Conquer Club

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

Jimmy Carter wrote: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

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.

saxitoxin wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote: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.

2dimes wrote:Sorry, I was checking out Mr. President's ass and didn't catch what you were saying.

saxitoxin wrote:

2dimes wrote: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 wrote:So, who's voting for Obama this year?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, who's voting for Obama this year?

You think Romney would seriously do better?

PLAYER57832 wrote:THAT is the real question.. and the problem.

"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

saxitoxin wrote: 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.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote: 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.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote: 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.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote: 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.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote: 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.

BigBallinStalin wrote: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.

patches70 wrote: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 wrote:The vote can accomplish other, small things, though and so its still worth voting on those bits.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I did. Wheter you decline to vote or vote for a third party in the presidential race yields the same result.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote: 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.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: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.

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

Woodruff wrote:

patches70 wrote: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>

BigBallinStalin wrote: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).

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.