President "Kill List"'s Nomination For CIA Director: Evidence He Is a Fake Liberal

Brown Bomber

War-lover Obama, who has continued or expanded and accelerate many of Bush's assaults on civil liberties has nominated John Brennan for CIA Director. Brennan is a veteran of the Bush era torture chambers (and Obama's) and you can get an overview of his sociopathic, Neocon tendencies here. It's clear we are in for another four more years of "change".

What this also highlights to me is the fraudelent left-right paradigm in the two-party system in the US; rendering it essentially a one-party-system. A vote for either candidate is a vote for erosion of civil liberties, torture, war and surveillance. The only difference being that Obama won't hear cries of protest from Liberals because he pretends to be one himself. Which demonstrates to me that people in America don't actually care about the issues. They put on a blue hat or a red hat and support their man. This is summed up better by Prof. Jack Goldsmith, of Harvard Law School.

One important consequence of President Obama’s re-election will be the further entrenchment, and legitimation, of the basic counterterrorism policies that Obama continued, with tweaks, from the late Bush administration. We will have four more years of a Democratic president presiding over military detention without trial, military commission trials (at least for the 9/11 conspirators, if not for more), broad warrantless surveillance, drone strikes around the globe, and covert war more generally. These policies will of course be scrutinized by the many watchers of the presidency.

But they will receive less pushback than they would have received under a republican president. Not only does the public generally trust the former constitutional law professor and civil liberties champion more than a republican president to carry out these policies (this is the Nixon going to China phenomenon). But in addition, many on the left (in Congress and the NGO community, and perhaps the press) who might otherwise be uncomfortable with these policies will give President Obama a freer hand than they would a republican president. The paradoxical bottom line: aggressive counterterrorism policies will, as a general matter, become more entrenched as a result of Obama’s election, compared to a Romney presidency.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/11/counterterrorism-legal-policy-in-obamas-second-term/

Brown Bomber

In case of confusion: The CT is that Obama is a fake liberal.

There is a good explanation of fake liberal here, even if I don't personally agree with everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRtROGdtf9U

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In case of confusion: The CT is that Obama is a fake liberal.

Isn't this is a far left (or overly paranoid) political opinion disguised as a weak "conspiracy theory"?

I mean, the drone strikes are reported, his policies are reported on, his nominations are well known about (strange that you don't mention Hagel, who's been nominated for sec of defense and is seen as anti-Israel and very soft on Iran)

How is there a conspiracy if this is all out in the open for people to judge?

Brown Bomber

Can you answer these questions please?

1. Do you consider yourself a Liberal?
2. Did you oppose Bush's wars?
3. Did you support Obama's wars?

If you or anyone else answers "yes" to all of the above I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong somewhere.

Torakx

Was about to comment, then watched the video and decided that guy said everything i needed to.
Cant argue with the obvious lol

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you answer these questions please?

You didn't answer mine.

How is there a conspiracy if this is all out in the open for people to judge?

Just about every democratic president has "started" and/or been involved wars and conflicts, and has there ever been a "liberal" head of the Pentagon, the nature of the position is in itself obviously hawkish.

hooradiation

What deluded bellend, not working at fox news, actually thinks Obama is a "liberal"?

He is, has run on the platform of, and always has been a centrist.
Hurfing about "liberals" is the lowest kind of partisan hackery.

Sweet jegus, congratulations on reposting someones masterful work in exposing their stunning lack of knowledge.

Bra-fucking-vo!

Duiske

hooradiation wrote: »

Sweet jegus, congratulations on reposting someones masterful work in exposing their stunning lack of knowledge.

At least he didn't try to claim the work as his own.

hooradiation

Duiske wrote: »

At least he didn't try to claim the work as his own.

I check the sources, it's why I'm better than you.

And if you'd like to disprove what I wrote in that particular thread feel free, lord knows everyone else seems to have run away from that aspect, in favour of having a circlejerk about using convenient words.

Brown Bomber

Duiske wrote: »

At least he didn't try to claim the work as his own.

Plagiarism, it's the new "scepticism". I caught studiorat out on it as well. All you have to do is type into google "9/11 debunked" copy and paste, pretend it's your own and hey presto your a "Skeptic"

Brown Bomber

:pac:

hooradiation wrote: »

And if you'd like to disprove what I wrote

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Plagiarism, it's the new "scepticism". I caught studiorat out on it as well. All you have to do is type into google "9/11 debunked" copy and paste, pretend it's your own and hey presto your a "Skeptic"

I checked my sources, a point you repeatedly ignore. Much how you ignore any call to show what I wrote was wrong.

Why is that, I wonder?
Are you not up to the task?
Are you hiding behind an imagined slight because you are incapable of doing something substantive?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:pac:

Still not up to the task?

I can't imagine why.

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

I can't imagine why.

Then maybe you should google it, find out someone else's opinion and let them do the imagining for you...again.

While we are on the topic of things "we wrote" I just wanted to plug two of "my" books.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Then maybe you should google it, find out someone else's opinion and let them do the imagining for you...again.

While we are on the topic of things "we wrote" I just wanted to plug two of "my" books.

Well, let it never be said that when faced with the opportunity to show your intellectual chops and prove to your detractors that you're not a one note irrelevancy machine that you rose to the challenge.

GalwayGuy2

Plagiarism, it's the new "scepticism". I caught studiorat out on it as well. All you have to do is type into google "9/11 debunked" copy and paste, pretend it's your own and hey presto your a "Skeptic"

That is unbelievably hypocritical.

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

Well, let it never be said that when faced with the opportunity to show your intellectual chops and prove to your detractors that you're not a one note irrelevancy machine that you rose to the challenge.

You brought this on yourself. I would have never brought up your plagiarism ever again if you didn't persistently treat everyone with contempt.

You are a plagiarist. You don't get to talk down to people. You've burned that bridge yourself. Worse, you won't even hold your hands up and admit it was wrong but try to weasel out of it. You should quit while you are behind.

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

That is unbelievably hypocritical.

I'm not sure what you are basing this on. I have not and would not plagiarise.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You brought this on yourself. I would have never brought up your plagiarism ever again if you didn't persistently treat everyone with contempt.

that's a lie.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are a plagiarist. You don't get to talk down to people.

Continue to believe that if it brings you comfort. Everything I said is still correct and you have never been capable of addressing that.
And apparently have no interest in ever doing so.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You've burned that bridge yourself. Worse, you won't even hold your hands up and admit it was wrong but try to weasel out of it. You should quit while you are behind.

Another lie, you have been told what I did, why I did it and why your assertions are wrong. You have shied away from every occasion you have been asked to demonstrate otherwise.

If you do not consider that to be sufficient for your imagined indignation then that's not my problem.

Your attempts to maintain an imagined moral high ground are wearing thin.
Find another bone to play with.

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

that's a lie.

Continue to believe that if it brings you comfort. Everything I said is still correct and you have never been capable of addressing that.
And apparently have no interest in ever doing so.

Another lie, you have been told what I did, why I did it and why your assertions are wrong. You have shied away from every occasion you have been asked to demonstrate otherwise.

If you do not consider that to be sufficient for your imagined indignation then that's not my problem.

Your attempts to maintain an imagined moral high ground are wearing thin.
Find another bone to play with.

You are in no position to make false accusations of lying. Seeing as you are quite clearly a plagiarist.

pla·gia·rism

[pley-juh-riz-uh m, -jee-uh-riz-] Show IPA
noun 1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off.

2. a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use or imitation: “These two manuscripts are clearly plagiarisms,” the editor said, tossing them angrily on the floor.

pla·gia·rizedpla·gia·riz·ing

Definition of PLAGIARIZE

transitive verb
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
— pla·gia·riz·er noun

You have committed literary theft. You have tried to pass of someone else's work as your own. You didn't credit the work you stole. In short, you fit the dictionary definition of plagiarist perfectly. It's incredible that you try to deny it when everything is documented. It reflects quite badly, but who are you trying to fool?

Now perhaps we can forget about it and move on in an environment of mutual respect? It's sorely lacking in this forum on the whole.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are in no position to make false accusations of lying. Seeing as you are quite clearly a plagiarist.

Doesn't matter, and never mattered.
All that matters is what I wrote correct or is it not?

Your silence on this matter is telling, you'd rather play at Ad hominem (remember that term? You misuse it a lot) than addressing anything substantive.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Now perhaps we can forget about it and move on in an environment of mutual respect? It's sorely lacking in this forum on the whole.

Perhaps you could apologise for wasting my time with this charade, that'd be a start.