years ago @ American Vision News - New Obama executive or... · 6 replies · -2 points

Have any of you guys actually read the Constitution.

From Article VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

If regulations are established pursuant to a treaty entered into by the U.S., they are binding under Article VI of the Constitution. I wish people who talk about following the Constitution would actually look and see what it says.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Bill Samuel

People I'm following

Bill Samuel