Happy Face 29 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 (edited) In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html Edited September 30, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 can't see the Supreme Court agreeing TBH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 27, 2010 Author Share Posted September 27, 2010 In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first. Stalin kept the buses running on time and that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 You sound like Christine O'Donnell with that patter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 27, 2010 Author Share Posted September 27, 2010 Her attacks on Obama are ad hominem. I'm highlighting his policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 Yeah to be fair you do sound more like Glenn Beck with the Stalin comparisons. She is more concerned with masturbation. I bet you pulled a quick one when you read this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first. OH FUCK...here we go.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 27, 2010 Author Share Posted September 27, 2010 (edited) Sometimes comparisons are apt. Obama forcing swathes of Americans to buy insurance from private providers does not make him anything like Stalin. Having citizens put to death without any oversight is actually something Joe did. Edited September 27, 2010 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 can't see the Supreme Court agreeing TBH +1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20 000 000 deaths * There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school. The two schools are generally associated with the right and left wings of the political spectrum, and they often accuse each other of being blinded by prejudice, stubbornly refusing to admit the truth, and maybe even having a hidden agenda. Also, both sides claim that recent access to former Soviet archives has proven that their side is right. * Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school: o Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these: + Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s. + Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin. + Gold, John.: 50-60 million. o Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939. o Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into: + 1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths) + 1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine) + 1939-45: 18,157,000 + 1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine) + TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine o William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+ o Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38) + Cited by Wallechinsky: # Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million. # Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million. o MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s. * And from the Lower Numbers school: o Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s. o Cited in Nove: + Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937. + Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses. + Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53. + Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53. o Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s. o Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million. o MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s. * As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be a rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers, on the other hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to fight off the German invasion. * [Letter] * Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness without straining credulity: o In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll. o Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev o Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2. o Daniel Chirot: + "Lowest credible" estimate: 20M + "Highest": 40M + Citing: # Conquest: 20M # Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M # Medvedev: 40M o Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91. + Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M + [ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).] o John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl. + Kulaks: 7M + Gulag: 12M + Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors) o Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths. o Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M o Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million. * AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million. How many deaths has Obama's presidency been wholly responsible for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 Grant Wankshaft-tastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 27, 2010 Author Share Posted September 27, 2010 http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20 000 000 deaths * There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school. The two schools are generally associated with the right and left wings of the political spectrum, and they often accuse each other of being blinded by prejudice, stubbornly refusing to admit the truth, and maybe even having a hidden agenda. Also, both sides claim that recent access to former Soviet archives has proven that their side is right. * Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school: o Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these: + Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s. + Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin. + Gold, John.: 50-60 million. o Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939. o Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into: + 1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths) + 1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine) + 1939-45: 18,157,000 + 1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine) + TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine o William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+ o Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38) + Cited by Wallechinsky: # Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million. # Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million. o MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s. * And from the Lower Numbers school: o Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s. o Cited in Nove: + Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937. + Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses. + Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53. + Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53. o Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s. o Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million. o MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s. * As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be a rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers, on the other hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to fight off the German invasion. * [Letter] * Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness without straining credulity: o In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll. o Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev o Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2. o Daniel Chirot: + "Lowest credible" estimate: 20M + "Highest": 40M + Citing: # Conquest: 20M # Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M # Medvedev: 40M o Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91. + Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M + [ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).] o John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl. + Kulaks: 7M + Gulag: 12M + Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors) o Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths. o Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M o Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million. * AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million. How many deaths has Obama's presidency been wholly responsible for? If only someone stopped Stalin before the first of those 20,000,000 eh? I'm sure you agree this is an outrageous abuse of power and hope the others are right that the supreme court will reject it. I can understand you jumping on the jokey response to Leazes (the only response he warrants) as it's probably the only debatable thing in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 (edited) There's a new drone coming out this year called 'the Vulture'. Apparently it will be able to stay in flight for 5 years; solar powered by day, batteries at night. I know that sort of thing gets you going. Edited September 27, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonatine 9947 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first. Stalin kept the buses running on time and that. what's it got to do with a communist regime which sent tanks into surrounding countries and closed the borders so nobody could get out ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first. OH FUCK...here we go.... you think otherwise leftie boy ? National security is an important thing lad. Shame you appear to think otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Soviet Union, Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20 000 000 deaths * There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school. The two schools are generally associated with the right and left wings of the political spectrum, and they often accuse each other of being blinded by prejudice, stubbornly refusing to admit the truth, and maybe even having a hidden agenda. Also, both sides claim that recent access to former Soviet archives has proven that their side is right. * Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school: o Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these: + Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s. + Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin. + Gold, John.: 50-60 million. o Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939. o Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into: + 1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths) + 1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine) + 1939-45: 18,157,000 + 1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine) + TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine o William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+ o Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38) + Cited by Wallechinsky: # Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million. # Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million. o MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s. * And from the Lower Numbers school: o Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s. o Cited in Nove: + Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937. + Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses. + Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53. + Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53. o Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s. o Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million. o MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s. * As you can see, there's no easy compromise between the two schools. The Big Numbers are so high that picking the midpoint between the two schools would still give us a Big Number. It may appear to be a rather pointless argument -- whether it's fifteen or fifty million, it's still a huge number of killings -- but keep in mind that the population of the Soviet Union was 164 million in 1937, so the upper estimates accuse Stalin of killing nearly 1 out of every 3 of his people, an extremely Polpotian level of savagery. The lower numbers, on the other hand, leave Stalin with plenty of people still alive to fight off the German invasion. * [Letter] * Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness without straining credulity: o In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll. o Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev o Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2. o Daniel Chirot: + "Lowest credible" estimate: 20M + "Highest": 40M + Citing: # Conquest: 20M # Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M # Medvedev: 40M o Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91. + Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M + [ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).] o John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl. + Kulaks: 7M + Gulag: 12M + Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors) o Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths. o Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M o Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million. * AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million. How many deaths has Obama's presidency been wholly responsible for? If only someone stopped Stalin before the first of those 20,000,000 eh? I'm sure you agree this is an outrageous abuse of power and hope the others are right that the supreme court will reject it. I can understand you jumping on the jokey response to Leazes (the only response he warrants) as it's probably the only debatable thing in the thread. Well, isn't that a shame. You are absolutely clueless HF, in your knowledge and awareness of the importance of National Security issues. I'm sure you haven't lived in the real world..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26192 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 Well, isn't that a shame. You are absolutely clueless HF, in your knowledge and awareness of the importance of National Security issues. I'm sure you haven't lived in the real world..... What national security issues do you imagine would be involved in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first. OH FUCK...here we go.... you think otherwise leftie boy ? National security is an important thing lad. Shame you appear to think otherwise. especially when it quashes the rights and freedoms we are trying to protect..... ....leftie boy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first. OH FUCK...here we go.... you think otherwise leftie boy ? National security is an important thing lad. Shame you appear to think otherwise. especially when it quashes the rights and freedoms we are trying to protect..... ....leftie boy.... no. It is National security.Don't you trust him ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first. OH FUCK...here we go.... you think otherwise leftie boy ? National security is an important thing lad. Shame you appear to think otherwise. especially when it quashes the rights and freedoms we are trying to protect..... ....leftie boy.... no. It is National security.Don't you trust him ? speaking in tongues now...clearly lost the plot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first. OH FUCK...here we go.... you think otherwise leftie boy ? National security is an important thing lad. Shame you appear to think otherwise. especially when it quashes the rights and freedoms we are trying to protect..... ....leftie boy.... no. It is National security.Don't you trust him ? speaking in tongues now...clearly lost the plot oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first. OH FUCK...here we go.... you think otherwise leftie boy ? National security is an important thing lad. Shame you appear to think otherwise. especially when it quashes the rights and freedoms we are trying to protect..... ....leftie boy.... no. It is National security.Don't you trust him ? speaking in tongues now...clearly lost the plot oh dear. maybe of you read something it might help....try the declaration of independance and the associated amendments to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 (edited) In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first. OH FUCK...here we go.... you think otherwise leftie boy ? National security is an important thing lad. Shame you appear to think otherwise. especially when it quashes the rights and freedoms we are trying to protect..... ....leftie boy.... no. It is National security.Don't you trust him ? speaking in tongues now...clearly lost the plot oh dear. maybe of you read something it might help....try the declaration of independance and the associated amendments to it Forget it son. I realise that you liberal-minded people think they should tell you and you're naturally inquisitive [or just nosey bastards] and envious you aren't privy to it, but the point is that someone has decided there is an issue of National Security in there somewhere, and like it or not, for that reason they quite rightly aren't going to tell you what it is. Basic stuff. Edited September 27, 2010 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now