Chat/Comment thread

Happy bithday!My worst birthday was when I was in my second year at uni and the girl I was trying to court finally told me there was no way.I was a bit drunk and went home crying. As I walked home I looked at my watch and it was gone 12 and the next day: my birthday.Bollocks!

Things can only get better, as the song says, and I sincerely hope they do.I can't remember a particularly bad one, but I can remember once getting up, going to work, and spending most of the day until late afternoon without even realising that it was my 40th birthday. Maybe there was something subconscious going on, but I don't think so, because if you've ever met the kind of person who's almost completely uninterested in birthdays, that's what I'm like.Someone mentioned the date, and I said "Oh, I've just realised it's my 40th birthday". She couldn't believe that someone could go most of a day not knowing something like that, but it was true.

Each birthday is worse than the last.
Each is another painful step towards death and oblivion.
Marking the passing of each year with faux joviality and inane gifts just leaves me cold.
We are born screaming and crying and no doubt we will die the same way. HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!

Thank you for that, Happy Larry rofl

One of the reasons america is a powerful nation is because it has succeeded in achieving the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. USA, number ONE, USA, USA, U S A !!! shock and awe baby!
Incarceration in the United States - WikipediaYes, america SHOULD PERSUE THIS MODEL which can ONLY bring it even greater success. One way is for ol' liberal Obama to have signED the Indefinite Detention of Citizens Into Law Act. I am sooo happy ol' liberal Obama didn't even TRY to refuse to sign the bill.

quote:

---

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens.

---

quote:

---

most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.

---

It will become . . .

quote:

---

"one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country"

---

zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.Number ONE, USA, USA!!! god bless america! shock and awe baby! SHOCK and AWE!!! (Wasn't that Bush-Cheney administration just awful!)

The NDAA doesn't contain a "provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens." It simply contains no provision that prevents him from doing so.The text of the section of the NDAA you refer to says "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."It's the AUMF that allows the President, potentially, to detain indefinitely US citizens accused of terrorist ties; that act was passed in 2001 and signed by George Bush.You need to do better research, Dronester, as always. Obama isn't going to give you a pony or close the Iraqi embassy, no matter how hard you stamp your feet and pout.

Though President Obama’s insistence that he can unilaterally label a citizen as a terrorist and order his killing simply does not mean there is any actual provision that keeps Obama from actually from doing so.(cough, cough, Anwar al-Aulaqi)

Anwar al-Awlaqi was a casualty of a military strike on a battlefield. It's a stretch to refer to it as the "ordered killing" of anybody. The Constitution gives the President wide authority to determine military objectives; the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the US military from being used for law enforcement purposes within the US, but air strikes are hardly something considered the purview of domestic law enforcement.The US military has never operated under an assumption that Americans can't be the target of military action, otherwise fighting Civil War would have been impossible (since all citizens of the so-called "Confederate States of America" were, at all times, American citizens.) Anwar al-Awlaqi wasn't "labeled" as anything but a military target.I don't understand why it comes as a surprise that, when you take up arms against the US Army on the battlefield, they don't stop and check your passport.

To be more precise, he was a casualty of a military strike on Anwar al-Awlaqi. U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric. Barack Obama orders killing of US cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

That's always been something militaries do.I'm not understanding the objection. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He's Constitutionally empowered to determine military objectives. The sole limitations on military objectives are the US Constitution, our treaties with other nations, and the terms by which Congress authorizes military force.Holding a US passport (and there's no evidence that he actually did) doesn't immunize you against the military. It's not a magic anti-bullet shield. If Anwar al-Awlaqi had been arrested and taken into US custody, it certainly would have been illegal to execute him without a trial. But he wasn't. He was a casualty of a military strike.

It was my sweet sixteen and I had a huge crush on a senior that was destined for failure. My stupid sister planned her wedding for the next day, so no one in my family remembered it was my birthday. Boy, did my mom feel like crap when she realized what happened! I ended up sleeping on the couch since my stinky grandparents had commandeered my bedroom, and this geek made a small fortune selling peeks at my underwear.Happy Birthday, Trixie!Edited by ooh-child, : No reason given.

I am making the assumption that survival is better than not surviving.But anyway. I dont think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Too funny. Kill or be killed.That attitude is the real problem.The question is why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons?

I am not advocating war. I am saying Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons or be allowed to impede traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. If there is a way to do that without killing some people I am all for it. If there is no way to do that without the killing I am still for it.

No. It is kill if you have to and it is not an attitude so much as it is a reality.Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons because they will likely use them or give them to someone who will. It will not make the world or Iran a safer place.