• kevinunknown said on Sep 07, 2009....

  I agree with these attacks regardless of who is sitting in the white house. Pakistan has become the new Afghanistan for terrorists so it makes sense to undertake pre-emptive strikes and clandestine operations before a full scale war is needed to combat the threat. These attacks are not against international law or human rights because, like you pointed out Pakistan is allowing them to take place and innocent people are not being deliberately targeted. You also said that 2009 has been the most deadly year for Pakistan but one could argue that is only because it has been the most successful year.  

  You appear to blog about this topic allot but don’t really understand it, you are clearly bias towards the Bush administration and those doses undermine your arguments somewhat, and you don’t present a knowledge of Pakistani politics, culture and Islamic terrorism. Also I find generally you talk about the drone attacks but fail to mention the roll of the intelligence services or talk about the clandestine operations being undertaken with in Pakistan as well as the role of the Pakistanis. Furthermore you’re not looking at the bigger picture hear; right now the collateral damage might seem unacceptable but the alternative is much worse. If Pakistan was left to its own devices terrorists would have the opportunity to regroup and carry out more sophisticated attacks inside western states and even more would die.

  I appreciate that your annoyed that Bush got criticized for this much more harshly than Obama has but you can’t just say “I agreed with this when Bush was in power but I don’t like Obama, so now I don’t agree with it”, that is totally hypocritical and how your argument comes across

   

• curmudgeon said on Sep 07, 2009....

  Kevin - You are the one who fails, over and over, to "get it."  Whether I support these strikes or not is completely beside the point. The point is that self-described human rights advocates and civil libertarians are looking the other way when their man is doing the bombing.
  
  I don't really give a shit what you support and what you think you understand about geopolitics or Islamic terrorism. I am not talking about any of this. I am talking about rhetoric and action. Among Obama supporters, on this issue the two just aren't lining up.
  
  If liberals actually do care about human rights, these strikes are clearly a no-brainer for protest, impeachment, criminal charges and prison. Obama is doing far worse today in Pakistan than CIA interrogators did several years ago, but there has been little if any vocal criticism from liberal quarters. If liberals think that assassinations with collateral damage are just fine, I really don't see how they can get so huffy about waterboarding. I certainly don't believe that they care about due process and human rights.
  
  Moreover, if violence begets violence, if bombing folks only creates more terrorists - this has been the liberal party line ever since Bush started in with the War on Terror stuff - then Obama is birthing new martyrs and new Islamic terrorists with these strikes.
  
  If Bush was a terrorist, and Obama is continuing Bush's policies, what does that make Obama?
  
  Here is the "big picture": Obama is saying one thing to the world's Muslims, and doing something completely different in Pakistan. Do you honestly think they're not going to see through this as the hypocritical bullshit it is, and act accordingly?
  

• ALIENated said on Sep 08, 2009....

  Curm, your problem is you are waiting for Democrats / Socialists to admit they were wrong in their treatment of Dubya. That is not going to happen. The elite know what is best for us, that is the bottom line. They actually believe all the baloney the mainstream media feeds them every day. The conservative talk shows sometimes go overboard as well, but they at least try to tell the truth. I was just thinking, where are all the biographies of Obama on the mainstream TV networks? What are they going to do with his past unless they just tell blatant lies about what he has done and who he has associated with in the past.

• kevinunknown said on Sep 08, 2009....

  Crum- I have a question for you; do your agree with these attacks? If you do then shut up and if you don’t then you also have to admit that Bush was also in the wrong, that is the predicament you put yourself in when you approach topics such as this form a partisan perspective and why your argument can be construed as being hypocritical. To some extent I do sympathise with you conservatives over the way Bush was treated because when he did this he was criticized but Obama as had no trouble thus far with the same policy. However Bush was an awful president and this is just one small part of his presidency people had a problem with.

  I still maintain that you have to have a good understanding to Pakistani politics, culture and Islamic terrorism to properly understand this subject, something you have thus far ignored. You also still seem to be looking at this with a narrow minded mindset you really need to look at the bigger picture once you understand the bigger picture then you will start to see how your argument is flawed

  Alien—your right, democrats will never apologise for their treatment of Bush, it is debatable whether an apology is necessary but all the same they will never apologise. Likewise the republicans would never apologies to the democrats, but that’s politics.

• mobil said on Sep 08, 2009....

  I get it, I aways get it..........but thanks for saying it here.

• stopmediabias said on Sep 08, 2009....

  I am feeling some serious deja vu here. 

  I wonder if Vincent Bugliasshole is going to write book calling for the conviction of Barack Obama for murder.

  I know Cindy Sheehan is still out there but funny how she has dropped right out of the news cycle.

  Is that fat bastard Michael Moore going to claim the Pakistani deaths are a war crime when liberal hollywood gives him another award for another pack of lies and propaganda?  Better yet is he going to do a cut and paste documentary on Pakistani murder?

  It is hilarious the pass this guy gets. 

• curmudgeon said on Sep 08, 2009....

  Kevin - You miss the point of this discussion over and over and over again. This is about leftist human rights and due process rhetoric in the United States, not about Pakistani politics.
  
  I understand - you see these airstrikes as an expedient, effective tactic in defeating Pakistan-based militants who may cross over into Afghanistan to destabilize their fledgling government. Kill off the terrorist leaders and we will hamper organizational effectiveness. You do not care who does this so long as it is done.
  
  The only thing that will vindicate this viewpoint is the outcome - which is quite far from being decided. Moreover, the risk here is destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan itself as anger mounts against America, especially if the Pakistani government is seen as tacitly approving these strikes. Pakistani militants have proven over and over that they can strike in urban areas and take over cities with little warning or resistance, then retire to the rural areas to regroup and fight again. It seems to me that their resolve is only hardened whenever American missiles kill civilians - however inadvertently. If Obama continues down this path he had better be resolved to kill and keep killing until order is restored.
  
  If he does continue with this, Obama has a major credibility problem here, because while he apologizes to Muslims out of one side of his mouth, he orders airstrikes on the other. Bush did not have to worry about credibility because he adopted a "for us or against us" stance, AND made it clear that he would do what he thought was necessary to protect the American People. Bombing Pakistan is a logical outflow of the Bush war on terror "doctrine." Obama has adopted a very different stance, but his actions are not lining up with his words. And his supporters are not calling him on it, which is the heart of my critique.
  
  
  

• kevinunknown said on Sep 09, 2009....

• kevinunknown said on Sep 09, 2009....

  SMB- what’s wrong with us man, I agree with you again about moore he’s so over rated

  Crum- I accept that you, as a conservative are annoyed that Obama is getting away with this where as Bush resaved harsh criticism. But you are arguing against these attacks on the basis that you think Obama is breaching human rights (he’s not really by the way) and once you start that you also have to admit that Bush was also breaching human rights otherwise your argument loses all credibility. The point you have made about these attacks motivating more terrorists is one of the same arguments used against the invasion of Iraq only in Iraq many more innocent’s have died.  Bush’s policy of “for us or against us” alienated allot of people and didn’t really work, Obama’s policy is more about a balance something I don’t think he has yet achieved and probably will never achieve but it is a step in the right direction.

  You didn’t answerer my question; are you for or against the attacks?

• curmudgeon said on Sep 10, 2009....

  Kevin - WRONG AGAIN! These breach of human rights arguments were leveled against Bush, and are not being leveled at Obama. You keep getting this exactly backwards. You are obstinately trying to peg me as some kind of hypocrite when all I am doing is criticizing anti-Bush rhetoric and calling out the self-described human rights advocates on the loony left.
  
  What I am offering up with this thread is the criticism that ought to be coming from the "peace and love" crowd but is not because it is their guy ordering these killings. I matters not whether I am actually for or against what Obama is doing.
  
  Last time - I could be for rendition, waterboarding, assassination, special operations incursions, CIA black operations, computer hacking, and outright bombing campaigns against those who plot to kill Americans, BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS THREAD.
  

• kevinunknown said on Sep 10, 2009....

  I have already said I sympathise with your point about Obama getting away with this were as Bush was criticized for it. But you are arguing against these attacks consistently in your blogs on this subject and without being to condescending you clearly know nothing about it, I mean really, you only ever blog about the drone attacks. You can’t see how hypocritical your argument is and by not answering my question your argument loses even more credibility. Move on from these attacks to something else like Obama’s stance on abortion because this argument is so weak I don’t even know why you bother.  

• curmudgeon said on Sep 10, 2009....

  Excuse me - you keep saying I know nothing about it but offer none of your own knowledge on the subject. Two posts up I summed up your own position and outlined the risks of this missile campaign on stability in Pakistan.
  
  In your last few exchanges, you have said nothing about what you know of Pakistani politics. You only harp on one insignificant portion of this discussion because you think it makes me a hypocrite. Your criticism is monotonous. It is really quite clear that you know even less about this matter than I, otherwise you would offer us some of your vaunted wisdom.
  
  I will never shut up about this subject so long as so-called peaceniks remain silent.
  
  If you want a blog on abortion, I suggest you write it yourself. I do not do requests.
  

• curmudgeon said on Sep 10, 2009....

  OK - here is why I have reservations about this particular missile strike campaign:
  
  1. We are not at war with Pakistan. If this were about one or two salvos fired at terrorist camps, maybe fine. But this is a sustained, long-term campaign that is hurting people with whom we are not at war. If we want to turn over our drone-strike capability to Pakistani control as the Pakistanis have asked, that is one thing. But it is wrong to bomb our erstwhile ally in the war on terror just as it would be wrong to send missiles into Great Britain or Scotland, chasing after terrorists that their governments will not capture or kill themselves for whatever reason. The United States ought to be clear about our relationship with Pakistan: Are we at war with them or not? Are we allies or not? Then we ought to behave accordingly.
  
  2. These air strikes ought to have the open consent of Congress. If certain members of Congress have a problem with rendition, waterboarding and so on, I simply cannot imagine why they would condone missile strikes in a foreign country with which we are not at war. As I have been arguing over and over again, partisan politics is the only reason for this.
  
  3. Pakistan itself needs to clarify its position in relation to its citizens who live along the Afghan border. Part of the reason why we are sending missiles into these camps is because the Pakistanis themselves seem unwilling or unable to do the extremely difficult work of rooting out the religious militants in their rural areas, despite the fact that these militants threaten Pakistani stability. This unwillingness puts the US in an awkward position globally - speak peace, act violent.
  
  4. How do Americans really know who is being killed or targeted? How do Americans know that those killed are really international terrorists and not just local political opponents that members of the Pakistani government want out of the way?
  
  I understand that ceasing these strikes may enable terrorists to regroup and rearm, but it just seems to me that unless we are clear as to the objectives of these strikes, what our relationship with Pakistan is, and how it fits into the overall goal of defeating terrorism, we may very likely be bombing people who are involved in parochial power struggles who are not really international threats.
  
  

• kevinunknown said on Sep 10, 2009....

  The problem in Pakistan is that regions of the country especially areas such as the borer with Afghanistan are now under Taliban control and if this problem is not tackled by force, the Taliban or even Al Qaeda could regroup. If this situation was to go completely ignored or left to the Pakistanis to deal with then Pakistan its self could turn into another Afghanistan.

  Right now in Pakistan the current government’s stance on allowing these attacks is unpopular with the public, this is because in general Muslims don’t like infidel states getting involved in their domestic problems. Fortunately for the American administration the Pakistani leader Asif Ali Zadari is widower of Benazir Bhutto whose family have traditionally been allied to west and strongly opposed to Islamic fundamentalism, this is the root of the Pakistani political support for these UAV strikes.

  However there is another dimension to Pakistani politics that presents a problems for the west; this problem is the fact that Pakistan was the only country to officially recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Taliban them self’s originated in Pakistan and were supported by the ISI. Although at the higher levels of government these operations have been accepted some in the lower echelons of public office are still loyal to the Taliban movement or see their cause as legitimate. Therefore not only is Pakistan not capable of dealing with the problem them self’s, history would suggest that they can’t be trusted to deal with it. Pakistani’s request of UAV technology would never have been accepted purely on the grounds of national security it was totally ludicrous for them to even suggest it.

  It’s not just drone attacks the American military are involved with. CENTCOM are directly advising their counterparts in the Pakistani military. American and British Special Forces are also operating inside Pakistan. Most of this work will likely be surveillance of high profile targets and leaser designating targets for attack. The majority of this work is likely to be carried out by the CIA’s SAD division however due to the units small size it is unlikely that they could archive this role them self’s without the help of “task force black”.  Pakistan its self does not have the military expertise to combat this threat and outside help is needed. It is also worthwhile to note that Pakistan is not the only state to be attacked by American UAV strikes; camps in Somalia have also been attacked.

  Pakistan  has been used as a base for many terrorists who are using it as a staging ground for launching attacks against NATO forces inside Afghanistan, therefore pre-emptive UAV attacks are saving troops lives on the ground in Afghanistan. Earlier this year Baitullah Mehsud leader of the South Waziristan leader of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (the Taliban in Pakistan) was killed by a UAV attack in Pakistan. These terrorists cannot be given the opportunity to regroup the current status quo might seem drastic but the alternative is unacceptable.

  There is also a credible threat that if this situation where to go uncheck there could be a coup inside Pakistan. This would undoubtedly lead to a war between Pakistan and NATO forces because Pakistan have nuclear weapons there is even the possibility it could lead to our first nuclear war if they were to use their nuclear weapons. Aside from a coup even if Islamic extremists were to gain access to a nuclear weapons establishment it would be just a catastrophic, perhaps that why America has spent $4.2 billion on military aid to Pakistan since 9/11

  The point you made about the attacks having consent for congress is something I disregard because congress haven’t given their consent for any war since World War 2.

  Yes I do agree with you that the loss of innocent lives is most unfortunate in war it is inevitable that innocent people will die. However as I have explained if Barack Obama was to do nothing the consequences could be ultimately catastrophic for not only the middle east but also for global security as a hole, if Islamic extremists were to get hold of one of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons or stage a coup. I have tried to explain things here to you a bit but I would have to sit down and explain it all to you face to face for you to understand it properly. Form you last post there I am assuming you disagree with these attacks there for you also have to admit Bush was in the wrong, also you did sound rather like a liberal.

   

• curmudgeon said on Sep 10, 2009....

  I said I have reservations - meaning I am not sure if they are a good idea or not.
  
  Man, you have told me absolutely nothing I do not already know. Seriously it is all old news. As I recall, some time late in the Bush Administration there were leaks of Special Forces units operating in Pakistan, and vows on the Pakistani side  were made that their aircraft would be shot down if they were discovered. I guess it is no surprise that they are still doing their thing. Perhaps Obamas advantage here is that because he is reaching out to the Muslim world he can get away with operations like this more easily than a globally unpopular president.
  
  Actually, Congress did approve the use of military force in Iraq. It would not have been funded otherwise. It did not formally declare war, that is true, but Congress controls the purse strings. Congress can formally authorize military force against Pakistan if it so desires. Right now it is Obamas operation (sorry, my apostrophe keeps calling up this damn quickfind function). My guess is that a few members of Congress are being advised of these operations, just as they were during the Bush Administration concerning interrogation of detainees.
  
  What, a conservative has to toe the party line when it comes to fighting terrorism? A conservative has to blindly believe that any bomb dropped on Muslims is a good bomb?
  
  Only a truly brainless liberal could think such a thing.
  

• kevinunknown said on Sep 11, 2009....

  “Perhaps Obama’s advantage here is that because he is reaching out to the Muslim world he can get away with operations like this more easily than a globally unpopular president.”- Smartest thing you’ve said on soulcast in months.

  So you’re still not prepared to disclose your absolute stance on these attacks, this only makes your argument even less credible. My last post was not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of what is going in Pakistan but rather explain the bare bones of my argument in a factual manor. I have only scraped the surface of what is going on in Pakistan if you want to know more about it then go and read about it yourself, like you I “don’t do requests”.

  The reason you sound so liberal is because you are using the exact same argument that the liberals used against Bush only against Obama thus makes your argument very hypocritical for someone who claims not to be a liberal. Your argument about human rights is the part that makes you sound most like a liberal because human rights are the core of liberalism. So by that argument you “are” in some sense a liberal and by continuing this argument about human rights you’re only proving my point.

  Just to recap; if you carry on with the human rights argument, you’re a liberal because human rights are liberal. If you say you’re for these attacks you have to stop blogging against them and if you say you are against them you have to admit Bush was also in the wrong. If your problem is with the media’s different perception’s of Bush and Obama then go and blog about that. You have got yourself into quite the predicament hear so why don’t you just give up, or you can carry on with this ridiculous and hypocritical argument that isn’t convincing anyone.

• javadewd said on Sep 11, 2009....

  But curm, don't you know? Don't you know that the first words out of any socialist's filthy mouth are:
  
  
  You don't know anything.
  
  
  
  You are ignorant.
  
  
  
  You're an idiot.
  
  
  
  You are mis-informed.
  
  
  
  You don't seem to know the facts.
  
  
  As if by them saying this, all of the sudden they somehow magically caused you to lose the good sense that God gave you? But they don't pedal propaganda, they just believe that by saying this that they have auto-magically hit the rewind on our "archaic magnetic tape brains" and now they are going to spew in the voice track that we must all follow... Shit! And they call us Nazi's!! I especially love the "new" re-packaged bullshit communist thinking as of late:
  
  
  You need to settle down.
  
  
  
  I worry about you.
  
  
  
  There's nothing wrong here.
  
  
  Hell, do these fuckers really think they have some sort of siren ability to coo me to sleep while they shove that needle of cyanide into my skull? Why don't they just add some lullaby music in with it? As if the idea was true that Obama could say to a room full of people "I'm not here" and half of them would say, "Where did he go??" Do they really think we're stupid!? Of course they do! They think they can just waltz in on their tip toes (reminiscent of Dom DeLuise in the movie Best Little Whorehouse in Texas saying to his posse "walk lightly") and murder a whole group of people with their "superior intellect."
  
  Whatever. I hope some major group of political scientists discover that this is a genetic defect or a idiopathic anomaly and recommend we put these fuckers to death for the sake of society.
  

• porcelain said on Sep 11, 2009....

  I think Kevin is suffering from a bout of tunnel-vision. He seems to miss the point repeatedly and harp on an issue that isn't being disputed. I think your argument is credible, and Kevin's would be too on a different thread. He's simply decided you are wrong and he will convince you of it, whether it has anything to do with your actual opinion or the issue under debate.
   
   
   

• kevinunknown said on Sep 12, 2009....

  Java this has nothing to do with me being a Socialist, so go back to your cave of blissful ignorance.

  Porcelain- how can you say I am suffering from tunnel vision when I am trying to look at the bigger picture. I have said I agree it is wrong and hypocritical of the people who were against these attacks when Bush was in power to criticize him for it and now they are silent when Obama dose the same thing. However it is also hypocritical of Crum to argue against the attacks now that Obama is in power but to have said nothing when Bush was in power, that makes him just a hypocritical.

• javadewd said on Sep 12, 2009....

  See? That's the problem with socialism. We don't live in caves here in the US, so quit using your local frame of reference. We aren't you. We will never be you, no matter what.

• ABOVE_TOP_SECRET said on Sep 12, 2009....

  Nuclear war is coming to American soil!

• porcelain said on Sep 12, 2009....

  I said that because Curm hasn't expressed an opinion on whether what Bush did or Obama is doing is wrong. I think you guys are almost in agreement at this point. Because he is saying it is wrong that Bush was under scrutiny for the things he did, but now Obama is not. I'm not as smart as either of you, but that's what I've gathered from the things he said.

• javadewd said on Sep 12, 2009....

  Nuclear war is coming to American soil? Excellent... Take another hit off yer bong for me, dude!

• stopmediabias said on Sep 13, 2009....

  One of things was interesting about the Bush years was a lot of things that were said by the Democrats came out to be waaayyyy off if not flat out lies.  Look at the issues with torture, spying, attorney firings, WMD's, the financial crisis, the list is endless of issues the Democrats grossly played politics with.  Now they are in power and are doing the same things and one could argue even worse than Bush and there is virtually zero criticism.  How many times did you hear about the cost of the war in Iraq and the debt Bush was racking up and our current President multiplies that by 4 in his first hundred days. 

• javadewd said on Sep 14, 2009....

  How many times when you spoke against Bush were you called a racist?

• curmudgeon said on Sep 15, 2009....

  Kevin
  
  You are hands down the densest commenter on soulcast. This entire thread and every single other piece on Pakistan rocket attacks have been liberal arguments leveled at Obama. You really are that stupid.
  
  Moreover, you have no other factual evidence. All you have is old news and government propaganda. You offer nothing but ignorant one-dimensional criticism in a half-baked attempt at painting me as some kind of hypocrite.
  
  The arguments here have not been an attempt to persuade anyone to be for or against the Pakistanis killed by American rockets. They have been, for the last time - to expose the hypocrisy of liberals who paint themselves as human rights advocates. Obama is ramping up the Bush policy of unilateral strikes in Pakistani sovereign territory, strikes that are killing the innocent along with the allegedly guilty and no one on the anti-war left is calling him on it.
  
  That is it. No more responses to your indolent stupidity. The next time I post on these missile strikes, please feel free to wank yourself somewhere else.
  
  You are honestly about as stupid as they come.
  

• kevinunknown said on Sep 16, 2009....

  
  

• kevinunknown said on Sep 16, 2009....

  Crum—I have said I agree with you that the media have not criticised Obama in the same as they did when Bush was in power, this is the media being hypocritical, I agree with you on that. My point is however that you are using the same arguments they used against Bush only against Obama and this comes across of hypocritical, and your refusal to answerer the question “do you agree with these attacks” in my opinion causes your argument loses all credibility.

  If you use human rights as an argument then you are using a liberal argument because human rights’ are a liberal concept with liberalism at its core. If you can’t accept that then don’t use it as an argument.

  If you want to go and blog about media hypocrisy then go and do it, but you can’t really say you’re not arguing against these attacks when you use titles like: “President Obama: War Criminal.”, “Obama’s Campaign of Terror in Pakistan Continues”,“Obama’s Pakistani Body Count Rises” and “President Obama Murders Pakistanis” that’s when I start to think “this guy is arguing against the UAV strikes in Pakistan”. I have yet to see you post a blog entitled “media hypocrisy over Pakistan”.

  What’s really annoying me now about you, is that you have realised you don’t have the intellect to argue with me on this, so now you’re just calling me stupid, Java isn’t that a “filthy socialists” trick. With respect I have displayed allot more “factual” knowledge about this subject hear than you have, so don’t call me ignorant.

• stopmediabias said on Sep 17, 2009....

  Kevin-What you don't seem to be getting is whether or not Curm agrees with the attacks is completely irrelevant and you started off talking about Pakistani politics and all this other crap when it has nothing to do with the post.  If you want to argue the rights and wrongs of bombing Pakistan then go do a post about it, that isn't what we are talking about. 

  You all ready know what the post is about, the almost rabid hypocrisy proven by the fact that during the Bush years we saw the most disgusting and crazy people in protests and in words about Bush and Cheney being war criminals, nazis, terrorists, etc there were books written, endless completely unfair smears from the entire left including the people you voted for.  Now the same situation with a Democrat President and the top story seems to be where our fearless leader is vacationing.  This is borderline an evolution into tyranny.  These people know they can get away with things they critized Bush for.     

• bloc said on Sep 28, 2009....

  There is a big difference between torturing a captive and collateral damage in a war. 

• javadewd said on Sep 28, 2009....

  Yeah, with one they have to deal with you whining at them...

• curmudgeon said on Sep 29, 2009....

  "If you use human rights as an argument then you are using a liberal argument because human rights’ are a liberal concept with liberalism at its core. If you can’t accept that then don’t use it as an argument."
  
  Are you honestly trying to argue that only liberals care about human rights? I reiterate - you are that stupid.
  
  Liberals care about human rights the way Stalin, Mao, the Khmer rouge, Robert Mugabe, and Hugo Chavez care about human rights. Give me a fucking break. Did Clinton care about human rights when Janet Reno killed all those folks at the Branch Davidian compound? Did Clinton care about human rights when he lobbed cruise missiles pell mell into Afghanistan, or when he bombed a pharma factory in Tanzania, or when he initially refused to send in ground troops to the Balkans?
  
  Liberals do not have a monopoly on the human rights discussion by any stretch of the imagination. Only the most willfully blind liberal morons would spew that kind of crap.
  
  Your arguments are repetitive, one-dimensional and patently idiotic.
  

• kevinunknown said on Sep 29, 2009....

  Crum—I thought we had finished this. Human Rights are a liberal concept therefore if you are using human rights you are using a Liberal argument thus making your argument liberal, you cannot escape that because it is fact so stop arguing against it.

  This demonstrates the problem with arguing with you about this, I know this sounds very egotistical but you don’t have the cognitive capability to either argue with me or accept what I am saying. This is because no one has ever sat you down and explained to you about the misconceptions that the media often portrays to the public, or taught you the philosophical, historical, social and legal concepts of Human rights.

• javadewd said on Sep 29, 2009....

  Human Rights vs Personal Sovereignty... I guess I'm getting the lingo twisted?

• bloc said on Sep 29, 2009....

  "Liberals care about human rights the way Stalin ... care about human rights"
  
  Stalin was responsible for the death of nearly a million people. Implying that liberals are equivalent to mass murderers is a typical example of the sort of deranged hate-mongering that is coming out of hte right these days. It shows a complete lack of integrity.
  
  Please, explain how I am the equivalent of a mass murderer or nearly a million people.
  

• javadewd said on Sep 29, 2009....

  Yes, but the deranged child molesting and otherwise socially irresponsible left certainly do put the self in self-serving!
  

• bloc said on Sep 29, 2009....

  so now liberalism is equivalent to child molestation. Please, keep the crazy train rolling. 

• javadewd said on Sep 29, 2009....

  Hey, when y'all get done calling us on the other end racists... But hey, you won. Congratulations! Tell 'em what they get Vanna...

• bloc said on Sep 29, 2009....

  regarding racism.
  
  
  Limbaugh: "It’s Obama’s America, is it not? Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering"
  
  
  Glenn Beck: "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture ... This guy is, I believe, a racist."
  
  
  Limbaugh played a song called "barack the magic negro" 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_the_Magic_Negro
  
  
  I can go on, but you get the picture. 

• javadewd said on Sep 29, 2009....

  Oh, you mean Obama's new "No Child Left Alone" program? Yeah, I posted something about that over a week ago. That's all bullies, not just the black racist ones... And since when does voting against Obama auto-magically make anybody a racist?
  
  The worst thing you can call somebody is not a racist. I can simply state the point out that in fact my best friend (and best man at my wedding) is in fact black and his wife is Mexican. I remember back when AIDS was a scary thing that you could call somebody a homo, but then they could simply state the point that they were married. Nope, the worst thing you can call somebody is in fact a child molester. At that point what can you possibly say in your own defense? I have kids...??
  
  That was my point, anyway...
  

• stopmediabias said on Sep 30, 2009....

  bloc-You quote someone you don't listen too which means you take them out of context.  Rush's mention of the black kids beating up the white kids while the blacks are cheering, what if the situation was reversed?  The magic negro comment came from a black columnist who works for the LA Times.
   
  Liberals plant more people everyday by their political power grabs and naive moral relativism.  Their peace agreements designed to basically say "look at me I deserve the nobel prize" just end up killing far more than if the actual war happened.  Just like Iraq.  Iraqis killed in the liberation of their country is an outrage deserving of daily news headlines painting an American president as a war monger.  But far more Iraqis killed and tortured by their leader and by other American presidents bad decisions gets zero headlines.   

• bloc said on Sep 30, 2009....

  you are wrong. Rush played a song entitled 'Barack the magic negro'. The other quote speaks for itself.
  
  But let's get back to the crazy comparisons to mass murderers. This is why the republicans are losing elections. The rabid base gets all excited about this sort of hate speech, but reasonable conservatives are repelled by it. A whole lot of these reasonable conservatives voted for democrats in the past few elections. Please, keep up the crazy.
  

• javadewd said on Oct 01, 2009....

  The whole Barack the magic negro song was originally sent around by a senator named Saltsman. It's a parody song that builds upon David Ehrenstein's assertion in the Los Angeles Times that Barack Obama would serve as a "magical negro" to assuage white guilt, so essentially if it's racist, then it is making fun of the stupid fuck in LA who idolized the presidents position as a black man.
  
  Rush took off with it thereafter to try to explain these connections, liberals took it out of context, and therefore history was written by the fuckers who "won." End of story. Just keep it crazy alright... Moon bat crazy! C'mon you know you wanna...
  

• bloc said on Oct 01, 2009....

  there are a wealth of rush quotes showing his hatefulness. I gave one other example above. 
  
  
  Again, is there any conservative on here with enough integrity to speak out against the claim that liberals are equivalent to political mass murderers like stalin? I'm just looking for a shred of integrity. 

• javadewd said on Oct 01, 2009....

  Speaking out against the claim that "liberals are equivalent to political mass murderers like Stalin" proves some sort of integrity? So then all of the democrats flocking to censure Alan Grayson's comments about Republicans causing a "health care holocaust" would be considered as having a shred of integrity? Funny, I don't see even one democrat flocking to censure Grayson, nor do I buy your argument. Neither quotes were very dignified, nor worth defending for the most part, but the futile and pathetic call to "speak out against them" from the opposing side is sheer hypocracy. It doesn't surprise me anymore that either side sinks this low. No wonder constituents from both sides are simply fed up with politics and politicians!
  

• stopmediabias said on Oct 02, 2009....

  Rush is widely popular because his show is upbeat and his show is thought provoking and this country is just to the right of center as majority.  I used to listen to Tom Likas who is a liberal but doesn't go too deep into politics.  I detest Tom Likas, but I listened to him because his show was entertaining and thought provoking and Rush is probably thee most least hate-full person in the entire world, his #1 sidekick behind the scenes named Mr Snirdly is black.  

  When I listened to Air America I considered it fodder for my blog.

   Comparing Liberals to mass murderers is a bit harsh but stand on our side for just a brief moment.  Many of us on the right consider euthanasia and abortion to be at the least homocide and at most murder.  50 million and counting since Roe V Wade.  Plus Liberals seem to have a habit of hanging around with mass murderers and trying to either be their pals and negotiate some deal to get them not to harm us.  Look at Castro, Chavez, these men are scum and the Liberal establishment treats them like heros.  Liberals are never held accountable for their actions, they are only lauded for their disasterous but good intentions.

Comment on "President Obama: War Criminal"

Currently tagged	politics Obama hypocrisy war crimes liberals socialists war (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment