Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Usrename wrote:compared2what? wrote:To be fair, he really is a war criminal. Same as every other American president of the post-war era, with the possible exceptions of....
Let me reiterate this one more time for emphasis. War criminal has a specific meaning. Under US law it means a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. It is an actual criminal charge that is made against a person under the War Crimes Act.
I believe that it is generally construed that violation of the Nuremberg Principles is also a war crime under international law.
Do you know what these things mean? Do you know what a war criminal is? Can you cite any behavior that would make any president, other than either of the Bush presidents, a war criminal?
(Or perhaps Reagan, although you'd have to believe that he even knew what was going on.)
I'm telling you that I believe this is a NEW development that we are not prepared to deal with. We've never had to deal with it before. Remember, at the time of our founding we operated under the Law of Nations; it was a different legal framework than what we have now.
Look, I'm all for upholding the law. The closest that I can get to calling Obama a war criminal is to note that he has NOT investigated credible accusations of torture, which he has a duty to do under the UN Convention Against Torture. The convention makes it it's own crime for failure to prosecute, which might be construed as a violation of the Nuremberg Principles if you read them generously, which I do.
But even if you were to make such a case against him I would want to know why, for God's sake, you would do that. You have to know that if any kind of torture case comes before this Robert's court that they are just chomping at the bit to make it legal. Right?!!!
So tell me, wtf is anyone (and I include Nancy Pelosi in this because as speaker under Bush she could have complied with requirement herself, she had the authority and she shirked it, which under the convention makes her just as complaisant as everyone else) supposed to do?
Anyone?
Belligerent Savant wrote:.
It's one thing to make an argument in favor of a vote for Obama as a "lesser" of 2 evils [or any variant justification], but to come to this board and make any attempt to paint Obama as anything OTHER than a LIAR, FRAUD, and CRIMINAL is simply LAUGHABLE.Rory wrote:
Can you kindly point out (with quotes/links) the examples of anyone on here of 'any attempt to paint Obama as anything OTHER than a LIAR, FRAUD, and CRIMINAL is simply LAUGHABLE.'
It would be nice to make your point and to do so without the shrill, hysterical accusations.
I really don't care to do so. Don't have the time nor inclination, though there is ample evidence out there to search for on your own, if not provided by others in this board in due time [it seems Barracuda has since kindly provided a snippet as I typed this response]. Perhaps you can share how you believe he is not a criminal, liar, and/or fraud.
No caps this time.
Rory wrote:WHAT IS WITH ALL THE FUCKING CAPITALIZATION?
Has anyone who hates Obama so bad, got a legitimate argument as to why Romney will be better?
JackRiddler wrote:Rory, thank you for your kind words to me a little bit upthread.
I'm getting shitfaced for the hurricane and soon to join others in this important world-end activity, but I just want to make a couple of things clear:
1) The Scotsman is a great friend, and I'd trust him with my life.*
2) Also, it's too late now, but if I ever met Nordic in person (say, by happenstance on a film shoot) I'm pretty sure we'd get along fabulously - and not just in a superficial way. Internet is just a different mode of interacting, not less valid, not even necessarily nastier in all cases than real life, but with different outcomes.
3) That piece on Obama hating you posted was correct in every word it had on the main subject, only to ruin it with the ludicrous equivalence to Bush hating, as if Obama=Socialist and not believing the official 9/11 story are remotely comparable. (Also, that healing line did deserve the Cocker. Even if I'd been more delicate than the Scotsman, assuming sobriety. When we're drunk, we get close to being the same person.)
I guess I mind the contradictions less than most. Maybe I'm just getting old. I don't feel like I'm eating a shit sandwich, whether or not I finally vote for Obama or Stein or nobody. I accept the things I cannot change, do this little thing that might affect the weather, and then look to the things that might work beyond electioneering. But I do get easily pissed off when this electoral farce is turned into some grandest of all moral choices about which we must be pure. They give you more power on American Idol than in elections, but it doesn't mean non-participation is superior.
Another thing is you get a different perspective when you live within literally Obama's base. (That would be New York City.) People here aren't cheerleading for him, or for war, or for any of the bad things, and a great many of them are well aware that he's the front man for the same core policies as Romney. But they want their own coalition and concerns on top, rather than those of the insane Christianists just five states to the left. And I agree with them. And I do not view them as the enemy, or as brainwashed, or as fools.
* No exaggeration. Zip, de nada.
.
Nordic wrote:
Let me get this straight. I shouldn't rag on Obama because REALLY BAD NASTY PEOPLE rag on Obama, but for completely different reasons, in fact FICTIONAL reasons.
But because I rag on Obama, and they rag on Obama, WE'RE THE SAME. And it's really BAD to rag on Obama because, why?
Because if those REALLY BAD NASTY PEOPLE hate Obama, then Obama MUST be a GOOD PERSON.
Your logic is shit.
Your arguments are shit.
STFU. You're making an idiot of yourself.
Iamwhomiam wrote:Belligerent Savant wrote:.
It's one thing to make an argument in favor of a vote for Obama as a "lesser" of 2 evils [or any variant justification], but to come to this board and make any attempt to paint Obama as anything OTHER than a LIAR, FRAUD, and CRIMINAL is simply LAUGHABLE.Rory wrote:
Can you kindly point out (with quotes/links) the examples of anyone on here of 'any attempt to paint Obama as anything OTHER than a LIAR, FRAUD, and CRIMINAL is simply LAUGHABLE.'
It would be nice to make your point and to do so without the shrill, hysterical accusations.
I really don't care to do so. Don't have the time nor inclination, though there is ample evidence out there to search for on your own, if not provided by others in this board in due time [it seems Barracuda has since kindly provided a snippet as I typed this response]. Perhaps you can share how you believe he is not a criminal, liar, and/or fraud.
No caps this time.
First, Belligerent One, no one in this thread has claimed or attempted to paint Obama as anything but a liar, fraud, or that he is innocent of criminal responsibility for (some of) his acts. And secondly, why would you feel Rory should reply to you after blowing off his question to you? Especially to such a specious question.
I'm voting for Obama because he will be responsible for saving many lives, American lives. Tens of thousands, in fact. I suppose you'd like me to explain how that's possible, wouldn't you? It is true, you know. And I can prove it.
compared2what? wrote:Rory wrote:WHAT IS WITH ALL THE FUCKING CAPITALIZATION?
Has anyone who hates Obama so bad, got a legitimate argument as to why Romney will be better?
The one that's been made so far is basically that it's all the same/the PTB will just do whatever they want anyway/there's no difference between 3000 and 100,000/SCOTUS doesn't do anything anyway/blah blah blah.
In short: No. Nobody has offered a legitimate argument to that effect. Rage has its own imperative, apparently. And really, that's exactly what makes persistent linkage of Obama-hatred with non-voting such a winning gambit for the right. They can use it to peel off a sector of the electorate that usually thinks straight.
Belligerent Savant wrote: Believe what you wish, vote however you wish. Congratulate yourselves for a [presumably] slightly less disastrous 4 years should the 'Bama be elected.
Yes, he may certainly be the better of 2 SHITTY options. But his "win" certainly won't make me content about the situation we're all in and will continue to be in.
I did my best to keep this response short as I tire of the circular discussion.
brainpanhandler wrote:Belligerent Savant wrote: Believe what you wish, vote however you wish. Congratulate yourselves for a [presumably] slightly less disastrous 4 years should the 'Bama be elected.
How about you congratulate yourself for managing to misunderstand the motives of those who suggest voting for Obama after 35 fucking pages. Holy fuck.
brainpanhandler wrote:Yes, he may certainly be the better of 2 SHITTY options. But his "win" certainly won't make me content about the situation we're all in and will continue to be in.
Yah, no shit. No one else posting in this thread will be content either.I did my best to keep this response short as I tire of the circular discussion.
You could have fucking fooled me.
I knew I never should have opened this fucking thread. Jesus fucking christ. 35 fucking pages of the same shit around and around and around and around.....
Shame on me.
thatsmystory wrote:compared2what? wrote:Rory wrote:WHAT IS WITH ALL THE FUCKING CAPITALIZATION?
Has anyone who hates Obama so bad, got a legitimate argument as to why Romney will be better?
The one that's been made so far is basically that it's all the same/the PTB will just do whatever they want anyway/there's no difference between 3000 and 100,000/SCOTUS doesn't do anything anyway/blah blah blah.
In short: No. Nobody has offered a legitimate argument to that effect. Rage has its own imperative, apparently. And really, that's exactly what makes persistent linkage of Obama-hatred with non-voting such a winning gambit for the right. They can use it to peel off a sector of the electorate that usually thinks straight.
Yes let us blame the fuzzy thinking voters instead of assigning blame to President Obama. After all what sense would it make to blame the person in charge?
Analogy:
You go to a restaurant and the waiter says our choices are spoiled milk and rotten chicken salad. Which one do you want?
Do you say I want the spoiled milk because it will only lead to a few hours of vomiting?
No. You say this choice is absurd.
Who do you blame--the person saying the choice is absurd or the restaurant offering the tainted food?
Evidently some folks would say the person at fault is the person who has the gall to object to food poisoning.
"But it's only a few hours of vomiting. Tough it out!"
Nordic wrote:
And C2W, how do you KNOW that Romney is gonna kill more people than Obama? Considering they both work for the SAME PEOPLE, why would you even think that?
It's ludicrous, is a blind assumption, and shows you have a lot of fear in your mind regarding this.
They want you to fear Romney. That is their JOB, to make you fear Romney. See how well it's worked?
I fear stupid people.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 167 guests