Ralph Nader is unsurprisingly still a giant douchebag
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:29:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Ralph Nader is unsurprisingly still a giant douchebag
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: Ralph Nader is unsurprisingly still a giant douchebag  (Read 9003 times)
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: September 29, 2012, 10:22:18 AM »

I wasn't talking about bin Laden, I was talking about people like al-Aulaqi, who was senselessly murdered for doing things that threaten the security of this country like having a blog and a Facebook and making YouTube videos.

I'll ask the question again... who cares?

Not many people, because it can't be sensationalized and inserted into pop culture. Doesn't mean it isn't deeply disconcerting.

No.  People don't care because the guy was afforded EVERY opportunity to stroll into the nearest US Embassy, Consulate, or military base and give himself up.  Had he done so and coughed up a few of his Al Qaeda chums he would have been "punished" by having to attend a few terrorist rehab classes in Saudi and then free to live his life in peace.  He chose to aid terrorists and live on the run with Al Qaeda in Yemen.  People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

So his options were either stay out there and possibly live or turn himself in and be handed over to the gentle hands of the Saudis? Anybody would take freedom and possible death over torture and possible death.

Errr... the Saudis are not "torturing and killing" people that are sent through their terrorist reform program.  It's a pretty relaxed deal.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link.

Which libertarian nut job gave you a car and a job?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: September 29, 2012, 12:32:00 PM »

For those opposed to drone strikes against terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen (as opposed to large scale invasions of counties that didn't attack us), do you also oppose the war in Afghqnistan? If it was a targeted campaign as opposed to nation building, would you still oppose it?

I oppose the War in Afghanistan. The supposed casus belli was to go after the perpetrators of 9/11. Now that that has been accomplished, there is no point in staying.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The two positions are not mutually exclusive. However, given that I believe in the rule of law, extrajudicial killings are out of the question for me. If you insist on going after foreigners for thought crimes, at least capture them and let them have their day in a court.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: September 29, 2012, 12:35:57 PM »

Not to mention the growing possibility that Americans could eventually be on the receiving end of a drone strike.

You didn't read this...

People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

So you accept the principle that the government can decide who gets to live and who gets to die? And you don't anticipate any potential for abuse of that power whatsoever? Martin Niemöller would like a word with you.

If the President of the Unites States picked out at random two perfectly innocent people a year and had them executed that would have zero impact on the general populace.  Fact.

Now the one US citizen that I know about who was executed was not a "perfectly innocent" person.  We can quibble about the process but that guy getting his ticket punched was not the beginning of a slide down a mythical slippery slope.  Honestly.  The president whether it is Bush or Obama is busy enough they don't have the time or inclination to just randomly pick a name out of a hat and kill the person.  Why would anyone in the Oval office want to do that?

Where do you draw the line on how many innocent civilians are okay to execute? Is James Holmes all right in your book since he only had 12 victims? Also where do you get the idea that only 2 civilians have died from drone attacks? You realize the number is more like 10 for each militant killed?

If this was McCain instead of Obama, a whole lot more Democrats would be flipping their lid.  Party loyalty is destructive to justice.

Of course the behavior of partisan hacks is key to understanding the "differences" between the two parties. Democratic hacks have no ideological principles and thus can oppose perpetual war under Republicans and support it under Democrats. Republican hacks are consistently supportive of perpetual war and thus have to conjure an alternate reality where Obama isn't a hawk in order to justify their opposition.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: September 29, 2012, 02:13:51 PM »

I do acknowledge that non-combatants have been killed? Obviously it's bad that innocent people are killed in drone attacks. But innocent people always die in wars, this is not some new thing that Obama has started. Every president has given orders that have led to the deaths of innocent people. But compared to his predecessor, Obama's method of fighting terrorist groups results in significantly fewer civilian casualties.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: September 29, 2012, 02:26:51 PM »

the major problem is the general framework you're buying into.  that the president has the authority to designate what and what isn't a 'terrorist group', that the president has the right to kill members of those 'groups', that the US with its hundreds of military bases half a world a way is acting on 'defense' when it bombs the world into submission.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: September 29, 2012, 02:47:51 PM »

I wasn't talking about bin Laden, I was talking about people like al-Aulaqi, who was senselessly murdered for doing things that threaten the security of this country like having a blog and a Facebook and making YouTube videos.

I'll ask the question again... who cares?

Not many people, because it can't be sensationalized and inserted into pop culture. Doesn't mean it isn't deeply disconcerting.

No.  People don't care because the guy was afforded EVERY opportunity to stroll into the nearest US Embassy, Consulate, or military base and give himself up.  Had he done so and coughed up a few of his Al Qaeda chums he would have been "punished" by having to attend a few terrorist rehab classes in Saudi and then free to live his life in peace.  He chose to aid terrorists and live on the run with Al Qaeda in Yemen.  People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

So his options were either stay out there and possibly live or turn himself in and be handed over to the gentle hands of the Saudis? Anybody would take freedom and possible death over torture and possible death.

Errr... the Saudis are not "torturing and killing" people that are sent through their terrorist reform program.  It's a pretty relaxed deal.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154472.htm
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: September 29, 2012, 03:43:59 PM »

I do acknowledge that non-combatants have been killed? Obviously it's bad that innocent people are killed in drone attacks. But innocent people always die in wars, this is not some new thing that Obama has started. Every president has given orders that have led to the deaths of innocent people. But compared to his predecessor, Obama's method of fighting terrorist groups results in significantly fewer civilian casualties.

^ Basically this.

It's not like I (or anyone else defending drone strikes) is happy that civilians are being killed - of course we're not, not being sociopaths. But I don't think there's a better option out of the set of really bad ones that the United States has on this issue, and it's pretty much beyond dispute that drone strikes have been instrumental in decimating Al-Qaeda.

Posts like this don't exactly help the case, either -


I wasn't talking about bin Laden, I was talking about people like al-Aulaqi, who was senselessly murdered for doing things that threaten the security of this country like having a blog and a Facebook and making YouTube videos.

Please. Roll Eyes
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: September 29, 2012, 08:39:14 PM »

the major problem is the general framework you're buying into.  that the president has the authority to designate what and what isn't a 'terrorist group', that the president has the right to kill members of those 'groups', that the US with its hundreds of military bases half a world a way is acting on 'defense' when it bombs the world into submission.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: September 30, 2012, 11:01:21 AM »

Reading this thread lowers my already low opinion of libertarians and far-left-wingers.
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: September 30, 2012, 03:33:54 PM »

I wasn't talking about bin Laden, I was talking about people like al-Aulaqi, who was senselessly murdered for doing things that threaten the security of this country like having a blog and a Facebook and making YouTube videos.

I'll ask the question again... who cares?

Not many people, because it can't be sensationalized and inserted into pop culture. Doesn't mean it isn't deeply disconcerting.

No.  People don't care because the guy was afforded EVERY opportunity to stroll into the nearest US Embassy, Consulate, or military base and give himself up.  Had he done so and coughed up a few of his Al Qaeda chums he would have been "punished" by having to attend a few terrorist rehab classes in Saudi and then free to live his life in peace.  He chose to aid terrorists and live on the run with Al Qaeda in Yemen.  People don't care because even with the war monger Bush in office it was pretty easy for 99.99999% of Americans to avoid getting droned.  Not hard.  Really you should be more concerned about lightning strikes.  Objectively they are a far greater threat to you than Bush/Obama drones.  Other than crazy terrorists who lays awake worried about stuff like this?

So his options were either stay out there and possibly live or turn himself in and be handed over to the gentle hands of the Saudis? Anybody would take freedom and possible death over torture and possible death.

Errr... the Saudis are not "torturing and killing" people that are sent through their terrorist reform program.  It's a pretty relaxed deal.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link.

Which libertarian nut job gave you a car and a job?

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154472.htm

Lol.  So you want to address the free jobs and cars getting handed out?  Sure people in this country have been beaten and killed by the police.  I doubt there is any medium to large size country on this planet that hasn't had someone's civil rights abused by a policeman.  That doesn't mean you should never turn yourself in.  Frankly turning yourself in is usually the best way to avoid a beating when the law finally catches up to you.

So I'll ask it again which Libertarian demagogue is handing out free cars and jobs?

the major problem is the general framework you're buying into.  that the president has the authority to designate what and what isn't a 'terrorist group', that the president has the right to kill members of those 'groups', that the US with its hundreds of military bases half a world a way is acting on 'defense' when it bombs the world into submission.

Hyperbole much?

To be honest, I'd be far more willing to accept the administration's use of drones if it were more open about acknowledging how many non-combatants have been killed.

Why?  Do you need the president of the United States to take time out of his day to explain to you setting off a bomb dropped from the sky in a place full of people might hurt them?  I mean if that kind of thing was totally benign they would end police chases with Hellfire missiles.  They don't.  I'll leave it up to your imagination why.




And to all the people saying all Dems dumped on Bush you all are smoking crack.  Plenty of Dems stood behind Bush until we found out Iraq was an awful lie.  And even after that I thought nothing of the wire taps or drone strikes.  Sure I'm going to give Obama more of a benefit of the doubt than Bush.  For f-ck sake Bush lied and started a war for no reason.  I would have to be retarded to give him the same benefit of the doubt as any other president in my lifetime.  How in the world does Bush's behavior not cost him the benefit of the doubt?  If that's the case we all should just get rid of our sense of discretion.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: September 30, 2012, 03:38:10 PM »

Nader's been a douchebag all his life. Look at his history:

-Buys stock in competing auto companies to General Motors.
-Writes a bunch of lies and slander about the Corvair, one of the best cars ever produced in the US, in that pile of sh!t Unsafe at any Speed.
-Gets rich off hordes of "activism" designed to fatten his wallet and feed his gigantic ego.
-Lie about Al Gore and be a general douchebag.
-Say more lies about John Kerry and start attacking people like Michael Moore and the Greens for abandoning.
-Attention whore to keep his face in the news despite no one caring about his any more.

A truly despicable individual.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: September 30, 2012, 04:13:26 PM »

Nader's been a douchebag all his life. Look at his history:

-Buys stock in competing auto companies to General Motors.
-Writes a bunch of lies and slander about the Corvair, one of the best cars ever produced in the US, in that pile of sh!t Unsafe at any Speed.
-Gets rich off hordes of "activism" designed to fatten his wallet and feed his gigantic ego.
-Lie about Al Gore and be a general douchebag.
-Say more lies about John Kerry and start attacking people like Michael Moore and the Greens for abandoning.
-Attention whore to keep his face in the news despite no one caring about his any more.

A truly despicable individual.

you've got the wrong choice of an enemy my man.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: September 30, 2012, 04:14:16 PM »

the major problem is the general framework you're buying into.  that the president has the authority to designate what and what isn't a 'terrorist group', that the president has the right to kill members of those 'groups', that the US with its hundreds of military bases half a world a way is acting on 'defense' when it bombs the world into submission.

Hyperbole much?

hardly one of the most egregious cases, if it is at all.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: September 30, 2012, 11:05:12 PM »

Nader's been a douchebag all his life. Look at his history:

-Buys stock in competing auto companies to General Motors.
-Writes a bunch of lies and slander about the Corvair, one of the best cars ever produced in the US, in that pile of sh!t Unsafe at any Speed.
-Gets rich off hordes of "activism" designed to fatten his wallet and feed his gigantic ego.
-Lie about Al Gore and be a general douchebag.
-Say more lies about John Kerry and start attacking people like Michael Moore and the Greens for abandoning.
-Attention whore to keep his face in the news despite no one caring about his any more.

A truly despicable individual.

Your caricatures of Nader make me like him even more. Furthermore, I'm surprised that a music fan such as yourself would care so much about the reputation of the man who helped bring about the PMRC.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: September 30, 2012, 11:13:45 PM »
« Edited: September 30, 2012, 11:18:05 PM by NO BOMBS BUT JAG BOMBS »

Al Gore 2000 was quite different from Al Gore 1988, and the PMRC was a bunch of a handwringers freaking out over bad mainstream music and stupid shock rock, rather than what I listen to. Anyone familiar with scene music knows that unlike metal and shock rock and rap and all that crap it has a POSITIVE message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_hardcore
Logged
hawkeye59
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,530
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: October 01, 2012, 03:39:42 PM »

I have a question to Spanish Moss and the other libertarians/chomskyites. How would you stop terrorism. Lief is right. You've either got invasion, killing them, or nothing.
Logged
Link
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,426
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: October 01, 2012, 04:58:22 PM »

To be honest, I'd be far more willing to accept the administration's use of drones if it were more open about acknowledging how many non-combatants have been killed.

Why?  Do you need the president of the United States to take time out of his day to explain to you setting off a bomb dropped from the sky in a place full of people might hurt them?  I mean if that kind of thing was totally benign they would end police chases with Hellfire missiles.  They don't.  I'll leave it up to your imagination why.

Yes, I do think that the president should take some time to explain this to me and other Americans. And he needs to explain not just that it happens, but that it matters to him and that it should matter to us, too. As to why, I'd say that I'd leave it to your imagination, but that would be condescending and pointless.

The things people need the president to do so they can get to sleep at night.

One of the biggest problems we have is the voting populace refuses to act like adults.  The man was a terrorist and we had no reasonable way to arrest him.  He got what he deserved.  Bombs are not sniper bullets.  Everyone above five knows that.  I voted for Obama.  I've been to his campaign rallies.  He seems sane to me.  I think it is a safe assumption that most sane presidents care when a bomb that is addressed to a terrorist also maims an innocent little girl who happens to be in the vicinity.  I don't need to listen to a bunch of carefully choreographed platitudes.

I have a question to Spanish Moss and the other libertarians/chomskyites. How would you stop terrorism. Lief is right. You've either got invasion, killing them, or nothing.

That is the question.  None of us like this drone business.  And we all want it to stop.  But these people are terrorists and we have no way to arrest them.  I want us to get out of the Middle East as much as possible to limit our contact with these crazies as much as possible.  But in the meantime we must deal with people who threaten us.

Sometimes life is messy.  If there is an alternative we would all love to hear it.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: October 01, 2012, 05:25:55 PM »

I have a question to Spanish Moss and the other libertarians/chomskyites. How would you stop terrorism. Lief is right. You've either got invasion, killing them, or nothing.

We can't stop terrorism any more than we can stop murder, so I wouldn't stop terrorism. As for reducing terrorism, I would target the root causes, such as US troops being stationed in the Middle East and ridiculously high US support for Israel. A cessation of foreign interventionism would go a long way towards stopping terrorism. Additionally, taking some measures against treatment of Muslims in the US would help too. Of course, taking environmental measures could do some to reduce terrorism. "You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries."--OBL.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: October 01, 2012, 06:54:58 PM »

Ralph Nader has always been a massive HP.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: October 01, 2012, 08:36:01 PM »

Basically saying "My problem isn't in the bombing of Pakistan but in how someone acts about it" seems pretty childish to me. I suppose those well to the left of Obama and libertarians might think he's some type of sociopath who just laughs hearing about non-combatants killed, but I doubt that's the reality. However there are plenty of political reasons why that can't be admitted, seriously can you imagine how the Republicans would act if Obama made such admissions or how terrorists would use it for propaganda?

Now the bombing of Pakistan is actually probably the most problematic thing about Obama's actions to me, certainly moreso than the killing of al-Aulaqi (seriously acting like that guy is more important than non-combatants in Pakistan is pretty disgusting.) However it's also pretty obvious that it would be happening under anyone who has a realistic chance of being President right now (this does not include Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.) Furthermore it's worth asking what would be happening if the US did not do so but rather successfully put pressure on Pakistan to militarily deal with the terrorist presence instead. There probably would not be less civilian casualties, ground forces have shown that not only are they often as indiscriminate as to who is a "combatant" or not as remote drones but that they can go on more of a rampage. See US in Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, all sorts of militaries in Central America, etc. Furthermore the incursion of the Pakistani military in a region like that would probably just result in more uprising against the government and rebellion thus resulting in more conflict and combatants.

Above all that, what is the purpose of the attacks? Pakistan doesn't have oil, and even if it did remote bombing it doesn't give access to it. Unlike Bush's little adventures you can't argue this is about some type of imperialism as opposed to actually trying to combat al-Qaeda. The intentions and motivations here are close to indisputably good.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: October 01, 2012, 09:16:12 PM »

Basically saying "My problem isn't in the bombing of Pakistan but in how someone acts about it" seems pretty childish to me. I suppose those well to the left of Obama and libertarians might think he's some type of sociopath who just laughs hearing about non-combatants killed, but I doubt that's the reality.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously I concur. However, there is no reason that opposition to killing innocent civilians of a foreign country and opposition to killing a citizen without trial must be mutually exclusive.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That seems to be more an argument against everybody "who has a realisti chance of being President right now" than against us supporters of anti-imperialist candidates.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, you present a false dichotomy to legitimize your argument. We anti-interventionists don't believe the U.S. should be strongarming the Pakistanis into conducting our war either.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Intentions matter little in matters of policy. Consequences are the important aspect. Is killing innocents as revenge somehow morally superior to killing innocents out of greed?
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: October 01, 2012, 10:03:11 PM »

If anything, this thread shows the left can be just as autosarcogaphic and self-defeating as the right.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: October 01, 2012, 10:10:43 PM »

If anything, this thread shows the left can be just as autosarcogaphic and self-defeating as the right.

A Google search suggests that you've invented this word. I assume that you're referring to autosarcophagy?

I am. autosarcophagic. autosarcogaphic. Are those spelled the same? I guess I did make it up. I find it a very useful word.

I've used it before:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156200.0
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: October 01, 2012, 10:15:15 PM »

If anything, this thread shows the left can be just as autosarcogaphic and self-defeating as the right.

A Google search suggests that you've invented this word. I assume that you're referring to autosarcophagy?

I am. autosarcophagic. autosarcogaphic. Are those spelled the same? I guess I did make it up. I find it a very useful word.

It's certainly vivid.

Very straight to the point. Of course I use it to mean "self-destructive/self-defeating/harmful" as opposed to the literal meaning.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: October 02, 2012, 02:30:03 AM »

That it needs to be stated that any strategy that one knows will result in innocent civilian fatalities is wrong - absolutely wrong - and should not be pursued, is more than a little disconcerting.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.