We're Number One! American Exceptionalism!

Except for this. America has an insanely high percentage of child poverty. More than 20 percent of all children here live below the poverty line. Check the list:

The top five positions in the league table are occupied by Iceland, Finland, Cyprus, the Netherlands and Norway (with Slovenia and Denmark close behind). All of these countries have relative child poverty rates below 7%. Another eight countries including two of the largest — Germany and France– have rates between 7% and 10%. A third group, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, post rates of between 10% and 15%. A further six, including populous Italy and Spain, show rates of between 15% and 20%. In only two countries are more than 20% of children living in relative poverty — Romania and the United States.

How do the Republicans propose we remedy this? Cut Medicaid? Yes. Cut SCHIP? Yes. Cut education? Yep.

  • D_C_Wilson

    I see this post has gotten a serious troll infestation.

  • IrishGrrrl

    Notice how many of those countries are “soshulists”….just sayin

  • droneseerywhere

    You know what is exceptional? Killing innocents with flying robots by a Nobel Peace Laureate that happens to be a Constitutional lawyer whose followers tout as the most progressive and transparent administration, evah! Now that’s EXCEPTIONAL! As you were.

    • i_a_c


      • droneseerywhere

        Another exceptional sycophant too ignorant to see the immoral and ghastly side effects of allowing one man to determine who lives and who dies. “You can’t handle the truth!” so you deflect with a fallacious equivalence of a strawman where none stands. You sir are truly exceptional in your ignorance.

        • mrbrink

          You think it’s “one man,” slick?

          You’re so fucking naive. You and the other one-eyed purveyors of drones in combat= war crimes. Concern trolls.

          I’d like to see you stare down a century’s worth of military industrial complex influence, the great majority of congress, multinational corporations and banks, oil demand, religious based terrorist organization plots seeking to control regions of the middle east where trillions of dollars in minerals and natural resources= crazy power. World history, the media, and an idiot general public who thought the CEO administration of Bush and Cheney deserved to be reelected and still find time to sign all kinds of historical civil rights legislation, pull out of Iraq, end torture, appoint two justices to confront the Supreme Court for their right wing stink while standing up to the court directly with the most brilliantly eloquent arguments you’ve ever heard out of a president’s mouth, promote American goods and technologies while pulling this moral and economic shit hole of a lost decade into the future… all the way to the year 2001! isn’t so bad when you look at the big picture.

          Keep up the good fight, but don’t lose sight of the fact that it could be and would be much much worse under any other administration with any realistic chance at the office.

          We’ve authorized no fly zones, containment, security, nation building, etc., before. Ronald Reagan’s military leadership shot down an Iranian commercial airliner in 1988 with 290 passengers on board, including about a hundred kids. Reagan awarded the crew responsible with medals.

          I suppose demanding justice for people like Dick Cheney is so 5 minutes ago.

          • droneseerywhere

            Yeah, I’m the naive one. No financial investigations, indictments or convictions. Compare that with the S&L crisis where 800 bankers went to jail. Thank Timmy, Larry, Eric and Barry for that one. No officially sanctioned torture but can you be sure of that in Bagram, Yemen or Somalia? Not likely or you wouldn’t be spouting this absurd reductionist bullshit about how it could be worse. Plus, my guess is that you are actually ok with the metric that if “you’re of military age and male, and happen to be in the vicinity of SUSPECTED militants” then you deserve to die. The blowback is going to be tragic.
            And then of course, there’s the massive offensive on whistle blowers. Those same courageous citizens he vowed to protect. But again my guess is that you think that Bradley Manning deserves it since he’s been convicted by the honorable O. Including all the other whistle-blowers that the corporatist Dems are so eager to silence. So when it suits you O is helpless in the face of immovable factions but when you want to tout his accomplishments you pretend that he is moving heaven and earth to do so, his brilliant eloquence moves people to action. Your naivete, it hurts. Your move.

          • mrbrink

            SEC enforcement actions that led to or arose from the financial crisis: Here.

            Don’t act like this administration has done nothing to seek damages and recovery costs, fines, and changes to the law. You’d be tragically mistaken.

            Our official policy on “torture” is now in compliance with the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manuel under this president.

            What “massive offensive” on whistle blowers are you referring to? maybe I’m not up on the latest in whistle blowing suppression, but if you think national secrets should be posted on the internet, you’re out of your mind. Bradley Manning isn’t a hero. He broke the law. A government employee stealing and leaking national security documents violates the rights of all involved, and if it did go unpunished, it would set a precedent where government employees could leak sensitive confidential information on anyone, civilian or otherwise, which is a violation of several of your rights. Busting people like Bradley Manning actually protects your rights.

          • droneseerywhere

            The SEC has no teeth and has been captured by Wall Street for a long time now. They occasionally get the low lying fruit, i.e. insider trading, but mainly focus on fines where the offending party promises pretty please not to do it again. Please Mr. Brink you can do much better than this. There is plenty of fraud there if you just want to look. Geithner and Holder know where their bread will be buttered when they leave office so whey jeopardize their respective wind falls. The Mortgage Task Force is a farce and you pretend that the SEC is doing anything of worth. What a joke. Google Bill Black, FBI, fraud, S&L and see for yourself the amount of resources used to investigate and bring to trial hundreds of fraudsters during the S&L crisis and compare it to the woefully non-existent urgency and seriousness that the admin is applying to the current crisis. Where are the convictions? Your argument is pathetic in the extreme.

            Nice of you to fall back on “official” proclamations since our government has never, ever done anything outside those parameters. And like I said you’re not in Yemen, Somalia or Afghanistan to really say we don’t “unofficially” do these things either.

            As for whistle blowing:
            “…the Obama administration has charged under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information – more than all past administrations combined.”

            Btw, I’m not touting Manning as a hero. I’m saying that he hasn’t been afforded any protections for whistle-blowing. A position O was strongly supportive of when he was a candidate. You are tragically on the wrong side of history on this one but there are blind followers in every era, so be it. Fuck transparency. Fuck Daniel Ellsberg (his leaks of classified information-top secret actually–were much more sensitive in nature. So, really what you’re saying is fuck anyone who tries to point out the waste, fraud and crimes perpetrated in our name. They deserve to be ostracized and made to be pariahs. You prefer the pretense of a free society that doesn’t classify every single document out of fear of something being embarrassing or a crime. I’m not saying to post the nuclear codes but for fuck’s sake some perspective. “Busting people like Bradley Manning actually protects your rights.” So you’ve seen the evidence? You’ve determined his guilt? How great for you. Nice judicial system you have there, have you been consulting with the president?

            Obama declares Manning guilty:

          • droneseerywhere

            Oh Mr. Brink, what have we here:

            O apologists lurvs them some pretend SEC regulations, investigations, indictments and enforcements. Nice try Señor Brink.

          • droneseerywhere
          • droneseerywhere

            Btw, whether it’s sarcasm or not, it was O’s call to investigate Bush and Cheney. It was his call not to look backward. Fucking coward. They should both be at the Hague right now with Charles Taylor.

          • mrbrink

            It was YOUR call to make. All of ours. Had you spent your time and Twitter attention span DEMANDING justice for the CAREER criminals who are currently running super pacs, turning out right wing jagoff lawyers in our learning institutions, writing books about their “tough decisions,” and thinking up new ways to fuck us all, the violent ties to our past would think twice before showing their faces in a billboard running for public office.

            You cowards. You pushed the first black president out into the white man’s world and expected him to do all that regulating without the political cover. Your vote-depressing bullshit handed the congress back to the people who hate you the most.

            You should look in the mirror a little more often. Study cause and effect. Maybe ration out your poutrage a little bit more for posterity.

          • droneseerywhere

            There are laws and regulations. Just because the DOJ and the White House refuses to use those laws to investigate fraud and abuse is not my fault. I’m not the person that came up with the awesome phrase, “Look forward, not back.” Elected officials swear an oath to uphold the constitution and to enforce the laws of the land, is that too hard to understand? But yeah it’s my fault.

            And, I pushed the black man into the white man’s world? Why not infantilize Obama some more? Yup it was my fault that Obama wasn’t able to convince people early on that his bullshit lies were good for the country and that all we had to do was hope and that change would come. It had nothing to do with broken promises or reiterating right wing talking points to appease the morons on the right, so that O would seem to be the only adult in the room. When you shit on your base what do you expect? Obama did that all by himself.

            The same deterrent you speak of when confronting super pacs and right wing nuts doesn’t apply to fraud on wall street? There are laws and we’ve investigated and convicted financial criminals before. It’s just that now the democratic party is filled with these Wall Street apparatchiks that Obama loves so much. He could have appointed progressive people to his cabinet but he chose people like Geithner, Summers, Emmanuel, Daley, Lew, Holder (another creature of Wall Street). While campaigning for President in 2008, he repeatedly made the point that one can’t expect different results with the same people. Shall I continue?

            Nice try. Your move.

          • mrbrink

            Sure, sure. Billions of dollars in fines, criminal charges, and barrings mean nothing.

            JP Morgan just lost their shit after losing 2 billion.

            How many times are you going to tie the president’s hands behind his back, work him over like some goon, and complain about his fighting skills?

          • droneseerywhere

            Billions? I suppose that might be a deterrent if it were true (you’re playing with numbers and aggregating all fines into one lump sum which is absurd since…”For the full year, JPMorgan posted a record profit of $19 billion, up from $17.4 billion in 2010.” But these fines have just become a cost of doing business, they make record profits, pay out massive bonuses, admit no wrong doing and no jail time and voila, no deterrent.
            It’s not a deterrent if it doesn’t prevent criminal behaviour. Nice try.

            What criminal charges? There are none other than a few insider trading convictions which amount to nada when it comes to deterring continued fraud. Weak Mr. Brink, very weak.

            And who is tying the President’s hands? There are laws on the books that make fraud a crime. He took an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land, he is a constitutional lawyer after all. This line of argument only works if someone were deterring the FBI, DOJ or SEC from investigating and the person and party doing that are all of them, including O and Timmy and Holder and Lew, etc….on and on, ad infinitum. Where is the Mortgage Fraud Task Force by the way? Your ability to ignore reality and contemporaneous facts is spectacular. The Obama administration should hire you as Treasury Secretary, you’d be perfect.

          • mrbrink

            This will be my last reply to you on this because the space is limited, which is why I’m putting it here(reply options tapped out)but look at the financial system like you would industrial polluters. There’s always going to be some dirt in the system. Like all of our regulatory agencies, the SEC is understaffed and underfunded due to political gridlock and lobbying, but that doesn’t mean nothing has been done in this administration to mitigate some of the losses and criminal activity. Dodd Frank re-regulated derivatives– to be traded openly and transparently on an exchange. That’s huge. It also gave shareholders more voting power over corporate boards. It increased funding and personnel at the CFTC– the agency directly responsible for regulating speculation in commodities, like oil and wheat. It also established the CFPB with the president appointing Elizabeth Warren to set it up.

            We had momentum, but you gave all that up with your misuse of facts and vote-depressing masochism. You don’t seem to understand that you’re talking about global wealth and trading and the challenges of trying to clamp down on a quadrillion dollar empire.

            And I think it’s vengeance you seek, rather than justice. Taibbi’s job is to play bad cop. And I love Taibbi. I’ve read just about every word he’s written since he left Russia. But his commentary on Wall Street isn’t the final word on rules and regulations, and the way he presents it all can be a little sensationalized. Which I don’t have a problem with because he’s the only one doing it with any sense of morality and justice. But you shouldn’t scorch earth and depress voter turnout for the president and hand the presidency over to an actual Wallstreet crony just to see a few bankers bending over for the soap.

            Your priorities and degree of outrage need some adjusting, and you could use a broadened perspective when you’re out there telling people provably false things, like: “No financial investigations, indictments or convictions.”

            Most of your opinions are a dissatisfaction with the degree of resolution. Small time grievances in the grand scheme of things, really.

        • i_a_c

          “Killing innocents with flying robots” is a misleading distortion. That’s strawman #1.

          “whose followers tout as the most progressive and transparent administration, evah!” is strawman #2. Nobody is claiming that, either.

          It’s easy to scream and shout against actions and ideas that don’t exist. Strawmen? I think so.

          • droneseerywhere

            #1 how is this a misleading distortion, i.e. a strawman? I’m not making up these facts or distorting them in the least. Are you saying, that no innocents die during flying robot strikes? That our military has never had to apologize for civilian deaths? Is that your assertion? If so, this will definitely make it easier for me to ignore anymore comments coming from you. If you refuse to absorb and agree with facts and reality, then I might as well talk to my cat. She might be stupid, but she’s my stupid cat.

            “The central question is this: should we undermine the most progressive-minded president in at least a generation and will his failure to attain a second term help or hurt the progressive cause?”
            Oh the interwebs, it lives forever.

            Tell you what, I’ll give you a little wiggle room and let’s just say, all you said, is that he’s a progressive (, which is a HOOT! O is mostly a centrist on social issues and center right on economic policy. His record shows this. But again there are those darned facts again. And the pres has touted his own administration as having “….an unprecedented level of openness in Government.” ( He even won an award for it. And Cescans never question the president, they just make excuses.

            By the way, those sentiments, about O being a great progressive and his admin as being transparent are a finally tuned background hum at Bob’s House of True-Believers. You just don’t hear it anymore since you’re part of the choir.

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Yeah, compared to the last guy who helped engineer a war based on bald faced lies and fear tactics that just about destroyed the country.

      • droneseerywhere

        Who is comparing O to B? Not me, but I guess if your strawman only extends to Bush then yes, O is slightly better than B. O is by far smarter, more efficient and maybe just a tad less criminal. It’s like choosing Dahmer vs. Gacy, one was a sociopath and the other was a psychopath. So yes compared to the last guy. I wonder how that works in a court of law? See that guy over there, your honor? He’s way worse than me. Like I said, exceptional.

        • IrishGrrrl

          Really?! You’re actually going to compare the Pres to Gacy?! Give me a break. You can’t complain about Mr Brink infantilizing him and then turn around and impugn the President’s fundamental decency by comparing him to a serial killer.

          Mr Brink’s point, which you avoid dealing with, is that any President that you elect one year and then work against the next year during the midterm election thereby taking away his party’s dominance in Congress is hamstrung. Unlike Bush, the Pres wanted to let Congress do its job because he didn’t want to extend the power of the Executive any further than it already had been. But you guys made sure he couldn’t work with Congress at all and then bitched and moaned when he refused to make decisions that you supported (closing Guantanomo, getting rid of DADT, etc) by fiat/executive orders. You hated Bush doing that kind of thing but withdrew your support from Pres O when he needed you and put him in a position where he could not win. If he issued executive orders it would violate his understanding of the Separation of powers and be an abuse of Executive power AND it would have been overturned the same way by the next Repub President. Furthermore your insistence that he give you everything you wanted right away regardless of what else might have been going on and without considering the limitations that any good man would face in such a job, makes me (and a lot of other liberals) wonder just who you thought you were electing? He wasn’t your “step and fetch it” man.

          Considering the assholes on the left and right he has had to deal with, I think President Obama has done a pretty good job. You couldn’t pay me enough To take the shit you guys give him.

          • droneseerywhere

            Where to start. First of all, I can compare him to a serial killer if he, through his stated counter terrorism tactics, defines a militant as: any male, between the ages of 18-34, that happens to be in an area considered to be hostile or to be inhabited or traveled by known militants/terrorists, and in doing so I equate the ease with which Gacy and Dahmer dispatched with their victims as virtually the same thing in cases of those families and people that are victims that from their perspective is random and gruesome in it’s results. Anytime that you callously use the same calculus to determine that it’s okay to do so with children, women and any person that would be considered collateral damage. For christ’s sake watch Jay Carney at the 17:00 mark ( You seriously can tell me with a clear conviction that what we are doing, this country, this president, in doing this and I’m impugning his fundamental decency. What about innocent people’s fundamental decency and right to live? How about we start there.

            Let’s play a little thought experiment shall we, IrishGrrrl? Let’s say that Great Britain has surveilled a known IRA terrorist at the height of the bombings, riots, and assassinations, and has located him in district known to house many of the IRA’s sympathizers and recruits. And just for shits and giggles, Thatcher decides that after this incident: “Thatcher narrowly escaped injury in a IRA assassination attempt at a Brighton hotel early in the morning on 12 October 1984.[121] Five people were killed, including the wife of Cabinet Minister John Wakeham.” That she was in the right to target that known terrorist’s whereabouts and she would take the legal and political fallout. Ok, probably as a one fer, in this cruel world, she gets off. But now, she decides that whenever they target any terrorist that it doesn’t matter where that terrorist is, if there are people around him then they are also considered terrorists and so they no longer count as civilian casualties, you know the innocent. Voila! Fundamental decency intact.

            By the way, I’m not pissed he didn’t close Guantanamo; I’m pissed that all he wanted to do was to INDEFINITELY DETAIN suspects without charges or a trial. It’s not the prison it’s the policy.

            He did sign DADT after being dragged there by many activists. You can rewrite histroy all you want but you can’t take that away from those people who pushed rather than cheered. And who in the f was asking him to do anything by fiat/executive order? Not all activists are as stupid as you make them out to be. The know the law and the only long term way to make this stick. Talk about infantilizing.

            And what fantasy conversation are you having when you attribute me as ever having said or even alluded to: “… your insistence that he give you everything you wanted right away regardless of what else might have been going on and without considering the limitations that any good man would face in such a job, makes me (and a lot of other liberals) wonder just who you thought you were electing? He wasn’t your “step and fetch it” man.” I’m not asking him to do anything other than follow the law and enforce it. That has been my argument the entire time and your obsequiousness and deference to Obama blinds you from acknowledging the horrendous death dealing machine he and his organization have streamlined to create the most minimal outrage from those that really have a voice; you and me. I’ve been screaming about policy and you keep telling me he’s a good man. I don’t care if he really feels it in his bones or not, I want him to follow the law. And because those people out there getting blasted to pieces, that aren’t terrorists, are just like you and me, just doing our everyday chores and trying to make a living in a cruel world.

            Nice little racist dog whistle there with the step and fetch. It’s an easy deflection to put up when you can’t find the words to voice your outrage and frustration. It’s ok to blurt out stupid shit like that if it helps you blow off some steam.

            And finally, you might wanna look up what Bubba Clinton’s net worth is now, some 12 years after leaving office, I think he’s done ok for himself. About $80 million ok. Gee, I wonder why there are so many Wall Streeters in key financial posts in this administration and not a single on under investigation or in jail? There’s that human decency again, shining through.

          • IrishGrrrl

            You have the nerve to call me obsequious when you don’t know me and have never read anything about what I actually believe and what I know  beyond this brief exchange….it’s laughable.

            The definition of militant you are quoting is actually how a New York Times article characterized the Administration’s policy and by extension how Greenwald interprets it.  So you aren’t even quoting the actual policy just a second-handed opinion of it.  Sorry but no dice.  Furthermore, the drones that you so despise and feel are taking out so many civilians are actually the most accurate bombing campaign ever used by the US military.  According to a study published in The Lancet, the number of civilian deaths in Iraq as a result of our invasion in the early 2000’s was 100,000 people and according to a former military soldier with expertise on the subject that number is probably low.  Contrast that with the number of civilian deaths reported by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism from an article published in Feb of this year.  They estimated that a total of 535 civilians (this is the highest total estimated) were killed in 260 drone attacks at funerals and other non-military events.  So that works out to what?  About 2 civilian deaths per drone strike.  During the first Gulf War in 1991 just one bomb killed more than 400 people.  And finally the civilian death rate in 2004 was 17% and by 2010 it had dropped to about 5%.  So civilian deaths are down and it has nothing to do with the way  militant has been defined and everything to do with the use of drones and more individual targeting.  Funny how the Taliban started negotiating after the drones started taking out their leaders.  I would think a quicker end to our presence in Afghanistan would be in everyones interest but I’m getting the impression that is something you don’t consider.  Funny, also, how you don’t cite any real facts like this so until you do, you are wasting everyone’s time.

            Now you will say that we should never kill civilians and you don’t want to support a President who does.  Well when you find a perfect world where evil people don’t surround themselves with innocents and where we have a perfect system that presents our leaders with multiple non-competing interests that only allows for completely moral and legal outcomes then let me know because I want to move there too.  However, for now, we live on this planet.  And on this planet in this country every President we have ever had has had to make hard choices that often did not and could not produce moral or legal outcomes but action still had to be taken.  By your definition every President we have ever had is a sociopath.  Good luck with that.

            My question for you is how vitriolic and vociferous were you during the GWB administration?  Are you like many in the Tea Party who only discovered their outrage once Pres. Obama was in office? How about Reagan and Iran-Contra or the invasion of Grenada?  How about Bush I and the invasion of Panama? See anyone who spouts off the way you did without any real facts in  such a “talking points” manner isn’t really concerned with facts, or history, or context, or the reality of governing our country or accurately portraying President Obama’s performance.  You are a conservative concern troll, a firebagger who is pissed you didn’t get the pony you are so sure you were promised by then candidate Obama (hence the step and fetch it reference) or are you a Libertarian pretending to be a liberal?   Whatever your agenda, put it where the sun don’t shine and scurry off to whatever hate filled community you came from.  Don’t come back until you have learned how to argue rationally using facts about what is going on in THIS planet and not the delusional one you live on.

          • droneseerywhere

            Don’t be obtuse IrishGrrrl:
            Tell me again what the WH’s stated policy is with regard to targeting and counting dead militants. I’d like to know, since you obviously have better sources than the NYTimes and what can be seen with your own eyes at a WH Press Conference, via YouTube.
            The obsequiousness it burns. One day it will all come to light and you can drink yourself into oblivion for being a callous and uncaring human being. You realize we are helping to creating aggrieved militants don’t you? Or are the dots too hard for you to connect?

        • Victor_the_Crab

          Coming here to respond to you, it’s clear you are one disturbed individual with waaaaay too much time on your hands. Do everyone a favor and swallow a bottle of sleeping pills, then go lie down. M’kay?

          • droneseerywhere

            Go kill yourself moron.

          • IrishGrrrl

            Who is being obtuse? You’re the one not addressing the fact that civilian deaths have gone down drastically during the Obama Administration under a policy and a procedure that you can’t quote and clearly don’t understand. Like Victorthecrab says, do us favor and go away.

          • droneseerywhere

            You know it’s one thing to carpet bomb Dresden during the height of WWII. That was a war. One where there was a true and verifiable existential threat. This current military adventure, the war on terror, is not. My guess is that because it’s O saying it’s ok your simple mind agrees with it whole-heartedly. But what your argument says about you is that you’re okay with the targeting of civilians all the time in places where we haven’t declared war. That is a war crime. A war of aggression. These are actions that we hung Nazis for but of course we are empire so it’s ok. Might makes right. So your calculus of lesser collateral damage is bizarre in the extreme, since my argument is that it is illegal and a war crime. But all you can say is that O isn’t killing as many, he’s a more efficient killer. Very admirable. Your tune would change very quickly if this were happening in Ireland. You bravely ignored the previous little thought experiment since you’re simply to obtuse to empathize or care. Fuck it, they’re brown and poor and probably militants, so fuck it, who cares if they die.

            I’ll ask again, since you refuse to answer: what is the policy that I don’t understand? If you know, enlighten us all. Your vague references to said policy don’t count as you knowing what they are either so put up or shut up. I don’t deny the facts that have been printed about the policy by the NY Times and neither has the WH but you seem to know better so let’s hear it.

            Here’s but one link–

            There are many, many more but that would require curiosity and not being obsequious.

          • droneseerywhere
          • IrishGrrrl

            What is your obsession with Ireland? I’m an American you asshat. Talk about assuming things….

            “You know it’s one thing to carpet bomb Dresden during the height of WWII. That was a war.”

            Wow, I bet Congress would be surprised to hear you say we aren’t at war since they declared war in Afghanistan and Iraq and therefore the targeting of known terrorists/combatants in and around those theaters is perfectly legit. Not to mention the 2001 AUMF that says the US military force can be used against terrorist/combatants wherever they are since Al Qaeda was not in any one place (although Afghanistan was one of their larger concentrations). Hence Yemen, etc.

            Now, YOU probably think the AUMF is illegal but Congress signed off on it and SCOTUS hasn’t said was unconstitutional. And last time I checked that was the definition of legal and constitutional in the U.S. Moral or ethical? No, but legal, definitely.

            But what your argument says about you is that you’re okay with the targeting of civilians all the time in places where we haven’t declared war.

            I didn’t say that nor do I believe it and if you’re trying to get a rise out of me, you have failed.

            Your argument that it is a war crime completely begs the question. You simply keep saying, over and over, “it is a war crime, therefore it is a war crime”. That’s completely illogical.

            I knew you would take umbrage at the “math” that I went through to prove that civilian deaths are down. Is it cold and calculated? Absolutely. Is it something our military, and thus the President, has to calculate and be aware of (and every military in modern times who honestly tries to avoid killing civilians)? Yes. That”s the reality and ugliness of war.

            In regards that point, here’s what your argument boils down to. Killing people by doing something dangerous, even if the dangerous thing you are doing is legitimate and necessary, is a crime. Here’s an example of where your logic is faulty. Driving a car is one of the most dangerous things that we do. The odds of killing someone and getting killed are extremely high. The odds of killing someone completely innocent are also very high. Does that mean you should never drive? Driving is a legitimate and necessary activity. Killing terrorists who are actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens and purposely targeting innocent civilians is a legitimate and necessary activity. The U.S. has tried to reduce as much as humanly possible the number of civilian deaths that might occur (kind of like car makers adding air bags, anti-lock breaks and seat belts). The drones are not completely robotic. They are controlled by humans who must verify their individual targets, gauge the possibility of injuring civilians and try to find a way to reduce that likelihood as much as possible and then they still have to get approval from their commander to strike. You act as if the US has sent these drones out without any supervision, any procedure for verifying the target and safeguarding civilians, etc. That is simply not the case.

            And finally, if a terrorist who had killed thousands of innocents and who plans to kill more decides to come out of hiding to attend a wedding or a funeral and he or she decides to put their kid, their wife, their aged mother in the car with them…..And that’s the only time he or she EVER comes out of hiding… believe that we should let the terrorist go. I believe that he or she knew what the risks were and he or she decided on a life of crime and is choosing to expose their family to such retribution. If I decided to become a terrorist, I would assume that anyone who was close to me would be fair game. Sadly it has ALWAYS been this way.

            So you keep living in that dream land where war is never necessary and all innocents will be safe. And I will keep living in the real world.

            I am done with you.

          • droneseerywhere

            How about that drone strike policy IrishGrrrl? Still nothing from you which means you’ve got nothing, except excuses. Facts schmacts you dont’ give a fuck about them actually, you’ve just proved it. Stupid is as stupid does.

            And yeah, driving is exactly like dropping ordnance on military targets that will cause civilian deaths, except it’s not. What an incredibly asinine false equivalence. I suppose if your example included driving your car into a crowd to get the serial murderer you’ve spotted, then maybe we could discuss this absurd scenario, otherwise you’re reaching for straws and and showing just how devoid of actual thought your argument is.

            How lovely for you to live in a pretend world where everywhere is a target rich environment and civilians are just unlucky bystanders where people die. Such is war. Too bad for them. Is there anywhere that is off limits to the AUMF? Dearborn, Michigan has lots of Muslims, how about there? Where does this stop? Do you ever have to declare war or are you ok with dropping bombs anywhere, anytime? Terrorism is not an existential threat and yet you act as if some militant has his finger over the nuclear launch button and we have to kill everyone before he does it. Your arguments are childish and very amygdala heavy, just like a repub, only in pretend leftie guise. May the sky wizard have mercy on us all if this is the zeitgeist in this country/empire.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Your shortest comment yet. Can you go smaller, like say none? And still take my advice.

          • droneseerywhere

            Your advice is moronic. You are a moron. Your avatar is a crab so scuttle off into your pretend world and dream of me killing myself while you pleasure yourself with your tiny little crab claws. Anything else from you moron?

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Awww, you failed. Like everything else in your tinfoiled life. You just can’t learn from your problems, can you?

          • droneseerywhere

            What in the world are you talking about? You make about as much sense as a tea party mouth breathing hick seed on meth. Buh bye moron.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            If you don’t get what I’m saying, then it’s you who’s a tea party mouth breathing hick seed on meth. But then you being an example of an abortion that failed, it’s no surprise your mental state is whacked.

    • trgahan

      Really? The post is talking about the high rate of childhood poverty in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. That is 20% of children in the U.S. feeling the effects of poverty in one of the most wealth nations on earth. All you got is “Drone Strikes!! Obama Sucks! AHH!!”?!?

      Somewhere Karl Rove is laughing at you. It would have been much better to led with “Obama’s War on Marijuana.”

      • droneseerywhere

        Well Obama has embraced the incredibly stupid meme of comparing the US gov to a family. We’ve gotta tighten our belts dontcha know. It’s all connected so if you can’t see the links it’s not my fault. Economic justice leads to opportunity, which leads to jobs and less poverty. But you know, when you appoint Jeffrey “Fucking” Immelt to head your jobs commission perhaps the problem is your wrong headed approach at income equality and justice. Or is my moniker too much of a distraction for your simple mind to comprehend. And btw, the Choom crew should pay O a visit and ask him why he lied about how the DOJ would approach marijuana dispensaries. O is a disaster. His only saving grace is that he’s faced two of the most worthless, wooden and insincere politicians, McCain and

  • Brutlyhonest

    The little fuckers wouldn’t have to live in poverty if they weren’t so damned lazy. That and child labor laws that cripple business.

  • mrbrink

    I’m sure Trump and Romney were talking about just this thing on their corporate jets yesterday. Sure, they talked about the whereabouts of the president’s birth certificate, Romney probably flattered Trump’s huge successes and clever brand-marketing, and in response, Trump probably waved him through the carnival line of hangers on and professional suck-ups that may or may not have included famous names and faces like, Carrot Top and Gary Busey. With Trump nodding like the Don of America indicating that Mitt Romney’s ass-kissing was sufficient, although not the best he’s ever heard, but that there’d be plenty of time to practice with Trump now officially a full-time enforcer for the Mitt Romney family and his partners at Bain Capital, said to Mitt Romney, something along the lines of, “we got to beat this fucking cocksucka to send a message to those hippies and the blacks.” You know, to break the ice, which put Romney in the awkward position having to pretend he has the human capacity to blush and covered it up by picturing an unemployment line. Romney, being all about the economy and jobs and the issues, then followed up with a power point strategy between multi-millionaires featuring their ongoing struggle to extract more wealth out of the real economy. When some unpaid intern unwisely interrupted suggesting someone say something about wealth income inequality and stagnant wages, the Donald silenced the room’s panicked murmuring of subordinate chatter with a subtle gesture of the hand, and with the floor silenced belonging to The Donald, squinted his eyes and wrinkled his forehead as if to see passed the light to get a look at the cocksucker who just insulted his new friend, lashed out, “what, the poor?!” “Who let this cocksucka in here?!” Every time I have company over some snot-nosed punk interrupts.” The Donald then immediately had him fired and dragged away, shouting obscenities to the poor unpaid intern in a way that would make Andrew Dice Clay cry, offering to Mitt Romney as a token of respect for his power and ego and their new legitimate business political partnership to send his goons over to foreclose on his family’s home and small business and to pick through their garbage for future extortion. Mitt, feeling something akin to flattered and being the class act businessman and partner at Bain Capital that he is, was taken aback by the big dumb animal’s ability and willingness to kill for him, simply said, “that won’t be necessary, Mr Trump.” “I appreciate the offer, Mr. Trump, but I’d much rather have you out there sticking to the issue of the president’s birth certificate.”

    Donald Trump, not used to being turned down whenever he offers to destroy someone’s business and reputation to feed his ego, found a little peace that day, the way a gorilla might stop from ripping your arms off, if just for a moment of reflection because a butterfly landed on its nose.

    The Donald thought to himself, “hey, this could be the start of a mutually beneficial arrangement between one world class leader of things with my name on them, and Mitt Romney and his partners at Bain Capital.”

    • muselet

      *stands and applauds*

      Bravo, sir. Bravo.