Obama General Discussion, vol. 5

[PhilsFan]

Besides, you still haven't explained how water-boarding (under medical supervision and congressional oversight) is more vile and inhumane than being atomized by a drone missile.

Why would he need to do something absurd like that?

 

[Irvine511]

Or he would prefer to side with those in the military that oppose its repeal. Or do they all hate gays too?

yes, they do. if they still oppose repeal, which has gone seamlessly, as we told you it would, and as has been the experience of the rest of the developed world, it seems fair to say that "hate" is the only remaining explanation for opposition. what else would it be?

And I prefer to side with those that say we gained a great deal of intel from the enhanced interrogation of a few select enemy combatants. Torture is your word for this not mine, if I thought we were truly torturing people I'd be against it also.

what intelligence was gained, and how good that actual intelligence was, are points of debate. reasonable people can disagree. reasonable people cannot disagree that waterboarding is torture.

it simply is. it's widely recognized as torture by numerous international conventions and treaties, including by the US (we've prosecuted as war criminals individuals who have used such practices), and like, say, John McCain, until the "torture memos" where John Yoo suddenly decided it wasn't.

it was used by the Khamer Rouge no less:

Besides, you still haven't explained how water-boarding (under medical supervision and congressional oversight) is more vile and inhumane than being atomized by a drone missile.

there's a legal question here, and a moral question.

the legality of drones vs. torture falls clearly on the side of drones. they are legal. torture is not. no matter what Dick Cheney says.

the morality is something else and i agree much more slippery. i'm not comfortable with the drone program, and i fear the "blowback" that comes whenever you bomb innocent civilians -- however, it's also inarguable that much of AQ has been decimated by these drones, and many view them as the "least worst" option available.

i don't have an answer, but it is something for debate.

 

[Irvine511]

Not really because we'd be 6 months closer to a world with Atomic Mullahs.

Why should we trust the world's most involved state sponsor of terrorism again?

because of the people who actually live in Iran.

i know NRO conservatives think all muslims are the same, but Iran is quite a complex place, and real change is possible.

U2 Dublin in solidarity with people of Iran 25 July 2009 - YouTube

 

[INDY500]

because of the people who actually live in Iran.

i know NRO conservatives think all muslims are the same, but Iran is quite a complex place, and real change is possible.

l know all Huffington Post liberals believe Muslims deserve to live under dictators but speaking of "real change" the people of Iran pleaded with our president in 2009 to help topple the Islamic regime. Unfortunately many died in the streets while their pleas fell on deaf ears.

 

[maycocksean]

l know all Huffington Post liberals believe Muslims deserve to live under dictators

What are you talking about?

 

[Irvine511]

l know all Huffington Post liberals believe Muslims deserve to live under dictators but speaking of "real change" the people of Iran pleaded with our president in 2009 to help topple the Islamic regime. Unfortunately many died in the streets while their pleas fell on deaf ears.

I know you love war when someone else fights and pays for it, but sanctions and diplomacy have proven to be far more effective.

 

[PhilsFan]

l know all Huffington Post liberals believe Muslims deserve to live under dictators but speaking of "real change" the people of Iran pleaded with our president in 2009 to help topple the Islamic regime. Unfortunately many died in the streets while their pleas fell on deaf ears.

I am sitting at home and actually let out an audible groan upon reading this slop.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

Or he would prefer to side with those in the military that oppose its repeal. Or do they all hate gays too?

From a former active duty Marine that was in when DADT was repealed, no one really cared. I certainly didn't give a shit. You're gay? Cool man I'll have your back in a firefight just like you'd have mine.

One of my NCO's was gay and he was one of the greatest leaders I had known, and he was a pretty fucking badass guy all around. I'd follow him into a fight any day and know he'd have my back.

He might not be straight but his bullets flew just as straight as mine.. you can ask the Taliban about that one

And Irvine was right, those who were vocally opposed were usually bigots.

 

[Irvine511]

From a former active duty Marine that was in when DADT was repealed, no one really cared. I certainly didn't give a shit. You're gay? Cool man I'll have your back in a firefight just like you'd have mine. One of my NCO's was gay and he was one of the greatest leaders I had known, and he was a pretty fucking badass guy all around. I'd follow him into a fight any day and know he'd have my back. He might not be straight but his bullets flew just as straight as mine.. you can ask the Taliban about that one And Irvine was right, those who were vocally opposed were usually bigots.

This is an awesome post.

And it brings up a great point -- anyone who thinks that active duty military would have a problem serving with a gay person must have an awfully low opinion of the military.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

And it brings up a great point -- anyone who thinks that active duty military would have a problem serving with a gay person must have an awfully low opinion of the military.

Not too long ago there was a lot in the military who had a problem with blacks serving. And eventually their place in the military went away. I see this as no different.

 

[Pearl]

From a former active duty Marine that was in when DADT was repealed, no one really cared. I certainly didn't give a shit. You're gay? Cool man I'll have your back in a firefight just like you'd have mine.

One of my NCO's was gay and he was one of the greatest leaders I had known, and he was a pretty fucking badass guy all around. I'd follow him into a fight any day and know he'd have my back.

He might not be straight but his bullets flew just as straight as mine.. you can ask the Taliban about that one

And Irvine was right, those who were vocally opposed were usually bigots.

Your NCO sounds awesome. I salute him.

Some people I know who are against gays in the military say that they really believe the gay troops will be too focused on making a move on the other guys than concentrating on fighting. Pfft. Like gays are so sex crazy they can't focus on anything else. Also, gays have been in the military before, albeit closeted. They fought then so why not now?

Also, when I hear arguments against gays in the military, I think of what Chris Rock said long ago: "If they want to fight, let them fight. 'Cuz I ain't fighting!"

In other words, kudos to them!

 

[AEON]

And Irvine was right, those who were vocally opposed were usually bigots.

While I appreciate most of your post, I really don't think it's fair to reduce fellow humans as "bigots" - people are far more nuanced than that, they have many different reasons for feeling/thinking the way they do. For some, it is religion or upbringing. For others, they just don't "understand" it (this is where I fit. Yes, I understand "what" it is, I don't understand "why" it happens. I always try to find a "purpose" for everything - and I've struggled to find the biological/spiritual/evolutionary purpose of homosexuality). Using the term "bigot" automatically shuts off dialogue and conjurs images of the cast of Deliverance.

Regarding the legality and treatment of homosexuals, we are certainly moving in the right direction. However, there will always be some people that are simply repulsed by homosexuality even if they agree that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law.

Side note - it seems that many forget that DADT came into existence so that homosexuals could start serving in the military. Before DADT, homosexuals were banned outright.

 

[Pearl]

While I appreciate most of your post, I really don't think it's fair to reduce fellow humans as "bigots" - people are far more nuanced than that, they have many different reasons for feeling/thinking the way they do. For some, it is religion or upbringing. For others, they just don't "understand" it (this is where I fit. Yes, I understand "what" it is, I don't understand "why" it happens. I always try to find a "purpose" for everything - and I've struggled to find the biological/spiritual/evolutionary purpose of homosexuality). Using the term "bigot" automatically shuts off dialogue and conjurs images of the cast of Deliverance.

I agree with that, but at the same time, there are people who are directly affected by homophobia or know someone close to them who've been hurt by it. There are also a lot of people who do have a fear and hatred for gay people, and they're not members of Westboro. Too many bad experiences for some does lead to the term "bigot" being used often, even if it shouldn't be. Sometimes suspicions can be valid.

 

[Irvine511]

While I appreciate most of your post, I really don't think it's fair to reduce fellow humans as "bigots" - people are far more nuanced than that, they have many different reasons for feeling/thinking the way they do. For some, it is religion or upbringing. For others, they just don't "understand" it (this is where I fit. Yes, I understand "what" it is, I don't understand "why" it happens. I always try to find a "purpose" for everything - and I've struggled to find the biological/spiritual/evolutionary purpose of homosexuality). Using the term "bigot" automatically shuts off dialogue and conjurs images of the cast of Deliverance.

could you suggest another term?

what's important to understand, though, is that people can dislike it all they want, they just can't use the law to discriminate against people for being gay.

to all the rest i simply say that it's your issue to deal with, not mine.

Regarding the legality and treatment of homosexuals, we are certainly moving in the right direction. However, there will always be some people that are simply repulsed by homosexuality even if they agree that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law.

i'm repulsed by cunnilingus.

oh, wait, did i just reduce heterosexuality to a single sex act? because that's what you do without even noticing it, and in the same post where you complained that being called a bigot is dehumanizing.

let it be known that i enthusiastically support the right for any legal consenting adult to engage in cunnilingus.

Side note - it seems that many forget that DADT came into existence so that homosexuals could start serving in the military. Before DADT, homosexuals were banned outright.

DADT was a half measure that became bad policy.

thankfully, most of us have evolved.

 

[BoMac]

let it be known that i enthusiastically support the right for any legal consenting adult to engage in cunnilingus.

This man appreciates your views on this important matter:

 

[AEON]

i'm repulsed by cunnilingus.

oh, wait, did i just reduce heterosexuality to a single sex act? because that's what you do without even noticing it, and in the same post where you complained that being called a bigot is dehumanizing.

I am generally repulsed by all homosexual affection (holding hands, kissing). But I do agree - it is my issue and not yours.

let it be known that i enthusiastically support the right for any legal consenting adult to engage in cunnilingus.

Is that a HULK SMASH or just a great response?

 

[Irvine511]

Is that a HULK SMASH or just a great response?

If you want to kiss the sky better learn how to kneel.

 

[BoMac]

I am generally repulsed by all homosexual affection (holding hands, kissing).

This sentence repulses me. Disgusting.

 

[AEON]

This sentence repulses me. Disgusting.

Yeah, just being honest. And so are you. I'm sure we'll survive each other.

 

[Irvine511]

Do you dislike 2 women kissing as much as 2 men?

 

[AEON]

Do you dislike 2 women kissing as much as 2 men?

No - I don't dislike it as much.

I'm hypocrite.

 

[INDY500]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/u...ay-to-approval-of-keystone-pipeline.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The State Department released a report on Friday that could pave the way toward President Obama’s approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The long-awaited environmental impact statement on the project concludes that approval or denial of the pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, is unlikely to prompt oil companies to change the rate of their extraction of carbon-heavy tar sands oil, a State Department official said. Either way, the tar sands oil, which produces significantly more planet-warming carbon pollution than standard methods of drilling, is coming out of the ground, the report says.

Continue to appease the environmental lobby or provide good paying American jobs... What will our brave president do?

 

[Irvine511]

i'd start by looking at what's happened in West Virginia. and the Gulf. and Alaska. and ...

 

[INDY500]

Obama 2008: Bypassing Congress Unconstitutional - YouTube

“I taught constitutional law for ten years,” President Obama said in 2008. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.'

Feb 2014
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ers_we_have_become_a_nation_of_enablers.html”

TURLEY: I'm afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama's policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.

And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.
Jonathan Turley, constitutional professor

Some of you will remain silent longer than others unfortunately.

 

[Irvine511]

given the unproductivity and mindless obstructionism of Congress and the American people's incredibly low opinion of the GOP-controlled House, i say go for it.

 

[Diemen]

It's quite ingenious, really. From day one we'll make it our mission to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct everything the president wants to accomplish. Hold a meeting with the power players of the Republican congress and senate even before he's elected, and make it clear that "if he's for it, then we have to be against it." Make it out to be the president's fault while we're at it, claiming that we're willing to work with the president if he'd just come to the table (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), which makes the president look bad even though everyone knows that we're the ones actively obstructing any attempts at bipartisanship. After all, it will make Obama look bad since he ran on a platform of working together.

Allow the new blood in your party to rise to prominence plainly and actively promoting a legislative view that treats compromise as anathema to any REAL conservative, all the while decrying the Democrats unwillingness to negotiate. Become the biggest do-nothing congress in the history of the Republic (by far), while also filibustering and/or obstructing the most appointments in the history of the Republic, and then claim that the president is the one not reaching out.

And when the president finally gets fed up of the charade and wants to get stuff done for a change, decry his lack of respect for the Constitution.

Brilliant!

 

[INDY500]

Pfft, if only. New blood rise to prominence my ass. The GOP establishment and congressional leaders spend more time calling out and degrading Ted Cruz and the "wacko-bird" Tea Party than they do this president. Seems to me Boehner and McConnell just gave in to the president on the Debt ceiling for example.

But let's assume the GOP takes the senate next year. Will we be calling the president an obstructionist when he vetoes bills?

 

[INDY500]

given the unproductivity and mindless obstructionism of Congress and the American people's incredibly low opinion of the GOP-controlled House, i say go for it.

No surprise. You applaud when a solitary judge nullifies a popular vote, rewrites a constitution, and redefines marriage for an entire state. No surprise at all that you are pro-despot.

 

[Diemen]

No surprise at all that you are pro-despot.

Ooh, pro-despot. How cutting.

 

[Diemen]

Pfft, if only.

So you'd prefer those who treat compromise as anathema to be more prominent in the party?