• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

apdst said:
Khandahar is correct in not bashing Bush. Like, he's not the head-honcho and Obama is.
Click to expand...

Forget about Bush. He's simply the last Republican to be President.

The "kill lists" are bi-partisan, supported by both Democrats and Republicans. Do you think Obama invented them, and do you think that electing Romney will change it?
 
Henry David said:
I wasn't speaking so much to the historical record--you're quite right on what you've said. I'm speaking more to the moral issues raised by both questions, especially as to the thread subject of assassination of people without due process, rather Stalinesque with modern american technology.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of folks on the left that have criticized Obama over it. Unfortunately the fact is when there is wide spread support for something the Constitution is a paper shield.
 
apdst said:
Associating with anti American terrorists?
Click to expand...

Well, his father certainly was. No evidence has been presented that the son was involved in any plots against the United States. So far, the Obama Administration won't even make an unsubstantiated CLAIM that he was.
 
Kandahar said:
I don't know what is worse...that the Obama Administration seems to believe that it can order the extrajudicial killings of American citizens without any trial (or even any good reason), or that no one seems to care about it. It's hard to imagine an executive power that has more potential for abuse than this...and yet astonishingly, there seems to be a widespread bipartisan consensus that secret "kill lists" are A-OK.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that the left has largely abandoned the issue, due to mere political interests, is the scariest part about the whole thing
 
rocket88 said:
Forget about Bush. He's simply the last Republican to be President.

The "kill lists" are bi-partisan, supported by both Democrats and Republicans. Do you think Obama invented them, and do you think that electing Romney will change it?
Click to expand...


dude, you are insane if you're claiming the left wouldn't have gone into rabid fits if we were talking about Bush here.
 
iliveonramen said:
There's a lot of folks on the left that have criticized Obama over it. Unfortunately the fact is when there is wide spread support for something the Constitution is a paper shield.
Click to expand...

actually polling indicates the majority of liberals and progressive *NOW* support the program

Liberals, Dems approve of drone strikes on American citizens abroad - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Poll finds broad support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies - The Washington Post
 
tech30528 said:
I hear it's good to be king, evidently it excuses all kinds of behavior. Right now I'd be happy to have a horny guy back in office, at least the payload he's delivering isn't fatal.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the guy who blew up some empty tents and a couple of camels in Afghanistan, and an aspirin factory (along with the night maintenance staff) in Sudan? And used up so many of our conventional warhead missiles that we actually had to start converting nukes back to conventional warheads -- that guy?

tech30528 said:
In the case of domestic drones, whether they be surveillance or attack drones, what do you suppose the penalty would be to a citizen who took one down? We have laws against illegal search (in theory) so the drones would be instruments of illegal activity.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting question, and one I'd like to see answered.
 
rocket88 said:
Can't deal with the reality that this policy has been in effect and will likely stay in effect no matter who wins?

I'm not blaming Bush, though your outrage over his same actions is notedly absent. I'm pointing out that there's bi-partisan support, meaning both Democrats and Republicans. Last I checked, Bush was the last Republican President. There's not much evidence that this policy pre-dates him, so proving bi-partisan support before him would be difficult.
Click to expand...

Again, the thread is about what is going on with the sitting president. Your second attempt at deflection is noted but is irrelevant. Bush has been out of office for 4 years, if you have a problem with something he did bring it up with the justice department. We are talking about the guy who is in office NOW and is looking to get reelected.

A couple of things that might do you well to consider for future discussions:

First, not everybody who disagrees with Obama is a Bush fan. Bush did a lot of things that conservatives did not like. So when someone criticizes Obama, pointing at Bush does not change what the current administration is doing or has done.

Second, bipartisan does not mean right. I'm pretty sure most bank executives thought stealing the home equity from the entire country was just fine. In fact it was egregiously wrong, and the government going along with it (even excusing them for the most part after the fact) was every bit as wrong. It is clear that the government does not have the interests of the people in mind, now or under the previous administration.

To be clear (in deference to those of you who live in a linear black and white world) Everybody knows the difference between right and wrong. When people and governments act against that, their party affiliation means NOTHING. We have a system of government that was intended to represent the people. With each successive presidency this system is further abused. It's not that difficult to criticize Obama for what he has done because he built on every previous wrong of government with great zeal. When someone mentions Obama doing something wrong, pointing a finger at Bush WILL NOT CHANGE IT. If you have nothing to say on the subject being discussed STFU, nobody cares about whatever direction you care to deflect the discussion in.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
dude, you are insane if you're claiming the left wouldn't have gone into rabid fits if we were talking about Bush here.
Click to expand...

And they did when Bush was President. Now it's Obama and the right is following suit. If Romney wins on Tuesday, it'll just reverse itself again.

Electing Obama didn't change it, and electing Romney won't change it either. You're the one who's insane if you think it will.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
actually polling indicates the majority of liberals and progressive *NOW* support the program

Liberals, Dems approve of drone strikes on American citizens abroad - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Poll finds broad support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

What eactly is your point? Basically 1/2 of Liberals support drone strikes. The other half doesn't. That's a lot of folks that do not support drone attacks. Are you against the drone attacks or are you just shocked! that party affiliation can causes hypocrisy. Better yet do you think that hypcrisy is only limited to Liberals?
 
rocket88 said:
And they did when Bush was President.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is my point. There would be no bipartisan support for this if we were talking about a republican president. The fact that such an issue was abandoned due to partisan politics is absolutely appalling an inexcusable, regardless of how you view the drone program

rocket88 said:
Now it's Obama and the right is following suit. If Romney wins on Tuesday, it'll just reverse itself again.
Click to expand...

while some on the right are making politics out of the issue, it's a policy that seem pretty bipartisan at the moment (majorities support it on both sides of the isle)

rocket88 said:
Electing Obama didn't change it, and electing Romney won't change it either. You're the one who's insane if you think it will.
Click to expand...

what are you even talking about? My entire point has been that this issue wouldn't be bipartisan if we were talking about a republican. Again, Bush couldn't even tap these people phone with out creating waves of hysteria, and now your arguing these same people would have been ok if he just assassinated them? Not only is that argument insane, it's laughably insane
 
tech30528 said:
Again, the thread is about what is going on with the sitting president. Your second attempt at deflection is noted but is irrelevant. Bush has been out of office for 4 years, if you have a problem with something he did bring it up with the justice department. We are talking about the guy who is in office NOW and is looking to get reelected.
Click to expand...

The mention of Bush is not a deflection. It's a recognition of fact that it existed even then.

A couple of things that might do you well to consider for future discussions:

First, not everybody who disagrees with Obama is a Bush fan. Bush did a lot of things that conservatives did not like. So when someone criticizes Obama, pointing at Bush does not change what the current administration is doing or has done.
Click to expand...

And I frequently disagree with Obama. On this issue included.

Second, bipartisan does not mean right. I'm pretty sure most bank executives thought stealing the home equity from the entire country was just fine. In fact it was egregiously wrong, and the government going along with it (even excusing them for the most part after the fact) was every bit as wrong. It is clear that the government does not have the interests of the people in mind, now or under the previous administration.
Click to expand...

I never said that bi-partisan meant right. The point was made that support was bi-partisan, and I agreed with that point. The mention of Bush was expanding on that premise. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now, but saying it happened then and was wrong then is not a deflection. That's a fact.

To be clear (in deference to those of you who live in a linear black and white world) Everybody knows the difference between right and wrong. When people and governments act against that, their party affiliation means NOTHING. We have a system of government that was intended to represent the people. With each successive presidency this system is further abused. It's not that difficult to criticize Obama for what he has done because he built on every previous wrong of government with great zeal. When someone mentions Obama doing something wrong, pointing a finger at Bush WILL NOT CHANGE IT. If you have nothing to say on the subject being discussed STFU, nobody cares about whatever direction you care to deflect the discussion in.
Click to expand...

And pointing the finger at Obama does not change what happened in the past administration, or what will likely happen in the next administration. I don't give Obama a pass for this because it happened in the past. When the point was made that support was bi-partisan, I agreed with that, and expanded on it by saying that it happened under the previous Republican administration, and is likely to occur under a Romney administration.
 
iliveonramen said:
What eactly is your point?
Click to expand...

lol, my point was pretty clear: that there are alot less people criticizing Obama over these things, and it seems wholly dependent on who's president


"Are you against the drone attacks or are you just shocked! that party affiliation can causes hypocrisy."

You seem to be getting upset. But no, what I am shocked about is that people could so easily mitigate their views on extremely important topics due to party politics. What it essentially says is that what constitutes murder is dependent on the presidents politics.

That's f*cking sick, regardless of your views of the drone program


"Better yet do you think that hypcrisy is only limited to Liberals?"

lol
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Yes, that is my point. There would be no bipartisan support for this if we were talking about a republican president. The fact that such an issue was abandoned due to partisan politics is absolutely appalling an inexcusable, regardless of how you view the drone program
Click to expand...

It is wrong that the issue will be abandoned due to partisan politics. Mark my words, if Romney wins, the kill lists will continue, and the issue will be abandoned by the right.



what are you even talking about? My entire point has been that this issue wouldn't be bipartisan if we were talking about a republican. Again, Bush couldn't even tap these people phone with out creating waves of hysteria, and now your arguing these same people would have been ok if he just assassinated them? Not only is that argument insane, it's laughably insane
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that the policy didn't change when Obama took office, and won't change if Romney does. The selective outrage won't change either.
 
iliveonramen said:
What eactly is your point? Basically 1/2 of Liberals support drone strikes. The other half doesn't. That's a lot of folks that do not support drone attacks. Are you against the drone attacks or are you just shocked! that party affiliation can causes hypocrisy. Better yet do you think that hypcrisy is only limited to Liberals?
Click to expand...

PS it was also 3/4ths

But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.
Click to expand...

if we are discussing american targets the numbers shift a bit
And get this: Depressingly, Democrats approve of the drone strikes on American citizens by 58-33, and even liberals approve of them, 55-35. Those numbers were provided to me by the Post polling team.
Click to expand...

but, again, anyone claiming those numbers would be similar under Bush is insane
 
rocket88 said:
It is wrong that the issue will be abandoned due to partisan politics. Mark my words, if Romney wins, the kill lists will continue, and the issue will be abandoned by the right.
Click to expand...

the right isn't really making hay out of it. Some are, but the majority support the program.





rocket88 said:
What I'm saying is that the policy didn't change when Obama took office, and won't change if Romney does. The selective outrage won't change either.
Click to expand...

has there been a large shift among the rights support for the issue? If so, I havent seen much evidence for the claim.

PS and one thing did certainly change, liberals started to support these policies
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
lol, my point was pretty clear: that there are alot less people criticizing Obama over these things, and it seems wholly dependent on who's president


"Are you against the drone attacks or are you just shocked! that party affiliation can causes hypocrisy."

You seem to be getting upset. But no, what I am shocked about is that people could so easily mitigate their views on extremely important topics due to party politics. What it essentially says is that what constitutes murder is dependent on the presidents politics.

That's f*cking sick, regardless of your views of the drone program


"Better yet do you think that hypcrisy is only limited to Liberals?"

lol
Click to expand...

I'm not getting upset. I'm just curious if you think a lot of people that affiliate with parties or leans are more trusting when "their guy" is in power is either breaking news or new in anyway?

Also I disagree that those views are extremely important topics to all Liberals. It's like saying that outlawing abortion for rape victims is an extremely important topic to all Conservatives. It's a vocal group...a minority of a minority and those individuals that it's extremely important to are still criticizing the President.

Just like deficits didn't matter to most conservatives when Bush was President except for the true blue deficit hawks.
 
iliveonramen said:
I'm not getting upset. I'm just curious if you think a lot of people that affiliate with parties or leans are more trusting when "their guy" is in power is either breaking news or new in anyway?

Also I disagree that those views are extremely important topics to all Liberals.
Click to expand...

lol, the left was freaking outraged the entire time Bush was in office, over things that didn't even come close to this





iliveonramen said:
It's like saying that outlawing abortion for rape victims is an extremely important topic to all Conservatives. It's a vocal group...a minority of a minority and those individuals that it's extremely important to are still criticizing the President.
Click to expand...

lol, that is excuse making. The left was completely outraged over issues of a similar nature under Bush. Infact, it pretty much defined the criticism of his presidenty the entire time he was in office

iliveonramen said:
Just like deficits didn't matter to most conservatives when Bush was President except for the true blue deficit hawks.
Click to expand...

dude, we are talking about killing a US citizen, not an abstract political ideal. This is like someone screaming bloody hell over abortions, then completely compromising their views on what they see as murder, simply because a republican is in the WH
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
PS and one thing did certainly change, liberals started to support these policies
Click to expand...

Which is nice, but I didn't disagree with that.

We started with me agreeing with the idea that it's bipartisan, then attacked for "deflecting" to Bush. I'm not deflecting. It backs up the idea of what is now bipartisan support. Just because somebody says the name "Bush" doesn't mean they're deflecting.

If Romney takes office, the policy will continue and people on the right will say "Well, it happened under Obama too." Will that be a deflection?
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
PS it was also 3/4ths



if we are discussing american targets the numbers shift a bit

but, again, anyone claiming those numbers would be similar under Bush is insane
Click to expand...

Well this thread is about drone attacks on US citizens so I focused on that number.

As for those number similar under Bush. I'd be interested to see the numbers. All I can find is polling information regarding how Pakistani's feel about drone attacks.

The public figures that criticized Bush...are also criticizing Obama.
 
rocket88 said:
Which is nice, but I didn't disagree with that.
Click to expand...

it certainly seemed like you did

rocket88 said:
WWe started with me agreeing with the idea that it's bipartisan, then attacked for "deflecting" to Bush. I'm not deflecting. It backs up the idea of what is now bipartisan support. Just because somebody says the name "Bush" doesn't mean they're deflecting.[/quote[]

1) where did I claim you were deflecting? I said you were insane for suggesting that support was always bipartisan, because opposition to such programs under Bush defined liberalism in this country for many years

2) My point, again, was that the issue only became bipartisan when a democrat entered the white house.

rocket88 said:
If Romney takes office, the policy will continue and people on the right will say "Well, it happened under Obama too." Will that be a deflection?
Click to expand...

again, where is the right currently taking issue with it? For the two situations to be analogies the right would have to largely reject the policy under Obama, and only start supporting it when he left office
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
lol, the left was freaking outraged the entire time Bush was in office, over things that didn't even come close to this
Click to expand...

You mean a war with a country with no WMD's? I would argue that the number of Americans KIA and wounded in Iraq and the cost of the war in Iraq are pretty big deals but whatever.

lol, that is excuse making. The left was completely outraged over issues of a similar nature under Bush. Infact, it pretty much defined the criticism of his presidenty the entire time he was in office
Click to expand...
It's not excuse making. This thread isn't about hypocrisy in politics. I just find it interesting that you think this is some major issue and seem to ignore the fact it happens all the time. For individuals that drone attacks and GITMO were important to....it's still important.

dude, we are talking about killing a US citizen, not an abstract political ideal. This is like someone screaming bloody hell over abortions, then completely compromising their views on what they see as murder, simply because a republican is in the WH
Click to expand...
That was my previous point. Conservative does not mean "screaming bloody hell over abortions". Just like Liberal doesn't mean everyone has one view on drone attacks and the killing of US citizens.

I love how...I point that out...and you call it "excuse making" then make the same argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom