Liberals Livid At Obama's Right Turn

[red states rule]

The messiah is doing way to much flip flopping, and his kook left base is not happy


'LEFT' IN THE DUST

By CHARLES HURT Post Correspondent

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's recent rightward lurch on key issues is causing a revolt among left-wing bloggers and activists, who had been his earliest and most ardent supporters.

"Obama's not just moving to the center for the general [election], he's practically denouncing and rejecting every progressive voice in the country," fumes Danner Kline, who blogs in Alabama for his Web site, 9Numbers.com.

Over the past several weeks, Obama has shifted from his liberal positions on gun rights, capital punishment and terrorist surveillance. And he walked away from his pledge to work within the confines of public campaign financing.

In addition, liberals lament, Obama took swipes this week at MoveOn.org and retired Gen. Wesley Clark for their fierce partisan attacks.

Just yesterday, Obama pledged support for expanding President Bush's church-based federal assistance program, which is opposed by so many on the left.

When he first attended an Obama event a year ago, Kline said he was "awed" by an inspirational speaker who wouldn't back down from his principles.

But then came Obama's rotations.

"I have been staunchly in support of Obama until the past few weeks," Kline told The Post.

While it's still hard for him to imagine voting against Obama in November, Kline is shelving his plans to volunteer for his campaign.

"The way I'm feeling now, that's not going to happen," Kline said.

Kline's discontent is being echoed across the very same liberal blogosphere that launched Obama from obscurity more than a year ago.

So much so that thousands of dissatisfied supporters have created a group on his Web site to protest his latest position on terrorist surveillance legislation, known as FISA.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07022008/news/nationalnews/left_in_the_dust_118154.htm

[retiredman]

tempest in a teapot. above all, the left understands that, regardless of any philosophical differences they may have with Obama, he STILL supports the vast majority of issues that they hold near and dear. They have figured out that Obama is their candidate and all they are trying to do now is tug him in small incremental ways closer to a handful of their positions. The far left blogosphere may be angry at Obama, but they will still show up in force and vote for him - and against four more years of failed republican policies - come november.

[Sitarro]

tempest in a teapot. above all, the left understands that, regardless of any philosophical differences they may have with Obama, he STILL supports the vast majority of issues that they hold near and dear. They have figured out that Obama is their candidate and all they are trying to do now is tug him in small incremental ways closer to a handful of their positions. The far left blogosphere may be angry at Obama, but they will still show up in force and vote for him - and against four more years of failed republican policies - come november.

Wait till they see his about face on Iraq once he realizes how incredibly stupid his view is on it........ they may still vote for Hillary at the convention.

[Hagbard Celine]

Wait till they see his about face on Iraq once he realizes how incredibly stupid his view is on it........ they may still vote for Hillary at the convention.

What? :cuckoo: He has the most rational view on the subject of any candidate. I've heard him talk about it many times. He has a complete understanding of the situation over there and he's not sugar coating it and bullsh*tting us all like Bush and McCain are. Sometimes I think you just like to hear yourself talk. Jeez.

[gabosaurus]

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be livid.

Yet another crock of shit spun by the master shit crocker.

[hjmick]

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be livid.

Yet another crock of shit spun by the master shit crocker.

I guess you didn't get the memo.

Even the leader of the Nutroots, Markos Moulitsas, is pissed at Barack. So much so, he's withholding contributions. Of course it could be that Kos is just another master shit crocker spinning another crock of shit.


Rewarding good behavior
by kos
Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:05:46 AM PDT

So many of you are upset that I pulled back my credit card last night, making a last minute decision to hold back on a $2,300 contribution to Obama. Let me explain further:

First of all, obviously Obama is a great candidate who is running a great 50-state race. That much cannot be denied. But he's had a rough couple of weeks.

First, he reversed course and capitulated on FISA, not just turning back on the Constitution, but on the whole concept of "leadership". Personally, I like to see presidents who 1) lead, and 2) uphold their promises to protect the Constitution.

Then, he took his not-so-veiled swipe at MoveOn in his "patriotism" speech.

Finally, he reinforced right-wing and media talking points that Wes Clark had somehow impugned McCain's military service when, in reality, Clark had done no such thing.

All of a sudden, there was a lot of cowering when, just days ago, we got to read this: (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/the-inner-obama/)


When Mr. Wenner asked how Mr. Obama might respond to harsh attacks from Republicans, suggesting that Democrats have "cowered" in the past, Mr. Obama replied, "Yeah, I don’t do cowering."

Could've fooled me, and maybe he is. Maybe what looks like cowering to me is really part of that "moving to the center" stuff everyone keeps talking about. But there is a line between "moving to the center" and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized. And, of late, he's been doing a lot of unecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist bona fides. That's not an indictment, just an observation.

Now I know there's a contingent around here that things Obama can do no wrong, and he must never be criticized, and if you do, well fuck you! I respect the sentiment, but will respectfully disagree. We're allowed to do that here. But fair notice -- I will never pull a Rush Limbaugh and carry water for anyone. Not for the Democratic Congress, and not for our future Democratic president. When anyone does something I don't care for, I will say so. I've never pulled my punches before, so why start now?

Obama will be fine without my contribution, and he may even still get it before this thing is said and done, but it would be at a time when he has done something positive. That's called rewarding good behavior. And if that opportunity fails to arise because Obama goes on a Sister Souljah'ing rampage, then no worries. Chances are good that the DNC would get the money instead. But at this time, I simply have no desire to reward bad behavior. Some of you don't care about his behavior, or don't think it's bad behavior, or whatever. I didn't ask any of you to follow suit, and don't care whether you do or not. I didn't pull him from the Orange to Blue list. I'm not going to start praising Nader or Barr. I'll still vote for him. Yadda, yadda, yadda. At the end of the day, I'm pretty irrelevant in the whole affair. Obama is going to raise a ton of dough and win this thing whether I send him money or not.

Ultimately, he's currently saying that he doesn't need people like me to win this thing, and he's right. He doesn't. If they've got polling or whatnot that says that this is his best path to victory, so much the better. I want him to win big. But when the Obama campaign makes those calculations, they have to realize that they're going to necessarily lose some intensity of support. It's not all upside. And for me, that is reflected in a lack of interest in making that contribution.

That's it. No need to freak out. It is what it is. Others will happily pick up the slack. We're headed toward a massive Democratic wave, and what I decide to do with my money means next to nothing, no matter how much hyperventilating may happen on this site's comments and diaries about it all.

And if for some crazy hard-to-see reason my money actually is important to the Obama campaign, then they can adjust their behavior to get it.


kos (http://kos.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/1/05546/22532/562/544544)

[midcan5]

Nothing wrong with pragmatism. Kos is lost in Naderland.

[retiredman]

Wait till they see his about face on Iraq once he realizes how incredibly stupid his view is on it........ they may still vote for Hillary at the convention.

I won't hold my breath waiting for YOUR prognostications to come true!:lol:

[gabosaurus]

Obama supporters want total withdrawal from Iraq. Anything less is breaking a campaign promise.

[Yurt]

Obama supporters want total withdrawal from Iraq. Anything less is breaking a campaign promise.

exactly what i have been saying.


Obama's Web site contains this direct promise about Iraq: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al-Qaida attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al-Qaida."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/..._pr/obama_iraq

as hjmick said, people are allowed to change their minds, however, this promise is what set BO apart from hillary and imo, won votes over from hillary to make him the presumptive nominee. of course people also did not want bush-clinton-bush-clinton...but this is one thing that his most ardent supporters said sets him apart from any other candidate, other than this, obama and hillary were virtually the same in policy.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=266773&postcount=7

[mundame]

Obama supporters want total withdrawal from Iraq. Anything less is breaking a campaign promise.


I agree, but I think he's breaking the promise already, and it's only July. Obama is backing and filling on leaving the troops there after all.

[Psychoblues]

This self avowed liberal isn't confused at all about it. The problem is the one you create for yourselves. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

The Lounge is open and the drinks are on me!!!!!!!! Come on in and sit a spell!!!!!!!!!!!

[actsnoblemartin]

im sorry, but obama is acting like a politician, by going towards the center to get votes



This self avowed liberal isn't confused at all about it. The problem is the one you create for yourselves. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

The Lounge is open and the drinks are on me!!!!!!!! Come on in and sit a spell!!!!!!!!!!!

[Psychoblues]

Isn't that what poiticians do, martee? This is an election cycle, what do you expect?

[actsnoblemartin]

but i thought obama was different, :poke:

Mccain the panderer is NOT getting a free pass from me bud, politicians do do this.


Isn't that what poiticians do, martee? This is an election cycle, what do you expect?

[Psychoblues]

An awakening,,,,,,,



but i thought obama was different, :poke:

Mccain the panderer is NOT getting a free pass from me bud, politicians do do this.

Shallow, but an awakening nonetheless. Interesting but not promising.

[red states rule]

Isn't that what poiticians do, martee? This is an election cycle, what do you expect?

So you admit your messiah is not anything new, and he does not transcend politics?

Thanks for the newsflash

[red states rule]

Another liberal is expressing his displeasure with the messiah and his flip flops.

and it is from the DNC Times no less



Lurching With Abandon

By BOB HERBERT
Published: July 8, 2008
In one of the numbers from “Fiddler on the Roof,” Tevye sings, with a mixture of emotions: “We haven’t got the man ... we had when we began.”

Back in January when Barack Obama pulled off his stunning win in the Iowa caucuses, and people were lining up in the cold and snow for hours just to get a glimpse of him, there was a wide and growing belief — encouraged to the max by the candidate — that something new in American politics had arrived.

His brilliant, nationally televised victory speech in Des Moines sent a shiver of hope through much of the electorate. “The time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face,” said Senator Obama, “who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.”

Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of “is” is.

This is why so many of Senator Obama’s strongest supporters are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry at the candidate who is now emerging in the bright light of summer.

for the complete article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=3&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[mundame]

"Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of “is” is.

This is why so many of Senator Obama’s strongest supporters are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry at the candidate who is now emerging in the bright light of summer."


I don't agree with this --- it seems to me a DEFENSE of Obalamabama.

But it's quite a difference to say flatly that he'll get the troops out for sure, at once, and then switch around to put 14 caveats on it, just like Bush always does.

Just alllllllllllllll these reasons he can't do what he said he'd do.

Actually, I don't know what makes this guy think it helps his campaign to do this NOW. With pulling out of Iraq being what the public plainly wants, why should he go toward the alleged "middle," and claim he may not pull out after all?

He'd look better staying a clear, plain, antiwar candidate and then doing whatever suits him after he's president, like they all do.

No one expects a prez to actually DO what he says, we just expect him to keep consistently saying the same thing. And Obama isn't saying the same thing, he's flip-flopping. Unnecessarily.


I knew this would happen. After the Dems didn't end the war like they said they would, I am not such a fool as to suppose there's an honest bone in Obalama's body either.

[Trigg]

Obama supporters want total withdrawal from Iraq. Anything less is breaking a campaign promise.

Now that he's backing off of that promise what do you think of your man?

Looks like he's going to end up with almost the same plan in Iraq as McCain.



"I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he said. "I'm sure I'll have more information and continue to refine my policy

[red states rule]

Now that he's backing off of that promise what do you think of your man?

Looks like he's going to end up with almost the same plan in Iraq as McCain.

Gabby should love this

US Democrats admit they lied to the anti-war crowd for votes.: "They ate it up."
When i call them peasants, i mean it.


Congressman admits Democrats "stretched the facts," misled anti-war supporters about supposed plans for ending War


Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has been a fairly undistinguished member of the House of Representatives for nearly a quarter of a century. He is a career member of the Financial Services Committee who has made little or no name for himself since his first electoral victory, and has maintained incumbency through the funneling of pork back to his district. Even his Wikipedia entry says that Kanjorski "usually plays behind-the-scenes roles in the advocacy or defeat of legislation and steers appropriations money toward improving the infrastructure and economic needs of his district."
�But [in] the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts - and people ate it up.�

Never one to stand out in a crowd outside of his own district if he could help it up until now, Rep. Kanjorski's public life may be about to change in a major way very, very quickly, and for a very big reason.

You see, Paul Kanjorski has an honesty problem.

More specifically, Paul Kanjorski's problem is that he was publicly honest about the intentional dishonesty of Congressional Democrats (and Democrat candidates) in the run-up to the 2006 election -- particularly with regard to the War in Iraq.

Watch the video

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/082_1211578440"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/082_1211578440" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=082_1211578440

[Little-Acorn]

The messiah is doing way to much flip flopping, and his kook left base is not happy


'LEFT' IN THE DUST

By CHARLES HURT Post Correspondent

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's recent rightward lurch on key issues is causing a revolt among left-wing bloggers and activists, who had been his earliest and most ardent supporters.

"Obama's not just moving to the center for the general [election], he's practically denouncing and rejecting every progressive voice in the country," fumes Danner Kline, who blogs in Alabama for his Web site, 9Numbers.com.

Over the past several weeks, Obama has shifted from his liberal positions on gun rights, capital punishment and terrorist surveillance. And he walked away from his pledge to work within the confines of public campaign financing.

In addition, liberals lament, Obama took swipes this week at MoveOn.org and retired Gen. Wesley Clark for their fierce partisan attacks.

Just yesterday, Obama pledged support for expanding President Bush's church-based federal assistance program, which is opposed by so many on the left.

At this rate, if Obama really wants all these new positions he's taking to be enacted into law, he'll need to vote for John McCain.


When he first attended an Obama event a year ago, Kline said he was "awed" by an inspirational speaker who wouldn't back down from his principles.
This Kline person believed a politician who was running for office?

Now that's a kook leftist. :lol:

[red states rule]

At this rate, if Obama really wants all these new positions he's taking to be enacted into law, he'll need to vote for John McCain.


This Kline person believed a politician who was running for office?

Now that's a kook leftist. :lol:

Obama supporters say he transcends politics. On the contrary he transcends nothing. There is nothing special about the messiah known as Obama. Obama says he will continue to "refine" his policies. I guess these are re-deployments on the battlefield of the campaign

[The Bare Knuckled Pundit]

First and foremost in the unabridged canon of the liberal orthodoxy is the war in Iraq.

This abomination in their eyes is now commonly referred to as the greatest debacle in American foreign policy history. It is a blasphemy of the highest order as it breaks one of their holiest commandments, "Thou shalt not make war."

Their will having been frustrated by an incomplete victory that failed to produce veto-proof majorities in the 2006 Democratic seizure of Congress, they will expect a president that based much of his campaign on his unflagging opposition to the war from before its inception to grant them justice.

Accordingly, they will demand that Obama order an immediate halt to combat operations upon taking office and initiate the first phase of a complete withdrawal within the first hundred days of his administration. Anything less will be considered a breach of faith and result in Obama’s condemnation as an apostate.

In concert with the withdrawal from Iraq, the liberal Greek chorus will call for an end to the imperial aggression of America’s war on terror.

While they may grudgingly acquiesce to the retention of Osama Bin Laden’s inclusion on the FBI’s "Most Wanted List", they will absolve his brothers in arms on the basis of America’s provocative policies and arrogant worldview.

Pax Americana, the era of American-insured global peace, will be denounced as a self-indulgent exercise in the vanities and hubris of hegemonic ambition. The belief in the exceptionalism of America will be decried as a false religion, an opiate for the unenlightened nationalistic masses. Ultimately they will call for the replacement of the war on terror and the crusade for democracy with the self-flagellating promotion of universal cultural equanimity and the subordination of America’s national interests in the vain pursuit of global public approval.

Failing this, they will excommunicate Obama in an apoplectic flurry of self-righteous indignation.

[red states rule]

There are some in the liberal media defedning the messiah for his flip flops. You can find most of them over at DNCTV



Collins: Obama's Not Flip-flopping—He's Bringing Us Together
By Mark Finkelstein
July 9, 2008 - 12:55 ET

Got to be good looking
'cause he's so hard to see
Come together right now
Over me—The Beatles, "Come Together" (1969) [YouTube]

Bob Herbert just doesn't get it. As Noel Sheppard has noted, in his NYT column today Herbert accuses Barack Obama of "lurching right when it suits him, and . . . zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash." The NY Times columnist goes on to condemn the candidate for "pandering to evangelicals;" agreeing with Justices Scalia and Thomas on a "barbaric" interpretation of the 8th Amendment; and playing a "dangerous game" with his "shifts and panders."

No, no, no, Bob! That's not what's happening at all. Obama isn't flip-flopping. He's simply fulfilling his pledge to bring us together. What makes Herbert's obtuseness all the more infuriating is that enlightenment was just a stroll down the corridor away, to the office of Gail Collins. Herbert's fellow Times columnist explained what is really going on during her appearance today on Morning Joe.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/07/09/collins-obamas-not-flip-flopping-hes-bringing-us-together

[mundame]

This Kline person believed a politician who was running for office?

Now that's a kook leftist. :lol:


Naaaaaaah, just a young person.

I remember when I used to believe politicians.

Actually, it took me a long time to get over that. But I have now. They lie, and lie, and lie some more and it's a mistake to believe a word they say.

Just believe in what you can SEE of what they actually DO. That'll work.

And usually what they do is pretty awful.

So far, Obamabamabama has done nothing. All talk, hardly ever even votes in the Senate.

[red states rule]

The messiah knows he can't win with only liberal voters, however these liberals voters are unhappy with Obama acting like a "typical politician", how will Obama's message of "change" play with non liberal voters?

[theHawk]

"I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed," he said. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

Gosh, Barry sounds just like....Bush!!!

[Yurt]

The messiah knows he can't win with only liberal voters, however these liberals voters are unhappy with Obama acting like a "typical politician", how will Obama's message of "change" play with non liberal voters?

the liberal voters have so much hate for anything republican, that they will vote party over country. no matter what obama does, no matter how many times he lies, the far left and left will still vote for him. hatred clouds the mind, it can be seen in some posters here.

[mundame]

the liberal voters have so much hate for anything republican, that they will vote party over country. no matter what obama does, no matter how many times he lies, the far left and left will still vote for him. hatred clouds the mind, it can be seen in some posters here.


Well, darn, Yurt, who could vote for McCain, the "Forever War" man?

We only have two choices. And most people aren't free thinkers enough to realize they don't REALLY "have" to vote. They can lay out, not take an unacceptable forced choice, vote Libertarian.


So, I guess Obalama WAS the power-vacuum weird third-party type we were expecting, like Perot: he just turned out also to be a Democrat!

Sure surprised ol' Hillary.

[Yurt]

Well, darn, Yurt, who could vote for McCain, the "Forever War" man?

We only have two choices. And most people aren't free thinkers enough to realize they don't REALLY "have" to vote. They can lay out, not take an unacceptable forced choice, vote Libertarian.


So, I guess Obalama WAS the power-vacuum weird third-party type we were expecting, like Perot: he just turned out also to be a Democrat!

Sure surprised ol' Hillary.

if you read mccain's statement in its entirety, he never said he wanted a 100 year war or a forever war.

obama did well because of a few things, most notably, he was not a bush or clinton, as equally important, he promised an end to the iraq war in 16 months. this was truly his only real difference from hillary. he portrayed her as for the war and for not ending the war. now, he has taken back his 16 month promise and campaigning just like hillary who said she will end the war, but must take facts on the ground into account.

IMO, her plan still is superior to obama's:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/hillarys-end-the-war-pla_b_91998.html

[mundame]

if you read mccain's statement in its entirety, he never said he wanted a 100 year war or a forever war.
l (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/hillarys-end-the-war-pla_b_91998.html)


He said WORSE!

He said he wanted a hundred years or whatever of occupation like in Germany ----------------------------------------------

But to GET to that occupation, we have to keep on warring and warring against Iraq, spilling our blood and treasure pointlessly in the sand, for years and years and decades!! That's the bit he tried to sluff over, but evvvvverybody got it.

And nobody wants it.

So let's see: a candidate for president zeroes in on the ONE ISSUE Americans are overwhelmingly united on, that they want OUT of Iraq. And what does this candidate say? He says he'll keep us there fighting for years and years, however long it takes, and then occupy it forever after the decades of fighting!!!!!

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh, never mind the idea, a guy who thinks that's a good way to run for president is too stupid to be president. And of course he won't be.

And what's more, McCain does the same thing with most issues: Mexican immigration, abortion, drilling, lots of things: he figures out exactly what the people want --------------------

And then he promises to do the opposite!!

Darn, what a useless pair these two candidates are. Who could vote for either?

[Yurt]

He said WORSE!

He said he wanted a hundred years or whatever of occupation like in Germany ----------------------------------------------

But to GET to that occupation, we have to keep on warring and warring against Iraq, spilling our blood and treasure pointlessly in the sand, for years and years and decades!! That's the bit he tried to sluff over, but evvvvverybody got it.

And nobody wants it.

So let's see: a candidate for president zeroes in on the ONE ISSUE Americans are overwhelmingly united on, that they want OUT of Iraq. And what does this candidate say? He says he'll keep us there fighting for years and years, however long it takes, and then occupy it forever after the decades of fighting!!!!!

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh, never mind the idea, a guy who thinks that's a good way to run for president is too stupid to be president. And of course he won't be.

And what's more, McCain does the same thing with most issues: Mexican immigration, abortion, drilling, lots of things: he figures out exactly what the people want --------------------

And then he promises to do the opposite!!

Darn, what a useless pair these two candidates are. Who could vote for either?

:link:

[mundame]

:link:


Majorities poll the opposite of McCain's position on the war, on abortion, on Mexican illegal immigration, and on drilling.

You know that, everyone knows that. You don't need a link from me. We know what the majority positions are on these issues.

For reasons best known to himself, McCain has basically opposed the people on EVERYTHING. And this guy is trying to run for president??


Boy, when they say McCain is a maverick, they aren't just whistlin' Dixie.

[red states rule]

Majorities poll the opposite of McCain's position on the war, on abortion, on Mexican illegal immigration, and on drilling.

You know that, everyone knows that. You don't need a link from me. We know what the majority positions are on these issues.

For reasons best known to himself, McCain has basically opposed the people on EVERYTHING. And this guy is trying to run for president??


Boy, when they say McCain is a maverick, they aren't just whistlin' Dixie.

Polls I have seen show support for drilling - McCain is for drilling

Most polls I have seen in the past show people do not support partial birth abortion, and do not support abortion as a form of birth control

Seems Obama in on the wrong side of those issues, if you want to govern by polls

[Yurt]

Majorities poll the opposite of McCain's position on the war, on abortion, on Mexican illegal immigration, and on drilling.

You know that, everyone knows that. You don't need a link from me. We know what the majority positions are on these issues.

For reasons best known to himself, McCain has basically opposed the people on EVERYTHING. And this guy is trying to run for president??


Boy, when they say McCain is a maverick, they aren't just whistlin' Dixie.


He said he wanted a hundred years or whatever of occupation like in Germany

link for that

[retiredman]

Polls I have seen show support for drilling - McCain is for drilling

Most polls I have seen in the past show people do not support partial birth abortion, and do not support abortion as a form of birth control

Seems Obama in on the wrong side of those issues, if you want to govern by polls


most polls show that Americans do not want to eliminate a woman's right to chose. Obama is on the right side of that issue.

[red states rule]

most polls show that Americans do not want to eliminate a woman's right to chose. Obama is on the right side of that issue.

Where did I say eliminate?

[retiredman]

Where did I say eliminate?

that IS the pro-life position. That is what will happen if you overturn Roe.

[red states rule]

that IS the pro-life position. That is what will happen if you overturn Roe.

If Roe is overturned it goes back to the states

Maybe you support the murder of the unborn as a method of birth control - most people do not

[retiredman]

If Roe is overturned it goes back to the states

Maybe you support the murder of the unborn as a method of birth control - most people do not

most people do not want to eliminate a woman's right to chose. If you overturn Roe, you let rich white men make laws that restrict a woman's right to chose.

[red states rule]

most people do not want to eliminate a woman's right to chose. If you overturn Roe, you let rich white men make laws that restrict a woman's right to chose.

You mean rich white libs in blue states?

[retiredman]

You mean rich white libs in blue states?

no. I mean rich white men who make up the vast majority of EVERY state's state legislature.

[red states rule]

no. I mean rich white men who make up the vast majority of EVERY state's state legislature.

Which includes rich white libs in blue states

[retiredman]

Which includes rich white libs in blue states


rich white libs in blue states are not likely to pass laws that restrict a woman's right to chose. I thought you knew that.

[red states rule]

rich white libs in blue states are not likely to pass laws that restrict a woman's right to chose. I thought you knew that.

If Roe is overturned, the rich white libs can allow the slaughter of the unborn in their states

I thought you knew that

[retiredman]

If Roe is overturned, the rich white libs can allow the slaughter of the unborn in their states

I thought you knew that

rich white men will eliminate a woman's right to chose in the red states.
which is what I said would happen.

[red states rule]

rich white men will eliminate a woman's right to chose in the red states.
which is what I said would happen.

So states do not have the right to protect the life of the unborn?

[retiredman]

So states do not have the right to protect the life of the unborn?


not according to the USSC.

and if Roe is overturned, a woman's right to chose will be eliminated, which is what I said numerous posts ago and you argued with. :lol:

[red states rule]

not according to the USSC.

and if Roe is overturned, a woman's right to chose will be eliminated, which is what I said numerous posts ago and you argued with. :lol:

No it will not. It go back to the states, and each one will decide what they want to do

[retiredman]

No it will not. It go back to the states, and each one will decide what they want to do

and in those states where the legislatures are made up of rich white republican men, their rights to chose will be eliminated.

[red states rule]

and in those states where the legislatures are made up of rich white republican men, their rights to chose will be eliminated.

and is states with rich libs the slaughter wil be legal

So what is your problem? Babies will still be killed, but not at the same rate they are today

[retiredman]

and is states with rich libs the slaughter wil be legal

So what is your problem? Babies will still be killed, but not at the same rate they are today


my problem is that a woman's right to chose will be eliminated in places in our nation. I do not think that is a good thing... which is why I do not want Roe overturned.

[red states rule]

my problem is that a woman's right to chose will be eliminated in places in our nation. I do not think that is a good thing... which is why I do not want Roe overturned.

So you do not think it a good thing to preserve the life of the unborn?

The murder factories will continue even if Roe is overturned - which it should be

[retiredman]

So you do not think it a good thing to preserve the life of the unborn?

The murder factories will continue even if Roe is overturned - which it should be


I do not think it is a good thing to have rich white men telling women what must happen inside their uteruses.

We disagree about Roe. no surprise.

[red states rule]

I do not think it is a good thing to have rich white men telling women what must happen inside their uteruses.

We disagree about Roe. no surprise.

So the life of the unborn is a non issue to you? Yet the lives and comfort of terrorists is an issue to you

No surprise there

[retiredman]

So the life of the unborn is a non issue to you? Yet the lives and comfort of terrorists is an issue to you

No surprise there

I hate abortion. and the lives and comfort of terrorists are not an issue to me - living up to our high standards as a nation is an issue to me.

That country that wants to be the city on a hill cannot wallow in the mud simply because our enemies do.

[red states rule]

I hate abortion. and the lives and comfort of terrorists are not an issue to me - living up to our high standards as a nation is an issue to me.

That country that wants to be the city on a hill cannot wallow in the mud simply because our enemies do.

You have shown the comfort of terrorists is more important then stopping their attacks, and you value the lives of the unborn less then you value the lives of the terrorists

If we listen to the messiah the city on the hill will have no lights on because we have no energy to power them.

[retiredman]

You have shown the comfort of terrorists is more important then stopping their attacks, and you value the lives of the unborn less then you value the lives of the terrorists

If we listen to the messiah the city on the hill will have no lights on because we have no energy to power them.

That is a lie. I care nothing for the "comfort" of terrorists.

mangled metaphors from the man who uses words like a housepainter uses paint!

[red states rule]

That is a lie. I care nothing for the "comfort" of terrorists.

mangled metaphors from the man who uses words like a housepainter uses paint!

Correct me if I am wrong but you have said where sleep deprivation, and adjusting the temp in their cells is "torture"

That is being worried about their comfort

[retiredman]

Correct me if I am wrong but you have said where sleep deprivation, and adjusting the temp in their cells is "torture"

That is being worried about their comfort


extreme sleep deprivation and hypothermia is torture.

If you are kept awake for days on end, it is torture.

If you are placed in freezer compartments where your body temperature starts to drop precipitously, it is torture.

it has nothing to do with "comfort".

[red states rule]

extreme sleep deprivation and hypothermia is torture.

If you are kept awake for days on end, it is torture.

If you are placed in freezer compartments where your body temperature starts to drop precipitously, it is torture.

it has nothing to do with "comfort".

I rest my case. The comfort of terrorists means more to you then the innocent life of the unborn

Thank you for finally telling the truth about something

[retiredman]

I rest my case. The comfort of terrorists means more to you then the innocent life of the unborn

Thank you for finally telling the truth about something

do you think that if you were forced to stay awake for five, six, seven days... being forced to stand rather than sit, or being forced to listen to loud music or being poked and prodded to stay away for day after day after day that such treatment would NOT be torture?

yes or no

[red states rule]

do you think that if you were forced to stay awake for five, six, seven days... being forced to stand rather than sit, or being forced to listen to loud music or being poked and prodded to stay away for day after day after day that such treatment would NOT be torture?

yes or no

It is not torture at all. You would rather not stop a terrorist attack then disrupt the comfort of the terrorist

Maybe you would say "pretty please" to the terrorists - I would not

[retiredman]

It is not torture at all. You would rather not stop a terrorist attack then disrupt the comfort of the terrorist

Maybe you would say "pretty please" to the terrorists - I would not

so you do not think that being forced to stand up and stay awake for days and days on end would be torture? really.

[red states rule]

so you do not think that being forced to stand up and stay awake for days and days on end would be torture? really.

The SOB's are still breathing? All they have to do is tell us what we want to know then they can sleep

Again, you have no problem killing the unborn, but lets not wake up the terrorists, and make sure they have an extra blanket if they want one

[retiredman]

The SOB's are still breathing? All they have to do is tell us what we want to know then they can sleep

Again, you have no problem killing the unborn, but lets not wake up the terrorists, and make sure they have an extra blanket if they want one

you failed to answer my question.

and I take it that you would be perfectly OK with our GIs being subjected to that?

of course.... you never served so why would YOU care?

[red states rule]

you failed to answer my question.

and I take it that you would be perfectly OK with our GIs being subjected to that?

of course.... you never served so why would YOU care?

GI's are covered by the GC - terrorists are not. I know of no war where our troops have been treated the way you want to treat terrorists

We do not kill the terrorists like the terrorists do their captives

[retiredman]

EVERYONE is covered by the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment..

and whether you like it or not, that treaty is "the supreme law of the land".

[red states rule]

EVERYONE is covered by the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment..

and whether you like it or not, that treaty is "the supreme law of the land".

On what date did AQ agree to follow the treaty?

Why not order the troops to fight this war under marques of queensberry rules?

[retiredman]

On what date did AQ agree to follow the treaty?

Why not order the troops to fight this war under marques of queensberry rules?

the treaty is not reciprocal in nature. No person or organization or country needs to be a party of that treaty to be protected by it. That treaty is the supreme law of the land. Why do you piss on it?

Troops are trained in the law of war. They fight according to it. It is what makes them a trained and effective fighting force instead a gang of thugs.

[red states rule]

the treaty is not reciprocal in nature. No person or organization or country needs to be a party of that treaty to be protected by it. That treaty is the supreme law of the land. Why do you piss on it?

Troops are trained in the law of war. They fight according to it. It is what makes them a trained and effective fighting force instead a gang of thugs.

As a Liberal puke, you're repeating propaganda from the "Hate America" gang from that era. We are the ones who torture. We are the ones who violate the law.

Please accept my invitation to notice the mistletoe pinned to my coattail.

[Yurt]

the treaty is not reciprocal in nature. No person or organization or country needs to be a party of that treaty to be protected by it. That treaty is the supreme law of the land. Why do you piss on it?

Troops are trained in the law of war. They fight according to it. It is what makes them a trained and effective fighting force instead a gang of thugs.

:link:

[red states rule]

:link:

Yurt, you should know by now liberal hacks like MFM believe the UN should be in charge of the defense of America, and should set the rules of engagement

He posted this treaty BS a few months ago. It was his usual BS. America is the bad guy. America tortures the helpless terrorists. And anyone who disagrees with him is pissing on the Constitution, is an enemy of the state, and should be shot

[Yurt]

Yurt, you should know by now liberal hacks like MFM believe the UN should be in charge of the defense of America, and should set the rules of engagement

He posted this treaty BS a few months ago. It was his usual BS. America is the bad guy. America tortures the helpless terrorists. And anyone who disagrees with him is pissing on the Constitution, is an enemy of the state, and should be shot

i'm not sure it is "not" reciprical as he says. that is why i want a link. i believe the treaty applies to the high contracting parties, and if one is not a party and they do not abide by the treaty, then it is not reciprical. it would surprise me if he had authority to back up his claim.

[red states rule]

i'm not sure it is "not" reciprical as he says. that is why i want a link. i believe the treaty applies to the high contracting parties, and if one is not a party and they do not abide by the treaty, then it is not reciprical. it would surprise me if he had authority to back up his claim.

He will act like his messiah. He will double talk you to death, he will parse words, and if all else fails; he will rant how you are pissing on the Constitution

You would think he would know treaties do not win wars. Capturing and killing the enemy does

[mundame]

EVERYONE is covered by the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment..

and whether you like it or not, that treaty is "the supreme law of the land".


Plainly it is NOT the law of our land, though I wish it were. Well, we have a lot of domestic laws against torture, too, but Bush promoted state torture around the world, and I assume we're still doing horrific stuff and have secret prisons.

I'd like to be proud of America, but I don't see how anyone can be proud of a nation that does state torture of tied-up prisoners.

[retiredman]

Plainly it is NOT the law of our land, though I wish it were. Well, we have a lot of domestic laws against torture, too, but Bush promoted state torture around the world, and I assume we're still doing horrific stuff and have secret prisons.

I'd like to be proud of America, but I don't see how anyone can be proud of a nation that does state torture of tied-up prisoners.


It IS the supreme law of the land. We just have an administration who holds the constitution in such low regard that they will not abide by its basic precepts

[retiredman]

:link:

do your own legal research counselor. the text of the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is available in several locations on the web. You DO know how to use search engines, don't you counselor?

[mundame]

It IS the supreme law of the land. We just have an administration who holds the constitution in such low regard that they will not abide by its basic precepts


All right. I recognize that signed treaties have constitutional status.



Not that Bush cares, the damned torturer.

[Trigg]

Obama supporters want total withdrawal from Iraq. Anything less is breaking a campaign promise.

You might have missed this question. Here is it again.

Since your man seems to be backing off of his "our of Iraq" policy that won him the dem nomination, what do you think of him now.

Is he still your great hope for the country????????

[retiredman]

You might have missed this question. Here is it again.

Since your man seems to be backing off of his "our of Iraq" policy that won him the dem nomination, what do you think of him now.

Is he still your great hope for the country????????


he is still the better choice, by far.

[Yurt]

do your own legal research counselor. the text of the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is available in several locations on the web. You DO know how to use search engines, don't you counselor?

you always demand links when not given, i see there is one rule for you and one for others...hypocrite

and i already did a long time ago...

it is my understanding that you, again, wrong. if the other party does not abide by the treaty, then we are not bound by it.

[retiredman]

you always demand links when not given, i see there is one rule for you and one for others...hypocrite

and i already did a long time ago...

it is my understanding that you, again, wrong. if the other party does not abide by the treaty, then we are not bound by it.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

read it.

you understand wrong, as usual.

[Yurt]

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

read it.

you understand wrong, as usual.

as you said to abbey - spam...

try being specific and here is the geneva rules on reciprocal :poke::

ARTICLE 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

[red states rule]

as you said to abbey - spam...

try being specific and here is the geneva rules on reciprocal :poke::

ARTICLE 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

If they close down GITMO, maybe we can send a couple of the innocent terrorists over to the preachers house to stay while waiting for their court date

[retiredman]

as you said to abbey - spam...

try being specific and here is the geneva rules on reciprocal :poke::

ARTICLE 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

apples and oranges. We weren't talking about the GC. the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does not have any such reciprocity condition.

The States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

[Yurt]

thank you for the specifics. i did a little research and found this:

CRS Report for Congress (2005)

TheUnited Statesratified CAT, subjecttocertaindeclarations, reservations, andunderstandings, including that the Convention was not self-executing and thereforerequired domestic implementing legislation to be enforced by U.S. courts.
....
Definition of “Torture” under CAT.

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, isintentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or athird person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a thirdperson has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating orcoercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of anykind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or withthe consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in anofficial capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arisingonlyfrom, inherentin or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Importantly, this definition specifies that both physical and mental suffering canconstitute torture, and that for such suffering to constitute torture, it must bepurposefully inflicted. Further, acts of torture covered under the Convention mustbe committed by someone acting under the color of law. Thus, for example, if aprivate individual causes intense sufferingtoanother, absent the instigation, consent,or acquiescence of a public official, such action does not constitute “torture” forpurposes of CAT.The Convention’s definition of “torture” does not include all acts ofmistreatment causing mental or physical suffering, but onlythose of a severe nature.According to the State Department’s section-by-section analysis of CAT included inPresident Reagan’s transmittal of the Convention to the Senate for its advice andconsent, the Convention’s definition of torture was intended to be interpreted in a“relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of tortureas an extreme practice which is universally condemned.”4For example, the StateDepartment suggested that rough treatment falling into the category of policebrutality, “while deplorable, does not amount to ‘torture’” for purposes of theConvention, which is “usually reserved for extreme, deliberate, and unusually cruelpractices...[such as] sustained systematic beating, application of electric currents tosensitive parts of the body, and tying up or hanging in positions that cause extremepain.”5This understanding of torture as a severe form of mistreatment is madeexplicit by CAT Article 16, which obligates Convention parties to “prevent in anyterritory under [their] jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degradingtreatment or punishment which do not amount to acts of torture,”6therebyindicatingthat not all forms of inhumane treatment constitute torture....


http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:H60Zy06n4JAJ:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32438.pdf+US+bound+by+UN+convention+against+tort ure%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

CRS Report for Congress

[red states rule]

I think the next step for Obama is to flip flop and lie like Kerry did. I can him when he comes back from his Iraq trip saying the US and foreign troops must stay there until the job is done

Then watch the kook left explode

[The Bare Knuckled Pundit]

First and foremost in the unabridged canon of the liberal orthodoxy is the war in Iraq. This abomination in their eyes is now commonly referred to as the greatest debacle in American foreign policy history. It is a blasphemy of the highest order as it breaks one of their holiest commandments, "Thou shalt not make war."

Their will having been frustrated by an incomplete victory that failed to produce veto-proof majorities in the 2006 Democratic seizure of Congress, they will expect a president that based much of his campaign on his unflagging opposition to the war from before its inception to grant them justice.

Accordingly, they will demand that Obama order an immediate halt to combat operations upon taking office and initiate the first phase of a complete withdrawal within the first hundred days of his administration. Anything less will be considered a breach of faith and result in Obama’s condemnation as an apostate.

In concert with the withdrawal from Iraq, the liberal Greek chorus will call for an end to the imperial aggression of America’s war on terror. While they may grudgingly acquiesce to the retention of Osama Bin Laden’s inclusion on the FBI’s Most Wanted List, they will absolve his brothers in arms on the basis of America’s provocative policies and arrogant worldview.

Pax Americana, the era of American-insured global peace, will be denounced as a self-indulgent exercise in the vanities and hubris of hegemonic ambition. The belief in the exceptionalism of America will be decried as a false religion, an opiate for the unenlightened nationalistic masses. Ultimately they will call for the replacement of the war on terror and the crusade for democracy with the self-flagellating promotion of universal cultural equanimity and the subordination of America’s national interests in the vain pursuit of global public approval.

Failing this, they will excommunicate him in an apoplectic flurry of self-righteous indignation.

[red states rule]

It is so funny to see what libs call torture. I do not see or hear any outrage when US troops are the victems, or find a AQ torture chamber; and free the captives

Here is another example of the moonbat left and they call torture

Nick Kristof: Chop Off Body Parts = 'Torment'; Interrogation = 'Torture'
By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
July 11, 2008 - 09:29 ET

You would be hard-pressed to find a "better" example of a walking, talking, typing Old Media double standard-bearer than New York Times columnist and International Herald Tribune (IHT) contributor Nicholas Kristof.

Keep in mind as you read this post that Kristof infamously wrote the following in a 2005 New York Times book review about the person who was "the worst monster in world history," China's Mao Tse-tung (Mao Zedong):

..... his legacy is not all bad ..... The emancipation of women and end of child marriages moved China from one of the worst places in the world to be a girl to one where women have more equality than in, say, Japan or Korea. ..... Mao’s ruthlessness was a catastrophe at the time ..... yet there’s more to the story: Mao also helped lay the groundwork for the rebirth and rise of China after five centuries of slumber.

Here is Kristof describing an example of what is currently happening in Zimbabwe in the June 29 IHT


If only Mugabe were white

Patson Chipiro, a democracy activist, wasn't home when Robert Mugabe's thugs showed up looking for him.

So they grabbed his wife, Dadirai, and tormented her by chopping off one of her hands and both of her feet. Finally, they threw her into a hut, locked the door and burned it to the ground.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/07/11/nick-kristof-chop-body-parts-torment-interrogation-torture

[retiredman]

as I said, the UN Convention has no reciprocity feature. I was right, Yurt was wrong. And Yurt posts some comments that define TORTURE in terms of the convention, but neglects to admit that the convention not only covers torture but also Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

[Yurt]

as I said, the UN Convention has no reciprocity feature. I was right, Yurt was wrong. And Yurt posts some comments that define TORTURE in terms of the convention, but neglects to admit that the convention not only covers torture but also Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

liar...i was talking about the GC and you know it, you already conceded it. the convention defines torture, do you have a problem with that? apparently you have a problem with authority. explain to us why you think it is relevant to discuss other cruel, inhuman...treatment in light of the definition of torture. what exact difference does it make?

[Gaffer]

liar...i was talking about the GC and you know it, you already conceded it. the convention defines torture, do you have a problem with that? apparently you have a problem with authority. explain to us why you think it is relevant to discuss other cruel, inhuman...treatment in light of the definition of torture. what exact difference does it make?

Like all libs he doesn't have a problem with authority, as long as he and his like are the ones in authority.

[red states rule]

Like all libs he doesn't have a problem with authority, as long as he and his like are the ones in authority.

and nobody is allowed to question it

[Yurt]

EVERYONE is covered by the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment..

and whether you like it or not, that treaty is "the supreme law of the land".

would be interesting if the treaty was repealed

[red states rule]

would be interesting if the treaty was repealed

According to libs like MFM, we need to be respectful to these misguided freedom fighters.

How do you reason with people that want you dead?


http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/110275.jpg

[retiredman]

would be interesting if the treaty was repealed

yeah...then we could become like our enemies.

[retiredman]

liar...i was talking about the GC and you know it, you already conceded it. the convention defines torture, do you have a problem with that? apparently you have a problem with authority. explain to us why you think it is relevant to discuss other cruel, inhuman...treatment in light of the definition of torture. what exact difference does it make?


i'm not sure it is "not" reciprical as he says. that is why i want a link. i believe the treaty applies to the high contracting parties, and if one is not a party and they do not abide by the treaty, then it is not reciprical. it would surprise me if he had authority to back up his claim.


you always demand links when not given, i see there is one rule for you and one for others...hypocrite

and i already did a long time ago...

it is my understanding that you, again, wrong. if the other party does not abide by the treaty, then we are not bound by it.


who's the liar?

[red states rule]

who's the liar?

Look in the mirror

[retiredman]

Look in the mirror


having a tough time following the conversation, RSR?

DO try to keep up!

[red states rule]

having a tough time following the conversation, RSR?

DO try to keep up!

The only thing anyone has a tough time doing, is keeping track of all your lies

[red states rule]

yeah...then we could become like our enemies.

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/16815.JPG

[retiredman]

The only thing anyone has a tough time doing, is keeping track of all your lies

making them up, you mean!:lol:

[Yurt]

1.

apples and oranges. We weren't talking about the GC. the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does not have any such reciprocity condition.



2.


as I said, the UN Convention has no reciprocity feature. I was right, Yurt was wrong. And Yurt posts some comments that define TORTURE in terms of the convention, but neglects to admit that the convention not only covers torture but also Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

3.

who's the liar?

you numbnuts. you already told me you were talking about the UN convention not the GC in the first post :poke: you then come back hours later and say i am "wrong." LOL. i was never talking about the UN convention and you knew it, as you pointed out in post 1 above. i simply missed the one post between RSR mentioning the GC and then you mentioning the UN charter. after post 1 above, you will notice i talked solely about the UN charter.

another "win" for mfm bites the dust...:laugh2:

you must be tired of losing to me all the time. i keep catching you lie after lie, yet you have not one single lie on me.

[retiredman]

don't blame me for your confusion. if you can't keep up with the conversation and make statements that I don't know what I am talking about when I do, and YOU don't.... that's all on you.

I stated that there was no reciprocity... you stated that you doubted my ability to back it up...you then said "it is my understanding that you, again, wrong. if the other party does not abide by the treaty, then we are not bound by it."

I have always been talking about the UN convention... I have always been right and I backed it up and I was not wrong and there is no reciprocity and we are bound by that treaty. if you can't keep up, stay out. You remind me of the moron who brought a knife to a gun fight.

[Yurt]

don't blame me for your confusion. if you can't keep up with the conversation and make statements that I don't know what I am talking about when I do, and YOU don't.... that's all on you.

I stated that there was no reciprocity... you stated that you doubted my ability to back it up...you then said "it is my understanding that you, again, wrong. if the other party does not abide by the treaty, then we are not bound by it."

I have always been talking about the UN convention... I have always been right and I backed it up and I was not wrong and there is no reciprocity and we are bound by that treaty. if you can't keep up, stay out. You remind me of the moron who brought a knife to a gun fight.

i never blamed you. liar. kindly show us where i blamed you that i missed the post...

take a deep breath and re-read my post. s-l-o-w-l-y

[red states rule]

i never blamed you. liar. kindly show us where i blamed you that i missed the post...

take a deep breath and re-read my post. s-l-o-w-l-y

MFM is a delusional paranoid moonbat

[retiredman]

i never blamed you. liar. kindly show us where i blamed you that i missed the post...

take a deep breath and re-read my post. s-l-o-w-l-y


you jumped into a conversation and didn't understand it. you doubted my ability to prove my point, even though you were, apparently, unaware of the point that I was making. You went on to say "it is my understanding that you, again, wrong. if the other party does not abide by the treaty, then we are not bound by it." ... but your "understanding" was actually a misunderstanding. Like I said, if you can't keep up with the conversation, don't jump into the middle of it and make insulting predictions.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

you jumped into a conversation and didn't understand it. you doubted my ability to prove my point, even though you were, apparently, unaware of the point that I was making. You went on to say "it is my understanding that you, again, wrong. if the other party does not abide by the treaty, then we are not bound by it." ... but your "understanding" was actually a misunderstanding. Like I said, if you can't keep up with the conversation, don't jump into the middle of it and make insulting predictions.:laugh2:

The only ability you have is to show what a hack you are, and how you will sacrfice your country for more power for your party

[retiredman]

The only ability you have is to show what a hack you are, and how you will sacrfice your country for more power for your party

blah blah blah.... got any NEW insults?:lol:

[red states rule]

blah blah blah.... got any NEW insults?:lol:

Not insults - facts. But to you facts are insults when they expose you for what you are

You need to work on playing your role as the offended liberal

[Yurt]

you jumped into a conversation and didn't understand it. you doubted my ability to prove my point, even though you were, apparently, unaware of the point that I was making. You went on to say "it is my understanding that you, again, wrong. if the other party does not abide by the treaty, then we are not bound by it." ... but your "understanding" was actually a misunderstanding. Like I said, if you can't keep up with the conversation, don't jump into the middle of it and make insulting predictions.:laugh2:

i see the liar can't show where i blamed him...

maybe you can write bill clinton and discuss his disbarment

and dodo, you already informed me that you were talking about the UN charter, not the GC....and then hours later you make another post regarding the same thing, except the second post you jump for joy that i am wrong...quit the booze preacher

[red states rule]

Obama is now revealing his plan to invade Pakistian


http://www.nypost.com/seven/08022007/photos/obama.jpg

[Yurt]

that is funny :lol:

[red states rule]

that is funny :lol:

This sums up his military experience

[Yurt]

This sums up his military experience

the list cracks me up, i can actually see him thinking those exact thoughts

[red states rule]

the list cracks me up, i can actually see him thinking those exact thoughts

the messiah's Joint Chief of Staff is MFM

[Yurt]

the messiah's Joint Chief of Staff is MFM

who also holds a second position - intern

[red states rule]

who also holds a second position - intern

I can see MFM on his knees worshipping the messiah :laugh2:

[Yurt]

I can see MFM on his knees worshipping the messiah :laugh2:

nodding his head - yes sir.....yes sir

[red states rule]

nodding his head - yes sir.....yes sir

and saying "I know I am a honky, but I want to serve you and prove my devotion"

[Yurt]

and saying "I know I am a honky, but I want to serve you and prove my devotion"

while obama wears this t-shirt


http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Jeffersons_Honky-T-Shirt.jpg

[red states rule]

http://shirtstree.com/images/funnyelection/halfhonkey.jpg

[Yurt]

http://shirtstree.com/images/funnyelection/halfhonkey.jpg

i can't see anything

[red states rule]

http://www.photochopz.com/gallery/data/675/fighttheman.jpg

[red states rule]

nodding his head - yes sir.....yes sir

You know Yurt, it always funny when people with neg rep tries to neg rep me. Do they not know if you have ZERO rep power, you are wasting your time :laugh2: