Obama is a Muslim

[Gadarene]

See? I got fooled too. Never again will I try to please a liberal. It's impossible because you only believe the mainstream media who print what you want to hear. Sorry about the spyware but I didn't have any problems.

I love how your failure to read or vet your own sources is blamed on the people you're discussing with. And we're the ones who aren't interested in truth?

 

[Gadarene]

Well, nothing I say would be relevant to you, an atheist and a liberal.

Nothing you say IS relevant, it would seem - but this is all on you, and your incapability to formulate anything remotely resembling a cogent argument.

 

[Gadarene]

Not downplaying anything. It's you who are trying to downplay Obama's use of drones on American citizens as well as innocents in countries we are not at war with.

Telling you that you need to get perspective, particularly when you make incredibly ignorant statements about conservative administrations like that of Nixon (such as saying his decisions didn't leave lasting effects) is not downplaying Obama's usage of drones.

I've already said he's used the same problematic standard used by previous admins of retroactively declaring dead civilians to be "enemy combatants".

I've already said that any number of dead civilians is to be avoided, but that it is nonetheless true that the current drone program has killed fewer civilians, even once you take the deceptive classification of "enemy combatants" into account.

And yes, it is a problem that such attacks are being carried out in violation of the sovereignty of other countries. That doesn't mean it isn't somehow less problematic when innocent civilians are killed during official wartime.

See these sorts of statements? They're what you call nuance, P91. It is possible to decry something as BAD while realising that there are things out there that are WORSE.

You don't even know what you are talking about. O'Reilly asked Obama if he was the most liberal president ever and he responded: No, Nixon was more liberal. Then someone posted that Nixon believed in abortion in cases of "mixed" relationships, which I responded to by saying that was a stupid way of thinking or something like that. There was nothing said about Viet Nam until until someone said they had drones way back in Viet Nam. I asked if they were used and that's when all of you liberals piped in with napalm, etc. in order to lessen the importance of Obama's kill lists and his attacks on U.S. citizens overseas, not just killing terrorists but also their families and neighbors. We are not at war with Yemen or Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan has told Obama to stop it.

Many of us brought up Vietnam because you made a stupid statement about Nixon's admin not having any longterm effects or not using drones. That was the statement being responded to with references to Vietnam, not the initial statement you made about this interview.

Just because none of you know what is going on in this world and you think Obama is just a regular president you think you have to diminish what I say in order to lessen the effect of Obama's murderous ways. He even said that he's "good at killing".

You diminish your own point by saying daft things like Nixon's admin not having any serious longterm effects.

Even if it's a joke, who on earth would say such a thing? You all need to get over your conservative hatred and start studying what is really going on these days.

I don't hate conservatives. However, I don't take a particularly kind view to people who say ridiculous things like that Nixon's thoughts don't affect the world now, or implying that Obama is worse because Nixon WASN'T using drones in Vietnam (which you were wrong about) - and then accuse OTHERS of being biased.

You know nothing. And at the very least, please follow the thread and posts so you know what is going on here. You don't even know that.

Dunning-Kruger effect in action, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Gadarene]

Yeah, I knew we'd have to compare him to Bush. Everything is Bush's fault.

Nope - just that if what you're really concerned about is innocent deaths, there are presidents out there that have done far worse. But focusing on one who has done proportionally less killing and calling him the worst of the bunch is somewhat inconsistent.

Remember how the media regurgitated the waterboarding supposed "torture" during the Bush administration? Oh and how about the torture of Iraqi's by soldiers leading them around with leashes around their necks and taking pictures of them without any clothes? You would have thought Bush was in the pictures humiliating the men himself. But now we have a president killing people with drones and all you can say is that you're very much against it. Drones kill people. Waterboarding and taking pictures of leashed men doesn't.

Astounding, P91, you seem to have noticed that not all abuses of human rights are fatal.

Where would we be without you to point this out?

Now he is killing people with drones and some are U.S. citizens. His NSA is spying on us.

His NSA? You do know PRISM etc were incepted during the Bush administration, right?

He is absolutely in the wrong to have kept using the programs, but let's not pretend again that this is something he alone is responsible for. The NSA programs of interception of internet data is a natural extension of the administrative mindset that produced the wiretapping culture of the Patriot Act.

Nixon was forced to resign for less. Clinton was impeached for less. And this guy gets away with everything. The media refuses to talk about most of what he does so they are defending him and the liberals here refuse to see anything wrong because for the most part, they think abortion is okay and forced insurance plans are okay even if they are much more expensive.

Here as in within the US, or here as in within CF?

I've never once said the drone program or PRISM etc were ok. I'd love to see heads roll for their continued use, but there would ideally be more than a few heads rolling from the previous administration as well.

And drones are okay because Bush was a bad president too. And napalm was used in Viet Nam, for heaven's sake.

No-one has said this. If you want to argue, learn to actually read what was said.

No-one has said that drones or napalm are ok. It has only been pointed out that if you are going to refer to innocents killed, then the current admin's drone program has killed a far smaller proportion of innocents compared to the military actions of previous admins. And previous admins have also used indiscriminate, unstoppable weapons - to a far greater extent.

I'll say this slowly now so you can get it.

That still doesn't mean that the drone program is okay.

Got it? So can you please calm down with the silly stereotyping?

 

[Gadarene]

Did the president have a "kill list"?

Enemies list? Most wanted list?

The issue is that one of the terrorists was an American and the next day they killed his son. Doesn't that matter to you? And yet when the Muslim soldier at Ft. Hood, who had contacted Al-Awlaki, killed other soldiers, Obama referred to it as some workplace conflict or something. He defended the Ft. Hood shooter but sent a drone after Al-Awlaki and his son.

What law is there to protect U.S. citizens in this country from a drone? A U.S. citizen overseas certainly wasn't protected. If Bush had been president, we'd be hearing about it 24hrs. a day.

I'm so sick of liberals and their double standard. They always pretend to be the "caring" party, unless they have to decide between another citizen and their beloved, lying president. They go to extremes to defend him. It's almost comical, if it weren't so sad.

It's rather telling that these things are suddenly a much bigger problem when it's a US citizen on the receiving end of them.

All men are created equal, but OH NOES A US CITIZEN GOT TAKEN OUT?! THAT IS SO MUCH WORSE!

Killing innocents isn't a much bigger problem now because one of your own got erased. It's always been a problem, and it's rather depressing that this is what it took to get some people to care.

 

[snowfam]

Enemies list? Most wanted list?

It's rather telling that these things are suddenly a much bigger problem when it's a US citizen on the receiving end of them.

All men are created equal, but OH NOES A US CITIZEN GOT TAKEN OUT?! THAT IS SO MUCH WORSE!

Killing innocents isn't a much bigger problem now because one of your own got erased. It's always been a problem, and it's rather depressing that this is what it took to get some people to care.

While I agree with the broader idealogical stand of your argument, I must point out that American citizens have certian protections from the government, that are not afforded to the greater world population, weather or not it meets with ones ideals it is the law. That being said historically our presidents have had little regard for the rights of humans to life, some have been supporters of abortions, some have dropped atomic bombs, others have started two wars in the space of a year, and still others have without regard murdered untold numbers while aiding in the fight to topple sovereign governments, the great thing I see in this argument is that the polarization of the amerikan people makes this possible and the people eat it up. I mean George Bush is a war criminal according to democrats (he is factually by international and amerikan law a war criminal) but to republicans he is a saint, on the other hand when Obama wants to do what amounts to the same thing the sides are flipped. It really is amazingly subjective as if there is no objective truth but the party line (very 1984 if you ask me). So while everybody insists that their party is double plus good we have a government doing virtually whatever it wants. Liberalism and conservatism are just good idealogical talking points they have nothing to do with whats really going on.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

Nope - just that if what you're really concerned about is innocent deaths, there are presidents out there that have done far worse. But focusing on one who has done proportionally less killing and calling him the worst of the bunch is somewhat inconsistent.

Saying one President is worse than another when it comes to deaths, between Obama and Bush, is like saying one piece of turd smells worse than another piece of turd.

 

[Gadarene]

While I agree with the broader idealogical stand of your argument, I must point out that American citizens have certian protections from the government, that are not afforded to the greater world population, weather or not it meets with ones ideals it is the law.

Yes, I realise this. The point is it's still a sorry state that rights violations only seem to register more strongly (if at all) when it's an American citizen that gets killed.

And I'm not claiming that America is uniquely bad at this. The same parochial mindset exists to some degree in all countries, but I do still find it ironic among Americans given that the declaration of independence explicitly acknowledges the rights it's securing for Americans are actually universal.

That being said historically our presidents have had little regard for the rights of humans to life, some have been supporters of abortions, some have dropped atomic bombs, others have started two wars in the space of a year, and still others have without regard murdered untold numbers while aiding in the fight to topple sovereign governments, the great thing I see in this argument is that the polarization of the amerikan people makes this possible and the people eat it up. I mean George Bush is a war criminal according to democrats (he is factually by international and amerikan law a war criminal) but to republicans he is a saint, on the other hand when Obama wants to do what amounts to the same thing the sides are flipped. It really is amazingly subjective as if there is no objective truth but the party line (very 1984 if you ask me). So while everybody insists that their party is double plus good we have a government doing virtually whatever it wants. Liberalism and conservatism are just good idealogical talking points they have nothing to do with whats really going on.

I agree with this to some extent. Every Party needs a Goldstein. It's one better than the situation in 1984 in that there's the illusion of choice.

My argument is simply that if you're only concerned about rights violations occurring now, as individuals like Psalm 91 appear to be, then you're coming along incredibly late to the party to throw around judgement on people who have been pointing these things out for far longer.

 

[Gadarene]

Saying one President is worse than another when it comes to deaths, between Obama and Bush, is like saying one piece of turd smells worse than another piece of turd.

It's nitpicking over the size of the turd, I suppose.

You can't polish a turd either, but you can apparently elect a succession of them into office.

 

[snowfam]

It's nitpicking over the size of the turd, I suppose.

You can't polish a turd either, but you can apparently elect a succession of them into office.

Don't feel bad most people think their turd don't stink.

 

[Supreme]

It's nitpicking over the size of the turd, I suppose.

You can't polish a turd either, but you can apparently elect a succession of them into office.

Yep, America seems to have had quite a problem with that over the last few years.

 

[Gadarene]

Yep, America seems to have had quite a problem with that over the last few years.

We're not exactly perfect either. Both present and previous governments have used drone attacks and availed themselves of GCHQ's snooping.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

We're not exactly perfect either. Both present and previous governments have used drone attacks and availed themselves of GCHQ's snooping.

I think this is a problem globally with those in power; I wish the premise of Star Trek would actually come true.

 

[Gadarene]

I think this is a problem globally with those in power; I wish the premise of Star Trek would actually come true.

Which one?

 

[Psalm 91]

While I agree with the broader idealogical stand of your argument, I must point out that American citizens have certian protections from the government, that are not afforded to the greater world population, weather or not it meets with ones ideals it is the law. That being said historically our presidents have had little regard for the rights of humans to life, some have been supporters of abortions, some have dropped atomic bombs, others have started two wars in the space of a year, and still others have without regard murdered untold numbers while aiding in the fight to topple sovereign governments, the great thing I see in this argument is that the polarization of the amerikan people makes this possible and the people eat it up. I mean George Bush is a war criminal according to democrats (he is factually by international and amerikan law a war criminal) but to republicans he is a saint, on the other hand when Obama wants to do what amounts to the same thing the sides are flipped. It really is amazingly subjective as if there is no objective truth but the party line (very 1984 if you ask me). So while everybody insists that their party is double plus good we have a government doing virtually whatever it wants. Liberalism and conservatism are just good idealogical talking points they have nothing to do with whats really going on.

I do not like Bush. Period. He was as much a liar and murderer as Obama is. I just get sick of the fact that liberals cannot find any other argument than "Bush did it too!".

I am no longer a Democrat or a Republican because they are one and the same. They only pretend to be different. I doubt that I will ever vote again because it doesn't matter what the people want. Elections are decided long before November.

I agree that the two parties talking points have nothing to do with what is going on. However, I believe that conservatism and liberalism does effect what is going on. Liberals, those who are really aware (not the liberals here who know nothing), are very happy now. They see their chance to take over this country and turn it into a socialist nation. Unfortunately however, they also have much more sinister plans for a global takeover. Conservatives who are not religious, remain true to the Constitution and the original values of this country. But they don't do anything about what is happening except yell a lot and start a Tea Party and choose candidates who would never win. Christian conservatives, many of them also naïve and unaware of what is really happening while many are aware, follow what the Word of God says and know that this world will only get worse. Some are preparing for the worst and some are praying that God will turn people's hearts back to Him. Good vs. Evil as always.

So I separate the party from the person.

 

[7he4uthor]

when a member says Clinton was impeached
we know some Toddler got moms computer

back to 0bama ,,,,
Obama says Uganda anti-gay bill would be 'step backward'

I think the bible forbids homosexuality ???

so is Obama calling bible backwards

 

[SepiaAndDust]

It's rather telling that these things are suddenly a much bigger problem when it's a US citizen on the receiving end of them.

All men are created equal, but OH NOES A US CITIZEN GOT TAKEN OUT?! THAT IS SO MUCH WORSE!

Killing innocents isn't a much bigger problem now because one of your own got erased. It's always been a problem, and it's rather depressing that this is what it took to get some people to care.

A US citizen being taken out by the US government is a separate matter. We have constitutional protections against government interference that non-citizens do not enjoy. The assumption is that one of those protections is against being blown to smithereens by the government.

Killing a non-citizen and killing a citizen have the same immediate effect--one person blown to smithereens--so neither is better or worse than the other. But, in the case of killing a US citizen, the government may have violated its own law to do so. And that's a big deal.

 

[Oafman]

We have constitutional protections against government interference that non-citizens do not enjoy.

Is that true? I though the constitution was mostly directives aimed at government, setting rules which it could not break, regardless of whether or not there was a citizen involved.

 

[Armoured]

Which one?

That we all get to have sex with Andorian slave girls, obviously.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Is that true? I though the constitution was mostly directives aimed at government, setting rules which it could not break, regardless of whether or not there was a citizen involved.

There's no part of the Constitution that comes right out and says "don't drone-bomb US citizens", but we have the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

the 6th Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

and the 8th Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

that could come into play under those circumstances. The people is generally regarded as being people covered by the Constitution--US citizens, at home or abroad, and (sometimes) anyone who is on US soil.