Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   More Awesome Obama . . .
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 76 of 103 (664423)
05-31-2012 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Panda
05-31-2012 7:41 PM


Re: "it's MOSTLY symbolic"
The finding of the "Tribunal" does not even have legal or enforceable standing in Malaysia.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Panda, posted 05-31-2012 7:41 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 77 of 103 (664434)
05-31-2012 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2012 5:03 PM


Re: federal spending increase by president
Well, for one thing you have no source. I'm not doubting the veracity of your charts. I'm just saying those charts you put up are literally from thin air (as of now).
Finances have never been my strong points. That said, your first graph is meaningless. We have no idea what the GDP from year to year is. Giving the % of spending to GDP is pointless. For instance, Obama could have spent a lot less than Bush but since GDP actually decreased then his percentage to GDP could actually rise.
The second graph is again pointless. The Obama administration has no control over total budget deficit. Neither is the increase in debt. What they do have control over is the the rate of increase of spending.
You're making Obama out to be some kind of king where he can suddenly shut down programs at will to decrease the deficit or decrease the debt. Programs and spendings that have been put in motion can't just simply be cut off.
You're just trying to minimize the meaning of my original graph said. The rate of increase in spending seems to increase by a lot with so-called fiscal conservatives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2012 5:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 78 of 103 (664461)
06-01-2012 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
05-04-2012 3:00 PM


Re: in '08???
I tried to look it up, but I'm not sure entirely what transition you're referring to. I'm not really well-versed in Pakistan's politics.
Did this transition happen before or after January of this year?
Sorry that I never replied to this - completely missed it. I was talking about the resignation of Musharraf in September 2008 and his replacement with an elected President; and the subsequent change to the consitution which reduced Presidential powers and made the Prime Minister the more important figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 05-04-2012 3:00 PM crashfrog has seen this message but not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 79 of 103 (664477)
06-01-2012 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Panda
05-31-2012 7:41 PM


Re: "it's MOSTLY symbolic"
Panda writes:
It has been 9 years since the invasion and all you have is wishful thinking.
No, I also have the encouragement of other people of good conscience in the world: 2011, Amnesty International and other human rights groups demanding investigation causing Bush to cancel Euro plans Bush cancels Europe trip amid calls for his arrest | Salon.com; 2012, the tribunal in Malaysia; 2012, the anti-war protesters who continue to heckle war-criminal-Blair MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos; 2012, producers of "The Last War Crime" that shows Dick Cheney being indicted for ordering torture The Last War Crime (2012) - IMDb; 2012, organizers of "arrest Blair" MOJOBET89: Daftar 14 Situs Judi Slot Online Terpercaya dan Terlengkap Tahun Ini and the continuing efforts of millions of moral people who:
- want to remind people that justice has not yet been done.
- To show Mr Blair that, despite his requests for people to move on from Iraq, the mass murder he committed will not be forgotten.
- To put pressure on the authorities of the United Kingdom and America and the countries Bush Jr. and Blair travels through to prosecute them for a crime against peace, or to deliver them for prosecution to the International Criminal Court.
- To discourage other people (Obama) from repeating their crimes.
If you want to put me down for these noble efforts, you go right ahead. I guess some people can sleep better at night than others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Panda, posted 05-31-2012 7:41 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Panda, posted 06-01-2012 10:11 AM dronestar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 80 of 103 (664481)
06-01-2012 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by dronestar
06-01-2012 9:44 AM


Re: "it's MOSTLY symbolic"
dronester writes:
No, I also have the encouragement of other people of good conscience in the world
...which in no way supports your claim.
dronester writes:
- want to remind people that justice has not yet been done.
- To show Mr Blair that, despite his requests for people to move on from Iraq, the mass murder he committed will not be forgotten.
- To put pressure on the authorities of the United Kingdom and America and the countries Bush Jr. and Blair travels through to prosecute them for a crime against peace, or to deliver them for prosecution to the International Criminal Court.
- To discourage other people (Obama) from repeating their crimes.
And - I repeat - after 10 years you have nothing.
(And you should not copy and paste from other sources without giving credit.)
It has been almost a decade since the invasion of Iraq and neither Bush nor Blair are convicted war criminals.
Your claim that Obama's conviction is "just a matter of time" is completely unsupported.
dronester writes:
I guess some people can sleep better at night than others.
Yes - I am sure that you sleep perfectly fine.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dronestar, posted 06-01-2012 9:44 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by dronestar, posted 06-01-2012 10:33 AM Panda has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 81 of 103 (664484)
06-01-2012 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Panda
06-01-2012 10:11 AM


Re: "it's MOSTLY symbolic"
Panda writes:
And - I repeat - after 10 years you have nothing.
(And you should not copy and paste from other sources without giving credit.)
Still wrong. In addition to the encouragement of millions of moral people and human rights groups, I also have the disdain of people who continue to support war criminals.
(I did re-word the source, but it wouldn't have killed me to give it credit. Mea culpa, MOJOBET89: Daftar 14 Situs Judi Slot Online Terpercaya dan Terlengkap Tahun Ini)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Panda, posted 06-01-2012 10:11 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Panda, posted 06-01-2012 11:06 AM dronestar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 82 of 103 (664486)
06-01-2012 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by dronestar
06-01-2012 10:33 AM


Re: "it's MOSTLY symbolic"
dronester writes:
I also have the disdain of people who continue to support war criminals.
Who would that be?
Anyway, back to your initial claim:
It has been almost a decade since the invasion of Iraq and neither Bush nor Blair are convicted war criminals.
Your claim that Obama's conviction is "just a matter of time" is completely unsupported.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by dronestar, posted 06-01-2012 10:33 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by dronestar, posted 06-01-2012 11:33 AM Panda has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 83 of 103 (664488)
06-01-2012 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Panda
06-01-2012 11:06 AM


"it's still, MOSTLY, symbolic"
Panda writes:
Who would that be?
I would say people who feel the need to make snarky remarks would at least be good possibilities . . .
Panda writes:
Anyway, congratulations on finding some people who didn't like the war.
That must have taken you quite some time.
Panda writes:
Anyway, back to your initial claim:
Yes, instead of our on-going, off-topic piffle, please do address all of my initial claim:
Drone writes:
And Obama? As a senator, SENATOR Obama clearly showed that he SUPPORTED impeachable offenses including torture:
The 35 Articles of Impeachment by Kucinich was never supported by Obama. Obama took an oath to uphold the constitution and laws, but that only meant for the 99%, not for war criminal Bush Jr.
Not Found
Not only didN'T president Obama assign investigators to Bush Jr.'s war crimes, President Obama ALSO went out of his way to PROTECT war criminal 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 that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A "confidential" April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Departmentone of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaksdetails how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.
Page not found – Mother Jones
Perhaps I would have more convictions to offer if the Obama administration didn't derail prosecutions, yes or no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Panda, posted 06-01-2012 11:06 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Panda, posted 06-01-2012 12:06 PM dronestar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 84 of 103 (664491)
06-01-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by dronestar
06-01-2012 11:33 AM


Re: "it's still, MOSTLY, symbolic"
dronester writes:
I also have the disdain of people who continue to support war criminals.
Panda writes:
Who would that be?
dronester writes:
I would say people who feel the need to make snarky remarks would at least be good possibilities . . .
Judging from that reply, that would include yourself.
Are you not able to clearly state who you are talking about?
Do you have a problem communicating?
dronester writes:
*dronester finally realises that his claim has no merit and so tries to change the subject*
So - back to your claim:
dronester writes:
Lastly, since Obama maintains the same policy of disappearance and torture of the Bush administration and has expanded the use of illegal and immoral drone missile assassinations, it is only a matter of time before Obama will also be correctly charged as a war criminal.
It has been almost a decade since the invasion of Iraq and neither Bush nor Blair are convicted war criminals.
Your claim that Obama's conviction is "just a matter of time" is completely unsupported.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by dronestar, posted 06-01-2012 11:33 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by onifre, posted 06-01-2012 12:33 PM Panda has replied
 Message 87 by dronestar, posted 06-01-2012 12:37 PM Panda has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 85 of 103 (664492)
06-01-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Rahvin
05-31-2012 3:01 PM


Re: "we think the price is worth it."
How many of his victims are you willing to sacrifice, waiting for a better opportunity?
I'm not the one who made the claim that they'd willingly kill a dozen innocent kids to kill a monster killing kids. Frankly, it's baffling that you'd even make that statement.
Whether the drone strike is authorized or not, innocent lives are still being sacrificed. The only difference is who specifically pulls the trigger, and who allows the trigger to be pulled. If you pass up the opportunity, Kony gets more time with his army, causing yet more rape, more forced child soldiers, more killing. More death and suffering, for far more than another dozen children. Children that are sacrificed by the choice to pass up the opportunity to stop it, just as other children would be sacrificed in order to put an end to the inhumanity.
Yes, but the solution is not to kill a dozen kids, or maybe more given that drone attack missions fail a lot, to spare the lives of other kids.
It's a ridiculous point that you're trying to pass off as the best solution. Who the fuck gives you the right, or the US given that they would be the one's sending the drones, to choose which kid's lives are worth sacrificing and which one's are not?
There are no good choices.
Yes there is one good choice: don't send drones to willingly kill a dozen children and possibly more. It makes us no better than Kony.
Our job, as those responsible for the decision in the hypothetical scenario, is to choose the option that is least bad.
IF one of the options is to willingly kill a dozen children, then that is not a good option. It would make us the same as Kony. Killing children to kill someone who is killing children is pretty fucking stupid to even consider.
Do you think that not taking the shot in this hypothetical scenario would result in less death and suffering? Why, or why not?
What would you do?
We can get into this deeper if you'd like, but one thing to do is actually fix the issues that is effecting the area. Killing Kony does nothing because his army will still be intact.
Sending a drone, killing Kony and a dozen other kids leaves Kony dead and a dozen kids too, but does nothing to dismantle his army as his second in command will take over...as we've seen with the Taliban and other terrorist groups.
So now you have Kony dead, another person takes his place carrying on as usual, and you willingly killed a dozen kids... Great solution.
How about doing some actual work to help build up the area with food, medicine, infrastructure, military support? How about sending troups in to take out Kony's entire army? How about going in and placing the kids in a safe area while Kony's army is taken out completely?
There are many options. Sending drones to willingly kill a dozen kids just to take out one person, who would be repleaced, does absolutely nothing.
As opposed to sarcasm and outrage
I can't help it when I see dumb shit said, it's my nature to be sarcastic. It was also the way you made the statement, that you'd willingly kill a dozen kids to kill a man who's killing kids!. How could you not expect complete and total mockery when you make that kind of statement?
...and if there is a real logical and practical argument to never accept collateral damage I would very much like to hear it.
Collateral damage is not what I'm disagreeing with, it's the drones who are sent to kill ONE MAN in hopes that that does what? If you said, lets send an army in there to take out his entire army, and in that process some lives are lost but in the end Kony and his army are brought down AND we will aid them in rebuilding that area so no future Kony's can rise up, ok. It makes sense. But you didn't say that. You said you'd be ok with sending a drone to kill a dozen kids to HOPEFULLY kill Kony. That was stupid.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Rahvin, posted 05-31-2012 3:01 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Rahvin, posted 06-01-2012 2:26 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 86 of 103 (664495)
06-01-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Panda
06-01-2012 12:06 PM


Re: "it's still, MOSTLY, symbolic"
It has been almost a decade since the invasion of Iraq and neither Bush nor Blair are convicted war criminals.
Your claim that Obama's conviction is "just a matter of time" is completely unsupported.
You must be having a problem reading...
He didn't say "convicted" he said CHARGED.
Dronester writes:
Lastly, since Obama maintains the same policy of disappearance and torture of the Bush administration and has expanded the use of illegal and immoral drone missile assassinations, it is only a matter of time before Obama will also be correctly charged as a war criminal.
Which seems like his opinion based off of the charges that Bush and Blair have received, as you've been shown. Whether you think the tribunal is valid or not, they still were charged.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Panda, posted 06-01-2012 12:06 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 06-01-2012 12:47 PM onifre has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 87 of 103 (664496)
06-01-2012 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Panda
06-01-2012 12:06 PM


Re: "it's still, MOSTLY, symbolic"
Drone writes:
Judging from that reply, that would include yourself.
You really believe I am criticizing AND supporting war criminals at the same time?
Panda writes:
*dronester finally realises that his claim has no merit and so tries to change the subject*
Huh? Change the subject?
My first post, Message 54, which you originally replied to included this:
Drone writes:
And Obama? As a senator, SENATOR Obama clearly showed that he SUPPORTED impeachable offenses including torture:
The 35 Articles of Impeachment by Kucinich was never supported by Obama. Obama took an oath to uphold the constitution and laws, but that only meant for the 99%, not for war criminal Bush Jr.
Not Found
Not only didN'T president Obama assign investigators to Bush Jr.'s war crimes, President Obama ALSO went out of his way to PROTECT war criminal 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 that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A "confidential" April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Departmentone of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaksdetails how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.
Page not found – Mother Jones
This is from the post you initially replied to. Check it out Message 54, it's recorded history. C'mon Panda, I got the substance of your reply: my post was heavy on symbolism and soft on evidence. Indeed, before your replies, in my first post, I voluntarily posted that the tribunal was "MOSTLY symbolic." Stop beating a dead horse (and being a jerk). Let's move on to the rest of my initial post . . .
Do you agree or not agree: I would have more convictions to offer if the Obama administration didn't derail national and international prosecutions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Panda, posted 06-01-2012 12:06 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Panda, posted 06-01-2012 12:54 PM dronestar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 88 of 103 (664498)
06-01-2012 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by onifre
06-01-2012 12:33 PM


Re: "it's still, MOSTLY, symbolic"
onifre writes:
He didn't say "convicted" he said CHARGED.
Oh! Charged.
But not convicted.
Ok. I'll fix that for you:
It has been almost a decade since the invasion of Iraq and neither Bush nor Blair have been charged as war criminals.
Your claim that Obama's conviction is "just a matter of time" is completely unsupported.
btw: I charge you as a war criminal.
onifre writes:
Which seems like his opinion based off of the charges that Bush and Blair have received, as you've been shown. Whether you think the tribunal is valid or not, they still were charged.
But you have also been charged as a war criminal, so I expect you to take that position.
Whether you think my tribunal is valid or not, you still were charged.
But if you want to move Dronester's claim into the "virtually meaningless" category, then be my guest.
Since Bush and Blair have been symbolically (i.e. not in any legal sense) charged of war crimes by 5 people, I agree that the chances of Obama also being symbolically (i.e. not in any legal sense) charged of war crimes by 5 people is likely.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by onifre, posted 06-01-2012 12:33 PM onifre has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 89 of 103 (664499)
06-01-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by dronestar
06-01-2012 12:37 PM


Re: "it's still, MOSTLY, symbolic"
dronester writes:
You really believe I am criticizing AND supporting war criminals at the same time?
Are you not able to clearly state who you are talking about?
Do you have a problem communicating?
dronester writes:
Change the subject?
No thanks.
Your first post, Message 54, which I originally replied to included this:
quote:
Lastly, since Obama maintains the same policy of disappearance and torture of the Bush administration and has expanded the use of illegal and immoral drone missile assassinations, it is only a matter of time before Obama will also be correctly charged as a war criminal.
This is from the post I initially replied to. Check it out Message 54, it's recorded history.
dronster writes:
Do you agree or not agree: I would have more convictions to offer if the Obama administration didn't derail national and international prosecutions?
It has been almost a decade since the invasion of Iraq and neither Bush nor Blair are charged as war criminals.
Your claim that Obama will also be charged is "just a matter of time" is completely unsupported.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by dronestar, posted 06-01-2012 12:37 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by dronestar, posted 06-01-2012 1:07 PM Panda has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 90 of 103 (664500)
06-01-2012 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Panda
06-01-2012 12:54 PM


Re: "it's still, MOSTLY, symbolic"
Great job Panda. Your humanity, intelligence, morality, attention to detail, and comprehension are indeed high standards for us all to emulate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Panda, posted 06-01-2012 12:54 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Panda, posted 06-01-2012 6:40 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024