• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Justifying blind loyalty to obama

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
eskimospy said:
Sometimes I wonder just how enraged you were when you found out that a black guy became president. It must have been epic to watch.
Click to expand...


I could not care less about our Dear Leader being black. I actually think it's a good thing to see.


My issues are with his blatantly obvious socialist agendas and the people who support him purely for selfish reasons. Again, see my signature.

He could be red, purple, light orange for all I care, I would still feel the same.

And I haven't been enraged in at least 10 years.
 
IBMer said:
For every one of these videos, do you not think that a video of some ignorant red neck nut job or crazy religious nut job that supports the Republican Party couldn't' be found? Do you think that because such a video exists that it is indicative of the entire Republican or Conservative base?
Click to expand...
Parrots don't think. They are trained to squawk on cue.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
I could not care less about our Dear Leader being black. I actually think it's a good thing to see.


My issues are with his blatantly obvious socialist agendas and the people who support him purely for selfish reasons. Again, see my signature.

He could be red, purple, light orange for all I care, I would still feel the same.

And I haven't been enraged in at least 10 years.
Click to expand...

Which solcialist agendas are you referring to?
 
Angry Irishman said:
I would think the Brits and others leaving the area would clue the State Dept in as well as some damn common sense.
Click to expand...
We aren't the Brits. In retrospect, it seems obvious they were right and we were wrong, yet somehow Stevens and the State Department saw it differently. In particular, I'm still struck that in spite of others' dire concerns about Benghazi, Stevens -- fully aware of the situation -- chose to travel there anyway. Why? If conditions were truly known to be so bad, why did he deliberately put himself in such a dangerous situation? Something is missing.
 
IGBT said:
the obama's core support are low information liberal voters. All they care about is forwarding the liberal agenda. Liberalism fly's blind and sooner or later crashes and burns.
Click to expand...
That's funny coming from the poster child for low information voters. It's positively hilarious in this thread, a monument to wing-nut ignorance. Even worse, it's willful ignorance. No matter how many times someone serves you (collectively) the truth on a silver platter, you ignore it. You not only place faith over fact, you're proud of it.

Look at the countless times in this thread that you nutters have had your myths refuted with facts. Look at how often any of you have then conceded your errors. (Have you ever?) It's been a non-stop game of you (collectively) moving the goal posts, jumping from one disinformed allegation after another, desperately digging ever deeper for anything you can make stick ... and failing over and over.

Wake up and smell the elephant dung, kiddos, your masters in the nutter media lie to you. They play you for fools, and you guzzle it with it glee. You keep coming back to them again and again, no matter how many times you're exposed. It's pathetic.
 
Bowfinger said:
That's funny coming from the poster child for low information voters. It's positively hilarious in this thread, a monument to wing-nut ignorance. Even worse, it's willful ignorance. No matter how many times someone serves you (collectively) the truth on a silver platter, you ignore it. You not only place faith over fact, you're proud of it.

Look at the countless times in this thread that you nutters have had your myths refuted with facts. Look at how often any of you have then conceded your errors. (Have you ever?) It's been a non-stop game of you (collectively) moving the goal posts, jumping from one disinformed allegation after another, desperately digging ever deeper for anything you can make stick ... and failing over and over.

Wake up and smell the elephant dung, kiddos, your masters in the nutter media lie to you. They play you for fools, and you guzzle it with it glee. You keep coming back to them again and again, no matter how many times you're exposed. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...

You are half way there.
 
Bowfinger said:
Originally Posted by Texashiker
The US government had advance warnings of the attacks, but you fail to mention that. ...
Click to expand...
No, it didn't. It had warnings the situation in Benghazi was deteriorating. (Though I do agree that makes it all the more incomprehensible that Stevens would choose to travel there anyway.)
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

I've heard there were advance warnings:

Then CIA-Director David Petraeus objected to the final talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, because he wanted to see more detail publicly released, including a warning issued from the CIA about plans for an embassy attack, a newly released email shows

The officials said Morell also didn't think it was fair to disclose the CIA's advance warning without giving the State Department a chance to explain how it responded.
Click to expand...

It's an AP article.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9104031

Fern
 
Bowfinger said:
If you read the next paragraph, you'll note it was a warning to our embassy in Cairo, not the outpost/consulate/mission/whatever in Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Yep, you're correct on that link.

Try this one:

Mr. Morell, administration officials said, deleted a reference in the draft version of the talking points to C.I.A. warnings of extremist threats in Libya, which State Department officials objected to because they feared it would reflect badly on them.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/u...ghazi-talking-points.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

IIRC, the CIA had advance warnings about Benghazi based on "chatter" they had picked up.

Again, IIRC, this threat warning came from intercepted communications from terrorists groups about avenging the death of a terrorist killed in a drone attack. His brother, a terrorist in Libya, was instructed to or claimed he was going to avenge his death in an attack.

I don't recall how specific the CIA warnings were though. I.e., the CIA may not have known the day (but how hard to consider '9-11'?) but knew it was planned/coming.

Too much Benghazi stuff to wade through for my search to be very helpful.

Fern
 
Bush's ratings were 90% or so right after 9/11. Does this mean that people were blindly following Bush? Or is it that they wanted to feel good, safe, and supposedly secure and thus they put aside their differences?

People on each side of politics follow their man, their dream, their goal. They talk about the country but they only care about their own side of politics succeeding, even at the expense of great things.

Republicans are followed by sheep and so are the Democrats. No difference.
 
The entire premise of this thread is false. The one characteristic the left has over the right is the ability to be self critical.

When presented with facts the right resorts to denial, followed by a deluge of rambling unrelated non-sequitors..."Obama is a Kenyan socialist"

The right is incapable of dealing with facts.
 
HomerJS said:
The entire premise of this thread is false. The one characteristic the left has over the right is the ability to be self critical.

When presented with facts the right resorts to denial, followed by a deluge of rambling unrelated non-sequitors..."Obama is a Kenyan socialist"

The right is incapable of dealing with facts.
Click to expand...

This is the same guy who has blind loyalty to obama.
 
eskimospy said:
This is the last time I will ask you to stop being dishonest about saying things that you admit you have no evidence for.
Click to expand...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-to-vpns-can-now-be-legally-exported-to-iran/

Obama has lifted technology sanctions against Iran.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1
Click to expand...

If that is not aiding the enemy I do not know what is.
 
It is quite clear you do not know what treason is.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1
Click to expand...

Read the bolded VERY carefully. This in no way is even remotely close to treason.
 
eskimospy said:
It is quite clear you do not know what treason is.

Read the bolded VERY carefully. This in no way is even remotely close to treason.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me?

The US government executed 2 people for providing nuclear information to russia.

But its ok for obama to allow the free flow of information technology to iran?

If the Rosenbergs and obama were held to the same standard, obama would be executed.
 
Last edited:
Texashiker said:
You have got to be kidding me?

The US government executed 2 people for providing nuclear information to russia.

But its ok for obama to allow the free flow of information technology to iran?

If the Rosenbergs and obama were held to the same standard, obama would be executed.
Click to expand...

Are you insane? Your posts have become increasingly unhinged lately, you're starting to worry me.

The Rosenbergs were convicted of relaying classified information to the Russians. Classification authority is derived from the President, therefore if Obama wishes to provide information to other countries he can declassify it at will. (or make whatever exceptions he wishes to). So even on its face your comparison is illogical.

Most importantly, the conviction of the Rosenbergs determined they were 'adhering' to the USSR. That is not present in this case, therefore it is not treason.

Can you repeat back to me that you understand what 'adhering to' means in this context?
 
eskimospy said:
Are you insane? Your posts have become increasingly unhinged lately, you're starting to worry me.

The Rosenbergs were convicted of relaying classified information to the Russians. Classification authority is derived from the President, therefore if Obama wishes to provide information to other countries he can declassify it at will. (or make whatever exceptions he wishes to). So even on its face your comparison is illogical.

Most importantly, the conviction of the Rosenbergs determined they were 'adhering' to the USSR. That is not present in this case, therefore it is not treason.

Can you repeat back to me that you understand what 'adhering to' means in this context?
Click to expand...

The same can be asked of you due to you blind loyalty to obama.
 
eskimospy said:
Are you insane? Your posts have become increasingly unhinged lately, you're starting to worry me.

The Rosenbergs were convicted of relaying classified information to the Russians. Classification authority is derived from the President, therefore if Obama wishes to provide information to other countries he can declassify it at will. (or make whatever exceptions he wishes to). So even on its face your comparison is illogical.
Click to expand...


Our enemies attack us, and obama does nothing.

Iran is pushing forward with their nuclear program, and obama opens the technology pipeline to them.

Iran is supposed to be a couple of years from developing a nuclear bomb. How much will this influx of technology facilitate that progress?

And you see nothing wrong with this?
 
Texashiker said:
Our enemies attack us, and obama does nothing.

Iran is pushing forward with their nuclear program, and obama opens the technology pipeline to them.

And you see nothing wrong with this?
Click to expand...

Can you repeat back to me that you understand what the 'in adhering to' clause of the definition of treason mean?
 
Texashiker said:
Will you answer the question?

You see nothing wrong with providing technology to our enemy?
Click to expand...

You have accused the President of the United States of treason. That's an extremely serious charge. Stop trying to go onto tangents and answer the question. One I asked before you asked yours, I might add.

Can you repeat back to me that you understand what the 'in adhering to' clause of the definition of treason means? In so doing, please offer your explanation of what it means to you and what legal source you are deriving this information from.
 
eskimospy said:
Can you repeat back to me that you understand what the 'in adhering to' clause of the definition of treason means? In so doing, please offer your explanation of what it means to you and what legal source you are deriving this information from.
Click to expand...

My first thoughts with "in adhering to" is to join, to work together, to do as the enemy wishes.

To go along with my post I did a couple of google searches an came up with this.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason

The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.
Click to expand...

The president has the authority to deem something classified, or unclassified.

Changing the classification does not change the act.

By changing the classification, and releasing said information to the enemy, obama has committed treason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top