DOPE 08 Orr
Forum rules
• Posts in this forum should directly relate to the artist, art, or artwork.
• Do not post ISOs or FS/Ts in this forum section. Please use the Open Market section of the EB forums for all secondary (resale) market activity.
• Do not post details of your order process, shipping status, or condition upon arrival in this forum section. Please use the item's Release Discussion thread for this activity.
• Posts in this forum should directly relate to the artist, art, or artwork.
• Do not post ISOs or FS/Ts in this forum section. Please use the Open Market section of the EB forums for all secondary (resale) market activity.
• Do not post details of your order process, shipping status, or condition upon arrival in this forum section. Please use the item's Release Discussion thread for this activity.
- Autodactyl
- Art Enthusiast
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA
The whole thing that bothers me about Iraq is the simple fact that we have not caught bin Laden yet. Should have been first on the "to do list."
Its funny how you guys are turning this ART thread into a Political banter thread.
Its good to hear different points of view, but just chill out with the debate...
I'm a firm Obama supporter and I don't care if you guys are supporters or not... Ironically I also like this print and bought one.
Its an artistic play on a "quote" Obama gave himself. If you can't laugh at this... you need to get over yourself. This is a great piece.
Its good to hear different points of view, but just chill out with the debate...
I'm a firm Obama supporter and I don't care if you guys are supporters or not... Ironically I also like this print and bought one.
Its an artistic play on a "quote" Obama gave himself. If you can't laugh at this... you need to get over yourself. This is a great piece.
- BlakeAronson
- Flipper
- Posts: 8579
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:00 am
- Location: Long Beach, CA
- Contact:
maybe you didnt read the first reply in this thread, from the creator himselfart_horrr wrote:Its funny how you guys are turning this ART thread into a Political banter thread.
Its good to hear different points of view, but just chill out with the debate...
baxterpop wrote:Feel free to talk trash, debate politics, post reasons why I and others should cast a vote for Obama, etc. I am open to all opinions.
8=====D~~~~
- DeltaSigChi4
- Flipper
- Posts: 3760
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:00 am
So what you're saying is that I have never read Orwell? What are you saying? Notify me when you find a point, and wish to communicate said point with us.Autodactyl wrote:So you still think 2 + 2 = 5? Way to sidestep. Hilarious.DeltaSigChi4 wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stmAutodactyl wrote:Why not stick to the issues instead of resorting to name calling? You say people who disagree with you are "morons," "imbeciles," etc. But these very names you use (let's call them "2") + your opinions (let's also call that "2") does not = you are right (let's call that "5").
The issues are what get me fired up. I don't need to explain to you why they do. Look at my avatar and figure it out.
Are you drymounting serious? There have been nearly THIRTY [30] Democratic Presidential debates. You expected me to watch each and every one of them, at least scour the internets until I did, and post the exact point when the words were uttered? Are you a complete asshole or just play one on the internet. You specifically asked for the source [Obama's words] to be posted. I posted it. Now you complain that it is propaganda? "My" propaganda, apparently. Does it look like I work for Faux news [sic]. Does it look like I even watch Faux? And now I'm endorsing John McCain? This is all news to me. You're quite the drymounting idiot, let me tell you that right here. I don't need to blame anyone for anything. I need a goddamn President who is going to end the war NOW. It is as crystal clear as can be. How you reach conclusions from that that I endorse/support/whatever McCain is beyond me. You support Obama apparently. That leads you to belligerently attack others who do not, whether it be because they don't believe he is progressive in any imaginable way, or otherwise. You attack. Nevermind that I posted the goddamn clip of that worthless junior Senator uttering the very words that I had said that he did. That he cannot commit to a complete and unequivocal withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country of Irak by the end of his tenure in office. This is a fact.Autodactyl wrote:Wow! Was it really that hard to find a video that puts the whole thing in context, or is promoting your propaganda more important (go to 3:17 to see the complete question and answer)?DeltaSigChi4 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNWK34KDUyMAutodactyl wrote:As for the Afghanistan war, if you want to quibble over how that war and the Iraq war are different, fine. But even before going there, I'd like to know where your proof is that he is "the same" and "would not end the war" or whatever it is you said, as I'm "quoting from memory." If your complaint is that he doesn't end it fast enough, you obviously do not understand what it actually takes to remove an occupation such as the one we have going on in Iraq.
Note: I don't watch faux news [sic]. I don't MSNBC. I don't watch television at all actually, besides C-SPAN occasionally. I don't go looking around for ridiculous anti-*insert name here* YT videos. I couldn't find a video of that debate without it being from the fringe wackos on the right. Irregardless, the question posed by the moderator was that if they could commit to have full redeployment [ie. what I want] by the end of their hypothetical tenure in the white house. Presuming that they tend on doing two [2] terms, this is 2016 that we're talking about. Sidenote: Sen. Edwards later recanted his response to an affirmative on committing to full redeployment in his first year in office. On the latter part of your argument regarding my military knowledge, look at the avatar. I possess more than Sen. Obama. I don't possess more than Sen. McCain though, considering he did spend time at the War College.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74_NfF0ZAUo
Notice he said that IF troops are still there, they will be there to protect the U.S. embassy, protect U.S. civilians and carry out any counter-terrorist activites. And no, the question was about their first term, not their entire tenure (until 2016) as you suggest.
If you're angry about the options, blame the people who supported and voted to authorize the war, not the people who are trying to deal responsibly with a very bad situation.
And what's this? You think you'd be a better candidate than Barack Obama on foreign policy? Or are you endorsing John McCain? Tough to tell. *sarcasm*
Let's do math. What is the number of U.S. servicemember lives that I am willing to further sacrifice for an ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and WAR-CRIME ridden war/occupation? ZERO. I'm happy to see that your number is different. You have more in common with Senator McCain that you believe or give yourself credit for. And once again I will repeat, I HAVE NEVER, NOR WILL I EVER, ENDORSE JOHN MCCAIN. Comical that you would allege that I was engaged in propaganda and uttering lies ....Autodactyl wrote:You are right. But again, if you have a problem with the war, go after those who supported it and voted to authorize it (maybe you want to rethink your endorsement of McCain). Barack Obama fits in neither camp.DeltaSigChi4 wrote:http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/Autodactyl wrote:As for the quote, it is simply a statement asserting that Obama will withdraw responsibly. Maybe if you stopped to think, you would realize that an irresponsible and reckless withdrawal would be devastating for the Iraqi people. Oh, but I guess a few thousand -- or hundred thousand -- Iraqi lives are not worth as much as the couple of hundred (if that) American lives we would spare if we pullout immediately.
The Iraqi people were doing just fine before the illegal invasion and occupation took place. In fact, the main reason that there is continued violence there is because we are occupying their once sovereign country. And if you think that it is a matter of a hundred U.S. American lives, then you aren't the least informed about what is going on over there, and don't possess a basic concept of math. The illegal war had its beginning on 20 March 2003, and since then, 3973 U.S. service members have perished, with 29203 U.S. service members severely wounded/maimed, and you believe that only a "couple hundred [if that]" will be lost when the illegal occupation wages well into the next decade?
And yeah, let's do a little math. In the past few months, U.S. troops have been dying in smaller numbers. (A really bad situation nonetheless, but remember, Barack Obama did not put us there.) On average, we are now seeing about 30 troops die each month. Multiply that by 16 months (what Obama's plan calls for) and factor in the decreasing number of troops and you can see for yourself.
Now, compare that to the nearly 100,000 (maybe more) Iraqis that have died since the invasion, and maybe you can imagine the potential for loss of life if we recklessly pull out. Or maybe not, since it doesn't fit in with your propaganda campaign.
I've never said once what Obama plans to do. I simply reiterated his own words. He cannot commit to a full U.S. troop withdrawal before the end of his tenure in the United States Executive. That sounds like staying to me. Maybe not to you. But a lot of things probably sound like distinct things to you in that pea-sized brain of yours. According to you, I've endorsed John McCain. And I may be employed by Rupert Murdoch.Autodactyl wrote:I don't really see your point here. We're not talking about staying versus leaving, we're talking about leaving recklessly versus leaving responsibly. Ah, but of course! You are trying to say Obama plans to stay forever, which is simply not the case.DeltaSigChi4 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world ... nted=printAutodactyl wrote:A timed withdrawal gives the Iraqi politicians time to get their act together. In addition, the fake ass politicians that don't really care about Iraq will leave because there will no longer be a Green Zone fortress to protect them. People who know what they're talking about -- namely, Obama advisors -- have pointed all this out.
October 2005. Since October of the year 2005 A.D. they'd had to get their fudge together. You don't know much about Irak, or their "government" [is it really a government if it doesn't govern?], or the reason why there is an endless flood of foreign fighters finding their way into the region to have their day of fight with "Americans". Look it up.
We shouldn't be in Afghanistan either. The occupation of any sovereign territory leads to nothing but that populous hating us, and planning to attack us when afforded the opportunity. Feingold has fought time and time again to end the war, to impeach the executive, to do many things which Obama has neither the balls, nor the stance to do. Therefore, correlating the administration's quote to Feingold is foolish. You cannot make the argument that he has or can be found to be complicit because he has sought to end the war. He has sought to impeach President Bush for his egregious crimes, sought to impeach President of the Senate Cheney for his egregious crimes. Obama has done neither. Try making more sense in your next round of barely rational retorts.Autodactyl wrote:Okay, you're ducking the issue, but whatever. Oh but wait! By your own logic of guilt by association, I can say this:DeltaSigChi4 wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080 ... /917289943Autodactyl wrote:And you mention the immediate withdrawal bill, but fail to mention it was a Republican sham to label the Democrats as "cut and run" on Iraq. The bill failed 403-3. Or is there another immediate withdrawal bill you're thinking of?
Don't worry about which bill I was referring to. If he's in the goddamn Senate, then it wouldn't be a 400 to anything vote, Einstein. I'm referring to Feingold's [and other patriots] aim to bring true debate as well as bills to the floor, so they can be voted on, without a smidgen of cooperation or even interest shown by the junior senator from Illinois.
"In the words of the inept and incompetent government of this nation [which incl. Feingold's very own seat in the Senate]: 'we do what we have to in Irak, what we can in Afghanistan.'"
If that's as stupid as it sounds, I think you get the point.
And yes, we have been distracted, and need to focus on Afghanistan. Obama has said this on numerous occasions. In fact he said it BEFORE the invasion.
Man, facts suck don't they?
June 22, 2006, 11:07 AMAutodactyl wrote:Fine, I'll give you that. But again, if you have a problem with the war, go after the people who supported the invasion and voted to authorize it. (This is one of many reasons I would not support Hillary Clinton.) Please show me an instance where Obama supported the invasion or voted to authorize the war.DeltaSigChi4 wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stmAutodactyl wrote:And what's this about an illegal war? So the Congress didn't approve it? Your claims are factually incorrect. Sure, it's a bad war, and one we shouldn't have gotten into. But making false and outrageous claims only serve to discredit you.
One nation CANNOT under established international law belligerently invade and occupy another nation. It is not only in direct violation of the UN charter, but the very international criminal law that was used to try Nazi Germany after their defeat:
- 1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. War crimes
4. Crimes against humanity
Washington, District of Columbia
To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.
Obama (D-IL), NAY
SOURCE: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00181
I never said I possessed any proof. I never said that it was. I said that I SUPPOSED that his advisers came into the equation.Autodactyl wrote:Where is your proof that he made this decision by committee?DeltaSigChi4 wrote:http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... s_cont.phpAutodactyl wrote:And finally, about FISA. He could have voted against the bill, but he didn't. He participated in something called a "compromise." FISA is about much more than providing immunity to a bunch of corporations.
What was the compromise and how did he participate/partake? He decidedly submitted a NO VOTE on the bill before the Senate, which meant that he neither approves of FISA, or an extension of it, or did not want to be on record to having voted in favour of the retroactive immunity for the violators of the law of this country. But riddle me this, if it's so offensive for him to favour retroactive immunity for law-breakers who are violating the very sanctity of our Constitution, then why didn't he vote against the bill? I suppose that's where his aforementioned advisers come in again. With a CINC like that, are we really going to be that far off from the one we have now? It's very reminiscent of Dubya, and I won't vote for a human being who uses advisers to tell him exactly how to vote or exactly how to construct a platform. I won't vote for someone who just allows for evil corporations to violate the goddamn sanctity of my Constitution, violate the very laws of this land, and strip us of every liberty that real wars, not illegal ones, have been fought over. But you will. His advisers made him do it, right?
sup·pose
–verb (used with object)
1. to assume (something), as for the sake of argument or as part of a proposition or theory: Suppose the distance to be one mile.
2. to consider (something) as a possibility suggested or an idea or plan proposed: Suppose we wait until tomorrow.
3. to believe or assume as true; take for granted: It is supposed that his death was an accident.
4. to think or hold as an opinion: What do you suppose he will do?
5. to require logically; imply; presuppose: The evidence supposes his presence near the scene.
6. (used in the passive) to expect or design; require or permit (fol. by an infinitive verb): The machine is supposed to make noise. I'm not supposed to run fast.
–verb (used without object)
7. to assume something; presume; think.
SOURCE: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suppose
Let's say for the sake of argument that no adviser spoke and/or wrote to him on this matter. It was all Obama, all the time. So he is directly a cause for retroactive immunity being approved by his chamber on the Hill to those telecommunications corporations who have violated the law of this country and taken away our very rights to privacy which is guaranteed by the very Constitution of this nation. If I were you, a blind ideologue who belligerently follows one candidate and defends him with alarming zeal, I would tout the line that it was advisers who did it. Just saying.
Which facts? I retort to your complete mistruths, accusations, and empty rhetoric with sourced and/or historical consensus-formed statements, and you strike right back with more complete mistruths, accusations, and empty rhetoric. Are you sure that you're not the one currently gainfully employed by Rupert Murdoch's media empire?Autodactyl wrote:*yawn*DeltaSigChi4 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8Autodactyl wrote:Man, you are a complete coward! I nail you to the wall with the facts, and you say you "don't have time to respond." Yet you continue with your lame back and forths? So lame it's not even funny.
Which facts? The funniest attempted argument was that I was being discredited with my continued false and outrageous claims that the invasion, war, and occupation was unequivocally illegal and immoral in every imaginable way. Felines know more than you.
E
Funny thing is we probably agree on everything but the facts. Haha!
E
- DeltaSigChi4
- Flipper
- Posts: 3760
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:00 am
BlakeAronson wrote:and how do you know they were doing just fine? I'm pretty damn sure not everyone was doing just fine. did you ever go there prior to the war? do you think there are accurate figures of how many people were dying prior to the war? I think we've all seen the pictures of mass graves and fudge that have been uncovered, i know you probably think these were all illusions created by bush but whatever, the point is the place was drymounted up before, you just didn't hear about it since the man in charge had everyone pussywhipped and scared shitless. Prior to the war everything that went down was hush hush, it was a dictatorship, you question or stand up for something, we torture and kill you. half your family is arrested and tortured for no reason, you shut up about it before you and the other half join them.DeltaSigChi4 wrote:The Iraqi people were doing just fine before the illegal invasion and occupation took place. In fact, the main reason that there is continued violence...
i think nearly everyone will agree with you on the fact that we went in for the wrong reasons, however i don't think its correct at all to say some changes werent for the better. waiting for the UNs approval, which may have never came, would have been better. Waiting to go in until you had more support and a way of sucessfully replacing the current situation, also probably a better idea.
The mass graves that were uncovered have been dated to a time and place were we APPROVED of the government of Irak, to include but certainly not limited to their actions. Nice try though. SEE above. Mass graves uncovered showing that weapons that we personally gave the government of Irak was used to kill/hurt human beings. Quite sly of you to bring that up now, several decades after said killings took place, to justify more wrongful conduct by our government, which includes but certainly not limited to, the waging of illegal war and war crimes. You see, you cannot say that the "discovery" mass graves prove that wrongful things were taking place in Irak, because we gave them the weapons so they could do it, so we knew very well that it was being done when it was done [several decades ago]. But it pales in comparison to what takes place today, no doubt.
The violence taking place inside of Irak before the war/occupation was much less. Were the people better off? YES.
The availability to education was much ampler before the war/occupation. Were the people better off? YES.
The availability of clean drinking water, and modern sanitation services were superior before the war/occupation. Were the people better off? YES.
The employment rate was much higher before the war/occupation. Were the people better off? YES.
The people could observe their religion and attend religious service without fear of attack or oppression, and women could go outside dressed in pant suits without fear of attack or repression, unlike today. Were the people better off? YES.
BlakeAronson wrote:DeltaSigChi4 wrote:One nation CANNOT under established international law belligerently invade and occupy another nation. It is not only in direct violation of the UN charter, but the very international criminal law that was used to try Nazi Germany after their defeat:
- 1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. War crimes
4. Crimes against humanity
i'm no buff on this stuff as politics and war bore me, however if i recall the card the US played on was iraqs lack of cooperation with respect to the inspections and such, the whole WMD thing. It was their lack of cooperation that opened the doors to the US to come on in. sure the US may have made it look like they weren't cooperating, but i dont think you nor i have any facts that can prove either. basically if everything the US made out about iraq at the time was true (im not saying it was or wasnt) then the invasion was not illegal.
Have you read the UN Charter? It's almost a rhetorical question because I certainly know that you haven't. Nothing opened the proverbial doors for the U.S. or anyone else to come in. There are two [2] and only two instances where one nation can wage war on another. Self-defence. And UN Security Council mandate. We had neither proverbial base covered here. It was illegal. The very Secretary of the United Nations said so. Every single scholar and intellectual in the planet worth a damn said so. Only the very uneducated and uninformed U.S. Americans continue to insist to question or doubt the illegality of this immoral war.
E
- BlakeAronson
- Flipper
- Posts: 8579
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:00 am
- Location: Long Beach, CA
- Contact:
nope i think you've taken the crown for that.DeltaSigChi4 wrote:Are you a complete asshole or just play one on the internet.
coming from you? classic.DeltaSigChi4 wrote:That leads you to belligerently attack others who do not
8=====D~~~~
- BlakeAronson
- Flipper
- Posts: 8579
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:00 am
- Location: Long Beach, CA
- Contact:
your logic drymounting stinks.DeltaSigChi4 wrote:The mass graves that were uncovered have been dated to a time and place were we APPROVED of the government of Irak, to include but certainly not limited to their actions. Nice try though. SEE above. Mass graves uncovered showing that weapons that we personally gave the government of Irak was used to kill/hurt human beings. Quite sly of you to bring that up now, several decades after said killings took place, to justify more wrongful conduct by our government, which includes but certainly not limited to, the waging of illegal war and war crimes. You see, you cannot say that the "discovery" mass graves prove that wrongful things were taking place in Irak, because we gave them the weapons so they could do it, so we knew very well that it was being done when it was done [several decades ago]. But it pales in comparison to what takes place today, no doubt.
if a father buys his son a car, and the son later decides to run someone over with said car. is all the fathers fault? i understand he provided the weapon, but did he make his son do it?
i wont argue whether the US supplied weapons or whether this country let stuff slide in the past, i will argue if they were better off.
and YES I CAN, use findings of mass graves to indicate that wrongful things were happenings. the root of these things was not questioned.
8=====D~~~~
- BlakeAronson
- Flipper
- Posts: 8579
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:00 am
- Location: Long Beach, CA
- Contact:
DeltaSigChi4 wrote: The violence taking place inside of Irak before the war/occupation was much less. Were the people better off? YES.
The people could observe their religion and attend religious service without fear of attack or oppression, and women could go outside dressed in pant suits without fear of attack or repression, unlike today. Were the people better off? YES.
im sorry, did you live in iraq prior to the invasion? do you have numbers to share on how you come up with all these answers? i fully agree on a few of them. but I dont think you can truly answer the first question as you, and just about anyone, do not know the extent of the violence that occured in the past. also dont agree with the second.
8=====D~~~~
- BlakeAronson
- Flipper
- Posts: 8579
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:00 am
- Location: Long Beach, CA
- Contact:
i already admitted i was uninformed on the subject, you see i've already told you i dont give a fudge about politics, there are many things i would rather spend my life following. as such, i do not have an opinion on whether the war was illegal or not, im just bringing up what cards the US played, and it was what they called pre-emptive self defense.DeltaSigChi4 wrote:Have you read the UN Charter? It's almost a rhetorical question because I certainly know that you haven't. Nothing opened the proverbial doors for the U.S. or anyone else to come in. There are two [2] and only two instances where one nation can wage war on another. Self-defence. And UN Security Council mandate. We had neither proverbial base covered here. It was illegal. The very Secretary of the United Nations said so. Every single scholar and intellectual in the planet worth a damn said so. Only the very uneducated and uninformed U.S. Americans continue to insist to question or doubt the illegality of this immoral war.
E
now your last sentence once again is filled with opinions, opinions that you try to ram down other people throats as factual information all through out this forum, this is part of the reason most do not like you, whether or not they agree with your opinions or not. this is all very amusing when you accuse others of belligerent attacks.
8=====D~~~~
- BlakeAronson
- Flipper
- Posts: 8579
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:00 am
- Location: Long Beach, CA
- Contact:
no i cant sit down and write and essay like delta, so i broke it up into 4 pieces.Codeblue wrote:4 posts in a row? Are you talking to yourself like taper?
8=====D~~~~
yep, go ahead and think that... Expresso Beans users arent the only people who buy prints and posters you know...ldiddy wrote:HAHAHAHA. This has been on sale for a week and only three people pulled the trigger. Sorry, this print is wack.