Message 158 of 397 (653528) 02-22-2012 9:39 AM

Reply to: Message 103 by Straggler 02-10-2012 5:26 PM

Well, two possible answers:

1. The voting public wasn't paying attention to SENATOR Obama's voting record. The ignorant public ERRONEOUSLY thought "change" and "hope" (and ponies?) were being offered, so they now feel disenchanted and disillusioned.

2. Actually, there is no disenchantment and no disillusion. Some of the voting public WAS paying attention to SENATOR Obama's voting record. Some of the public knew NO change or hope were being offered. However, to be sure, ponies were given, just not to the 99%ers, as we'll see . . .

Let's look at Obama the SENATOR and see what type of man he was BEFORE taking the White House.

1. As a SENATOR, Obama (a supposed "professor of constitutional law") clearly showed that he supported illegal, unconstitutional actions; while a SENATOR he voted FOR illegal wiretapping (HR 6304). It retro-actively took criminality off of telecommunication companies AND Bush Jr. This action SHOULD have been a HUGE red flag for ALL voters of things to come.

2. As a SENATOR, Obama clearly showed that he SUPPORTED impeachable offenses:
The 35 Articles of Impeachment by Kucinich was never supported by Obama. I ask, exactly who was surprised that the war crimes committed by the Bush Administration was never investigated by Obama? People expecting ponies? Obama took an oath to uphold the constitution and laws, but that only meant for the 99%, not for the other 1%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

Not only didn't Obama assign investigators to Bush Jr. war crimes, President Obama ALSO went out of his way to PROTECT Bush Jr. . . .

quote:

---

In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A "confidential" April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.

---

http://motherjones.com/...bama-quashed-torture-investigation

3. As a SENATOR, Obama clearly showed that his real masters are on Wall Street.

quote:

---

Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consist of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originat­ing and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. . . The political publication, The Hill, re­ported on December 20, 2007, that three salaried aides on the Obama campaign were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations.

---

4. As a SENATOR, Obama's voting record clearly showed he was on the corporate 1%'s side:

quote:

---

On February 10, 2005, SENATOR Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005. . . . Three days before Senator Obama ex­pressed that fateful yea vote, 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Senator Obama’s home state of Illinois, filed a letter with the Senate and House, pleading to stop the passage of this cor­porate giveaway. . . .This legislation, which dramatically im­paired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights, involved five years of pres­sure from 100 corporations, 475 lobby­ists, tens of millions of corporate dollars buying influence in our government, and the active participation of the Wall Street firms now funding the Obama campaign

---

5. As a SENATOR, Obama voted for every bill that funded illegal and immoral wars. He may have stated that the Iraq was a "dumb" war, but there wasn't a bill funding the death of innocent Iraqi/Afghani women and children that Obama didn't RUSH to approve. Indeed, Obama desperately tried to EXTEND the illegal and immoral Iraqi war occupation beyond Bush Jr.'s status of forces agreement. But, fortunately, the Iraqi's would not allow continuing immunity from persecution of war crimes (like in Fallujah) by american troops (demanded by Obama).

If a person is disappointed with Obama's actions as the president, then doesn't that simply mean they weren't paying attention to Obama's actions as a SENATOR?

More to come . . . How many impeachable crimes has Obama committed compared to Bush Jr.?
http://www.zcommunications.org/...-to-obama-by-david-swanson

Message 159 of 397 (653529) 02-22-2012 9:41 AM

quote:

---

Dear Obama,

You know, the pony you delivered in the shape of the bankers bailout was ALMOST too much. I mean, we all know that you serve us and not the 99%, but really, on top of the bailouts, MASSIVE EXECUTIVE BONUSES? (I can only gold-plate my cat so many times before it starts resembling a Brâncuși abstract.) Nevertheless, as long as the 99%ers continue to support you against their own interests, how can I complain?

Yours truly,
CEO Lloyd Craig Blankfein
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

---

quote:

---

Dear Obama,

Just wanted to say thanks for the pony in the form of shameless profits. Who knew there would be so much easy money in the sale of children's death. It might not be as much fun as actually torturing children (one day I'd love to share THAT experience with you), but the sale of cluster munitions or bomblets (colourful explosive devices that attract children) are through the roof (just like children's teeth through the top of their heads, Ho-ho-haaa!).

Thanks again for the ever increasing department of "defense" contracts and for refusing to sign the 2008 convention on cluster munitions. May you be re-elected in a landslide and may peace never shine (but I repeat myself).

Scott C. Donnelly, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Textron, Makers of Fine Munitions

P.S. As long as we keep getting the contacts either way, you can let Israel attack Iran. Lie to the public that it's WMD again. That corny schtick NEVER fails to terrify child-like Americans.

---

quote:

---

Dear Obama,

Just wantd to say thanks for the ponie in the form of non-investigated war crimes. Uncle Dick and I is rolling on the grund in laphter. How'd we ever got away with the atrocities in Fallujah, eh? Oh right, "liberal" media. F***ing yeah! Thank god you are not a stand up feller like that douchebag, Kucinich (35 articals of impeachment? RIGHT HERE Arsehole! haha). Gotta go, Rove's here, and we'r doing lines off of Condoleezza's ass.

Georgie Jr.
President of the F***ing United States of the Universe

---

Message 195 of 397 (654628) 03-02-2012 1:22 PM

Reply to: Message 194 by onifre 03-02-2012 1:16 PM

(Allah knows, I am not exactly innocent of the charge.)

Message 246 of 397 (655742) 03-13-2012 9:18 AM

quote:

---

March 11, 2012—Afghan Killings: Troubled History of American Base
A veteran American soldier has been accused of carrying out one of the most heinous crimes in the decade-long Afghan war: the apparently unprovoked systemic slaughter of 16 Afghan civilians, including WOMEN and CHILDREN.
http://news.yahoo.com/...y-american-161221151--abc-news.html

---

quote:

---

March 11, 2012—U.S. Sergeant Is Said to Kill 16 Civilians in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/...-killed-american-soldier-held.html

---

http://www.nytimes.com/...-killed-american-soldier-held.html

Obama wanted to keep american forces in Iraq beyond the new year. But the Iraqis wouldn't allow Obama's demand for immunity for american soldiers to carry out atrocities against women and children like the above.

So, who STILL believes american troops urinating on corpses, burning Korans, and murdering woman/children are winning the hearts and minds of the people in the middle-east? Who STILL believes american presence in Afghanistan is accomplishing something good?

Message 249 of 397 (655753) 03-13-2012 11:05 AM

Reply to: Message 248 by Panda 03-13-2012 10:31 AM

Panda, you might have a slight time-line problem.

Permission? PERMISSION? America doesn't need no stinking permission to carry out atrocities in Afghanistan. ("Obama to bombardier, Obama to bombardier, increase drone attacks on wedding and funeral parties")

Well, if George Jr. is Obama's moral equivalent, . . . alrighty then. (No wonder so many americans approve of Obama)

Edited by dronester, : added snark. Well, added MORE snark.

Edited by dronester, : clarity

Message 251 of 397 (655756) 03-13-2012 11:47 AM

Reply to: Message 250 by Panda 03-13-2012 11:33 AM

The person who believes "So, because Iraq refused to give permission to allow US troops to abuse and kill it's citizens, Obama sent the US troops to Afganistan" is a correct chronological time-line, also believes MY time-line is incorrect. Ok.

I am sure the parents of the murdered children feel the same, trivial, way.

Yeah, so powerful are the Iraqis, even the whim of preventing the illegal and immoral invasion that killed up to one million innocent women and children was thwarted.

Yeah, so far in this thread I only evidenced this ONE piece of information.

Message 255 of 397 (655770) 03-13-2012 12:54 PM

Reply to: Message 253 by Catholic Scientist 03-13-2012 12:16 PM

I think the truth is you are handsome, moral, and your personal hygiene beyond reproach.

From that to YOUR spin. You have not addressed my primary topic, instead:

It feels I am the only one who is absolutely horrified about the atrocities committed by the american government/troops. The drone attacks have increased under Obama. I am repulsed. American aid still goes to nations with a human abuse/human rights violations. I am repulsed. Instead of American taxes going towards education and health care, taxes goes toward cluster bombs and weapons (america is the leading weapons seller of the WORLD). I am repulsed.

Yet, people declare me unjustified in my intelligence or emotions. Wow.

CS and Rahvin, but the one thing I don't understand is why you or other americans are not concerned. Tell me CS and Rahvin, on a scale of 1-10, how sad are you that an american troop murdered the Afghani children? There is no reason for him to be occupying Afghanistan. But under Obama's orders, troops are staying in a place where there is no respect for Americans. Corpse urinators, wedding/funeral attacks, murdering children all flow from the fact that the american government demands that they be there. Why?

Ok. I STRONGLY believe that for SOME people who support Obama (at least as the lesser of two evils), my continuing anti-Obama message disturbs their cognitive dissonance. They know, deep down, I am right and that they SHOULD do something about their support. Perhaps they don't know how, or they are too lazy. But regardless, it bugs them to their core. Their conscience prefers I'd just shut up. I get this.

Ok, so MAYBE my message is not working for some of these people. Are my messages at least connecting to the silent forum participants? What about just the lurkers? I don't know.

For the wall street protesters, the first stage was to inform about the injustices as Americans are pretty clueless as they get most of their info from corporate media. The second stage is the actions.

Am I at least enlightening some who only get their news from Fox News?

OTOH, if my postings are UNANIMOUSLY viewed as negative postings, can I temporarily open this thread up to CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms of my Obama postings? Let it be known, I've asked.

Message 256 of 397 (655771) 03-13-2012 1:07 PM

Reply to: Message 254 by Panda 03-13-2012 12:23 PM

Curiously, the first time I "quote-mined" your reply, you didn't mention it.

So you are NOW acknowleging that the Iraqis are not that powerful? Consistent much?

Well, you almost got it. The invasions of the Iraq and Afghani wars were/are immoral and illegal. Therefore every foreign troop that kills there is a murderer, everything that flows from that event is connected. This was the findings of the Nuremberg trials. E.g. Germany immorally and illegally invades Poland. German troops kill woman and children. Tell, me what is the difference? I find it strange that this premise is so difficult to comprehend.

Please re-read the first Obama thread and this thread from the beginning. It is unfair for you to come into the middle of the picture and ask me to do a re-cap just for you.

Message 258 of 397 (655773) 03-13-2012 1:33 PM

Reply to: Message 257 by jar 03-13-2012 1:24 PM

Arrrgh, you are killing me Jar!

Jar, would you please directly answer THIS question: "Did the German invasion of Poland just happen"?

Requesting some non-American POV here. Anybody?

(Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?)

Message 270 of 397 (655795) 03-13-2012 3:22 PM

Reply to: Message 252 by Rahvin 03-13-2012 11:51 AM

Then I respectfully ask you, to ask yourself, why Crash didn't respond to my post Message 158 (or other similar posts while Obama was a SENATOR).

Message 272 of 397 (655798) 03-13-2012 3:36 PM

Reply to: Message 261 by jar 03-13-2012 1:38 PM

Very good Jar, very good. Now, this is where the questioning becomes a little difficult . . .

Was the German invasion into Poland moral/legal?

Take your time Jar, take your time. You're doing wonderful so far.

Message 274 of 397 (655804) 03-13-2012 4:41 PM

Reply to: Message 271 by Rahvin 03-13-2012 3:35 PM

Sigh.

Yes, yes, yes, you are correct. It would probably do well for me to publicly and explicitly admit that Obama is NOT responsible for EVERY atrocity on his watch: "I dronester, being of sound mind (well close enough) and body, declares that Obama is NOT responsible for EVERY atrocity on his watch." Perhaps CS can now respect me again?

I asked before, how sad are you that innocent women and children are dying from weapons of the US military. CS honestly wrote a mere 2 on the 1-10 scale. If my reporting of events also registers a mere two from you, than I can imagine my "ranting" to be very inappropriate to you. But I believe my "rantings" are proportionately on target.

I should think you would FIRST ask IF the topic warrants any "ranting"? Innocent women and children are, perhaps, being murdered by the US military every day. Often it is done in some backwater location that will NEVER be reported. Drones attacking innocent people at weddings and funerals, colourful bomblets that attract children, overnight raids that kill families indiscriminately, rendition locations that are completely invisible to the public, etc., etc., etc. I ask again, respectfully, if this isn't something to "rant" about, what exactly is? If you read/listen to the corporate news, I suppose being caused a "slut" by a radio personality is a much worse offense? (by reporting ONLY Limbaugh type of crap in the news, the 1%ers win by not having the 99%ers informed of their best interests. By fielding the current cast of republican side-tracking losers, the 1%ers will eventually still win from highly distracted voters. Crazy as a fox).

But how's this for adjusting my debating strategy, in the future, I will only rant about injustices/atrocities/human right violations that Obama previously SUPPORTED while a senator. As Mod as explained, if Obama DELIBERATELY created conditions that fosters atrocities BEFORE BECOMING PRESIDENT, then yes, I will blame Obama. This is the specific argument that Crash continually disregards from me. See Message 158!!!

Message 275 of 397 (655805) 03-13-2012 4:42 PM

Reply to: Message 273 by Perdition 03-13-2012 4:18 PM

Was the German invasion into Poland moral/legal?

Message 299 of 397 (655877) 03-14-2012 10:34 AM

Reply to: Message 260 by Rahvin 03-13-2012 1:36 PM

These are the reasons why I believe invading Afghanistan was wrong.

1. 16 of the 19 9/11 highjackers were Saudis. ALSO, Al Qaeda was a terrorist group, based in . . . Saudi Arabia. If invading Afghanistan was correct, then why hadn't Bush Jr. or you ever suggested we invade Saudi Arabia? Not a rhetorical question, please answer.

2. Yes, I understand Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan. But as Bush Jr. said (below), Bin Laden wasn't important. Before the american invasion, the Afghan Taliban government asked Bush Jr. for evidence that Osama was involved in 9/11 BEFORE they would give Osama up. Since the Taliban government wasn't keen on protecting Al-Queda members in exchange for an assault on their country, that was probably a legitimate request. It would have alleviated drone strikes, invasions, death and destruction. But, remember, like in Iraq, the american government NEEDED an excuse to invade Afghanistan to gain hegemony for the energy resources, so the Bush Jr. administration didn't even followup on the Afghan government's request. That moment was extremely instructive to how little "terrorism" really meant to Bush/Cheney (outside of its fear factor to the american people):

quote:

---

bush jr regarding bin laden, March 2002:

Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not. We haven't heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He's just a person who's been marginalized.... I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

---

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-779454482760098900

3. With Bush/Cheney at the helm, did anybody seriously think the invasion of Afghanistan was gonna turn out good? I mean, really? Not a rhetorical question.

4. The proofs in the pudding. Afghanistan HAS turned out to be a clusterf**k. Big surprise eh? Tens of thousands dead, massive tax money squandered, and the cause of an INCREASE in hatred/terrorist risks in the world. The invasion of Afghanistan was really, really, really bad and WRONG.

5. As a SENATOR, Obama voted FOR funding the Aghani war EVERY time. As president, Obama has not only extended the money and time duration in Afghanistan, but also has enlarged military forces there. The result, constant drones buzzing in the air and random night time raids into family's homes. For one moment, put yourself in an Afghanis place: Can you imagine every waking moment watching the sky, waiting for a drone missile to deliberately or accidentally target you or a family member or friend. And even if the missile targets a stranger, suppose the "collateral damage" is your child or parent? And then at night, random night raids. Can you imagine your every sleeping moment waiting for your front door to be kicked in and your family assaulted, deliberately or accidentally? I imagine this as hell. Can you imagine it as anything different? Not a rhetorical question.

These are the reasons/evidence why I believe invading Aghanistan was wrong.