koshersalaami

koshersalaami
Birthday
October 01
Bio
Male, Jewish, in my fifties, married with kids (well, at this point I guess that should be "kid"). Thanks to Lezlie for avatar artwork - sort of a translation of my screen name. "Salaam" is peace in Arabic, hence the peace sign. (No, my name doesn't mean "hunk of meat" and yes, the pun is intentional.)

Koshersalaami's Links

Salon.com
JANUARY 30, 2013 1:50PM

One Sentence Oednesday: Demonizing Obama & Making It Stick

Rate: 15 Flag
Previously published on OurSalon by a minute or so

If you want demonizing Obama to catch on with more than a few people, you're going to have to demonstrate that Romney wouldn't have been substantially worse as President in ways that matter to the people you're trying to persuade.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
She's not trying to persuade anybody, Kosh. It's just that she can't think of anything positive -- about anything -- to write about.
Previously published on OurSalon by a minute or so...

With the same typo in the title...
Well, Matt, I hadn't targeted this at one person (because this phenomenon is not limited to one person here) and I was about to ask what "she" you had in mind, but.....

Amy,
It's not a typo. It's deliberate symmetry.
One
Oednesday.

It has to do with dipthongs. Did you ever notice that in French they spell something pronounced "we" that doesn't have any consonants? They spell it "oui." That's because there are a couple of consonants in English that actually are shifting vowels, W being one and Y being the other. You can make a W sound by substituting a double O or long U sound for the W. Like: OO-air. You just have to shorten the beginning of the vowel. Same with Y, substitute a long E sound (shortened) and you get the same thing: EE-ess.

Nope, contrary to your opinion of me, I'm not stupid enough to duplicate that kind of typo in the title.
You know, more than proof that another politician would have been the same, I am curious to know what solution the complainant would have.

One area is of particular concern. It is common among a certain crowd to bemooan the "imperialism", "military", whatever. I want to see a real world solution to not protecting oneself (country) with a military. I dont favor war, but I far from believing a country like this one can just stop having one. It's easy to say, "dont kill Americans, assassinate, or whatever. I get that. I am talking BIG PICTURE. What is the alternate solution?
Incidentally, that explanation was SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!
Are they still doing that? Seems like an utter waste of time to me. He IS President, right?

Lezlie
The false premise that you have set up STILL does not acknowledge that the lesser of two evils is STILL evil and that some of us refuse to choose evil.

The only recourse open to us then is not to embrace or even simply tolerate evil, but to actively campaign against it, regardless of it's level, and promote an alternative like the Green Party.

BTW, that you don't believe that the Green Party will ever be a viable party is a self fulfilling prophecy on your part. It never will be viable, in your mind, so therefore it shouldn't be in anyone else's.

For MY part, I realize that there are MANY people like you (and L) who couldn't be convinced that Obama is a war criminal even if you saw him personally strafing a bunch of children with a drone. You'd fine SOME excuse for it... of that I'm confident.
Kosh, Amy just wrote: “The false premise that you have set up STILL does not acknowledge that the lesser of two evils is STILL evil and that some of us refuse to choose evil.”

Wow…talk about a false premise. Sorta begging the question there.

Neither of the candidates were “evil” in my opinion. It is okay for someone to be of a different mind…thinking one or both were evil…but to assert they both were evil in order to make the point that voting for one was “the lesser of two evils” is an absurdity.

I am delighted I voted for Obama…and I think the people who opposed him ought to just get over it.
YEAH! That Romney guy -- he cares more about the little guy -- or whatever.
Well, I'll comment here because ...

1) I was asked about a year ago to never comment on SafeBetAmy's blog and I've honored her request (although I've seen that she doesn't have the same consideration to others, like Arthur Louis, who asked her not to comment on his blog). She is also the kettle calling the pot black on so many occasions, it's too numerous to list.

2) Bill has fallen off the rails several times. He fools me every once in a while ("Joisey! Welcome back! Glad to see you. Yeah, you're right about SafeBetAmy") and then starts deleting my (very civil) comments/questions which might support an opposing view. Worse, he then accuses me of vile things and then deletes my defense asking him to prove the assertions (see my "Deleted Comments Graveyard" if it's of any interest). I've come to the conclusion that Bill is bipolar or otherwise mentally unstable and will avoid engaging with him. Too bad, he sometimes puts forth very enlightening and interesting posts/comments.

Those items aside, good post here. (Nothing new here) SBA totally side-steps your question with her comment "The false premise that you have set up STILL does not acknowledge that the lesser of two evils is STILL evil and that some of us refuse to choose evil."

To legimately call the President a rat bastard, one must prove that the number of unaddressed promises made during his campaign is outside the norm of all previous candidates/Presidents. In other words, what percentage of promises did Carter not address/keep? Reagan? Bush 1? Clinton? Bush 2?

Whatever the answer is, only a reasonable person would conclude that "rat bastard" is an apt label for the current President if the percentage of unaddressed promises is outside the norm. SBA who claims to be an accountant, still has problems with numbers/statistics (as evidenced by her misinterpretation of a gay-partner vs. pet as "family" study a while back), so I won't even pretend she understands norms, outliers, etc.

Good luck with this comment thread.
Drone strikes have issues, Gitmo has issues, but unless the plan is to totally withdraw any influence in the Middle East, tradeoffs are the reality.
And, if you unleashed and/or abandon Israel as part of that, do you really think that is going to make for peace? I very seriously doubt that, if it's fine to advocate that, just say so.
Forgive me, Kosh. Just one indulgence. Allow me to explain this out of context explanation to an out of context smear by Joisey just now.

First, I asked MIshima666 about his experience 3 days prior to the time you (Joisey) presumed that I did. 3 days and 5 hours, actually.

You (Joisey) thought the 31 minute period indicated that I might be "bi-polar" or disabled (psychologically.) The timing is off, and the diagnosis is off. I explained that the other day, but you went forward with this public claim.

You (Joisey) asked why I left the LAPD and connected that to your incorrect 31 minute observation and misdiagnosis. The question was entirely unrelated to the context of the women in combat post, as opposed to the military experience question...on a post about the military. Further, my personal life is not your business, particularly when you are a person who is anonymous.

Here are the facts...completely out of context, though they may be.

I got a degree in English before I joined the Marines. I joined because I did not want to spend my entire life at a desk, and tried some adventure for a short while, while I still had the youth. My Mom, having already lost my Dad, hated that her only child went from English B.A. to USMC. Hated it. I promised I was in an out in 4, only there for the experience. I stayed 5.5 because I had special orders.

From there, I got a whiff of the LAPD. Long story, but to be brief, I got into the process and ended up at the top of their recruit class, then graduated at the top. I was able to select my division as a result. My Mom hated that her only son had joined the LAPD. Incidentally, most of the Marines I knew thought it was dangerous too. So, I agreed to stay for a while, and then get a "grown up" job, as she called it.

5 years on, I was looking at grad school, and noticing guys who were 40, and hated the job. I had other options, and my Mom was dying. So, prodigal son decided to return home to be with his dying mother and go to grad school. That's why I left. From there I took a job advising bank brokers on how to grow their investment businesses. My politics are far to the left of corporations, Wall Street, and my colleagues, so I do not bring them into it.

All of this stems from a missed observation about 31 minutes. It was actually 3 days and 5 hours. Now, doesn't this all seem a bit silly? How about, you let Mishima666 (or anyone lese) speak for themselves, and you worry about Joisey. Deal?

Sorry Kosh. Just answering a crazy accusation.
"...you're going to have to demonstrate that Romney wouldn't have been substantially worse..."

Kosh, I don't how one is to do that without giving Romney his chance at it.

But that is neither here nor there. The argument "You're one too" is never a satisfactory reply to criticism. If you and everyone else on OS stopped using it, our decrepit server would never be overloaded again.
(not pimping my Deleted Comments Graveyard) but in direct response to Bill Beck here ...

"Have you ever been in the military, Mishima666?" Bill Beck, 1/27 9:38 PM

"Mishima666, you give a 600 word comment about stuff that I could not care less about. But you can't or won't answer a 8 word question with a 1 word answer ... Tell you what, Mish, spare me. if you can't answer a 8 word direct question...spare me the rest." Bill Beck, 1/27 10:09 PM

-------------------------

"Have" - 1st word
"you" - 2nd word
"ever" - 3rd word
"been" - 4th word
"in" - 5th word
"the" - 6th word
"military" - 7th word
"Mishima666" - 8th word

Your 10:09 comment (obviously) references Mishima666 not answering an 8-word question at the 9:38 PM mark.

Your Jan. 24th comment "I would be interested in knowing from your experience why this is not valid" is more than 8 words and can't be answered by a 1-word response.

So it is wrong to mislead readers to believe that you waited days for a response. Mishima666 answered you numerous times with specific examples on multiple comment threads after your January 24th statement.


Enough said.
I don't know how many people even take Romney into consideration at this point. The President's popularity has grown since the election, and some Republicans are admitting that need to be more inclusive or the party will continue to shrink. I don't know that the Greens have done anything at all since the election. It seems if they actually acomplish things there were would an argument there.
Where the Hell did my post go?

I'd like it back, please.

Here's the deal:
This post is not about morality, at all. It's about answering peoples' concerns. Those who virulently oppose Obama aren't recruiting anyone here that I can see. Whatever they're doing isn't working.

Demonizing Obama isn't working, even if it's justified. Whether or not it's justified isn't the question; whether or not it's working is the question. No, it's not.

So, now what? Continuing to scream means nothing but wasting more time. The screamers had a shot during the election but they kept assuming they didn't have to make the case that there really wasn't a significant difference between the major candidates. Maybe they didn't think it was morally necessary but, the thing is, it was tactically necessary. The reply to "Obama's awful" was "Romney's too much worse."

"He couldn't be too much worse; Obama's too awful." That didn't cut it. That didn't persuade anyone. Ignoring the objection didn't answer it. I don't care who thought that it wasn't morally necessary to answer the objection; if they wanted converts, it was tactically necessary to answer the objection. That's what matters.

The argument was made: Not voting Green was a self-fulfilling prophesy. Let's get real here: How exactly was a candidate that the vast majority of Americans had never heard of going to get elected President? Based on what? Just a platform? Candidates are elected for more reasons than just their platforms, and Jill Stein was an unknown. She had no shot. Even if every one of us voted for her, she had no shot. If she had the shadow of a shot, that would have been one thing, but she didn't. That meant we needed to worry about the functional differences between Obama and Romney. Repeating over and over and over that we didn't need to worry about that didn't make it so and, more importantly, didn't persuade anyone that they didn't need to worry about it. So, the end result was that those saying there was no difference just ended up with less credibility, and less credibility is an electoral liability.

My concern is the Electoral Liability issue. Pay attention to that or waste time. You don't gain influence by annoying people or by telling them they're immoral, stupid, irresponsible. All you do is make them dismiss you and stop listening.
Remember the Velvet Revolution of 1989? The Warsaw Pact was falling apart and Vaclav Havel rose to power. That event has a title because such circumstances are so rare. The Warsaw Pact fell for a variety of reasons which played out over decades, and included massive social unrest.

The Greens think they can achieve a similar sort of tectonic shift in the U.S. political system immediately, with virtually no social unrest. Stores have food. Shops have goods. Utilities work. Hell, only maybe 55% of registered voters even vote. There is not enough public sentiment to overturn a system which the vast majority of people think is working for them, whether it actually is or not. It is my opinion that the system is working, relative to the type of dysfunction that would be necessary to give rise to something like the Greens. That's a pipe dream. It is not realistic.
"How exactly was a candidate that the vast majority of Americans had never heard of going to get elected President?"


Every hear of this little known Governor from this little, podunk state? Nobody knew jack shit about him... That was one of his selling points.

As for your point, you and most others apparently stopped listening long ago. I, and others like me, are simply trying to get you to listen again. If that takes yelling, so be it. If you dismiss me then that's all on you. I did "my" part by at least getting your placated ass awake enough to bitch.

P.S. Ain't it great when the likes of JS and BB decide to leave off subject/manly man "chest beating" crap all over your post? Morons.
So the Germans who stuck up for the Jews under the Nazis were wasting their time? They should have just shut up in the face of Hitler's success because no one wanted to hear it? Only people who "gain influence" should be heard? That's some logic you got there! (And a wildly short memory)

Let's not kid ourselves here about this specious post. It's really about wanting to silence critics and lick Obama's ass so that fairy tale can come true. Yes, it is about right and wrong. And a country who turns its back on that has no future no mater how much ass licking they do.

Speaking out is always the first step. I'll stand with Shelley: "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." Why the fuck would anyone stand with their betrayers??
What little governor from what little state? Was he a member of a major party? Did he attend Yale Law School? Was he connected in the party aparatus? Was he affiliated with Senator Fulbright from that same podunk state? Was he a Rhodes Scholar? Did he meet President Kennedy as a teenager in a politics camp for high school kids? You mean that "unknown" guy? I'll tell you what. He was not unknown.
Cheshyre,
You seem to think this is a post in defense of Obama. Actually, it isn't. At all.

It's about tactical success and failure. The arguments against Obama continue, and more than a few of them are justified, but the thing is that those who oppose Obama here aren't gaining any extra traction. There are a lot of screaming arguments but no one's moving.

You can't move people if you don't listen to their concerns. This effort during the election involved dismissing their concerns and, partially as a result, it went nowhere.

If you, Amy, and whoever else show up on blog after blog and say

"Obama Is Satan!"

how many people do you think you're going to recruit? I'm not telling you not to try to recruit people. I'm not even telling you that Obama isn't Satan. What I'm telling you is that the current set of tactics isn't working and, if anything, is damaging your credibility with those on the other side of the issue, because all they're learning is to dismiss you. That's a lesson you don't want them learning.
Germans standing up for Jews against Hitler were subversives, not seeking change through the system. Are you (Cheshire) saying that you seek change through subversive activities? And in your analogy, who are the oppressed that are being freed in the U.S. example?
That's right, Beck.

What part of the term "vast majority of Americans had never heard of" confused you? Moron II!
Amy, why do you think I wrote this post?

Do you have any idea what I'm trying to tell you?
For good or for ill, U.S. politics is party driven. I rather wish it were not, but it is. It is. Is. That is a political reality. That being the case. The real case. Actual reality. And considering that even within the established parties, participation is getting more difficult, not less, due to the immense ampount of money required, how do you realistically expect to even get on ballots in 50 states? There are so many barriers to the Green pipe dream that it is beyond comprehension. I am not saying that I want that to be the case, I am saying that IS the case. Maybe I am a moron, but I know the difference bewteen a wish, and reality. The question is, do you?
My God, I finally agree with something you say. The nuts have really been pouring it on lately. I saw one earlier in the week where the guy lambasted Obama on his stand toward gay rights as too little too late! Then when I asked him your question he deleted me and called me a troll!

Can you imagine what would be happening now on the issue if Romney had won? You can't take them seriously. They're not talking to anybody, they're tyrants dumping on anybody foolish enough to listen. They're deranged.
Ben Sen,
My reaction is as much shock as yours. We actually agree on something.
Kosh, I hereby amend my earlier statement thusly: They're not trying to persuade anybody. It's just that they can't think of anything positive -- about anything -- to write about.
I hope this is on topic and where you are heading, Kosh. I think it is.

There are times where you (universal “you”) can do more to advance your position by encouraging opponents to be as bat-shit crazy as possible—than you can by trying to promote your position in a pro-active way. People savaging Obama, for instance, can actually be an asset to a pro-Obama argument if utilized properly. Often they can do more damage to themselves than you can do to them if you actively fight them—they can drive away support more efficiently and easily than you can attract it—which, in reality, is the same end.

And human nature being what it is, getting some of the more rash Obama bashers to self-inflict damage is not that difficult. Here in OS, as an example, they often seem more than anxious to help without prodding. One can just “be there for them”…to stir the pot. They will do the cooking, so to speak.

Just sayin’! Something to be considered.
I think it's fair game to criticize Obama without simultaneously making the case that Romney would have been worse. Having said that, calling him crude and vulgar names hardly elevates the discussion.
There are some people here whose idea of "sharing" is spitting on folks. If you mention their names, they spit on you. The good news is you can have nothing to do with them while still making it clear what you think. God, I love blogging. And better than that, I don't have to pretend otherwise.
Abra,
We're not talking about criticizing Obama. Lots of us criticize Obama. I have plenty of times here. We're talking about demonizing Obama, which is something else altogether.

Frank,
You're saying something I've put a little differently:

The most effective way for me to practice character assassination is to shut up and let them talk.

I just want to know if what they really want is to be provocateurs or to accomplish anything.
Ben Sen,

You're one of the few people who commented on an old post I wrote about the kind of topic Amy and Libby write about. I don't think most of them ever saw this and frankly I think they'd be surprised to know I wrote it. Maybe it's worth a repost:

http://open.salon.com/blog/koshersalaami/2011/09/02/is_obama_changing_our_approach_to_war_in_ways_we_want
Ouow. (That's "wow" in French.)
Someone actually read the Dipthong explanation!
Kosh, there is a base assumption that when presented with a puzzle, you want to make sense of it. Most people operate that way. This is not the case for the "Obama is evil" crowd. They are not remotely concerned about evil. They are concerned with how people react to their statement that he is evil. It is Munchausen by Proxy commentary. They get high off of the discord. There is a natural presumption that one wants to resolve discord and return to a harmonious chord. Not everyone is like that. Some not only reel from the thought or the sound of nails on a chalkboard, they live for the crowd reaction from it.
Ignore them and they still won't go away, contest their factual errors in a civil way, they'll delete you. These people only want ratings and exposure, or they have way too much time on their hands and desperately want attention. I did rate 2 of Libby's post's though, the one about The Kitchen Table and her pet post. Make jest of what they say, of course you will probably get deleted but WTF. It's futile to argue with idiots. They want that. Have a nice day Kosh. older/exasperated
Bill,
Maybe that's it.

Just for the Hell of it, maybe it isn't, though I frankly have my doubts.

In September of 2011 I wrote a post essentially asking if Obama was a war criminal, and it's not even a question I resolved. It's not a post that Amy or Libby visited; I don't think even Jan did. The link is a couple of comments above this one. Here's how it happened:

I was having a series of conversations with Markinjapan. He was virulently (well, if you know MIJ, that adjective kind of goes without saying) anti-Obama, throwing anything at him that came to hand, no matter how silly. I think if he'd heard that Obama wore mismatched socks, he'd have written how it was a disgrace that the Chief Executive of the United States of America wore mistmatched socks. Anything. I eventually got tired of wading through all the extraneous crap and asked him what really drove him nuts about Obama and he told me.

The thing is, he was raising an objection that I thought was worth considering. I wasn't sure where I fell on it, but I understood that the objection he was raising wasn't ever going to reach my audience because it wasn't the sort of topic my crowd took seriously. So I decided to present it, but without the shrillness typically associated with the people who talk about this stuff. Calmly, talking about two sides of it, presenting questions. Not reaching a conclusion because, honestly, I wasn't sure how much of a point I thought he had, so I didn't present a conclusion. In one way it was a sort of experiment: Their content, my delivery.

To give you an idea of how I approached it, MIJ was really happy with my post.

The result?

It didn't gain much traction. Not that many people read it. Of those who did, I think the majority either thought Obama was justified or didn't think it was a big enough deal to worry about.

I could have pushed it. If I'd reached a particular conclusion, I could have taken it farther. So in one respect, it's a sort of incomplete experiment. All I proved is that such material could be presented in such as way as to not start a series of screaming fights, but to actually get the question on the table.

This was over a year before the election. There was no Republican candidate yet.

In one way, I'm pretty sure I know how the experiment would work if I got more people. The argument would turn shrill because that's how those arguing that Obama was a war criminal would present their case, and their shrillness would delegitimize their case, even though their case might have merit. They'd undermine their own position, just like they do on their own posts and in comments everywhere. So, I don't think I could ever get a complete experiment out of it.

After all, this post is a tactical post. Its point is: You won't get listened to by a wider audience if you insist on dismissing that audience's concerns. I don't know how many ways I can say that, and I really don't know how to get that fundamental point even acknowledged.

I'm not saying to them: "I disagree with your case."
I'm saying: "You haven't presented your case."

I keep putting an objection on the table, and I'm far from alone with this objection. Very far. I'm saying:

"If you're going to evaluate Obama in the context of an election, you have to allow for how seriously many of us take the differences between the candidates. Asserting over and over again that 'there is no significant difference' doesn't make our concern go away, it just makes us aware that you're ignoring our concern, which Decreases the probability that you'll get anywhere with us. Drastically."

Maybe I just have to learn that there are arguments some people won't face. It's a pity. I think the ultimate result of their recalcitrance is that a case with some validity will never be taken seriously by more than a shrill small circle.
o/e,
You're probably right. I'd like to see them make some sense but I don't think they can get there from here.
The question becomes, Kosh, what will you do with the acceptance that some OSers won't be influenced by reason, logic, or rational thought?

Like you, I tried to see wiggle-room in even the most outlandish statement, allowing the blogger/commenter the benefit of the doubt. Or when two parties were engaged, I tried to mediate or pose a middle-ground scenario to give the debate pause. But all that gets you is crap from the blogger/commenter that I didn't buy-in-totally to their argument. And you get crap from the opposing view holders stating that you're a flip-flopper if you want to flush out positives from multiple positions. Or, why do I dare postulate what another's commenter means, as if it's impossible to assist in clarifying an issue.

There finally came a lightbulb moment when I recognized that there's no use engaging with some OSers. They just don't have the aptitude, reasoning skills, or mental-stability to debate in a civil manner and they pushback on everyone who doesn't embrace their extreme positions.

Again, I've been where you are now, trying to make sense of some bloggers/commenters and sometimes spinning things to shed the most positive light on their extreme positions, but I think you'll find (like I did) that it's futile. And a huge time-sink ... for nothing.
Kosh, some questions are too big to be answered with such simple forms, particularly when they are somewhat anachronistic. Giving the (we need a good respectful name for the category) Obama is evil crowd the full benefit of the doubt, they are absolutists. They split between (presumably) good and evil, even though you never hear them mention "good." But conceivably "evil" can't exist without good because it has no context or no value.

Still, they come down on, Obama is evil in a variety of ways. It does not matter what means it takes to make the point. SBA calls people "moron", but that absolutist concept of "evil" only points in one direction. No hint of introspection, no hint of the balancing concept of good.

Also, there is no historical context of good or evil. We have been fighting wars, weilding power, moving toward justice or injustice for millennia. No comparison for the purpose of context is ever made to understand the middle. I define the middle as ordinary challenges and policy evolution. What have humans done? What do societies do? There is no thought of that in the absolutist view. It is all about "evil", with no concept as to what it takes to hold off barbarians, or for what it takes for barbarians to hold off Roman legions. It gives no thought to whether social stratification is protection, or oppression, or a blend of both in order to accomplish the latter. If it were to pull the thread on civilization, it would find every single stage of development "evil" with no concern for how the "good" is accomplished. It imagines choices do not have ethical compromises built in, as if it has awareness of the concept of choice at all. In a world of finite resources, and a balance of need and greed, there is no pure moral answer to anything. Morality creates imperfect guidelines in the best case. When the morality stems from a single individual without any concern for compromise or reason, it is just despotism crying despotism.
You're both right on this one.

I found this out in part when I posted a pair of posts, which Bill has recently seen for the first time, called "Dirty Hands" and "The Gift." They were both different takes on ethical dilemmas. I had long conversations with one of the OIE (Obama Is Evil) crowd (Hey, why not? that abbreviation will work as well as any) in those comment streams and I found a complete lack of comprehension that a dilemma even existed. One side made sense, one side made no sense, but the thing is that the side that ostensibly made no sense was the side that helped the most people while hurting no one functionally. The question was efficacy vs. purity, and this person didn't even see efficacy as in the running.

That, right there, I think is the problem. The job of anyone in politics is not to maintain purity, it's to get stuff done that helps people. You can't be pure and do that. You have to get your hands dirty. Not only is this logistically necessary, it's MORALLY necessary, and that's the lost point.
That, right there, I think is the problem. The job of anyone in politics is not to maintain purity, it's to get stuff done that helps people. You can't be pure and do that. You have to get your hands dirty. Not only is this logistically necessary, it's MORALLY necessary, and that's the lost point.

That sorta was the point of my last thread about Abraham Lincoln. He lied to and bribed legislators...and possibly delayed the end of the Civil War...in order to achieve the passing of the 13th Amendment to end slavery.

Some of the OIE people would have been LIE (nice ring to that) people back then.

Obama got more universal health care legislation passed than any president before him...and was vilified by the OIE people because it was not more comprehensive...and even more universal.

Obama was the first president to speak out in an Inaugural Address for gay and transgender equality...and there are gays in the OIE crowd excoriating him for the use of "gay sisters" rather than using "lesbians."

There seems to be no pleasing them...and I doubt that actually "maintaining purity" would do the job, because they would manage to find fault even with that.
"The job of anyone in politics is not to maintain purity, it's to get stuff done that helps people. You can't be pure and do that. You have to get your hands dirty. Not only is this logistically necessary, it's MORALLY necessary, and that's the lost point."


Ya see, this is where we differ the most and ALWAYS will differ.

You believe, I think, that to be successful in YOUR definition of politics you necessarily HAVE to be morally compromised to be successful. That you have to be willing to give up on what you fervently believe in so as to get anything.

"We", or instead let me just say "I" even though there are a lot of people who believe as I do, believe that there are some things that you need to stand up and fight for. "I" am morally bound to do so.

MY moral beliefs of what is right and what is wrong; what is fair and equitable and what is not; and what is murder and what is not (dead children beneath drones is a clue, BTW) strengthens my spine. I have no wish to "compromise" my morals or beliefs.

BTW, when the morons like Beck or Joisey Shore attack me, insults me personally or tells you that I'm are wrong, I spit in their face because they have no moral base AT ALL. THAT is their problem. They don't believe in shit. They just mouth the words and look for fights. THAT is a level I refuse to sink to.
Far Eastern philosophers say that "perfection is insanity." I'm no expert, and that is a rough translation, but that is essentially how it goes. Zen gardens are asymmetrical to demonstrate this principle.

Pursuit of perfection, or defining things by perfection, (Obama has referred to it as "letting perfect be the enemy of the good") distorts the process of service into worship of an unattainable goal.

It sounds like a plea to lower standards, but it isn't. It is about the practicality of working forward for good, as opposed to working backward from perfection...as if perfection could be defined or agreed upon.

I have heard in the press, and from OIE-sters that "Obama has broken promises", as if that means something. I have never understood this with regard to any politician. Policy is not a Christmas list. Candidates essentially state who they are, and explain their location on a spectrum. There is not real confusion about that. Whether it is closing Guantanamo or buying the Louisiana Territory, no President can accomplish this sort of thing alone. There is a large government apparatus, and there are constantly shifting events. This is not to excuse any "broken promise", but rather to say that the concept is reductive.
SBA - What moral base do you have when you are asked to refrain from commenting on one's blog, yet you refuse to honor that request yourself? (But others, like me, honor YOUR requests to stay away from your posts).

SBA - What moral base do you have in universally-calling any lesbian a "slut" if they hook-up with lovers and don't use a dental dam? (And then you ask the blogger to delete your embarrassing comment.)

SBA - What moral base do you have in superimposing our President's image on an Aunt Jemima bottle?

SBA - What moral base do you have in minimizing the awful effects of Nazi Germany on Jewish people by distracting readers about isolated offenses done by Israelis or suggesting that 6 million Jews dead is "only a minority percentage" of the total who perished under Nazi rule?

SBA - what moral base do you have when the number of insults/name-calling directed at others FROM you is ten-fold the number directed AT you?

SBA - what moral base do you have in deleting reasonable comments in your blog just because it COULD make your position look weak or wrong?

yeah, that's what I thought.
^^ Gee... now reference my comment about lack of morals / lack of beliefs leading to being a moron who simply wants to argue and insult. ^^
Amy,
I'll use an example I've used a few times lately:

What do you think of Ted Kennedy? He was a successful senator for a long time and he horse-traded all over the place, probably voted for a bloody fortune in pork barrel over his legislative career.

What this meant was that when there was something he really wanted to accomplish, he had the poltical capital to do it. One of the things he spent that capital on was ADA, the Americans for Disabilities Act.

I spent nearly eighteen years raising and caring for a son with a severe disability. When you're in a wheelchair, particularly a power wheelchair, a curb might as well be a cliff. Those stupid curb cuts made all the difference in the world. When you're loading and unloading a 100 lb. kid from a car in the rain (which in my case meant lifting him - we didn't have a lift van - and physically positioning him in and out of his wheelchair), handicapped parking meant a lot. The fact that schools had to cope with his disability meant that his life was closer to normal rather than just institutionalized, which is what it would have had to have been years earlier because there's no way he could have gone to school without a PCA (personal care assistant).

I thank God for Ted Kennedy's dirty hands. You'd have said that he should have refused to compromise on any vote about anything.

I'm glad you can afford to think like that. Congratulations. Some of us can't.

And the idea that it was immoral of Ted Kennedy to do what had to be done to help people like my son is outside of my comprehension, where it will remain.

Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. If purity keeps you from helping people,

Screw purity.

And that, for me, is a deeply felt moral position, and I do mean moral position.
Morality corrodes as soon as someone uses morality as a context for actions other than their own. Morality is a word/concept that is not a precise as it should be. It means one thing as it applies to an inward look, and process or discipline, and it means another thing when it is used as a means to guide or discipline others. There really needs to be a better word than morality because the concept of group conscious discipline is good, but it gets overplayed as "morality", and then instrospective morality gets ignored.

Kosh, your Ted Kennedy example is a perfect example. Government is not about "morality," even though group discipline is obviously valuable and necessary. Morality is subjective based upon values. The concepts that more adequately reflect the "res publica", the public thing, (government) is justice, or more broadly fairness.

Kennedy made huge contributions to the public good, while not being personally subjectively "moral." The list of contributors who fit that definition is extensive. Caravaggio was a psycho who made huge contributions. Van Gogh was a lunatic who made huge contributions. Thomas Jefferson had some major ethical failings by most subjective standards, but he made enormous contributions.

Having strict, subjective standards of "morality" be some sort of determinant is as much a hinderance to justice and the public good as it is a help. Salem was no major contribution to justice, and their major focus was "morality." "Morality", in the subjective sense is a trap.
Bill,
I'd actually add Bill Clinton to your list. He had personal moral failings but did good things for the country.

Let's look at the flip side. The personal morality, particularly from a sexual standpoint, of George W. Bush while in office was presumably exemplary, and yet he may qualify as the worst President in our history, certainly one of the worst. Not from a personal standpoint. He was a nice guy, he wasn't a philanderer and, for a right-winger, he was wonderfully devoid of hate. He had what was probably the most diverse administration in American history without making a big deal out of it. He defended American Muslims instantly following 9/11, refusing to tolerate their demonization from a policy standpoint or from a public relations standpoint. I respected those things, and yet he was an awful President.

So I guess in that sense you make a good point about morality. I'm not sure what word to use and how to put it into proper context. I just know that my idea of morality, ethics, whatever is that you help people and keep people from being hurt. When it comes to efficacy vs. purity, I side with efficacy. Purity is internal, but helping is external.
Seer brings up an excellent point.

SBA accuses me up-and-down about being homophobic. Yet OS is littered with my comments supporting gay rights, gay marriages, etc. as well as my outrage at stories of people abusing LGBT individuals or groups.

When asked to point to a single homophobic reference I've made, SBA's response is that because I don't agree with her position (which one time included a misinterpretation of a study of gay partners versus pets being considered "family"), then I must be homophobic.

I once tried reasoning with her that my demographic (straight, white male accepting of gay rights/marriage) was a segment of the population that she should attempt to embrace to further the gay agenda, she blew me off because I had the audacity to point out that she was wrong about ... something ... one time (in her mind) Ergo, I am now an enemy-for-life and will be labeled homophobic.

She needs to get all lathered-up about something and (purposely) wants to stay that way, even at the expense of reason.

A martyr, for sure. And one who will be alone with little support in OS and most likely in real life.
Seer,
What's OT?

Yes. I saw Les Miserables the other evening. Have you seen it yet?

There are these young men on a barricade. They discover that they're on the only barricade left. They're alone. They elect to stay, to fight the battle. Most of them are killed.

It's very dramatic. It's also fundamentally stupid. How many battles throughout their lives didn't they get to because they died pointlessly in this one? Was the gesture worth it? If they killed a few soldiers, did they think that those soldiers were the point? Those soldiers weren't making the decisions about which they were fighting; those soldiers had jobs.

Martyrs. Being a martyr makes sense under two circumstances:
1. Your martyrdom actually accomplishes something.
2. There is no alternative. You're in the Warsaw Ghetto fighting against Nazi troops, so killing as many as you can is literally the most moral alternative you have.

But that's not usually the way it works.
JS-R,
I'd rather not make this about one individual except insofar as she is being used as an example.

You do bring up a point I'd amplify on, though:

Allies are a good thing, and gratuitously wasting them is not a responsible or effective way of helping anyone.

That's a different way to express my core point. This post is about how not to win converts. If you're not trying to win converts, why bother?
Y'all need to smoke a joint. o/e
"Point taken" was meant for Kosh's last comment.

(But pass the doobie over here, o/e)
Kosh, your point about George W. Bush is an excellent one. I sued to look for things about him that I liked to keep in balance about the things I dislikes. I stated with the way he dressed and worked up. he was fit and generally presentable. He appeared to be very loving with his wife and daughters, which I admired. As you mentioned, he is one of the only people to say that we were not at war with Islam.

For worst President in history, he is duking it out with Buchannan. The issue may never be resolved because the cases are so different. Buchannan did nothing to prevent the Civil War, and Bush made the single greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history. It is probably impossible to judge one against the other, but his personal morality was of a fairly high standard, and that means almost nothing as for as being an effective President.

Morality focused on yourself is discipline. Morality focused on others with no concern for yourself is the Taliban.
Damn, Bill,

Myriad made a long comment I want to frame over on OurS, and your two sentence ending is worth framing over here.

By the way, if you wanted to know what I'd look like if I became one of the screamers, I included that in one of my comments.
I have a curiosity about OIE-sters. My curiosity is this. Do they experience optimism? All one ever hears if pessimism or negativity, or so it seems. This is not to say that. I have a genuine curiosity to know if they, or some of them, or any of them ever say to themselves...if this, therefore that....and that would be a good thing. I can't recall ever seeing it. (I also don't presume that they are all alike, but even about that, I am not sure.)
Wow.

So anybody who firmly believes that torture, war crimes, drone murders of children and on-going political lies are wrong, and who is willing to stand up and say so, is now the Taliban? REALLY?

And then you have the gall to ask about "Demonizing" other people while agreeing and actually complimenting these sentiments?


Well, I can see why you don't believe in morality or human values. You have none.

Oh, well... you boys just keep forming your lynch mob, "whorshiping" your political idol and congratulating yourselves on how brilliant you each are. I'll save my breath and not comment here anymore.

Please return the favor on my future posts.
Bill said, "Morality focused on yourself is discipline. Morality focused on others with no concern for yourself is the Taliban." Very good!

God (or who/whatever) deliver us from the *pure*. Being pure is humanly impossible - we're killer apes doing our best to civilize ourselves in a world where , regardless, we must kill or be killed (I'm not just talking about our fellow humans, but generally - it's a closed system and all we living things must kill, and it's seldom nice, even when it's vegetables).

I could maybe make a case for drones, dead children and all. There are people and groups at war with the U.S., at least partly (maybe majorly) for good reason (tho everybody entering into calm negotiations over oil might have helped). But not to go into the back story: just to look at the current war. I was around, more or less, for World War 2, where thousands of soldiers and civilians died every day. With our current war, there is wringing of hands when one or two or a handful of soldiers die (and unknown, but smaller than WWII, # of civilians). If the war is necessary (and it takes two to tangle), then the creepy *immoral* use of drones keeping down the casualties is for the (impure, blood-drenched) good.

It's a terrible way to look at it, and not one I endorse (my solution is an instant and total overhaul of human nature), but there it is...yet another lesser evil.
Well, Amy, if you define yourself as having no concern for your own morality, only that of others, I guess the shoe fits. I wouldn't define myself like that in a million years but if you think Bill's description of the Taliban fits you, so be it.

In terms of staying off your blog, I will admit I recently didn't because I answered something Jan said. In the future, if you'd like to stay off my blog and you'd like me to stay off yours, I have no problem with such an arrangement. The current arrangement wastes a great deal of my time. I am getting advice on this post on both sites to stop wasting my time with you. Being as you've added your own voice to that opinion, I would have to be a fool to refuse.

I will, of course, add a last word, which I assume you will in turn answer because you generally do, and it is this:

I answered you a few minutes ago. You chose to answer the Taliban comment and to ignore my answer to you regarding purity.

Let's just say you've given me ample reason not to be surprised.
Myriad,
I agree. Well put. I don't have a lot of patience for purity. I may post on that once these comment streams die down - the twin streams here and on OurS have both been quite active - actually, they've been pretty close to each other in comment count.

I'm thinking of using my comment about Ted Kennedy (the last one) as the text for a post.
Kosher

Back from Hospital- My cardiologist put a stop to the surgery, back to square one.

Anyway

very interesting core discussion here.

I'm more or less with the warriors, as you know, so let me reverse your question of “How would Romney be better” and ask , “At what point did you realize that Obama was not what he said he was and why didn't you begin to work for his replacement at THAT point?”

Romney may or may not have been the choice of the majority of people opposed to Obama, but he was undeniably the engineered choice of the “Ruling Class” as the one most easily beaten by Obama.
It would be very interesting to be able to hold an open “plebiscite” for president and see who came up, both as the democratically chosen choice as the “anti-Obama”, and also to see who really wanted to retain Obama.

I am reminded of the campaign of Bobby Kennedy against Lyndon Johnson, and Ted Kennedy against Jimmy Carter, in that those were cases in which the Party in power essentially denied re-election to their own incumbent, over moral principle.

The problem of Obama is not so much one of “Evil” as of “Bad Faith”.

I am with Amy and Libby on the points of the lack of Morality shown by Obama both in his murderous drone attacks with his callous disregard of children as collateral damage. as well as the detention of prisoners without charges at Guantanamo.

Where Amy and Libby and I may differ slightly is the point of Outrage.
Make no mistake, it is morally wrong to Murder and torture and hold captive.
But to my mind, the far greater outrage is Obama's apparent arrogation of these actions as his prerogative as if by divine right.

Obama has no respect whatsoever for the underlying processes of our Republic.
He appears to believe that his election has confererred on him some sort of divine right to judge what is RIGHT, what is WRONG, what is permitted, what is prohibited, what may be COERCED or COMPELLED.

The process in a community such as US, MUST BE persuasion and encouragement, NOT coercion. Cooperation. I refuse my support to a winner take all battle to do whatever the party in power can get away with. I refuse the kind of “solutions” that Obama insists upon.

Obama is not just doing what he believes to be right, he is glorying in punishing and ridiculing those who disagree with him. He does not want to compromise or work together- he blatantly pursues not just the enactment of policies contrary to his opponents wants, he seeks the humiliation and destruction of his opponents.

The problem is not that Obama is EVIL (OldGerman Upfel= disobedient )
Many politicians are disobedient once elected, perhaps inevitably disobedient to the wants of those who voted against him, that he must yet convince to go along and help with, or at least respect, his policies.

Obama apparently obeys no one.

The problem with Obama is that he is VILE ( latin vis=force) which gives us violence and coercion as his preferred methods of ENFORCING his will. Some may see this as virile, manly. That is part of the problem. The president isn't empowered to rule by “manliness” or violence.

The underlying problem with Obama is the vileness of doing as he pleases, not as he is empowered or in compliance with the laws and constitution of our republic.

Were the House of Representatives to use Obama's method of government regardless of harm done to the Republic, they would immediately impeach him, and continue to impeach him over and over as quickly as the senate may dismiss.

The difference in your apparent ( Lawyer?) view of politics and Mine ( Warrior?) is that once rules are broken , you don't say”Well, I'll break the rules, too”, you say “You're out of the game” ( and enforce it) to the rule breaker.

It is indisputable that Obama is a rule breaker.

SO, rather than “Well, he is less Evil ( Disobedient) ”, I want to know why you aren't for getting rid of him for the simple reason that he is VILE ( Completely dishonorable and without conscience in his use of coercion and violence).

very interesting core discussion here.
(considering the ethnic/racial mix of the commenters here)

SBA writes "you boys"?

Interesting comment coming from a "gay sister".

Is offense intended? (Noted, oh moral one)

Myriad, great point about how precision weaponry limiting collateral damage is flip-flopped by one lathered-up commenter to be pegged as intentional murder of innocents in a war zone.
PS

just caught up the thread-

So, as a moral argument, should I be able to gain control of a drone ( say by computer net) and use it to assassinate Obama, you'd have no problem with that?
How can anyone look at that and gather that I dont believe in morality? It does not say that at all. Just in case anyone else is confused by that statement, it says, morality focused on yourself is good. MOrality focused on others without taking your own actions into account is not good.

Not everything is a binary. In fact, the vast majority of things are not binaries. It is not either/or. Most thigns are some sort of blend, or there must be consideration for a middle.

Is there more than one person who does not get this? Morality is clearly a good thing, when it is used. While I do not believe in a deity, I do believe that there have been excellent teachers regarding many of the social justice questions that we face today. One of the best of all time is Jesus.

Jesus said, (very roughly paraphrased) don't pray in public where everyone to see you. That is not the purpose. Do it in private contemplation. Spirituality is an inward look. My view comes from Jesus. He also said, "a good tree cannot bring forth evil, and an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruits. They shall be known by their fruits."

Focus on yourself and stop calling people "morons"...and couching that as moral superiority. That misunderstand the concepts of "morality", and "superiority." It is not an either/or proposition.
On the question of morality, I would have no problem with it at all. Morality would never come to mind. On the legality of it, I would have a problem. The legal concern extends to making the suggestion, which I sincerely hope you will submit directly to the White House, with your name. I suspect that the question is just hyperbolic nonsense, and you do not have the cajones to say it, much less do it. But on moral grounds, no problem whatsoever. Not my concern.
Myriad, your comment is dead on! It is 100% unassailable. Recognizing that war exists is not saying that war should exist. It merely says that it does. That can't be denied.

Therefore, acts of war exist. That is not saying that they should exist. It merely says that they do. That can't be denied.

The purpose of war is either to defend, or to take/offend. You can't be doing both simultaneously. Given that it should be limitied, even with the hope of making it extinct, but to not have the capability at all is to invite suicide.

Therefore, given that acts of war exist, and they function with various degrees of precision, there is a value on being as precise as possible, to limit unintended casualties.

With increased precision comes the ability to abuse the precision in an unjust manner. War then bleeds over into criminal justice issues, and guilt or innocence.

I submit that given the murky nature of the potential of terrorism, the exact appropriate line between criminal justice and war is not quite clear. Reasonable steps should be taken to be sure that abuses are not indulged, but also that self deststruction does not ensue due to lack of an effort to defend oneself. (Country) It is a judgement call. No principle of juctice can require your self immolation.

Reasonable judgement being applied to minimize unintended killings is preferable under a surgical strike than a large bomb which kills thousands or tens of thousands at one time. It is a judgement call either way. Survival is rational.
HRdR,
Glad you're back. You OK?

I differ with you on some assessments here. Regarding the impeachment as a political tool, that's essentially what Congress tried to do to Bill Clinton for nearly eight years. Keeping him under the cloud of investigation was a political strategem, not a judicial choice. The prosecutor at one point subpoena'd Secret Service agents to testify against Clinton, over the vocal public objections of George H. W. Bush, who said it would set a precedent that could damage national security by encouraging future Presidents to leave their Secret Service protection for privacy. We've been to this movie.

Whatever else you want to say about Obama, the slam that he isn't negotiating with Congress is comical. He spent his entire first term negotiating with a group of people who negotiated in worse faith than I've seen in a long time. He gave them most of what they wanted and when they didn't get the final bit that would have given them total victory, in spite of the fact that they were both in the minority and had a minority of public opinion behind them, they threatened to throw their own government into default. I wouldn't advise him to have patience with those guys any more. Under the circmustances, as far as I'm concerned, all they deserve is to be told to shove it. The lack of both basic respect and patriotism on their part was astounding. I'm not about to blame him for taking off the gloves.

==========================

And now, I'm going to make a PRONOUNCEMENT.

Unless she returns, I'm not interested in any more comments concerning how SBA has treated anyone. Anyone who was surprised by anything she said hasn't been paying attention to her. We're done with that. Anyone disagree?
Guess it won't be catching on. Well said.
Thank you both.

I just took a comment I'd written on this blog and posted it as the core of a post on the other site. I'll probably get it over here as well in a little while.
Not only is President Obama not ridiculing anyone, not only is he not disrespectful, not only is he not virile (as if virility is a fault), but rather he is among the most friendly President's of my lifetime, if not the friendliest. He is waif-like and gentle to a fault. He has compromised, and said "bi-partisan coalition" so often that he is probably forbidden from saying the word in the family residence. The notion of "obedience" is ridiculous. What free adult needs to be "obedient"? That is somewhat anachronistic and weird.

That stuff is just not a real world perspective about President Obama. There is so much room to be critical of him and his policies without that sort of ridiculousness.

Carter was far less friendly. Johnson was much more pushy. Kennedy and Clinton were far more lascivious. Nixon was a machiavellian bigot. Bush II was a hood ornament for the neo-con machine. Bush I was a legitimately kind and well mannered person. Ford, also a legitimately kind and well liked person.

What one characteristic of Obama's is more off-putting than your average kindergarten teacher? The man is as mellow as Mr. Rogers.
Somehow I don't think personal mannerisms or etiquette is what HRdR has in mind.
Then what IS he talking about? The statement is crafted entirely of personal conduct principles.

How is Obama not functionally like every other President in modern history, except for his individual accomplishments where others have failed? How is he essentially different? The policy accomplishments and strategic accomplishments speak for themselves.
If I had scrolled down to comments before commenting, I doubt I would have added my relatively flippant one. But I do like your pro-active one liner, Kosh, and the clever dip in the thong of your title. And since I can't take my comment back, now that I have seen some of the MANY, long comments, I must say that Bill's comment, as quoted by Myriad, ""Morality focused on yourself is discipline. Morality focused on others with no concern for yourself is the Taliban." Very good!" is a total keeper. I think Bill needs to start his own One Sentence Oednesday as well.
Well, Maria, I'm afraid that one would be a Two Sentence Tuesday, unless he opts to replace his period with a semicolon.

I certainly don't blame you for not getting through the comment stream. I got a lot of reaction on this one.

The next one is coming soon. I've already posted it on OurS (which I do first, in part because I own what I post there). It consists of one of the comments I made here, actually the most serious of them.
@Bill

See, there's the difference.

If Obama fell into the Potomac, that would be a tragedy
If someone were to pull him out, that would be a catastrophe

Contemplating the death of Obama as a good for the US, apart from the fact that it would simply put Biden in the chair,
YES it would be a good.

Would I kill him?

NO, I don't even kill spiders these days if I can help it.

But further- I would stop someone from killing him, should I possess the capability.

Why?
First of all because I believe that there is a “Story” unfolding, and rather than shooting the villain in a stage play to stop his “evil”, I will await the will of “The Author”

Second: It's against the rules.

It isn't provided by the Constitution as one of the remedies for presidential overreach.
I am entirely in favor of the house impeaching him.
again, and again, and again

If you are “morally” fine with assassinating the President, I believe we've stumbled across the reason you and I have different “Takes” on the VILENESS of Obama, and why he should not have ever been allowed a second term.

It's amusing to have you posture up and down about the “Cajones” necessary to kill someone. Have you ever? did it “amuse” you? Is it amusing to dismiss innocent children murdered by Obama as collateral damage to executive murders of international criminals? Does it make you feel better to think of them in terms of powers that Obama MIGHT have as Commander in Chief, if we were in an actual war?

Are they somehow different from the children Obama has been at pains to shed crocodile tears over in never letting a dead child go to waste to pass his agenda of disarming America ?

The ability to parse your morality so handily by legalisms and word bending is a useful sjkill these days, have you considered running for office?

If you can't understand the difference between your version of morality and Mine and others on OS, forget it, you never will. Just remember, by your own morality you are fair game. I ( or some government agent) may kill you at any time without becoming a bad person.


Kosher

Back to square one- thank you for your prayer, it is truly appreciated.

About the compromises he made in his first term?
Like Obamacare?

His willingness to function in a constitutional manner now?
Like his end run of congress in recess appointments?
His end run of the court in saying the ruling has no effect?
His dancing around the powers he has for waging/not waging war?
He lies, and doesn't even act as if he has to explain his lying.

Most of all, his assumption that he has a god given right to rule as he sees good, fit and RIGHT, rather than a Constitutionally limited authority to execute the legislation of the peoples representatives.
Maria, if I did a one sentence Oednsady, and I said something like, "I like salad." I would get responses like, "so, you're saying that white people are cannibals?" I get too many disingenuous, intentional misinterpretations.
@Bill

Just caught up to the thread again:

You need a reality check. The measure of your "kindness" and "Congeniality" etc. isn't that lavished on you by your sycophants, but rather the reaction in feeling and co-operation of those with whom you must do business. John Boehner has vowed never to trust Obama again, after the contemptuous and dishonest "Bargaining" they did.. Should be a fun 2 years. Let's see how Harry Reid treats him on the Gun Ban thing
@ Bill Beck

Not only is President Obama not ridiculing anyone, not only is he not disrespectful, not only is he not virile (as if virility is a fault), but rather he is among the most friendly President's of my lifetime, if not the friendliest. He is waif-like and gentle to a fault. He has compromised, and said "bi-partisan coalition" so often that he is probably forbidden from saying the word in the family residence. The notion of "obedience" is ridiculous. What free adult needs to be "obedient"? That is somewhat anachronistic and weird.

That stuff is just not a real world perspective about President Obama. There is so much room to be critical of him and his policies without that sort of ridiculousness.

Carter was far less friendly. Johnson was much more pushy. Kennedy and Clinton were far more lascivious. Nixon was a machiavellian bigot. Bush II was a hood ornament for the neo-con machine. Bush I was a legitimately kind and well mannered person. Ford, also a legitimately kind and well liked person.

What one characteristic of Obama's is more off-putting than your average kindergarten teacher? The man is as mellow as Mr. Rogers.


This is one of your finest posts, Bill. Not only are you correct in all respects...the tone and passion were pitch perfect.

Unfortunately, it is directed at Herr Rude...who is almost almost cartoon character in his posturing.

Cannot possibly do anything to change Rude...but I am glad you posted it anyway. Thank you.
Shit, that was funny. I mean Bill.

Also true.

And we are.
I, personally, am an ovo-lacto-sapio-vegetarian. I steer away from frying humans, though. Not healthy.

HRdR,
I seem to remember Vietnam being an undeclared war. I also seem to remember Cambodia being an unsanctioned offshoot of an undeclared war. If you think that the issue here is a lack of precedents, you may not be looking closely enough.
Rude, I can assure you that I have no sychophants. Not one.

And think about that particular argument. That person only agrees with you because they like you. What does that sound like to you? Whatever it is, it is not rational.

As far as "reality checks" go, I maintain a real world perspective. That does not mean I am always right. Far from it. What it means is, I regularly look for reality to correct me. I align my theories and data with that which is real. I eschew the extreme and the imaginary.

As such, claims like "war criminal" I am suspicious of. It is a strong comment in the moment. When year, after year, after year pass by, and there is no traction for that argument, nor progress toward addressing that claim legally, the one making the claim has to delude him or herself into believing some conspiracy to prevent it. The claims of "war criminal vastly outnumber the numbers of events, or the convictions to support it. That is what a reality check is, Rude. I'll grant you that a conviction is hard to find. Just show me a written case for it. Cases such as these get published. Show me one. That is a reality check.
@Bill

That you cannot separate the notion of "virility" from the concept of "Violence" or "Vileness" once again demonstrates why you are probably incapable of understanding conscience or morality. Obama has much the same problem.

@Bill and Frank

So as one "Cartoon Character" to two others, why is it that you think so many people on OS hate you? couldn't possibly be your supercilious and dismissive "I always know what's right " attitude, could it?

So, answer the question Bill, and you too, Frank-

Is it ok for the government to decide to kill YOU because the president says it is?

Is it MORAL to murder your political opponents?

It's amusing to have you posture up and down about the “Cajones” necessary to kill someone.

Have you ever?

Did it “amuse” you?

Is it amusing to dismiss innocent children murdered by Obama as collateral damage to executive murders of international criminals?

Does it make you feel better to think of them in terms of powers that Obama MIGHT have as Commander in Chief, if we were in an actual war?

Are they somehow different from the children Obama has been at pains to shed crocodile tears over in never letting a dead child go to waste to pass his agenda of disarming America ?


Kosher

Is precedent somehow more important than conscience and morality? I will specify that every previous President and congress were murdering sob's who were absolutely despotic in their rule.

How does that JUSTIFY current Vileness?
@Bill

http://droneswatch.org/2013/01/20/list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen/

Compiled from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports

PAKISTAN
Name | Age | Gender
Noor Aziz | 8 | male
Abdul Wasit | 17 | male
Noor Syed | 8 | male
Wajid Noor | 9 | male
Syed Wali Shah | 7 | male
Ayeesha | 3 | female
Qari Alamzeb | 14| male
Shoaib | 8 | male
Hayatullah KhaMohammad | 16 | male
Tariq Aziz | 16 | male
Sanaullah Jan | 17 | male
Maezol Khan | 8 | female
Nasir Khan | male
Naeem Khan | male
Naeemullah | male
Mohammad Tahir | 16 | male
Azizul Wahab | 15 | male
Fazal Wahab | 16 | male
Ziauddin | 16 | male
Mohammad Yunus | 16 | male
Fazal Hakim | 19 | male
Ilyas | 13 | male
Sohail | 7 | male
Asadullah | 9 | male
khalilullah | 9 | male
Noor Mohammad | 8 | male
Khalid | 12 | male
Saifullah | 9 | male
Mashooq Jan | 15 | male
Nawab | 17 | male
Sultanat Khan | 16 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 13 | male
Noor Mohammad | 15 | male
Mohammad Yaas Khan | 16 | male
Qari Alamzeb | 14 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 17 | male
Abdullah | 18 | male
Ikramullah Zada | 17 | male
Inayatur Rehman | 16 | male
Shahbuddin | 15 | male
Yahya Khan | 16 |male
Rahatullah |17 | male
Mohammad Salim | 11 | male
Shahjehan | 15 | male
Gul Sher Khan | 15 | male
Bakht Muneer | 14 | male
Numair | 14 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Taseel Khan | 18 | male
Zaheeruddin | 16 | male
Qari Ishaq | 19 | male
Jamshed Khan | 14 | male
Alam Nabi | 11 | male
Qari Abdul Karim | 19 | male
Rahmatullah | 14 | male
Abdus Samad | 17 | male
Siraj | 16 | male
Saeedullah | 17 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Salman | 12 | male
Fazal Wahab | 18 | male
Baacha Rahman | 13 | male
Wali-ur-Rahman | 17 | male
Iftikhar | 17 | male
Inayatullah | 15 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Adnan | 16 | male
Najibullah | 13 | male
Naeemullah | 17 | male
Hizbullah | 10 | male
Kitab Gul | 12 | male
Wilayat Khan | 11 | male
Zabihullah | 16 | male
Shehzad Gul | 11 | male
Shabir | 15 | male
Qari Sharifullah | 17 | male
Shafiullah | 16 | male
Nimatullah | 14 | male
Shakirullah | 16 | male
Talha | 8 | male

YEMEN
Afrah Ali Mohammed Nasser | 9 | female
Zayda Ali Mohammed Nasser | 7 | female
Hoda Ali Mohammed Nasser | 5 | female
Sheikha Ali Mohammed Nasser | 4 | female
Ibrahim Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 13 | male
Asmaa Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 9 | male
Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | female
Fatima Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 3 | female
Khadije Ali Mokbel Louqye | 1 | female
Hanaa Ali Mokbel Louqye | 6 | female
Mohammed Ali Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | male
Jawass Mokbel Salem Louqye | 15 | female
Maryam Hussein Abdullah Awad | 2 | female
Shafiq Hussein Abdullah Awad | 1 | female
Sheikha Nasser Mahdi Ahmad Bouh | 3 | female
Maha Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 12 | male
Soumaya Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 9 | female
Shafika Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 4 | female
Shafiq Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 2 | male
Mabrook Mouqbal Al Qadari | 13 | male
Daolah Nasser 10 years | 10 | female
AbedalGhani Mohammed Mabkhout | 12 | male
Abdel- Rahman Anwar al Awlaki | 16 | male
Abdel-Rahman al-Awlaki | 17 | male
Nasser Salim | 19
So as one "Cartoon Character" to two others, why is it that you think so many people on OS hate you? couldn't possibly be your supercilious and dismissive "I always know what's right " attitude, could it?

So, answer the question Bill, and you too, Frank-


Okay, I’ll give it a go. But since I am not sure how many people on OS actually hate me, you will have to fill me in on numbers and names in order for me to give a more complete response.

In any case, I do not hate anyone…and if there are people here who truly hate me, I would have to speculate on the reason why.

I suspect it would have more to do with them than with me…and I think the last thing in the world it would be is that I have an attitude of “always knowing what is right.”

I mean…I say “I do not know” more than almost anyone else on the forum. I am agnostic almost to a fault…and I am almost never supercilious or dismissive. But there are times when questions (such as this one from you) are put to me in ways that almost demand that I pull back from an angry, intemperate retort and instead keep a level head and be moderate in my response. That, I guess, can be misinterpreted as being supercilious or dismissive, but I think that only happens for people predisposed to feel that way about me.

I do notice that many people who do explode and who engage in rude responses seem to resent moderation in return; they seem to think a temperate, reasonable response is a “sweet lemon” or and example of “passive dominance.” Nothing I can do about that.

I hope that answers your question, Rude. As I said, if you can fill me in on how many people do hate me…and who they are, perhaps I can flesh things out a bit.
" I will specify that every previous President and congress were murdering sob's who were absolutely despotic in their rule."---Rude Kitty
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that is what I call an absolute statement. I'll say this for your avatar, it certainly takes a stand.

I dont know how many times I have to say that war is not desirable and I hope there is never another one. But, given the choice of killing or being killed, I would choose to kill.

Now, Rude, you mentioned that you want to Kill Obama. You did not mention wanting to kill yourself. I gather from that statement that you would prefer to kill rather than be killed too. Correct me if I am wrong on that conclusion.

Let's see, on the personally hated question. I am not aware of a single person or avatar who hates me. And if I were, why would I give that the slightest consideration? Consider that posting on Open Salon is many degrees removed from reality. We all live in reality and apply a greater degree of importance to that. I am surrounded by family, friends, and co-workers. Why would I concern myself with people who pretend to know me, while exaggeratedly twisting my views and words, as opposed to forming my perspective from people who know me and can watch me type this response? Did you take a poll? Who does that? Is this elementary school?
HRdR,
Yeah, Amy showed us the same lists.

So this leads me to a couple of questions for you,

but before I get to those questions,

Put a lid on it. I'm really not interested in this "why do you think everyone hates you" shit. You want to engage in that, take it to PM. I have no interest in hosting it. I've taken that sort of thing from emotional children in the past, but you're a grownup, so knock it off.

So you're saying that precedent doesn't matter, that every other president was also slime. OK, so did you comment like this about every other president while he was in office? New President, New Slime? I don't excuse people for what they do because others have done the same thing but I get really touchy about double standards.

We've got a list of names. I have two things to say about that list.

The first is a question. If Romney had gotten elected and part of that list had occurred during the Romney administration, would you have reacted the same way?

The second has to do with a comment Myriad made on OurS. She said that during WWII, they bombed all sorts of targets and thousands and thousands of civilians were killed. Now we do it surgically and you can fit the names on a blog page. Is this an increase from zero or a reduction from what we'd normally have done? I don't know the circumstances of these deaths. I don't know who else was killed. I don't know who was targeted or why, I don't know what kids the remote pilots of the drones were aware of. Until I know, I can't give you a blanket condemnation and say "These kids were all targeted." I don't know what the alternatives were, I don't know what would have happened if these strikes hadn't been carried out, I don't know what would have happened if the strikes were carried out on the ground, I don't know a damned thing. I can't justify a little kid getting killed under any circumstances but I don't know if I'm looking at murder, manslaughter, human shields, whatever. However, this picture of the President in the Oval Office playing video games with drones and killing Pakistani kids for sport is bullshit.

You can say "but we're not even at war with these people." I don't think America has been at war with anyone on paper since 1945. I'm afraid that distinction doesn't mean much.
I wish I had thought of this a second ago.

One minute you talk about me having "sychophants." The next you are suggesting a number who "hate" me. Do you give thought to your statements? Are you confused about the meanings of either sychophant or hate?
Everyone,

Cut the personal crap out

Now
I have not made a personal attack on the Cat. I answered his without returning it. As a reference to logic, it is a swing to say sychophant and hated. That is a statement about the logic, not the Cat.
Gentlemen, (theatrical sigh)

If you don't think much of the judgement of the person insulting you, it isn't necessary to answer, because no one reading is suddenly going to buy into an assessment of your character given by said person.

Now, to give an example,
Bill,
Do you think that anyone is going to think that you have mythical sycophants because HRdR says so?

If that isn't a realistic possibility, an answer is unnecessary.

If you think it is a realistic possibility, there are different issues entirely.

Do you disagree with me?
Kosh, it can't be known what the person means. You are presented with a comment that contains exaggeration, lies, truth, fallacies, errors, and humor...potentially. Given the nature of writing, and the inability to discern character, one can't tell what part is which absolutely. The best way to answer is with real, sensible answers. The artist formerly known as *** who shall not be named was also using the term "sychophant." I did not address it before. Once it began to repeat, I addressed it.

When someone says, your decision or your support is based upon {x}, and that value of {x} is anything other than genuine testimony, they are attempting to undermine it.

If I am to presume to never discuss an absurd case with an irrational commenter, that would preclude this entire subject being addressed...by anyone. I asked questions like...."where are the published cases for this sort of argument." I get in return, "people hate you." Those are not similar approaches. Don't characterize them as such.
Bill,
I'm not characterizing them as similar approaches except in the respect that they are moves in a conflict that is silly to begin with. He's thrusting, you're parrying. I know something about fencing; I participated intercollegiate for four years pretty avidly. His thrust didn't have a chance of a snowball in Hell of landing. It would not have done damage. You want to prove you can parry it? I assumed that, particularly given that I've never seen you have a sycophant, and I presumably observe you a good deal closer than HRdR does. The insult was a waste of space. Chasing it is a waste of effort. If you want to give it the attention it deserves,

ignore it.

I'm not exposing you to harm here.
Lesson learned.

I have always addressed many of those so as not to presume to be above it. He also said that "always right" garbage. I have always given it the respect of addressing it. From now on, I will presume that it is universally viewed as idiocy.

If you think they think I am arrogant now. Wait until I start really ignoring their bs.
@Bill and Frank

It really isn't worth the bother. You have the same problem with “understanding” and cherry picking what you answer that Obama and Hillary have.

I bring Hillary into it because of her superb acting in the little squabble over “We have 4 people dead, What at this point difference does it make ( who was responsible)

It matters to the father of the seal killed there, who Biden comforted by inquiring about the size of the son's “Balls”, and whom Hillary assured that they would prosecute those responsible, ie the film maker.

It also matters to those who would like to see someone take responsibility for their actions, or even discuss it like adults instead of children playing "La La Laa la I don't hear you!!!!!!!"

The “Why do you think people hate you” question was largely rhetorical, it's obviously because you are so frustratingly addicted to the “I know you are, but what am I “ arguments that work so well among children. Enough said about that.

I won't even bother to pose the question in that form again

It concerned, NOT “Why people on OS, not so much hate YOU, as hate to “discuss”anything with you because you are so intent on “Winning” and bulldozing all opinions that there really isn't any point in bothering”, BUT

Do you think it is all right to murder your political opponents and anyone else who happens to be in the area, including children ?

Is it all right with you if the Government decides that it will murder you?

IN clarification as well, I did NOT say I would kill Obama, quite the opposite, I said that I would stop someone from assassinating him. Are you unable to read, or is it you don't understand complex sentences?

I do feel it would be a better world if Obama fell into the Potomac and no one pulled him out, but that is not a wish, it is an opinion. I'm waiting for the SS to declare it illegal to employ or possess the materials to manufacture “Weaponized” Prayer.

SO to be perfectly clear, the question on the table is:

Do you think it is all right to murder your political opponents and anyone else who happens to be in the area, including children ?

Is it al right with you if the Government decides that it will murder you?

Kosher

“Specify”ing in a legal sense is not asserting. To specify in a legal sense means that I will not debate what ever crazy notion you want to assert up to and including that all former presidents and congresses were utterly vile and evil. I do not assert it, I simply will not argue if YOU wish to assert it as fact .

How is that justification for the current vileness of murdering political opponents ( are they indeed terrorists? - by what proof? murdering american citizens in at least 2 instances, requires a certain due process surely. )

As you may guess, I and many others do not accept precedence as justification- think carefully about slavery before you assert precedence as justification.
PS - for christ sake I MEANT OBAMA SYCOPHANTS- specifically you, BILL
On matters of philosophy, whether you are talking about people who agree with me, or you are talking about me agreeing with Obama, using the term "sychophant" is the same. It is a ad hominem. It says, unless someone agrees with you, their view is suspect. That is circular. There is no valid logic to it. All it does is declare yourself to be right by design. It is a constructed absurdity.

63 million people voted for Obama. They can't all be sychophants.
Bill

I apologize for everything back until the big bang. You are not a sycophant. You are a pillar of reason.

The question on the table is:

Do you think it is all right to murder your political opponents and anyone else who happens to be in the area, including children ?

Is it all right with you if the Government decides that it will murder you?
Nope. I consider that to be wrong. I have stated that extensively.
Bill

Then how do you justify Obama doing it- or is it your contention that he is not making upp a hand picked "Kill" list every tuesday?
PS I would feel better if you acknowledged that I specifically said that I would STOP someone from assassinating Obama.
@Kosh

Kosh, Rude wrote:

The “Why do you think people hate you” question was largely rhetorical, it's obviously because you are so frustratingly addicted to the “I know you are, but what am I “ arguments that work so well among children. Enough said about that.

I won't even bother to pose the question in that form again

It concerned, NOT “Why people on OS, not so much hate YOU, as hate to “discuss”anything with you because you are so intent on “Winning” and bulldozing all opinions that there really isn't any point in bothering”, BUT...


I really with you hadn't asked us to get away from the personal stuff, because respecting your wish in that regard prevents me from asking Rude to amend my appeal to him from "As I said, if you can fill me in on how many people do hate me…and who they are, perhaps I can flesh things out a bit"...to..."If you can fill me in on how many people hate to discuss anything with me...and who they are, perhaps I can flesh things out a bit."

But...I am going to comply with your wishes.
"The fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because some guys went for a walk one night and decided that they'd go kill some Americans. What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job, to figure out what happened, to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

To quote it as you did previously, "what difference does it make", distorts the meaning of what she said absolutely. That was dishonest. Senator Johnson was asking her about information that could have been "ascertained" and disseminated to the public in a matter of hours. Her response was to that question...and a very reasonable response. It was not remotely what you claimed it was, Rude.
@Frank

The question posed to Bill is on the table for you, too frank
either answer it or FOAD ( No offense meant)
Perhaps you THINK you typed something different. This is what you actually typed, Rude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PS

just caught up the thread-

So, as a moral argument, should I be able to gain control of a drone ( say by computer net) and use it to assassinate Obama, you'd have no problem with that?

Herr Rudolphus der Rude
JANUARY 31, 2013 12:41 PM

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont see any referecne to stopping anyone...at all.
The question on the table for Frank is :

Do you think it is all right to murder your political opponents and anyone else who happens to be in the area, including children ?

Is it all right with you if the Government decides that it will murder you?

The question on the table for Bill is:

Then how do you justify Obama doing it- ( Murdering his opponents) or is it your contention that he is not making up a hand picked "Kill" list every Tuesday?

Hillary isn't the subject, just an illustration of the art of the “Artful Dodger”

And I would still feel better if you acknowledged that I specifically said that I would STOP someone from assassinating Obama.
Rude, you say, then why do you think it is ok to murder political opponents...etc.

I disagree with your premise. I don't think that is what is happeneing. Whether you buy their argument or not, they say that this is killing enemy combatants. I know of the American citizen versus foreign national argument. I get that. I still think that they are operating on the enemy combatant premise.

Now, this may get settled soon, and the President is jailed. Or it may be decades from now and is only a line in history books. I doubt either of those cases. I think the most likely is that the general conscensus legally is that this is a legal action, and there will be no legal repercussions. I can say that you do not have te wherewithall to make a case to the contrary that will change that fact, and that includes practically everyone else on the planet.

Just becasue war now, justifications for war now, and the concept of the battlefield now, do not match what it was in 1968, 1948, 1918, or 1215, does not mean that war has not essentially changed. I believe that it has changed. I think we are living thru the period of proof of that. What happens remains to be seen. But to answer your question, I disagree with your premise. Murder is not occurring. The world agrees with me. It is not incombent upon YOU rude to make that case TO THE WORLD, and save it.
Bill

You parse a question asking how YOU feel about my killing the president as an expression of MY desire to kill him?

You're making this too easy:
All anyone has to do is read this thread:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

@Bill

See, there's the difference.

If Obama fell into the Potomac, that would be a tragedy
If someone were to pull him out, that would be a catastrophe

Contemplating the death of Obama as a good for the US, apart from the fact that it would simply put Biden in the chair,
YES it would be a good.

Would I kill him?

NO, I don't even kill spiders these days if I can help it.

But further- I would stop someone from killing him, should I possess the capability.

Why?
First of all because I believe that there is a “Story” unfolding, and rather than shooting the villain in a stage play to stop his “evil”, I will await the will of “The Author”

Second: It's against the rules.

It isn't provided by the Constitution as one of the remedies for presidential overreach.
I am entirely in favor of the house impeaching him.
again, and again, and again

find it in the thread, Bill
----------------------------------------------------------

The question on the table for Frank is :

Do you think it is all right to murder your political opponents and anyone else who happens to be in the area, including children ?

Is it all right with you if the Government decides that it will murder you?

The question on the table for Bill is:

Then how do you justify Obama doing it- ( Murdering his opponents) or is it your contention that he is not making upp a hand picked "Kill" list every Tuesday?

Hillary isn't the subject, just an illustration of the art of the “Artful Dodger”

And I would still feel better if you acknowledged that I specifically said that I would STOP someone from assassinating Obama.
Rude, I dont see where you said that. All I see is what I just copied and pasted for you to see. God willing, I hope the FBI sees it too. Now, if you mean to say that you mean something else, then say it. So far, that is what you said. If you change it, I will acknowledge that. I am not speaking for you. Your post is posted...twice.
I prove I don't count either. Two sentence Twosday for Bill.
So, you don't think that Obama is actually murdering anyone.

That's a really interesting assertion about the 2 American citizens, ( and one of the children killed, his son) killed in sept 2011. So far as I can find, all that existed were charges, no due process, no adjudication. Also, no war.

So, is it all right with you if the President decides that YOU are a terrorist and has YOU killed?

Please do acknowledge that I made no statement of intent or desire to kill the president.
Bill

http://open.salon.com/blog/koshersalaami/2013/01/30/one_sentence_oednesday_demonizing_obama_making_it_stick#comment_3123699

This really is a waste of time, and a fair illustration of why people like me don't "discuss" things with "people like you. I abandon the field Have fun playing with yourself
That's where you are mistaken, Rude. If you are splitting the hair between the "desire to kill..." part of the meaning, from the statement as it is, then no. That is not my understanding of the law.

No one can know your "desire" one way or another. It is not illegal to "desire" anything. CONVERSELY, it is illegal to mention asassination in certain particular ways. The law does not concern desire. It concerns threats. if it is perceived to be a threat, it is illegal. Threats can take many forms.

Furthermore, this discussion can take place without discussing "assassination." You made the conscious choice to inject it, with a specific reference to a person. It is not for me to say that that is illegal. I am not the legal authority. That is someone else's job. I would personally never take the step that you did. I would even advise you not to take such a step. However, I recognize your right to place yourself into jeopardy if you so choose.
Bill

Go ahead and play with yourself Bill
This would be amusing if it weren't such a typical display of Obama style discussion and reason, replete with malice and threats
@Rude

I’m going to assume responding to questions is okay with Kosh.

You wrote:

The question on the table for Frank is :

Do you think it is all right to murder your political opponents and anyone else who happens to be in the area, including children ?

Is it all right with you if the Government decides that it will murder you?


Actually, Rude, I think there are two questions there…not one, but who’s counting, right?


Let me take them one at a time:

“Do you think it is all right to murder your political opponents and anyone else who happens to be in the area, including children ?”

No.

Is it all right with you if the Government decides that it will murder you?

No.

I hope that was of help, Rude.

Ummm…since I have answer two of your questions, could you respond to the request I made earlier…as I would have amended it if I had been able to do so.
I'm sorry you perceive a threat. I made none.

Let's see, would I want to be on a kill list? Absolutely not. I presume that you would not either. Given that I presume that you are every bit as easy as I am to be placed on that list, I gather that you fear being placed on it as much as I do. Not at all. It is not going to happen.

Do I support the legality of "kill lists." For foreign combatants, so far, yes. For citizens, absolutely not. Now, do I think the citizens who have been killed by this administration represent murders or assassinations of political enemies? No. That is subject to change, but I don't see that as likely.

Like I said before, the argument that the modern concept of a battlefield has changed. I buy that argument. I do not think it justifies any conceivable action, but I think what has happened so far is justifiable legally and ethically. Things like 9/11/2001 do need to be minimized if not prevented. The credible threats to, not only citizens, but also industries like the financial industry, which in turn threaten the global economy, are more numerous than either of us knows.

Look, you have already stated that you think "every previous president was a murdering sob..." I can't get into the room with that rhetorically. I don't know anyone who can. I don't know what you can even do with that extreme of a viewpoint. It is rhetorically unapproachable.

You might like to know that during the Carter administration, the nation did not fire a single shot in anger at an enemy. Not one. That's just off the top of my head. Calling Jimmy Carter a murdering sob is a super stretch. Now, you might rell that one back in and say you were just being ridiculous. Then what does one do with the rest of your rhetoric? Frankly, it is more than just a little ridiculous. "every previous president...a murdering sob." It would be hard to make it more extreme than that.
None of these criticisms of Obama have any contact with reality.
Yes, Romney would have done many of the same things in foreign policy, because foreign policy has a lot less choice. If people overseas don't want to do something we don't, like blow up friendly governments, there is little that can be done.
Unless the plan of the Left is to just surrender.
Not for nuttin:

Another subject was broached earlier. That subject is declared war vs. undeclared war. One thing people probably need to recognize is, the U.S. is not likely to every declare a war again. In some remote circumstances, it may, but I doubt it. Ethics aside, declaring war is a strategic disadvantage, and a financial disadvantage. By saying that, don't presume that I am advocating for that notion. I am merely bearing witness to it. Given the cost strategically and financially, we ain't doin' that.

The strategy is obvious. It allows dialogue to be entirelt closed, and it allows a modicum of suprise. Financially, I am guessing that civil lawyers advise that an acknowledged war bears a different civil liability in war reparations than just acts of war with no acknowldgement. Declarations and surrenders, and such make clear demarcations where, at some point, reparations must begin. A perdiod of perpetual war elimates the point of havbing to pay. It is a very cynical assessment. I am not saying that is how it should be. I am guess that is how it is.
Back.

Assassinate any sycophants while I was gone?

Frank, Yes, it's OK to answer questions. I just didn't want any more personal insults because it was just getting too juvenile.

Yes, HRdR did state earlier that he would prevent the President from being assassinated. That was indeed copied from this comment stream. I remember it. I suppose I could find it.

No one has, to my knowledge, suggested that it would be OK to kill American citizens on American soil without due process, nor, to my knowledge, that it would be OK to kill their kids as collateral damage.

I know of one case where an American citizen was assassinated overseas. If I remember correctly, that citizen had taken the role of an enemy combatant and had joined and was supporting an organization that had actively killed Americans. It's kind of difficult to exercise due process where you don't have any cops and where a guy is blatantly supporting an organization that's trying to kill you.

Now, there is another level of due process that I believe is not currently in place here: In the event the US Government knowingly targets an American citizen overseas, there should be some mechanism in place where, at least from the military, they have to get the equivalent of a Court Order. If we're going to engage in that, we need some kind of oversight and, last I heard, we had none.

In terms of the term "sycophant," being as that seems to have been thrown around in two contexts, one of them apparently mistaken:
Until you get to the Far Left, we who are left of center don't idolize our leaders. There is no liberal/progressive equivalent of a "dittohead" because we don't trust anyone enough to follow them blindly. If it seems like liberals are defending Obama unusually, there are two reasons for that and, oddly enough, neither has to do with loving him or respecting him all that much:

1. Because the GOP has gone so far off the deep end, particularly in partnership with Fox News, that the attacks have ratcheted up enough that defense has to be ratcheted up just to keep up. Obama has consistently been portrayed as a Weather Underground radical when in actuality he's governed as a sort of centrist moderate. If the attacks during the past four years had been in anything like proportion to what they were on previous Presidents for equivalent partisanship, we wouldn't be witnessing this phenomenon. This is not a proactive phenomenon on our part, it's a reactive phenomenon.

2. Because the attacks are so completely out of whack with actual policy and because we've dealt with statements like that the next four years were to be dedicated primarily to keeping this President from being reelected, the suspicion exists that what makes the treatment of this President so different might just be related to what makes this President so different: race. The result is a hypersensitivity to double standards that were brought about by.....double standards. I don't know if they were brought about in part by race or not, but their intensity and how unusual they are means we can't rule out the possibility. This is not about sycophancy at all, it's more about being sure that the attacks on the President, many of which we all acknowledge are legitimate, are, to use a phrase that is ordinarily misused, Fair And Balanced.

Does anyone on my side of the spectrum dispute this assessment?
I'm curious to know what the OIE's would do about war? The concept of war. Were, say, an OIE to become President, would he never support the U.S. going to war to defend itself? Is there a justifiable use of force ever? I get that every single president had been a murderer. Noted. My question is, what is the allowable limit, and under what circumstances?
Just ducked in for a moment- can't get back til later, maybe after 9

I feel rather like John Cleese considering re=entering the cheese shop-
on the one hand I still haven't asked about the cheddar

On the other , Is it worth it?

back later
ps- Bill see my note to Kosher on Specifying that the former regimes were murderers ( should you like to put it forth as precedent) vs asserting it.
HRdR,
The point isn't whether all other Presidents were similar and therefore similarly evil, the point is whether you have experienced other Presidents acting with equivalent evil but have not reacted to them with the same degree of outrage.

There could be any number of reasons for differences. One is simple partisanship - it is possible to be more tolerant of one's allies. Whatever the issue is, either this President is really acting abnormally or this is how you always react to Presidents. I'd just like to know which.
Kosh, Rude, my question is similar to Kosh's in that I want context. I am not concerned with allegiance to any particular party. I already know that is not possible.

My understanding is this. You(Rude) think all previous presidents are murdering sob's. So we know what one end of the extreme is. Take infinity and keep doubling it. I get it. It's a lot. What I want to know is, where do we get back into a concept that can actually be perceived and handled. Everybody sucks is not a workable perspective. I want to know what you think is appropriate with regard to real challenges like foreign threats?
I don't think what's on the table in a blanket condemnation of military action. I think what's on the table is a series of questions about what kinds of actions lead to a long list of kids as collateral damage and what checks and balances there are on a President who can kill an American citizen (turned enemy ally) and his son with essentially no oversight. Those are legitimate questions. However, they are in some cases incomplete questions, and they are also questions that make no sense in a vacuum. What were the alternatives and what were the consequences of those alternatives?
Kids have always died in war. What is happening now is only different in that significantly fewer of them are dying. War is horrible for that and millions of other reasons. I dont see that list of kids as a failure. I see it as a success, considering so many more would have died in more conventional wars. The only thing that changes that is if it is argued that this war is fought where none other would have been because of how easy it is. That is not the argument. Therefore...the only difference is that fewer kids are killed.
"I dont see that list of kids as a failure. I see it as a success..."


Holy fucking shit! I know I said I wasn't going to comment but ^ THIS ^ is COMPLETELY unacceptable! I mean WTF! Are you such an animal that you consider the MURDER of a 3 y.o. to be a success? REALLY???

Bill Beck you seriously disgust me!
Seer, it was a list of kids. It did not include anyone over 17.
@ Kosh

Does anyone on my side of the spectrum dispute this assessment?

I certainly do not, Kosh. I often mention that one of the reasons I go to threads like those started by the OIE crowd despite the fact that reasoning does not particularly work with them...

...is because someone has to say..."this is nonsense." The "Oh you are so right" faction of the OIE crowd immediately comes on the scene to gush over hyperbole and irrational characterizations...and some people simply are needed to do the "fair and balanced" side of things.

You were right on!
It just occurred to me, Joisey pointed out that Captain OIE, the artist formerly named ***, stated that 6 million Jews killed in WWII was a fraction of the people killed...and something. But it is disgusted that this list that fits on a page is called a "success" do to its limited number. Those arguments conflict absolutely.
Not only are wars reality, but they are the rule, and not the exception. It would be nice to limit war, and eventually eliminate it, but we spend more time at war than we do out of war.
back in again for a second

Let me try this again:

When one says that one will specify that "All the Regimes up to the current one were vile and evil", that DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM ASSERTING "THEY WERE EVIL"

it is a legal term meaning that if you wish to put this example forward as an assertion in support of YOUR argument, I WILL NOT DISPUTE IT. (I will not make you PROVE it)

The question is:

SO Are you asserting the precedent of past evil regimes as justification for Obama?

If so, how so? Is the past usages of, say, slavery precedent and therefore justification for slavery?

Is slaughter of innocents in past "military actions" now what you put forward as justification for current "Precision Termination" of collateral innocents?

just tgo be clear ( and negate the last 10 or so assertion about my position re "Past evil regimes" ) Wife calls- back later
... And please recall that, in the view of Obama, if ONE child can be saved, it is WORTH my RIGHT to be able to arm to defend myself.
Rude, you did not just use the vague "evil". You said, murder. All previous Presidents were murdering sob's....or something to that effect. That is far more specific than "evil."
Bill

This is why I wonder if you're pulling a "Cheese Shop" on me-

the salient POINT is that I will SPECIFY ( NOT MAKE YOU PROVE) WHATEVER "evil" you or Kosher want to ascribe to previous Presidents. I will also specify that they were each and everyone as gentle and innocent as a newborn lamb.....Assert EITHER, I will allow you to put it forth as support for your argument as to the morality of Obama.

I am NOT asserting ANYTHING about previous administrations.

Kosher made the point that others had conducted such strikes and undeclared war. I replied to the effect that I will SPECIFY whatever past evil you want to assert about past presidents, and asked, is past precedent justification for, say, slavery ( a gotcha question if ever there was!)(HAH!)

Mother of GOD, BILL, are you related to Emily Lutella by any chance?
What an interesting conversation...or not...

As to drone strikes and 'collateral damage," that death and destruction occurs in any modern war. Bombing Dresden or Tokyo resulted in many more deaths of innocents, so a complaint must rest on the rather attenuated point of the non-manned - as opposed to piloted - stand-off method drones represent. Yes, there is more "courage" involved with ground troops, but also more deaths on both sides, even if we properly worry mostly about our own troops. I don't see why drone attacks can be argued against with any more impact than an argument against a war in general.

Enemy combatants, even if citizens, do not receive 5th amendment protection. You might try reading it, as it's quite clear about that distinction. So, no, Obama didn't murder anyone, and could not be charged with zotzing the likes of Al Awlaki in any US court on any day. That would be unconstitutional.

Rude, I know it would upset your self-created theories to actually feel a need to study the relevant facts. You deal exclusively with the products of your own imagination for at least 3 reasons:

1. You think it represents insight and intellect.
2. It's easy to be an expert in your own theories.
3. You're unwilling or unable to study/comprehend relevant facts.

Of course, as with anyone whose intellectual sloth seeks axiomatic validity, everyone else is wrong and suffers from their lack of expertise in those theories dancing between your ears...that always end with you stoically standing in your doorway defending yourself from the equally illusory Tyrannical Oppressors.

If you've read one of Rude's comment threads, you've read 'em all....
P.J., I think the disconnect is in not everyone has blind faith in a President's powers of determining which civilians are enemy combatants. There's been no formal declaration of war and just saying "It's war!" does not give license or excuse to kill admitted innocents.

This isn't WWII! These fall under the assassination category. If anyone naively thinks we can assassinate our way to safety all I can say is you'll get no pity from me when the crosshairs turn on you.
One slight amendment. If in custody, a citizen enemy does get due process, even if military DP. If on the field of battle, it's not a consideration, nor is there any legal requirement to obtain custody. Al Awlaki? If he wanted 5th DP, he could have went to the nearest US Embassy and turned himself in. That it wasn't required to grant him 5th due process is also due process. He had due process, then boom-boom, out go the lights.
ches,
That's "as if" there was no consideration of the law. There was. Would it be better to have a more clear process? Perhaps, but the Court has ruled on issues like this before, but in the larger scope does not interfere in military matters or "political doctrine" questions.

As to the crosshairs on me, don't be a drama queen. You act as if one means the other, and "as if" that would survive legal and political examination. Argue what it is, not what, after if, if if, if and if, maybe might happen in some parallel imaginary universe. We should guard against slippery slopes, but not instantly assume that mother's milk leads to heroin addiction. That argument is fallacious as well as overly-dramatic.
Lordy Hallelujah!

Just when you're wondering "Will the Circle Jerk Be Unbroken "
here comes PJ!!!!!

Whip it out for us and stroke it up PJ!!!!

My last comment became a post, so Kosher- re "have I felt differently about other presidents?"

http://open.salon.com/blog/token/2013/01/31/a_license_to_kill

As for PJ and the rest of you "Killer liberals", truth or dare time.
Have you ever actually been in a fight in which someone was trying to kill you, or at least not actually concerned about your survival?

And, what do you actually think happens to your ( or anyone else's) being when you are killed?

And where did your being come from?

DO you have ( are you) a "spirit"?
PS PJ, have you ever actually had a consensual intercourse with anyone in which you exhibited any concern whatsoever for understanding and a "cross pollination" of ideas in the interest of harmony, good fellowship, problem solving and mutual understanding, rather than just pointlessly stroking yourself, and/or using someone else as a method of self gratification?
Just curious
@ Rude,
Considering how respectfully Kosher treats you, you might have a little consideration for this post and not go ugly when he's not available to moderate it.
Can't let it close ugly.
So a better closing ~Background noise of riotous crowd applause.
Announcer : Folks, let’s hear it for your host, Kosher Salaami, and this week’s Word Wrestle-Mania! Be sure to tune in next week for more “One Sentence Oednesday”, that’s Wednesday, spelt with an “O”, that’s “O” for Obama!!!
(Crowd goes wild.)
@onislandtime

Here's the thing

Kosher doesn't play "Cheese Shop" with me by pretending to misunderstand my meaning so that he can launch off into a straw man rebuttal.

Also, PJ and I go way back. I will allow YOU to have the last word ( after this) but because PJ and I have a history of behaving like bad tempered children, I couldn't allow him to.

Kosher, if you've "checked out", thanks, it was an interesting party.
Onislandtime, Your ON- encore.
OK, HRdR,

Let's not go back to slavery. Let's go back to the previous administration. That's not too long before, is it?

And let's compare drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan to, I don't know,

The War In Iraq

Let's see,

No weapons of mass destruction

A connection with 9/11 that was entirely fabricated, which was kind of absurdly obvious at the time

A multi-year distraction from tracking down Osama Bin Laden, you know, the guy who actually did strike at the United States

A war that was supposed to cost us nothing because of Iraqi oil revenues

A war where we were supposed to be welcomed with open arms (which we almost were, except that Rumsfeld, against the advice that Thomas Friedman had been giving him in tne NYTimes once or twice a week for about a year, you know, one of the most prominent international journalists in the US and a guy who actually Speaks Arabic, did the occupation on a shoestring and so couldn't stop the looting or keep the power on, both of which turned the population against us

A war which got rid of the biggest natural counterbalance to the Iranian regime, the one that that administration referred to as being part of the Axis of Evil and the one that is now ostensibly producing nukes and destabilizing the region

A war which was planned before 9/11. How do I know, aside from the reports from Great Britain? Because I'd personally heard before 9/11 through the grapevine that our military guys were being told they were going to Iraq as soon as the administration changed

and, most importantly for our purposes here

A war whose civilian casualties couldn't exactly be fit on a couple of columns on a blog page.

Now, you want to tell me that you talked about George W. Bush like you talk about Obama? I don't know, I didn't blog back then. If the talk was proportional, you must have hated his guts in a way that would have been absolutely legendary.

You'll have to enlighten me on this one.
Gentlemen, (no dramatic theatrical sigh this time)

I missed the last few comments while I was working on this one. Hi Paul. OIT, thank you for trying to keep things civil. I had to step in earlier to do that.
Rude,
As usual, and confirming my read one - read all, my refusal to play Dungeons and Dragons is circle-jerking. The only one here tugging while fantasizing is you. I figure the climax --if there is a physical one-- happens while battling the specter of Tyrant Obama in your front yard.

Anyway, I have been closer to being shot and killed than almost everyone in America. More than once. It didn't happen, but if you know anyone who has had their brains blown out, let them tell the tale of imminent death.

Actually, I think you're intimately familiar with somebody with experienced that trauma.
Yes, I saw the typo. Too late. -with+who
kosher

to save posting it here:

http://open.salon.com/blog/token/2013/01/31/a_license_to_kill


The difference is a change in my perspective over time. I quite enjoyed killing things at one time ( well, not so much enjoyed, as just didn't consider their thoughts on the subject too much. )

My main problem ( see above post) isn't the actual slaughter of innocents who, as seer points out, may well have been enemy combatants as well as children, but the crocodile tears shed by Obama over the "massacre of innocents" at Sandy Hook and the notion that Rights under the constitution ( 2nd amendment) are as nothing "If the life of ONE child can be saved." Apart from being a Hypocrite , he's a bad actor.

When it comes down to it, he reminds me too much of my uncle harry - http://open.salon.com/blog/token/2013/01/23/disarmament

He's had the world handed to him on a silver tray and has never developed the character necessary to be able to respect other people. If that notion gives you pause coming from me, reflect that I tend to give back what I am given. Consciously.

Long story short? He will cheat, steal, lie, ( We go skeet shooting up at camp david all the time...) ( IIIIII killed OSAMA!!!!!!) to get his version of what is good for me, without any consultation about what I think is good for me.

He has no character. He is neither honorable nor trustworthy ( as I said, ask John Boehner)
You may see those as not a problem in a politician
People of Spirit, see that AS the problem with politicians.
I mean to get over to your Purity Post.

I t IS a question of Leadership and personality.
Logic isn't in it.
@PJ

I think kosher has made it plain that no one here is interested in being spattered with your wit. I'm not particularly interested in putting up with you at my post either, but the Hog wrestle is still open. Take it somewhere else.
kosher

got to get some sleep- back later
All I said was "Hi Paul"
Rude, I don't pretend to misunderstand you. You are difficult to undestand. The reasons are quite clear. First, most of what you say is absolutely absurd bullshit. One has to stretch one's imagination to comprehend what portion of what you say is drama, and what part is comentary.

Some of the assembled here have read you often. I dont trifle with it. My familiarity with your style is less than you imagine. I am trying to become familiar with it. Usually when I read about someone using "assassination" in the way you play around with it for effect, the next line is about beint investigated by the Secret Service. You dont see fools like that often. Normally I dont take it on. This time I am. Whatever your intent or desire is, you must agree that it is a rare occurrance. If you dont think so, you're out of touch.

When asked a straight quetion, you tend to avoid, and wrap your answers in more drama, you dont simply state. For example, I said what my understanding was, and you went thru some two step about acknowledge what I said. I said, I wont speak for you. If you want to say something, say it. Simple as that. I wont deny what you actually say. I also wont spend exhaustive amounts of time combing thru your masturbation innuendo accusations, etc. It's boring.

Why would your statements be easy to comprehend when much of what you say is nonsensical? If the President is simply murdering political opponents, not only would that include you, but you obviously know that it doesn't,. It is drama. If you thought reality matched your rhetoric, you would be more circumspect. You're not. You are as flamboyant as many anonymous bloggers are. You have zero concern about being enemy of the state. The reason is that you know your claims are all show. Asking you straight questions is giving you the benefit of the doubt. So far, you have not said a single thing that merits any benefit, only more doubt.

I suspect you delay direct, adult questions because the act prolongs your "look at me" opportunity. Your dramatic posting of the killed children makes the point against you. Apparently you can't see the logic of that. One other OIE-ster apparently can't see it either. You are given the benefit of the doubt with being able to comprehend that the list is obviously shorter than what a list from a conventional bombing would look like. PJOR and I both mentioned one way to see that differently, but you need to make that argument. So far, the ease of use of drones does not appear to be subject to abuse widely. That is not being reported. So go thru your dance about Monty Python, masturbation, your presumed intellectual superiority, whatever. This medium allows it, and you take full advantage of that for the attention. But as straight talk goes, it has a minimum of appeal and effect.
Rude, to your question about having ever been in a potentially life threatening situation...whatever.

If I narrowly apply those, my answer is four times. I was stuck up with a gun twice, once as a child, and once as a cop in L.A. I was also confronted with a knife twice while unarmed. Twice as a child. Obviously I emerged from every case still alive, so I can't attest to their "concern." I can say that each assailant with a gun was prosecuted for their acts, so the act was taken seriously without ascertaining what their actual desire was. They moved past reasonable suslpicious and probable cause in a variety of ways too numerous to list.

As for fights, more than I could possibly remember. Fighting was part of the job on the LAPD. They tended to be recorded on crime reports, but they were certainly not memorable. It was a fairly common occurrance. That is not even counting being shot at when entering certain areas where cops were set up for ambushes, like school yards, certain arrangements of streets, etc. These things were also a fairly regular occurrance.

On, one more. It was a regular occurrance to have certain local criminals make certain specific threat on your life. Local gang members would commonly read your name on your uniform, look you in the eye, and say that they were going to kill you. It was common to see your name on the division wall with a line thru it, which is how gang graffiti indicated it. It was common for gang members to follow officers home from the division and attack them and their familes. A woman I was in the academy with was followed home from her division and shot in her front yard. Officers are trained to drive home by a different route every day. That is how common that is.
And finally, Rude, as to your question, do we have a spirit? I don't know. My upbringing was a traditional Christian upbringing with regular attendance in religious practice. My clergy lived four houses down the street and was available for all sorts of questions my entire childhood and into adulthood.

For a variety of reasons, it dawned on me that religion is superstition. (My view). But that leaves the possibility of an ethereal realm. I have no idea about that. My understanding of "soul" equals consciousness. My understanding of consciousness is that it occurs during life, and stops when life ends. From that point, I speculate that we enter into a natural cycle that includes returning to dust. (Whether immediately during cremation or waiting for the Sun to consume the solar system. Since you are no longer conscious, an instant and a million years are equivalent.) From that point, the star dust floats thru space and restatrs the improbable cycle that caused life to rise on Earth as we know it. That is what I think happens. ( And yes, I relaize that this is a process that is larger than a solar system. I would guess that it happens on the level of a galaxy, or larger.) I'll scan to see what this has to do with this particular discussion.
Rude, as for the "crocodile tears" over the "slaughter of the innocents", as you call it, at Newtown, it is a normal reaction to be shocked by that incident. Millions of people in this country, and likely around the world were deeply saddened by that event. I am sure you were as well.

Now, if it is your assertion that Obama was not actually moved by that incident, as any healthy person would be, then you need to make the case that he is somewhow emotionally unstable, or under developed. I see no reason to presume that he is emotionally off center. If you have such evidence, even a suspicion, I would like to hear it. There is no shred of infidelity in his marriage. By all appearances he has a good relationship with his kids. There is not a report of his having so much as a detention as a teen. He attended college in the major metro areas of Los Angeles, New York, and Boston, no reports of criminality, domestic abuse, or ill health. He had unusual accomplishments on a high level in law school at Harvard. He healed a rift that had existed for a very long time before his ascending to the Presidency of the Law Review. Accounts about him from high school classmates are all of a mellow, playful personality.

You are imagining, possibly projecting onto the President, your Uncle Harry's personality. Your Uncle Harry is a much closer connection to you than it is to Obama. Perhaps you remind yourself of your Uncle Harry. I don't know. I dont know either of you. But observing the man be moved by an event that millions of others were moved by, and declaring that it is obviously false emotion likely says more about you than him. I don't see how you come to that conclusion.
"Kosher made the point that others had conducted such strikes and undeclared war. I replied to the effect that I will SPECIFY whatever past evil you want to assert about past presidents, and asked, is past precedent justification for, say, slavery ( a gotcha question if ever there was!)(HAH!)

Mother of GOD, BILL, are you related to Emily Lutella by any chance?" ---Rude

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an example, Rude, of how your bullshit clouds the picture. I think it is clear to you that I never mentioned slavery. It is certainly clear to me. But it would not be clear to all when you follow that with the Emily Lutella insult referencing me. Now, no, the fictional character and I are not relations, to borrow from Forrest Gump. Nor do we bear any resemblance.

You're spritiual, you're moral, you're superior in all conceivable ways. It just does not show in your argument or your conduct. We could go back and forth saying stuff like "are you like Emily Lutella", are "are you in a Motny Python cheese shop." That could go on for years. I just don't see how it makes your point that Obama is evil. I don't give a shit what you think of my intelligence. I don't think anyone else does either. On the subject, you're not getting anywhere.
That's quite a trace Salaami. You hit it on the head.

Nobody can say moral superiority is dead. Odd, I haven't heard of "der Rude" before. With such high standards, he must be famous. Maybe, he's started a new religion. You can tell his members because they are more self-righteous than anybody else. When his biography comes out, I hope I get a copy to show my children, so I can tell them that I read him when he was just an average guy.
He used to go by the name of Token
der rude fits him better. i wonder what planet he is from.
Just giving you his old name in case you knew him by it.

We've from different positions on the political spectrum (obviously) but we get along fine.

When you get along with a lot of people (because it takes a lot to set me off), it becomes an occupational hazard that my friends do not all get along with each other. That's been a lifelong truth in my case.