Obama Admin’s Secret Surveillance Policies]
Obama’s Drone Policies and the Many Innocent Deaths (which includes children) It Has Caused]
What exactly does it take for people to stop defending this guy? I swear, even if a report came up which said “Obama is now eating children”, some of his loyal fans would still find some way to justify it…
What’s your point? There are people who still defend Bush and Cheney and they’re the outright war criminals who made Obama’s transgressions possible. Maybe you’re under the naïve impression that there is or ever was such a thing as a virtuous all good POTUS.
And had he backed off the policies, the right would scream about how he left America defenseless in the face of terrorists or some such nonsense. What he is guilty of is continuing the policies of previous administrations but the real issue here is how much of our personal freedom do we give up for protection and how many soldiers are we willing to sacrifice to obtain it? Drones were created to minimize battle deaths ( I disagree with the practice as a soldier can now turn real death into a video game and receive a medal for it) and survellience methods are as old as the Cold War, hell even businesses are using these methods by tracking our interests and purchases. And now that everyone is plugged into the www, we are easy to monitor, even our thoughts. How many people on this site are being monitored now just for having a conversation with a visiting Muslim? The fourth amendment is dying as we enter the 21st Century.
Cap’t Jack
Government agencies spying on private citizens is not new. J. Edgar Hoover did it quite a while ago. There seems to have been a long tradition of this sort of thing. What is new is The Patriot Act which legitimizes it, and advancements in technology that make it easier. BTW the Patriot Act was passed during a previous administration.
Drones have been much more effective in the “war on terror” and have killed far fewer innocents than the invasion and years of full blown war in Iraq. Also started by a different administration.
If I were to vote on a recent political leader that is most likely to be guilty of eating children, my vote would go to Dick Cheney.
I don’t blame anyone for complaining of Obama’s culpability in these matters, as long as they were more exuberant in their complaints re: the even more destructive and freedom eroding policies of the George W. administration.
What's your point? There are people who still defend Bush and Cheney and they're the outright war criminals who made Obama's transgressions possible. Maybe you're under the naïve impression that there is or ever was such a thing as a virtuous all good POTUS.Maybe I'm not?
Government agencies spying on private citizens is not new. J. Edgar Hoover did it quite a while ago. There seems to have been a long tradition of this sort of thing. What is new is The Patriot Act which legitimizes it, and advancements in technology that make it easier. BTW the Patriot Act was passed during a previous administration. Drones have been much more effective in the "war on terror" and have killed far fewer innocents than the invasion and years of full blown war in Iraq. Also started by a different administration. If I were to vote on a recent political leader that is most likely to be guilty of eating children, my vote would go to Dick Cheney. I don't blame anyone for complaining of Obama's culpability in these matters, as long as they were more exuberant in their complaints re: the even more destructive and freedom eroding policies of the George W. administration.Sure. I'm just hoping that Obama supporters are just as willing to throw down the gauntlet with Obama as they were with Bush. Secondly, this "terrorism surveillance" wouldn't even be "necessary" if our country wasn't responsible for generating so much hatred in the Middle East. If you lived in Afghanistan and watched your brother get blown in another drone mishap, you'd want to join a terrorist group and blow up Americans too. If you're one of those people who don't look at Obama through rose-tinted shades, and understand that he is just another bought out corporate shill who lies through his teeth (arguably, more effectively and convincingly than Bush and Clinton), then we're in the same boat. The fact is: Obama's our Bush.
And had he backed off the policies, the right would scream about how he left America defenseless in the face of terrorists or some such nonsense. What he is guilty of is continuing the policies of previous administrations but the real issue here is how much of our personal freedom do we give up for protection and how many soldiers are we willing to sacrifice to obtain it?" Cap't JackIf he backed off, a bunch of politicians would have screamed about it. Politicians. Who gives a damn. We have to stop acting as if Obama is "helplessly forced" into every one of these situations, you know, those secret situations that nobody ever seems to find out about until someone leaks the information. And as I already said in another post, we play a significant role in generating Middle Eastern hatred. Instead of making the necessary amends, backing out, and dealing with our own situation, we still send more of our children over to someone else's land and kill their children. It's absolute insanity, and what bothers me is that some of the most intelligent and prominent liberals/progressives in the national community still see this as effective foreign policy. But of course, when this all dies down, and when the US govt. moves from the damage control phase back to the propaganda phase, many of the liberals will just pull another Bradley Manning and cheer for Edward Snowden's capture and punishment, as if he's the main culprit.
I think that it is fair to contend that Obama is culpable to the extent that he has carried on some counter-productive policies of the Bush administration. However, I think that equating this misguidedness of the George W. administration to the Obama administration is like saying that an apple, that is rotten to the core, is the same as an apple with some spots on it. So, I think we’re not in the same boat. I wonder whether your boat might be a little dingy. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist the pun.)
And while your statement, “… this “terrorism surveillance” wouldn’t even be “necessary" if our country wasn’t responsible for generating so much hatred in the Middle East. If you lived in Afghanistan and watched your brother get blown in another drone mishap, you’d want to join a terrorist group and blow up Americans too." seems to have face value, you can’t use it to differentially condemn Obama policies, as our “generating so much hatred in the Middle East” goes back to before Obama was even born.
The use of drones, resulting in the deaths of innocent is terrible. Full blown war is more terrible. Obama came into power when we had 2 full blown wars going on. (Not to mention an economy on the verge of a Great Depression.) Judging by McCain’s proclivities, if he had been elected instead of Obama, we might now be involved in other full blown Mid East wars. Obama has clearly had the opportunities for getting us involved in such.
I think that it is fair to contend that Obama is culpable to the extent that he has carried on some counter-productive policies of the Bush administration. However, I think that equating this misguidedness of the George W. administration to the Obama administration is like saying that an apple, that is rotten to the core, is the same as an apple with some spots on it. So, I think we're not in the same boat. I wonder whether your boat might be a little dingy. (Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.) And while your statement, "... this “terrorism surveillance" wouldn’t even be “necessary" if our country wasn’t responsible for generating so much hatred in the Middle East. If you lived in Afghanistan and watched your brother get blown in another drone mishap, you’d want to join a terrorist group and blow up Americans too." seems to have face value, you can't use it to differentially condemn Obama policies, as our "generating so much hatred in the Middle East" goes back to before Obama was even born. The use of drones, resulting in the deaths of innocent is terrible. Full blown war is more terrible. Obama came into power when we had 2 full blown wars going on. (Not to mention an economy on the verge of a Great Depression.) Judging by McCain's proclivities, if he had been elected instead of Obama, we might now be involved in other full blown Mid East wars. Obama has clearly had the opportunities for getting us involved in such.Your response summarized: "Obama is not as bad as Bush or Cheney or anyone else that came before him. He just continued what they started, is all. And it could have been worse, so be content.
Exposing governmental secrets is a complicated issue. It can fall anywhere on the spectrum from “treasonously endangering American lives” to “purposely leaking information for politically manipulative prposes” to “heroic whistleblowing that reveals governmental abuses”.
I think that it is fair to contend that Obama is culpable to the extent that he has carried on some counter-productive policies of the Bush administration. However, I think that equating this misguidedness of the George W. administration to the Obama administration is like saying that an apple, that is rotten to the core, is the same as an apple with some spots on it. So, I think we're not in the same boat. I wonder whether your boat might be a little dingy. (Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.) And while your statement, "... this “terrorism surveillance" wouldn’t even be “necessary" if our country wasn’t responsible for generating so much hatred in the Middle East. If you lived in Afghanistan and watched your brother get blown in another drone mishap, you’d want to join a terrorist group and blow up Americans too." seems to have face value, you can't use it to differentially condemn Obama policies, as our "generating so much hatred in the Middle East" goes back to before Obama was even born. The use of drones, resulting in the deaths of innocent is terrible. Full blown war is more terrible. Obama came into power when we had 2 full blown wars going on. (Not to mention an economy on the verge of a Great Depression.) Judging by McCain's proclivities, if he had been elected instead of Obama, we might now be involved in other full blown Mid East wars. Obama has clearly had the opportunities for getting us involved in such.Your response summarized: "Obama is not as bad as Bush or Cheney or anyone else that came before him. He just continued what they started, is all. And it could have been worse, so be content. I didn't say "be content". By all means, rail against the machine. Just don't differentially blame Obama, as IMO, he is doing a pretty good job considering what he was given to work with.
Exposing governmental secrets is a complicated issue. It can fall anywhere on the spectrum from "treasonously endangering American lives" to "purposely leaking information for politically manipulative prposes" to "heroic whistleblowing that reveals governmental abuses".If there was a government secret that involved Obama eating children, the motives and outcomes of the whistleblower's actions would be secondary, and you know that.
I didn't say "be content". By all means, rail against the machine. Just don't differentially blame Obama, as IMO, he is doing a pretty good job considering what he was given to work with.This is what I'm trying to get you to do. Instead, you are still stuck on the idea that he's "doing a pretty good job". A corporate shill is a corporate shill, no matter how much slicker the package is than the last one. Secondly, I could care less who started it. My concern is the person that is currently in office. We can talk about Bush all day long, but really, it's been 2 freaking terms. What is the cut off point where we finally start holding Obama responsible for something? When his Wall Street bosses allow it?
...(when will)...we finally start holding Obama responsible for something? When his Wall Street bosses allow it?I think you hit the nail on the head. The particular person who holds the office of POTUS no longer matters. The underlying agenda continues. And sometimes members of an administration are actually part of the agenda-setters, like Cheney. So why fuss about blaming Obama. He's a figurehead, like Bush Jr., and especially like Reagan. (Bush Sr and Clinton OTOH I have a feeling were more than just figureheads.)
...(when will)...we finally start holding Obama responsible for something? When his Wall Street bosses allow it?I think you hit the nail on the head. The particular person who holds the office of POTUS no longer matters. The underlying agenda continues. And sometimes members of an administration are actually part of the agenda-setters, like Cheney. So why fuss about blaming Obama. He's a figurehead, like Bush Jr., and especially like Reagan. (Bush Sr and Clinton OTOH I have a feeling were more than just figureheads.) I actually agree wholeheartedly here, friend. This is actually what I'm trying to get people to see. It honestly annoys me to no end when I come across discussions in which one side bashes the "fearless leader" of the other side, as if either side is significantly less corrupt than the other. I used to do this, and I finally recognized the glaring hypocrisy in it. The fact of the matter is that 99% of politicians are just commodities like anything else, another product of the "glorious market".
The problem is it takes so much money to run for national office that anyone who holds onto his/her values cannot raise enough money to get elected, therefore we end up with the politicians who most successfully sell their souls.
I actually agree wholeheartedly here, friend. This is actually what I’m trying to get people to see. It honestly annoys me to no end when I come across discussions in which one side bashes the “fearless leader" of the other side, as if either side is significantly less corrupt than the other. I used to do this, and I finally recognized the glaring hypocrisy in it. The fact of the matter is that 99% of politicians are just commodities like anything else, another product of the “glorious market".At the expense of sounding like a pure cynic that's the way the system was created from the beginning. As I've stated many times politics is an amoral system but the juniors who enter it have the naive idea that they will somehow live up to their campaign promises until experience rounds their corners and internal deals are made, plus the pressure from lobbies and PACS to conform to the usual compromising, then abandonment of their ideals. the voters who back them, myself included as I campaigned for Obama both times become disillusioned when those promises aren't met, forcing the pendulum to swing to the opposite political philosophy in the hopes that the party out of power will somehow break the deadlock. The problem now is the ever growing polarization of parties as the extreme wings try to pull the moderates away from the center and true compromise. And the further away we get the more ineffective the congress will be in finding a solution to the economy and our involvement in the Middle East. Our political system is getting dangerously close to breaking unless cooler heads prevail and drag the wingnuts back to the center. I blame the trolls. Cap't Jack
The problem is it takes so much money to run for national office that anyone who holds onto his/her values cannot raise enough money to get elected, therefore we end up with the politicians who most successfully sell their souls.Yeah I know. This is why I think our political system's problem is more of an economic one than anything else. Money has a way of stratifying and distorting everything.
No, I don't see you as a cynic. Just a realist, which I believe to be one of the first steps to locating viable solutions. When you speak of our political system "breaking", what exactly do you have in mind?I actually agree wholeheartedly here, friend. This is actually what I’m trying to get people to see. It honestly annoys me to no end when I come across discussions in which one side bashes the “fearless leader" of the other side, as if either side is significantly less corrupt than the other. I used to do this, and I finally recognized the glaring hypocrisy in it. The fact of the matter is that 99% of politicians are just commodities like anything else, another product of the “glorious market".At the expense of sounding like a pure cynic that's the way the system was created from the beginning. As I've stated many times politics is an amoral system but the juniors who enter it have the naive idea that they will somehow live up to their campaign promises until experience rounds their corners and internal deals are made, plus the pressure from lobbies and PACS to conform to the usual compromising, then abandonment of their ideals. the voters who back them, myself included as I campaigned for Obama both times become disillusioned when those promises aren't met, forcing the pendulum to swing to the opposite political philosophy in the hopes that the party out of power will somehow break the deadlock. The problem now is the ever growing polarization of parties as the extreme wings try to pull the moderates away from the center and true compromise. And the further away we get the more ineffective the congress will be in finding a solution to the economy and our involvement in the Middle East. Our political system is getting dangerously close to breaking unless cooler heads prevail and drag the wingnuts back to the center. I blame the trolls. Cap't Jack
When you speak of our political system “breaking", what exactly do you have in mind?We now have, and this hasn't happened since Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats, extreme right wing Southerners touting secession, teabaggers who want to return to lassez faire Capitalism and unplugging governmental watchdog agencies, ultra liberals who object to firearm ownership ( personally a moderate on this issue) and both sides screaming about the fourth amendment violations of the present POTUS and previous others to name a few hot button issues all the while millions of dollars are pouring into the campaign chests of both parties in order to push each pet agenda. We used to laugh at the campaign term "gridlock" but now it's a reality and these issues will never be resolved until the politicians reach a consensus on how to procede. The Reps have the House and the Dems hold the Senate and the Prez is thwarted at envy turn with the exception of Obamacare which the right vows to fight to the death and they have made over 38 attempts so far. And this latest fiasco of government surveillance has everyone on edge, now creating a new crises of fear of our own govnment let alone the terrorists! I don't think we'll run amok in the streets but the next election is going to be a slaughterhouse unless the loose ends are tied up, we move on the budget, shut down Gitmo, get the hell out of Afganistan all the while watching China's interests in the region, cut waaay back on drone use and more tightly control the program, and do something about government and commercial spying on our personal lives. It's too close to 1984 tactics. As much as I hate to admit it I'm siding with the libertarians in this issue. This is still supposed to be the "land of the free". Cap't Jack