Obama

To me? I suppose it does. It seems to matter to Dronester as well. An embassy is supposed to be a symbol of good will between 2 countries and facilitate a trusted communication line to slow down any rush to judgment and to facilitate political favors and other such decent humanities.What Cheney's gang has created is nothing less than a Monstrous Insult to all other Nations on the Earth. The Embassy portion of the Fortress only occupies a small corner somewhere, sanitized and safely walled off for presentation to visiting dignitaries. The people you find there will not have any idea what is going on in the other part of this structure. The rest of the Complex is nothing less than a super secret Weapon of Mass Destruction, connected to Washington, Houston, Cheyenne Mountain, Camp David and who knows what other places around the globe, with fault-proof redundant EMF-proof communication lines. There are most certainly numerous nuclear missile launching tubes buried deep within its imposing countenance, some even aimed at targets within the United States. Blackwater projects can be run from inside with impunity. The Shadow Government of rulers that Cheney set up (remember?) are there in place and have the utmost in luxurious accommodations, food and drink & various other salacious activities catered to whatever their perverted whims may desire, including one-way views of the Rendition Rooms of exquisite torturing techniques constructed next to laboratories equipped with the latest in high-tech weapon development. Compared to Cheney, Felix Mengele was a mere amateur.Or, as Rose Rosanna Anna Danna says, nevermind....

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Do you feel OK? Have you missed any of your meds?From this post I am beginning to wonder.

coyote nicely comes back with Hey - I'll have you know I had a heckuva lot of fun putting that one together! Where is Ian Fleming when we need him!!!!Never felt better today! (56 minutes old as it is)p.s. - I forgot to mention again the barometric cryogenic crypts they have at the bottom level (104 acres!) for the families of Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Reagan, Scalia, Heston, Nixon and Obama and others that would take too long to include in this post.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Well, if you are just having fun that's different.We need more fun nowadays.

And since you failed to mention the on-going removal of organs from earth-humans* which are then given to our alien over-lords, I can only assume that you are 'one of them' and are part of the conspiracy! It is fantastic that 'earth-humans' (as opposed to what type of human?) has a definition.

From Message 249: As to the SUPPOSED invisible and cowardly members who ONLY PM you in your support, how sad that you are in alliance with cowardly pussies. This is an anonymous forum, yet they still hide their avatars. How proud THEIR parents must be. "diplomatic relations." Yeah, that's what they are doing in an "embassy" larger than the size of the vatican. "Diplomatic relations", Good one Pops. Now, did you hear the one about Bush Jr. volunteering at the soup kitchen? There's something on the internet called "Google." It acts as a search engine for items that you are unfamiliar with. Try it sometime Pops (unless you prefer being an ignoramus):Doug Henning - WikipediaFrom Message 249: No reply about this but I am sure an OFF-topic question about my breakfast cereal will be forthcoming. So you yourself will decide what my pertinent facts are. So you yourself will decide what my words mean? So you yourself will decide what my arguments mean? So you yourself will decide what my private thoughts mean? (Well, gosh, with masterbatory skills like that, why am I needed here at all?) The laughable irony is all the while you declare you won't answer my continuing ON-topic items, you simultaneously push me to answer OFF-topic questions like: Nice dishonest conflation: " . . . me AND Obama . . ." Your dishonesty knows no bounds does it? Sorry Pops, I will not allow you to dishonestly use your avoidance/obfuscation debate tactic. When you declare you are horribly and utterly wrong with the ON-topic subject, THEN I will then address your OFF-topic questions. (If your cowardice is as long as your dishonestly, I predict you will continue your OFF-topic questions.) That is why I have been giving you examples where Obama has specifically NOT been constrained by ANY system. (You know, the parts where Obama himself is driving the infected monkey to the airport, get it?) Instead of running away from these items, why don't you address the pertinent point:From Message 217: Crash, "led by Obama-appointee Julius Genachowski" and "promised to defend net neutrality" are the key terms. "OBAMA APPOINTEE." Perhaps, reading comprehension is not a strength of yours? Obama CAMPAIGNED that he would not allow corporations to impede the internet. But when in the white house, Obama backed FCC Genachowski to do the opposite. Corporatism over public welfare. Obama was not "constrained by any system of government, at all", he APPOINTED Genachowski. (Obama himself is driving the infected monkey to the airport, get it?)http://beforeitsnews.com/...et_neutrality,_but_it_isnt..html
HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPostHere, for the second time, is my evidence that Obama has willfully and overtly SUPPORTED the war crime of torture and NOT have been constrained by ANY governmental system. I noted you cowardly skipped this too. From Message 246:

quote:

---

Obama has consistently and willfully RESISTED holding war criminals (Bush Jr. Cheney, Ashcroft, Tenet, Yoo, and Bybee) accountable to the crime of torture. He has OPPOSED a commission of inquiry, FAILED to order a criminal investigation, and successfully DEFEATED all suits seeking damages for victims.

​

At Bagram, when four habeas corpus cases filed reached a US court, the Obama Administration refused to distance itself from its predecessor's blanket refusal to open up any kind of outside scrutiny, stating that "Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position". When the implications of Judge Bate's ruling became clear, instead of abiding by the decision, the Obama administration APPEALED. The NY times declared that the appeal "signaled that the Obama Admin was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight".

​

The other shock concerned a case initially brought by the ACLU against Jeppesen Dataplan. The Bush administration had intervened the first time around, invoking the little-used state secrets doctrine, and requesting a dismissal of the entire action before Dataplan filed an answer to the complaint, and when the case was revived in February, the Obama administration again followed suit, slavishly copying its predecessor, as it did with Bagram example above.

​

However, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just demonstrated so admirably, by setting new rules for appropriate conduct while holding at bay any accountability for the Bush administration’s crimes, Obama is not only shielding those who are no longer in office from full disclosure of their activities, but is also allowing himself to be infected by the same disdain for the separation of powers, and the same endorsement of unfettered Executive power, that was the Bush administration’s most toxic legacy for the values on which the republic was founded.

---

zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.And here is yet another item that shows that Obama willfully and overtly SUPPORTS war mongering, and was NOT constrained by ANY governmental system:Though Obama pledged, as an "anti-war" candidiate, that he would not only end the Iraq war, but he would also "end the mindset that led to war". So why did he stack his cabinet with war-mongerer appointees to influential positions with foreign policy; Biden, H. Clinton, Gates, Blair, J. Napolitano, Holmbrroke, and Emanuel? These people all fully supported the Iraq war with a disdain against international law, United Nations Charters, and international treaties. Furthermore, H. Clinton, (while continually funding the death to innocent Iraqi women and childrenas did Obama), continued to parrot Bush Jr. lies long after truth's were self evident. Yet Obama still appointed H. Clinton to SOS.Obama CHOSE to staff his cabinet with immoral, mentally slow, and hawkish representatives. Obama was NOT constrained by ANY governmental system to do this.Obama is not a liberal.

Coyote,You whined, cried, and bellyached that there are already too many political threads in EvC.Yet you add your two cents in this POLITICAL thread that will just serve to EXPAND the presence of political discussion in EvC?Hypocrite much?

I didn't start the thread.But I note you are willing to try and silence my voice on it.Typical liberal attitude. Perhaps you'll be calling my posts hate speech next?

Your previous whining, crying, and bellyaching was not about WHO STARTS a thread.None-the-less, welcome to the thread.

That's even stupider. There's a perfectly adequate building already built for the US embassy in Iraq. Why tear it down and build a smaller one? Why not, instead, use less of it, which is what the Obama administration has done?If that's what you really wanted, you wouldn't be complaining. Ergo, what you want is for Obama to close the US embassy in Iraq altogether.

This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.What could possibly be your evidence for such a claim?

It's not a "misconstrual." It is, in fact, the only honest way to interpret your words.If that's not what you meant to say, that's fine. But don't try to pretend that you've said anything but exactly what I've quoted you saying, four times now. There's no "mistake." There's no interpretation, here. You've continually faulted Obama for not closing the US embassy, then denied saying it, frequently in the same message. When Panda asked you precisely what you were saying, which is a very simple question, you dodged. You don't think that Iraq has greater diplomatic needs than, say, Germany? You continually fault the American people, and indeed everyone here but yourself, for not evincing sufficient regard for the American people. But a large and well-protected embassy complex seems like an ideal basis from which to conduct humanitarian work in a country racked by sectarian violence and an organized and armed resistance. It's a hell of a lot safer than the Hatian tent cities where US aid workers are being raped and murdered by the hundreds due to a complete lack of any physical security. I'm aware. I just thought you would want to know where your wit has fallen flat. The reply is the reply I've already made; Resoulution 1441 was the resolution that legally authorized the War in Iraq. Conditional cease-fires inherently authorize the resumption of hostilities when their conditions are violated; that's what it means to be "conditional."Show me the UN Security Council action that ruled the Iraq War illegal. Just as you'll make that determination for me. If I feel you've made that determination in error then I will repeat points and ask for your specific attention. I invite you to treat me the same way.Your impression seems to be that if I don't reply line by line, I've somehow conceded something. That is incorrect - I will specify which points I'm conceding. Oh, I see - it's not a dodge when you do it. I reject that, unfortunately. I think you've made the record clear that the Iraqi people are nothing more to you than a rhetorical cudgel. How disgustingly opportunistic of you.You're not a good person. But you haven't, because there's no such example. There are no situations where the President's powers are not constrained by the Constitution; literally everything he can do is subject to regulation by our country's founding document. Nixon's formulation that "if the President does it, it is by definition not against the law" has been rejected by all legal scholars and courts, but I'm surprised to see you embrace such a sweeping view of Presidential power. Not unilaterally. Genachowski's appointment was subject to Congressional approval of Executive branch appointees, and this necessitated that Obama appoint someone who could get 60 votes in the Senate.There's that 60 vote constraint, again. Who were the 60 senators prepared to vote for cellular phone net neutrality, Dronester? Be specific; name the senators. Who were they? But you've already agreed that Obama is constrained by our system of government in this regard; the constraint is that Presidents can only be impeached by Congress, not by other Presidents; and that individuals are tried not by Presidents but by courts. And we've agreed that the Federal courts widely staffed by Bush appointees are not very likely to return guilty verdicts against Bush, now are they?So, again, Obama is constrained by our system of government such that Bush administration officials could not help but be exonerated by the judges they themselves appointed.But you know all this, because you've already admitted it. You've already conceded that line of argumentation so why repeat it?

I note that you are willing to equate criticism of what you say with an attempt to deprive you of your freedom of speech. Typical conservative bullshit.

From Message 249 and From Message 261: "to conduct humanitarian work" Good one Pops. Then, pity that you couldn't have somehow originally expressed my wit falling flat AND not concede you were an ignoramus. I do not agree with you. Oni does not agree with you. Kofi Annan does not agree with you. And the Bush Admin. does not agree with you. That is why the Bush Admin. spent fruitless months bribing and threatening other countries to get a security resolution that specifically authorized an armed invasion. But failed. This is just dumb Pops. You see, when you live by spinning dishonest notions, you often make a fool of yourself. The US has VETO powers. The US WANTED to invade Iraq for hegemony purposes. What country would bother to nominate a resolution of illegality knowing that the US would VETO it in a nanosecond? Shame, shame, shame, you are fibbing again Pops. I've certainly NOT agreed he is COMPLETELY constrained by our system of government. Remember: bully pulpit, executive orders, signing statements, cabinet assembly, preferential appointments, congressional negotiations, lawful actions etc.. Indeed, Rrhain, Oni and I have given you many, many, many specific examples of Obama not being constrained by our system of government. In fact Obama has often/usually gone out of his way to act in neo-conservative ways, such as the following additional points you may have "mistakenly" overlooked previously:Here, for the third time, is more evidence that Obama has reneged on his oath to the office. Obama continues to willfully and overtly SUPPORT the war crime of torture and has NOT have been constrained by ANY governmental system. From Message 246 and Message 261:

quote:

---

Obama has consistently and willfully RESISTED holding war criminals (Bush Jr. Cheney, Ashcroft, Tenet, Yoo, and Bybee) accountable to the crime of torture. He has OPPOSED a commission of inquiry, FAILED to order a criminal investigation, and successfully DEFEATED all suits seeking damages for victims.

​

At Bagram, when four habeas corpus cases filed reached a US court, the Obama Administration refused to distance itself from its predecessor's blanket refusal to open up any kind of outside scrutiny, stating that "Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position". When the implications of Judge Bate's ruling became clear, instead of abiding by the decision, the Obama administration APPEALED. The NY times declared that the appeal "signaled that the Obama Admin was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight".

​

The other shock concerned a case initially brought by the ACLU against Jeppesen Dataplan. The Bush administration had intervened the first time around, invoking the little-used state secrets doctrine, and requesting a dismissal of the entire action before Dataplan filed an answer to the complaint, and when the case was revived in February, the Obama administration again followed suit, slavishly copying its predecessor, as it did with Bagram example above.

​

However, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just demonstrated so admirably, by setting new rules for appropriate conduct while holding at bay any accountability for the Bush administration’s crimes, Obama is not only shielding those who are no longer in office from full disclosure of their activities, but is also allowing himself to be infected by the same disdain for the separation of powers, and the same endorsement of unfettered Executive power, that was the Bush administration’s most toxic legacy for the values on which the republic was founded.

---

zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.For the second time, here is yet another item that showed Obama willfully and overtly SUPPORTING war mongering, and was NOT constrained by ANY governmental system. From Message 261:Though Obama pledged, as an "anti-war" candidiate, that he would not only end the Iraq war, but he would also "end the mindset that led to war". So why did he stack his cabinet with war-mongerer appointees to influential positions with foreign policy; Biden, H. Clinton, Gates, Blair, J. Napolitano, Holmbrroke, and Emanuel? These people all fully supported the Iraq war with a disdain against international law, United Nations Charters, and international treaties. Furthermore, H. Clinton, (while continually funding the death to innocent Iraqi women and childrenas did Obama), continued to parrot Bush Jr. lies long after truth's were self evident. Yet Obama still appointed H. Clinton to SOS.Obama CHOSE to staff his cabinet with immoral, mentally slow, and hawkish representatives. Obama was NOT constrained by ANY governmental system to do this. But, but, but . . . that's not what my grandmother keeps telling me.Obama is not liberal.

Because the portion of it that is not being used as an Embassy is instead a Fortress built out of Dick Cheney's and others' desires to reach hegemony over the oil-producing region. It is an insulting, arrogant augmentation to the smaller structure for the indigenous people living in that country. The hatred many of them have for the USA is not being quelled or mollified - instead it is being inflamed and exacerbated. This is not how you win back the hearts & minds of a people who have lost trust in you as a nation. It is directly opposite the humility needed. LOL - more of your FAULTY Ergo!!!!Remember: It's Dronester who does not want it closed. Just NOT anywhere near as massive. However, I want it moved.I want the Embassy rebuilt in Bagdad proper, in a small, modest, peaceful form with a normal sized staffing. And I want the Iraqi citizens to have the delicious privilege of destroying Cheney's Folly with whatever it takes, because I have no idea how far down into the earth it goes. It will be a good opportunity for them to do an underground nuclear test. Letting them destroy it totally will do wonders at restoring good will towards the US. I say move the real Embassy back into town, where you can meet with the people.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d