PDA

View Full Version : EVERYONE insults Poles over death camps



Soflasnapper
05-31-2012, 08:16 PM
It's a commonplace shorthand expression, apparently.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But what seems most interesting to me is an observation from Steve M., who discovered just how common an error this is, including references to "Polish death camps" from journalists at CNN, ABC, CBS, and the New York Times.

Also guilty of this have been Ha'aretz, USA Today, the L.A. Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Daytona Beach News-Journal, the Associated Press, The Buffalo News, Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper and broadcaster CTV, The Toronto Star, and the British comedian Stephen Fry. And that's just a list of people and organizations that have been reproached for it.

Oh, one more: Fox News.

Yes, it would have been better if the administration had avoided the gaffe, but it's quite a common gaffe.

Let those of us who have not made similar slip-ups cast the first stone. </div></div>

Here, with links to the claimed examples from each of the news sources. (http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11957868-a-death-camp-in-poland-not-a-polish-death-camp?lite)

Another interesting point.

Obama referred to the Warsaw ghetto. Isn't that horrible, claiming that Warsaw, a wonderful Polish city I'm sure, and not the Nazis, was responsible for making the Jewish ghetto? And didn't I just claim that the Jews made that ghetto? (I'm borrowing something said in a response thread, although I wish I had come up with it myself.)

By parallel argument, yes I did. By commonsense use of language, I absolutely did not, AND NOBODY WOULD CLAIM I DID!

What's the difference? Even the same assclowns* complaining about the 'Polish death camps' didn't complain about 'the Warsaw ghetto.' It's a PLACE reference, as we all know, at least when we are not blinded by... (long held historical grievance, or political opportunism, or...).

*I use that term in the best sense, lovingly, LOL!

Qtec
06-01-2012, 01:11 AM
Warsaw is a place, Polish isn't.

It was a mistake.

Q

Sev
06-01-2012, 06:16 AM
So your saying the most brilliant individual to ever grace the presidency requires excuses?????

They do it. Why cant I????

Soflasnapper
06-02-2012, 01:42 PM
True enough, but then what about 'Jewish ghetto'?

Soflasnapper
06-02-2012, 01:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So your saying the most brilliant individual to ever grace the presidency requires excuses?????

They do it. Why cant I???? </div></div>

I have never subscribed to that hyperbolic hagiography of this president. I think he's smarter than average, by a fair margin, but obviously you'd give Thomas Jefferson sole possession of that description.

Yes, you may very well be accurately tweaking some, here and elsewhere, who've said or implied it. But not me.

The point isn't excuse making, but pointing out it seems quite a common usage, and those are some examples.

I forgot to mention all the above other sources mentioned also came under criticism from the usual suspects for that usage, apparently.

To me, this is most similar to Jewish insistence that the slaughter of the Armenians wasn't a genocide, or a Holocaust (TM), thereby keeping the Holocaust Museum free of references to that genocidal Holocaust, even though it was a consideration for Hitler in what he did. Hitler remarked, 'who now remembers the genocide of the Armenians?,' in the '30s, even though it was only one generation back from them at that time. **

We go along with that one because of two concerns: the lobbying strength of Jewish people here, AND the sensitivity of the Turks who did it, but I guess want it swept under the rug of history.

Agreeing to alter language usage and historical references out of sensitive feelings harms the accuracy of expression, or at least, creates clumsy circumlocutions that are unnecessary. It may be polite to say things differently, and it might be politic to say things differently, and I am all for niceties.

But what's really the key takeaway here is exactly why a president under the microscope at all times must not offend or use a questionable word or expression, ever, if it can be avoided. Because they will be savaged if they do so. We have seen it again and again.

** This site (http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/hitler-quote.htm) argues that the phrase was never said, with some scholarly back and forth over that controversy.

It's true the alleged phrase has many variants, although obviously we're talking a translation into English from German, so there is a little leeway from that alone.

But it's interesting to read some historian types going back and forth on this one.

llotter
06-02-2012, 02:10 PM
Methinks The Moron has had all too many fellow travelers making excuses for him his entire life...and he has needed them everyday.

Soflasnapper
06-02-2012, 02:22 PM
His real responsibility here is to get better expert vetting, as I argued on the other thread.

It's not to personally understand the ins and outs of the sensitivities of 160 countries, which would take the equivalent of the work of a PhD, or SEVERAL TIMES that, to accomplish.

So why don't you just admit that, and admit that NO PRESIDENT EVER would have that kind of total knowledge of these things? Even the best and brightest.

Is it because you cannot just oppose this man's policies, but you must-- what?-- gain satisfaction from calling him names that degrade him, to feel better about yourself or I don't know what. (Or is to degrade his supporters? I guess that makes more sense.)

It's ok-- you can oppose him even if he's not the stupidest president ever. It would make sense to oppose THE SMARTEST PRESIDENT ever, if he has bad ideas he's effective in getting passed into law or policy.

It's not like he said the old Eastern European countries essentially occupied by quisling regimes under the USSR 'don't think they are dominated by the Soviet Union,' as was Gerald Ford's gaffe in his debate with Carter. He was trying to reference the brave hopes of the Captive Nations, that they would one day enjoy freedom from their oppressors, but garbled it in such a way as to suggest Eastern European nations had already been let go by the Soviets (when that was still 16 years in the future).

Sev
06-02-2012, 03:57 PM
I would have to say that the president should have known the difference. It used to be taught in the 7 and 8th grade as part of history.
Cant say if it is today as they seem to skip over WWII for the most part in K-12 these days.

On another note Obama must be concerned as he has penned a hand written letter to the Polish people.

Soflasnapper
06-02-2012, 06:28 PM
Especially when something is blown completely out of proportion, one needs to calm the waters (and protect your re-election efforts and image). That proves nothing except it was blown completely out of proportion, and created the potential for a lingering storyline that he preferred be ended swiftly.

As for knowing the difference-- what difference?

Everyone knows it was <u>Nazi death camps in Poland</u>. The issue is that it is supposedly a grave insult to the Poles to call them Polish death camps (a kind of geographical shorthand), even though that is the common way many people reference them. Presumably including some older people who had their educations back in the day, and who are relatively well educated as well.

Gerald Ford explained that although when he took the VP office, he had already been in national politics decades and a member of the leadership for the minority in the House, still he was given about a 9 month crash prep course for what he'd need to know as president (something no president gets). He still 'freed Eastern Europe' in his debate remarks, despite that extensive briefing period, and despite being the president at that time for a couple of years, and despite extensive debate prep.

Sev
06-02-2012, 06:38 PM
It makes a difference to the people of Poland.
And that really is all that matters.

Sure we have fun with here playing gotcha. It doesnt mean much to Americans. However does that mean it should not have value to the Polish?

As far as Ford goes.
Well hey. Gore invented the internet. Wonder what sort of couching he got for that? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Qtec
06-03-2012, 04:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">True enough, but then what about 'Jewish ghetto'? </div></div>

Its a fair point but everyone knows that the 'Jewish ghetto' was not created by the Jews. In the same way everyone knows that Obama was talking about Nazi death camps in Poland.

When you translate English into another language, it doesn't always come out right when you take it word for word. A translator, a good one, has to find the right expression.

Polish death camps could easily be translated into death camps in Poland when taken into context.

I speak English and Dutch. Sometimes its almost impossible to translate Dutch expressions into English without some poetic license.

Example.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dutch saying: "De kat uit de boom kijken"

Literal translation: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>"Looking the cat out of the tree".</span>???

Meaning: Rather than jumping into a situation, one waits and sees how things work out.
English equivalent: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>"See which way the wind blows"</span> </div></div>

Actually, the English equivalent used here is not the way it is used normally!

Its more like, "till hell freezes over".



Q

Soflasnapper
06-03-2012, 12:54 PM
Gore invented the internet. Wonder what sort of couching he got for that?

He didn't use those words, and what he said was accurate.

Below is the letter from the man called 'the father of the Internet,' Vinton Cerf, responding with support for him against the slanders.

Bottom line is that the Gore bill Cerf mentions provided the critical infrastructure support and subsidized investment that laid down the fiber optic trunklines, without which there would have been no speed in the system to allow the kinds of things that make the Internet of interest to non-specialists, instead of only computer geeks or defense contractors and universities doing defense projects (the old (D)Arpanet, which was the non-commercial precursor using menu-driven text pages only over twisted pair landlines).

The browser, the necessary software component to access the world wide web, was developed under grants from the Gore bill, resulting in the first browser, the NSCA Mosaic browser (later the original source for Netscape Navigator by the same software creator).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:43:58 -0400
From: vinton g. cerf &lt;vcerf@MCI.NET&gt;
To: Declan McCullaugh &lt;declan@well.com&gt;, farber@cis.upenn.edu
Cc: rkahn@cnri.reston.va.us
Subject: Al Gore and the Internet

Dave and Declan,

I am taking the liberty of sending to you both a brief
summary of Al Gore's Internet involvement, prepared by
Bob Kahn and me. As you know, there have been a seemingly
unending series of jokes chiding the vice president for
his assertion that he "took the initiative in creating
the Internet."

Bob and I believe that the vice president deserves significant
credit for his early recognition of the importance of what has
become the Internet.

I thought you might find this short summary of sufficient
interest to share it with Politech and the IP lists, respectively.

================================================== ============

Al Gore and the Internet

By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the
Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the
Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among
people in government and the university community. But as the two people
who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the
Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a
Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to
our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his
role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have
argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover,
there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's
initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving
Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and
promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it
is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed
telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the
improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official
to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact
than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily
forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial
concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even
earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we
know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in
the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual
leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high
speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on
how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating
the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate
what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into
an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials
in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the
passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in
1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education
Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the
spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as
well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies
that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for
continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private
sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of
extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today,
approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore
provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the
Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven
operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth
since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support
for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced
networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually
engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the
Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the
councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value
of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and
consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American
citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world. </div></div>

See also here, (http://www.sethf.com/gore/) which lays out how this was a massaged and lying line of attack from the RNC under now former governor Hailey Barbour when he was the RNC chairman.

eg8r
06-03-2012, 05:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's a commonplace shorthand expression, apparently.
</div></div>Just like it was commonplace when Romney was young to call gay people names. You defend Obama in the attack of the Poles because it was commonplace but somehow Romney is being held to a different standard. So please clarify, when is commonplace OK when attacking another individual or group of individuals? Is it fine if they are across the pond but not if they are in your backyard?

eg8r

Sev
06-03-2012, 06:02 PM
<span style="color: #000066">"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet."</span>

Uh huh.

Poor choice of words.

I have never thought that Gore should not be given credit for supporting the creation of the internet.

Soflasnapper
06-04-2012, 10:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's a commonplace shorthand expression, apparently.
</div></div>Just like it was commonplace when Romney was young to call gay people names. You defend Obama in the attack of the Poles because it was commonplace but somehow Romney is being held to a different standard. So please clarify, when is commonplace OK when attacking another individual or group of individuals? Is it fine if they are across the pond but not if they are in your backyard?

eg8r </div></div>

Verbal mentions are one thing, and that is very era-specific. Nothing wrong back in the day to use the term 'negro,' but it's different in more recent times. 'Polish death camp' is still a current usage, not an older expression that has been replaced in our times as something everyone knows is offensive.

Bullying is another thing from language usage. Physical assault and battery, including use of what might be properly considered a deadly weapon, is still another thing.

Catch the differences?

Gayle in MD
06-04-2012, 10:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bullying is another thing from language usage. </div></div>

No, he doesn't know the difference.

G.

eg8r
06-04-2012, 02:34 PM
I catch the fact you will defend till you are blue in the face no matter what the situation is. Obama can do no wrong in your eyes.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-04-2012, 03:01 PM
Your adopting LWW's various false attack lines in his absence ill serves you or the truth.

I defend him against any and all false attacks. I've defended Republicans on that same basis in this forum.

I didn't support the Libya intervention, and I disagreed with Gayle's quoting Richard Clarke that Obama's administration no longer spies on US citizens illegally. As I said, I'm fairly sure we still are, or if supposedly legally, as an abuse of the FISA law. I've long ago called the Democrats, and Obama, fascism lite.

All those things are wrong policies and actions in my view, and that's what I've said about them. Deliberately targeting and killing US citizens without due process of law is also wrong, IMO, whether here or abroad. And allowing it abroad allows it here, as the alleged battlefield for the WOT is everywhere.

The drones over America concept is sick as well. Obama allowing the DOJ to persecute people in compliance with state laws about marijuana is another terrible action, and a violation of a campaign pledge.

Gayle in MD
06-04-2012, 06:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your adopting LWW's various false attack lines in his absence ill serves you or the truth.

I defend him against any and all false attacks. I've defended Republicans on that same basis in this forum.

I didn't support the Libya intervention, and I disagreed with Gayle's quoting Richard Clarke that Obama's administration no longer spies on US citizens illegally. As I said, I'm fairly sure we still are, or if supposedly legally, as an abuse of the FISA law. I've long ago called the Democrats, and Obama, fascism lite.

All those things are wrong policies and actions in my view, and that's what I've said about them. Deliberately targeting and killing US citizens without due process of law is also wrong, IMO, whether here or abroad. And allowing it abroad allows it here, as the alleged battlefield for the WOT is everywhere.

The drones over America concept is sick as well. Obama allowing the DOJ to persecute people in compliance with state laws about marijuana is another terrible action, and a violation of a campaign pledge. </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I didn't support the Libya intervention, and I disagreed with Gayle's quoting Richard Clarke that Obama's administration no longer spies on US citizens illegally. As I said, I'm fairly sure we still are, or if supposedly legally, as an abuse of the FISA law. I've long ago called the Democrats, and Obama, fascism lite.

</div></div>


Surely you don't think I would post his quote if it weren't a true quote? I thought I gave a very full and accurate account of not only what he said, but how he said what he said.

Additionally, do you really think the Repiglicans wouldn't be yapping their heads off if Obama wasn't observing the FISA laws, or that Richard Clarke, would besmudge his own reputation, by lying about the president's M.O. on this issue?

Have you come accross a reliable source, which makes the same accusation on the subject of the president breaking the FISA laws?

Additionally, I've never heard you insinuate that the Democratic Party leans Fascist? Do you really believe that, and if so, for what reasons?

As for killing an American citizen, the person in question had left this country, and joined the enemy, and hence, he was no longer an American citizen, he was in league with al Qaeda, and had been involved in training and instructing al Qaeda members in bomb making.

As for using drones for ill purposes, here in this country, I did hear something about that, but assumed it was just another RW lie, since I have not read anything from any reliable source, that would make me believe the accusation is true.

Do feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks,

G.

Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 10:46 AM
Just adding this for general information....



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On April 26, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed CISPA - the Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Protection Act - by a vote of 248-168. This week, the Senate may vote on CISPA-like bills (Lieberman-Collins S.2105 or McCain S.2151).

CISPA gives the government, including military spy agencies like the National Security Agency (NSA), virtually unlimited powers to capture our personal information medical records, private emails, financial information all without a warrant or proper oversight.

Tell Your Senators: Stop CISPA

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Civil liberties groups and progressives unanimously opposed the bill, as did Ron Paul. President Obama warned the House that he will veto the bill because it does not protect our privacy, but they ignored his warnings.</span>


Democrats control the Senate, so we should be able to stop CISPA there. Tell your Senators to protect your privacy from Big Brother and oppose CISPA.

</div></div>

G.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2012, 11:39 AM
I know you quoted Clarke correctly, Gayle. And probably what he said is technically true. I made that clear in a reply upon your questioning me then. It is what is allowed and how the evidence is secret from the defense that means we cannot really ever know if the case and evidence is legitimate or not, which is a profound reversal and denial of real due process under the Bill of Rights.

Here's a real-life example (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/2012/02/jimmy-gurule-fisa.php) , discussed.

More, there is no do-able Congressional oversight over these courts. They get a two-page summary that says nothing. (Which I saw within a month's time ago, and now look for to cite.)

And yes, sadly, the Democratic Party has at least rented itself out to the money power, if not wholly sold out. I take fascism to be a corporatist government, the alliance and takeover of government with/by the large corporations. This started no later than under Speaker Jim Wright and I think the Majority Whip, Tony Coehlo, where to compete with the GOP's corporate money considering they had a strong streak of dominating the White House, the Dems decided to cash in similarly as the permanent party of the Congress. The to-some-sainted Clinton (and Gore, for that matter) formed the Democratic Leadership Committee (the DLC), and pushed strongly against traditional Democratic principles and constituencies on behalf of their generous corporate donors, and these were the original Blue Dog types. NAFTA, the Republican idea of Reagan's, pushed by GHW Bush and utterly opposed by big labor and the majority of the Democratic Party's elected officials, was only pushed through by Clinton's strong effort to get the required extra Democrats' votes. It would never have happened under a Republican president, because the Democrats would have opposed it by a greater percentage than the majority against it they still had under Clinton's persuasion.

I would shed no tears or complain much if an American citizen were killed overseas in attacks on terrorists, so long as it were a collateral event. By the time it's a TARGETED killing, I do object. Bad cases make for bad laws, so to start off with, they pick a bad guy and no one objects. But the CLAIMS of what they were doing are unreviewed and undisclosed, so we are then forced to take the government's word that everything is by the book. I am sure the government is willing to kill adversaries and lie about the reasons. If you think Obama is above that, which is naive in my view, consider the next or last George W. And that doesn't even get into it, because the national security state has its own momentum, and takes out its enemies, regardless of the POTUS in office temporarily.

And don't forget, this battlefield includes the US homeland, so allowing such tactics means they WILL COME HERE.

Yes, probably eventually, involving armed Predator drone attacks. The drone project for domestic surveillance is real, if their use for assassination isn't quite. Or maybe it is well under way at the same time. Some of these drones are the size of insects or hummingbirds. Mounting a tiny flechette system onto them carrying a toxin sufficient to cause an apparent heart attack is not out of the question.

eg8r
06-05-2012, 12:28 PM
Great post.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-05-2012, 12:38 PM
Thanks you so much for the excellent answers to my questions, and your link.

Also, if you haven't read Richard Clarke's latest book, I think you would enjoy it very much.

Clarke has a great deal of concern about cyber terrorism, all around, which is why it didn't seem logical that he would not tell the truth about what is going on now, as far as the president breaking FISA laws.

I must say, while I do appreciate everything you have provided, it doesn't seem to dispute my many decades old views regarding Republicans having pushed this country into becoming a fascist nation. Reagan, IMO, led the way.

My question now is, how does the average citizen best fight against what is clearly already America's fall into fascism?

Where do you see all of this leading over the next twenty years? Do you think there is any hope for a return to our former Constitutional protections of privacy and forcing stronger disclosure?

WOW, as small as an insect, that is terrifying.

Thanks,
Gayle

Soflasnapper
06-05-2012, 03:35 PM
It's been downhill since Ike and JFK, the last two real presidents of this country's history.

The Dems figured, if we can't beat them, join them, and they took their thirty pieces of silver in return, betraying the people in so doing. Maybe they thought what they could do on the margins if in power using the money would be enough good to make it worthwhile (or not), and there HAVE been significant differences, but on the margins as I say. Nobody can stand up to the MIC or Wall Street money powers.

So we have a government on both sides from Goldman Sachs. How's that working out for us?

But it's like borrowing from a loan shark. Yes, in desperate straits, it seems like a good idea to take the money, even knowing the 10% weekly vig. It rarely is worth it, and more like a slow death spiral afterwards.

Ending Citizens United is the key first step, but things were already quite bad before it, so that is far from sufficient.

Reversing the Clinton-signed Communications Modernization Act's allowance of titanic media concentration is at least as important, if not more important.

And then really, we must end our imperial empire building, and cut defense spending along the lines proposed by the libertarians and Dr. Ron Paul, peace be unto him.

LWW
06-06-2012, 04:44 AM
No matter how low the bar is set ... you can always get under it.

Soflasnapper
06-06-2012, 11:05 AM
A most cryptic response.

Have you simply gone to a random phrase generator these days?

What bar, what low, and how did I get under it?

Details, details. Devil's in them, they say.

LWW
06-06-2012, 12:31 PM
The fair and balanced bar ... you simply cannot see flaw, no matter how tiny, with anything done by dear leader.

Soflasnapper
06-06-2012, 06:36 PM
Geeze you are a stubborn tool! I mean that in a good way, however!!! LOL! Basically, you are so far off the truth that constructively, you lie here.

What do you think this was, above:

I am sure the government is willing to kill adversaries and lie about the reasons. If you think Obama is above that, which is naive in my view

A complete and blind devotion/loyalty to that man, whom I'm describing as ruthless?