Obama '08?

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Nazis murdered over ten million German civilions, 1931 - 1945.an average of over 714,285 per year.
Communists murdered over one-hundred-six million civilians 1926-1987, an average of over 1,742,081 per year.[/size]

The author of the following article points out that Nazis and Communists were "blood brothers," ican.
Have you read this article I've posted before? I think it is highly informative, fascinating, and entirely logical.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

What's wrong with your list, ican? It leaves out Korea and Vietnam where the US butchered tens of thousands during that same period. Since your list ends in 1987, what ever happened to Iraq and Afghanistan where the US killed tens of thousands of innocent folks in those countries? Besides, they're more recent history - while the war in Afghanistan is on-going.

You not only have blinders on, but you're too dumb to understand what you post.

1 Reply

@okie,

Okie, what is the difference between a communist government that butchers people and a US sponsored right wing government that butchers people?

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Again with the specious arguments, Ican. Nobody has suggested a wish for any kind of government that butchers people, except for you. By trying to divert attention away from US support for murderous right wing dictators, you essentially are saying that you support these war crimes.

Your "boogeymen, boogeyment, watch out for these boogeymen!!" argument falls completely flat.

By refusing to address the FACTS, and the facts are clear, the US has installed many a right wind butcher who has slaughtered, with US guidance and support, millions of people.

One has to wonder. What is the difference between a communist government that butchers people and a US sponsored right wing government that butchers people?

You claim the "US has installed many a right wind butcher who has slaughtered, with US guidance and support, millions of people."

Not only do you fail to provide any evidence of this, you failed to identify the right wing butchers that you claim the US has installed and that have slaughtered millions of people .

By your failurel to address these FACTS, you make yourself appear to be just another leftwing demagogue lying about what others did or do.

Yes, US governments have been far from perfect, but they have not been the cause of installing butchers that have slaughtered millions.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

... your list, ican ... leaves out Korea and Vietnam where the US butchered tens of thousands during that same period. Since your list ends in 1987, what ever happened to Iraq and Afghanistan where the US killed tens of thousands of innocent folks in those countries? Besides, they're more recent history - while the war in Afghanistan is on-going.

JTT claimed the US killed millions, now you, Cice, claim the US killed "tens of thousands of innocents.

As usual you've got it wrong. In Korea it was the North Koreans that killed millions of innocents. In Vietnam it was the North Vietnamese that killed millions of innocents. In Afghanistan it was the Taliban that killed tens of thousands of innocents. In Iraq, it was al Qaeda and other militants that killed over 100,000 innocents.

1 Reply

Mr Obama is "on site" at the moment and hasn't got the time to be discussed.

0 Replies

As Candidate Obama, the president could always be relied upon to explain that he believed marriage should be limited to unions of one man and one woman, but now his DOJ has taken the position that DOMA is unconstitutional.

How to reconcile?

- "No Chin" Holden is freelancing again?
- The One has seen The Light since the time when all he was concerned with was getting middle of the road voters to opt for him?

Assuming he hasn't seen the light and he wasn't merely blowing smoke up moderate butts when he ran, I guess we can expect him to suggest to Congress how it can fix DOMA...after all, he's a "Constitutional Scholar!"

After the 2010 elections The Left was worried that The One would move too sharply to the right to preserve his chances in 2012.

They needn't have worried at all. What with this and his carrying water for the Union in Wisconsin, he's reaffirmed his bonafides.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

As Candidate Obama, the president could always be relied upon to explain that he believed marriage should be limited to unions of one man and one woman, but now his DOJ has taken the position that DOMA is unconstitutional.

How to reconcile?

Seriously? One sentence:

"Personal beliefs held by anyone, even the President, have nothing to do with the legality of issues - at all."

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm sorry Cyclo, but my English just ain't as good as yours.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I'm sorry Cyclo, but my English just ain't as good as yours.

Well, that is true, but it hardly relates to what I wrote at all.

Try using your imagination for once and think about things before you post them, Phineas. There's no contradiction between Obama personally believing one thing and his DoJ deciding that another thing is the way to go.

I do know, though, that you guys are desperate for some shred of reassurance that the '12 election will be competitive. I would be too, in your shoes.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Any election that is not competitive Cylco is a result of voter incompetence. Do you not know a simple thing like that yet?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Any election that is not competitive Cylco is a result of voter incompetence. Do you not know a simple thing like that yet?

Once again, that opinion isn't incompatible with the situation we find ourselves in in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Which doesn't fit with you saying that there is a desperation in some parts to make the next election competitive. Why would anybody be desperate?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Which doesn't fit with you saying that there is a desperation in some parts to make the next election competitive. Why would anybody be desperate?

Right-wingers who are in fact educated and knowledgable about politics know two things right now:

1, none of the candidates put forward has much of a shot beating Mr. Obama.

2, if Obama wins in 2012, any hopes they have of repealing Health Care Reform are dead and done for. And their victory in '10 will be meaningless.

So yes, they are desperate at this point. Now is the time that excitement should be mounting on their side for the coming challenge. Instead, they feel despair.

My statements fit together just fine, thanks.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

As Candidate Obama, the president could always be relied upon to explain that he believed marriage should be limited to unions of one man and one woman, but now his DOJ has taken the position that DOMA is unconstitutional.

How to reconcile?

Perhaps he learned and matured?

More likely though, it's because the questions now bubbling up the federal court hierarchy pose different legal questions than the cases that were acute during his candidacy. Back then, the dominant question was, should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? The current cases concern questions such as:

Why can't some lawfully-wed couples file joint federal tax returns, just because the partners are of the same sex?
Why can't an American's lawfully-wed same-sex spouse apply for a Green Card when his or her different-sex spouse can?
Why can't an American's lawfully-wed same-sex spouse collect Social Security survivor benefits?

These cases will be interesting to watch. Marriage law is traditionally the domain of the states. Supreme Court justices who reject an individual right to same-sex marriage tend to be quite hardcore on states' rights. They might just decide these cases in favor of same-sex couples.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Perhaps he learned and matured?

That happens a lot between campaigns and elections. Since noone lies to get elected, I also give them the benefit of the doubt.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Forgive me if I am repeating myself from something I said years ago.
The gay rights movement hurt themselves badly by adopting the phrase "gay marriage." The country was not comfortable with gays, much less the concept of "gay marriage."
DOMA came out of that.
The notion of "civil union" would probably have been a wiser path to follow, under which partners of the same gender could enjoy the same rights (as Thomas noted above) as the rest of us.
There are a couple of cases headed for the Supreme Court in the next term.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

The notion of "civil union" would probably have been a wiser path to follow, under which partners of the same gender could enjoy the same rights (as Thomas noted above) as the rest of us.

Well, that kind of was the rationale behind separate-but-equal facilities for Blacks, and look what good that did for them. Given America's history, I side with gays who won't settle for separate-but-equal legal unions.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

I have to agree with Thomas on this one. Better to confront prejudice head-on than to hide behind a phony title.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

In total, it's very possible the US killed millions. Do you have an actual count from all the US killings? When I talk about Iraq, I use established numbers from reliable sources. Where do you get yours? FOXNews?

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know