Why I am not Voting Obama

I have no idea...I've never voted for a war criminal--nor considered voting for one.

Either you haven't voted since roughly 1945, or you were lucky enough to vote for the loser. Being the loser meant the guy never had to become a war criminal.

If you've voted for a winner then you have voted for a war criminal/terrorist.

I would simply disregard what you think about the individual and vote for the person I consider to be the best choice offered.

Same thing goes for those actually elected.

Liberals from every state ought to emulate my decision.

You are awfully good at ignoring the facts, Frank. Is it something that they put in the water?

This is what allows you to go on in this la la existence pretending that you are voting for decent human beings. Decent human beings do not commit war crimes, nor do they commit frequent terrorist actions.

The historical facts point clearly to every US president since WWII as a war criminal. The historical facts point clearly to every US president since WWII engaging in terrorist actions.

Nice try Frank, but you will never conveince JTT that all U.S. citizens arnt war criminals.

I have no problem with JTT thinking America is an especially barbaric country...or that American presidents are an especially barbaric breed. That is his right.

Surely you and Frank are not advocating the idea that humans are related to animals?

Jerry Garcia, of the Grateful Dead once said, "Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." Yet all the time I hear that people are voting for one candidate or another because they are the lesser of the two evils.

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=12402

You are assuming that what you suppose to be "the facts"...actually are the facts. I am ignoring what you presume to be the facts...and I think I can safely do that without ignoring the facts.

If the Nuremberg Laws were Applied...
Noam Chomsky
Delivered around 1990
If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg. And Nuremberg means Nuremberg and Tokyo. So first of all you've got to think back as to what people were hanged for at Nuremberg and Tokyo. And once you think back, the question doesn't even require a moment's waste of time.

For example, one general at the Tokyo trials, which were the worst, General Yamashita, was hanged on the grounds that troops in the Philippines, which were technically under his command (though it was so late in the war that he had no contact with them -- it was the very end of the war and there were some troops running around the Philippines who he had no contact with), had carried out atrocities, so he was hanged. Well, try that one out and you've already wiped out everybody.

Read on, Frank, at,

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm

I think you are wrong, but I cannot think of any way to reconcile our differences on this issue.

Jerry Garcia, of the Grateful Dead once said, "Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." Yet all the time I hear that people are voting for one candidate or another because they are the lesser of the two evils.

I'm not the one who is ignoring anything, Frank. It's you who is so damn determined to ignore anything that might bring you anywhere close to facing the facts.

So you dance around the issue, raising these inanities, like the one you raised with Spendi, hoping that you do not have to discuss any of the facts.

Try addressing the issues, Frank, instead of two stepping all around them.

Read the definition of "argument of authority"...not that Jerry Garcia was much of an authority.

Compared to Frank "Oralloy" Apisa, he sure is. He doesn't have to be an authority. He's simply accurate.

I do not "dance around issues", JTT.

I also do not raise "inanities" (especially with Spendius)...

THE ISSUE: The essay starts, “IF the Nuremberg laws were applied…”

You're up, Twinkle Toes.