The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Political Ammunition => Topic started by: Janice on June 06, 2011, 12:23:03 PM
-
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVRxrTwD_w8[/youtube]
College Professor & Obama Radical Buddy Bernardine Dohrn Explains the Anti U.S. Thinking of The Left With Smiling Glee:
Terrorist, Dying America is a Tremendous Opportunity For U.S. Revolution
=================================
"There's something rotten in Denmark" as the saying goes. It's very true of Washington. We won't hear of any investigations on Lord Stinky until he's out of office. And even then, its doubtful as RINOs are genetically incapable of offending their colleagues on the left.
-
Obama's friend?
Reminds me of that line from the movie "throw momma from the train", "Owen doesn't have any friends" !!!
-
Under Obama's leadership we are.
He's authorized non-judicial assassinations and tortured Manning without a trial or any sort of intelligence justification.
-
Under Obama's leadership we are.
He's authorized non-judicial assassinations and tortured Manning without a trial or any sort of intelligence justification.
What's your DU name?
-
Under Obama's leadership we are.
He's authorized non-judicial assassinations and tortured Manning without a trial or any sort of intelligence justification.
Yeah, I haven't seen anything on that little Manning bitch being tortured. As for non-judicial assassinations, um, where?
-
Yeah, I haven't seen anything on that little Manning bitch being tortured. As for non-judicial assassinations, um, where?
uncomfortable is the new tortured
Did you know FDR extra-judicially assassinated millions of Germans?
-
What an evil, stupid, moronic witch. Deport her to Cuba or Venezuela.
-
What's your DU name?
I am not a DU member. I figure you guys will find the funny stuff for me, no reason to swim in the sewer when someone else is better at it.
-
Yeah, I haven't seen anything on that little Manning bitch being tortured. As for non-judicial assassinations, um, where?
There's a list of people that are US citizens that our intelligence service are authorized to kill on sight. I can dig up the source on that if you like.
Manning is being confined without his clothes, in solitary, pending his trial. It's not glass rods up his cock, but it's definitely punitive, just the sort of thing Liberals like doing to people that embarass them. Obama signed off on it without a second thought.
I'm not a big fan of George W Bush, but he had the decency to realize that what happened in Abu Ghraib was wrong and condemn it.
-
There's a list of people that are US citizens that our intelligence service are authorized to kill on sight. I can dig up the source on that if you like.
Manning is being confined without his clothes, in solitary, pending his trial. It's not glass rods up his cock, but it's definitely punitive, just the sort of thing Liberals like doing to people that embarass them. Obama signed off on it without a second thought.
I'm not a big fan of George W Bush, but he had the decency to realize that what happened in Abu Ghraib was wrong and condemn it.
What makes you think Manning is being confined without clothing? Got a credible source to back up that outrageous claim? Last I heard, he was being transferred from Dover, DE to Leavenworth, IIRC. While I've never been to Leavenworth, I find the idea of a federal military prison of forcing inmates to go naked pretty far-fetched.
And I can't believe that Obama would sign off on something that outrageous. No way would he put pen to paper on that one, JG. Obama's stupid, but he ain't that stupid.
And let's not throw in the strawmen, mm-kay? You know, the Abu Ghraib thing that got way blown out of proportion? That one? Either that, or open another thread on it. *sigh -- again, the Bush bashing continues...*
-
What makes you think Manning is being confined without clothing? Got a credible source to back up that outrageous claim? Last I heard, he was being transferred from Dover, DE to Leavenworth, IIRC. While I've never been to Leavenworth, I find the idea of a federal military prison of forcing inmates to go naked pretty far-fetched.
And I can't believe that Obama would sign off on something that outrageous. No way would he put pen to paper on that one, JG. Obama's stupid, but he ain't that stupid.
And let's not throw in the strawmen, mm-kay? You know, the Abu Ghraib thing that got way blown out of proportion? That one? Either that, or open another thread on it. *sigh -- again, the Bush bashing continues...*
Might want to pay attention to what you are replying to. I wasn't bashing Bush. Abu Ghraib wasn't his mistake, and when it was brought to his attention he responded appropriately.
As far as the kill list here's one article on it
newser article (http://www.newser.com/story/85389/obama-puts-american-cleric-on-cia-kill-list.html) (note that according to the article this did NOT happen under Bush, Republicans, even really bad ones, don't do this sort of thing)
So yes, Obama really is that stupid.
-
Manning made comments about killing himself. That'll earn you a full blown search sans clothes anytime you are in confinement. He is not being kept naked day after day.
As for killing Awlaki:
so?
That's what you get for waging war against ANY government. So what if it is the CIA? The other solution would be to invade an entire nation with the military to get a handful of people or doing nothing at all against TERRORISTS actively trying to kill Americans.
Obama isn't stupid for this policy...IT'S HIS ****ING JOB
-
There's a list of people that are US citizens that our intelligence service are authorized to kill on sight. I can dig up the source on that if you like.
Lemme guess, Alex Jones' Infowars site? :whatever:
-
Lemme guess, Alex Jones' Infowars site? :whatever:
nymphowars.com is far more entertaining...and useful
-
Might want to pay attention to what you are replying to. I wasn't bashing Bush. Abu Ghraib wasn't his mistake, and when it was brought to his attention he responded appropriately.
As far as the kill list here's one article on it
newser article (http://www.newser.com/story/85389/obama-puts-american-cleric-on-cia-kill-list.html) (note that according to the article this did NOT happen under Bush, Republicans, even really bad ones, don't do this sort of thing)
So yes, Obama really is that stupid.
I know full well what I'm replying to. But we can take it by the numbers if you like. You said this:
Manning is being confined without his clothes, in solitary, pending his trial. It's not glass rods up his cock, but it's definitely punitive, just the sort of thing Liberals like doing to people that embarass them. Obama signed off on it without a second thought.
You make the outrageous claim that Manning is being confined "without clothes". That's a direct quote. Then I asked you for a CREDIBLE source to that outrageous claim, and you come back with some kill list. I wasn't talking about a "kill list". I was talking about Manning.
I'm waiting on a credible source for your claim. So far, I get crickets from you.
Abu Ghraib, as tired as that subject is, has nothing whatsoever to do with Manning.
You're able to discern the difference aren't you?
Snugs points out that Manning has threatened to kill himself and, I suppose that any responsible Center of Incarceration would have to take appropriate measures to at least try and restrict that activity -- but stripping a prisoner naked and leaving him in a cell is beyond the pale -- and completely invalid.
Unless, of course, you can produce that credible source I mentioned earlier....
-
Manning made comments about killing himself. That'll earn you a full blown search sans clothes anytime you are in confinement. He is not being kept naked day after day.
As for killing Awlaki:
so?
That's what you get for waging war against ANY government. So what if it is the CIA? The other solution would be to invade an entire nation with the military to get a handful of people or doing nothing at all against TERRORISTS actively trying to kill Americans.
Obama isn't stupid for this policy...IT'S HIS ****ING JOB
I'm not the one who said "he couldn't be stupid enough to sign that" He authorized the killing of a US citizen without a trial, plain and simple. Yeah, Awlaki is a terrorist, he's also a US citizen. We've never authorized the killing of US Citizens without a trial before, not terrorists, or Gangsters, or anyone.
As far as manning's clothes here's his lawyer's blog.
right here (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/03/confinement-conditions-worsen.html)
It's not constant, but it was 7 hours, that's way longer than any sort of search takes.
And Rebel, why would I read that garbage? That's Liberal Propoganda, I'd assume they'd be all in favor of stripping Manning naked and parading him in the snow for embarassing their leader.
-
As far as manning's clothes here's his lawyer's blog.
right here (http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/2011/03/confinement-conditions-worsen.html)
It's not constant, but it was 7 hours, that's way longer than any sort of search takes.
A blog from Manning's lawyer is a credible source? AYFKM? :rotf:
Still waiting.....crickets.....
-
I'm not the one who said "he couldn't be stupid enough to sign that" He authorized the killing of a US citizen without a trial, plain and simple. Yeah, Awlaki is a terrorist, he's also a US citizen. We've never authorized the killing of US Citizens without a trial before, not terrorists, or Gangsters, or anyone.
Horseshit.
Washington rode out with federal troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. From there the US has a long history--just like every other nation--of treating those engaged in military hostilities differently from criminals.
Some German-Americans went to Germany to fight on behalf of the Nazis. They were killed just the same as any other combatant engaged in military conflict and all without regard to civilian criminal niceties.
You do understand the fact that war is an entirely separate legal realm. It is, by admission of its state, an abrogation of civil legal constraints.
If Awlaki is eager to invoke the rights inherent to the place of his birth he is free to surrender himself.
As far as manning's clothes here's his lawyer's blog.
seven hours naked isn't torture
-
Horseshit.
Washington rode out with federal troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. From there the US has a long history--just like every other nation--of treating those engaged in military hostilities differently from criminals.
Some German-Americans went to Germany to fight on behalf of the Nazis. They were killed just the same as any other combatant engaged in military conflict and all without regard to civilian criminal niceties.
You do understand the fact that war is an entirely separate legal realm. It is, by admission of its state, an abrogation of civil legal constraints.
If Awlaki is eager to invoke the rights inherent to the place of his birth he is free to surrender himself.
seven hours naked isn't torture
Killing on the battlefield is completely different from targeting someone for assassination. Sure, if Awlaki comes after our troops with an AK-47 they'll shoot him,and be right to do so. If some drug dealer does the same he'll be shot by the police, however what Obama authorized was hunting Awlaki down and assassinating him. This is the first time the assassination of an American citizen has been openly authorized by a president. It's exactly the sort of arrogance I expect from Liberals, what I can't understand is why any of you are defending him. This is Barack Obama, Authorizing the killing of an American citizen, not on the field of battle, with no trial, and you all seem to be ok with it.
I guess the people complaining about there being a lot of liberals here have a real point.
-
Killing on the battlefield is completely different from targeting someone for assassination. Sure, if Awlaki comes after our troops with an AK-47 they'll shoot him,and be right to do so. If some drug dealer does the same he'll be shot by the police, however what Obama authorized was hunting Awlaki down and assassinating him. This is the first time the assassination of an American citizen has been openly authorized by a president. It's exactly the sort of arrogance I expect from Liberals, what I can't understand is why any of you are defending him. This is Barack Obama, Authorizing the killing of an American citizen, not on the field of battle, with no trial, and you all seem to be ok with it.
I guess the people complaining about there being a lot of liberals here have a real point.
From that remark, I assume you take issue with the shooting of bin Laden as well?!? From what we know, he was unarmed....living peacefully in his compound in Pakistan........assassinated by a SEAL platoon......also ordered by Obama.....
Hummmmmm????
doc
-
From that remark, I assume you take issue with the shooting of bin Laden as well?!? From what we know, he was unarmed....living peacefully in his compound in Pakistan........assassinated by a SEAL platoon......also ordered by Obama.....
Hummmmmm????
doc
Bin Laden is not a US citizen.
We've been assassinating enemies for a long time. It's not something I'd support being used widely, but there are times it is called for and taking down Bin Laden was one of them.
One of the few times I think Obama made the right choice.
Assassinating US citizens meanwhile, including terrorists who have declared themselves enemies of the state, is overstepping the bounds of power of the executive branch. It starts with radical islamic clerics but it won't end there. They'll move on to violent domestic terrorists like Tim McVeigh, then the militias and the abortion clinic bombers, then those that organize protests doing things like breaking windows. By the time they are assassinating the leaders of the Tea Party it will all seem perfectly normal.
-
Mr Galt is no longer with us......
Carry on....
doc
-
Mr Galt is no longer with us......
Carry on....
doc
Post-banning post for posterity (next time wait until I'm done typing before banning :tongue: )
Killing on the battlefield is completely different from targeting someone for assassination. Sure, if Awlaki comes after our troops with an AK-47 they'll shoot him,and be right to do so. If some drug dealer does the same he'll be shot by the police, however what Obama authorized was hunting Awlaki down and assassinating him. This is the first time the assassination of an American citizen has been openly authorized by a president. It's exactly the sort of arrogance I expect from Liberals, what I can't understand is why any of you are defending him. This is Barack Obama, Authorizing the killing of an American citizen, not on the field of battle, with no trial, and you all seem to be ok with it.
I guess the people complaining about there being a lot of liberals here have a real point.
The legitimate killing of military targets transcends the imbecile in the WH. Odds are Obama has abdicated to Gates on most matters concerning the military while he coordinates with the rest of his staff over which ally to insult next. Even still I have no desire to strip honest presidents in the future of the ability to protect the US.
The fact Awlaki and his merry band of goat-****ers operate from private homes rather than battlefields is not the delineating point of a war.
Civil crimes are against civil targets. The very definition of war is armed conflict with the intent of achieving geo-political outcomes. Awlaki is not looking to use violence to become rich or off a nettlesome business rival; he is seeking to overturn the political system and policies of the US through violence. That is the political system the American people call their "freedom".
You would re-define war to grant all aggressors free rein to attack the citizens of the US by simply avoiding direct battle. How do you intend to interdict an enemy in a nation where we have no right to arrest, no treaty to extradite and the host nation is hostile?
All you have done is advertised safe havens for those who readily admit they seek war.
You complain its liberals that distort traditional views of limitations on war. Just the opposite, they constrain it. It was Clinton that treated terrorism via the law enforcement model. Obama campaigned to follow suit. Happily this is one broken campaign promise that works to the benefit of the American people and their liberty.
Your complaint has no precedence in US history. It is a fabrication of day-dreaming isolationists or worse: leftists that would neuter the US as their internationalist cohorts tighten the noose against us, one nation at a time.
Nor is Awlaki's happenstance of birth a "Get out of war free" card. The oath of national defense is to defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
They'll move on to violent domestic terrorists like Tim McVeigh, then the militias and the abortion clinic bombers, then those that organize protests doing things like breaking windows. By the time they are assassinating the leaders of the Tea Party it will all seem perfectly normal.
If those actors were of such size that they overwhelmed civil authorities or they were in locations beyond the reach of civil authority this is to be expected. You have a right protest abortion and since that right is protected to you have an obligation to not resort to violence to affect policies you favor. If a thousand abortion clinic bombers refused to surrender to the police then: Yes, civil authorities would be well within their obligations to maintain civil order by dispatching military troops.
Ever hear of the Whiskey rebellion? I keep mentioning it but you seem impervious to citations of precedent. There are plenty of other examples.
-
Cupid Stunt.