Fiscally Conservative, Socially tolerant, Anti-War
Will, Will, Will...My sir. Surely you know better than to challenge our Nobel Peace Prize-winning (ha!) President and Dear Leader in regard to his "war-mongering". It is a sure fact that ONLY those pesky and hawkish Republicans want to kill everyone and take over the world through military endeavors.President Obama is a man of peace, reconciliation, and mediation. He wants the best for all of us, and has the track record to prove it. He is a kind, caring, and warm individual, wise beyond his years and fearsome in his resolve.I simply don't know if I can continue to come here if you seek to be so hateful, racist, and vitriolic towards our Dearest Leader, the Socialist/Democrat Savior of America. You are making my inner child cry, Will.*sarcasm is now officially OFF*Will. No one will question this about Obama. Remember, since he isn't GWB, he is a teflon President, and all his ways are pure and good. Just ask MSNBC.
I actually don't have a major problem with the drone strikes (though, yes, by now, we may be at a point of diminishing returns). I was just being a devil's advocate.......I do that a lot, as you've probably noticed. LOL
Will, of course I have noticed. :) I'm hoping you notice my dripping sarcasm and snarkiness.We understand one another as represented in this online world of screen names and fonts. Otherwise, I wouldn't have returned at all.You okay with me, Will. :)
Will Hart = crank.I was in total agreement with ecc102 until he revealed he was being sarcastic.I *DO* have a major problem with the drone strikes... but that's just the partisan stooge in me talking.
w-dervish,You powers of deduction are stupefying. Good thing I put, "*sarcasm is now officially OFF*" to clue you in.LOL!
wd, the fact that you refuse to use the term, "war criminal", when describing a Democrat speaks for itself.......ecc102, yes, I'm totally on board with the sarcasm. Keep it coming, my bra. As a big I Independent, I totally find your small r brand of Republicanism refreshing. Enough already with the Limbaughs and Olbermanns.
Olbermann is surely at the top of his profession. Ever since he went to that... what was it network?
So you're back to being an "Independent" again? Your "Blue Dog" phase didn't last very long... longer than your "liberal" phase though.As for Obama... this is the reason he didn't want to prosecute bush... so he could continue bush's illegal programs. I think we should try them both.Keith Olbermann is a good and decent man. I think it is shameful that you continually compare him to a piece of human debris like Limbaugh. Frankly it illustrates how you have absolutely no morals, IMHO.Will: I totally find your small r brand of Republicanism refreshing.I find it nauseating, but it looks like Will might be falling in love. Careful! Remember the object of your affection doesn't like the homos.
@w-dervish,Oh, princess, is you wanting some lovin' from me? Don't be so jealous and eager.So, using the word "homos", as you did...does this make you a homophobe? Oh, wait, no. You're a liberal. It makes you one of the girls.*yawn* You are boring me.
ecc102: Oh, princess, is you wanting some lovin' from me? Don't be so jealous and eager.Making a joke at Will's expense is me appearing "jealous and eager"? I think someone has an over inflated opinion of himself. This is probably why he fears the homos so much... he's worried about getting raped by one. ecc102: *yawn* You are boring me.Then why do you keep commenting? I imagine you're laughing to yourself as you type your (self-perceived) witty comments.dmarks: Olbermann is surely at the top of his profession. Ever since he went to that... what was it network?Current. Al Gore's network. But I'm sure dmarks knew that. I wouldn't be surprised if dmarks watches it religiously.
WD: "As for Obama... this is the reason he didn't want to prosecute bush... so he could continue bush's illegal programs.The armchair attorney strikes again."But I'm sure dmarks knew that. I wouldn't be surprised if dmarks watches it religiously."No, it's not on here. I don't know of anyone around here who watches it either.
I've been a registered Independent for over 30 years, wd. And, yes, I said that if I was FORCED to join a political party, I would probably be a Democrat (this, in that they're seemingly more tolerant these days of diversity/moderation) - a blue-dog Democrat (this, in that I'm far more in tune with people like Evan Bayh and Mary Landrieu than I am with Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders). And as for me being a chameleon, yeah, I do change my mind from time to time (as times change, as evidence becomes clearer, etc.). You might want to try it once every century or so.
A 2/1/2009 LA Times story says, "The European Parliament condemned renditions as an illegal instrument used by the United States" (a program that is being continued by the Obama administration).I'm sure there are at least a few actual attorneys in the British parliament... but according to dmarks they are all "armchair".Armchair Attorney = person offering a legal opinion that dmarks disagrees with.Will: I do change my mind from time to time...Perhaps Mitt is your man then... being a fellow flip-flopper. Plus he's a Moderate (or was until he changed his mind).
It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with an "opinion". It has to do with whether or not it is factual.
CHANGE of SUBJECT If you ever wondered why baseball is called "america's pastime" you got your answer if you watched the Cards,Rangers game tonight.Classic...classic....classic!
dmarks: It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with an "opinion". It has to do with whether or not it is factual.Mr. "My opinion is fact" strikes again.I expect a comment from Will agreeing with this... as this type of commenting seems to really bother him (he's accused me of it). But then again, you're a Conservative... and from his other comments we know he prefers to suck up to your type (ecc102 being the latest example).Anyway, I take it that dmarks thinks Extraordinary Rendition is perfectly legal. I'd ask WHY, but that would likely be a waste of time... dmarks probably thinks it's legal because neither US courts nor the ICC have initiated prosecutions.In dmarks world when the authorities turn a blind eye to illegalities those illegalities magically become perfectly legal.Rusty: you got your answer if you watched the Cards, Rangers game tonight.I was completely unaware there was a baseball game on.
"Mr. "My opinion is fact" strikes again."That wasn't me."In dmarks world when the authorities turn a blind eye to illegalities"You pre-suppose 'illegality'. But these incidents aren't illegal. Despite the allegations of one organization of nations. One with, as Al Gore put it, "no controlling legal authority".The LA Timea article, which sticks to journalistic standards (usually pretty high) of what is illegal or a crime or not, uses this accurate language: "But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool."It's not a matter of a blind eye. It's a simple matter of lack of evidence.
By the way, the story is here.Note this paragraph: "High quality global journalism requires investment."Judges are investigating in Germany, Sweden and Spain while Portugal has also begun an inquiry into the use of bases in the Azores, though Jose Socrates, prime minister, this week said no laws were broken."But they investigated... and found nothing. Did you see the dateline? It's more than four years ago. The adults in the room, the actual authorities, rejected the claims. This is so long ago. The Euro parliament issued a paper alleging something. But it turns out to have fallen short of the standard of illegality even to warrant it coming to a trial.Sorry, amateur punditry, antisemitic failed attorneys who fling "War Criminal!" charges without any basis, imagination and rejected claims do not make for "illegality".
Yes WD,you are completely unaware.I do feel sorry for you.
dmarks: ...amateur punditry, anti-Semitic failed attorneys who fling "War Criminal!" charges without any basis, imagination and rejected claims...Mr. Strawman strikes again. Francis Boyle being a critic of Israel has absolutely nothing to do with bush's wars being illegal. There is a basis, which would be the UN Charter. It says the UN decides the course of action when disputes between two nations arise. bush decided by himself to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases the UN said "no".Also, I WAS referring to you when I said, "Mr. My Opinion is fact".If any "actual authorities" say torture is OK... I strongly disagree. Moral people know torture is wrong... and in violation of the Geneva Conventions.According to the Geneva Conventions, "the most serious crimes... provide a legal definition of a war crime. [These breaches] include... willful killing, TORTURE or inhumane treatment..."If dmarks agrees with "investigations" finding torture (or outsourced torture) is not illegal... despite moral people knowing that is complete BS (and despite what the Geneva Conventions say)... I think that says something about dmarks.Actually, I think it says something about Conservatives in general... they claim to possess superior morality, but in reality the exact opposite is the truth.I did not read your article. The website won't let me unless I register, which I don't want to do.
WD: Francis Boyle's antisemitism to the point of waxing fondly about the ethnic cleansing of the Israelis is relevant, she he is. OR was... your main source on the rejected wild claims about Bush."There is a basis, which would be the UN Charter."No, it is your interpretation of the charter. Which the people in the know, regardless of yours or my opinion, have rejected."If dmarks agrees with investigations finding torture..."I agree with the rule of law. If the courts reject claims, then I won't become a vigilante or crank and lie about illegality."I did not read your article. The website won't let me unless I register, which I don't want to do."I agree with you there.. I did not get blocked out of it until I reloaded it. It's not a good idea to close news sites like this.
dmarks, Francis Bolye calling for "ethnic cleansing" is a lie of yours I previously debunked. I called you on it and asked for you to produce a verifiable statement from Mr. Boyle where he called for all the Jews in Israel to be killed. You ADMITTED he never made one. You can stop lying about this. Being critical of Israel doesn't make someone an anti-Semite.dmarks: No, it is your interpretation of the charter.I'm going by what the charter actually says. I am not "interpreting" it. The language is clear and simple. This "interpretation" line of yours is a cover so you can lie about what it says.I agree with the rule of law. We should follow the laws on the books (the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions) and not bend to the will of a Superpower that thinks it is above the law.
WD: I presented evidence of Boyle's support of the elimination of the Jewish Israelis. And you defended his views.I had nothing to "admit". I never claimed he said he wanted to kill them all (though that is perhaps the secret desire of any rabid antisemite). Only that he wanted genocide against his hated filthy Juden.Ethnic cleansing and genocide DO include expelling millions of people from their homes. And a supposedly non-deadly elimination of the Israelis as a people which Boyle supports would surely include a lot of deaths: people won't go into cattle cars voluntarily. You seem to be defending Boyle's vicious desire to destroy a nation of millions because he wants to do it slowly without killing a lot of people.You are defending the indefensible."Being critical of Israel doesn't make someone an anti-Semite."You are coming across as defending antisemitism yourself. Boyle wants to wipe out an entire nation. Genocide. That goes beyond mere "criticism of Israel". But it proves my point that such criticism is often based on good old fashioned antisemitism."I'm going by what the charter actually says. I am not interpreting it."News for you: We ALL interpret such things. There's no exceptions. Only an arrogant ass, or a Southern fundamentalist would claim that there is never interpretation of texts.Your last paragraph was nonsense. According to the rule of law, there have been no crimes. No war crimes, no illegalities. The mostly meaningless concept of "superpower" has no place in such law. That you mention it shows you are winging it.I side with the grown-ups. Not amateurs who interpret things. but those with actual authority to so. And the grownups have done so without regard to "superpowers".But come on. Boyle wanting to complete genocide against Jewish Israelis (in the form of a "Trail of Tears") goes beyond mere criticism of Israel. His antisemitism is found also in numerous other views, including his defense of Iran's nuclear weapons program (which is in support of Iran's goal of exterminating the Jews Boyle claims he only wants to be peacefully shipped out.
I will give an apology. "Ethnic cleansing is not to be confused with genocide". See this page.The two are related, but not the same.While Francis Boyle goes out on a limb to support groups, such as the Iranian government, who advocate genocide against the Jews, he himself advocates "ethnic cleansing", which in itself is a serious major human rights catastrophe. One that, when it happens, really DOES get people brought up on war crimes charges.Slobodan Milosevic did this in the nations he invaded.Boyle's desire to eliminate a nation by the "peacable" means of expulsion fits well " a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas."
dmarks: ...he himself advocates "ethnic cleansing"...No, he doesn't. I asked for a quote. You couldn't give one.dmarks: Boyle's desire to eliminate a nation by the "peaceable" means of expulsion fits well "a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent...Violent and peaceable have opposite meanings. His views do not "fit well" with the meaning of "ethnic cleansing" at all.I can't find anything written by Boyle that says he favors EXPLUSION of Jews from Israel. This, I believe, is completely a product of your imagination. This seems to be your MO......when you don't like someone you twist their positions/statements to make what they've said sound a LOT worse. You did the same thing with Bill Maher (and his comment about retarded children).dmarks: You are defending the indefensible.I'm not defending anything. I've been clear from the first time you brought this up that I didn't agree with Francis Boyle's views on Israel. My point was that his views on Israel have nothing to do with bush's war crimes. This is a straw man you have constructed.You think if you "discredit" Francis Boyle that somehow changes what the UN Charter says.I think YOU'RE an arrogant ass... there is nothing in the portion of the UN Charter that I've quoted that can be "interpreted" to mean it was OK for bush to reject the Taliban's offer of negotiation and, instead, issue an ultimatum.Another reason dmarks is an ass... when I disagree with dmarks' wrong interpretation of what someone has said he concludes that I agree with his wrong interpretation. Before I "agreed" with Bill Maher's hatred of "retards", now I'm "agreeing" with Francis Boyle's hatred of "filthy Juden".Neither person said any such thing, but clearly lying is the only way dmarks can "win" an argument. This is what someone who is desperate does when the facts are not on their side.dmarks: Your last paragraph was nonsense.If you think the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions are "nonsense"... why not argue that the US withdraw from these agreements instead of putting forward this nonsense argument about me interpreting them incorrectly?
wd, I reject any comparison of me and Mitt Romney. I have never made a 180 out of convenience and/or political expediency. I change my mind as the circumstances change, and sometimes when I'm wrong. Take, the drones, for example. I wrote a number of pieces in '08 that were extremely critical of Mr. Obama's proposal on drone attacks. When, however, they seemed to doing the job, I relented (this, though, yes, at this stage, we've perhaps reached a point of diminishing returns).
"If you think the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions are "nonsense""No, I was not referring to the charer and conventions. I was merely referring to uninformed interpretations of them.The UN Charter and Geneva Conventions really haven't been at issue here.
Post a Comment