Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

On the Armenian GenocideFollow

#202 Oct 23 2015 at 6:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I can see how it's relevant to point out that Obama did make exactly that big deal about this when running

For certain values of "big", I guess. You'll notice this thread jumped from 2007 to 2015 -- Obama's stance on Armenia wasn't exactly burning up the forums.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#203 Oct 26 2015 at 2:31 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'm of "Presidents should do what they promise" decent.
So you're gullible?


Are you gullible if literally every promise made by a President is not held to after election? Because every President breaks many promises. I expected Obama to do so as well, and to Gbaji--I did vote for him first time, Jill Stein next time. I'm your ally only in wanting a well-written, smart, good-arguing conservative to speak up, in this morass of faux liberal posters. Mostly didn't vote for him due to breaking promises. My general stance is anti-incumbent, and progressive liberal. "second-chance" after a terrible first term makes no sense to me. Such a first-term President has PROVEN to suck, so why vote for him again? Why not give an opponent, even a :gasp: republican to prove to suck. All you voters who ignore BS and just vote on party lines are enablers. I voted for Dole btw for such reasons, because Clinton failed to deliver first term. He did much better second, and so has Obama, but still not a reason to reward an abysmal first term.

"Videotape proves Obama just raped and murdered a child! And he just dropped nuclear bombs on Cuba, killing everyone there!!"

dumb voter: "Still, at least he's not a Republican! Think of how many SCOTUS members are about to die! That's more important!"

"Hillary approved all of that and fashioned it! She also raped and murdered many babies! Bernie Sanders, I say I say is not electable! Let's now get behind Hilary"

I don't think such a scenario is too bizarre that idiot voters would still vote now for Hillary, or formerly for Obama. Partisans or weird people who think SCOTUS has magical powers or whatever.

Have you ever voted for a President who promised something while campaigning, then didn't deliver? If not, you're lying. If so, then the only cause you have to criticize me on this is just which promise was broken*. Your facile "gullible" charge is weak. Especially since any ethical person should indeed object to any and all campaign promises by any and all candidates that are later abandoned. It's expected, it will happen, yet still criticism of such is necessary, and valid. Hold their fires to the hot coals or to the lazy stirring of the hot gumbo pot. Where I live and wait.

*Acknowledging the Armenian Genocide as a Genocide. Duh, except apparently for US Presidents. An obvious 100 year-old thing that happened not called such because...Turkey is such a great ally. Laugh my *** off. Pathetic piece of Presidency and balls.
#204 Oct 26 2015 at 2:42 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I can see how it's relevant to point out that Obama did make exactly that big deal about this when running

For certain values of "big", I guess. You'll notice this thread jumped from 2007 to 2015 -- Obama's stance on Armenia wasn't exactly burning up the forums.


It was a big deal to American Armenians. Those who survived the Turkish genocide which killed millions of them. But sure, little deal. Little mass graves (have you googled some images of such btw?). Little promise. Little political import. Let's just ignore that local genocide. If something isn't "burning up the ZAM forums" then Armenian survivors should just STFU and stop asking for a promised recognition.
#205 Oct 26 2015 at 3:56 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
Quote:
Such a first-term President has PROVEN to suck, so why vote for him again? Why not give an opponent, even a :gasp: republican to prove to suck.


Why would you expect someone to vote against their political self interest? And for something as asinine as anti-incumbency too?

Quote:
It was a big deal to American Armenians. Those who survived the Turkish genocide which killed millions of them. But sure, little deal. Little mass graves (have you googled some images of such btw?). Little promise. Little political import. Let's just ignore that local genocide. If something isn't "burning up the ZAM forums" then Armenian survivors should just STFU and stop asking for a promised recognition.


There are a lot of graves in many countries that are politically convenient to ignore. In this case, the regime and empire which perpetrated it is dead. There is more ethnic cleansing going on in Der-el-zor. Along with recognition, what action would you have the US to perform?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#206 Oct 26 2015 at 5:50 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,348 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Such a first-term President has PROVEN to suck, so why vote for him again? Why not give an opponent, even a :gasp: republican to prove to suck.


Why would you expect someone to vote against their political self interest? And for something as asinine as anti-incumbency too?
I get a kick out of his anti-incumbency stance given he stated both Clinton and Obama have done better in their 2nd terms than in their first. Who would've though that Presidents can actually try to do more of what they promised when they're not working on getting re-elected? Shocking.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#207 Oct 26 2015 at 7:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus1 wrote:
It was a big deal to American Armenians.
As I previously wrote:
Turkey > Armenia to US foreign policy. That's the answer.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#208 Oct 26 2015 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
******
49,485 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
I expected Obama to do so as well
So that's a "yes."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#209 Oct 29 2015 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,227 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Please, I want Obama to do something dumb, that I claim should be done, even though I don't give a #$%^, because it will make him look dumb, because I hate Obama
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#210 Oct 30 2015 at 3:50 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
Please, I want Obama to do something dumb, that I claim should be done, even though I don't give a #$%^, because it will make him look dumb, because I hate Obama


What in the **** are you talking about? Your supposed quote is nothing like what I said.

First--you seem to think Obama calling the Armenia Genocide for what it was is "dumb"?? Or that I think it will make him look "dumb"? I think it will make him look like a candidate who delivered on a campaign promise, so the opposite of "dumb". If delivered it would be "integrity", "smart", "honest", etc.

And I don't "hate" Obama. Unless by "hate" you mean I hate promises by candidates which aren't later delivered. Though I do think he sucks as a President. Take your strawman quote to the Moon and live there forever and regret how you once made such a ****** post that you were sent there.


Edited, Oct 30th 2015 5:59am by Palpitus1
#211 Oct 30 2015 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
******
49,485 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Unless by "hate" you mean I hate promises by candidates which aren't later delivered.
Sounds like your first experience with politics.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#212 Nov 03 2015 at 3:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Missed this gem.

Uglysasquatch wrote:
I get a kick out of his anti-incumbency stance given he stated both Clinton and Obama have done better in their 2nd terms than in their first. Who would've though that Presidents can actually try to do more of what they promised when they're not working on getting re-elected? Shocking.


I wouldn't necessarily say that either of their improvements had to do with being a second term president though (and I'm really scratching my head trying to figure out what Obama has actually done in his second term). There's a pretty clear pattern that might explain things though, if one were to look at changes in Congress during the same time period in both of their presidencies. I'd argue that it's less that they did "better" at implementing a positive agenda and more that they were prevented from doing negative things by a congress that held them in check (and in the case of Clinton actually ran the agenda more than he did).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#213 Nov 03 2015 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
gbaji wrote:
Missed this gem.

Uglysasquatch wrote:
I get a kick out of his anti-incumbency stance given he stated both Clinton and Obama have done better in their 2nd terms than in their first. Who would've though that Presidents can actually try to do more of what they promised when they're not working on getting re-elected? Shocking.


I wouldn't necessarily say that either of their improvements had to do with being a second term president though (and I'm really scratching my head trying to figure out what Obama has actually done in his second term). There's a pretty clear pattern that might explain things though, if one were to look at changes in Congress during the same time period in both of their presidencies. I'd argue that it's less that they did "better" at implementing a positive agenda and more that they were prevented from doing negative things by a congress that held them in check (and in the case of Clinton actually ran the agenda more than he did).


Yeah, but you're a maniac.

Administrations, like everything else, generally get more efficient with practice. Whether you agree with what they do is irrelevant.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#214 Nov 03 2015 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
(and I'm really scratching my head trying to figure out what Obama has actually done in his second term)

Really? Iran nuclear deal? Trans-Pacific Partnership (and the TPA)? Major steps towards normalizing relations with Cuba?

Regardless of whether or not you LIKE them, those were landmark events and major wins for Obama's agenda. That's not counting less sexy stuff like the multiple wins during budget/debt ceiling negotiations or first term carry-over stuff like more SCotUS wins for Obamacare.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2015 5:13pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#215 Nov 03 2015 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,348 posts
gbaji wrote:
I wouldn't necessarily say that either of their improvements had to do with being a second term president though
Of course not, because they were Democrats. The GOP must have saved them.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#216 Nov 03 2015 at 7:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
(and I'm really scratching my head trying to figure out what Obama has actually done in his second term)

Really? Iran nuclear deal? Trans-Pacific Partnership (and the TPA)? Major steps towards normalizing relations with Cuba?


Yup. Still scratching my head.

Quote:
Regardless of whether or not you LIKE them, those were landmark events and major wins for Obama's agenda.


Landmark? Maybe. But then so would handing Alaska back to the Russians. And while I suppose you can argue that these may be wins from Obama's perspective, I don't think they are wins for the US as a nation. Unless "turning us into a second world nation" counts as a "win".

Quote:
That's not counting less sexy stuff like the multiple wins during budget/debt ceiling negotiations or first term carry-over stuff like more SCotUS wins for Obamacare.


Again, a win for Obama isn't really a win for the country.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#217 Nov 03 2015 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
Fox News wrote:

Again, a win for Obama isn't really a win for the country.


Well, not YOUR country. But your country is a fictional land that where global warming isn't happening, trickle down economics work, Obama was born in Kenya & is a muslim, where brown skinned immigrants are all rapists and murderers, where facts are boo'd during presidential debates, and where any suggestion of a minimum wage increase is frowned upon despite the fact that upper management is making 100s of times more than the line workers.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#218 Nov 03 2015 at 8:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't think they are wins for the US as a nation.

Who cares what you think? You asked what Obama had done his second term. The answer is that he has passed through major trade deals and foreign agreements. If the question is "What did Obama do that Gbaji will say was wonderful?" then, sure, nothing. But that's a stupid question.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#219 Nov 04 2015 at 4:00 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,306 posts
I used to believe there were no stupid questions.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#220 Nov 04 2015 at 4:46 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Trans-Pacific Partnership


LOL at you considering that a good thing and a boon/check-mark to his 2nd term. You don't even know what it entails. No one does, including very few in Congress. Good/bad?? Who knows? Definitely not you, outside of your faith in Obama at least.
#221 Nov 04 2015 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus1 wrote:
LOL at you considering that a good thing and a boon/check-mark to his 2nd term.

If I've learned anything from all this, it's that Armenians (and their allies) are largely illiterate.
I previously wrote:
Regardless of whether or not you LIKE them, those were landmark events and major wins for Obama's agenda.

Obama wanted the TPP to pass. It did. It's an accomplishment. Whether you think it's the best thing in the world or the worst or wherever in between, it's still a major checkmark next to Obama's accomplishments.

Accomplishments aren't determined by what you do or don't like. If the next president dismantles the ACA or passes universal single-payer healthcare, that'll be an accomplishment. If they approve or kill the Keystone pipeline, that'll be an accomplishment. If they build a 50' wall on the Mexican border or make every illegal alien a full citizen, that'll be an accomplishment.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#222 Nov 04 2015 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
******
49,485 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Who cares what you think?
You should feel honored to read the thoughts of a guy who thinks Hawaii is a part of Kenya.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#223 Nov 05 2015 at 3:49 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Who cares what you think?
You should feel honored to read the thoughts of a guy who thinks Hawaii is a part of Kenya.


What? Obama is an American. I'm not a truther or anything, I'm a progressive. You make the most inane strawman posts, it's just embarrassing. I've never said or insinuated anything like that and the very idea is ludicrous. Don't just drop in and make stupid **** posts, please. Oaf.

As to Jophiel--okay, granted, even Obama's horrible achievements will count as such, including expanding drone strikes and such. If his tenure led to a new law requiring all babies to be murdered, and this was law or Executive Order, then another achievement. Great job. Maybe next he might round up all Muslim-Americans into camps and you'll claim that because that was his goal and he did that, it's a great example or his Presidency. Do you have any ethics btw? Any morals? Any sense or right and wrong? Are you a sociopath?
#224 Nov 05 2015 at 5:06 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,227 posts
Hey, Palpitus1:

re: Your strange responses to our responses

We all think you are varus and will respond to you as such until you prove otherwise. OK, maybe not all of us, but quite a few.

It looks like the same retarded rhetoric, written a bit more coherently.

Edited, Nov 5th 2015 4:40am by Bijou
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#225 Nov 05 2015 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,348 posts
There is no ******* way Palitus is varus. I can't see the slightest resemblance.

A blatant clue for you would be the fact that Palpitus has stated he's voted for Clinton and Obama on their 1st terms.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#226 Nov 05 2015 at 7:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus1 wrote:
As to Jophiel--okay, granted, even Obama's horrible achievements will count as such, including expanding drone strikes and such. If his tenure led to a new law requiring all babies to be murdered, and this was law or Executive Order, then another achievement. Great job. Maybe next he might round up all Muslim-Americans into camps and you'll claim that because that was his goal and he did that, it's a great example or his Presidency. Do you have any ethics btw? Any morals? Any sense or right and wrong? Are you a sociopath?

Yes, great, you finally are starting to understand. If Obama said "I want to get a law passed murdering all the babies" and Obama was able to get that law passed, it would be an achievement. Regardless of whether or not you liked it, he did in fact do something significant that he said he wanted to do. That's sort of the definition of "achievement".

I don't see where ethics and morals fit into the definition of achievement. Into your opinion on said achievement, sure. Into the definition of the word itself? Nah.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#227 Nov 05 2015 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,227 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
There is no ******* way Palpitus is varus. I can't see the slightest resemblance.

A blatant clue for you would be the fact that Palpitus has stated he's voted for Clinton and Obama on their 1st terms.
Yeah; I just went ahead and didn't believe that bit. Sue me.


ETA: It's entirely possible I'm confusing Palpi with some other poster, though. I ain't perfect, y'know.Smiley: frown


Edited, Nov 5th 2015 7:35am by Bijou
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#228 Nov 05 2015 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,485 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
You make the most inane strawman posts, it's just embarrassing.
It must be embarrassing for you to learn that maybe that comment was about someone else.
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'm a progressive.
Well, you're certainly getting progressively more paranoid.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#229 Nov 05 2015 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent
I'm think palpitus is just palpitus.

It's possible they're a platypus.

Edited, Nov 5th 2015 8:43am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#230 Nov 05 2015 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Thinking this is Varus (I don't) would require thinking that Varus could spare a thought for people across the ocean.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#231 Nov 05 2015 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,227 posts
ALSO: A little research (looking at his ZAM profile) tells me that Palpi hails from Monterey, CA.

OOPS


Gee-golly, Palpi, I am heartily sorry I compared you to an inbred MSM in Tennessee...really.


Smiley: flowers?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#232 Nov 05 2015 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I don't think they are wins for the US as a nation.

Who cares what you think? You asked what Obama had done his second term. The answer is that he has passed through major trade deals and foreign agreements. If the question is "What did Obama do that Gbaji will say was wonderful?" then, sure, nothing. But that's a stupid question.


Context matters. The context was about presidents improving in their second term. What he's done in his second term is basically coast. The trade deals were things being worked on for quite some time, and were going to happen with or without Obama's involvement. The Iran deal was basically Obama throwing his hands up and saying "do whatever you want" (hence my comment about giving Alaska back to the Russians). Things happening during a presidents watch doesn't necessarily translate into an accomplishment for that president.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#233 Nov 05 2015 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wow. Well, I guess you need some way to feel better.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#234 Nov 06 2015 at 4:23 AM Rating: Good
*
182 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
ALSO: A little research (looking at his ZAM profile) tells me that Palpi hails from Monterey, CA.

OOPS


Gee-golly, Palpi, I am heartily sorry I compared you to an inbred MSM in Tennessee...really.


Smiley: flowers?


We are good. "Palpitus" is my name from around '97 or so as the first name of my Everquest character. Last name was "Tlaloc" after the rain god of the Aztecs. Also, for no reason to declare, I have a fetish for words ending in "consonant-U-S" that are not Latin. I keep on hand my trusty ledger to document such words. There are 102 so far, including "crocus" and "octopus" for example. I'm sure if you deign to stalk me much more you'll find that out. I am originally from Virginia. My votes for Presidential elections have been: Clinton, Dole, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Stein. Yeah, I actually voted for Bob Dole! Totally **** you incumbent if you haven't yet delivered.

I don't know what a Varus is and have only drove through Tennessee. I did see an awesome pyramid building there though. Smiley: inlove


Edited, Nov 6th 2015 5:24am by Palpitus1
#235 May 05 2016 at 1:39 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
Another year, another abject failure at that promise. Might not mean much to many. But is also akin perhaps to the Administration not calling the Egyptian coup a "coup" so that laws against selling arms to couped-states didn't attach so we could keep selling them munitions. Also regional concerns, which might be good but flout that very plain "coup" law. Such law doesn't grant an allowance for geopolitics. It's binary.

And obviously the O Admin's refusal to call the Armenian Genocide a genocide is due to being cowed by Turkey. Which is kind of a **** ally, with their assholeness and hatred of (and possible current quasi-genocide of Kurds). I guess anew. 100 years ago so irrelevant, millions of Armenians dying and no US Prez acknowledging such? Not even Obama, that scaredy-cat. How about now. Past is prologue. Genocide once, genocide again, if zero repercussions or even acknowledgement.

I have nothing against Turks. But that government got a free pass, our current President promised to challenge that, he didn't, and Turkey now feels free to use the Syria situation to bomb and kill Kurds (and anyone anti-Erdogan). Etc.

Edited, May 5th 2016 4:37am by Palpitus1
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#236 May 05 2016 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
******
49,485 posts
See you in a couple of months again.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#237 May 05 2016 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
If you are hoping for American foreign policy to be driven by what is right and what is wrong, I'm afraid you'll be waiting a very long time.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#238 May 05 2016 at 8:42 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
I'm waiting for one damned Obama supporter to rightfully call him a liar for this lying lie he lied. At the end of days, the second term.

Plus yeah, it does matter and has implications. And Kurds are dying, maybe even in droves. By Turkish weapons. Ho-hum I guess.

Not foreign policy. Voters who approved this.
#239 May 05 2016 at 8:46 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
Nah. Obama had eight years to comply with his campaign promise. Clinton didn't even promise anything. So no failure as to her promise, since it wasn't made. Last day of Obama's office when he again refuses to fulfill this promise, I'm done with this thread. Sorry for holding a candidate to their word, even for so many years. Silly me.
#240 May 05 2016 at 10:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
Had the situations in Syria/Russia not ended up the way they did, it's quite likely Obama would have kept his word. But they didn't, so he didn't due to a change in the price of that statement.

Obama's idealism is quite cold in the ground at this point. It's not the only thing he reneged on for tactical reasons.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#241 May 05 2016 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'm waiting for one damned Obama supporter to rightfully call him a liar for this lying lie he lied.

Then what?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#242 May 05 2016 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
******
49,485 posts
Palpy said he supported Obama at first, and is calling him a liar now, so he's already gotten what he wanted.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#243 May 07 2016 at 2:05 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'm waiting for one damned Obama supporter to rightfully call him a liar for this lying lie he lied.

Then what?


Then their little tribalist brains might break and a floodgate might open where they suddenly are consistent in their supposed values and also criticize him for war-crime drone bombing, arming and aiding Saudi in their Yemen campaign, prosecuting whistleblowers, trying to move Gitmo North as if that would deal with Constitutional objections, etc. Too late now though. Apologism reigns.

The greatest time to ascertain which liberal or conservative actually believes in their convictions is when the Presidency changes. Suddenly mute (or suddenly outraged) about the same or even worse atrocities=fair-weather "liberals" and "conservatives". Good time to see the true character of online commentators, and politicians, and media members.

And yea, "conservatives" too. Any which weren't railing against Bush for massively increasing federal spending including towards needless war and expanding agencies etc. was also faux. I'll respect any conservative or liberal if they can bother to remain consistent and not ignore problems even if their favored party is in office as President. The others? Contemptuous. Sociopathic clique high schoolers. Not that you're one of them. But Obama's PROMISE to Armenian supporters is bafflingly shoo-shooed and apologized. Even though it's a completely binary decision he has so far failed on. Bad/good? According to apologists, he's doing his best and wants to do so, but gosh geopolitics prevent him. Turkey so important. GTFO. Or I guess too bad Armenians don't make up enough of the electorate/lobby to make him acknowledge their being genocided as a genocide. Has he also refused to call the Holocaust a genocide? The Holodomor? Rwanda? Wonder what the difference is...

Edited, May 7th 2016 4:10am by Palpitus1
#244 May 07 2016 at 10:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
The difference is that those genocides were done by rival powers, and thus are/were geopolitical capital rather than albatrosses.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#245 May 09 2016 at 1:10 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
The Holodomor wasn't about rival power, since the Reds had already won. It was maniacal. (so too the Great Leap Forward--Mao had nothing to fear from Kai-shek at that point...) And hardly about politics as much as also killing property-owners and such. Lenin's Russia was so powerful that he didn't need to assassinate Trotsky, for a simple example. Yet he did so. Not about a rival at that point. Same for property-owners, artists, writers, etc. Not an actual political threat, but instead genocided due to Lenin/Staliln's innate assholeness.

The Holocaust obviously wasn't about rival powers, unless you're contending the Jewish political party in Germany was about to win election. What.

The Rwandan Genocide is the closest to an actual political rivalry, where the genocider and genocidee prior to genocide hold around equal power. Your other examples fail.

Please elucidate us on why the Armenian Genocide happened because Turkey was about to lose political power to its Armenian-Turk population. I mean ****, you might be right on that. Kind of doubt you are though. I think the Armenian Genocide is more an example of evil people murdering innocent people due to racism than any political rivalry/political threat.
#246 May 09 2016 at 8:08 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
I'm speaking about the US recognition of these things. If you want the raison d'être, it's collective punishment for resisting the State. The Armenians aligned with Russia against Turkish rule, therefore, they had to go.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#247 May 09 2016 at 12:12 PM Rating: Good
***
1,054 posts
I was going to post "Rwanda is a political rival now?" in response to your original comment but decided agaisnt it. I should have gone ahead, could have averted this whole misunderstanding.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#248 May 09 2016 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
And yea, "conservatives" too. Any which weren't railing against Bush for massively increasing federal spending including towards needless war and expanding agencies etc. was also faux. I'll respect any conservative or liberal if they can bother to remain consistent and not ignore problems even if their favored party is in office as President. The others? Contemptuous. Sociopathic clique high schoolers. Not that you're one of them. But Obama's PROMISE to Armenian supporters is bafflingly shoo-shooed and apologized. Even though it's a completely binary decision he has so far failed on.


I'll toss the same response that I give to the usual "but they're being hypocritical!" claims. I suspect you're not grasping how the conservative and liberal agenda's are aligned. As a general rule, conservatives view the role of the federal government as primarily being externally focused. So spending on wars, foreign policy, foreign aid, immigration enforcement, etc, while wanting to reduce spending on domestic stuff, is not in any way hypocritical nor is it inconsistent. In the other direction, liberals tend to view the role of the federal government as being internally focused. so choosing to focus on things like health care, education, deciding who gets to use which bathrooms in public spaces, etc, while taking a minimal "let's just all get along" approach to foreign policy is also neither hypocritical nor inconsistent for them.

Quote:
Bad/good? According to apologists, he's doing his best and wants to do so, but gosh geopolitics prevent him. Turkey so important. GTFO.


Again, what did you expect? You're how old and you haven't yet figured out that the typical liberal approach to foreign policy mostly involves boats and not rocking them?

Quote:
Or I guess too bad Armenians don't make up enough of the electorate/lobby to make him acknowledge their being genocided as a genocide. Has he also refused to call the Holocaust a genocide? The Holodomor? Rwanda? Wonder what the difference is...


That he hasn't been asked to do so? That doing so doesn't involve inserting himself into what he may view as a "foreign problem"? I will point out, since you seem **** bent on trying to invent an inconsistency here, that he has in fact been criticized for taking what many feel to be a far too moderate stance on Israel and the Holocaust. Again though, that's completely consistent with his foreign policy approach of not taking sides. It's not like he's only been doing this with just this one issue. Maybe broaden your viewpoint and you might just see the bigger picture here?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#249 May 24 2016 at 4:26 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
gbaji wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
I'll toss the same response that I give to the usual "but they're being hypocritical!" claims. I suspect you're not grasping how the conservative and liberal agenda's are aligned. As a general rule, conservatives view the role of the federal government as primarily being externally focused. So spending on wars, foreign policy, foreign aid, immigration enforcement, etc, while wanting to reduce spending on domestic stuff, is not in any way hypocritical nor is it inconsistent. In the other direction, liberals tend to view the role of the federal government as being internally focused. so choosing to focus on things like health care, education, deciding who gets to use which bathrooms in public spaces, etc, while taking a minimal "let's just all get along" approach to foreign policy is also neither hypocritical nor inconsistent for them.


DHS, TSA, dozens more agencies and sub-agencies created by Bush. Billions to spend by government.

"To them". Real conservatives would balk at an unnecessary $2 trillion war. A dozen new agencies. Massive expansion of government. DHS and TSA etc. are rather obviously only internally focused btw.

Quote:
Again, what did you expect? You're how old and you haven't yet figured out that the typical liberal approach to foreign policy mostly involves boats and not rocking them?


You're how old that you aren't aware Korea was initiated by Democrat Truman, and Vietnam by Democrat Kennedy? It's laughable that anyone would adhere to any sense of their party being less warmongering--both are. You should apparently be proud of Truman, JFK, etc. for "rocking boats". The ****. If you like "rocking boats" of the past century of war-mongering, you should champion Clinton for POTUS. She's likely to rock a lot more boats than Trump. You looove rocking boats (war!) My son. My child. My little gbaji suckling pig.

Quote:
That he hasn't been asked to do so? That doing so doesn't involve inserting himself into what he may view as a "foreign problem"? I will point out, since you seem **** bent on trying to invent an inconsistency here, that he has in fact been criticized for taking what many feel to be a far too moderate stance on Israel and the Holocaust. Again though, that's completely consistent with his foreign policy approach of not taking sides. It's not like he's only been doing this with just this one issue. Maybe broaden your viewpoint and you might just see the bigger picture here?


"asked"? He PROMISED. Has nothing to do with Israel or Micronesia or Deer Park, Texas or the Bahamas. Has to do with millions of Armenian corpses. Google such if you want!

"Promise". Look up a word in a dictionary. Also, have zero idea what you mean be "too moderate...Holocaust". What? I think it's obviously from this thread I don't like Obama, but just what do you mean by him being "moderate on the Holocaust"?? I admire you gbaji as a lone conservative still here, but gtfo with your ********* I'll tear you apart just like I did Jophiel in this thread (well okay Joph, I didn't, but let's say I did for the sake of impact).


Edited, May 24th 2016 9:22am by Palpitus1
#250 May 24 2016 at 4:39 AM Rating: Default
*
182 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm speaking about the US recognition of these things. If you want the raison d'être, it's collective punishment for resisting the State. The Armenians aligned with Russia against Turkish rule, therefore, they had to go.



I like your posts. Consistently rational. Even as I disagree.
#251 May 24 2016 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good
******
49,485 posts
See you in two weeks.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 69 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (69)