Author Topic: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?  (Read 7426 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39449
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #101 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.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #102 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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39449
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #103 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 

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #104 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 ::)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39449
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #105 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


whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #106 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?




tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #107 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.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #108 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

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #109 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

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #110 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.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #111 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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39449
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #112 on: February 14, 2013, 04:49:58 AM »
W never applie it to American citizens.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #113 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.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #114 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.

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #115 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

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #116 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

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #117 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

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #118 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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39449
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #119 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.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39449
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #120 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.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #121 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....

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #122 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.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #123 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.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39449
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Am I following the latest leftist hypocrisy correctly?
« Reply #124 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.