So, since the bombing, we've had to pledge allegiance every day in homeroom. Shit feels Orwellian. Most rooms don't even have flags to salute, mine included. I refuse to pledge, on the basis of a) I won't pledge if there's no flag and b) I won't pledge until the government admits that Vietnam involved chemical warfare.
Couldn't think of a more fitting thread for this, so I posted it here.
So, since the bombing, we've had to pledge allegiance every day in homeroom. Shit feels Orwellian. Most rooms don't even have flags to salute, mine included. I refuse to pledge, on the basis of a) I won't pledge if there's no flag and b) I won't pledge until the government admits that Vietnam involved chemical warfare.
So wait, there was a time when you didn't have to pledge allegiance every day in homeroom? We used to do it as a matter of course every day when I was in school.
BTW, are you arguing that the use of Agent Orange as a defoliant in Vietnam constituted chemical warfare? Or (and admittedly I'm no expert) do you know of evidence that the U.S. used nerve/blistering/asphyxiation agents during Vietnam?
We had to do it every morning at my school at least up until middle school. I never thought much of it at the time, but now I always think of this looking back.
Yeah. The pledge is a thing we did on special occasions because we weren't paranoid fascists trying to weed out every last conscientious objector who doesn't need to remind everyone of his undying love of said paranoid fascists every damn day (I know I'm greatly exaggerating, but that's what my teachers call "the emotional truth").
I'm arguing that Agent Orange was chemical warfare (though I know that the Geneva Convention doesn't define it as such), and that napalm was a mean motherfucker.
To play devil's advocate, napalm wasn't a new thing; firebombing was a staple of any sort of bombing campaigns before the invention of more precise guidance methods, and for the very good reason that a firebomb can hit a large area without an accompanying explosion, which allows you to drop them from very close to the ground, ensuring accuracy. A conventional explosive with comparable coverage poses a pretty significant risk to the plane that drops it when you do so at the height you need to do close support without accidentally catching your own in the blast. Firebombs were used extensively by both sides in WW2 and incendiary weapons continue to be used today; the only reason flamethrowers effectively no longer exist is because portable thermobaric weapons have made them obsolete.
As for Agent Orange, I'll agree unequivocally that herbicide warfare is pretty scummy, but the primary toxic element of Agent Orange, TCDD, was not an intended element of the mixture but was rather a result of Monsanto's super shitty quality control and complete lack of shit-giving, and the impurities as well as the health hazards of handling the stuff lead the US to rely more on other rainbow herbicides later in the war.
I thought we stopped using flamethrowers when Chesty Puller got pissed at them for not being able to have bayonets and destroyed them all.
Napalm isn't my main charge, it's a side note.
Source on the TCDD being Monsanto's fault instead of the Pentagon's? It seems odd that 20 million gallons of a fairly safe herbicide be used for 5 years causing these huge unexpected health hazards without an investigation into the manufacturing.
I'm arguing that Agent Orange was chemical warfare (though I know that the Geneva Convention doesn't define it as such), and that napalm was a mean motherfucker.
I'm for splitting the difference. Agent Orange wasn't chemical warfare as defined by the Geneva Convention, as you stated, but the US should (if it hasn't already) issue some sort of formal apology for its use to both Vietnam and the US soliders that were also affected by the stuff. The fact that our own guys also suffered from that nasty shit kinda implies that we certainly weren't meaning to use it as a chemical weapon. The first rule of chemical warfare is to keep your own troops away from the stuff, or at least give them proper protection against it.
On the bright side, a later treaty that the US is a signatory to banned the use of defoliants in warfare, so at least (hopefully) stuff like that will never be used again.
Source on the TCDD being Monsanto's fault instead of the Pentagon's? It seems odd that 20 million gallons of a fairly safe herbicide be used for 5 years causing these huge unexpected health hazards without an investigation into the manufacturing.
Come on, Lou. You know all ideology exists in its own bubble of Orwellian double-speak.
Heh, actually, just learned Sen. Blumenthal (D-CT) wanted to add a citizenship check for gun purchases in the immigration bill currently working its way through the senate and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-NC, I think) balked at the notion. So yeah, even illegal immigrants deserve to have guns! I guess they'll need them to fight off the tyrannical INS officers trying to deport them!
I don't even know what to make of Nixon anymore. I used to unconditionally hate him, but he did too much good. He always meant well, at least -- and most of the time it turned out for the best.
I think the main point is assuming executive authority includes the authority to rewrite laws, which is a power held by the legislative branch.
The shit about agenda was just a bit of mudslinging and should just be ignored.
I am only interested in people's opinion about Obama as president holding the position that he has the authority to make changes to a law that has already been passed. I suppose a nice way of putting it would be to call it 'selective enforcement'?
I'm not quite sure delaying the implementation of certain aspects of a law by 12 months counts as rewriting a law...
So if Congress passed a change to the tax code and the President decided that the IRS could ignore some of the changes for 12 months that would be OK? The president is not 'changing' the law, just delaying the implementation...
EDIT: This is one of the fears of Republican legislators regarding immigration reform and border control. They are worried that if they pass a law that reforms immigration contingent on border security that the president will selectively delay the border security portion of the bill while implementing the immigration reform portion of the bill.
It's like telling a kid that they can't have any pudding until after they eat their meat and they respond by 'delaying' the eating of the meat while having their pudding.
I agree with Obama's unconstitutional steps being worse (or at least just as bad) as Nixon's, but not with the examples given in the article.
Yes, I'm on the Impeach Obama bandwagon (though if Romney had won, he probably would've continued the same programs I dislike about Obama and I would want him to be impeached too), so sue me.
I'm pretty sure you guys are tossing around impeachment a little leisurely. Usually you can impeach a president when they personally break a law. Like Bill Clinton Lying under oath, Nixon covering up a crime. Andrew Jackson violated a law passed specifically to weaken his power. You'll be hard pressed to get anywhere impeaching a president for doing things that are part of powers imbued by laws passed...
How is delaying implementation of a law a power imbued in the executive branch? If a law says it takes effect on day X how is changing that to X+365 not changing the law? Especially when what is being delayed is so integral to the law.
I understand that the executive branch has a history (prior administrations) of selective enforcement of some laws but this is a much bigger deal than choosing to ignore lesser crimes committed by lower level criminals to get higher up criminals arrested.
One of the problems with the squashing of civil rights in the name of 'antiterrorism' is that both the legislative and executive branches are in agreement on the issue. No one with the power to do something about it seems to give a shit.
Delaying implementation of a law is not the same as selective enforcement. This is more akin to a post passage line item veto on the law.
The law specifically states when these provisions kick in. While there is some discretion allowed on the collecting of fines due to noncompliance there is no discretion given as to modifying the date when these provisions kick in.
If this 'delayed implementation' is a legit power of the president than why ever veto a law? If you don't like it just change the implementation date for four years into the future when someone else will be president. Why would the legislative branch even bother working out compromises if the executive can just choose to ignore said compromises?
If a president chooses not to immediately implement a law, then Congress has the power to pass another law which includes a specific timeframe for implementation and similar related requirements.
Congress is too dysfunctional to act.
Therefore, Obama can execute the already-passed law with a good deal of latitude and discretion.
Comments
Couldn't think of a more fitting thread for this, so I posted it here.
BTW, are you arguing that the use of Agent Orange as a defoliant in Vietnam constituted chemical warfare? Or (and admittedly I'm no expert) do you know of evidence that the U.S. used nerve/blistering/asphyxiation agents during Vietnam?
I'm arguing that Agent Orange was chemical warfare (though I know that the Geneva Convention doesn't define it as such), and that napalm was a mean motherfucker.
As for Agent Orange, I'll agree unequivocally that herbicide warfare is pretty scummy, but the primary toxic element of Agent Orange, TCDD, was not an intended element of the mixture but was rather a result of Monsanto's super shitty quality control and complete lack of shit-giving, and the impurities as well as the health hazards of handling the stuff lead the US to rely more on other rainbow herbicides later in the war.
Napalm isn't my main charge, it's a side note.
Source on the TCDD being Monsanto's fault instead of the Pentagon's? It seems odd that 20 million gallons of a fairly safe herbicide be used for 5 years causing these huge unexpected health hazards without an investigation into the manufacturing.
On the bright side, a later treaty that the US is a signatory to banned the use of defoliants in warfare, so at least (hopefully) stuff like that will never be used again. It was Monsanto's fault, but the Pentagon apparently didn't care when told about it.
Legit criticism or not?
It claims that Mr. Obama has no domestic agenda. That's a ridiculously subjective claim to say the least.
The shit about agenda was just a bit of mudslinging and should just be ignored.
I am only interested in people's opinion about Obama as president holding the position that he has the authority to make changes to a law that has already been passed. I suppose a nice way of putting it would be to call it 'selective enforcement'?
EDIT: This is one of the fears of Republican legislators regarding immigration reform and border control. They are worried that if they pass a law that reforms immigration contingent on border security that the president will selectively delay the border security portion of the bill while implementing the immigration reform portion of the bill.
It's like telling a kid that they can't have any pudding until after they eat their meat and they respond by 'delaying' the eating of the meat while having their pudding.
Yes, I'm on the Impeach Obama bandwagon (though if Romney had won, he probably would've continued the same programs I dislike about Obama and I would want him to be impeached too), so sue me.
The media didn't turn on him after the Justice Department subpoenaed journalists records looking for leakers so why would they turn now?
Democrats in Congress would never support impeachment either.
I can't think of anything that the President could do that would result in an impeachment from a Democratic controlled senate.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Cremlian. We didn't impeach Nixon, he resigned before we could. And which law are you referring to that Jackson violated?
I understand that the executive branch has a history (prior administrations) of selective enforcement of some laws but this is a much bigger deal than choosing to ignore lesser crimes committed by lower level criminals to get higher up criminals arrested.
One of the problems with the squashing of civil rights in the name of 'antiterrorism' is that both the legislative and executive branches are in agreement on the issue. No one with the power to do something about it seems to give a shit.
The law specifically states when these provisions kick in. While there is some discretion allowed on the collecting of fines due to noncompliance there is no discretion given as to modifying the date when these provisions kick in.
If this 'delayed implementation' is a legit power of the president than why ever veto a law? If you don't like it just change the implementation date for four years into the future when someone else will be president. Why would the legislative branch even bother working out compromises if the executive can just choose to ignore said compromises?
Congress is too dysfunctional to act.
Therefore, Obama can execute the already-passed law with a good deal of latitude and discretion.