HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Idaho Billboard Compares ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 02:43 AM

Idaho Billboard Compares Obama To Aurora Shooting Suspect James Holmes

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Rhiannon12866 (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Huff Post (via AOL News)

An electronic billboard in Caldwell, Idaho that compares President Obama to James Holmes, the 24-year-old man accused of killing 12 people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater on July 20, has sparked outrage in the community, reports The Idaho Statesman.

The giant sign on Franklin Road and North 21st Avenue features a photo of Holmes with the words, "Kills 12 in a movie theater with assault rifle, everyone freaks out," written under his picture, juxtaposed to a photo of Obama with the words, "Kills thousands with foreign policy, wins Nobel Peace Prize," written below.

The billboard often features anti-Obama messages, and is sponsored by The Ralph Smeed Foundation, the supporters of the late activist for libertarian causes in Idaho. Foundation member and former state lawmaker Maurice Clements, told The Idaho Statesman the billboard is a response to Obama's 'broken promise' to bring home the troops.

"We’re all outraged over that killing in Aurora, Colo., but we’re not outraged over the boys killed in Afghanistan,” Clements explained to the paper, and added that he's not trying to connect Obama to Holmes, he's just comparing the way society reacts. "We’re not saying that Obama is a lunatic,” he said.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/28/idaho-billboard-compares-obama-to-aurora-shooting-suspect_n_1713895.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D185460



Stay classy, baggers. Though the message was about not bringing the troops home (which is BS for the most part), the libertarian group that did it proves once again that nothing is below their belts in attempting to bring down Obama.

39 replies, 6173 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Idaho Billboard Compares Obama To Aurora Shooting Suspect James Holmes (Original post)
Suji to Seoul Jul 2012 OP
OnyxCollie Jul 2012 #1
Drunken Irishman Jul 2012 #3
OnyxCollie Jul 2012 #5
chervilant Jul 2012 #8
Drunken Irishman Jul 2012 #10
coalition_unwilling Jul 2012 #25
chervilant Jul 2012 #32
Drunken Irishman Jul 2012 #9
nanabugg Jul 2012 #17
Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #20
patrice Jul 2012 #36
OnyxCollie Jul 2012 #30
OnyxCollie Jul 2012 #35
harmonicon Jul 2012 #12
heaven05 Jul 2012 #22
MADem Jul 2012 #2
joshcryer Jul 2012 #4
patrice Jul 2012 #6
Jim Lane Jul 2012 #19
patrice Jul 2012 #27
Jim Lane Jul 2012 #37
patrice Jul 2012 #38
coalition_unwilling Jul 2012 #29
Unite2DefeatGOP Jul 2012 #7
harmonicon Jul 2012 #13
Nambe Jul 2012 #11
BSUbluNorange Jul 2012 #23
Lionessa Jul 2012 #14
Earth_First Jul 2012 #16
Ter Jul 2012 #18
stockholmer Jul 2012 #21
patrice Jul 2012 #34
marble falls Jul 2012 #15
patrice Jul 2012 #31
santamargarita Jul 2012 #24
wordpix Jul 2012 #26
patrice Jul 2012 #28
coalition_unwilling Jul 2012 #33
Rhiannon12866 Jul 2012 #39

Response to Suji to Seoul (Original post)


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 03:16 AM

3. ...is also inappropriate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 03:39 AM

5. Only if you're a blind partisan

who can ignore drone strikes, assassinations, and indefinite detention, in addition to accepting non-rationalized responses such as "looking forward" as justification for allowing the previous administration to skate on torture, domestic surveillance, and wars of aggression.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 05:04 AM

8. And, sadly,

there are other issues you could enumerate.

(I tire of hearing "just wait until after the election; Obama can REALLY accomplish something then!")

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 05:44 AM

10. I don't have to wait until after the next election. He has accomplished some things.

I'm sorry you don't see it. I have. Personally.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:46 AM

25. How many members of the previous torture junta are doing time???? - n/t

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:04 PM

32. Acknowledging Obama's missteps

does not negate his accomplishments.

I could offer platitudes to soothe your ruffled feathers. I know the right things to say to highlight Obama's notable successes. However, I remain concerned with those who vociferously deny that Obama has made some serious mistakes. He has, and denying that will not make them go away.

BTW, I don't need to hear that 'Obama is doing the best he can, given the relentless opposition of the Republicans.' The most damaging members of our species are the corporate megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics, and our global economy. Those vile hedonists come from virtually every industrialized nation on this planet, rendering 'party affiliation' moot.

We are living in perilous, exponential times. We need innovative, decisive leaders, willing to speak truth to the masses. Given the deliberate degradation of our system of public education (with a generous helping of Bernays sauce), why are we not surprised that a common refrain over the last five presidential elections is "we're voting for the lesser of two evils."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 05:43 AM

9. Nope. Just a reasonable person who understands how the real world works.

You might not see it that way, which is cool, but let's not pretend anything here. Obama is a president. He acts like a president. Are you surprised? But it's cute you've narrowed down an entire presidency into a few foreign policy terms.

I guess I missed it when Obama decided to wage a ground war unilaterally. I guess I missed it when Obama decided to keep us in Iraq and invaded Iran. I guess I missed it when Obama started an unfunded war that cost us thousands of American lives.

I guess I missed it.

Yeah, you're right. They're just the same! No difference.

I wonder if you'll be saying the same thing if Romney wins and, within the first few years he's in office, his Bush cronies are telling him to invade Iran. Then again, there really was no difference between Gore & Bush. Right?

But you're also probably not one of the young men who will be shipped off to fight a war, so, it's really of no concern to you. You can easily say there is no difference because you're not the one impacted. That difference was sure felt for those soldiers who were shipped off to Iraq and then died.

And that difference will be stark if the next Republican president decides to do the same with Iran.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 08:31 AM

17. Well said. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:37 AM

20. ...

 



As I said the other day: Hypersensitivity over drone strikes is not worth losing major health care reform and the possibility of two appointments to the Supreme Court.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #20)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:13 PM

36. Check out Romney in Israel this week. We'll lose more than that.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/28/1114277/-Israel-Romney-Insults-America-s-Mid-East-Allies

Cheney even patted Romney on the back by implying that McCain should not have picked Palin.

PNAC is gearing up.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:03 PM

30. In the real world,

Obama is just as guilty of war crimes as Bush is. People like you, however, have equated prosecution of war crimes with receiving a pony.

Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC (and current JP Morgan executive committee member) to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html

MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.



US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.



Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.



Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!

US embassy cables: Spanish prosecutor weighs Guantánamo criminal case against US officials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177

The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.



Eric Holder got the message.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted,"
he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."



CIA Exhales: 99 Out of 101 Torture Cases Dropped
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/

This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.

Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar(ily) review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.

But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.

“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”


CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
 and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
 Treatment or Punishment
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Part I

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 8

1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:12 PM

35. The Obama administration repeats the lies of the Bush administration.

Panetta ties war in Iraq to 9/11 attack
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2011/07/12/panetta_ties_war_in_iraq_to_911_attack/

BAGHDAD - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta yesterday appeared to justify the US invasion of Iraq as part of the war against Al Qaeda, an argument made by the Bush administration but rejected by President Obama and many Democrats.

Panetta made the remarks during his inaugural visit to Iraq as Pentagon chief. Speaking to about 100 soldiers at Camp Victory, the largest US military installation in Baghdad, he said his primary goal as defense secretary was to defeat Al Qaeda worldwide.

“The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked,’’ Panetta told the troops. “And 3,000 Americans - 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings - got killed because of Al Qaeda. And we’ve been fighting as a result of that.’’

His statement echoed previous comments made by President George W. Bush and members of his administration, who tried to tie Saddam Hussein’s government to Al Qaeda.

...

Let's not forget that the Obama administration was trying to keep the US in Iraq after the Bush-negotiated withdrawal date, and it was only because immunity for US troops could not be received.

And they would have gotten it, too, if it weren't for all those meddling civilians being killed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 06:14 AM

12. +1 (nt)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:07 AM

22. relativity

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2012, 02:01 PM - Edit history (2)

true, in the relative sense of lies, torture, murder of over a hundred thousand civilians, men, women and children in one war based on a big lie, bush, cheney and company have no equal.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Suji to Seoul (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 03:05 AM

2. I am not a fan of hacking vandalism, ordinarily.

But those electronic billboards can be hacked...and that one should be.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Suji to Seoul (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 03:26 AM

4. I saw those posts here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Suji to Seoul (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 04:34 AM

6. Wondering where all of these johnny-come-lately peacers were when we were trying to stop

this war in 2001 & 02 and when we protested it '03-'06. But then I guess that was before there was somekind of political advantage and base building and opportunities to take Obama down, as the result of Ron Paul giving them permission to be against the war.

Obviously, the best thing would have been if we had not started the war to begin with. That's not what happened and pretending as though we can act like it didn't happen isn't going to un-make the consequences of what we did. I and lots of others would like to believe that all a President has to do is to throw the switch on it all. I guess Obama COULD actually have done that, so I am disappointed that he didn't. From our perspective there is no justification for not just ending it.

I don't think the peace perspective on these issues is the only one out there. The U.S. Military and at least some Iraqis and Afghans have their perspectives on what happened and on the future too. Shouldn't those who have paid the most, have the most input in the decision? Not those like you and I who have sat on the sidelines maintaining our ideological purity. Do we really believe that Obama is following this path because he alone wants to, or because there is some gain in it? Or is he pursuing it as part of his job to deal, not only with what we did and the security consequences of that in the region, but also with blowback here.

It's a parade of horrors and all of those complaining about the course Obama is pursuing now, will also flay him if revenge terrorism happens here. Isn't there somesort of duty to those who worked with us, no matter how much we screwed it up, to not leave them in a dangerous situation the way we did Vietnam; don't the lies that were told to get us into the wars in the first place increase our obligation to do what we can, as we withdraw, to leave something as stable as possible for those we harmed behind? Something that they can work with. How does everyone in the region feel about us fucking those people up and then just disappearing.

I would that it all were otherwise, but that doesn't change the fact that we did this stuff and there ARE effects from what we did that must be dealt with; there are a variety of others who are more involved in it and who have more relevant and more complex needs than my/our need for peace. There are also things that most of us don't know about the situation.

I'm very dissatisfied with everything I just said here. If these things are true, then I don't see how we can ever have anything even remotely like peace.

It's morally wrong for us to be the policeman for political factions in other people's countries.

None of this really works for me.

I just don't think it is valid to characterize Obama's part in this as American Exceptionalism. There are several different and competing sets of motives in the situation; he must deal with ALL of them, it isn't necessarily true that he is prioritizing American interests exclusively over everyone else's, and it's too late to put our ideas about peace over the problems of the people actually involved in these situations. Peace has to come from that, not from pretending that we didn't do what we very definitely did.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:03 AM

19. Many libertarians were right there with us, opposing the war

According to the OP, the billboard isn't the work of baggers, but of libertarians. Many libertarians have adhered to their principles, even with a Republican in the White House.

Ron Paul voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. The Cato Institute, the leading libertarian think tank, criticized the Bush administration's pre-9/11 ties to the Taliban. (See this 2002 article on Cato's website.)

I know nothing about the particular outfit that put up this sign. All I'm saying is that libertarians in general tend to be less influenced by party loyalty than are most politicians, commentators, etc.

As to the sign itself, I agree with the underlying criticism that Obama's foreign policy has been too bellicose. Nevertheless, I think it's in very bad taste to express such a political disagreement by jumping on the Aurora tragedy this way.

(Incidentally, because I accurately pointed out that Ron Paul cast a vote of which I approve, it's apparently necessary that I state the obvious: One swallow doesn't make a summer, most of Ron Paul's votes have been wrong, and I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, except in the sense that I'd love to see him win the Republican nomination because that would ensure an Obama victory in November.)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #19)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:56 AM

27. Anybody who authentically supports peace would be supporting Obama at this point. Getting there is

a process and yes that does require strong pressure from us, without which he won't have a chance in hell of making whatever COULD happen happen. So bullshit like this sign is actually PRO-WAR and I'd be willing to bet super-PAC money, if I could get my hands on some, on it.

Anyone who can't see what this http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/28/1114277/-Israel-Romney-Insults-America-s-Mid-East-Allies means about Romney and about desperate War Profiteers drooling all over themselves over what is happening in Syria, and eyeballing Egypt, is blind or intentionally ignorant.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #27)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 02:10 PM

37. I don't consider this sign "pro-war" because I see a big difference between Libertarians and Greens.

The Greens are, to be blunt, idiots. While it makes sense for them to criticize Obama over the war, it makes no sense for them to then stomp off in indignation and vote for Jill Stein. The next President will be either Obama or Romney, and you're completely correct that a Romney administration would be much more warlike. The Greens should keep up the left-wing pressure on Obama but then vote for him.

The Libertarians face a different situation. They prefer Obama's foreign policy to Romney's. In fact, they consider even Obama to be too militaristic -- Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, opposed the intervention in Libya. Their problem is that they also care about many other issues, as to which they prefer Romney's stance (at least, Romney's current stance). They can't vote for the less militaristic candidate without also voting for the one who unequivocally supports such "socialist" ideas as Medicare.

Therefore, if this Smeed outfit is genuinely libertarian, calling their billboard "actually PRO-WAR" is too harsh. They aren't being clearly illogical by refusing to vote for Obama. They don't become pro-war merely because they also care about economic issues.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #37)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 02:21 PM

38. I agree that there's a difference, but it can't be discerened in practically any way but 1:1personal

relationships. The internet and billboards do not provide the kinds of information one needs about backers in today's mercurial political ecology.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:03 PM

29. As wacky as Ron Paul and his supporters admittedly are, they were consistently

 

opposed to U.S. adventurism in the middle east. I know this first-hand, b/c I first came to DU through links from a libertarian website (antiwar.com) that would feature occasional writings by Ron Paul.

Which would contribute more to the cause of world peace:

a) unvetted and blatantly illegal drone strikes carrying out extra-judicial executions

or

b) war crimes investigations and trials for members of the previous torture regime

Come on, now, don't by shy.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Suji to Seoul (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 04:58 AM

7. Those who can make you believe absurdities...

 

Also, reminds me of Chris Hedges, "Days of Revolt'...
Where he compares North Korea Totalitarian 'magic' (born under a rainbow)
with those in the US that have their own pseudo-magic beliefs, ie:
Founding fathers, Noah's Ark.

Moral:
When your life has been completely gutted, people sometimes cling to fantasy.
Also, flyover country is filled with complete mouthbreathing idiots. Don't
believe me? listen to Washington Journal on C-Span. I live here, also.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Unite2DefeatGOP (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 06:16 AM

13. "flyover country" - how sweet of you.

I bet you're a charmer.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Suji to Seoul (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 06:13 AM

11. It would be a mistake to think right wing zealots are welcome in Idaho!

There is a strong core of well educated progressive people in Idaho. A beautiful state in so many ways.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nambe (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:26 AM

23. Amen!

Lot of great progressives in Boise, Pocatello, and North Idaho. Caldwell, the rest of Canyon County and that west end of Ada are a bunch of tea party blowhards.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Suji to Seoul (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 06:56 AM

14. Sounds more like Idaho's peaceniks than their teabaggers.

 

I'm not sure about this new-ish thing around here to call everyone one disagrees with a teabagger or bagger. Libertarians in ID tend to be very Ron Paul-ish when it comes to war and peace, so they're not baggers to have put up that billboard.

Additionally the billboard isn't inaccurate as a reflection of our national insanity regarding the acceptability vs outrage of mass killings of innocents.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 08:16 AM

16. +1

Thank you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 08:38 AM

18. Ron Paul started the tea party

 

They are the real, true tea party. The neo-cons hijacked it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #18)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:54 AM

21. actually, it was Thomas Knapp in 2006, it was known as the Boston Tea Party, & was right-libertarian

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20060515065102/http://www.bostontea.us/

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/a-brief-history-of-the-boston-tea-party-part-one/

By 2007, the Paulites and Campaign for Liberty had started to come on board. By 2009, the mainstream ReThuglican Party, led by Dick Armey, et al. had taken it over in terms of co-opting the name, and completely changed its focus to what 99.99% now know as the Teabaggers of today (basically the overtly bigoted, anti-Muslim empiric lap-dog, 'corn-pone in a Hov-A-Round' spectrum of the ReThugs).

The original party just folded, a week ago: http://bostontea.us/node/1190


this video sums it up

Libertarian Vs. Tea Party




Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:10 PM

34. WHY does everyone take everything at face value. We do know what super-PAC money can do!

There is at least some probability that least some of the kind of stuff referred to in OP is PRO-War.

Check out Romney in Israel this week http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/28/1114277/-Israel-Romney-Insults-America-s-Mid-East-Allies That's Romney representing desperate War Profiteers drooling all over themselves over what is happening in Syria, and eyeballing Egypt. They have to get rid of Obama to make that happen. Margins are thin and there's redistricting and voter suppression, so they stand a chance of accomplishing their goal.

Real peace supporters will be backing the President at this time!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Suji to Seoul (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 07:48 AM

15. Just when you think you've seen how low it can go. Most "Conservatives" who hate ....

Obama, just love the bejeebers out of the wars and in fact want more US serviceman killing wars. Hypocrites. Racist hypocrites.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:04 PM

31. Check out Romney in Israel this week. I say at least SOME of this BS is PRO-War. They have to get

rid of Obama. See my post #27 above.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Suji to Seoul (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:44 AM

24. What's an Idaho?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Suji to Seoul (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:50 AM

26. where were these asshats when BushCheney were starting/waging 2 wars? Not a peep from them



And neither of the wars was "necessary," not even Afghanistan.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #26)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:02 PM

28. Seeing this crap around FB too, coming out of the "Occupy". I say at least some is actually PRO-war.

See my post #27 above about Romney in Israel this week.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #26)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:06 PM

33. I don't know about where you live, but Ron Paul supporters and libertarians in Los Angeles

 

were pretty publicly anti-war, at a time when being so exposed them to scorn and derision from mainstream political figures, including Dems.

So you're re-writing history to suit the axe you have to grind. But the facts of the anti-war movement speak for themselves, your efforts to re-write history notwithstanding.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Suji to Seoul (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 04:11 PM

39. Locking, sorry, this is from Friday, so it's not late breaking.

But this is still relevant to the campaign, so please consider reposting in Politics 2012 or GD. Thanks!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink