Count Zero

Why is Sarkozy in jail again?

If you knew things, you’d know that people of the left also think liberal (not lib) is an insult, coming from a completely different place. Look up the ‘Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.’ origin if you actually want to learn something.

You’d also know that every Sunni fundamentalist group during that time period between 1990-2003 had to claim that. You’d also know that those Foreign Nationals were basically all Saudi Arabian, functioning as a first wave to try and claim the territory for Saudi Arabia, because a large chunk of Saudi Arabia was scheduled to be given back to Yemen from a 99 year lease. You’d also know that the Saudi Arabians had, in the early part of that time period just commited a pogrom against the Shia in Najran who were very excited about the prospect of rejoining a Shia majority country. And that the vast majority of the people of Yemen are Shia. You’d also know that the civil war came about specifically because the Saudis took over the government in Sanaa to, at least in part, keep the land and the people of Yemen were extremely unhappy about this.

Fuck man, the Houthi fought against the few groups of AQAP that did still exist harder than the US did.

I did click on that link. It’s the same standard bullshit written by people who have never been to Yemen. I also looked at the citations used. That was written by people who have never been there, mostly to retroactively justify Americas fucked up foreign policy.

I’m done responding to someone that unquestioningly justifies the intentional bombing of a 16 year old and an 8 year old US citizens. Because it was legal (It wasn’t.)

I wasn’t talking about him, I was talking about his two children. Whom were absolutely not members of Al-Qaeda.

Remember, under Obama, the definition of being a terrorist was that you were male, over 14, and you were killed by the U.S.
Being a civilian in the Afghan/Yemen war was a privilege only women were afforded.

Finally, it wasn’t Al-Qaeda. I will excuse this one, because you wouldn’t know it based on US reporting unless you specifically interested in the Yemeni conflict. The genocide we assisted in perpetrating in Yemen against the people of Yemen who would not/did not ally themselves, and never would with Al-Qaeda for religious reasons. The US did what it did in Yemen under the auspices of the AUMF. Which has, as the one limiting factor, that force be used against countries with an Al-Qaeda presence. Nevermind that they were the ones we were arming and backing in Syria. Nevermind that they didn’t REALLY exist in Yemen, and the few that did were imported by ‘us’ (Saudi Arabia, not the US), and the houthi did fight quite hard against them, and certainly not in the area this individual was killed. Nevermind that the Yemeni ‘Government’ that was forced in by Saudi Arabia was not accepted as the legit government of the majority of the Yemeni people (hence the reason for the ‘civil war’. We had to say they did to give the assistance that Saudi Arabia was demanding. The Yemeni ‘government’ was literally of puppet of Saudi Arabia that any sane person wouldn’t listen to. They accused everyone of being Al-Qaeda because, as puppets of Saudi Arabia, they had explicit instructions on what to say to allow the US to continue supporting their puppet regime. You won’t find this in the wikipedia article, by the by, this actually required some thought, analysis, and paying attention to the situation when it was happening.

And no, it was not approved twice by congress. Unless you are again counting the AUMF. which seems a pretty big stretch. That law wasn’t written addressing the assassination of US citizens, does not explicitly state anywhere that it can be used for those purposes. Instead, Obama used the law in a way it was written to do something he wanted to do. I.E. he used powers not explicitly given to him to accomplish his goals. Huh. Imagine if his goals were to help workers.

Give me a definition of imperial that we don’t fit then. I’m sure I’ll enjoy the internal inconsistencies in the definition you give.

I want Biden to use power to help the people, and not the financier owners of the rail companies that exist to siphon of America’s productivity like parasites. Because, frankly, there are far less bounds of the office than you are implying. This appeal to notional bounds is what Democrats always do to justify their feckless helplessness when it comes to helping their constituency.

Fuck, you’re the definition of ‘Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.’

The precedent had been set that the US president can assassinate US Citizens without trial or judicial overview, right?

You know who set that precedent, right? That it wasn’t Trump, and there was no talk of impeaching the president that set that precedent, right?

We have a fucking imperialist presidency for the same reason people hated Trump (not a fan, or a right winger, before you accuse me of that.) People hated Trump for violating the norms of the office. Most of the powers Presidents have now are based on executive orders and precedent from previous presidents, not, you know, by actual laws. I am exaggerating for effect here somewhat, but not a lot. But violating norms is not a crime, especially when you don’t have clear laws delineating what a president can and can’t do. And it apparently isn’t a broken norm to assassinate US citizens without a trial. I don’t know how you don’t consider that an imperial presidency. Or, you’re just younger then 40 and haven’t been paying attention.

If norms are all that define a position, and you have one side breaking the norms, and the other side following them and whining to a non-existent hall monitor that the other side is breaking, not the rules but the norms, then you get what we have now.

Justifying Democratic presidents not using power they absolutely have because of subsection 6 of paragraph 5 is just a self righteous way to justify why they didn’t fight for you when the time came.

We’ve had an imperial presidency since at least bush. If you’d cared enough to pay attention recently, you’d know that legal precedent has already occurred to give the president almost any power they want.

Calling that Trumpian either shows your age, or how long you’ve cared about this.

Incrementalism is an intentional tactic used by liberals to explain why they can’t undo the things the right wing does, and to explain why they can’t change things themselves when they are in power.

Liberalism is a fucking disease.

EDIT: Congress sure as shit wasn’t required to fuck over all the air traffic controllers. Funny that. Congress is never required to fuck over workers, but it is always an excuse as to why we can’t do things for the workers.

Then maybe we shouldn’t have allowed the railway companies to try and fuck them over into suicide schedules for profit.

Or, and I’m just spitballing here, if the rail companies are that important then maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to be run for profit. If they’re that critical, maybe they should be GASP nationalized.

Maybe you should be angry at the financiers that bought the companies and forced the workers to run suicide schedules for forcing the workers into a position where they started to feel like they had to strike to have normal human lives.

You’re blaming the victims here.

Run your own server then, if you think it is so easy.

That’s a moved goalpost, and you know it.

If liability is forced on them, that is a huge difference from them voluntarily accepting responsibility. That is what would indicate that they trusted the service they provided.

Is the company legally liable for the actions of the self driving car? If no, then they don’t trust the vehicles.

What charges would apply against a human that delayed an emergency vehicle and caused someone to die?

I’m using a bangle js 2

I don’t understand why he didn’t go after Box himself. The recording demonstrated that he was violating his civil rights, and knew it wouldn’t be upheld. That should have gotten rid of his qualified immunity.

Boston != Atlanta

VoIP.ms?

It’s what I use. I’m not sure of making phone calls, though.

It also doesn’t work. I can’t use telegram because I have a number that I originally got from project fi, back when it was project fi. Eventually I moved cell providers and I migrated the phone number that I got with Project Fi. As such, a real number that I’ve had for over a decade looks like a voip range number, even though it isn’t anymore and hasn’t been for a long time.

Reddits bullshit is the end case for ANY product or service that is not FOSS.

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys

You should care, or else you will go through reddit all over again and again.

Don’t forget delta chat.

Not the official fediverse, but in really excited by delta chat.

What two groups of people invaded Cambodia to remove Pol Pot, again?

What were the political ideologies of the two groups that did so?

Fucking Alan Dershowitz calls himself a liberal.

Does that mean he is?

No.

Nor was he ever, even when he was considered in the in-group with liberals. He’s always been a right wing crank.

What you call yourself is not a useful description of the political philosophy you hold. It just describes which tribe you consider your own, for most people.

This is why. Well, this is one of the reasons.

First, we have extremely few liberals in America. The Democratic party is mostly made up of people that would be best described as center-right anywhere else in the world. They don’t actually want to fight to roll back changes that Republicans make, and actually try to internally sabotage the few members that do want to undo changes the republicans make. They actively prevent change, and then active work against those who do want change all while professing to want change and to do their best to fight for it. But they’re lying, and people are catching on. People are even starting to realize that the whole “We’d do stuff for you if it wasn’t for that bad bad manchin, and Sinema” thing is as much of a lie, too.

The second reason that is more for the communists is something along the lines of the old joke “Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds” Communists don’t like liberals (And the use of the word liberal is pretty different from the usage in the first case) because they view them as people that profess to want these better for others, until it requires any, even minor, amounts of sacrifice from the liberal. The whole Moderate Rebels thing in Syria? It was always a lie for one simple reason. Fighting is an extreme action. Moderates don’t fight, they just don’t. That’s one of the reasons they’re moderates. Liberals are like communists that aren’t willing to fight or do what is necessary to enact change.