Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Fury on February 06, 2013, 07:23:01 AM

Title: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Fury on February 06, 2013, 07:23:01 AM
Bush waterboarding = TORTURE and inhumane

Obama drone striking American citizens = acceptable because it needs to be done.


Am I missing anything here?  ::)
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Archer77 on February 06, 2013, 07:27:04 AM
Bush waterboarding = TORTURE and inhumane

Obama drone striking American citizens = acceptable because it needs to be done.


Am I missing anything here?  ::)

You're not missing a thing.  Chalk it up to normal human hyposcrisy.  I've had this discussion with my fellow liberals and all I get are excuses and rationalizations.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Hugo Chavez on February 06, 2013, 07:41:54 AM
Bush waterboarding = TORTURE and inhumane

Obama drone striking American citizens = acceptable because it needs to be done.


Am I missing anything here?  ::)
actually the "liberal media" isn't exactly happy about this:

Here is Rachel Madcow saying pretty much the exact same thing Ron Paul has been saying: "It's not an issue with US forces killing bad guys, The issue here is who is a bad guy, and how do you figure it out?"  She then went on to note that this question keeps her up at night and imo, it should.

There are actually several other examples of the left and or "liberal media" not so happy with the drone stikes on Americans justification by the Obama admin...



Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Archer77 on February 06, 2013, 07:49:46 AM
actually the "liberal media" isn't exactly happy about this:

Here is Rachel Madcow saying pretty much the exact same thing Ron Paul has been saying: "It's not an issue with US forces killing bad guys, The issue here is who is a bad guy, and how do you figure it out?"  She then went on to note that this question keeps her up at night and imo, it should.

There are actually several other examples of the left and or "liberal media" not so happy with the drone stikes on Americans justification by the Obama admin...





Good find. 
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Hugo Chavez on February 06, 2013, 07:50:26 AM
Check the usual liberal boards on this... They're even in a state of WTF on this lol...
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Hugo Chavez on February 06, 2013, 07:55:02 AM
Good find. 
lucky find--my wife watches every show so I usually end up seeing some Madcow during the day. :-\
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 06, 2013, 08:45:29 AM
GMAFB - MSNBC was silent on this all during the election and never said shit about anything Obama has done and has done nothing but make excuse after excuse for this shit - same w the NYT, WAPO, ABC, NBC, etc etc 



actually the "liberal media" isn't exactly happy about this:

Here is Rachel Madcow saying pretty much the exact same thing Ron Paul has been saying: "It's not an issue with US forces killing bad guys, The issue here is who is a bad guy, and how do you figure it out?"  She then went on to note that this question keeps her up at night and imo, it should.

There are actually several other examples of the left and or "liberal media" not so happy with the drone stikes on Americans justification by the Obama admin...




Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Fury on February 06, 2013, 08:53:00 AM
actually the "liberal media" isn't exactly happy about this:

Here is Rachel Madcow saying pretty much the exact same thing Ron Paul has been saying: "It's not an issue with US forces killing bad guys, The issue here is who is a bad guy, and how do you figure it out?"  She then went on to note that this question keeps her up at night and imo, it should.

There are actually several other examples of the left and or "liberal media" not so happy with the drone stikes on Americans justification by the Obama admin...





Is that why Ed Schultz took his fellow leftists to task on his show yesterday?

http://freebeacon.com/ed-schultz-rips-obama-on-drone-memo/


Here's MSNBC's Toure justifying it:

He's the Commander in Chief. RT @kirstenpowers10: You are fine w the White House deciding who is guilty and who should die?


Here's top Obama adviser Gibbs blaming the 16-year-old American citizen for getting missiled:

[ Invalid YouTube link ]


Here's Toure again:

Toure: “I’m Comfortable” With Obama Assassinating Americans Who “Do Not Pose An Immediate Threat” To U.S. Interests…

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/s-e-cupp-steve-kornacki-battle-toure-for-defending-drone-strikes-that-was-the-argument-under-bush/



The list goes on.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Mr. Magoo on February 06, 2013, 09:11:06 AM
I disagree with both
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Straw Man on February 06, 2013, 10:21:45 AM
actually the "liberal media" isn't exactly happy about this:

Here is Rachel Madcow saying pretty much the exact same thing Ron Paul has been saying: "It's not an issue with US forces killing bad guys, The issue here is who is a bad guy, and how do you figure it out?"  She then went on to note that this question keeps her up at night and imo, it should.

There are actually several other examples of the left and or "liberal media" not so happy with the drone stikes on Americans justification by the Obama admin...





why am I not surprised (yet again) that the right wing on this board is completely uninformed about the left wing media they claim to know so well

I've pointed out many times that the left is often just as, if not more critical of the Obama administration than the right wing media (I mean for actual stuff they do and not just the make believe bullshit that the right spends most of their time talking about)
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Fury on February 06, 2013, 10:35:47 AM
why am I not surprised (yet again) that the right wing on this board is completely uninformed about the left wing media they claim to know so well

I've pointed out many times that the left is often just as, if not more critical of the Obama administration than the right wing media (I mean for actual stuff they do and not just the make believe bullshit that the right spends most of their time talking about)

why am I not surprised (yet again) that you are completely uninformed and ignoring posts.


Toure is an MSNBC personality and arguably one of the more leftist individuals on there. He is also a stout Obama supporter and was an outspoken critic of enhanced interrogation techniques. He is now on board with drone strikes.

MSNBC's Ed Schultz also spent part of his broadcast criticizing the leftists justifying those now.



In other words, you should stop embarrassing yourself (yet again).
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 06, 2013, 11:05:45 AM
The US Is Launching Drone Strikes From A Secret Base In Saudi Arabia
 


Michael Kelley and Geoffrey Ingersoll|32 minutes ago|207|1
 


Former Obama Intel Chief: The CIA Should Not Be Allowed To Control Drone Strikes
 
The CIA drone strike that killed U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki originated from a secret base in Saudi Arabia, Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung of The Washington Post report.
 
The Post, at the request of the Obama administration, refrained from disclosing the location of the secret U.S. military base, but later reneged after it learned that another news outlet intended to publish.
 
Officials established the base two years ago to intensify the hunt against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen as well as suspected terrorist groups Somalia.
 
An official told Fox News that operations launched from the Saudi base "are (the) only new expansion to this plan," describing the process as a "long-term deliberate effort where we used what we could (until) we got the locations we wanted."
 
The disclosure officially confirms what anonymous sources told The Times Of London two years ago:
 
Sources in the Gulf say that the agency is now massed along Yemen’s borders, launching daily missions with unmanned Predator aircraft from bases in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Djibouti and the United Arab Emirates.
 
The Post notes that CIA Director nominee John Brennan, who previously served as the CIA’s station chief in Saudi Arabia, "played a key role in negotiations with Riyadh over locating an agency drone base inside the kingdom."
 
The base adds to the growing list of known U.S. drone launchpads around the world, which includes Philippines, Qatar, Oman, Afghanistan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Djibouti, Seychelles and Ethiopia.
 
Though analysts long expected the expansion of the program in that region, disclosure that a major American newspaper knew the whole time again raises issues of media coziness with government.
 
Following the Benghazi scandal, major media outlets kept secret the employment status of two dead SEALs at the request of the Pentagon. The AP even retroactively edited their occupations out of later versions of the story.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-drone-strike-from-base-in-saudi-arabia-2013-2#ixzz2K9CWvOHN

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Straw Man on February 06, 2013, 11:10:31 AM
why am I not surprised (yet again) that you are completely uninformed and ignoring posts.


Toure is an MSNBC personality and arguably one of the more leftist individuals on there. He is also a stout Obama supporter and was an outspoken critic of enhanced interrogation techniques. He is now on board with drone strikes.

MSNBC's Ed Schultz also spent part of his broadcast criticizing the leftists justifying those now.



In other words, you should stop embarrassing yourself (yet again).

I see

so if a couple of people on the left do it then it's "the left" as a whole

btw - anything you post is worthless without proof.

I put zero value in your memory of who said what
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: JBGRAY on February 06, 2013, 11:21:57 AM
A nation trillions of dollars in debt launching drone strikes against people that pose no threat to us in their shithole countries is a great strategy.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 06, 2013, 11:40:00 AM
Bush waterboarding = TORTURE and inhumane

Obama drone striking American citizens = acceptable because it needs to be done.


Am I missing anything here?  ::)

We usually see things differently.

But you are right on this one.

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: dario73 on February 06, 2013, 11:41:07 AM
I see

so if a couple of people on the left do it then it's "the left" as a whole


Ah, the left  painted with one stroke the entire tea party as racist. A couple of stupid comments about rape by some Republican nominees led the entire left to proclaim that the GOP was declaring a war on women and that somehow they were going to take their rights away.

You criticize the Right for the very same actions taken on a daily basis by the Left

You epitomize the title of this thread. You are a leftist hypocrite.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Fury on February 06, 2013, 12:35:38 PM
Ah, the left  painted with one stroke the entire tea party as racist. A couple of stupid comments about rape by some Republican nominees led the entire left to proclaim that the GOP was declaring a war on women and that somehow they were going to take their rights away.

You criticize the Right for the very same actions taken on a daily basis by the Left

You epitomize the title of this thread. You are a leftist hypocrite.

Straw does this all the time. In-fact, the title under his avatar used to say, "Christians, like soldiers, ask no questions." So, not only does he paint Christians with one stroke, but he also paints soldiers with one. Not to mention tea party members, right-wingers and so on and so on.

He is arguably the biggest hypocrite on this forum.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 06, 2013, 12:36:48 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/05/what-standards-must-be-met-for-the-us-to-kill-an-american-citizen/the-problem-with-relying-on-officials-in-targeting-the-enemy



LOL!!!!!
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Fury on February 06, 2013, 12:37:33 PM
I see

so if a couple of people on the left do it then it's "the left" as a whole

btw - anything you post is worthless without proof.

I put zero value in your memory of who said what

No proof? How illiterate are you? It's in the post above.

Secondly, can you show me where I labeled "the whole" left in my post above?

Are you dyslexic or a chronic liar?






By the way, no one cares about your opinion of my post's worth. This is my thread and if you don't like it then fuck off to your own.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 06, 2013, 01:15:12 PM
Obama 2007: You Can't Just Air Raid Villages And Kill Innocent Civilians
 Breitbart ^ | 2/5/13 | staff

Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:13:47 AM by


2007, Barack Obama “We have to have enough troops that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians”.


(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Montague on February 06, 2013, 01:35:10 PM
Obama 2007: You Can't Just Air Raid Villages And Kill Innocent Civilians
 Breitbart ^ | 2/5/13 | staff

Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:13:47 AM by


2007, Barack Obama “We have to have enough troops that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians”.


(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...



Good memory.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 06, 2013, 03:56:22 PM
Ah, the left  painted with one stroke the entire tea party as racist. A couple of stupid comments about rape by some Republican nominees led the entire left to proclaim that the GOP was declaring a war on women and that somehow they were going to take their rights away.

You criticize the Right for the very same actions taken on a daily basis by the Left

You epitomize the title of this thread. You are a leftist hypocrite.
ZING!!!
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Skip8282 on February 06, 2013, 05:00:12 PM
Straw does this all the time. In-fact, the title under his avatar used to say, "Christians, like soldiers, ask no questions." So, not only does he paint Christians with one stroke, but he also paints soldiers with one. Not to mention tea party members, right-wingers and so on and so on.

He is arguably the biggest hypocrite on this forum.




Exactly.  Literally all the time.  Let some dumb ass preacher say something stupid and he claims it 'represents'.  ::)

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 07, 2013, 09:02:22 AM
Ah, the left  painted with one stroke the entire tea party as racist. A couple of stupid comments about rape by some Republican nominees led the entire left to proclaim that the GOP was declaring a war on women and that somehow they were going to take their rights away.

You criticize the Right for the very same actions taken on a daily basis by the Left

You epitomize the title of this thread. You are a leftist hypocrite.

It might be exagerated but they do want to remove womans rights

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 07, 2013, 09:03:29 AM


Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens

The president's partisan lawyers purport to vest him with the most extreme power a political leader can seize
Share17353




inShare.25
Email



Glenn Greenwald

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 5 February 2013 10.56 EST

Jump to comments (1547)




Barack Obama Photograph: Reuters


The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice. In September 2011, it killed US citizen Anwar Awlaki in a drone strike in Yemen, along with US citizen Samir Khan, and then, in circumstances that are still unexplained, two weeks later killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman with a separate drone strike in Yemen.

Since then, senior Obama officials including Attorney General Eric Holder and John Brennan, Obama's top terrorism adviser and his current nominee to lead the CIA, have explicitly argued that the president is and should be vested with this power. Meanwhile, a Washington Post article from October reported that the administration is formally institutionalizing this president's power to decide who dies under the Orwellian title "disposition matrix".

When the New York Times back in April, 2010 first confirmed the existence of Obama's hit list, it made clear just what an extremist power this is, noting: "It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing." The NYT quoted a Bush intelligence official as saying "he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president". When the existence of Obama's hit list was first reported several months earlier by the Washington Post's Dana Priest, she wrote that the "list includes three Americans".

What has made these actions all the more radical is the absolute secrecy with which Obama has draped all of this. Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability. The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark.

In fact, The Most Transparent Administration Ever™ has been so fixated on secrecy that they have refused even to disclose the legal memoranda prepared by Obama lawyers setting forth their legal rationale for why the president has this power. During the Bush years, when Bush refused to disclose the memoranda from his Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that legally authorized torture, rendition, warrantless eavesdropping and the like, leading Democratic lawyers such as Dawn Johnsen (Obama's first choice to lead the OLC) vehemently denounced this practice as a grave threat, warning that "the Bush Administration's excessive reliance on 'secret law' threatens the effective functioning of American democracy" and "the withholding from Congress and the public of legal interpretations by the [OLC] upsets the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government."

But when it comes to Obama's assassination power, this is exactly what his administration has done. It has repeatedly refused to disclose the principal legal memoranda prepared by Obama OLC lawyers that justified his kill list. It is, right now, vigorously resisting lawsuits from the New York Times and the ACLU to obtain that OLC memorandum. In sum, Obama not only claims he has the power to order US citizens killed with no transparency, but that even the documents explaining the legal rationale for this power are to be concealed. He's maintaining secret law on the most extremist power he can assert.

Last night, NBC News' Michael Isikoff released a 16-page "white paper" prepared by the Obama DOJ that purports to justify Obama's power to target even Americans for assassination without due process (the memo is embedded in full below). This is not the primary OLC memo justifying Obama's kill list - that is still concealed - but it appears to track the reasoning of that memo as anonymously described to the New York Times in October 2011.

This new memo is entitled: "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or An Associated Force". It claims its conclusion is "reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a US citizen". Yet it is every bit as chilling as the Bush OLC torture memos in how its clinical, legalistic tone completely sanitizes the radical and dangerous power it purports to authorize.

I've written many times at length about why the Obama assassination program is such an extreme and radical threat - see here for one of the most comprehensive discussions, with documentation of how completely all of this violates Obama and Holder's statements before obtaining power - and won't repeat those arguments here. Instead, there are numerous points that should be emphasized about the fundamentally misleading nature of this new memo:

1. Equating government accusations with guilt

The core distortion of the War on Terror under both Bush and Obama is the Orwellian practice of equating government accusations of terrorism with proof of guilt. One constantly hears US government defenders referring to "terrorists" when what they actually mean is: those accused by the government of terrorism. This entire memo is grounded in this deceit.

Time and again, it emphasizes that the authorized assassinations are carried out "against a senior operational leader of al-Qaida or its associated forces who poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States." Undoubtedly fearing that this document would one day be public, Obama lawyers made certain to incorporate this deceit into the title itself: "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida or An Associated Force."

This ensures that huge numbers of citizens - those who spend little time thinking about such things and/or authoritarians who assume all government claims are true - will instinctively justify what is being done here on the ground that we must kill the Terrorists or joining al-Qaida means you should be killed. That's the "reasoning" process that has driven the War on Terror since it commenced: if the US government simply asserts without evidence or trial that someone is a terrorist, then they are assumed to be, and they can then be punished as such - with indefinite imprisonment or death.

But of course, when this memo refers to "a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida", what it actually means is this: someone whom the President - in total secrecy and with no due process - has accused of being that. Indeed, the memo itself makes this clear, as it baldly states that presidential assassinations are justified when "an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US".

This is the crucial point: the memo isn't justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that. The distinction between (a) government accusations and (b) proof of guilt is central to every free society, by definition, yet this memo - and those who defend Obama's assassination power - willfully ignore it.

Those who justify all of this by arguing that Obama can and should kill al-Qaida leaders who are trying to kill Americans are engaged in supreme question-begging. Without any due process, transparency or oversight, there is no way to know who is a "senior al-Qaida leader" and who is posing an "imminent threat" to Americans. All that can be known is who Obama, in total secrecy, accuses of this.

(Indeed, membership in al-Qaida is not even required to be assassinated, as one can be a member of a group deemed to be an "associated force" of al-Qaida, whatever that might mean: a formulation so broad and ill-defined that, as Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller argues, it means the memo "authorizes the use of lethal force against individuals whose targeting is, without more, prohibited by international law".)

The definition of an extreme authoritarian is one who is willing blindly to assume that government accusations are true without any evidence presented or opportunity to contest those accusations. This memo - and the entire theory justifying Obama's kill list - centrally relies on this authoritarian conflation of government accusations and valid proof of guilt.

They are not the same and never have been. Political leaders who decree guilt in secret and with no oversight inevitably succumb to error and/or abuse of power. Such unchecked accusatory decrees are inherently untrustworthy (indeed, Yemen experts have vehemently contested the claim that Awlaki himself was a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat to the US). That's why due process is guaranteed in the Constitution and why judicial review of government accusations has been a staple of western justice since the Magna Carta: because leaders can't be trusted to decree guilt and punish citizens without evidence and an adversarial process. That is the age-old basic right on which this memo, and the Obama presidency, is waging war.

2. Creating a ceiling, not a floor

The most vital fact to note about this memorandum is that it is not purporting to impose requirements on the president's power to assassinate US citizens. When it concludes that the president has the authority to assassinate "a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida" who "poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US" where capture is "infeasible", it is not concluding that assassinations are permissible only in those circumstances.
 
To the contrary, the memo expressly makes clear that presidential assassinations may be permitted even when none of those circumstances prevail: "This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful." Instead, as the last line of the memo states: "it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation" - not that such conditions are necessary to find these assassinations legal. The memo explicitly leaves open the possibility that presidential assassinations of US citizens may be permissible even when the target is not a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat and/or when capture is feasible.

Critically, the rationale of the memo - that the US is engaged in a global war against al-Qaida and "associated forces" - can be easily used to justify presidential assassinations of US citizens in circumstances far beyond the ones described in this memo. If you believe the president has the power to execute US citizens based on the accusation that the citizen has joined al-Qaida, what possible limiting principle can you cite as to why that shouldn't apply to a low-level al-Qaida member, including ones found in places where capture may be feasible (including US soil)? The purported limitations on this power set forth in this memo, aside from being incredibly vague, can be easily discarded once the central theory of presidential power is embraced.

3. Relies on the core Bush/Cheney theory of a global battlefield

The primary theory embraced by the Bush administration to justify its War on Terror policies was that the "battlefield" is no longer confined to identifiable geographical areas, but instead, the entire globe is now one big, unlimited "battlefield". That theory is both radical and dangerous because a president's powers are basically omnipotent on a "battlefield". There, state power is shielded from law, from courts, from constitutional guarantees, from all forms of accountability: anyone on a battlefield can be killed or imprisoned without charges. Thus, to posit the world as a battlefield is, by definition, to create an imperial, omnipotent presidency. That is the radical theory that unleashed all the rest of the controversial and lawless Bush/Cheney policies.

This "world-is-a-battlefield" theory was once highly controversial among Democrats. John Kerry famously denounced it when running for president, arguing instead that the effort against terrorism is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world".

But this global-war theory is exactly what lies at heart of the Obama approach to Terrorism generally and this memo specifically. It is impossible to defend Obama's assassination powers without embracing it (which is why key Obama officials have consistently done so). That's because these assassinations are taking place in countries far from any war zone, such as Yemen and Somalia. You can't defend the application of "war powers" in these countries without embracing the once-very-controversial Bush/Cheney view that the whole is now a "battlefield" and the president's war powers thus exist without geographic limits.

This new memo makes clear that this Bush/Cheney worldview is at the heart of the Obama presidency. The president, it claims, "retains authority to use force against al-Qaida and associated forces outside the area of active hostilities". In other words: there are, subject to the entirely optional "feasibility of capture" element, no geographic limits to the president's authority to kill anyone he wants. This power applies not only to war zones, but everywhere in the world that he claims a member of al-Qaida is found. This memo embraces and institutionalizes the core Bush/Cheney theory that justified the entire panoply of policies Democrats back then pretended to find so objectionable.

4. Expanding the concept of "imminence" beyond recognition

The memo claims that the president's assassination power applies to a senior al-Qaida member who "poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States". That is designed to convince citizens to accept this power by leading them to believe it's similar to common and familiar domestic uses of lethal force on US soil: if, for instance, an armed criminal is in the process of robbing a bank or is about to shoot hostages, then the "imminence" of the threat he poses justifies the use of lethal force against him by the police.

But this rhetorical tactic is totally misleading. The memo is authorizing assassinations against citizens in circumstances far beyond this understanding of "imminence". Indeed, the memo expressly states that it is inventing "a broader concept of imminence" than is typically used in domestic law. Specifically, the president's assassination power "does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future". The US routinely assassinates its targets not when they are engaged in or plotting attacks but when they are at home, with family members, riding in a car, at work, at funerals, rescuing other drone victims, etc.

Many of the early objections to this new memo have focused on this warped and incredibly broad definition of "imminence". The ACLU's Jameel Jaffer told Isikoff that the memo "redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning". Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller called Jaffer's objection "an understatement", noting that the memo's understanding of "imminence" is "wildly overbroad" under international law.

Crucially, Heller points out what I noted above: once you accept the memo's reasoning - that the US is engaged in a global war, that the world is a battlefield, and the president has the power to assassinate any member of al-Qaida or associated forces - then there is no way coherent way to limit this power to places where capture is infeasible or to persons posing an "imminent" threat. The legal framework adopted by the memo means the president can kill anyone he claims is a member of al-Qaida regardless of where they are found or what they are doing.

The only reason to add these limitations of "imminence" and "feasibility of capture" is, as Heller said, purely political: to make the theories more politically palatable. But the definitions for these terms are so vague and broad that they provide no real limits on the president's assassination power. As the ACLU's Jaffer says: "This is a chilling document" because "it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen" and the purported limits "are elastic and vaguely defined, and it's easy to see how they could be manipulated."

5. Converting Obama underlings into objective courts

This memo is not a judicial opinion. It was not written by anyone independent of the president. To the contrary, it was written by life-long partisan lackeys: lawyers whose careerist interests depend upon staying in the good graces of Obama and the Democrats, almost certainly Marty Lederman and David Barron. Treating this document as though it confers any authority on Obama is like treating the statements of one's lawyer as a judicial finding or jury verdict.

Indeed, recall the primary excuse used to shield Bush officials from prosecution for their crimes of torture and illegal eavesdropping: namely, they got Bush-appointed lawyers in the DOJ to say that their conduct was legal, and therefore, it should be treated as such. This tactic - getting partisan lawyers and underlings of the president to say that the president's conduct is legal - was appropriately treated with scorn when invoked by Bush officials to justify their radical programs. As Digby wrote about Bush officials who pointed to the OLC memos it got its lawyers to issue about torture and eavesdropping, such a practice amounts to:


"validating the idea that obscure Justice Department officials can be granted the authority to essentially immunize officials at all levels of the government, from the president down to the lowest field officer, by issuing a secret memo. This is a very important new development in western jurisprudence and one that surely requires more study and consideration. If Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had known about this, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble."

Life-long Democratic Party lawyers are not going to oppose the terrorism policies of the president who appointed them. A president can always find underlings and political appointees to endorse whatever he wants to do. That's all this memo is: the by-product of obsequious lawyers telling their Party's leader that he is (of course) free to do exactly that which he wants to do, in exactly the same way that Bush got John Yoo to tell him that torture was not torture, and that even it if were, it was legal.

That's why courts, not the president's partisan lawyers, should be making these determinations. But when the ACLU tried to obtain a judicial determination as to whether Obama is actually authorized to assassinate US citizens, the Obama DOJ went to extreme lengths to block the court from ruling on that question. They didn't want independent judges to determine the law. They wanted their own lawyers to do so.

That's all this memo is: Obama-loyal appointees telling their leader that he has the authority to do what he wants. But in the warped world of US politics, this - secret memos from partisan lackeys - has replaced judicial review as the means to determine the legality of the president's conduct.

6. Making a mockery of "due process"

The core freedom most under attack by the War on Terror is the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. It provides that "no person shall be . . . deprived of life . . . without due process of law". Like putting people in cages for life on island prisons with no trial, claiming that the president has the right to assassinate US citizens far from any battlefield without any charges or trial is the supreme evisceration of this right.

The memo pays lip service to the right it is destroying: "Under the traditional due process balancing analysis . . . . we recognize that there is no private interest more weighty than a person's interest in his life." But it nonetheless argues that a "balancing test" is necessary to determine the extent of the process that is due before the president can deprive someone of their life, and further argues that, as the New York Times put it when this theory was first unveiled: "while the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch."

Stephen Colbert perfectly mocked this theory when Eric Holder first unveiled it to defend the president's assassination program. At the time, Holder actually said: "due process and judicial process are not one and the same." Colbert interpreted that claim as follows:


"Trial by jury, trial by fire, rock, paper scissors, who cares? Due process just means that there is a process that you do. The current process is apparently, first the president meets with his advisers and decides who he can kill. Then he kills them."

It is fitting indeed that the memo expressly embraces two core Bush/Cheney theories to justify this view of what "due process" requires. First, it cites the Bush DOJ's core view, as enunciated by John Yoo, that courts have no role to play in what the president does in the War on Terror because judicial review constitutes "judicial encroachment" on the "judgments by the President and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force". And then it cites the Bush DOJ's mostly successful arguments in the 2004 Hamdi case that the president has the authority even to imprison US citizens without trial provided that he accuses them of being a terrorist.

The reason this is so fitting is because, as I've detailed many times, it was these same early Bush/Cheney theories that made me want to begin writing about politics, all driven by my perception that the US government was becoming extremist and dangerous. During the early Bush years, the very idea that the US government asserted the power to imprison US citizens without charges and due process (or to eavesdrop on them) was so radical that, at the time, I could hardly believe they were being asserted out in the open.

Yet here we are almost a full decade later. And we have the current president asserting the power not merely to imprison or eavesdrop on US citizens without charges or trial, but to order them executed - and to do so in total secrecy, with no checks or oversight. If you believe the president has the power to order US citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it's truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Roger Bacon on February 07, 2013, 11:21:20 AM
Bush waterboarding = TORTURE and inhumane

Obama drone striking American citizens = acceptable because it needs to be done.


Am I missing anything here?  ::)

That about sums it up. 
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Roger Bacon on February 07, 2013, 11:22:09 AM
Check the usual liberal boards on this... They're even in a state of WTF on this lol...

ahhh coool... good to know!
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: dario73 on February 07, 2013, 11:26:12 AM
It might be exagerated

That is all you needed to type. The only time you have been truthful on this board. Congrats.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: dario73 on February 07, 2013, 11:27:52 AM
It might be exagerated but they do want to remove womans rights

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

You act as if the only "right" that concerns women is abortion.

Is that the only issue facing women. Abortion?
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 07, 2013, 12:12:57 PM
Water in the face = Bad
 
Missile in the face = Good
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Montague on February 07, 2013, 12:13:58 PM
Water in the face = Bad
 
Missile in the face = Good


LMFAO!!!
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 07, 2013, 01:18:36 PM
You act as if the only "right" that concerns women is abortion.

Is that the only issue facing women. Abortion?

Does the GOP want to violate other rights for women?
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 07, 2013, 04:00:05 PM
It might be exagerated but they do want to remove womans rights

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm
by that logic is the left against mens rights as they dont want the man to have a say in whether their child lives or dies?

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 08, 2013, 04:44:34 AM
by that logic is the left against mens rights as they dont want the man to have a say in whether their child lives or dies?



Yes.

You cant make everyone happy.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: bears on February 08, 2013, 08:43:50 AM
You act as if the only "right" that concerns women is abortion.

Is that the only issue facing women. Abortion?

the left vote Democrat because of gays and abortion.  period.  i honestly believe that they simply do not care about anything else.  remember how they used to pretend that their biggest issue was the "fake war" that GWB "forced us into"?

Yet they all bow down to Hillary, Biden, Pelosi, John Kerry, etc. as if they are the "good guys" who will save us.  Never mind that they all voted in favor of the war in Iraq.  Oh wait.  No.  They were tricked into it.... by, according to libs, the stupidest president ever.  Thats what libs tell themselves so that they don't have to openly admit their blatant hypocrisy.

i'll say it again.  abortion and gays are the only issues they give a shit about.  they are just pretending to care about everythng else.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 08, 2013, 08:46:04 AM
the left vote Democrat because of gays and abortion.  period.  i honestly believe that they simply do not care about anything else.  remember how they used to pretend that their biggest issue was the "fake war" that GWB "forced us into"?

Yet they all bow down to Hillary, Biden, Pelosi, John Kerry, etc. as if they are the "good guys" who will save us.  Never mind that they all voted in favor of the war in Iraq.  Oh wait.  No.  They were tricked into it.... by, according to libs, the stupidest president ever.  Thats what libs tell themselves so that they don't have to openly admit their blatant hypocrisy.

i'll say it again.  abortion and gays are the only issues they give a shit about.  they are just pretending to care about everythng else.

BINGO 

BINGO

BINGO 


And no leftist liberal will have the balls to admit as much even though it is spot on accurate. 
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tu_holmes on February 08, 2013, 09:06:35 AM
Bush waterboarding = TORTURE and inhumane

Obama drone striking American citizens = acceptable because it needs to be done.


Am I missing anything here?  ::)

Nope... That's pretty much it.

Armies of sheep all over the place.

I have to admit, on this, Obama should be impeached.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: bears on February 08, 2013, 09:17:17 AM
Nope... That's pretty much it.

Armies of sheep all over the place.

I have to admit, on this, Obama should be impeached.

maybe not impeached.  but at the very least we should never hear another fucking peep about waterboarding.....ever.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 08, 2013, 09:20:37 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tu_holmes on February 08, 2013, 09:20:41 AM
maybe not impeached.  but at the very least we should never hear another fucking peep about waterboarding.....ever.

I think attacking US citizens without due process is fucking impeachable.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 08, 2013, 09:21:07 AM
I think attacking US citizens without due process is fucking impeachable.

That 16 yo was already killed who was a citizen 
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tu_holmes on February 08, 2013, 09:22:01 AM
That 16 yo was already killed who was a citizen 

Then he should be impeached... End of story.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 08, 2013, 09:27:32 AM
Then he should be impeached... End of story.

At a minimum they need to end this bullshit and at least set up a court process and have judicial oversite.  The criteria obama and holder set up is pure bullshit.   
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 08, 2013, 11:20:51 AM
Then he should be impeached... End of story.

Hard to argue with that.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tu_holmes on February 08, 2013, 11:24:36 AM
Hard to argue with that.

If anyone tries to circumvent due process from a political level, they should be impeached.

This is also why I hate the Republicans so much. They have every LEGAL reason to impeach him, but they don't?

Instead they focus on shit like his birth certificate and shit like that.

Buncha morons.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: dario73 on February 08, 2013, 11:25:42 AM
Does the GOP want to violate other rights for women?

No.

They want to protect the right of child. How is the woman compromised by giving birth?

Again.

Is abortion the only "right" that the left believes in and is that the only issue that concerns women?
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 08, 2013, 11:31:48 AM
No.

They want to protect the right of child. How is the woman compromised by giving birth?

Again.

Is abortion the only "right" that the left believes in and is that the only issue that concerns women?

The taxpayers is compromised. More welfare kids.

If have no idea what concerns woman but i would guess it concerns them a lot to have a ultrasound probe jammed up their lady parts and be forced to carry rapebabies or having to foster a child with no assets etc..
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Fury on February 08, 2013, 11:37:06 AM
Then he should be impeached... End of story.

Joe Gibbs justified it in my video on the other page and implied it was the kid's fault for having a bad father.

Every American citizen is expendable to this regime.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 08, 2013, 12:38:28 PM
The taxpayers is compromised. More welfare kids.

If have no idea what concerns woman but i would guess it concerns them a lot to have a ultrasound probe jammed up their lady parts and be forced to carry rapebabies or having to foster a child with no assets etc..
There is this crazy thing called birth control these days....
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Necrosis on February 08, 2013, 01:52:21 PM
There is this crazy thing called birth control these days....

seriously though, birth control has side effects, I don't think that's a fair assesement.

I am considered Left on here, I am not sure where I stand on torture, I also find the idea of eugenics somewhat appealing.

I think torture has a place, certain people need to be tortured imo.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 08, 2013, 02:46:04 PM
There is this crazy thing called birth control these days....

Thats your excuse for making abortion illegal?
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 08, 2013, 02:55:26 PM
seriously though, birth control has side effects, I don't think that's a fair assesement.

I am considered Left on here, I am not sure where I stand on torture, I also find the idea of eugenics somewhat appealing.

I think torture has a place, certain people need to be tortured imo.
condoms have side effects?

having sex without a condom has side effects to like PREGNANCY!!!
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 08, 2013, 02:56:46 PM
Thats your excuse for making abortion illegal?
where did I say that brain child?

I dont want to make abortions illegal only elective abortions, and YEA seeing as the situation was preventable and seeing as the current system is unfair in procreation rights for the parents.

Either make it where they both get a choice or make it where neither gets a choice.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: rachaelsnav on February 08, 2013, 03:27:57 PM
If liberals are so upset about murdering American citizens with out trial, then where are the talks of recall elections, petitions to congress, trying the president on war crimes, impeachment?  The fact is if this was GB they would be screaming about it instead they are proving to be hypocrites and willing to support anything their guy does right or wrong. 

Personally I love the world wide assassination program being conducted by the president, but think it should be carried out by carpet bombing in B52s thats much better power projection then a measly drone.  However, it is definitely illegal and killing American with no trial or justification is the worst road this country can go down.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: dr.chimps on February 08, 2013, 03:37:20 PM
Interesting. Bezerk Fury: farktard student. Fury : affective Krystol mouthpiece.  Maybe there's a scholarship for that?
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 08, 2013, 03:42:37 PM
According to the left

Death penalty after years of litigation and appeals = bad

Death penalty via Obama extra judicial order by fiat = good.




Hope and Change.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: blacken700 on February 08, 2013, 03:58:37 PM
too bad, if they're working with terrorist  to kill americans,then they're not americans any more,fuck them
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Necrosis on February 08, 2013, 05:00:40 PM
condoms have side effects?

having sex without a condom has side effects to like PREGNANCY!!!

I assumed you meant the pill, I usually call that birth control.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Necrosis on February 08, 2013, 05:02:46 PM
According to the left

Death penalty after years of litigation and appeals = bad

Death penalty via Obama extra judicial order by fiat = good.




Hope and Change.

Not one person who is on the left has agreed with this at all, yet you still go on and on.  just like Mcway and his terrible analogy for why the right was so wrong on election night. Facts are all that matter, this isn't good,I am not really against waterboarding, risk/benefit analysis is all that needs to be done.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 08, 2013, 07:43:33 PM
 ;)
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Fury on February 08, 2013, 07:52:16 PM
Interesting. Bezerk Fury: farktard student. Fury : affective Krystol mouthpiece.  Maybe there's a scholarship for that?

"Farktard student?" That's amusing. I guess we can't all be pontificating blowhards like yourself.

No idea who "Krystol" is nor do I particularly care.

Looks like the truths in my original post bother you, though.

Just to drive the point home, here's yet another MSNBC host claiming that she trusts Obama to murder American citizens but at the same time she wouldn't trust Bush:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-host-defends-liberals-who-trust-obama-with-drones-would-you-trust-bush-with-nuclear-codes/
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Shockwave on February 08, 2013, 07:55:06 PM
;)
wat.

WAT.

WAT THE FAWK.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Fury on February 08, 2013, 07:59:23 PM
Not one person who is on the left has agreed with this at all, yet you still go on and on.  just like Mcway and his terrible analogy for why the right was so wrong on election night. Facts are all that matter, this isn't good,I am not really against waterboarding, risk/benefit analysis is all that needs to be done.

Actually, they have. I've posted multiple instances of it in this thread alone. Are you dyslexic like Straw Man?

It's funny watching you clowns flat-out lie.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Mr Nobody on February 08, 2013, 09:00:17 PM
I disagree with both
Is Dave Letterman a Republican or Democrat? I know he drives a old truck which tends lean to the left. I just watched his top ten list tonight.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 08, 2013, 10:50:11 PM
I assumed you meant the pill, I usually call that birth control.
many different forms of birth control...all of which help prevent the side effect of sex called pregnancy...

I would be open to abortion if the women that had one was sterlized. Obviously if you cant figure out how to prevent a pregnancy with all the options available to you then you shouldnt be allowed to reproduce.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Mr. Magoo on February 09, 2013, 05:55:06 AM
Is Dave Letterman a Republican or Democrat? I know he drives a old truck which tends lean to the left. I just watched his top ten list tonight.

Letterman always plays the "i'm a registered independent" card, but he's clearly a democrat.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Necrosis on February 09, 2013, 05:56:08 AM
;)

Again I am not sure I am against things similar to this, there comes a time when eugenics and population control will be required or we all die, our species will die. There are most likely practical ways around this issue.

Again you think all msnbc viewers are liberals? also, I don't trust polls conducted by the news, they are notouriously skewed. With all that aside, people are stupid.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Skip8282 on February 09, 2013, 07:00:54 AM
Not one person who is on the left has agreed with this at all, yet you still go on and on. 






You've got some really poor reading skills.  No fucking way you're a doctor.


Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Necrosis on February 09, 2013, 07:16:44 AM




You've got some really poor reading skills.  No fucking way you're a doctor.




For one, it was a smiley face, nothing to read there champ. Two, I was referring to people on this board as per the discussion.

I forgot reading skills=doctor, as you know to get in the MCAT has you write a poem and critique huckleberry fin.

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 09, 2013, 07:38:03 AM
I was referring to people on this board as per the discussion.
too bad, if they're working with terrorist  to kill americans,then they're not americans any more,fuck them
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Skip8282 on February 09, 2013, 07:48:54 AM
For one, it was a smiley face, nothing to read there champ. Two, I was referring to people on this board as per the discussion.

I forgot reading skills=doctor, as you know to get in the MCAT has you write a poem and critique huckleberry fin.





Read Tony's post above.  Might help you catch on.

And it's pretty clear now...you're no doctor.   Probably why you've got so much time to post on here during the day.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 09, 2013, 07:58:52 AM
Tina Brown: Obama Would "Be Impeached By Now For Drones, If He Was George W. Bush"
Real Clear Politics ^ | February 8, 2013
Posted on February 9, 2013 10:54:43 AM EST by


On the web-only "Overtime" segment of HBO's "Real Time" with host Bill Maher, guest Tina Brown, editor in chief of Newsweek/Daily Beast, said if President Obama were former President George W. Bush he would have been impeached by now.

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Mr Nobody on February 09, 2013, 08:45:45 AM
Letterman always plays the "i'm a registered independent" card, but he's clearly a democrat.
Damn he had me fooled I never knew that, he is a trader then. I don't care still like the show.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Fury on February 09, 2013, 10:32:02 AM
For one, it was a smiley face, nothing to read there champ. Two, I was referring to people on this board as per the discussion.

I forgot reading skills=doctor, as you know to get in the MCAT has you write a poem and critique huckleberry fin.



The MCAT has a writing portion. You'd know that if you took it.

Just another shitty gimmick.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 09, 2013, 11:33:15 AM
;)

 :-X
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Necrosis on February 09, 2013, 12:20:39 PM
The MCAT has a writing portion. You'd know that if you took it.

Just another shitty gimmick.

LOL ya cus poem writing along with critique huckleberry fin is the same as a writing example.

This is called a strawman, I didn't state anything you posited, a sign of a mental midget.


However, pretty sure the US just dropped that portion just FYI. Also, some schools currently do not use the MCAT. so your use of strawman, and drawing a conclusion that all doctors must have written the MCAT is erroneous to beging with.

Go back and try again.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Skip8282 on February 10, 2013, 07:37:47 AM
LOL ya cus poem writing along with critique huckleberry fin is the same as a writing example.

This is called a strawman, I didn't state anything you posited, a sign of a mental midget.


However, pretty sure the US just dropped that portion just FYI. Also, some schools currently do not use the MCAT. so your use of strawman, and drawing a conclusion that all doctors must have written the MCAT is erroneous to beging with.

Go back and try again.



You've got the reading comprehension of a 6 year old and you're calling him a mental midget.


yeah ok.  ::)
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Necrosis on February 10, 2013, 08:45:59 AM


You've got the reading comprehension of a 6 year old and you're calling him a mental midget.


yeah ok.  ::)

My reading comprehension is top notch skippy. Nice thought out post, is that the best you can do? You quit to easy.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Skip8282 on February 10, 2013, 09:33:12 AM
My reading comprehension is top notch skippy. Nice thought out post, is that the best you can do? You quit to easy.


As was demonstrated, it's clearly not.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Fury on February 10, 2013, 09:49:42 AM
My reading comprehension is top notch skippy. Nice thought out post, is that the best you can do? You quit to easy.

Your grammar is atrocious, "doc".
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Necrosis on February 10, 2013, 11:06:22 AM
Your grammar is atrocious, "doc".

I already know this, I never did well in langauge or literature, my strength was always science, facts, reasoning and memory. Served me well it appears.

This thread has turned into pure trolling yet no mod does anything. This is the right in a nutshell, in these last few posts.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 10, 2013, 12:00:34 PM
Really weird how the people on the right in here are advocating AGAINST killing terrorists.....only because Obama is so good at it
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 10, 2013, 12:06:03 PM
Really weird how the people on the right in here are advocating AGAINST killing terrorists.....only because Obama is so good at it

They hate Obama more than they hate the terrorists.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 10, 2013, 12:16:36 PM
They hate Obama more than they hate the terrorists.

agreed.....its amazing how their hatred for Obama has clouded their overall judgement...and when you point this out to them they then say its you and not them....amazing hypocrisy
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 10, 2013, 01:10:10 PM
Really weird how the people on the right in here are advocating AGAINST killing terrorists.....only because Obama is so good at it
so you think that the president having the right to decide if an american citizen should live or die without judicial oversight is good?

hahah how loud and long did you bitch about bush you moronic dumb ass
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 10, 2013, 01:10:56 PM
so you think that the president having the right to decide if an american citizen should live or die without judicial oversight is good?

hahah how loud and long did you bitch about bush you moronic dumb ass

He is too busy crying over Obama dealing w Egypt.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 10, 2013, 03:12:57 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/world/obamas-turn-in-bushs-bind-with-defense-policies.html#commentsContainer
 ;D

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 10, 2013, 03:25:32 PM
LOL the latest post in the comments section

"The BIG difference is that now we know that a thoughtful person is doing it and before it was a buffoon!"

sounds alot like blacken, andre and the rest of the liberal goof troop.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Montague on February 10, 2013, 03:56:53 PM
"The BIG difference is that now we know that a thoughtful person is doing it and before it was a buffoon!"


Not all liberal people are stupid, but comments like this do little to fight for the cause.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 10, 2013, 07:23:31 PM
so you think that the president having the right to decide if an american citizen should live or die without judicial oversight is good?

hahah how loud and long did you bitch about bush you moronic dumb ass

I never ever bitched about Bush killing terrorists..I gave my president the benefit of the doubt....I was a Bush supporter....I gave him the benefit of the doubt concerning torture as well......

I see you're starting with the name-calling right off the bat as usual....this is why we can't have serious debate on this board
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 10, 2013, 07:25:26 PM
I never ever bitched about Bush killing terrorists..I gave my president the benefit of the doubt....I was a Bush supporter....I gave him the benefit of the doubt concerning torture as well......

I see you're starting with the name-calling right off the bat as usual....this is why we can't have serious debate on this board

Then you are a rare breed.  Most leftist white starbucks yuppie scum were in the streets protesting W over stuff the suck cock for o_twink on. 
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 10, 2013, 07:45:19 PM
Modern Man
Sydney, Australia


NYT Pick..


This is exactly why Obama is a terrific president - he's pragmatic. I believe he entered office with good intentions, and has merely realized that given the realistic situations in front of him, he needs to do things he and the public may be uncomfortable with. I've lived in the Middle East for a while and experienced a wide range of cultures - while we can be a bit more idealistic about our domestic programs, realism is the name of the game in international relations. Obama is a realist, and while he takes heat for it, it's much better than the alternative.



 ::)
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 11, 2013, 09:16:19 AM

DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks

Last week's controversy over Obama's assassination program forced into light many ignored truths that were long obvious
Share216


Glenn Greenwald

guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 February 2013 10.05 EST

Jump to comments (101)




Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm speaks at the 2012 Democratic convention. About the DOJ white paper, she admitted this week: "if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms" because "we trust the president". Photograph: Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters


This past week has been a strangely clarifying political moment. It was caused by two related events: the leak of the Justice Department's "white paper" justifying Obama's claimed power to execute Americans without charges, followed by John Brennan's alarming confirmation hearing (as Charles Pierce wrote: "the man whom the administration has put up to head the CIA would not say whether or not the president of the United States has the power to order the extrajudicial killing of a United States citizen within the borders of the United States"). I describe last week's process as "strange" because, for some reason, those events caused large numbers of people for the first time to recognize, accept and begin to confront truths that have long been readily apparent.

Illustrating this odd phenomenon was a much-discussed New York Times article on Sunday by Peter Baker which explained that these events "underscored the degree to which Mr. Obama has embraced some of Mr. Bush's approach to counterterrorism, right down to a secret legal memo authorizing presidential action unfettered by outside forces." It began this way:


"If President Obama tuned in to the past week's bracing debate on Capitol Hill about terrorism, executive power, secrecy and due process, he might have recognized the arguments his critics were making: He once made some of them himself.

"Four years into his tenure, the onetime critic of President George W. Bush finds himself cast as a present-day Mr. Bush, justifying the muscular application of force in the defense of the nation while detractors complain that he has sacrificed the country's core values in the name of security."

Baker also noticed this: "Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama's hands, not Mr. Bush's." As but one example, the article quoted Jennifer Granholm, the former Michigan governor and fervent Obama supporter, as admitting without any apparent shame that "if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms" because, she said "we trust the president". Thus did we have - while some media liberals objected - scores of progressives and conservatives uniting to overtly embrace the once-controversial Bush/Cheney premises of the War on Terror (it's a global war! the whole world is a battlefield! the president has authority to do whatever he wants to The Terrorists without interference from courts!) in order to defend the war's most radical power yet (the president's power to assassinate even his own citizens in secret, without charges, and without checks).

Last week's "revelations" long known

Although you wouldn't know it from the shock and outrage expressed over the last few days, that Barack Obama claims the power to order US citizens assassinated without charges has been known for three full years. It was first reported more or less in passing in January, 2010 by the Washington Post's Dana Priest, and then confirmed and elaborated on by both the New York Times and the Washington Post in April, 2010. Obama first tried to kill US citizen Anwar Awlaki in December 2009 (apparently before these justifying legal memoranda were concocted) using cruise missiles and cluster bombs; they missed Awlaki but killed 52 people, more than half of whom were women and children. Obama finally succeeded in killing Awlaki and another American, Samir Khan, in October 2011, and then killed his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman in a drone strike two weeks later.

That Obama is systematically embracing the same premises that shaped the once-controversial Bush/Cheney terrorism approach has been known for even longer. All the way back in February, 2009 - one month after Obama's inauguration - the New York Times' Charlie Savage reported that "the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor's approach to fighting Al Qaeda" and that this continuity is "prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies" (I actually wrote at the time that Savage's alarmist conclusions were premature and overly pessimistic, but subsequently told him how right, even prescient, he turned out to be). In April, 2009, the Obama-friendly TPM site announced that "Obama mimics Bush" when it comes to assertions of extremist secrecy powers. In June, 2010, Obama's embrace - and expansion - of many of Bush's most radical policies had become so glaring that ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero gave a speech to a progressive conference and began by proclaiming himself to be "disgusted with this president", while Bush's most hawkish officials began praising Obama for his "continuity" with Bush/Cheney policy.

That many Democratic partisans and fervent Obama admirers are vapid, unprincipled hacks willing to justify anything and everything when embraced by Obama - including exactly that which they pretended to oppose under George W Bush - has also been clear for many years. Back in February, 2008, Paul Krugman warned that Obama supporters are "dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." In May, 2009, a once-fervent Obama supporter, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, wrote a column warning that Obama was embracing many of the worst Bush/Cheney abuses and felt compelled - in the very first sentence - to explain what should be self-evident: "Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House." The same month, former Bush DOJ official Jack Goldsmith - who provided the legal authorization for the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program - went to the New Republic to celebrate that Obama was not only continuing the core Bush/Cheney approach to terrorism, but even better (from his perspective), was strengthening those policies far beyond what Bush could achieve by transforming Democrats from opponents of those policies into supporters.

And exactly as Goldsmith happily predicted, polls now show that Democrats and even self-identified progressives support policies that they once pretended to loathe now that it is Obama rather than Bush embracing them. On MSNBC, Obama aides and pundit-supporters now do their best Sarah Palin impression by mocking as weaklings and losers those who think the President should be constrained in his militarism and demonizing as anti-American anyone who questions the military (in between debating whether Obama should be elevated onto Mount Rushmore or given his own monument). A whole slew of policies that would have triggered the shrillest of progressive condemnations under Bush - waging war after Congress votes against authorizing it, the unprecedented persecution and even torturing of whistleblowers, literally re-writing FOIA to conceal evidence of torture, codifying indefinite detention on US soil - are justified or, at best, ignored.

So none of this - Obama's assassination program, his general embrace of Bush/Cheney radicalism, the grotesque eagerness of many Democrats to justify whatever he does - is at all new. But for some reasons, the events of last week made all of this so glaring that it could no longer be denied, and it's worth thinking about why that is.

What made last week's revelations so powerful?

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 11, 2013, 09:17:04 AM
What this DOJ "white paper" did was to force people to confront Obama's assassination program without emotionally manipulative appeal to some cartoon Bad Guy Terrorist (Awlaki). That document never once mentioned Awlaki. Instead - using the same creepily clinical, sanitized, legalistic language used by the Bush DOJ to justify torture, renditions and warrantless eavesdropping - it set forth the theoretical framework for empowering not just Obama, but any and all presidents, to assassinate not just Anwar Awlaki, but any citizens declared in secret by the president to be worthy of execution. Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee wrote that the DOJ memo "should shake the American people to the core", while Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman explained "the revolutionary and shocking transformation of the meaning of due process" ushered in by this memo and said it constituted a repudiation of the Magna Carta.

In doing so, this document helpfully underscored the critical point that is otherwise difficult to convey: when you endorse the application of a radical state power because the specific target happens to be someone you dislike and think deserves it, you're necessarily institutionalizing that power in general. That's why political leaders, when they want to seize extremist powers or abridge core liberties, always choose in the first instance to target the most marginalized figures: because they know many people will acquiesce not because they support that power in theory but because they hate the person targeted. But if you cheer when that power is first invoked based on that mentality - I'm glad Obama assassinated Awlaki without charges because he was a Bad Man! - then you lose the ability to object when the power is used in the future in ways you dislike (or by leaders you distrust), because you've let it become institutionalized.

This DOJ document underscored that Obama's claimed due-process-free and secretly exercised assassinations powers aren't confined to cartoon super-villain Anwar Awlaki but are now an embedded, institutionalized part of the American political system going forward. That's why it provided such a wake-up call for many even though these dangers have long been obvious.

What also made this last week unique was the reaction of the American Right. Progressives love to recite the conceit that Republicans will never praise Obama no matter what he does. This is a complete sham: conservatives, including even Cheney himself, have repeatedly lavished praise on Obama for his embrace of Bush/Cheney policies in these areas. But this past week, they did so with such effusive enthusiasm that the cognitive dissonance could not be ignored.

Supreme GOP warmonger Lindsey Graham announced his intention to introduce a Senate resolution praising Obama for his assassination program. RedState's Erick Erickson wrote a Fox News column denouncing civil libertarians and defending Obama: "we must trust that the president and his advisers, when they see a gathering of al-Qaida from the watchful eye of a drone, are going to make the right call and use appropriate restraint and appropriate force to keep us safe." Michelle Malkin criticized her own staff for attacking Obama and wrote: "On this, I will come to Obama's defense." Others vocally defending Obama included John Bolton, Peter King, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann.

These are not just Republicans. They are the most extreme, far-right, warmongering conservatives in the country. And they are all offering unqualified and enthusiastic praise for Obama and his assassination program. In our political culture, where everything is viewed through the lens of partisan conflict and left-right dichotomies, this lineup of right-wing supporters is powerful evidence of how far Obama has gone in pursuit of this worldview. That, too, made the significance of last week's events impossible to ignore.

But the most significant factor was the behavior of many Democratic pundits and self-proclaimed progressives. Given how glaring all the assembled evidence was of Obama's dangerous radicalism, they faced a serious dilemma: how to fulfill their core purpose - defending Obama no matter what he does - while maintaining a modicum of dignity and intellectual coherence?

Some of them, like MSNBC host Touré Neblett, invoked the language of John Yoo to outright defend Obama's assassination powers on the ground of presidential omnipotence: "he's the Commander in Chief", he intoned. But the explicit submission to presidential authority necessary to justify this was so uncomfortably similar to Bush-era theories, and the very suggestion that MSNBC commentators would be saying any of that if it had been Bush's program rather than Obama's was so laughable, that this approach provoked little beyond widespread ridicule.

A slightly different approach was chosen by the Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky, a supremely loyal Obama acolyte. He wrote a whole column devoted to pronouncing himself "suspicious of high-horse denunciations" because the question here is such "a complicated one". It's so "complicated", he says, because he's "always written about politics with part of [his] brain focused on the question of what [he] would do if [he] were in Politician X's position".

As Reason quickly documented, Tomasky's tone on such matters was radically different during the Bush years. But the most important point is that the excuse Tomasky offers for his leader - it must be very difficult to be in the Oval Office and get these reports about Terror threats and not take action - is exactly what Bush followers said for years would happen once Obama or any other Democratic president got into power. Indeed, every debate in which I ever participated on Bush/Cheney terrorism policies involved their supporters making exactly the same argument Tomasky makes in defense of Obama: if you knew what Bush knew, and faced the hard choices he faced, you would do the same thing to protect the country: it's easy to condemn these things when you're not in power.

That is why, as I have written many times before, Democratic partisans owe a public, sincere, and abject apology to George Bush and Dick Cheney. It's certainly true that Obama has not continued many of the policies progressives found so heinous: he hasn't invaded Iraq or legally authorized waterboarding. But Obama has completely reversed himself on so many of the core criticisms he and other Democrats made about Bush and Cheney regarding the need for due process for accused Terrorists, the dangers of radical secrecy, the treatment of Terrorism as a war on a global battlefield rather than a crime to be prosecuted. And if Tomasky's excuse is correct - empathy with the leader's need to Keep Us Safe shows that these are much more complicated issues than civil libertarians claim - then he and his fellow partisan soldiers should apologize, since that's exactly what Bush/Cheney defenders said for years would happen once a Democratic president was empowered.

The most honest approach to this quandary has come from those, like Granholm, who simply admit that they would vehemently object to all of this if it were done by Bush (or some other GOP President), but don't do so because it's Barack Obama doing it. This same astonishing confession was heard from MSNBC host Krystal Ball: "So yeah, I feel a whole lot better about the program when the decider, so to speak, is President Obama"; as Digby wrote about Ball's confession:


"Glenn Greenwald's been calling this out for years, but I defy him to find a better example of the hypocrisy that drives him so crazy. Obviously, this is a fairly common belief among those who believe the President they voted for is 'good' and the one they don't like is 'bad' but it's rare that you see anyone boldly say that they think the standard should be different for their own because well . . . he's a better person. It takes a certain courage (or blindness) to come right out and admit it."

Indeed. MSNBC's Chris Matthews decided the program was justifiable because Leon Panetta goes to church often and thus can be trusted.

On Sunday morning, MSNBC host Chris Hayes devoted a full hour to Obama's assassination program, and before doing so, he delivered an excellent monologue addressing the many progressives who complain any time he critically covers Obama's actions in this area. He cited an amazing post by an Obama supporter who wrote: "I support President Obama's drone attacks. And I admit that I'm a hypocrite. If a republican administration were executing these practices, I'd probably join the chorus to condemn them as unconstitutional, authoritarian or worse". About that, Hayes said:



"I think this is probably the most honest defense of the program you'll hear from liberals. They trust President Obama to wield broad, lethal executive authority with care and prudence. And besides: it's war; would you rather, I am often asked by supporters of the kill list, that we have boots on the ground, big expensive, destructive deadly disastrous land invasions of countries like the Iraq war? . . . .

"This narrow choice between big violence and smaller violence shows, I think, just how fully we have all implicitly adopted the conceptual framework of the War on Terror, how much George W. Bush's advisers continue to set the terms of our thinking years after they'd been dispatched from office. Because that argument presupposes that we are at war and must continue to be at war until an ill-defined enemy is vanquished. . . .

"The Obama administration quite ostentatiously jettisoned the phrase war on terror from its rhetoric, but it's preserved and further expanded its fundamental logic and legal architecture."

In other words, Obama has embraced and expanded the core premises of the Bush/Cheney global war on terror that Democrats so vehemently claimed to find offensive, radical, a "shredding of the Constitution". And they are now supportive for one reason and one reason only: it's a Democratic president whom they trust - Barack Obama specifically doing it - rather than a Republican president they distrust. That is the very definition of vapid, unprincipled partisan hackdom, and it matters for several reasons.

Why progressive partisan hackdom matters so much

The behavior and mindset of Democrats (and self-identified "progressives") is significant in its own right because they are now the most powerful political faction in the US. By the time Obama leaves office, they will have controlled the White House for 16 out of 24 years. When the current term of Congress ends, they will have controlled the Senate for the last eight years and the House for the last four out of eight. They exercise far more power and influence than the GOP and conservatives, and their attributes are therefore worthy of discussion in their own right.

During the right-wing dominance of the Bush era, progressives had little trouble understanding why right-wing hypocrisy and leader worship were so dangerous. In early 2006, just a few months after I began writing about politics, I wrote about pervasive blind trust and leader-worship among Bush followers and it was widely cited and cheered by progressives. Just marvel at how perfectly applicable it is to many Obama-era progressives:


"'Conservatism' is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as 'liberal' is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government. . . .

"Indeed, as many Bush followers themselves admit, the central belief of the Bush follower's 'conservatism' is no longer one that [subscribes] to a limited federal government - but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.

"We need no oversight of the Federal Government's eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush's decrees regarding who is an 'enemy combatant' and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush's ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on US soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good . . . .

"And in that regard, [Bush followers] are not conservatives. They are authoritarian cultists. Their allegiance is not to any principles of government but to strong authority through a single leader."

To many conservatives, Bush could and should be trusted to exercise extreme powers in the dark because he was a Good evangelical Christian family man with heartland cowboy values. To many progressives, Obama can and should be trusted because he's a Good sophisticated East Coast progressive and family man with urbane constitutional scholar values. It's lowly reality TV viewing and rank cultural tribalism masquerading as political ideology.

Beyond the inherent dangers of fealty to political leaders for partisan gain, this behavior has a substantial effect on the ability to fight radical government policies. Progressives often excuse Obama's embrace of these extremist Bush/Cheney terror policies on the ground that Americans support these policies and therefore he's constrained. But that claim reverses causation: it is true that politicians sometimes follow public opinion, but it's also true that public opinion often follows politicians.

In particular, whenever the two political parties agree on a policy, it is almost certain that public opinion will overwhelmingly support it. When Obama was first inaugurated in 2009, numerous polls showed pluralities or even majorities in support of investigations into Bush-era criminal policies of torture and warrantless eavesdropping.That was because many Democrats believed Obama would pursue such investigations (because he led them to believe he would), but once he made clear he opposed those investigations, huge numbers of loyal Democrats followed their leader and joined Republicans in opposing them, thus creating majorities against them.

Obama didn't refrain from investigating Bush-era crimes because public opinion opposed that. The reverse was true: public opinion supported those investigations, and turned against them only once Obama announced he opposed them. We see this over and over: when Obama was in favor of closing Guantanamo and ending Bush-era terrorism policies, large percentages supported him (and even elected him as he advocated that), but then once he embraced those policies as his own, large majorities switched and began supporting them.

Progressive willingness to acquiesce to or even outright support Obama's radical policies - in the name of partisan loyalty - is precisely what ensures the continuation of those policies. Obama gets away with all of this because so many progressives venerate leader loyalty and partisan gain above all else.

What's most remarkable about this willingness to endorse extremist policies because you "trust" the current leader exercising them is how painfully illogical it is, and how violently contrary it is to everything Americans are taught from childhood about their country. It should not be difficult to comprehend that there is no such thing as vesting a Democratic President with Power X but not vesting a GOP President with the same power. To endorse a power in the hands of a leader you like is, necessarily, to endorse the power in the hands of a leader you dislike.

Like Bob Herbert's statement - "policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House" - this is so obvious it should not need to be argued. As former Bush and Obama aide Douglas Ollivant told the NYT yesterday about the "trust" argument coming from some progressives: "That's not how we make policy. We make policy assuming that people in power might abuse it. To do otherwise is foolish."

It is not hyperbole to say that the overarching principle of the American founding was that no political leaders - no matter how kind and magnanimous they seem - could or should be trusted to exercise power in the dark, without checks. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1798: "In questions of power . . . let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Six years earlier, John Adams warned: "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." James Madison, in Federalist 51, explained: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

This is not just basic American political history. It's basic human nature. And the greater the power is - and there is no greater power than targeting citizens for execution - the more urgent those principles are. Watching progressive media figures outright admit that trust in Barack Obama as Leader guides their unprincipled political arguments is only slightly more jarring than watching them embrace that mentality while pretending they're not. Whatever else is true, watching the political movement that spent years marching behind the banner of "due process" and "restraints on presidential power" and "our Constitutional values" now explicitly defend the most radical policy yet justified by the "war on terror" - all because it's their leader doing it - is as nauseating as it is dangerous.

[My Guardian colleague, Gary Younge, has a provocative column from Sunday headlined: "Barack Obama is pushing gun control at home, but he's a killer abroad"]
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: LATS on February 11, 2013, 01:01:28 PM
There is so many hypocritical posts here I don't know where to start.. So some are actually saying hat the liberal media actually takes Obama to task? But only after a election is over so it seems.. There have benn so many issues they have let slide on Obama it's sickening.. Yet, now liberals use the drone strikes as their " go to" button to show that they'd take him to task yet this same drone attacks were also happening before the election..yet silence then.. You guys amaze me with the hypocrisy ..
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 11, 2013, 03:09:14 PM
There is so many hypocritical posts here I don't know where to start.. So some are actually saying hat the liberal media actually takes Obama to task? But only after a election is over so it seems.. There have benn so many issues they have let slide on Obama it's sickening.. Yet, now liberals use the drone strikes as their " go to" button to show that they'd take him to task yet this same drone attacks were also happening before the election..yet silence then.. You guys amaze me with the hypocrisy ..

there sure was a lot of silence by Republicans and conservatives as well since they loved the fact that the terrorists were being decimated in their own territories
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 11, 2013, 03:10:21 PM
there sure was a lot of silence by Republicans and conservatives as well since they loved the fact that the terrorists were being decimated in their own territories

O-terrorist is saying he has these powers over usa citizens.  Bush never did that. 

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 11, 2013, 03:30:24 PM
O-terrorist is saying he has these powers over usa citizens.  Bush never did that. 



Of course pot coke gangbanger president meth-head is gonna try to be meaner than the white redneck before him ;D
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 11, 2013, 03:37:13 PM
O-terrorist is saying he has these powers over usa citizens.  Bush never did that. 



any US citizen conspring to commit warfare on the U.S. andf hanging out with known terrorists in foreign contries gets whatever is coming to him.....amazing that this issue is all you guys have to pick on after Obama destroyed your guys in the election
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Necrosis on February 11, 2013, 05:57:46 PM
any US citizen conspring to commit warfare on the U.S. andf hanging out with known terrorists in foreign contries gets whatever is coming to him.....amazing that this issue is all you guys have to pick on after Obama destroyed your guys in the election

I agree that if he is working for terrorist cells, wishes war on the states then he isn't an American citizen and should be treated like a shit eating terrorist. The problem is that with proper discretion this turns sour real quick.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 11, 2013, 07:04:07 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/things-democrats-would-have-freaked-out-about-if-bush-had-do


 ;D
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 11, 2013, 08:09:27 PM
any US citizen conspring to commit warfare on the U.S. andf hanging out with known terrorists in foreign contries gets whatever is coming to him.....amazing that this issue is all you guys have to pick on after Obama destroyed your guys in the election
The issue you dont seem to be grasping is that there is no judicial process, no objective basis and NO OVERSIGHT!!!

if the guy is convicted of a crime and is sentenced its different than obama sitting there passing judgement and ordering a hit on a US citizen.

Your a ideological hack if you cant see the issue inherint in this.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 11, 2013, 08:27:13 PM
The issue you dont seem to be grasping is that there is no judicial process, no objective basis and NO OVERSIGHT!!!

if the guy is convicted of a crime and is sentenced its different than obama sitting there passing judgement and ordering a hit on a US citizen.

Your a ideological hack if you cant see the issue inherint in this.


still calling names..I love it..it means I've got you melting down again....believe me ..at the presidential level, if your name comes up in a CIA report that you are engaged in terror activities, then its pretty obvious you are.....hence you get what you deserve....again..I give the president the benefit of the doubt...seems you won't because its Obama whose the president
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 11, 2013, 08:29:14 PM
still calling names..I love it..it means I've got you melting down again....believe me ..at the presidential level, if your name comes up in a CIA report that you are engaged in terror activities, then its pretty obvious you are.....hence you get what you deserve....again..I give the president the benefit of the doubt...seems you won't because its Obama whose the president

LOL!!!!!    ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D 
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 11, 2013, 08:40:02 PM
LOL!!!!!    ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D 

really weird that you advocate for blacks and others who commit crimes to be executred and treated with no mercy yet here you are arguing about not killing American terrorists....just...... ..wow....... ::)....and here you are supposed to be the ultimate patriot?....the hypocrisy continues ::)
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 13, 2013, 01:07:17 PM
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office revealed Wednesday that the Obama administration has yet to show members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence seven additional opinions laying out the legal basis for targeted killing.

Disclosure of the existence of the additional seven opinions from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel came the day after President Barack Obama pledged greater transparency during his State of the Union address.

Feinstein (D-Calif.) said there were a total of 11 OLC opinions related to targeted killing. Senators had already seen two of them and an additional two were made available to senators -- but not their staffers -- last week, leaving seven that haven't yet been disclosed.

Feinstein said the committee "has devoted significant time and attention to targeted killings by drones" and receives "notifications with key details of each strike shortly after it occurs, and the committee holds regular briefings and hearings on these operations—reviewing the strikes, examining their effectiveness as a counterterrorism tool, verifying the care taken to avoid deaths to non-combatants and understanding the intelligence collection and analysis that underpins these operations."

She also said the committee staff has held 35 "monthly, in-depth oversight meetings" with government officials in which strike records, including video footage of the drone attacks, are reviewed.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/targeted-killing-memos_n_2679397.html

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 13, 2013, 01:12:56 PM
still calling names..I love it..it means I've got you melting down again....believe me ..at the presidential level, if your name comes up in a CIA report that you are engaged in terror activities, then its pretty obvious you are.....hence you get what you deserve....again..I give the president the benefit of the doubt...seems you won't because its Obama whose the president

You give Obama the benifit of the doubt but not the people who is drone striked?



Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 13, 2013, 01:58:11 PM
still calling names..I love it..it means I've got you melting down again....believe me ..at the presidential level, if your name comes up in a CIA report that you are engaged in terror activities, then its pretty obvious you are.....hence you get what you deserve....again..I give the president the benefit of the doubt...seems you won't because its Obama whose the president
Lol I don't give Obama the benefit of the doubt bc of that pesky little right that we have of being INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY you hack.

I'm glad you have so much faith in Obama but realize that there will be a day when there is a president you don't have so much faith in with that power.

It's wrong no matter how you try to justify it.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 13, 2013, 09:51:46 PM
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office revealed Wednesday that the Obama administration has yet to show members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence seven additional opinions laying out the legal basis for targeted killing.

Disclosure of the existence of the additional seven opinions from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel came the day after President Barack Obama pledged greater transparency during his State of the Union address.

Feinstein (D-Calif.) said there were a total of 11 OLC opinions related to targeted killing. Senators had already seen two of them and an additional two were made available to senators -- but not their staffers -- last week, leaving seven that haven't yet been disclosed.

Feinstein said the committee "has devoted significant time and attention to targeted killings by drones" and receives "notifications with key details of each strike shortly after it occurs, and the committee holds regular briefings and hearings on these operations—reviewing the strikes, examining their effectiveness as a counterterrorism tool, verifying the care taken to avoid deaths to non-combatants and understanding the intelligence collection and analysis that underpins these operations."

She also said the committee staff has held 35 "monthly, in-depth oversight meetings" with government officials in which strike records, including video footage of the drone attacks, are reviewed.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/targeted-killing-memos_n_2679397.html



c'mon....we didn't hear this bullcrap when Bush was knocking off terrorists left and right
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 13, 2013, 09:53:56 PM
Lol I don't give Obama the benefit of the doubt bc of that pesky little right that we have of being INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY you hack.

I'm glad you have so much faith in Obama but realize that there will be a day when there is a president you don't have so much faith in with that power.

It's wrong no matter how you try to justify it.

If this were the case then we shouldn't have targeted killings at all since ALL persons killed (even foriegners) have not had their day in court
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 14, 2013, 03:54:14 AM
If this were the case then we shouldn't have targeted killings at all since ALL persons killed (even foriegners) have not had their day in court
foreigners are not US citizens and are not entitled to the same rights. I cant believe I seriously have to explain this to you. ::)

the only reasons you are for this is b/c obama is the one doing it.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 14, 2013, 04:32:12 AM
foreigners are not US citizens and are not entitled to the same rights. I cant believe I seriously have to explain this to you. ::)

the only reasons you are for this is b/c obama is the one doing it.

Hell will freeze over the day YOU have to explain ANYTHING  to me...my point is that if you are so prissy about having a day in court then you should apply that standard to everyone....again....Bus h has been doing the same thing...no proest there...why not?....oh thats right because you are biased against Obama.....therefore..you have a credibility fail
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 14, 2013, 04:49:58 AM
W never applie it to American citizens.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 14, 2013, 05:17:02 AM
Hell will freeze over the day YOU have to explain ANYTHING  to me...my point is that if you are so prissy about having a day in court then you should apply that standard to everyone....again....Bus h has been doing the same thing...no proest there...why not?....oh thats right because you are biased against Obama.....therefore..you have a credibility fail
Nice try Andre but bush never applied the drone strikes to American citizens to my knowledge. So basically what you're saying is you believe the world should have one set of laws that all countries follow?

If your not a citizen and not in this country you don't benefit from this countries laws.

Now post another 3 times trying to compare this to bush when he didn't do this to try and justify Obama doing it.

Yet another person who is so blindly loyal to their political ideology they can't admit when their politicians do shitty thing.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tu_holmes on February 14, 2013, 08:44:05 AM
3333 and Tommy are correct.

Our constitution protects US citizens from their own government. It does not protect those of a foreign nationality.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: bears on February 14, 2013, 03:20:45 PM
Hell will freeze over the day YOU have to explain ANYTHING  to me...my point is that if you are so prissy about having a day in court then you should apply that standard to everyone....again....Bus h has been doing the same thing...no proest there...why not?....oh thats right because you are biased against Obama.....therefore..you have a credibility fail

pot meet kettle
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Skip8282 on February 14, 2013, 04:30:51 PM
This is usually where Andre pulls a disappearing act.  :)



Actually, I thought Bush had as well, but maybe not.  I can't back that up.  Usually I don't have a problem hitting these douchebags as they've given up any love and want for this country...so fuck 'em.  The 16 yo I think is the moral problem.  He's probably too far gone to get him on our side, maybe...not sure.

doh
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 14, 2013, 09:17:13 PM
This is usually where Andre pulls a disappearing act.  :)



Actually, I thought Bush had as well, but maybe not.  I can't back that up.  Usually I don't have a problem hitting these douchebags as they've given up any love and want for this country...so fuck 'em.  The 16 yo I think is the moral problem.  He's probably too far gone to get him on our side, maybe...not sure.

doh

Finally a voice of reason
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 15, 2013, 04:15:11 AM
Finally a voice of reason
good to know you dont believe in due process, i hope you get pulled over and thrown in jail without a trail
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 15, 2013, 06:14:16 AM
Obama DOJ again refuses to tell a court whether CIA drone program even exists

As the nation spent the week debating the CIA assassination program, Obama lawyers exploit secrecy to shield it from all review

Glenn Greenwald

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 February 2013 08.50 EST

Jump to comments (426)




The Obama DOJ again tells a court that it cannot safely confirm or deny the existence of the CIA drone program Photograph: Alamy


It is not news that the US government systematically abuses its secrecy powers to shield its actions from public scrutiny, democratic accountability, and judicial review. But sometimes that abuse is so extreme, so glaring, that it is worth taking note of, as it reveals its purported concern over national security to be a complete sham.

Such is the case with the Obama DOJ's behavior in the lawsuit brought by the ACLU against the CIA to compel a response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request about Obama's CIA assassination program. That FOIA request seeks nothing sensitive, but rather only the most basic and benign information about the "targeted killing" program: such as "the putative legal basis for carrying out targeted killings; any restrictions on those who may be targeted; any civilian casualties; any geographic limits on the program; the number of targeted killings that the agency has carried out."

Everyone in the world knows that the CIA has a targeted killing program whereby it uses drones to bomb and shoot missiles at those it wants dead, including US citizens. This is all openly discussed in every media outlet.

Key Obama officials, including the president himself, not only make selective disclosures about this program but openly boast about its alleged successes. Leon Panetta, then the CIA Director, publicly said all the way back in 2009 when asked about the CIA drone program: "I think it does suffice to say that these operations have been very effective because they have been very precise." In 2010, Panetta, speaking to the Washington Post, hailed the CIA drone program in Pakistan as "the most aggressive operation that CIA has been involved in in our history". This is just a partial sample of Obama official boasts about this very program (for more, see pages 15 to 28 here).

Despite all that, the Obama DOJ from the start has refused not only to provide the requested documents about the CIA drone program, but they refuse to say whether such documents even exist. They do so by insisting that whether there even exists such a thing as a "CIA drone program" is itself classified, and therefore, they can neither admit nor deny whether they possess any of the documents sought by the FOIA request: "the very fact of the existence or nonexistence of such documents is itself classified," repeats the Obama DOJ over and over like some hypnotic Kafkaesque mantra.
 
Even in the face of the endless stream of public statements from the president on down discussing and boasting about the drone program, the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit last September meekly deferred (as usual) to the DOJ's secrecy claims and dismissed the ACLU's lawsuit. The judge, Rosemary Collyer, ruled that all of the public statements cited by the ACLU whereby Obama officials boasted of the drone program do not constitute official acknowledgment that the CIA (as opposed to some other government generally) has a drone program. The ACLU has appealed this decision.

As ludicrous as the DOJ's secrecy claims were before, they have now reached Alice in Wonderland proportions. Just last week, Obama's nominee to lead the CIA, John Brennan, spent hours upon hours before the Senate Intelligence Committee praising the CIA targeted killing program and discussing the oversight he would make available for that program as CIA director. Then, GOP House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers went on Face the Nation and did the same; when asked if "the administration has been straight with Congress in sharing information on what the rules are about using" drones, Rep. Rogers replied: "Monthly, I have my committee go to the CIA to review them. I as chairman review every single air strike that we use in the war on terror, both from the civilian and the military side when it comes to terrorist strikes."

Clearer and more definitive acknowledgment by the US government that the CIA has a drone program is impossible to imagine. As a result, late last week, the ACLU wrote a letter to the appellate court where its case is now pending to notify the court of these new public acknowledgments. Specifically, as the ACLU put it, Brennan and the Committee members "extensively discussed various aspects of the CIA's targeted-killing program, including the 'role' of the 'CIA director in [the]
approval process' for targeted killings abroad". Moreover, Rogers openly "discusse[d] his committee's 'monthly' oversight of the CIA's targeted-killing program." Now, there is simply no way to deny in good faith that the US government has publicly and officially acknowledged the CIA drone program.

But good faith is no impediment to the Obama DOJ when it comes to its abuse of secrecy powers. This morning, the DOJ sent a letter to the court replying to the ACLU. Ever after the events of last week, they have the audacity to claim that even the question of whether there is a CIA drone program must still be concealed. The DOJ argues - completely falsely - that the ACLU "identif[ies] no statement in which Mr. Brennan allegedly confirms purported CIA involvement in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for 'targeted killing'", but merely cite "general discussions of 'targeted killing' that do not address the involvement of any particular agency". They dismiss the admissions of Chairman Rogers on the ground that "statements made by members of Congress do not constitute official disclosure by an Executive Branch agency."

Just think about that: Obama and his aides routinely boast about the drone program to make the president look like daddy-protector tough guy. Someone in the administration just disclosed last week to NBC News a "white paper" sent by the Obama DOJ to Congress purporting to legally justify the CIA assassination program. Everyone knows and is now debating whether the CIA should be doing this.

But what is missing from the debate is the most basic information about what the CIA does and even their claimed legal justification for doing it. The Obama administration still refuses to publicly disclose the OLC memo that purported to authorize it (they agreed two weeks ago to make it available only to certain members of Congress without staff present, thus still maintaining "secret law"). They conceal all of this - and thus prevent basic democratic accountability - based on the indescribably cynical and inane pretense that they cannot even confirm or deny the existence of the CIA program without seriously jeopardizing national security.

This is a complete perversion of their secrecy powers. Even among the DC cliques that exist to defend US government behavior, one would be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to defend what is being done here. The Obama administration runs around telling journalists how great and precise and devastating the CIA's assassination program is, then tells courts that no disclosure is permissible because they cannot safely confirm in court that the program even exists.

Such flagrant abuse of secrecy power is at once Orwellian and tyrannical. It has the effect of blocking even the most minimal transparency on the most consequential question: the government's claimed authority to execute anyone it wants without charges, far from a battlefield, in total secrecy. It yet again demonstrates that excessive government secrecy is an infinitely greater threat than unauthorized disclosures. This is why we need radical transparency projects and aggressive whistle-blowers. And it's why nobody should respect the secrecy claims of the Obama administration or believe the assertions they make about national security. What else do they need to do to prove how untrustworthy those claims are?

Use on US soil

Last week, Esquire's Charles Pierce noted that Brennan, at his confirmation hearing, refused to say whether the US government has the power to target US citizens for execution without charges even on US soil. Yesterday, GOP Sen. Rand Paul - who used his State of the Union response to denounce "secret lists of American citizens who can be killed without trial" - said that he would block Brennan's confirmation "until Brennan declares whether he believes the United States has the authority to use unmanned drones to conduct targeting killings of Americans — in the United States."

To understand just how radical the Obama administration is when it comes to secrecy, just think about the fact that it refuses to answer even that question.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 15, 2013, 06:57:57 AM
War on Everything but Islamic Terror
 Sultan Knish ^ | Feb 14, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on Friday, February 15, 2013 8:56:34 AM by expat1000

Over a decade after thousands of New Yorkers were murdered by Muslim terrorists, the city's mayor is declaring victory in the War on Salt. Next up he plans to wage a spring offensive on Styrofoam cups. After that, who knows?

We live in surreal times. In the Middle Ages, cats and rats were put on trial. In this modern age, we began by waging wars on poverty and drugs, both of which we lost, and have now retreated to fighting wars on food ingredients, the bags we carry them in and the containers out of which we eat and drink them.

There's no telling what surreal enemy our wise and brilliant leaders will declare war on next. Shoes? Pepper? Umbrellas? Mathematics? The color blue?

There's just no way to know anymore.

The United States has lost the War in Afghanistan, a minor matter that no news outlet can find the time to report on because they're too busy covering a breaking story about a Republican Senator taking a sip of a water. Maybe a War on Water can be next. Was there a Styrofoam cup involved? It's time for one of those hard-hitting investigations that reminds us what a tragedy it will be when the last newspaper is strangled with the entrails of the last news network and the media's commitment to serious journalism is finally replaced by pictures of cats, wardrobe malfunctions and mutual accusations of racism. (And we won't even notice when it finally happens.)

But who can find the time to fight a war against Islamic terrorists, when there are more pressing wars to be fought? Like a war on being fat.

Michelle Obama declared that obesity was a national security threat. And the Pentagon, which now exists only to ratify the latest leftist social experiment from the White House, whether it's Green Energy, Gay Marriage or bombing the fattest state in the country (Michigan), issued a report agreeing that snack foods posed the greatest threat to the military since Global Warming and the lack of Tranny toilets on submarines.

The military has been unable to identify the Fort Hood Massacre as a terrorist attack and fires any instructor who talks about Islam as anything other than a wonderful Religion of Peace practiced by our closest allies in Saudi Arabia and on board a plane headed for the Pentagon, but the political generals are always ready, willing and able to jump on any truly serious national security threat. If only Iran began developing the world's biggest chocolate bar, then the bombing raids would begin as soon as the chocolate enrichment process reached the caramel-nougat line.

Faced with a seemingly unwinnable conflict against the Soviet Union, American leaders began to retreat into smaller social wars that were actually far more unwinnable. Those wars have also gone the way of the dodo. The War on Poverty is one with the ages and the War on Drugs is usually only mentioned in a pejorative context.

But the same government that couldn't get a small percentage of the population to stop doing cocaine and heroin imagines that it will somehow be able to compel 11-year-old boys to stop eating candy and drawing guns. A heroin addict is nothing compared to a normal growing boy seeking a sweet sugar rush before playing a game of cops and robbers. The authorities would have better luck getting Obama's campaign staff to Say No to Drugs.

The government that couldn't stop drug use or defeat Islamic terrorism has set its sights on something easier. Taking candy from a baby.

During his State of the Union Address, in between promising to create hubs full of 3D printers and drag every three-year-old to a preschool so he can get a head start on being indoctrinated in important knowledge skills, like recycling and understanding white privilege, Zero Hussein announced that the mission in Afghanistan had been completed because Al Qaeda was defeated. Then he explained that while the war was over, American soldiers would have to go on staying in Afghanistan to continue fighting the already defeated Al Qaeda in a war that was no longer a war, but an extended vacation with shooting.

Since Al Qaeda did not have a significant presence in Afghanistan at any time during his maladministration, defeating it was fairly easy, and true to form it only cost thousands of lives. But somehow it still isn't defeated. Still if fighting things that don't exist gets applause, put your hands together for the War on Global Warming, which has recently been scaled down to Climate Change, which means that any time the weather changes, it's probably due to people using the wrong kinds of light bulbs, driving the wrong kinds of cars and not paying enough attention to Al Gore's latest plan to fill up the pockets of his cheap oversized suit and those of his Wall Street buddies who care almost as much about the environment as they do about feminism, racism and wiping out entire economies.

The War on Terror may have been a tough nut to crack, but let's focus on the War on Thermometers. They're small and have little pockets of red fluid that are easy to crack open. Everyone used to say that everyone talks about the temperature, but doesn't do anything about it. Finally we're going to do something about the weather. And the little kids who eat candy. And once we've won the wars on the rain and sun, on sugar, spice and everything nice, then we can finally begin learning the rules of being in the underclass of the new Caliphate.

During the election, Obama promised to begin "nation building" at home. Since that usually involves destroying a country's military, wrecking its industrial base and then feeding them off the back of trucks while communicating with them only through interpreters, it looks like he's making good on his promise. Chicago already looks more like Kabul or Baghdad than America. And Chicago is the second capital of the new Obamerica that is swallowing the country.

Nation building at home means bringing the war home. Nation building is something that we usually inflict on our worst enemies in the hopes of teaching them a better way to live. It means wrecking the United States and then rebuilding it in the way that our conquerors see fit. All those little wars aren't really being fought against salt, sugar, plastic bags and a thousand other tiny inanimate enemies. They are being fought against you.

Guns don't kill people. And salt and sugar don't eat themselves. Plastic bags don't fill themselves with groceries and, barring the driverless car reportedly on the horizon, your old-fashioned gas guzzler won't drive itself home from the store with plastic bags full of salt and sugar in the trunk.

The left has blown the war against Islamic terrorism. For the most part it has chosen not to fight it. Its real enemy isn't some bearded guy sitting in a cave with a Kalashnikov being propped up by his fourth wife's Hijab; it's Mr. and Mrs. America in all their racist, overeating and polluting criminality. Lefties are not terribly interested in conquering other countries, until they have finished the conquest of the country that they're in.

What we can expect is a war on everything but the war we're in. To the sort of people who declare war on salt and make up fake global crises to force everyone to pay more to fly, Islamic terrorism is just what happens when the sainted 3rd World gets tired of our overeating and overdriving, and the oil companies and agribusiness that cater to our needs, and begins fighting back. The understanding that the terrorists are not just out to protest the destruction of the rainforest or fracking, but intend to establish a totalitarian theocracy based on over a thousand years of bloody history never even enters the minds of the sort of people who declare wars on salt and Styrofoam cups.

There is no denying the fact that much of the country is only too willing to turn away from the bleak prospect of a seemingly unwinnable war against a huge number of ruthless enemies and instead begin lecturing their neighbors on how to raise their children and cook their meals. There is a measure of pettiness in all of us and now that pettiness has been elevated to a national security agenda.

Do your neighbors' kids look too fat? The government is doing something it. Does the weather feel too warm or too cold? Washington D.C. is on the case. Are you sick of selfish people who don't bring a usable bag along when they shop for groceries after a long day of working for a living? Let Uncle Sam or Uncle Barack handle that pesky problem.

Faced with an external threat, people often turn on each other fighting the small petty wars against each other that they can win, rather than going out to slay the dragon. And we are up to our necks in these small and petty wars, that are small only in concept not in scope. The bigger the threat, the smaller the wars become until we are fighting everyday household items, rather than the terrorists trying to break into our house and kill us.

In New York City, an awkward skeletal tower stands near where the World Trade Center towers once touched the sky. And on some lampposts you can still see the faded imprint of missing person flyers. But there is good news. Mayor Bloomberg reports that the war on salt has been won. Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 15, 2013, 10:24:07 AM
good to know you dont believe in due process, i hope you get pulled over and thrown in jail without a trail

you don't belive in it either apparently....
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 15, 2013, 10:43:38 AM
you don't belive in it either apparently....
Really how's that?

Also please go take a look at the Sheila Jackson lee thread where she claims to be a freed slave. In curious if you feel that is a common feeling among blacks? If so do you feel that way and if so could you explain the logic behind it.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tu_holmes on February 15, 2013, 11:58:21 AM
Really how's that?

Also please go take a look at the Sheila Jackson lee thread where she claims to be a freed slave. In curious if you feel that is a common feeling among blacks? If so do you feel that way and if so could you explain the logic behind it.
I find it interesting when anyone under the age of 40 says they have been oppressed due to their race.

It's just amazingly dishonest usually.

Does it happen? Sure... if you're dealing with cops or whatever... but by government policy in general?

Hell no.

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 15, 2013, 12:03:35 PM
I find it interesting when anyone under the age of 40 says they have been oppressed due to their race.

It's just amazingly dishonest usually.

Does it happen? Sure... if you're dealing with cops or whatever... but by government policy in general?

Hell no.





It's more excuses for failure.  F Em.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 15, 2013, 09:58:42 PM
Really how's that?

Also please go take a look at the Sheila Jackson lee thread where she claims to be a freed slave. In curious if you feel that is a common feeling among blacks? If so do you feel that way and if so could you explain the logic behind it.

there is nothing to explain.....and no logic behind it...she's batshit crazy....most blacks know that
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 15, 2013, 10:00:57 PM
I find it interesting when anyone under the age of 40 says they have been oppressed due to their race.

It's just amazingly dishonest usually.

Does it happen? Sure... if you're dealing with cops or whatever... but by government policy in general?

Hell no.



sometimes Gov't policies ARE oppresive but covertly so.....sometimes there are well meaning intentions that disproportionately affect a certain population unfairly
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tu_holmes on February 16, 2013, 01:12:22 AM
sometimes Gov't policies ARE oppresive but covertly so.....sometimes there are well meaning intentions that disproportionately affect a certain population unfairly

You mean like taking away peoples inherent rights?

Like abolishing the 2nd amendment?
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 16, 2013, 08:12:15 AM
You mean like taking away peoples inherent rights?

Like abolishing the 2nd amendment?


dude...you can't possibly ignore the devastation that guns are doing in America...thousands upon thousands of peopl dying of gunshot wounds every year......not to mention it is s healthcare issue.....we are going broke treating gunshot wounds, providing those who are crippled with wheelchairs and prosthetics, the operations, support services, etc......Also....it is a men's issue as well..since men are the primary targets and perpetrators of gun violence......another collateral issue is all those who wind up in jhair due to gun violence.......it costs a ton of money to prosecute and incarcerate them
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Skip8282 on February 16, 2013, 08:26:23 AM
good to know you dont believe in due process, i hope you get pulled over and thrown in jail without a trail





Sorry, but you don't get to leave the country, actively work with foreign terrorists to murder us, then claim constitutional protections.

We're not talking about tourists in Yemen building sand castles.

I see the sllippery slope but I can this being applied in certain limited instances.

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Skip8282 on February 16, 2013, 08:27:56 AM
dude...you can';t possibly iugnore the devastation that guns are doing in America...thousands upon thousands of peopl dying of gunshot wounds every year......not to mention it is s healthcare issue.....we are going broke treating gunshot wounds, providing those who are crippled with wheelchairs and prosthetics, the operations, support services, etc......Also....it is a men's issue as well..since men are the primary targets and perpetrators of gun violence......another collateral issue is all those who wind up in jhair due to gun violence.......it costs a ton of money to prosecute and incarcerate them



::)

At least have some modicum of self respect and don't make shit up.

Rule #1 in full swing.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 16, 2013, 08:35:47 AM




Sorry, but you don't get to leave the country, actively work with foreign terrorists to murder us, then claim constitutional protections.

We're not talking about tourists in Yemen building sand castles.

I see the sllippery slope but I can this being applied in certain limited instances.



Great post...I see the slippery slope as well but I agree with you....you can't actively work against your country from a terrorist cell or training camp in a foreign country and then want your constitutional rights protected....yes it's not exactly due process but again I trust that the president will make the right call....and I'm quite sure he knows that if he begins to abuse this power he will be impeached....He also has a white house counsel who advises him on these things

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 16, 2013, 08:36:36 AM


::)

At least have some modicum of self respect and don't make shit up.

Rule #1 in full swing.

Do you believe that I made that post up at of thin air?????
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 16, 2013, 10:06:21 AM
there is nothing to explain.....and no logic behind it...she's batshit crazy....most blacks know that
good to know andre, why do blacks not call this idiotic thinking out when they see it?

sometimes Gov't policies ARE oppresive but covertly so.....sometimes there are well meaning intentions that disproportionately affect a certain population unfairly
can you name a few of these policies you believe to be oppresive?
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 16, 2013, 10:09:37 AM
dude...you can't possibly ignore the devastation that guns are doing in America...thousands upon thousands of peopl dying of gunshot wounds every year......not to mention it is s healthcare issue.....we are going broke treating gunshot wounds, providing those who are crippled with wheelchairs and prosthetics, the operations, support services, etc......Also....it is a men's issue as well..since men are the primary targets and perpetrators of gun violence......another collateral issue is all those who wind up in jhair due to gun violence.......it costs a ton of money to prosecute and incarcerate them
if youre really worried about health care costs and deaths than guns should be the least of your worries. Cigarettes, alcohol and a ton of other forms of murder have way way WAY higher body counts. Please dont sit there and act like its the death count that bothers you b/c if it were youd be yelling for more alcohol, tobacco, driving regulations or BANS before guns.

Its a straw man youre creating and a horrible one at that. At least have the decency to say you dont like guns and want them banned instead of making up claims to back up your stance and then over looking real facts that are worse about other forms of health care costs and death.

::)
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 16, 2013, 10:14:19 AM
Sorry, but you don't get to leave the country, actively work with foreign terrorists to murder us, then claim constitutional protections.

We're not talking about tourists in Yemen building sand castles.

I see the sllippery slope but I can this being applied in certain limited instances.
I can agree with you but without oversight, judicial review or transparency this isnt right. There needs to be at the very least a judicial commitee that weighs the evidence and judges based on that.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tu_holmes on February 16, 2013, 12:45:51 PM
dude...you can't possibly ignore the devastation that guns are doing in America...thousands upon thousands of peopl dying of gunshot wounds every year......not to mention it is s healthcare issue.....we are going broke treating gunshot wounds, providing those who are crippled with wheelchairs and prosthetics, the operations, support services, etc......Also....it is a men's issue as well..since men are the primary targets and perpetrators of gun violence......another collateral issue is all those who wind up in jhair due to gun violence.......it costs a ton of money to prosecute and incarcerate them

What about the devastation of other things which kill more people?

You are casually ignoring that.

Driving isn't even a right, yet people kill more people with cars every year. So please explain to me how your rights will be better protected?

Here's a helpful map for you.

(http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/UN-Gun-Ownership-Map.jpg)

(http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/UN-Homicide-Map.jpg)
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tbombz on February 16, 2013, 10:41:50 PM
Bush waterboarding = TORTURE and inhumane

Obama drone striking American citizens = acceptable because it needs to be done.


Am I missing anything here?  ::)
torture = ineffective  and alienating


drone strikes = effective and economical
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 16, 2013, 10:54:10 PM
if youre really worried about health care costs and deaths than guns should be the least of your worries. Cigarettes, alcohol and a ton of other forms of murder have way way WAY higher body counts. Please dont sit there and act like its the death count that bothers you b/c if it were youd be yelling for more alcohol, tobacco, driving regulations or BANS before guns.

Its a straw man youre creating and a horrible one at that. At least have the decency to say you dont like guns and want them banned instead of making up claims to back up your stance and then over looking real facts that are worse about other forms of health care costs and death.

::)

Dude...your paranoia is amazing...I am not creating a straw man as you say.....Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal........most people are dying from illegal guns....of courtse I'm comncerned about alcohol, and tobacco..but we aren't talking about those things...
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 17, 2013, 04:55:58 AM
torture = ineffective  and alienating


drone strikes = effective and economical

So true
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 17, 2013, 07:48:45 AM
torture = ineffective  and alienating


drone strikes = effective and economical
actually "torture"has been shown to be very effective simply not as reliable.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 17, 2013, 07:50:36 AM
Dude...your paranoia is amazing...I am not creating a straw man as you say.....Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal........most people are dying from illegal guns....of courtse I'm comncerned about alcohol, and tobacco..but we aren't talking about those things...
LOL of course we arent talking about those b/c they make your argument look like the ignorant trash that it is.

If we are talking about illegal guns why are you talking about taking guns away from ppl who legally own them?

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Skip8282 on February 17, 2013, 08:53:01 AM
Dude...your paranoia is amazing...I am not creating a straw man as you say.....Alcohol and Cigarettes are legal........most people are dying from illegal guns....of courtse I'm comncerned about alcohol, and tobacco..but we aren't talking about those things...



Get real dude.  Most people are dying cause obesity and heart disease is rampant in this nation.  The chances of you being involved in gun violence is .000000 something.  ::)
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 17, 2013, 09:47:55 AM
torture = ineffective  and alienating


drone strikes = effective and economical

Hitler felt the same way.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tu_holmes on February 17, 2013, 09:49:25 AM
What about the devastation of other things which kill more people?

You are casually ignoring that.

Driving isn't even a right, yet people kill more people with cars every year. So please explain to me how your rights will be better protected?

Here's a helpful map for you.

(http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/UN-Gun-Ownership-Map.jpg)

(http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/UN-Homicide-Map.jpg)

If ya' missed it the first time.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: whork on February 17, 2013, 11:18:17 AM


Get real dude.  Most people are dying cause obesity and heart disease is rampant in this nation.  The chances of you being involved in gun violence is .000000 something.  ::)

Good point.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tbombz on February 17, 2013, 04:27:25 PM
You mean like taking away peoples inherent rights?

Like abolishing the 2nd amendment?

owning a gun is an inherent right?  ;D
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tbombz on February 17, 2013, 04:28:30 PM
actually "torture"has been shown to be very effective simply not as reliable.
its not effective if it isnt reliable.. 

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tu_holmes on February 17, 2013, 04:28:38 PM
owning a gun is an inherent right?  ;D

Yes... So says the 2nd amendment of the constitution of the united states.

That's why they call the 1st ten amendments the "Bill of Rights".

Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 17, 2013, 05:16:00 PM
owning a gun is an inherent right?  ;D

Yes.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Shockwave on February 17, 2013, 05:36:54 PM
its not effective if it isnt reliable.. 


wat.......
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 17, 2013, 05:40:59 PM
its not effective if it isnt reliable.. 


actually it very much is, its proven you will get valuable information now you will also get useless information as well. Thats what our analyst get paid to sift through and decipher credible from bull shit info.
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 17, 2013, 05:41:39 PM
owning a gun is an inherent right?  ;D
hahah kudos to your education there drizzle, how much did you pay for it?
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 17, 2013, 06:33:44 PM


Get real dude.  Most people are dying cause obesity and heart disease is rampant in this nation.  The chances of you being involved in gun violence is .000000 something.  ::)

this is so way off base I won't even bother to respond
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 17, 2013, 06:35:11 PM
Hitler felt the same way.

you've got a lot in common with him
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: tonymctones on February 17, 2013, 07:24:25 PM
this is so way off base I won't even bother to respond
actually brain child is quite close....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The US has a 10.2 per 100,000 person homocide rate by guns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_population

"As of January 1, 2013, the United States had a total resident population of 315,521,000"

315,521,000/100,000 = 3,155.21

so in the US we have a .00323275 chance of being murdered with a gun...
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 17, 2013, 07:45:13 PM
this is so way off base I won't even bother to respond

You do live in Mott haven soooooooo
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: andreisdaman on February 17, 2013, 09:45:00 PM
You do live in Mott haven soooooooo

woodlawn ain't exactly heaven either...been there numerous times
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 19, 2013, 07:05:47 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 21, 2013, 07:00:43 AM
February 20, 2013
 

White House Tactic for C.I.A. Bid Holds Back Drone Memos
 
By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI
 

WASHINGTON — The White House is refusing to share fully with Congress the legal opinions that justify targeted killings, while maneuvering to make sure its stance does not do anything to endanger the confirmation of John O. Brennan as C.I.A. director.

Rather than agreeing to some Democratic senators’ demands for full access to the classified legal memos on the targeted killing program, Obama administration officials are negotiating with Republicans to provide more information on the lethal attack last year on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, according to three Congressional staff members.

The strategy is intended to produce a bipartisan majority vote for Mr. Brennan in the Senate Intelligence Committee without giving its members seven additional legal opinions on targeted killing sought by senators and while protecting what the White House views as the confidentiality of the Justice Department’s legal advice to the president. It would allow Mr. Brennan’s nomination to go to the Senate floor even if one or two Democrats vote no to protest the refusal to share more legal memos.

At issue is the critical question of how Congress conducts oversight of a shadow war against people suspected of being terrorists. The administration routinely reports on its lethal drone strikes to both the Senate and the House Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, but it has long rebuffed Congressional attempts to see the legal opinions that authorize the strikes — let alone requests to make them public.

Only after an unclassified Justice Department white paper summarizing the legal arguments was leaked to NBC News this month did the administration make two legal opinions on the targeted killing of American citizens briefly available to members of the Intelligence Committees.

But the documents were available to be viewed only for a limited time and only by senators themselves, not their lawyers and experts.

The arrangement frustrated members of the committee, who were not allowed to have their staff members study the highly complex legal opinions. But the reinvigorated public discussion set off by the nomination of Mr. Brennan has raised hopes in Congress that the debate will continue even if he is confirmed.

The refusal so far to share more of the opinions with Congress, or to make redacted versions of the memos public, comes despite a pledge of greater transparency by President Obama in his State of the Union address on Feb. 12.

“I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word that we’re doing things the right way,” the president said. “So, in the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.”

The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, has long called for all Justice Department legal opinions on intelligence to go to the committee. But a spokesman said she did not believe the issue should block Mr. Brennan’s confirmation.

The votes of at least two other Democratic senators who feel strongly about greater access to the legal opinions, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, are less certain.

“I still have a number of unanswered questions about the president’s authority to kill Americans who are deemed to be a threat to the United States,” Mr. Wyden said.

He said that he was “encouraged” by Mr. Obama’s promise of greater transparency in the State of the Union address but that “the administration has not yet lived up to that commitment.”

The administration is currently in discussions with Republican members of the Intelligence Committee about providing the trail of e-mails that were the basis of “talking points” from the intelligence agencies regarding the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, which killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans. Such a concession would probably win at least some Republican votes for Mr. Brennan.

By most accounts, Mr. Brennan is likely to be confirmed as director of the C.I.A., in part because some human rights advocates who were once deeply skeptical about his record are now ambivalent.

Four years ago, a swell of criticism of Mr. Brennan’s association with the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation program short-circuited Mr. Brennan’s bid to become Mr. Obama’s first C.I.A. director. He withdrew his name from consideration for the job, and wrote a sharply worded letter to Mr. Obama in November 2008 accusing critics of distorting his record.

In his subsequent appointment as Mr. Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, Mr. Brennan has become the American official most closely associated with the drone program, also a target of human rights groups. But he has also won some respect from the groups, which have come to see him as a voice for some of their concerns in internal deliberations.

“There are certainly people who see Brennan as a symbol of programs they disapprove of, particularly the drone program,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch. “In my case, though there are issues on which he and I would undoubtedly disagree, I noticed that of all the senior people on the president’s national security team, no one seemed more willing to argue that counterterrorism needed to have a moral dimension and to be grounded in the rule of law.”

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said that human rights groups once had a “fun-house mirror” picture of Mr. Brennan.

But over the past four years, he said, Mr. Brennan’s stances on issues like closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have won him praise from current and former members of the Obama administration who have long been vocal about human rights issues.

One of those people, Harold Hongju Koh, a former State Department legal adviser, said that rights groups should embrace Mr. Brennan’s nomination.

“Who would they rather have, and why would that person promote their values as C.I.A. director more than John Brennan?” Mr. Koh asked.

But the continuing secrecy around the drone program remains a stumbling block for some advocates.

“We have this drone war, and the American public has no idea what the rules are, and Congress doesn’t know much more,” said Virginia E. Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, a civil liberties group in Washington. “YouTube appearances and speeches,” she said, referring to the president’s online appearances and officials’ public remarks, “are absolutely no substitute for having the actual memos in hand.”

Elisa Massimino, president of Human Rights First, an advocacy group, said the administration had a long way to go to fulfill its promise of greater openness.

“President Obama and Mr. Brennan have both pledged transparency,” she said. “Let’s see it.” 


Title: Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 21, 2013, 07:53:47 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/strategy-seeks-to-ensure-_n_2730248.html#comments


LMFAO!!!!

Liberals are so fucking pathetic