S1 E19: Drones, Kansas & Afghanistan: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver 

Can we please everyone like this comment? Can this please be a running joke in the comments??

​@@ryebread4369 I'm on board

I don't care if it's 16th Century Tonight. I'll still watch John Oliver.

@@ryebread4369 I kind of want it to become a running joke in the video titles.

@@Spacebanana-im5qt *Monkey paw curls* "The U.S. Supreme Court is willing to make life like the 16th Century...Tonight."

I physically winced when they said that

There Is probable a quote on Watchmen about the world feeling like a punchline to a cruel joke

DONT GIVEE THEM IDEAS FUUUUUUUUUUUUU

​@LauraPalay right?

​@@user-xx3wh9dd2l To late

Thank ye kindly gentlebeing.

This should be in the title!

thank youu

Thank you

Thank you

me too bot

I think there is relevance to the current news cycle. They are putting up specific episodes, looks like.

@@swancorpseLMAO

@@swancorpseoh no we spotted the NPC

@@boburanus69 They put up all of them at the same time, you're just not getting recommended all of them.

I guess the S1: should have been a clue. But I was really trying to make it work too. New night cream too maybe.

same lol!

I was 10:10 in before I realized it wasn't new.

Beck is a Scientologist?? 😱 I almost made a sensible comment RE: How amazing this applies to TODAY news but…Beck? I am even more shocked & hurt by that- until the Drones take me down😂

I didn't realised until Obama..

This is a very masochistic comfort watch but somehow it's very comfortable.

@@jayspeidell you caught me, I'm a total masochist 🤣

Thank god im not the only person who has this as a comfort show!

Precedent* but you also should use it in a different context :)

@@hannahdivic28 Prescient: adjective. having prescience, or knowledge of things or events before they exist or happen; having foresight:

@@RogueSpectre749 oh my goodness, I read your original comment as President 😂😂 apologies!!!

I gasped out loud when I heard it. Man, that joke unfortunately aged way too well…

@@hannahdivic28 you're good... That correction makes a lot more sense when you explain it that way 😂 but no, I'm just saying that John cursed us with that joke without even realizing lol

you are old

Get max

@@larissaraewilcox bot

Someone's been doing it in the comments

​@@larissaraewilcoxget fked

Look it up yourself!

*Monkey's paw curls*

I mean, we could say it aged like milk wine, but I'm not sure how good or bad milk wine actually is, so I'll just give you an extremely random alternative: It aged like surstromming. Rotten, smells so awful you can't open a can indoors because it will stink the entire fucking apartment complex for a bloody week, bland as hell, but for some reason still treated as a delicacy despite all of the above.

@@danderedere brilliant!

Gays, Jews, qanon, trump, uighers… w, y and z are pretty obvious

aged like milk....

Yes. ❤

The entirety of season one is being put up on RU-vid. Im guessing later seasons may follow.

yeah this was back BEFORE he got old.

Took you awhile to figure that out? The title and picture wasn't quite enough?

@@resto4life i like youre haircut tho !

🥰

In the clip they showed didn’t it say something like “trumps serious presidential run”? Wouldn’t that be the exact opposite of what you just said?

Here's the three part test for THAT issue: 1) Was the action undertaken to defend/protect/safeguard the United States, its citizens, its military personnel and/or assets germane to the cohesive, orderly function of the United States. If YES, proceed to factor#2. 2) Was the action taken to render neutral or inert an identified threat pursuant to factor#1. IF yes, proceed to factor#3. 3) Was the action designed to benefit the government of the United States from a threat or harm and NOT for the benefit of personal gain, enhancement of the power of the Office of POTUS or the individual in that Office. ONLY if the answer is YES to all three factors should a POTUS enjoy any degree of immunity from criminal prosecution. IF the answer is NO to any one of those factors, then I believe it is fair to pursue the possible prosecution of a POTUS, once out of office. For example, knowingly taking and retaining and refusing to return documents which contain sensitive government information or have been identified or classified as Secret, Top Secret or national security level items which the government has requested/demanded the return of would NOT meet this 3 factor test and thus a former POTUS would and should be legally liable. A POTUS conducting a drone strike on advice and counsel from the national security personnel and intelligence agencies and military advisers to target someone who is believed to be engaging in actions targeting the United States, would and should be deemed to be acting within official capacity, and thus not subject to prosecution.

@@victorpradha9946 that sounds very logical. But if the Drone attack resulted in the death of innocent bystanders, who would they file their grievance with or sue for reparations, Dr Bill's loss of a loved one Etc

@@edwardroche2480 What's the excuse that Bush II gave for all those Iraqi and Afghan civilian casualties? Collateral damage, unavoidable during military operations executed to safeguard the United States. It was a collective "Oh well". Odd isn't it, people ask all sorts of questions about the deaths of people overseas from U.S. intelligence and military operations. FoxNews wouldn't stop talking about the U.S. Citizen who was identified as a member of a terrorist org that participated in attacks against the U.S., and targeted in a drone strike. Yet, when students get slaughtered in schools and on college campuses, the response is "oh well, this is the price of freedom."--"thoughts and prayers to the families of those lost". Conversely, when students protest U.S. entities investing heavily in Israel while Israel is leveling entire blocks of Gaza without regard for loss of civilian life (as per reports by international news agencies and scatteringly reported by U.S. news media), some scream send in the National Guard. It's ALL illogical, inconsistent and incomprehensibly hypocritical. To answer your question, likely NOBODY is going to be held criminally liable in the situation of errant missiles, but there may be some payouts by the U.S. government to the families of those where killed or injured.

@@edwardroche2480 To answer your question, ordering a drone strike against enemy combatants will likely be considered within the scope of official acts of the Office of POTUS, so there will likely be NO presidential liability civil or criminal. The U.S. military may make some kind of payout in an effort to quell anger for bystanders or innocent civilian deaths in such cases. What I find curious is that RIGHT NOW we have members of Congress and Governors demanding that the national guard be called in against students protesting the razing of Gaza to rubble with significant civilian loss of life. And yet, when there is a school shooter, those voices are largely silent but for "thoughts and prayers". To say there it is all incomprehensibly inconsistent is a mild characterization

He is married!!! Wife is a gorgeous saint.