Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Total Break with Obama

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:27:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Awhile back, I said that Obama had lost my proactive support because of his maneuvering with regards to executive treaty power.

I now have what you might call a somewhat more significant complaint. If I had any confidence that any of his opponents would do otherwise, I might even regret having voted him over McCain.

Remember how annoyed we got when Bush started calling terrorists "enemy combatants" because we thought it left some ambiguity and might just be applied to innocent civilians?

While this won't be news to some, Obama did something similar after coming into office.

Namely, as it pertains to drone strikes, he changed the definition of "militant" to be "any male of combat-ready age."

That means that when a drone strikes a Mosque full of 30 praying men, the Pentagon claims "30 militants were killed."

Furthermore, causalities are ASSUMED to be militants unless PROVEN OTHERWISE POSTHUMOUSLY.

The military has lied about drone attacks on a scale that makes some of Geo's conspiracies seem viable. The tactics used by drone pilots are not only harmful and inefficient, but also counterproductive.

I'm sorry, but anyone who was even mildly enraged by the term "enemy combatant" cannot with any intellectual integrity stand for giving a blanket excuse to kill any male in the vicinity of a low-level Al Qaeda target.

I supported Obama during the election and even quasi-campaigned for him (call it "independent expenditures"). I support most of Dodd-Frank as well as Obamacare. I shudder at the thought of conservatives dictating America's moral priorities.

But frankly, if Bush were doing what Obama is doing, we'd be calling for impeachment, regardless of whether there are grounds for it. Ironically as it is, I am reminded of Bill O'Reilly's diagram during his debate with Jon Stewart (and I am NOT a fan of O'Reilly), with the three-line argument "Waterboarding = BAD, Drones = GOOD, ????"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:30:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've genuinely tried very hard to like Obama, as I've become more moderate.

I don't think it can happen.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:33:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Honestly, I don't understand why waterboarding is considered more controversial then drone attacks on innocent civilians. Waterboarding doesn't kill anyone, which is signficantly worse then torturing. Plus the number of times its actually been used was 3 times.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:39:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 2:33:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Honestly, I don't understand why waterboarding is considered more controversial then drone attacks on innocent civilians. Waterboarding doesn't kill anyone, which is signficantly worse then torturing. Plus the number of times its actually been used was 3 times.

Killing is worse than torturing?

And I'm pretty well certain that 3 times is bullshit. There were incidents of it being used hundreds of times on a single person. And that's not including all the people we've had shipped over to other countries to be handled for us.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:39:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 2:33:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Honestly, I don't understand why waterboarding is considered more controversial then drone attacks on innocent civilians. Waterboarding doesn't kill anyone, which is signficantly worse then torturing. Plus the number of times its actually been used was 3 times.

Didn't they waterboard KSM around 180 times?

Also, since Republicans are less likely to complain about killing foreigners, and Democrats are less likely to complain about Obama, the combination of "Obama killing foreigners" isn't as easy to be angry with with as "Bush torturing foreigners."

Similarly, the Republicans would be more pissed off at "Obama doesn't kill foreigners" (code-word: appeasement) than "Bush tortures foreigners."
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:41:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The neo-cons don't attack the drone policy because they are all for it and the liberals don't attack the drone policy because they care more about politics than policy. I don't think anyone will disagree that Obama and the Democrats are no more honest or trustworthy than the Republicans whom tend to be universally despised (In the majority of the media at least).
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:42:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 2:41:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The neo-cons don't attack the drone policy because they are all for it and the liberals don't attack the drone policy because they care more about politics than policy. I don't think anyone will disagree that Obama and the Democrats are no more honest or trustworthy than the Republicans whom tend to be universally despised (In the majority of the media at least).

Isn't that what I just said?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:44:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 2:42:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/26/2013 2:41:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The neo-cons don't attack the drone policy because they are all for it and the liberals don't attack the drone policy because they care more about politics than policy. I don't think anyone will disagree that Obama and the Democrats are no more honest or trustworthy than the Republicans whom tend to be universally despised (In the majority of the media at least).

Isn't that what I just said?

Except I'm fairly sure neo-cons aren't a majority of republicans anymore. At least, to the best of my knowledge (I haven't checked any polls).

A majority of Republicans, like Democrats, are interested in re-election over helping the country.

Politicians who seek to help the country instead of get re-elected are generally accused of being "extremists."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 3:07:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And just for an extra kick in the balls, the drone program's legal defense is based almost entirely on the same law used to justify Guantanamo and enemy combatants.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 3:52:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 2:42:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/26/2013 2:41:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 2:39:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
The neo-cons don't attack the drone policy because they are all for it and the liberals don't attack the drone policy because they care more about politics than policy. I don't think anyone will disagree that Obama and the Democrats are no more honest or trustworthy than the Republicans whom tend to be universally despised (In the majority of the media at least).

Isn't that what I just said?

Time stamp
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 3:54:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wasn't this from my debate?

I am pretty sure this was from my debate.

I am quite happy now :)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 4:00:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Obama is fvcked either way. Either he kills foreigners and we hate him or he's accused of letting the enemy grow strong and once they attack us, and they probably will, we'll blame it on him.
#BlackLivesMatter
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 4:01:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I never was much a fan of Obama. I was never of the illusion, for instance, that he would par back the silly "War on Drugs".

The way I see it, President Obama will be remembered as an apologist for unsustainable and counterproductive public sector programs and practices as well as a creator of new ones.

According to Boehner, Obama said "we don't have a spending problem" during the fiscal cliff debate. Rather or not you believe Boehner, it is certainly true that everything he has done has reflected this view.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 4:02:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 4:00:07 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Obama is fvcked either way. Either he kills foreigners and we hate him or he's accused of letting the enemy grow strong and once they attack us, and they probably will, we'll blame it on him.

You're saying the only alternative to drone strikes is allowing terrorist attacks on our soil.
I maintain that we simply track suspected terrorists and don't let them, anyone associated with them into the country. We shouldn't allow in anyone from Yemen or Pakistan or other terrorist harboring countries in either.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 4:09:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 4:02:50 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 4:00:07 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Obama is fvcked either way. Either he kills foreigners and we hate him or he's accused of letting the enemy grow strong and once they attack us, and they probably will, we'll blame it on him.

You're saying the only alternative to drone strikes is allowing terrorist attacks on our soil.
I maintain that we simply track suspected terrorists and don't let them, anyone associated with them into the country. We shouldn't allow in anyone from Yemen or Pakistan or other terrorist harboring countries in either.

It's really not that simple. Even if they won't attack our soil, American Embassies are ripe for the picking. I'm not saying I agree with the Drone strikes but I understand them. It's a horrible thing but if you're looking for something that kills enemies and doesn't danger Americans, it's perfect. When it comes to Middle Eastern civilians though, if Obama is purposely ordering strikes on them, then he and the entire administration is a war criminal but that's nothing new. We've been war criminals since the beginning.
#BlackLivesMatter
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 4:14:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Right if we maintain that the collateral damage of drone strikes outweighs the potential risk to US servicemen over seas we are basically saying that their lives are inherently less valuable than those of Americans.
Which is nothing new, of course.
I've heard it argued before that the military runs on racism, you can't get your soldiers to do what's necessary unless they think their enemy is less of a human than themselves.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 4:15:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 4:10:05 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Also you're fooling yourself if you think McCain or Romney wouldn't have done the same thing.

Is someone arguing they wouldn't?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 4:17:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 2:27:28 PM, Wnope wrote:
Awhile back, I said that Obama had lost my proactive support because of his maneuvering with regards to executive treaty power.

I now have what you might call a somewhat more significant complaint. If I had any confidence that any of his opponents would do otherwise, I might even regret having voted him over McCain.

You have got to be kidding me. I was a Republican in 08, and even then didn't vote for McCain and the Real Housewife of Wacilla.

Remember how annoyed we got when Bush started calling terrorists "enemy combatants" because we thought it left some ambiguity and might just be applied to innocent civilians?

I actually didn't get annoyed. Gitmo exists in a most convenient zone of "constitutional twilight" -meaning that while it is a US territory, our laws don't necessarily apply.

While this won't be news to some, Obama did something similar after coming into office.

He actually tried to close Gitmo, but congress blocked his efforts. He realized that he couldn't win that battle, so he went on to fight more important battles.

Namely, as it pertains to drone strikes, he changed the definition of "militant" to be "any male of combat-ready age."

So... what's your problem with this?

That means that when a drone strikes a Mosque full of 30 praying men, the Pentagon claims "30 militants were killed."

Praying... then. What had they been doing before? Do you really think that Obama would just indiscriminately kill people because he can?

Furthermore, causalities are ASSUMED to be militants unless PROVEN OTHERWISE POSTHUMOUSLY.

Lol, that's absurd.

The military has lied about drone attacks on a scale that makes some of Geo's conspiracies seem viable. The tactics used by drone pilots are not only harmful and inefficient, but also counterproductive.

Care to substantiate that claim?

I'm sorry, but anyone who was even mildly enraged by the term "enemy combatant" cannot with any intellectual integrity stand for giving a blanket excuse to kill any male in the vicinity of a low-level Al Qaeda target.

That's not how it works, Wnope. He doesn't just kill people on a whim.

I supported Obama during the election and even quasi-campaigned for him (call it "independent expenditures"). I support most of Dodd-Frank as well as Obamacare. I shudder at the thought of conservatives dictating America's moral priorities.

But frankly, if Bush were doing what Obama is doing, we'd be calling for impeachment, regardless of whether there are grounds for it. Ironically as it is, I am reminded of Bill O'Reilly's diagram during his debate with Jon Stewart (and I am NOT a fan of O'Reilly), with the three-line argument "Waterboarding = BAD, Drones = GOOD, ????"

I never took issue with what Bush did.
Tsar of DDO
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 4:19:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 4:14:03 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Right if we maintain that the collateral damage of drone strikes outweighs the potential risk to US servicemen over seas we are basically saying that their lives are inherently less valuable than those of Americans.
Which is nothing new, of course.
I've heard it argued before that the military runs on racism, you can't get your soldiers to do what's necessary unless they think their enemy is less of a human than themselves.

Exactamundo! Which is why the soldiers aren't doing this. Soldiers don't shot to kill surprisingly.
#BlackLivesMatter
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 4:20:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 4:15:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 4:10:05 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Also you're fooling yourself if you think McCain or Romney wouldn't have done the same thing.

Is someone arguing they wouldn't?

Wnope said he regretted not voting for McCain. I'm just saying he'd be in the same situation.
#BlackLivesMatter
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 5:18:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 2:33:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Honestly, I don't understand why waterboarding is considered more controversial then drone attacks on innocent civilians.

Calling it "drone attacks on innocent civilians" sure does make it sound controversial. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't we sign a treaty banning torture? If so is there any such treaty on drone strikes?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 5:19:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 4:01:32 PM, BigRat wrote:
The way I see it, President Obama will be remembered as an apologist for unsustainable and counterproductive public sector programs and practices as well as a creator of new ones.

According to Boehner, Obama said "we don't have a spending problem" during the fiscal cliff debate. Rather or not you believe Boehner, it is certainly true that everything he has done has reflected this view.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 5:51:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 4:10:05 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Also you're fooling yourself if you think McCain or Romney wouldn't have done the same thing.

They don't pretend to be anti-war. Obama is a Peace Prize winner.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 7:11:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 5:51:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/26/2013 4:10:05 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Also you're fooling yourself if you think McCain or Romney wouldn't have done the same thing.

They don't pretend to be anti-war. Obama is a Peace Prize winner.

And...?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 7:25:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 5:18:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/26/2013 2:33:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Honestly, I don't understand why waterboarding is considered more controversial then drone attacks on innocent civilians.

Calling it "drone attacks on innocent civilians" sure does make it sound controversial. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't we sign a treaty banning torture? If so is there any such treaty on drone strikes?

So you'd have no problem with torture if we didn't sign the treaty then. That's what makes the difference, whether an international treaty was signed?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 7:36:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's the thing.

There are legal ways to conduct a drone attack. I'm even fine with certain drone attacks that break Pakistani sovereignty (the ISI works to closely with Al Qaeda for complete communication to be effective).

I don't consider myself that picky. I'd be fine with drones if the following were true:

1. We only hit targets if we are sure there's actually a bad guy around.
2. The collateral harm a drone causes is proportionate to the imminent threat posed by the target (so no blowing up a full mosque because Osama's personal fluffer is attending).
3. We weren't psychologically terrorizing civilians in the process.
4. We did not assume all males in the vicinity of a target are militants until proven otherwise.
5. We didn't blatantly mislead the public as to the effects of drones on civilian casualties.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 7:39:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 2:33:30 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Honestly, I don't understand why waterboarding is considered more controversial then drone attacks on innocent civilians. Waterboarding doesn't kill anyone, which is signficantly worse then torturing. Plus the number of times its actually been used was 3 times.

The state waterboarded two al Qaeda leaders over 260 times (http://articles.cnn.com...)
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan