Obama The Filthy Liar

[Lewkowski]

The news today regarding discussion on genocide.

http://license.icopyright.net/user/v...id%3DD9E7TOBO0

************

The administration stepped in despite a campaign promise by President Barack Obama to brand as genocide the killing of as many as 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks. The vote by the congressional committee could alienate Turkey, which plays an important role for U.S. interests in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

************

Now here is Obama on his campaign promise.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/1...importance.php

***********

I also share with Armenian Americans – so many of whom are descended from genocide survivors - a principled commitment to commemorating and ending genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances of genocide in world history. As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term "genocide" to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.

************

Pathetic. What a rat. This really doesn't effect me either way but the bold faced lies make the cry of Obama supporters stating he was a "different politician" all the more pathetic. Anyone who considered Obama someone who would bring the "hope & change" that would "transcend" past partisan politics is an idiot and a fool.

[Being]

It's easy to tell when a politician is lying, their lips move.

[Lewkowski]

It's easy to tell when a politician is lying, their lips move.

But Obama was different!

I recall arguing with people about Obama who would insist that Obama was a different kind of politician. This guy is nothing special his words are just words. One of my friends was talking about a major speech Obama did (in 2009 I believe) and I said I didn't watch it because why should I believe anything he says? He got kind of miffed about it and said, "well if you aren't even going to listen to him you are never going to be convinced."

It stunned me that an otherwise intelligent person could not understand that Obama will say anything to get what he wants accomplished. That words are meaningless once someone has proved to be a liar and actions/behavior are the only possible thing that can redeem. Never words.

[Hazir]

Ok Lewk, so you think it's more important for a politician to keep to a silly promise he made during the elections than to work in the interest of the country he serves? Typically it isn't untill they are elected that people understand that Turkey when it comes to doing things in the Middle East is infinitely more important than the Armenian Diaspora which has no interest at all it seems in what happens on the ground today.

[Dreadnaught]

I think Lewk's point is that Obama promised everything to everyone, no matter how unrealistic.

More generally, when you promise an ethnic community to officially recognize what it believes to be a genocide, then backtrack, it leaves a pretty bad taste in your mouth.

[Hazir]

I think Lewk's point is that Obama promised everything to everyone, no matter how unrealistic.

More generally, when you promise an ethnic community to officially recognize what it believes to be a genocide, then backtrack, it leaves a pretty bad taste in your mouth.

Yeah, it's called baiting the voter. All politicians do it; tweaking their message to special interest groups they want to vote for them.

The bigger mandate though is to work for the good of the nation; it DOES override promises to special interests. Even if Obama wanted to keep his promise to the Armenian diaspora then his sense of duty should forbid him to do it if that means harming the interests of the republic his has sworn (not just promised) to protect.

I think it's nonsense to talk about broken promises by politicians if keeping their promise means breaking the only real commitment that they signed up to.

[Nessus]

has sworn (not just promised)

[Hazir]

Nessus, it is already blatantly clear you don't get social concepts or social behaviour, at least not in the persona you present here on this forum. There is no need to remind us every time of your personality issues.

[Nessus]

Nessus, it is already blatantly clear you don't get social concepts or social behaviour, at least not in the persona you present here on this forum. There is no need to remind us every time of your personality issues.

Oh my, ad hominem right off the bat. You're a gem, you are.

I was just amused by your notion that while promises can and routinely are broken, oaths are something sacred and sacrosanct that one should always adhere to. How precisely is this some kind of spergism on my part?

[Hazir]

Oh my, ad hominem right off the bat. You're a gem, you are.

I was just amused by your notion that while promises can and routinely are broken, oaths are something sacred and sacrosanct that one should always adhere to. How precisely is this some kind of spergism on my part?

Thanks for confirming my suspicion; you are incapable of differentiating.

To be honest, I am not overly interested in who you are, and god knows I could be totally wrong about you. I mean, I couldn't even be bothered to remember your gender and the specific issues you exposed about that some time ago. Sometimes you irritate me.

I imagine you to be somebody who's valuable in your field of work but that's about the extent of it; otherwise I imagine you to be a bit of a tool. You do very little to defuse that in your posting behaviour. What comes to mind is your silly adolescent fascination with 'uncle Adolf' which you really should have left behind you by now. One reads one, maybe two biographies of the man to figure out what he was about and how it could happen. Then one moves on to somewhat more main stream hobbies; dressing up like one of his tools (for real or online) is not really much different than grown ups camping out in a field making believe they are really the victorious armies of the South.

Now, you can do with this exposé whatever you want.

[Nessus]

Thanks for confirming my suspicion; you are incapable of differentiating.

To be honest, I am not overly interested in who you are, and god knows I could be totally wrong about you. I mean, I couldn't even be bothered to remember your gender and the specific issues you exposed about that some time ago. Sometimes you irritate me.

I imagine you to be somebody who's valuable in your field of work but that's about the extent of it; otherwise I imagine you to be a bit of a tool. You do very little to defuse that in your posting behaviour. What comes to mind is your silly adolescent fascination with 'uncle Adolf' which you really should have left behind you by now. One reads one, maybe two biographies of the man to figure out what he was about and how it could happen. Then one moves on to somewhat more main stream hobbies; dressing up like one of his tools (for real or online) is not really much different than grown ups camping out in a field making believe they are really the victorious armies of the South.

Now, you can do with this exposé whatever you want.

So you're upset that my hobby is a specific segment of history? And proceeded from this to make declarations from on-high that I'm socially stunted? Gosh. And of course you did it the neat way by adding the last bit, "do what you want", thus absolving yourself of any responsibility vis a vis this little revelation you've deigned to offer me.

[Ominous Gamer]

Lewk, the dumbass who couldn't find the Armenianish thread Dread already started

[Hazir]

Lewk, the dumbass who couldn't find the Armenianish thread Dread already started

To his defense, that thread is more about the issue, this is about politicians breaking promises.

[ar81]

When it comes to politics, there is the concept of "political feasibility" which involves the political cost of different alternatives.
Politicians will always choose the option that has more benefit and less political cost.
In the case of Armenians the political cost for US would be to lose an ally in a strategic area.
It simply makes the promise not politically feasible.
US wars started in a time when war had less political cost than peace, and where US budget was less important than the desire of showing off with US power.
War and its deficit was more politically feasible back then.
It is not a lie. It is that the promise came when he was not president and it had no political cost for him back then.

[Loki]

Your views on just about every other topic suggest that you're a nihilist and a socialist, not anything resembling a Nazi.

[Nessus]

Your views on just about every other topic suggest that you're a nihilist and a socialist, not anything resembling a Nazi.

Which is why I said it was complicated!

edit: And for the record, dr. Goebbels and to some degree even Hitler were socialist

[Loki]

Which is why I said it was complicated!

edit: And for the record, dr. Goebbels and to some degree even Hitler were socialist

They were socialist in 1933. They weren't by 1941 (not to any large extent anyway). And your supposed Nazism is inconsistent with you constantly attacking people who think that some people are superior to others (i.e. Lewk's view of criminals). Frankly, when it comes to views on social policy, you are not that much different to Minx (not terribly surprising, seeing that you both live in "socialist paradises").

[Nessus]

They were socialist in 1933. They weren't by 1941 (not to any large extent anyway). And your supposed Nazism is inconsistent with you constantly attacking people who think that some people are superior to others (i.e. Lewk's view of criminals). Frankly, when it comes to views on social policy, you are not that much different to Minx.

I suppose. I think, I don't remember off-hand, that dr. Goebbels kept organizing the Winter-relief throughout the war, which'd make him somewhat socialist even under great stress, but that's neither here or there

[LittleFuzzy]

They were socialist in 1933. They weren't by 1941 (not to any large extent anyway).

Corporatism, as it is practiced in a fascist model, is not all that different from socialism.

[Loki]

Corporatism, as it is practiced in a fascist model, is not all that different from socialism.

Sure it is. Germany and Austria are still corporatist. The chief objective of corporatism is maintaining peace between labor and capital. It doesn't necessitate privileging the former.

[Aimless]

Frankly, when it comes to views on social policy, you are not that much different to Minx (not terribly surprising, seeing that you both live in "socialist paradises").

Ahem, I'm a humanist, but Nessie and I have reached our common ground through being intelligent and constructive unlike some people I could name

Okay so with that out of the way...

How important is Turkey to the US??

[Lewkowski]

Lets see...

Socialism is command and control type of economy. Sounds kinda like what Germany was doing. Lets see also the concept of health being a national issue as opposed to an individual choice... yup sounds like what Germany was doing.

When they have the word socialist in the name of the party its a pretty sure bet that they are socialist.

[Nessus]

Lets see...

Socialism is command and control type of economy. Sounds kinda like what Germany was doing. Lets see also the concept of health being a national issue as opposed to an individual choice... yup sounds like what Germany was doing.

When they have the word socialist in the name of the party its a pretty sure bet that they are socialist.

If only you could realize that this kind of reasoning does not invite a bijection

[Loki]

The goal of socialism is to create equality. The end goal of Nazism was to promote some people over others (even if you exclude the "undesirables"), take away economic rights from both workers and employers, while providing a minimal standard of living to the former. None of those objectives are socialist. You can make a weak case for the last one, but that's been done before socialism and even most non-Ron Pauls would accept it today.

[Nessus]

The goal of socialism is to create equality. The end goal of Nazism was to promote some people over others (even if you exclude the "undesirables"), take away economic rights from both workers and employers, while providing a minimal standard of living to the former. None of those objectives are socialist. You can make a weak case for the last one, but that's been done before socialism and even most non-Ron Pauls would accept it today.

Equality for the people. The volk did not include some people which were then exterminated. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum, there is always a context to consider. Dr. Goebbels was not making shit up when he spoke of freedom for the German people, he literally meant and believed in the freedom from Jewish cum foreign influence and the possibility of the volk to make their own destiny.

[Loki]

Equality for the people. The volk did not include some people which were then exterminated. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum, there is always a context to consider. Dr. Goebbels was not making shit up when he spoke of freedom for the German people, he literally meant and believed in the freedom from Jewish cum foreign influence and the possibility of the volk to make their own destiny.

The point was that some Germans were still considered to be superior to others, and the state was to utilize them for the glory of the state. Decent living standards for the people was a secondary objective; the promotion and subservience to the state was the main one. Even racial policies aside, I doubt you'd get too many socialist parties backing a ban on strikes and wage increases.

[Nessus]

The point was that some Germans were still considered to be superior to others, and the state was to utilize them for the glory of the state. Decent living standards for the people was a secondary objective; the promotion and subservience to the state was the main one. Even racial policies aside, I doubt you'd get too many socialist parties backing a ban on strikes and wage increases.

*shrug* That is what democratic socialism shaped up to be today, that metric cannot be applied to the situation seventy years ago.

[Loki]

*shrug* That is what democratic socialism shaped up to be today, that metric cannot be applied to the situation seventy years ago.

The end goal of socialist was always socioeconomic and political equality. Even most national socialist parties (i.e. the nationalist leftist parties in the developing world, not Nazis) would claim that nationalism was needed for practical reasons and would become unnecessary once the evil imperialists were driven out.

[Lewkowski]

The goal of socialism is to create equality. The end goal of Nazism was to promote some people over others (even if you exclude the "undesirables"), take away economic rights from both workers and employers, while providing a minimal standard of living to the former. None of those objectives are socialist. You can make a weak case for the last one, but that's been done before socialism and even most non-Ron Pauls would accept it today.

What is the central part of socialism? Government control. What is an example of a piece of socialism? Health that is a national interest issue as opposed to an individual choice. From NAZI to Obama to random socialists there is a belief that the government has a central role in health care. And that it is "bad" (immoral/un-patriotic ect) to jeopardize your health. Again the key component is government control.

NAZI/Socialist/Communist/Facsim are all different views of the command and control hierarchy. They are brothers and sisters not opponents.

The dividing line between ideology is more or less government control.

[Nessus]

My strongest feelings are elsewhere