“We probably killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the last war, and left their country in ruin. They weren't even involved in 9/11. Do you think it is okay to simply destroy a country, say "I'm sorry," and expect all to be forgiven?”
iamadonkey on Jun 2, 2014 at 20:11:20
“we had what we thought were sound reasons for going there. If Al Queada had not joined the fight, things would have gone much smoother. But they did and they are our enemy so we fought. Sure we killed civilians, but it was not our mission goal, unlike al queada and the Iraqi's that blew up cars all over the place, that targeted civilians. Saddam would have killed thousands more each year he was there, and if it was up to you guys, he would still be there 13 years after 9/11 with 10's of billions of dollars of oil money to build up his military. I dont hear any libs talking about what consequences doing nothing would have had”
“This feels right. I fear we are only creating more future radicals by terrorizing an entire country with hidden and potential random death from the clouds. Errors are a part of warfare, but I think about children listening for the distant buzz of drones in the night, fearing that they will be obliterated in their sleep.”
FindMiddleGround on May 29, 2014 at 21:54:10
“I will never understand how your ilk keeps making the same statements over and over, deeply ensconced in the belief that 'if we would just leave them be' that they would return the favor...
Fact remains, they decided their path long before 2001... Heck it was long before 1001!
We could go isolationist to the hilt and all that would happen is the rest of the planet would have to face Militant Islam without us, and they would cease attacking us (perhaps) until they were strong enough to face us openly.”
Transmutation on May 29, 2014 at 17:44:09
“Too late - they hate us and it accomplished nothing One study put the total number of actual targets at 2% of those killed:
That guy from that thing on May 29, 2014 at 17:39:45
“The problem with your logic is that we've already created those future radicals in your scenario and those people would need to be eliminated.”
Shuler Causnick on May 29, 2014 at 17:14:55
“There are more than a decade's worth of new terrorists created by our presence there all that time, killing their people. In a way, we stayed long enough to ensure a new generation of terrorists. Too bad the nicest thing we can do for these people is to just get out of their country.”
“Why do you automatically assume it's a guilt trip? If the facts are that we may be causing permanent damage to the world in which we must live don't we owe it to ourselves and the future to find ways to best insure our survival as a species?”
“A meaningful conservation campaign initiated by government would go a long way toward reintroducing a sense of shared responsibility for the country and world we live in. Not an involuntary scheme, but an educational effort encourages a collective belief that the world is fragile and finite and that we owe it to future generations to be responsible.”
Dr Drew on May 20, 2014 at 17:55:19
Oh no you don't! All this talk of carbon foot prints and I don't make one ever. Barefoot, no carbon. My shoes have rubber soles or leather soles.”
“Sorry, no. The 1% are dismantling our democracy, so I'm in no mood to cut them a bit of slack. If trickle down economics worked we'd be in much better shape than we are. It's more like trickle up economics to the top of the pyramid by people who don't really have to work at all, just skim the labor of people like me.”
gsn78613 on May 9, 2014 at 12:30:24
“I never tried to tear down people more fortunate, rather I use their examples to take myself up. If I did it, almost anyone can.”
“Nope, I'm aware of it. And I oppose it. NAFTA was bad enough. The Repubs strategy is that they will not touch the 1% & they expect the rest of the country to take the haircut with reduced social services, pensions, healthcare. That's garbage.”
gsn78613 on May 8, 2014 at 16:07:21
“You know, instead of hating the 1% and tearing them down, you should be trying to figure out how people can elevate themselves to their level. Expand the pool of the "1%" by bringing people up, and not by taking something not yours.
The 1% pay so much in political bribes, er uh campaign contributions, to the Democrats, that bh0 will never touch them.”
“Anti-science, anti-education, anti-minimum wage, anti-diversity, anti-gay, anti-arts, anti-transparency. We need to maintain our resistance. They will keep losing elections if the truth is illuminated.”
Pencyn on May 6, 2014 at 15:07:37
“Maintain our Resistance or "Dark Ages Here We Come" F&F”
“I'm a hard core leftie but I don't think the NBA should be able to just yank a franchise away from any owner. I imagine that if the NBA had let it play out the owner would have been pressured to sell all on his own b/c of the firestorm around it. I also think it is legitimate to ask what the motives of the owner's ex-girlfriend were in taping dozens of their conversations. She appears to be attempting to elevate her own profile by bringing him down. Not that he doesn't deserve to be shamed, but we should pause for a moment lest we think that secretly recording conversations with everyone in our circle will lead to more openness in society.”
nanjeanmor on May 1, 2014 at 06:33:47
“I agree except I don't know what is in the owners's by laws. Besides, it all comes down to money. If they don't get rid of him, players will protest, fans will protest, and it will result in less advertising and lost revenue. It is a business decision.”
stepheneng on Apr 30, 2014 at 19:51:36
“They didn't "yank the franchise." They said he had to stay away from the business. They also said they would "try" to force the sale. Suppose a McDonalds franchise owner was recorded as saying, "Keep Black folks out of my restaurant." Think McDonalds wouldn't have the right to protect its corporate image?”
jeffrson13 on Apr 30, 2014 at 17:15:37
“There is going to be a massive legal battle about this on many fronts. From his wife producing the tapes, to the legality of the ban and so on.
However, the NBA by-laws clearly state that 3/4 of the owners can force another owner out. The NBA is a business. They are protecting their brand. This is no different than if say an Apple executive got caught making some outrageously bigoted remarks. He didn't break the law per se. However, Apple wants to protect its brand and will get rid of and distance themselves from that person.
Too many people think this is a 1st Amendment issue, and its not. No one is saying it was illegal for him to actually say those things. The NBA and the players on the Clippers, are saying they don't want to be associated with a guy that now has a proven track record of discrimination and bigotry.
My only issue with this is that I feel the NBA Commissioner jumped the gun. He should have had an emergency conference call or meeting with all the owners BEFORE his press conference. He should have gone out with a unified front from the owners instead of now leaving the pressure and onus on them.
I think how poorly everything has been presented is going to make Sterlings case in court easier. Regardless of whether he has a case, or not, we all know he's going to be sueing people.”
AK 47 on Apr 30, 2014 at 17:15:23
“The players have ultimate control, and when they're saying enough is enough, it's game over.”
wayne acree on Apr 30, 2014 at 16:51:25
“Roberto,I feel like Fred Sanford in Sanford and Son,I think I'm going to have the big one,I agree totally with a hard core lefty.lol”
sapperdom on Apr 30, 2014 at 16:29:46
“It doesn't matter what the motives were. He said those things.
This is a financial issue. The team was already starting to lose sponsors.”
pearlx2 on Apr 30, 2014 at 16:27:30
“Did you not get the point that the NBA is banning Sterling for life; they're leaving it up to the other owners to "yank" the franchise away from him.
So you actually concur with what the NBA is doing; you just didn't realize it.”
SGMinutah on Apr 30, 2014 at 16:20:27
“This whole think is a mess. It might be noted he is a married man and everybody is talking about his girlfriend as if that's perfectly normal. You need consent from both parties in California to record a conversation. That is a lawsuit waiting to happen. And even if they don't force a sale, how can they legally interfere with his right to conduct his own business when he has not done anything to break any law?”
Apr 29, 2014 at 10:26:32
HuffPost Live 321
“Oh c'mon, that argument is so tired and lazy. Solitary should be a last resort, not a default setting for trouble makers. This country is way over the top with the idea of 'punishment' and it's a slippery slope down to a police state.”
“I would pay for it if it wasn't a ripoff. But it is. We clearly do not agree on the subject in its entirety.”
tinsldr2 on Apr 25, 2014 at 14:01:04
“to you it is a ripoff to me it is a bargain. Free enterprise. I would never suggest you have to pay for it, or have it if you do not want. Don't tell me I can't pay for it or how much they can charge me.
WHy do you think you (or the gov acting on your behalf) should tell others what to do or pay?”