Joe biden
4 views | +0 today
Follow
Joe biden
forgotten man
Curated by Lane Sutton
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Lane Sutton from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

In Defense of Obama’s Drone War

In Defense of Obama’s Drone War | Joe biden | Scoop.it
Charles Krauthammer writes on NRO: The nation’s vexation over the morality and legality of President Obama’s drone war has produced a salutary but hopelessly confused debate. Three categories of questions are being asked.

Via Joel Leagans
Lane Sutton's insight:

I agree with Michael, I too would take the "rather be safe than sorry" road.  While the rational and justification behind the bombings will always be controversial, you can not argue with the results, the U.S. has not been attacked and has been left unscathed in this "global war".  What choice does Obama really have how awkward would it be for him to have address the media after an attack on the U.S. and having to explain that he had the means to deal with this threat but did not do so because he feared bad publicity.

more...
Kumail Durrani's comment, March 7, 2013 11:53 PM
I see where the Krauthhammer is coming from, however the issue should go beyond the topic of drones and to the reason why they are used. As stated in the article, drone strikes are launched on members of al Qaeda, a terrorist group, this begs the question of who can be classified as a “terrorist.” And also, if the so called “terrorists” are located in foreign countries, should the US be able to just roam into their airspace whenever they like a shoot a couple missiles into their country? What would Americans think if it was the other way around and missiles could land in our neighborhoods at any given moment, given the fact that another nation thinks that they should take out some “terrorists?” Krauthhammer states that if a citizen “takes up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant,” so following that logic if my neighbor decides to buy some guns and begins claiming that he is an enemy of the United States, should I be expecting a drone strike on his house soon?
Ziyu Wang's comment, March 8, 2013 4:41 PM
There have been a lot of debate about drones and their effects on foreign terrorist groups and as well as their effects on possible US missions that target US citizens. If a country that harbors terrorist groups against the United States and shows hostility, the United States should be justified to deploy drones to take out the enemies before the problem gets worse. The article makes a great point about al-Awlaki and the fact that he is an American citizen, but one with malignant intentions against the US people should not be an exception from the attacks of drones. As for who has authority, I believe the President, with many military experts and advising staff, should have the authority to make these decisions. With expertise and the knowledge, the authority should be justified.
Xinghua Dou's comment, March 8, 2013 6:47 PM
Drone strikes do hurt innocent people in other countries, but so does going to war traditionally. The war against Al Qaeda is very complex for the sole reason that they are not a nation. But even they reside in countries outside of U.S jurisdiction, then what ways can we impede their progress? Negotiate with those countries? Negotiate with terrorists? We simply cannot try to protect ourselves without hurting anyone else, that is the nature of war. Sending in drones is basically the same thing as sending in U.S soldiers, but without the risk. If governments such as Afghanistan and Pakistan actively tried to fight against terrorism themselves, we wouldn't have to resort to such measures. Its unfortunate that the U.S doesn't believe it can trust such foreign nations, but that is partly their fault too.
Rescooped by Lane Sutton from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth

Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth | Joe biden | Scoop.it
The upwardly mobile American is becoming a statistical oddity.

Via Joel Leagans
more...
Marguerite Grubb's comment, February 26, 2013 12:04 AM
This topic always is frustrating to be because I feel like the solution is so simple. I know that I'm not in a lower economic situation so my ideas could be skewed. But I don't understand why this has become such a point of controversy in our country. If someone is truly motivated to make a better life for themselves, they will find a way to do it. What makes me the most upset is the people who complain about not having enough money to pay for a decent home in a safe neighborhood yet they have a fancy car that they drive to Starbucks every morning to get their coffee. Like the article says, discrimination can play a role in salary, but really how much of a factor is that? Education definitely can be a big issue, but again, I think the motivated person would be able to get enough out of school (even if the school isn't necessarily up to par) to get a decent job so they can support themselves. And if the government isn't paying those people because they are getting income for themselves, maybe they could spend more on state schools to better the chances for other less fortunate kids.
Andrei Loghin's comment, February 26, 2013 10:33 PM
Every time I go back to Romania I feel my peer's jealousy - simply because I live in the US. They have the skewed perception that everybody who lives in America is swimming in money and opportunity. This is simply not the case, and that perception is falsely based on what they see on TV. Living in America is actually downright hard. Without an education and a little money, you are pretty much nothing. Like Marguerite said, if you want to get somewhere, it doesn't just fall out of the sky, you have to work for it. And hard.
Lane Sutton's curator insight, March 7, 2013 9:23 PM

I agree with the point that people in higher economic situation do get more opportunities, my mom always tells me "its not what you know but who you know", and she was proven right in this article.  I also agree with Marguerite about how motivation is such a big factor if someone wants to be successful they have to work for it, no matter what economic tier your family may be in.  I also agree with the writer in that the government should imitate the education system of Europe or Australia not making students bear a huge burden in the form of student loans, which are difficult to pay off when so little opportunity presents itself.

Rescooped by Lane Sutton from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Yes, the middle class really is falling behind

Yes, the middle class really is falling behind | Joe biden | Scoop.it

Via Joel Leagans
Lane Sutton's insight:

I also agree that what we consider "basics" needs to be expanded.  Today people do need higher education which does cost thousands of dollars, we do need cell phones and other things that are normal today.  While we may not be spending as much on things that people thirty, forty even fifty years ago spent their money on, today we have necessities that were not available to them so all of these small necessities need to be included in the word "basics".  Then as we saw the number doubles which is probably the a better gauge than the thirty-two percent.

more...
Krisly Philip's comment, February 8, 2013 11:50 PM
I think the title of this article is a bold conclusion to attach to the points that this article had to give. I completely agree with what Tankersley had to say about Boudreaux and Perry’s argument. Comparing 2013 to the 1950’s is a little much. Just like everyone here has said, the basics of today’s world have expanded and will continue to do so. I’m assuming the title of his article was a hint sarcastic.
Julissa A's comment, February 9, 2013 12:39 AM
With the change of time comes the change of needs for living and being sustainable, especially with technological innovations. The article does list very generic needs, but there are more things that go along with those needs as well, as in the example stated of having a car, and gas, being a necessity to run the car, would be a questionable need. It could be seen as a secondary need, but the over all picture is that it is a requirement to live. A renewed list of "basic" necessities should be made after a decade or so if one was to increase the accuracy in the actual necessities that formulate a sustainable middle class life with the tech., health care, etc etc
Jacob Busch's comment, February 10, 2013 11:23 PM
After reading the article, I could sense a little bit of sarcasm. In 1970, consumers spent 64% on the "basics", which includes everything needed to run and to use the basics, and now it is down to only 62%. This proves that the american middle class is just about the same as as 40 years ago, hence the sarcasm in the title.
Rescooped by Lane Sutton from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

The last assault-weapons ban didn’t work. Will the new one be different?

The last assault-weapons ban didn’t work. Will the new one be different? | Joe biden | Scoop.it

Via Joel Leagans
Lane Sutton's insight:

I agree that there should be limited gun control, such as background checks.  While automatic weapons are fun to shoot, they are completely unnecessary for the general public.  Although I would completely have to disagree with the restriction of semi automatic weapons, ain't nobody got time to load rounds individually in the chamber after each shot.  I agree with Andrei that the NRA will put this bill to rest pretty quickly and the fact that there are so many in circulation would make it very difficult to regulate.  I do not think this bill will be passed even with the past tragedy simply because there are too many gun enthusiasts and they have gotten used to the various "military characteristics" which are now considered normal and a have the convenience of a magazine that accepts more than 10 rounds. 

more...
Andrei Loghin's comment, January 29, 2013 9:08 PM
This idea of a gun ban is completely ridiculous. The NRA, which happens to be the largest and most influential interest group in the country, will surely put this argument to rest. In fact, states are already taking measures to counteract the effects of this proposed bill. Texas, for example, has removed the proof of residence requirement when purchasing any type of gun. One no longer has to provide evidence of state residency for at least 3 months. Even better: at the age of 18, I can legally purchase a rifle/shotgun (not a pistol however) without any paperwork in Texas - from the trunk of a car if I wanted. Too many people love their guns to even let this happen. And economically speaking, the gun industry is the second largest in the world - Time Magazine values it at 6 billion dollars in the US alone. A ban would be like kicking ourselves in the face.
So in hindsight, lets take a quick look at a marvelous example: Switzerland. A peaceful, pasture filled country, with a history for neutrality in wartime. When each citizen graduates from high school, they are required do military training and receive a fully automatic AK47 (with LC magazines and lots of ammo) to take home. Because of this, no one dares commit a crime with armed citizens roaming the streets. It's all about early education and proper mentality.
Anyway, I'm all for gun control. I use both hands.

Peace~
Sami Bissonnet's comment, February 7, 2013 10:48 PM
Gun control is a very-touchy subject. Many people do not understand how complicated things can actually get. The article does a good job of explaining that even the definition of assault-weapons can get confusing and is not laid out easily. You can't just outright ban guns because its an American right, so you have to make little changes to different parts of the laws. For one thing, it would be very hard to outright ban assault-weapons. Yes, we can ban the sales of the weapons, but there are still many weapons already owned. Enforcing laws on the guns already owned would be to hard. Another thing is that if someone wants something, they will figure out how to get it. It doesn't matter if its illegal. The second the sale of assault-weapons is banned, half of the people who already own the weapons will be selling their weapons for double or even triple the price they paid for the thing. By broadening the definition and being very specific about the things the law can be, policy makers can get a start on the path to gun-control, but its just a start. With all of the gun violence lately, many people are looking for an easy way to fix the problem and they all think they have the best plan. No one realizes that there is no easy and fast way to fix a problem. A right is a right and no one is going to mess with it to much.
Shandice Uno'Uno Waugh's comment, February 9, 2013 12:52 AM
What many people seem to fail to realize is that criminals don't abide by laws. While it is true that assault weapons are not necessary for the general population, a person with the intent to kill is going to find a way to acquire the fire power that he/she wants in order to carry out his/her desires. Placing a ban on assault weapon will only lead to people going under the table to get guns and the problem will still be there.
Rescooped by Lane Sutton from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth

Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth | Joe biden | Scoop.it
The upwardly mobile American is becoming a statistical oddity.

Via Joel Leagans
Lane Sutton's insight:

I agree with the point that people in higher economic situation do get more opportunities, my mom always tells me "its not what you know but who you know", and she was proven right in this article.  I also agree with Marguerite about how motivation is such a big factor if someone wants to be successful they have to work for it, no matter what economic tier your family may be in.  I also agree with the writer in that the government should imitate the education system of Europe or Australia not making students bear a huge burden in the form of student loans, which are difficult to pay off when so little opportunity presents itself.

more...
Jeffry Granados's comment, February 21, 2013 5:32 PM
I think the article touches on a very important issue. Although a high school degree sufficed 40 years ago, in today's society, a college degree is almost essential for quality employment. Something has to be changed because the article is right. Social mobility is not as real as President Obama makes it seem. That "little girl born into the bleakest poverty" is very unlikely to make as much money as a someone growing up in a privileged family.
Marguerite Grubb's comment, February 26, 2013 12:04 AM
This topic always is frustrating to be because I feel like the solution is so simple. I know that I'm not in a lower economic situation so my ideas could be skewed. But I don't understand why this has become such a point of controversy in our country. If someone is truly motivated to make a better life for themselves, they will find a way to do it. What makes me the most upset is the people who complain about not having enough money to pay for a decent home in a safe neighborhood yet they have a fancy car that they drive to Starbucks every morning to get their coffee. Like the article says, discrimination can play a role in salary, but really how much of a factor is that? Education definitely can be a big issue, but again, I think the motivated person would be able to get enough out of school (even if the school isn't necessarily up to par) to get a decent job so they can support themselves. And if the government isn't paying those people because they are getting income for themselves, maybe they could spend more on state schools to better the chances for other less fortunate kids.
Andrei Loghin's comment, February 26, 2013 10:33 PM
Every time I go back to Romania I feel my peer's jealousy - simply because I live in the US. They have the skewed perception that everybody who lives in America is swimming in money and opportunity. This is simply not the case, and that perception is falsely based on what they see on TV. Living in America is actually downright hard. Without an education and a little money, you are pretty much nothing. Like Marguerite said, if you want to get somewhere, it doesn't just fall out of the sky, you have to work for it. And hard.
Rescooped by Lane Sutton from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Obama Paranoid Government Coming For His Guns

Obama Paranoid Government Coming For His Guns | Joe biden | Scoop.it
WASHINGTON—Reflecting attitudes held throughout his personal and political life, President Barack Obama restated Thursday his long-standing fear that the U.S.

Via Joel Leagans
Lane Sutton's insight:

I do agree with Michael that mental health does need to be addressed, and not just overlooked, whether it is in the form of a background check or whatever is deemed necessary before a firearm is sold.  Although I do disagree with Kumail that maybe it is time to evaluate some of the games or entertainment we view.  While first person shooter games are not the  cause of various shootings, they do allow us to become numb to the fact that these games encourage us to kill people.  While I am not saying that everyone who has played a shooting game is callused to killing and posses the ability to do so, I do feel it plays a role in desensitizing people to killing in itself.  However, I do believe there should be stricter rules on who is allowed to play mature games. 

more...
Natalie Dorman's comment, February 10, 2013 11:40 PM
This article definitely makes the people who are adamant about their second amendment rights seem extreme, but the truth is, they have every right to voice their opinions. Their vehement defense of their guns may seem ridiculous to some of us, but that does not mean that we should overlook their concerns. No, my family does not own a gun, nor do I think that we need one. i do not plan on ever owning a gun. I do not have a personal reason to worry about whether or not stricter gun laws are put into effect. But I also recognize the fact that not everyone in this country feels that way. If other people feel that they need guns to protect themselves, then their voices should be heard, and their opinions taken into account, not disregarded as right-wing paranoia. Some might also say that only a small number of people really have this concern, but if that were true, gun laws would not be such a hot-topic issue right now, would it?
Alexa Sanchez's comment, February 13, 2013 12:23 AM
This article portrays those in favor of keeping the second amendment as harsh, paranoid extremists but in reality they do have a point with wanting guns for protection. Just like with everything else that is illegal people or for a better description criminals will always find a way to obtain what's illegal because despite its unlawfulness we still see drug abusers and etc. So if one day someone is caught in a situation between life or death against someone with an "illegal" gun and for being a good citizen ends up dead because of a government regulation. This isn't a matter of eliminating guns or allowing the second amendment to stand I believe that the best solution would be to provide background checks to obtain a gun and help to detain the black market gun sales.
Eunice Jovel's comment, February 21, 2013 11:38 PM
To be fair, both parties have some crazies on their sides. People just need to learn how to communicate and express their feelings without fear and hate. The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, and there's no way the government will ever completely take them away. Even if they try, itll just be like drugs. They will still be around. Stricter gun control isnt such a bad idea either, unless you have something to hide a gun reform shouldnt scare anyone. Btw has anyone seen the episode in family guy where stewie gets mutated into an octopus and no one can fight him off cause they burned all the guns trying to create a peaceful town?
Rescooped by Lane Sutton from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Yes, the middle class really is falling behind

Yes, the middle class really is falling behind | Joe biden | Scoop.it

Via Joel Leagans
more...
Krisly Philip's comment, February 8, 2013 11:50 PM
I think the title of this article is a bold conclusion to attach to the points that this article had to give. I completely agree with what Tankersley had to say about Boudreaux and Perry’s argument. Comparing 2013 to the 1950’s is a little much. Just like everyone here has said, the basics of today’s world have expanded and will continue to do so. I’m assuming the title of his article was a hint sarcastic.
Julissa A's comment, February 9, 2013 12:39 AM
With the change of time comes the change of needs for living and being sustainable, especially with technological innovations. The article does list very generic needs, but there are more things that go along with those needs as well, as in the example stated of having a car, and gas, being a necessity to run the car, would be a questionable need. It could be seen as a secondary need, but the over all picture is that it is a requirement to live. A renewed list of "basic" necessities should be made after a decade or so if one was to increase the accuracy in the actual necessities that formulate a sustainable middle class life with the tech., health care, etc etc
Jacob Busch's comment, February 10, 2013 11:23 PM
After reading the article, I could sense a little bit of sarcasm. In 1970, consumers spent 64% on the "basics", which includes everything needed to run and to use the basics, and now it is down to only 62%. This proves that the american middle class is just about the same as as 40 years ago, hence the sarcasm in the title.
Rescooped by Lane Sutton from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Joe Biden, forgotten man

Joe Biden, forgotten man | Joe biden | Scoop.it
Why do we have to keep reminding ourselves that the vice president is a legitimate prospect for 2016?

Via Joel Leagans
Lane Sutton's insight:

I also forgot how well Biden has been doing quietly creating favorable legislation for his party.  I also agree with the writer in that age will not hurt him in the election because of solid showings in the debates with Ryan it looked like he had a lot left in the tank.  He also has great experience in his term with Obama ranging from Gay marriage to Gun control which will benefit him in the next election.

more...
Lisa Chung's comment, January 15, 2013 12:02 AM
I agree that Joe Biden is a strong contender for the White House in 2016, as he is indeed a strong force in the Obama White House, from securing the last-minute fiscal cliff deal with McConnell and being the point-man on gun control to supporting gay marriage. Although he may be the oldest man ever to be sworn in as president at seventy-four years old, I feel that if he still has fire in his belly when 2016 rolls around and is still as healthy as he is today, there is no reason for a number like age to come in the way between becoming president; but, that’s just it. Age isn’t just a number—it’s like a precursor for a vast amount of mental and bodily health problems. Personally, I would not want arguably the most stressful job in the whole country in my mid-70’s—I don’t think I would have the energy or mental capacity for it. Another obvious concern is the possibility that Hillary Clinton may decide to run too. Judging by her insistence on not running in ’16, her health problems and increasing age, I’m glad at least one of them has rationally thought out how she wants to spend her last years.
Ziyu Wang's comment, January 15, 2013 1:56 AM
I definitely agree with a lot of the points that Lisa made about the candidates of the 2016 presidential election. Vice President Biden and Hillary Clinton are extremely likely to be the two candidates that ultimately go for the final Democratic nomination. While both candidates are extremely well qualified for the job, both have their setbacks, including an increasing age or voting record. At the same time, I feel like America needs an experienced leader to guide us out of the bad economic times and problems our country is currently facing. However, there are many people that don’t want to vote for either candidate due to their older age and health problems, which may prove to be genuine concerns if one does become president and face extreme stress throughout the presidency. I personally think Clinton’s resigning acted as both a break from her busy schedule and a time to give her to work on her national presidency campaign for 2016. The 2016 election with the Democrats and Republicans will definitely be an exciting election to see play out.