Bill Ayers: Try Obama for War Crimes

reply to post by neo96


Obama hasn't done anything new since he has been in office. He plays it safe by performing only those actions that have been thoroughly vetted for public approval or merely continues policy from previous administrations.

He is the status quo.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Is that right?

Don't recall any other president's killing American citizens.

That would be a 'war crime'.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Is that right?

Don't recall any other president's killing American citizens.

That would be a 'war crime'.

Obama's use of force is well within established norms. Rhetoric is one thing, actuality is another. He didn't target an american, an american was collateral damage.

reply to post by neo96


Meh, maybe not killing American citizens (though I have the belief that assassination of US citizens has been a pretty common thing within the US intelligent agencies for a very long time).

Don't recall any other president's killing American citizens.

That would be a 'war crime'.

How about killing 100,000+ citizens in Tokyo when the US firebombed the civilian population. That's not a war crime?

Or the use of agent orange in Vietnam?

Or the bombings of rural areas in Cambodia?

Or the support of the Indonesian government during the massacres in East Timor?

Or the CIA kidnapping foreign military leaders in Chile?

Or the support of death squads in central America?

I'm sorry every president since the beginning of the 20th century is guilty of war crimes.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
reply to post by HauntWok

 

Lol, if the corporate whoring makes you not a liberal, then liberals are a myth.

You'd have a easier time taking a picture of Bigfoot...

Liberals in the Democratic Party are a myth.

Liberals are here, we just don't vote for the establishment anymore.

www.gp.org

I believe liberals have infiltrated both parties, and yes Obama is liberal. What's with the ideal he's not liberal, and do you really think being liberal is a good thing?

Liberals scare the hell out of me. I think they're really communist murderers of liberty.

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
I believe liberals have infiltrated both parties, and yes Obama is liberal. What's with the ideal he's not liberal, and do you really think being liberal is a good thing?

Liberals scare the hell out of me. I think they're really communist murderers of liberty.

I can't take your questions seriously when you rant like that. Your education on what Liberalism entails is so misinformed that my opinions on the subject would only further confuse you without proper poli-sci foundations.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Well if you can give me a exact definition of liberalism I'm listening.

But the ideal of a social welfare state seems the main purpose of liberals in America.

And this will lead strait to a collapse of the economy, and the only way to come out of a complete failure of a country is socialism.

And with all of our very un-constitutional laws being backed by pretty much everyone on capital hill, it would be nothing to create a communist country.

So sorry I don't trust the liberal agenda,I don't feel it's in Americans best interest.

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Well if you can give me a exact definition of liberalism I'm listening.

But the ideal of a social welfare state seems the main purpose of liberals in America.

And this will lead strait to a collapse of the economy, and the only way to come out of a complete failure of a country is socialism.

And with all of our very un-constitutional laws being backed by pretty much everyone on capital hill, it would be nothing to create a communist country.

So sorry I don't trust the liberal agenda,I don't feel it's in Americans best interest.

As I said, you ask for an 'exact' definition of liberalism, and that tells me that you aren't actually ready to discuss such a multifaceted concept. Then, as if to further illustrate my point, you go on to rant even more about what you think liberal purpose is in the United States, muddying the waters with paranoia about Communists. Its 2013 and people are still scared of Commies? Really?

reply to post by HauntWok


No, he is a Progressive. Progressivism infects both aisles, and is not a sole issue for liberals.

I have no problem with liberals. Most are retread hippies.

Progressives are the real threat.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


I ask for an exact definition because there are so many forms of liberalism, a trick question in a way.

And yes, I'm still afraid of communism because it still exists, until all with these views are dead it's a concern.

The liberal agenda here in America focuses too much on taking care of those who won't take care of themselves.
This agenda is killing an already bad economy.

Since you thank liberalism is an ideal set in stone,I'll ask you no more about it,I think I know more about than you.

But I'm guessing you hear the protecting the freedoms and liberties of all, and that's all you need to hear. No need to know that every country that has gone liberal has failed, and failing now.

Of course that's a bad example of liberalism being a bad ideal, as currently conservatism is failing, but I'm a conspiracy theorist, so I blame communist infestation of our government. By communist I mean liberals, and especially those so called progressive a-holes.

reply to post by Sankari


NO !

don't fall for Ayers crap. He IS a professional BeeEss'er.

he and Obama go waaayyy back to Obama's days at Columbia college.
(at the same time the Weather Underground pulled off that robbery and somebody got killed.
rumor has it that Obama was there too and deeply involved)
(not all parties got caught)

Ayers is just going along with the crowd with this and probably has some sinister financial plan in the works.

Please do some research on Ayers and his criminal wife Bernardine Dohrn.

Just search ATS for some good points about Ayers and Obama.

ask ATS search

instructions for YOU......just type "xuenchen Bill Ayers".

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
Since you thank liberalism is an ideal set in stone,I'll ask you no more about it,I think I know more about than you.

...

By communist I mean liberals, and especially those so called progressive a-holes.

Those two lines really say it all. Nothing I could say could prove my initial point about your lack of understanding any more.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The few of us actual Leftists (not Democrats, Liberals or Progressives) that dare to speak up on this site having been saying this since before Occupy. Occupy also says this considering we are by default, Leftist. Socialists, Communists, Left Libertarians, CODEPINK, the ACLU, many, many Left indiemedia outlets have been calling Obama out on the NDAA, Drones, the wars, The TPP, The Keystone XL, Monsanto since about his second year in office. Obama is not a Left President, we don't like most of the things he's done... he was supposed to undo much of what GW did, instead he amplified much of it. Unions have been all but destroyed, he said nothing. Teachers in his home state, his home city...that were a huge force for his initial campaign have been begging to get their plight into the national platform... not a word.

I'm not sure how you can be shocked.

Okay,..... So to some, Obama isn't left. Obama isn't Liberal. Hell, he isn't even left of center. Some on this thread even suggest he's right of center. I wonder... Can we at least agree that the man is a registered Democrat or is he really a Republican in hiding on a phony Democrat ID? :shk: It's gotten *THAT* absurd!! I can say Bush was a Liberal and closet communist. I can have a thousand friends say it all over the internet and media. It doesn't make it so. It just makes for more propaganda.

The claims on this have been shocking in that they're so patently and ridiculously absurd as to defy belief. It would be suggesting, with a straight face, that the man ranked as the #1 Liberal in 2008 references was actually RIGHT of center? I'd laugh if it wasn't so disturbing to hear how black is white, up is down and left is...quite literally...right.

The Democratic National Party and people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Chair of the Democratic National Committee) aren't in the habit of spending everything they have in funding, support and energy to support candidates who aren't of their same mindset. Sure...Obama may have failed to live up to expectations. He's done a dandy job of that for pretty much all sides. (Seen black unemployment recently?) However, to suggest this man ran as anything but a Left/Progressive Democrat is an outright insult to people's intelligence and ability to perceive the world they live in.

There is rewriting history...which has become a national sport to politicians of both sides. Then there is just pulling stuff out of thin air like it's pure Fantasy and no one even has functional memory or working brains to think with. Insulting is the nicest way I can really put some of that. EXCEPTIONALLY Insulting.

reply to post by Kali74


I'll agree with you entirely on Occupy. Obama tried to co-opt it just like the Republicans did. His wife personally walked the camp I was in, at the time I was a resident of it. (I was out of the area physically that morning...but we can't catch all the breaks). Almost everyone who tried to Co-Opt Occupy on Political agendas of their own failed. Really? Politically, ALL failed. Unions and some others had limited success and in some locations ...but absolutely not nationally or as a movement wide success. So indeed.. I have no disagreement there.

Now what Obama has run on and stood for is one thing. What he IS as a man is a whole different bird. He's a Chameleon, as I've said before. He's good enough to mix with almost any side, as if he believed in their cause above any other on Earth .....while he's there. He's made a career on it and, look at his position, he's been a raging success.

Representing the Progressive Left is what his role, job and literal position is as titular head of the Democratic Party, being President as a member of it. Personally? I don't think he has ANY real beliefs, religious or political, beyond the belief in himself and those in his VERY immediate circle of family and friends... but that's my opinion.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Okay,..... So to some, Obama isn't left. Obama isn't Liberal. Hell, he isn't even left of center. Some on this thread even suggest he's right of center. I wonder... Can we at least agree that the man is a registered Democrat or is he really a Republican in hiding on a phony Democrat ID? :shk: It's gotten *THAT* absurd!! I can say Bush was a Liberal and closet communist. I can have a thousand friends say it all over the internet and media. It doesn't make it so. It just makes for more propaganda.

The claims on this have been shocking in that they're so patently and ridiculously absurd as to defy belief. It would be suggesting, with a straight face, that the man ranked as the #1 Liberal in 2008 references was actually RIGHT of center? I'd laugh if it wasn't so disturbing to hear how black is white, up is down and left is...quite literally...right.

The Democratic National Party and people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Chair of the Democratic National Committee) aren't in the habit of spending everything they have in funding, support and energy to support candidates who aren't of their same mindset. Sure...Obama may have failed to live up to expectations. He's done a dandy job of that for pretty much all sides. (Seen black unemployment recently?) However, to suggest this man ran as anything but a Left/Progressive Democrat is an outright insult to people's intelligence and ability to perceive the world they live in.

There is rewriting history...which has become a national sport to politicians of both sides. Then there is just pulling stuff out of thin air like it's pure Fantasy and no one even has functional memory or working brains to think with. Insulting is the nicest way I can really put some of that. EXCEPTIONALLY Insulting.

Either you don't understand that Democrats and Republicans are getting the bulk of their campaign monies from the exact same sources, and are indebted to the exact same donors, or you are purposely confusing the issue by talking about how Obama pandered to people who feel that the Democratic Party is somehow different than the Republican Party. Both sides of this unfortunate two party system are controlled by the same corporate interests. When a GOP president was in office, we bailed out Corporate America. When a Democrat was in office, we bailed out Corporate America. Either way, social aspects stagnate under both parties now in favor of legislation designed to help Wall Street continue to make money. Not Americans. Wall Street investors. Large portions of Wall Street investment is foreign, and our Two Parties continue to flood it with support to keep the factories of "American" Companies operating in those countries.

Obama isn't a Liberal. Bus wasn't a Conservative. They are the same. The Tea Party is a truer Right, and the Green Party is a truer representation of the Left. The Big Two have been operating outside of the political spectrum for a long long time.

Originally posted by terriblyvexed

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
reply to post by HauntWok

 

Lol, if the corporate whoring makes you not a liberal, then liberals are a myth.

You'd have a easier time taking a picture of Bigfoot...

Liberals in the Democratic Party are a myth.

Liberals are here, we just don't vote for the establishment anymore.

www.gp.org

I believe liberals have infiltrated both parties, and yes Obama is liberal. What's with the ideal he's not liberal, and do you really think being liberal is a good thing?

Liberals scare the hell out of me. I think they're really communist murderers of liberty.

right-wing fascism must be the most desirable form of government to you, since your language about liberals being communist murderers sounds a lot like this guy................

Because of these views, leftist political dissidents were the first to be targeted by the Nazi regime, long before racial discrimination was applied, on the basis of the Reichstag Fire Decree.

“ All other restraints on police action imposed by Reich and Land law [are abolished] so far as this is necessary [...] to achieve the purpose of the decree. [...] In keeping with the purpose and aim of the decree the additional measures [...] will be directed against the Communists in the first instance, but then also against those who co-operate with the Communists and who support or encourage their criminal aims. [...] I would point out that any necessary measures against members or establishments of other than Communist, anarchist or Social Democratic parties can only be justified by the decree [...] if they serve to help the defense against such Communist activities in the widest sense. ”

— Hermann Göring, March 3, 1933 directive to the Prussian police authorities


Persecution and extermination of these political groups was systematic in Germany and the occupied zones during the War.

edit on 18-6-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Either you don't understand that Democrats and Republicans are getting the bulk of their campaign monies from the exact same sources, and are indebted to the exact same donors, or you are purposely confusing the issue by talking about how Obama pandered to people who feel that the Democratic Party is somehow different than the Republican Party.

I've been reading all your posts down this thread carefully and I've held my tongue. They weren't directed at me, so I've said nothing. However, I won't stand by and let it slide when it IS directed at me in a reply. Do you just make this stuff up as you go or do you have any possible basis for anything you're claiming??

Mitt Romney - Top 20 Donors for 2012 Campaign

Barack Obama - Top 20 Donors for 2012 Campaign

Now I was careful to read your words and quote your statement. You didn't say 'similar' donors (which they aren't anyway). You said EXACT same, which is 100% provably false on the face of it. The above lists don't overlap at all and show very different directions of funding on the top sources for both sides. They were pretty much BOTH scumbags and I'll agree with that, but that's pretty close to the limit of what those two men in particular had in common.

Now, would they both have screwed us as a people? Sure they would have...and I was 100% AGAINST Romney clear back in the Primaries. I wanted Daffy Duck before THAT idiot got it....but to say they weren't different is, again, absurd and actually contradicts what the majority of members here today were saying ...or yelling...for months before the election. A little intellectual honesty goes a loooong way.

South Africa has said they will arrest Obama for war crimes. I don't know who Bill Ayers is, and he could be crooked too but that doesn't matter - He's not running this country. The pot can call the kettle black on this occasion, doesn't bother me.

What matters is More people are publicly talking about Obama's crimes and how to stop this modern day Hitler before it's too late.

My hat is off to Bill for this..

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Either you don't understand that Democrats and Republicans are getting the bulk of their campaign monies from the exact same sources, and are indebted to the exact same donors, or you are purposely confusing the issue by talking about how Obama pandered to people who feel that the Democratic Party is somehow different than the Republican Party.

I've been reading all your posts down this thread carefully and I've held my tongue. They weren't directed at me, so I've said nothing. However, I won't stand by and let it slide when it IS directed at me in a reply. Do you just make this stuff up as you go or do you have any possible basis for anything you're claiming??

Mitt Romney - Top 20 Donors for 2012 Campaign

Barack Obama - Top 20 Donors for 2012 Campaign

Now I was careful to read your words and quote your statement. You didn't say 'similar' donors (which they aren't anyway). You said EXACT same, which is 100% provably false on the face of it. The above lists don't overlap at all and show very different directions of funding on the top sources for both sides. They were pretty much BOTH scumbags and I'll agree with that, but that's pretty close to the limit of what those two men in particular had in common.

Now, would they both have screwed us as a people? Sure they would have...and I was 100% AGAINST Romney clear back in the Primaries. I wanted Daffy Duck before THAT idiot got it....but to say they weren't different is, again, absurd and actually contradicts what the majority of members here today were saying ...or yelling...for months before the election. A little intellectual honesty goes a loooong way.

Are you kidding me? Each list represents the exact same interests. Corporate America.

Which side represents workers? Where do the Unions fall on either of those lists? What? You mean they aren't represented at all?