Jimmy Carter on Obama's Legacy: "a Cruel and Unusual Record"

[saxitoxin]

In an article written for the New York Times headlined "A Cruel and Unusual Record", Mr Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his work trying to resolve conflicts around the globe, suggested that the US is in violation of 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a rare attack by a former commander-in-chief on a sitting President – especially of the same party.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 88925.html

Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opini ... ecord.html

[saxitoxin]

[Juan_Bottom]

Jimmy Carter is a fantastically unusual president himself. As a peace-loving man, you'd think his reign would have been more popular, yet it wasn't.
As a president, he was full of fail. Not a very great one, though still quite memorable. Yet as a man, he's without peers. I respect his view because of who he is and what he represents.
Barring that, he's right anyway, as we all believe that our government went rouge after 9-11 and we can't control it.

Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable.

Meanwhile, the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, now houses 169 prisoners. About half have been cleared for release, yet have little prospect of ever obtaining their freedom. American authorities have revealed that, in order to obtain confessions, some of the few being tried (only in military courts) have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers. Astoundingly, these facts cannot be used as a defense by the accused, because the government claims they occurred under the cover of “national security.” Most of the other prisoners have no prospect of ever being charged or tried either.

At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends.

Revolution is undoubtedly the path that our government has chosen for us too.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, who's voting for Obama this year?

[2dimes]

Sorry, I was checking out Mr. President's ass and didn't catch what you were saying.

[Woodruff]

Jimmy Carter is a fantastically unusual president himself. As a peace-loving man, you'd think his reign would have been more popular, yet it wasn't.
As a president, he was full of fail. Not a very great one, though still quite memorable. Yet as a man, he's without peers. I respect his view because of who he is and what he represents.

Yep...he had serious issues as the President, but he does seem to me to be a great man.

Sorry, I was checking out Mr. President's ass and didn't catch what you were saying.

It does sorta look like that, doesn't it?

By the way...why do your posts always have an empty subject? Do you do that manually? If so...why bother?

[2dimes]

Kind of a habit now. At the first forum I used to hang out on if you changed it then everyone after you would have the new title for their posts so the game was to make fun of them or something and see how long it would carry forward before someone noticed.

[BigBallinStalin]

Kind of a habit now. At the first forum I used to hang out on if you changed it then everyone after you would have the new title for their posts so the game was to make fun of them or something and see how long it would carry forward before someone noticed.

His thighs do look fit.

(but this doesn't work)

[saxitoxin]

Here Jimmy Carter is trying to pull the fins off the King of the Dolphins to save the world from impending attack. He was having a picnic lunch with his Filipino boy-servant on the dock when the King of the Dolphins surfaced and he was able to grab him.

[2dimes]

Yeah kind of a bummer huh?

[PLAYER57832]

So, who's voting for Obama this year?

You think Romney would seriously do better?

THAT is the real question.. and the problem. Some elections were truly won, but a lot are just squeezed by on "better than...."

[saxitoxin]

So, who's voting for Obama this year?

You think Romney would seriously do better?

above - an example of the success of a system built on fear

THAT is the real question.. and the problem.

Obama isn't guilty of war crimes. The guilt for war crimes is equally divided by everyone who votes for a known war criminal. If you don't want to have dead children on your conscience, you can choose not to vote or choose to vote for some third-party candidate. If being on the winning time is more important than de-legitimizing a war criminal, then you can vote for Obama/Romney and deal with the consequences it will have for you, according to your belief system.

"If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." - John 9:41

[PLAYER57832]

Obama isn't guilty of war crimes. The guilt for war crimes is equally divided by everyone who votes for a known war criminal. If you don't want to have dead children on your conscience, you can choose not to vote or choose to vote for some third-party candidate.

No dice.
The election will be held. A non vote is just aquiescence to whomever the REST of the population decides. It accomplishes nothing.

That said, "think locally, act locally". Gain local power, show success, and then move up the chain. Except, now things are changed by guys with big loudspeakers sending out messages so loudly that no one can even think, never mind hear other messages.

[BigBallinStalin]

Obama isn't guilty of war crimes. The guilt for war crimes is equally divided by everyone who votes for a known war criminal. If you don't want to have dead children on your conscience, you can choose not to vote or choose to vote for some third-party candidate.

No dice.
The election will be held. A non vote is just aquiescence to whomever the REST of the population decides. It accomplishes nothing.

That said, "think locally, act locally". Gain local power, show success, and then move up the chain. Except, now things are changed by guys with big loudspeakers sending out messages so loudly that no one can even think, never mind hear other messages.

Still, if you're aware of the likely consequences, then you do bear some responsibility for your vote.

Also, why didn't you mention voting for a 3rd party candidate? That's probably the only morally correct choice for the US presidential election.

[saxitoxin]

Obama isn't guilty of war crimes. The guilt for war crimes is equally divided by everyone who votes for a known war criminal. If you don't want to have dead children on your conscience, you can choose not to vote or choose to vote for some third-party candidate.

No dice.
The election will be held. A non vote is just aquiescence to whomever the REST of the population decides. It accomplishes nothing.

That's fine. It just means you've acknowledged you're morally prepared to personally accept the punishment for murdering children when the time comes - and it always comes - when individuals are no longer able to hide behind the abstract literary fiction called "the state."

[patches70]

Obama isn't guilty of war crimes. The guilt for war crimes is equally divided by everyone who votes for a known war criminal. If you don't want to have dead children on your conscience, you can choose not to vote or choose to vote for some third-party candidate.

No dice.
The election will be held. A non vote is just aquiescence to whomever the REST of the population decides. It accomplishes nothing.

That said, "think locally, act locally". Gain local power, show success, and then move up the chain. Except, now things are changed by guys with big loudspeakers sending out messages so loudly that no one can even think, never mind hear other messages.

Still, if you're aware of the likely consequences, then you do bear some responsibility for your vote.

Also, why didn't you mention voting for a 3rd party candidate? That's probably the only morally correct choice for the US presidential election.

That is the morally correct choice if one believes that the Dems and the Reps are both full of crap and twisted ideology.
I don't care how loudly the bullhorn of propaganda bullshit sounds in my ears, I can always still think for myself.


Libertarian From "Cliff Notes to Progressive America"

Definition: A philosophy held by annoying bastards who happen to be right about nearly everything. Fortunately, due to the frustration that comes with being right about nearly everything, in a world wrong about those same things, there are only 19 of them, and we’re going to find the bastards soon.

[PLAYER57832]

Obama isn't guilty of war crimes. The guilt for war crimes is equally divided by everyone who votes for a known war criminal. If you don't want to have dead children on your conscience, you can choose not to vote or choose to vote for some third-party candidate.

No dice.
The election will be held. A non vote is just aquiescence to whomever the REST of the population decides. It accomplishes nothing.

That said, "think locally, act locally". Gain local power, show success, and then move up the chain. Except, now things are changed by guys with big loudspeakers sending out messages so loudly that no one can even think, never mind hear other messages.

Still, if you're aware of the likely consequences, then you do bear some responsibility for your vote.

Not quite. In this case, there is no option that will change the outcome. There is no choice in the factors saxi outlined. The vote can accomplish other, small things, though and so its still worth voting on those bits. Real change has to come otherwise, though.

Also, why didn't you mention voting for a 3rd party candidate? That's probably the only morally correct choice for the US presidential election.

I did. Wheter you decline to vote or vote for a third party in the presidential race yields the same result.. you do nothing to counter the majority view. In smaller elections, it is different. That is where the "act locally, think globally" bit comes into play.

[Woodruff]

Libertarian From "Cliff Notes to Progressive America"

Definition: A philosophy held by annoying bastards who happen to be right about nearly everything. Fortunately, due to the frustration that comes with being right about nearly everything, in a world wrong about those same things, there are only 19 of them, and we’re going to find the bastards soon.

That is awesome. <laughing>

[saxitoxin]

The vote can accomplish other, small things, though and so its still worth voting on those bits.

Translation - "having the government throw me a few freebies and goodies to buy my silence is more important than the teenager from Colorado Obama recently had blown-up to punish his father for speaking against U.S. foreign policy. The possibility of getting the equivalent of $98 in social spending at some point in the future was worth burning this 16 year old to death ..."

I did. Wheter you decline to vote or vote for a third party in the presidential race yields the same result.

In the words of Eugene Debbs-"I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it."


A government elected with 87% turnout is more legitimate - and has more latitude of action - than a government elected with 37% turnout. You legitimize murder by voting for war criminals.

Player is a fear voter. Without voters living in utter terror the System can't survive. The System thrives because of Player.

[BigBallinStalin]

Obama isn't guilty of war crimes. The guilt for war crimes is equally divided by everyone who votes for a known war criminal. If you don't want to have dead children on your conscience, you can choose not to vote or choose to vote for some third-party candidate.

No dice.
The election will be held. A non vote is just aquiescence to whomever the REST of the population decides. It accomplishes nothing.

That said, "think locally, act locally". Gain local power, show success, and then move up the chain. Except, now things are changed by guys with big loudspeakers sending out messages so loudly that no one can even think, never mind hear other messages.

Still, if you're aware of the likely consequences, then you do bear some responsibility for your vote.

Not quite. In this case, there is no option that will change the outcome. There is no choice in the factors saxi outlined. The vote can accomplish other, small things, though and so its still worth voting on those bits. Real change has to come otherwise, though.
It's the same in social, economic, environmental and any other field one could care to name.

Oh, but player, surely, you are aware of the consequences of your decision, are you not?

Also, why didn't you mention voting for a 3rd party candidate? That's probably the only morally correct choice for the US presidential election.

I did. Wheter you decline to vote or vote for a third party in the presidential race yields the same result.. you do nothing to counter the majority view. In smaller elections, it is different. That is where the "act locally, think globally" bit comes into play.

I take a more optimistic view. I walk on the side of righteousness, and I do not compromise my moral integrity when faced with the option of voting for "the lesser of two evils." Why? Because either vote for a mainstream party is most certainly evil.

[BigBallinStalin]

Saxitoxin, I wish to be serious with you for a moment.

I noticed something at the end of the article:

Under [Obama's] watch, Osama bin Laden has been killed and much of the top echelons of al-Qa'ida have been gutted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jimmy-carter-attacks-barack-obama-over-assassinations-and-drone-attacks-7888925.html


Now, assuming that this decapitation policy is effective in eradicating the threat of terrorism against the US, then do the benefits offset the costs?

If you disagree with the assumption, please state why.


(Note: for the moment, I will play the role of the official spokesman for the US Empire).

[BigBallinStalin]

Libertarian From "Cliff Notes to Progressive America"

Definition: A philosophy held by annoying bastards who happen to be right about nearly everything. Fortunately, due to the frustration that comes with being right about nearly everything, in a world wrong about those same things, there are only 19 of them, and we’re going to find the bastards soon.

That is awesome. <laughing>

I'm glad you think so. I was motivated to look through my Devil's Dictionary, but alas, "libertarian" was not mentioned.

Woodruff, let's get serious. Would you describe yourself as a libertarian? If not, why not?

[saxitoxin]

Saxitoxin, I wish to be serious with you for a moment.

I noticed something at the end of the article:

Under [Obama's] watch, Osama bin Laden has been killed and much of the top echelons of al-Qa'ida have been gutted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jimmy-carter-attacks-barack-obama-over-assassinations-and-drone-attacks-7888925.html


Now, assuming that this decapitation policy is effective in eradicating the threat of terrorism against the US, then do the benefits offset the costs?

If you disagree with the assumption, please state why.


(Note: for the moment, I will play the role of the official spokesman for the US Empire).

Well people, individually or corporatively, have a right to defend themselves. But Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't killed as part of the winds of war. He was specifically identified and executed.

People who voted for Obama in 2008 are covered by deniable ignorance. But anyone who votes for Obama in 2012 assumes full guilt as an accessory for every death similar to al-Awlaki; the same guilt a Mafia don who has never fired a gun has for the deaths he's sponsored.

I feel safe in saying that the average 40-something soccer mom in Middleton, Ohio who votes for Obama in 2012 will, at the moment she punches the ballot, have instantly become a moral accessory in the deaths of more people than the most battle-hardened non-voter 95-Bravo. And, in the non-voting soldier's case, the statistical likelihood is those deaths were morally justifiable as warfighting instead of calculated executions.* The voting soccer mom, however, enjoys no reprieve from the Scales of Karma.

* in fact, IIRC, I read somewhere that even al-Awlaki's executioner was an Obama civilian attorney

[john9blue]

i'm going to have to disagree with you guys here. in most cases it is okay (or at least somewhat acceptable) to vote a terrible person into office, if the other viable candidates are far worse. it's not the ideal course of action (which is usually voting for a third party candidate) but the net result is almost always positive.

honestly though, i don't know whether obama or romney is a bigger scumbag. and they are so much worse than some third-party candidates that i'd feel dirty voting for either of them. probably gonna stick with third-party.

[saxitoxin]

Player should keep in mind that, in 1942, Germany became the first nation in the world to offer worker compensation for asbestos-induced illness.

However, the Soviet liberation armies didn't decide to stop at the Oder-Neisse line because the Reich Ministry of Social Affairs was running an asbestos-illness compensation program. And the only German who avoided punishment when they crossed the Prussian border was Hitler.