Obama Personally Approves Killings Of Americans Suspected Of Terrorism

So murder only applies to Americans now?

 

this thread is about the real consequences of what obama has actually done. ron paul has nothing to do w/ it. again, major told me the other day that nobody ever brings up ron paul except his supporters. whats going on in this thread?

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6589322&postcount=2083

 

I understand that's what the thread started off as. But the response to R2K's post was not about that, and it was out of line. I'm commenting on what was there.

The initial poster made comments about Obama supporters with blood on their hands, it was brought up what some of the consequences of Paul policies would be since the OP is a Paul supporter. Paul was brought up to show the claims were applicable to other politicians like Paul as well.

 

You're correct - glynch brought him up this thread.

 

Repped

 

Are you being willfully obtuse?

 

Hightop must be off celebrating the anniversary today.

 

this thread is about the consequences of what obama has actually done...not what might happen under a paul presidency. health care has nothing to do w/ this thread. if you want to bring up paul bring him up in the context of the thread - for instance, paul is against obamas programs of targeted assassination, arresting and holding people w/out trial and he is against the NDAA. paul actually represents liberals/democrats/progressives on these issues while nobel peace prize winner obama better represents the neocons.

no. are you?

 

Many of the other people who post here and I, are against the NDAA and against it being signed into law.

But that doesn't mean that if we support Obama against the GOP, or Paul that we have blood on our hands anymore than someone would who would support Paul and his ideas about paying for medical procedures. That was the point of bringing up Paul.

Nobody that I read is in support of the NDAA. So with that pretty much agreed upon it is fair to look at what else the poster against the NDAA might also be supporting that would have blood on their hands, and when one of the posters who's gone out of their way to do things for others talks about Paul's position on policy could have left him dead, hightop goes off on it.

Don't blame others for that.

 

You have to look places besides Ron Paul websites and reason tv to hear the outrage. If you simply look around this message board you'd see it.

 

No, it's right there, Meowgi/Shovelface. I for one posted applause for ACLU action against the Obama administration. But go on into your fantasy world. It is definitely easier to parse life if you ignore facts.

 

We were just letting you finish off your celebrating yesterday's anniversary.

 

If you want Ron Paul to be taken seriously shouldn't what might happen under a Paul presidency be considered?

This is one of the problems that I have with Ron Paul supporters. They are great at pointing out all the problems with the current Admin. and other Republican candidates but spend to seem very little time about what are the implications of actually implementing Paul's policies or considering if Paul's policies would even make it through Congress.

In that sense Paul's candidacy doesn't seem to go much beyond a protest candidacy.

 

absolutely! and in the context of the thread topic a ron paul presidency would mean a rejection of obamas policies of arresting americans and holding them w/out trial, a rejection of targeted assassination of american citizens and the NDAA.

one of the problems i have w/ obama supporters is that they criticize ron paul for things he might do while ignoring and dismissing the bad things obama has actually done. and even worse, they criticize and demean people who call obama out on his failures on issues that have traditionally been near and dear to their hearts. its partisanship and toolism at its worst.

do you have a problem w/ obama supporters making this thread about ron paul and health care while totally ignoring the actual thread topic? most here seem more interested in going after other posters instead of discussing the content of the story. you have all these supposed progressives and liberals attacking posters for criticizing a president who is engaging a bunch of very un-progressive and un-liberal policies. its bizarrely hypocritical.

there is a double standard going on here...im required to defend and endorse all of pauls policy positions and when i dont im accused of ignoring them, but here you have a thread where obama supporters are totally ignoring the thread topic, not discussing it in any way and instead making this about ron paul, health care and criticizing other posters for bringing this issue up and thats ok.

in alot of ways thats exactly what it is.

 

First of all you chimed in at the wrong point. When hightop is at best callous, and more likely insulting and demeaning of another poster's life, then we can stop all the hypothetical philosophical bickering, because something more important as come up. Common sense and decency are being addressed at that point regardless of whatever political discussion was going on.

For most people on this board they have been critical of NDAA. They don't give Obama a free pass on warrantless wiretapping etc.

We can disagree all day along about supposed assassinations. I don't think Awlaki was assassinated and neither was his son. The guy was a member of an enemy that has attacked and is currently engaged in military conflict with the U.S. A military strike killed the man. His son who was also killed. That might be collateral damage, but it certainly isn't a targeted assassination.

So as long as hightop doesn't address those facts and instead uses his bumper sticker speak he might well be criticized. That is especially true when he posts ridiculous accusations at members of the board who have blood on their hands.

But again all of those disagreements take a backseat when he's dismissive of the life of a poster on the bbs. I'm not sure why you would ignore that and instead try and engage on the same political disagreements that, to me, become trivial when discussing an actual poster's life.

 

Which is fine and good and if you had confined your comments to those I don't see what the problem is but you are the one who said that we shouldn't be talking about Ron Paul in this thread when given the OP's avowed support of Ron Paul that seems like a topic worthy of discussion.

Really? I voted for Obama in the 2008 general and will probably again but have said that Obama's biggest failing is regarding civil liberties. Many others who supported Obama much more ardently than I did have criticized Obama frequently.

As far as demeaning I will agree some have and I would put that more on their style than necessarily just going after Ron Paul supporters. For example certain posters have a very acerbic style whether it is debating Ron Paul supporters or Pro-PRC posters. That said if you find pointing out where Paul's rhetoric and those of his supporters seem shallow, not well thought out and hyperbolic I will point that out. If you find that demeaning then I don't know what to tell you. Anyway if you are going to talk about demeaning don't you think saying things like "Obama supporters have blood on their hands" is demeaning?

Given that the OP is an avowed Ron Paul supporter then it is fair to look at how Ron Paul's policy would affect American's well being.

You personally aren't required to do so and you are free to say you don't agree with Ron Paul on that issue. If though you are going to uphold Ron Paul as a savior of the country in regard to all of the problems we are facing I think you should at least be willing to engage in debate over the implications of Ron Paul's policies.

And that is why Ron Paul won't win the nomination and if he runs as a third party will lose in the general. I personally think Ron Paul provides a valuable point of view to American politics and have nothing against him running but a protest candidacy is one that is likely doomed to failure.

As much as people hate it politics, especially presidential politics, is about the art of compromise. Given the electoral system, or even a simple countrywide majority, a presidential campaign has to be a coalition of often conflicting issues.

 

Looks enoug like apples to apples comparison to me. Considering the thread was heading to ruin from over-sensationalizing by the 5th post by the OP himself.

jo mama did the good thing getting the thread focused on topic, though some of the damage was already BEFORE that.


On Obama's anti-terrorism approach here, BAD move TERRIBLE precedent.