Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 187 (8028 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2014 7:49 PM
170 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: tellmeverbatim
Post Volume:
Total: 724,260 Year: 10,101/28,606 Month: 1,791/2,455 Week: 509/592 Day: 154/127 Hour: 6/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   The Awesome Obama Thread II
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 300 of 397 (655880)
03-14-2012 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Perdition
03-13-2012 4:49 PM


Re: I approve of much of what Obama is doing.
Perd writes:

This isn't Jar,

Whoops, my apologies.

Perd writes:

In fact, in the case of Iraq, he [Obama] voted against the AUMF.

Errr, perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but Obama wasn't in office yet to vote on the AUMF. There are some thoughts from Obama that he MIGHT have voted for the AUMF:

quote:
In July of `04, Barack Obama, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know," in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage." That was July of `04. And this: "I think" there's "some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war."

and:

quote:
SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made... when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq.

My "badgering" of Jar is because he writes ridiculous things like the following (Yeah, yeah, I should just ignore him):

Jar writes:

The German invasion of Poland may not have been legal and whether or not it was moral depended on your point of view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Perdition, posted 03-13-2012 4:49 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Perdition, posted 03-14-2012 11:53 AM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 301 of 397 (655883)
03-14-2012 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Catholic Scientist
03-13-2012 2:00 PM


Re: Really, some americans still approve of Obama?
CS writes:

I don't think I've ever "supported" Obama...

Yes, I am aware you vote republican. Since you have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about the Bush Jr. Administration, I guess you have a clear conscience.

CS writes:

Your extremely hyperbolic spin-conspiracies are so far off that I just have to go with reality being the opposite by default.

Okay, point taken, will work on it, thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Catholic Scientist, posted 03-13-2012 2:00 PM Catholic Scientist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Catholic Scientist, posted 03-14-2012 11:30 AM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 303 of 397 (655889)
03-14-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Catholic Scientist
03-14-2012 11:30 AM


Re: Really, some americans still approve of Obama?
CS writes:

How could you possibly be aware of that?

Am I mistaken that there was a thread that YOU asserted that you voted republican because you were afraid of what democrats might do?

CS writes:

Huh? Who says I have nothing to be embarrased about with that? Too, I didn't vote for Bush so what the fuck are you even talking about?

Are you ever right about anything?

It was a joke. The winking smile emoticon should have clued you in. Sheesh.

Edited by dronester, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Catholic Scientist, posted 03-14-2012 11:30 AM Catholic Scientist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Catholic Scientist, posted 03-14-2012 11:52 AM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 306 of 397 (655991)
03-15-2012 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Rahvin
03-13-2012 11:51 AM


Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Rahvin writes:

I remain morally outraged at the use of drone attacks as counter-terrorism tools, though no longer because of arguments of sovereignty (as the Afghani and Pakistani governments have apparently authorized their use

Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .

quote:
March 12, 2012 Pakistan Ends Drone Strikes in Blow to U.S. War on Terror
Pakistans sovereignty over its airspace and the civilian casualties that have resulted from drone strikes are emotional issues in Pakistan, where public opinion heavily favors terminating drone missions, Pakistani officials say

The [Obama] administration authorized 53 drone attacks in 2009 and 117 in 2010, compared with 35 in 2008 under former President George W. Bush


http://www.businessweek.com/...ions-after-disputes-fray-ties

quote:
Pakistan tells US to end drone strikes

http://www.thenews.com.pk/...n-tells-US-to-end-drone-strikes

If the Afghani population were given a voice, I suspect they too would want the drones to stop.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2012 11:51 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 1:29 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 309 of 397 (656015)
03-15-2012 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Rahvin
03-15-2012 2:18 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Rahvin writes:

we would be obligated to stop, else be considered a rogue nation committing an act of war by the international community.

Gasp!!! In that event, do you suppose Obama might then be branded a . . . a . . . a . . . war criminal?

[Dronester, with wide-eyes, slacked-jaw, just can't believe Rahvin opened up that can of worms]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2012 2:18 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 4:26 PM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 312 of 397 (656021)
03-15-2012 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by crashfrog
03-15-2012 4:26 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
My message Message 306 was about Pakistan. Try again.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 4:26 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 315 of 397 (656052)
03-16-2012 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by crashfrog
03-15-2012 6:00 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Crash writes:

Well, it would probably be considered an act of war, but an illegal one?

Minnemooseus, NWR, and Rahvin: Crash sways you? Really? . . .

Crash writes:

Because terrorists live where it's not illegal to be terrorists!

This is just a dumb statement. Maybe the following two examples will highlight his hypocrisy and small-mindedness.

quote:
The U.S. is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and that rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--02.htm

quote:
‪Nicaragua v. United States‬

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a 1984 case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.[2] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.[3]

The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."

The Court had 16 final decisions upon which it voted. In Statement 9, the Court stated that the U.S. encouraged human rights violations by the Contras by the manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare. However, this did not make such acts attributable to the U.S.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

Luis Posada Carriles

quote:
On the thirtieth anniversary of the missile crisis, Cuba protested a machine-gun attack against a Spanish-Cuban tourist hotel; responsibility was claimed by a group in Miami. Bombings in Cuba in 1997, which killed an Italian tourist, were traced back to Miami. The perpetrators were Salvadoran criminals operating under the direction of Luis Posada Carriles and financed in Miami. One of the most notorious international terrorists, Posada had escaped from a Venezuelan prison, where he had been held for the Cubana airliner bombing, with the aid of Jorge Mas Canosa, a Miami businessman who was the head of the tax-exempt Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF). Posada went from Venezuela to El Salvador, where he was put to work at the Ilopango military air base to help organize US terrorist attacks against Nicaragua under Oliver North's direction.
Posada has described in detail his terrorist activities and the funding for them from exiles and CANF in Miami, but felt secure that he would not be investigated by the FBI. He was a Bay of Pigs veteran, and his subsequent operations in the 1960s were directed by the CIA. When he later joined Venezuelan intelligence with CIA help, he was able to arrange for Orlando Bosch, an associate from his CIA days who had been convicted in the US for a bomb attack on a Cuba-bound freighter, to join him in Venezuela to organize further attacks against Cuba. An ex-CIA official familiar with the Cubana bombing identifies Posada and Bosch as the only suspects in the bombing, which Bosch defended as "a legitimate act of war." Generally considered the "mastermind" of the airline bombing, Bosch was responsible for thirty other acts of terrorism, according to the FBI. He was granted a presidential pardon in 1989 by the incoming Bush I administration after intense lobbying by Jeb Bush and South Florida Cuban-American leaders, overruling the Justice Department, which had found the conclusion "inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public interest for the United States to provide a safe haven for Bosch [because] the security of this nation is affected by its ability to urge credibly other nations to refuse aid and shelter to terrorists."

http://www.chomsky.info/books/hegemony02.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 6:00 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 11:15 AM dronester has responded
 Message 327 by nwr, posted 03-16-2012 1:40 PM dronester has not yet responded
 Message 328 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2012 2:03 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 317 of 397 (656055)
03-16-2012 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by crashfrog
03-16-2012 11:15 AM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Crash writes:

Well, I guess if Noam Chomsky says it, it must be true.

Gee, if only I corroborated my post with another source.
(cough, cough, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States. However, let me go check that Official White House website for additional terrorist info)

Crash writes:

(Also, you didn't come out looking very well, or very honest, after I demonstrated the five different instances where you said something you later claimed not to have ever said.)

Wow, talk about song of the desperate! Because you don't have any adequate reply, you reach back into ancient history about your willfull misinterpretation about my Iraqi "embassy" item? (I recall, ALL others refuted your fanciful interpretation, and not ONE person sided with you) Just wow.

Song. Of. The. Desperate!

Rahvin writes:

Do you have the right to just keep going [raping] because you want to, and her rights to her own body don't matter?

Crash writes:

I find these rape analogies stupid and insensitive, frankly. I'm not going to respond further to them.

Yes, because you, Crashfrog, finds something STUPID and INSENSITVE, are not going to respond further.

It burns. It just burns.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 11:15 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 11:55 AM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 319 of 397 (656062)
03-16-2012 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by crashfrog
03-16-2012 11:55 AM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Crash writes:

I'm struggling to see the relevance of what you posted to the discussion.

Yes, I already noted you struggle with a great many of things.

Crash writes:

Yes, that's exactly right, since it's only my own responses which I am in control of, and only my own feelings which I can feel. Who else has to find it stupid and insensitive before I'm allowed to ignore it? Whose permission do I need, Dronester?

Crash writes:

Again, the reason that I'm convincing and you are not is that the things you say are so goddamned stupid, and the things I say are informed by reason and fact.

It, continues, to burn.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 11:55 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 12:25 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 322 of 397 (656080)
03-16-2012 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Rahvin
03-16-2012 12:49 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Crash writes:

You asked why we don't send in police to arrest terrorists. Because terrorists live where it's not illegal to be terrorists!

The 9/11 plotters lived in Germany. Should we send drones there?

The 9/11 plotters also lived in the USA. Should we drone ourselves?

Germany shuts 9/11 plotters' mosque in Hamburg
http://www.modernghana.com/...lotters-mosque-in-hamburg.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2012 12:49 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by jar, posted 03-16-2012 1:10 PM dronester has not yet responded
 Message 325 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 1:23 PM dronester has not yet responded
 Message 326 by Perdition, posted 03-16-2012 1:23 PM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 331 of 397 (656104)
03-16-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Perdition
03-16-2012 1:23 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Perd writes:

You are very vocal in hating what the Obama administration is doing and has done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please re-read this thread and the original Obama thread for details.

I hate that SENATOR Obama and president Obama (who swore an oath to protect the constitution and its laws) protects Bush Jr from criminal investigation (I have repeatedly wrote about how PRESIDENT Obama intervened in Spain on Bush's account. It doesn't seem to bother any one else).

Perd writes:

I also wonder what you would have done differently had you been elected at the time Obama was, inheriting the two wars.

No, Obama did not inherit the wars. SENATOR Obama helped create the wars by funding EVERY war vote (the Vietnam war ended simply because congress stopped funding it). And, as a SENATOR, not supporting the articles of impeachment against Bush Jr.

Perd writes:

And I wonder what you would do now, that would protect America,

In effect, you are offering me the steering wheel AFTER the car has left the cliff. (I suppose I can now at least take my foot off the gas pedal.) Outside of america, the US has no credibility and are seen as immoral and illegal invaders. The UN is not perfect, but it is a better choice. The quicker the changeover the better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Perdition, posted 03-16-2012 1:23 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 3:43 PM dronester has responded
 Message 350 by Perdition, posted 03-16-2012 4:29 PM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 335 of 397 (656108)
03-16-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by crashfrog
03-16-2012 3:43 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Crash writes:

Well, not everybody can have Dennis Kucinich's distinguished record of... hrm, what, exactly? Belief in UFO's, opposition to reproductive freedom, and a cowardly withdrawal from the Senate?

Don't forget the hot wife. (Meooow!)

Your other piffle (apparently embraced by others on this forum) has been addressED repeatedly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 3:43 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by xongsmith, posted 03-17-2012 10:52 AM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 336 of 397 (656109)
03-16-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Omnivorous
03-16-2012 3:39 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Omni writes:

But to respond to armed aggression with anything other than our full, effective might is foolishly counterproductive, and, ultimately, does not serve peace.

Iraq didn't attack the US. Terrorists, mostly from Saudi Arabia and based in Saudi Arabia attacked the US. And the country of Afghanistan did not attack us. Now, I understand you didn't say Iraq DID attack the US, but you could be explicit and indicate that is WAS immoral and illegal for america to attack Iraq.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Omnivorous, posted 03-16-2012 3:39 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 4:20 PM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 338 of 397 (656112)
03-16-2012 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by crashfrog
03-16-2012 3:43 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Drone writes:

the Vietnam war ended simply because congress stopped funding it

Crash writes:

And there's your reason why Congress will never, ever again attempt to force the President to end a war by defunding it.

Huh?

Am I misunderstanding? You're saying ending the Vietnam war was BAD?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 3:43 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2012 4:11 PM dronester has responded
 Message 348 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 4:21 PM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1083
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 339 of 397 (656115)
03-16-2012 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Rahvin
03-16-2012 4:02 PM


Re: Arguments of sovereignty, back on the table . . .
Rahvin writes:

I'm a humanistic utilitarian.

Oh no, not the defunct humanistic utilitarian POV!

For the mother of god, no Rahvin, no, . . . nooooo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2012 4:02 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2012 4:12 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014