The who will you be voting for Poll and Discussion Thread

[Dimmauk]

LOL'd at the "this is why terrorists hate us" line.

[jmc]

Wrong.thread.

[Apelila]

Are you asking me to prove that Obama actually drone striked libya and supplied the rebellion? Or that Obama killed a US citizen with a drone strike without a trial? Or that he signed into the law that made that legal? Or that he didn't resign the patriot act? Or the NDAA? Or ACTA? Or that he didn't follow Bush's exact exit strategy and surge?

No, I'm asking you to prove that Obama ordered the drones in the US. In fact, that was the first sentence I posted.

Has Obama ever been on camera saying that we need more drones in the US?

And then I gave a scenario where Obama wound up with drones in the US without actively seeking them. That happens a lot in this country - something makes law enforcement easier, someone uses it in new and fascinating Orwellian ways. You agreed that drones have been in the US a while, but no drone strikes. What US drone strikes are you talking about?

Also, you're only using the word hawk in a technically correct meaning. "Hawk" comes from "Chicken hawk": someone who stokes the fires of war despite not being personally endangered by the fighting, and with no combat experience. That part fits Obama, yes. But Obama isn't a chicken hawk - he never dodged service to avoid going to war.
I have already given links as to why comparing Obama to Bush and calling Obama a hawk is like comparing the Titanic to a ferry boat and saying they're both passenger boats.

Saying Obama and Romney are the same level of War chickenhawk is a gross under-analogy. Every President has stuck their nose in a foreign countries affairs. With the kind of symbiotic hegemony America has it is necessary. One day we wont have that power anymore, but that day isn't in the near future without something seriously world changing happening. So I'll say it again,

As with anything, the best judge of a persons actions are their intentions and I have never heard of Obama saying he intended for drones to be used on American citizens the way that they're starting to be used. The people who are directly in charge of operating them, however......

[Aksannyi]

I wanted Obama to lose to watch all of the QQ and mad on this board. And others.

America, I am disappoint.

[Kohan]

I wanted Obama to lose to watch all of the QQ and mad on this board. And others.

America, I am disappoint.

Oh, don't worry. If it's pure QQ you're after, hardcore righties are providing it; you'll find an incredible abundance of QQ wherever you look. The "All" section of CraigsList's political discussion is providing an incredible deal of it, as is every far-right site imaginable.

You should also go to Stormfront. That's where you'll discover some of the most delicious tears you'll ever find.

Whether you're entertained by all this will, of course, depend upon your political leanings. I know that it's given me entertainment.

[Abandon]

my fb feed is righteously awesome.

[Guyverarmor]

Chuck Norris better delivar on that 1000 years of darkness !

[venikk]

No, I'm asking you to prove that Obama ordered the drones in the US. In fact, that was the first sentence I posted.



And then I gave a scenario where Obama wound up with drones in the US without actively seeking them. That happens a lot in this country - something makes law enforcement easier, someone uses it in new and fascinating Orwellian ways. You agreed that drones have been in the US a while, but no drone strikes. What US drone strikes are you talking about?

Also, you're only using the word hawk in a technically correct meaning. "Hawk" comes from "Chicken hawk": someone who stokes the fires of war despite not being personally endangered by the fighting, and with no combat experience. That part fits Obama, yes. But Obama isn't a chicken hawk - he never dodged service to avoid going to war.
I have already given links as to why comparing Obama to Bush and calling Obama a hawk is like comparing the Titanic to a ferry boat and saying they're both passenger boats.

Saying Obama and Romney are the same level of War chickenhawk is a gross under-analogy. Every President has stuck their nose in a foreign countries affairs. With the kind of symbiotic hegemony America has it is necessary. One day we wont have that power anymore, but that day isn't in the near future without something seriously world changing happening. So I'll say it again,

When I say hawk I'm talking about the animal that is aggressive and feeds on helpless animals. To me a hawk is anyone who has an aggressive foreign policy. Or anyone who is not for non-intervention. It doesn't matter what you say it matters what you do. Obama does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cpbO7YxYvM Ask for the Clause in the NDAA about indefinite detention of US citizens without due process
http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-hedges-appeal-obama-339/ Appeal the decision that the NDAA is unconstitutional

You should need a constitutional amendment to change the 4th and 5th amendment to make this change. Obama wouldn't do that.

[Ksandra]

This is the entire reason the terrorists hate the US.

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/pho...81-300-167.gif

[Apelila]

No, I'm asking you to prove that Obama ordered the drones in the US. In fact, that was the first sentence I posted.

to which your reply was

We are so far removed from the filthy violence our leaders propagate, we don't even realize our candidates aren't peacekeepers they are warhawks.

What US drone strikes?

And now back to him violating the bill of rights, which I also agreed with. I also had a point: Complaining about the death of radicalized and hostile targets outside of a system of rules (the constitution), when the previous person made new rules to fuck us all on a scale unseen in history, is pointless. We have to undo the damage that the first idiot allowed to happen or we'll never recover. Your complaint is in far left territory and I'm ok looking there, but standing your ground and refusing to concede that there have been bigger issues is going to make you sound like an inverted TeaTard.

[venikk]

to which your reply was



What US drone strikes?

And now back to him violating the bill of rights, which I also agreed with. I also had a point: Complaining about the death of radicalized and hostile targets outside of a system of rules (the constitution), when the previous person made new rules to fuck us all on a scale unseen in history, is pointless. We have to undo the damage that the first idiot allowed to happen or we'll never recover. Your complaint is in far left territory and I'm ok looking there, but standing your ground and refusing to concede that there have been bigger issues is going to make you sound like an inverted TeaTard.

I never said that there have been drone strikes in the US...

However I will say that there will soon be weaponized drones used by police and Obama won't give a fuck. He'll do the same thing he did with the NDAA. Request some of the toys, denounce it publicly, then use it quietly.

Try not to debate the margins of the argument. Which was previously whether or not Obama is a military interventionist.

Sorry if english is your second language or something but your paragraphs aren't making any sense. You shouldn't be carrying subjects over to the next sentence without re-naming them. I literally can only make out half of what you are saying.

I am not far left. I believe in a defensive military is all. If that makes me an extremist, what in the fuck is wrong with this country?

Usually it's Republicans calling me far left for my foreign policy views, and Democrats calling me far right for my domestic opinions. A democrat calling me far left is a new one. The real issue is that most people are just like me they only get caught up in the coke vs pepsi debate and lose all focus on the real problems.

[venikk]

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/pho...81-300-167.gif

Img doesnt work.

PS Osama's videos claiming responsibility were 99% about retaliation from US foreign policy and collateral damage.

[Ksandra]

Basically, you are terribly wrong and probably live in a cave if you think that is the sole reason terrorists hate the US

[BaneTheBrawler]

As if terrorists need reasons.

[venikk]

Basically, you are terribly wrong and probably live in a cave if you think that is the sole reason terrorists hate the US

So they fly past Israel, past the sunni's, 6000 miles around the world...why?

[Andalusian girls]

yeah i thought it was a liberal talking point Islamic fundamentalists primarily hit us because of our interventions in the Middle East which, you know, is the reason they said they did. our intelligence communities even coined a term for it, blowback

don't even find it particularly debatable. they don't blow themselves because they hate freedom and our way of life as conservative pundits claim (though they certainly seem to hate freedom and our way of life), they blow themselves up because we blow them up a lot and have a history of supporting the autocratic leaders who enslaved them.

[Salodin]

So they fly past Israel, past the sunni's, 6000 miles around the world...why?

To rid us of retards like you

[Apelila]

Spoiler: show

I never said that there have been drone strikes in the US...

However I will say that there will soon be weaponized drones used by police and Obama won't give a fuck. He'll do the same thing he did with the NDAA. Request some of the toys, denounce it publicly, then use it quietly.

Try not to debate the margins of the argument. Which was previously whether or not Obama is a military interventionist.

Sorry if english is your second language or something but your paragraphs aren't making any sense. You shouldn't be carrying subjects over to the next sentence without re-naming them. I literally can only make out half of what you are saying.

I am not far left. I believe in a defensive military is all. If that makes me an extremist, what in the fuck is wrong with this country?

Usually it's Republicans calling me far left for my foreign policy views, and Democrats calling me far right for my domestic opinions. A democrat calling me far left is a new one. The real issue is that most people are just like me they only get caught up in the coke vs pepsi debate and lose all focus on the real problems.

I'll admit, I was high as hell when I wrote that so my normal speech impediments came into play. My bad. Lets go back a step.

You argued that Obama was just as bad as Bush. I'll repeat what I wrote earlier with an addition: Comparing Obama to Bush on their war records, and calling Obama a hawk is like comparing the Titanic to a Ferry boat and saying they're both passenger boats. It is a false equivalence.

I'm only calling you far left on that particular stump. If you can't separate drone strikes from a full on invasion of a country, that's far left.

This is a snip, but the first 2 sentences here went together in the same thought.

A lot of people gave shits about Bush's drones. Also Bush never suggested putting them in the states to police-forces TMK, Obama has.
I like drones. I don't like drones used to fight unjust wars, or to use on american citizens without trial.
He says one thing and does another, he's a hawk in sheep's clothing.

You said Obama put drones in the US and that they are being used on American citizens without trail. Part of that is true - Obama did not put drones in the US. They where here, they simply became used domestically while he was in office. Their use overseas, however unconstitutional, does not translate directly into the same use at home. I gave a scenario where Obama wound up with drones in the US without actively seeking them.

My main umbrage was the comparison between Obama and Bush II. There isn't any. Both where President, both are almost universally reviled by their opposing parties. Anything after that is comparing a Oil Tanker to the Titanic in terms of false equivalence.

So let me rephrase my question: Give my any proof where Obama directly ordered the use of drones in the US. Not an agency use, but Obama saying 'we have this, use it'.

[gt_killa]

Can someone shred some light for me on the issue of Obama cutting military budget and how would it effect the soldiers personally?

One of my co-worker has a fiance in the military and shes saying that her fiance "who are currently enlisted, who have given up so much to serve this country doesn't have work after serving years faithfully in the air force because of how much Obama is cutting back on military budgets..that the soldier are essentially being rejected from work because there's no work due to the drastic cuts"

[Abandon]

Not far from the truth. Them downsizing is putting solid, good leadership out of the military. They have plans to cut money from several places, but with manning going down, there's no manpower to move their plans of futuristic warfighting forward. some of the new plans just aren't going as promised, but the old stuff that's already doing the work is starting to get past the point where it can be fixed... shit is getting hard for some of us to do our jobs.