Obama is not a Kennedy

He would never say anything like

"Finally, I want to say a few words to the captive people of Cuba, to whom this speech is being directly carried by special radio facilities. I speak to you as a friend, as one who knows of your deep attachment to your fatherland, as one who shares your aspirations for liberty and justice for all. And I have watched and the American people have watched with deep sorrow how your nationalist revolution was betrayed- and how your fatherland fell under foreign domination. Now your leaders are no longer Cuban leaders inspired by Cuban ideals. They are puppets and agents of an international conspiracy which has turned Cuba against your friends and neighbors in the Americas-and turned it into the first Latin American country to become a target for nuclear war-the first Latin American country to have these weapons on its soil."

because he is an enormous pussy.

f

oops..

Yeah, I just can't imagine a modern democrat stand up for America and the people of the world who don't buy all this anti-american paranoid hate. What the democrats don't realise is it would take one speech on the war on terror which takes OUR side, the side of justice and liberty, instead of the delusion that we are imperialists just because we trade with poor countries.

The real solution to this problem would probably be just to stop trading with despots from all over the world, not just North Korea. But I doubt this is going to happen becuase neither we or they want to stop trade.

>>3
Are you fucking bonkers? The rest of the world IS that anti American paranoid hate!  When you go around invading nations with impunity and have no justified reason for invading in the first place, the rest of the world is wary of you.

What the hell makes you think the world loves you? Go visit a foreign country and ask them how they feel about the US. Go, do it.

Go check the polls about who the international community thinks is dangerous to world peace right now, you'll see America up there with terrorists.

>>4
So you are saying everyone in the world hates america? Not just the destitute poor who have never been beyond the next village who have been instructed by the tyrants keeping them in the dirt that all their problems are due to America?

Also you are backing up my point. A democrat would never stand up for America. It's your kind that they are trying to get to vote for them.

>>5


i'm quite sure democrats stand up for america as much as republicans, they just have different ideas of what america should do and thus different ways to stand up.

>>6
But it's bullshit that the US are imperialists and that foreign tyrants are somehow heros. So why don't you hear democrats standing up for america like Kennedy did anymore?

>>6
Did you read what Kennedy said? Maybe some time ago, like during vietnam, it was refreshing to hear someone criticise the US's actions, but now it's refreshing to hear someone stand up for the US even if it was by someone 45 years ago.

"Now your leaders are no longer Cuban leaders inspired by Cuban ideals. They are puppets and agents of an international conspiracy which has turned Cuba against your friends and neighbors in the Americas-and turned it into the first Latin American country to become a target for nuclear war-the first Latin American country to have these weapons on its soil."

Kennedy was right and he was more concerned about his principles than getting votes from ranting paranoid idiots. Nowadays a democrat like Kennedy would get shouted at and lose popularity for saying something like this even more so than in the late 50s or early 60s and no democrat has the guts to do so.

>>8

Really hard to argue with that.

>>9
Whoops, however, let me say that I think the same thing about the other end of the spectrum.

I am still waiting for an American President to go to a Middle East conference and say SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU STUPID SAND NIGGERS

>>11
That's not what I had in mind.

America deserves more criticism.

>>7
The US is imperialistic.  And you can ask well-off, educated people in Europe and Asia to place that beside your "only the poor masses hate America gibe.

>>14
Oh wow haha! Let me try!

I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE I AM MILLIONAIRE

Eh, I guess it didn't work, it seems no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true. I guess you should have learned this when I was 5.

>>14
The U.S. is imperialistic, but Europe has no chance of being invaded, so why should they care? Do they really feel that close to ragheads?

>>1
>>3
>>5
>>7

Then why don't you stand up for America, internet tough guy? Go to the nearest recruiting station and help support your so-called ideals in Iraq. PROTIP: It's a lot different than putting a "support our troops" magnet on the SUV your parents bought you.

>>16
PROTIP:  look at the numbers of Moslems in Spain, France, Germany, and the UK.  Look at their birth rates and compare them to the birth rates of the native population.

Europe is being invaded now, and will be a caliphate under Taliban-style sharia law by 2030.

>>17
Why do I have to join the army in order to cease being persecuted? Surely it is a human right not to be persecuted just for being american?

>>19
Because that's his whole argument.  If you don't join the Army, he will say "SHUT THE FUCK UP CHICKENHAWK LOL WHY DONT U JOIN TEH ARMY FAGORT."  And if you say "I'm in the Army now and I'm posting from Iraq," he will say "SHUT THE FUCK UP BRAINWASHED BABYKILLER LOL WHY DON'T YOU SHOOT YOURSELF WAR CRIMINAL."

He has nothing else.

>>20
That's because his argument has no logic, which I felt the need to point out.

     http://www.voltairenet.org/article143050.html

This one has some juicy bits on Kennedy, as well as Bush assassination attempt that I didn't know about..

>>21

What part about the argument "put up or shut up" do you not understand.

>>23
Why you neglected to mention the 3rd option.

1: Put up.
2: Shut up.
3: Fight for liberty so everyone can live in peace loving democracies.

>>24

HAHAHAHAHAHAAA

NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER! NIGGER!

MUP DA DOO DIDDA PO MO GUB BIDDA BE DAT TUM MUHFUGEN BIX NOOD

Obama isn't a Kennedy, he's a nigger and by gods thats a whole different ball game

Shut the fuck up you racist piece of shit

Obama bin Laden?

>>30
How original

>>31
Kopipe?  In my 4chan?  THAT'S UNPOSSIBLE

I'm wonderring. How many liberals here agree with that exerpt from Kennedy's speach? Do you agree or do you think there is some conspiracy theory and Castro is actually a benevolent dictator.

>>33
I believe hes benevolent. E.g. he has fewer political prisoners than the US...

>>1

Haha, funny shit. When I read "the captive people of Cuba" I thought of Guantanamo. So yeah, I think he could say something similar.

>>34
You'd be suprised.

>>35
They locked up the cubans in Guantanamo? Did they make them wear panties on their heads?

>>34
Name five political prisoners in the US.

Almost all of the prisoners in guantanamo are political prisoners, ie that they are not there for something they did but for something they believed or how they look. The prison does not have to be IN the united states to be a US prison, does it now? Also, there has been children incarcerated in guantanamo, i have never heard of castro incarcerating children... 

>>39
o rly?  You can prove this, yes?

Funny, I thought they were Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists captured in Afghanistan--captured with guns in their hands, shooting at American troops.

But you CAN name five, right?  You can name these "children," right?

>>40
when they have panties on their heads they all look alike to me. I have to classify them by color or design. Right now there are 38 pink bikini butterfly print size 5's. "Wait till we get our Hanes on you".

>>40
You thought wrong. And still, it is not illegal to defend ones country against an invader, and by not letting the geneva convention aply to them they are being treated not as enemies but as political prisoners with no rights.

In guantanamo there were three children. Ones is apparently named Mohammed Ismail Agha while the others names haven't been made available. The army claims they were child soldiers, but cuba claims that their political prisoners are insurgents paid by the CIA (which is illegal and will give you a prison sentenence in all countries on earth) so either we trust both or none, the US army has no auto-trust clause in my book at least.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/04/24/usint5782.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,941876,00.html
plus many more, google guantanamo children and profit

>>39
>>40

Nobody, not even the Pentagon, denies that Guantanamo Bay houses many prisoners that haven't been proven to be terrorists or enemy combatants. Many are suspected terrorists, enemy combatants, or political prisoners, who are being held there until the U.S. can confirm or disconfirm their suspicions, a process that has taken years for many of them held there. The United States claims that they can circumvent habeas corpus (the Constitutional right against the American government imprisoning people for more than 48 hours without having been formally charged with a crime) due to the fact that Guantanamo Bay is not in the territorial United States. There is great legal debate going on regarding this whole issue.

There is a big difference between the "Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists" that >>40 mentions as well. The Taliban are not considered terrorists, but enemy combatants, who under most circumstances, are protected by the rights of enemy combatants/POWs stated by the Geneva Convention. Al-Qaeda members are considered terrorists, and do not share many of these protections, if any. Once again, whether the Geneva Convention applies, since both Iraq/Afghanistan were technically not declared wars, is up to legal debate.

Oh, and for the names of 558 (a little more than five) of the people held at Guantanamo Bay, the Pentagon released a list in April 2006. You'd have to have been living under a rock to not have heard about this. You can find it on none other than the DOD's own website. (http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/index.html). The majority of them haven't been formally charged to this day (and this list was released in April 2006). Sorry it's in PDF format, but I guess they just scanned their documents, since the release wasn't something they were planning on, and rather, was forced due to legal action.

Yeah, so the US has political prisoners. The thing is people hear about it because journalists can stroll freely through the complex taking photos and the prisoners there taken without charge are like 0.0003% of the total prison population of the US, whilst the political prisoners throughout cuban jails make up a hefty proportion.

>>42
Soooooooooooooooooooooooo, you can't name these "children" who are supposedly being held?

No proof, no merit, so noted.

>>by not letting the geneva convention aply to them they are being treated not as enemies but as political prisoners with no rights.

BULLSHIT.  The Geneva Convention, as well as the Hague Convention on the Laws of War, has provisions for bandits, pirates, and terrorists.  The US commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, and the people running Gitmo, would be perfectly within their rights under Geneva and Hague to take all the terrs out and hang them.  "Political prisoner" doesn't come into it.

Care to try again?

>>46
I accuse you of clear thinking and knowing shit. How did you get in here?

>>44
Can you please link a source to the amount of political prisoners in Cuba? My Google Fu is so weak that i only found this hilarious article by William Blum: http://members.aol.com/bblum6/polpris.htm

>>45
I named one, Mohammed Ismail Agha. Can you name one child held in prison in Cuba? Or any political prisoners for that matter?

>>46
So how do the geneva convention define terrorist? Any with other religion than US christianity? Anyone who opposes invasion? Anyone who are not older than 16? Since you seem breathtakingly stupid i will make it clear for you. Nobody calls their own prisoners political. They are all called bandits, terrorists, pirates, traitors, spies etc. And just because US calls the prisoners in gitmo terrorists does not make it so.

>>48
Combatants who don't wear a recognizable uniform, and combatants from nations that haven't signed the Geneva Convention, are neither covered by nor protected under the Geneva Convention.  Am I using too many big words for you?

Also, I don't know what you mean by "resisting invasion."  Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were foreign Arab armies occupying Afghanistan (PROTIP:  the people in Afghanistan belong to many tribes--Pashtuns, Uzbeks, and more than a hundred others. They are NOT Arabs. They speak their own local tribal languages, NOT Arabic).  The US and NATO forces went in to create a legitimate Afghan government under Karzai, who is an Afghan, instead of having Mullah Omar, who was a foreigner from Saudi Arabia, calling the shots.

Maybe you should put down the bong before posting.  You've obviously had enough.

>>46

The Laws of Armed Conflict do not apply to terrorists, bandits, pirates, or spies, which in fact fall outside the jurisdiction/scope of these laws. Terrorists are dealt with differently at the discretion of said nation, in accordance with either their civil or military law, whichever they choose to apply. In order to find whether or not execution would be justified/legal, you would have to look to either U.S. military law (this debate is in regards to the U.S.), or one of the many guidelines established by the UN regarding such issues (since the U.S. is part of the UN, although they haven't signed some of these guidelines). These are not clear cut either, since debate rages on to this day on these subjects (testament to this are the existence of threads like this).

In short, the Laws of Armed Conflict neither condone nor condemn torture, execution or whatever punishments have been brought against terrorists. But since terrorists aren't really part of any nation, and in order to be subject to the protection of the Laws of Armed Conflict, as well as be obligated to uphold the standards set within, you have to have signed it (the same goes with the Geneva Convention), there is now a huge debate regarding this.

While you may be partially correct, you are only correct by mistake, because neither sets of guidelines you referred to in any way explicitly justify hanging, torture, or any such punishment. In fact, since most of the people in Gitmo haven't been formally charged, if the people running it were to hang everybody imprisoned there, they would probably be charged with war crimes were they to do such, as based on U.S. military law defined during the Nuremburg Trials. Ground commanders would hesitate to execute captured terrorists, because there's the possibility of getting valuable information from them through "interrogation" (which is a whole different debate). Did you actually read the Geneva Convention/Laws of Armed Conflict, or do you just know their names from TV?

This discussion is getting ridiculous, I'm going back to /b/.

>>49

Using false claims to make personal attacks on >>48 adds nothing to your argument's validity, and in fact, makes you look less intelligent, and therefore, less believable, which in turn, further validates his/her claims. It also makes you look like that's virtually the best you can come up with as a rebuttal.

I'm out for good now. The text boards take up way too much of my work time.

With the current stormfront invasion /newpol/ is like a /b/ without images, which is not so good i guess...

>>51

What false claims?  Oh, never mind, what you mean is that you can't answer my points either, right?

Call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHMBULANCE.  Say stupid shit in a public forum, and you're going to get called on it.

>>53
Idiot, you have like not answered any questions, and then you go on like a braggart. Do you lack the ability to feel shame? And did not the US government acknowledge the taliban government before the war? Isn't it a little late to call them arab invaders? And the US has not ratified the ICC, does that mean that US nationals are not able to commit war crimes or that if they commit war crimes the ICC regulations does not apply to them, meaning that they can be beheaded or whatever? You follow where this is going? And to get back to cuba, did you have any children names or pol prisoner names, or even a number? If you dont, can you please leave the internet before god decides that his creation is to fucked up and he hits the format Earth:?

>>53
I'm not sure if you noticed, but post #51's author is also the author of posts #43 and #50, which call you out on your stupidity and leave your arguments in ruins. You're pretty damn stupid if you didn't notice.

Judging by your previous posts, I strongly suggest you finish high school before coming back on these boards.


>>54
It's an anonymous board, except for that ID thing. #53 knows he can make baseless arguments without having to take any flak. He'd be crying if he were criticized in real life, no doubt. He also didn't finish high school, so go easy on him.

>>54
Put down the bong.  You've had enough.

>>55
I noticed that he can't answer my points and neither can you.

WAH WAH FUCKING WAH.  Somebody here hasn't finished high school here.  Maybe it's you and >>54.  Welcome to the Interweb, which is a series of tubes, where you're going to have to GROW A FUCKING EPIDERMIS if you PERSIST IN SAYING STUPID SHIT.

>>56
Well, what were your questions that were not answered? Because as i see it, the only unanswered questions are the ones directed towards you. And your stage acting is not very impressive, but if i hear about a remake of Freaks i will be sure to send you an invitation to the audition.

>>57
Don't bother responding to him anymore. He obviously lost the argument. Now he's playing internet tough guy. I suggest you not bother wasting anymore of your time in this thread arguing with him. I sure as hell won't be.

He just wants attention because he doesn't have any real friends to carry on conversations with. I feel sorry for him, and you really should, too. Remember, he'd never dare say these things to your face were you to run into him in public, so this is mainly his platform for getting attention. If you ignore him, he'll just go back to whatever miserable existence he lives.

Besides, the thread's way off topic anyways. Wasn't this supposed to be about Obama and JFK?

It's been nice...

define all your points in a clear logical manner