Pbs: Nova - rise of drones

Pretty soon there's going to be so many things a principled person cannot do in society. I already gave up one of my favorite things, train travel, because of national security creep. I'd like to visit New York City but won't because I don't want to be randomly stopped and frisked (I would absolutely flip out and be sent to jail so I'm going to do the sensible thing and avoid the city). Now you won't be able to go outside once the drones are in the sky. It's no wonder that far-right conspiracy personalities are booming in popularity. The federal government essentially hands them the material. I think it's unfortunate because there are a lot of issues with privacy and government overstep when it comes to things like security, but it can be easy to be dismissed as one of those Alex Jones freaks.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Pretty soon there's going to be so many things a principled person cannot do in society. I already gave up one of my favorite things, train travel, because of national security creep. I'd like to visit New York City but won't because I don't want to be randomly stopped and frisked (I would absolutely flip out and be sent to jail so I'm going to do the sensible thing and avoid the city). Now you won't be able to go outside once the drones are in the sky. It's no wonder that far-right conspiracy personalities are booming in popularity. The federal government essentially hands them the material.[/QUOTE]

When did they start doing train travel, I thought it was only air currently? I never been stopped on the train..

NYC ain't bad, I live here.

The cops only stops blacks and hispanics....:D, which isn't much of a difference across america...:booty:
 
TSA on Amtrak is random at the moment, and will remain that way for quite some time, but I don't want to be caught up in it.

It's the TSA VIPR team that does the random checks. They also do random bag checks on the local rail transit here, subway, light rail and commuter rail. I was also detained briefly for taking photographs of trains (by local police, not TSA) and it put a bad taste in my mouth. They asked me to delete my pictures and I refused. After some intimidation they let me go.

It's funny, because at one point the Amtrak chief of police evicted the VIPR team from Amtrak property after a random check in Georgia years ago. But I guess they settled that since the VIPR team is back and on the job.
 
Thats funny,

Cause I taken Amtrak a couple of time and haven't seen any VIPR teams.. But then again I never carry alot of stuff on me.

Wow that sucks to hear, taking pictures of trains... sorry to hear bout it

I never even knew the TSA extended their grips to Amtrak, but I'll be on the look out for it from now
 
Like I said, it's random. Even the TSA knows that it's futile to cover all 529 stations, many of them rinky dink stations in the middle of nowhere. But I suspect high speed rail, if it is ever completed, will have TSA style airport security.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I think it's unfortunate because there are a lot of issues with privacy and government overstep when it comes to things like security, but it can be easy to be dismissed as one of those Alex Jones freaks.[/QUOTE]
Democrats used to champion these issues back in the day, when their guy wasn't President and they were the minority party in Congress. Now it's confined to the realm of Ron Paul Liberterians and old school 60s liberals who still believe that ever increasing government power is antithetical to freedom. Sad state of affairs.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Democrats used to champion these issues back in the day, when their guy wasn't President and they were the minority party in Congress.[/QUOTE]

I'm left wondering how much of their fight against these issues was because they actually had a stance they believed in verses "Oh, hey, it's what they're doing, so we should be against it."
 
I believe the rampant use of drone strikes on Americans overseas, and foreigners we term terrorists, will be one of the main issues that is discussed decades down the road. As a non-supporter of Bush II and Obama, the Obama use tweaks me more, because he sold the idea of hope, and justice, and a more ethical use of power than Bush commanded. What we actually got was someone with an equal amount of blood on his hands, and the same zest for blood and destruction that W had. Especially if Universal Health Care gets repealed by the next Republican in office, what else will we know the Obama presidency for?

Bush II directed more money to AIDS assistance in Africa than anyone before or after him. We remember him for war mongering and invading our privacy. It will be interesting.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I believe the rampant use of drone strikes on Americans overseas, and foreigners we term terrorists, will be one of the main issues that is discussed decades down the road. As a non-supporter of Bush II and Obama, the Obama use tweaks me more, because he sold the idea of hope, and justice, and a more ethical use of power than Bush commanded. What we actually got was someone with an equal amount of blood on his hands, and the same zest for blood and destruction that W had. Especially if Universal Health Care gets repealed by the next Republican in office, what else will we know the Obama presidency for?

Bush II directed more money to AIDS assistance in Africa than anyone before or after him. We remember him for war mongering and invading our privacy. It will be interesting.[/QUOTE]
This goes to show you the state of what's considered "liberal" and "conservative" these days. This is also why it amuses me to no end when someone starts throwing "liberal" around to describe mainline Democrats, so much so that when it happens irl, I always ask people what they mean. Most "lefties" usually go on about neo-liberalism without knowing it and righties generally have no clue, just that "liberal"=bad...on one occasion, it was closely linked to homophobia and an Asian fetish, as in the guy had both and used it to weakly explain his political stances.

But back on topic. Using drones is actually something that has been in the works for years and is the natural progression of how both parties want to conduct war. Ending wars and bringing home troops needs to be replaced by something in order to continue the ongoing campaign of imperialism and drones are the answer. Politically, it's not worth sending 150,000 service members to some foreign country if you can't shape public opinion on it. Smaller, surgical strikes is the new face of war when you have a nebulous enemy.

On a couple of sidenotes, what passed for healthcare reform isn't universal healthcare and if I remember correctly, most of the AID's funds were dispersed to religious organizations, more than likely christian ones, that promoted abstinence rather than safer sex practices and sex education.
 
[quote name='IRHari']"Surgical" implies high accuracy.[/QUOTE]

It is compared to how we usually do it and in no way am I saying that it's a good thing, just that it is a thing and the new reality. Believe me, I wish it wasn't the case.
 
I've got to wonder how long before someone (China?) uses a drone in our territory or that of an ally, then justifies it as their own national security. What will the reaction be?

I'm also curious about the behind the scenes bureaucracy. Sure Pakistan may be tolerating our drone strikes outwardly, but how are they reacting behind the scenes?

Almost feel sorry for these countries that the U.S. can push around because they'd have no chance of fighting back if they wanted to. We wouldn't dare do this in China or Russia (or would we?)
 
I'm not sure if I'd say Pakistan is outwardly tolerating the drone strikes. They've been pretty pissed about it lately and haven't been hiding it nearly as much as they used to.
 
Pakistan gov't is corrupt, nothing like a little US greenbacks to smooth them over...

Go bribe a gov't official in the USA, you be thrown in the slammer, yet Uncle Sam been greasing other gov't officials for close to more half a then h century.
 
[quote name='dohdough']This goes to show you the state of what's considered "liberal" and "conservative" these days. This is also why it amuses me to no end when someone starts throwing "liberal" around to describe mainline Democrats, so much so that when it happens irl, I always ask people what they mean. Most "lefties" usually go on about neo-liberalism without knowing it and righties generally have no clue, just that "liberal"=bad...on one occasion, it was closely linked to homophobia and an Asian fetish, as in the guy had both and used it to weakly explain his political stances.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand why I was quoted then that first paragraph was posted in reply, but your last sentence made me just about lol.

But back on topic. Using drones is actually something that has been in the works for years and is the natural progression of how both parties want to conduct war. Ending wars and bringing home troops needs to be replaced by something in order to continue the ongoing campaign of imperialism and drones are the answer. Politically, it's not worth sending 150,000 service members to some foreign country if you can't shape public opinion on it. Smaller, surgical strikes is the new face of war when you have a nebulous enemy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. I feel like the public needs to be sold better on it then. I think more people look at drones as remote control death devices, which are less understood, than a confrontation with an armed opponent, and making strategic decision on how to neutralize the opponent. Throw in the massive civilian casualties that are being reported as a result of drone strikes, and much like most things these days, unless you have a better PR guy than the opposing group, you're probably going to lose to public opinion. That's more important now than it has been in previous decades.

On a couple of sidenotes, what passed for healthcare reform isn't universal healthcare and if I remember correctly
Click to expand...
Agreed, I should've said Affordable Care Act/Obamacare instead. Mis-use of "Universal Health Care" by me.

most of the AID's funds were dispersed to religious organizations, more than likely christian ones, that promoted abstinence rather than safer sex practices and sex education.
Click to expand...
As a pretty well known "non-Christian" around these parts, it doesn't really matter to me WHO got the money. I sincerely believe it was his goal to find a way to get money to Africa to fight the spread of AIDS (and not to pad the pockets of NGO administrators). Missionaries have a long and horrible history throughout that continent, but if they are going to teach abstinence, while educating on the spread of AIDS, delivering medication to slow the progression of the disease, or even just hand out a ton of rubbers, good for W, and shame on previous presidents for not making it a major point of action. He is not appropriately credited for that great act, because he is better known for many widely considered bad ones. That's my question on Obama. Will he be known for one thing that many consider to be very good (Affordable Care Act) or will it be the use of drones, lack of action on Gitmo, continuation of wars, and expansion in some regions? I don't know. We can discuss in a couple decades.
 
Point of it was that people consider Obama liberal when he's really center-right when looking at his policies, which are similar to Bush's.

IMO, Obama will be known for just being the first black president. Conservatives will turn him into this weird mix of Clinton and Carter.

Tablet typing in bed cause I wrecked my hip last night putting a roast in the oven, so my post wasn't as detailed as I usually like, sorry. Lift with your knees will never be forgotten now...hahaha.
 
You know, if you'd said you burned yourself I'd totally understand that, but how the hell do you hurt your hip placing a roast in the oven?

Old man doh over here....;)
 
[quote name='Clak']You know, if you'd said you burned yourself I'd totally understand that, but how the hell do you hurt your hip placing a roast in the oven?

Old man doh over here....;)[/QUOTE]
When you turn 33, you'll see how it is!:lol:

Pre-heated oven, door comes out about 2 feet, bottom rack is about 6 inches off the floor, a 10lb roast, and a whole lot of dumb. I was leaning in, felt my left hip tightening, and then pain...lots of it. On the brightside, I didn't drop the roast! Too much cumin though.
 
[quote name='dohdough']When you turn 33, you'll see how it is!:lol:

Pre-heated oven, door comes out about 2 feet, bottom rack is about 6 inches off the floor, a 10lb roast, and a whole lot of dumb. I was leaning in, felt my left hip tightening, and then pain...lots of it. On the brightside, I didn't drop the roast! Too much cumin though.[/QUOTE]

I am 38. I hurt myself all the time in the dumbest ways. Pull a muscle in my back drying off from the shower? Yeah I can do that.
 
Surprise, surprise...

PBS Drone Coverage Brought to You by Drone Makers
Lockheed's Nova sponsorship violates underwriting rules
http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/pbs-drone-coverage-brought-to-you-by-drone-makers/

The PBS Nova broadcast "Rise of the Drones" was sponsored by drone manufacturer Lockheed Martin--a clear violation of PBS's underwriting guidelines.
As Kevin Gosztola reported (FireDogLake, 1/24/13), the January 23 broadcast was a mostly upbeat look at surveillance and weaponized drones. "Discover the cutting edge technologies that are propelling us toward a new chapter in aviation history," PBS urged, promising to reveal "the amazing technologies that make drones so powerful."

Some of that technology, unbeknownst to viewers, was created by the company described as giving Nova "additional funding" at the beginning of the broadcast. Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor with $46 billion in 2011 sales, is a manufacturer of drones used in warfare and intelligence, including the Desert Hawk, the Falcon, the Stalker and the Tracer. In December 2012, Lockheed bought AME Unmanned Air Systems, maker of the Fury drone (New Times, 12/19/12).
Nova's history of unmanned flight technology included comments from Abe Karem, dubbed the "father of the Predator" drone. His current company, FireDogLake's Gosztola noted, has a business relationship with Lockheed Martin.

The show did not entirely skirt the controversies over drones. A section of the broadcast dealt with drone pilots firing on targets in countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan. Viewers, though, are told that drone pilots have distinct advantage over conventional pilots. One drone operator talks about how, after a strike, a drone can "stick around for another few hours to watch what happens afterwards." A more critical look at drone wars might have mentioned these are the same circumstances under which U.S. drones have attacked rescue workers and funeral processions (Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 6/4/12).

The show does not ignore the question of civilian deaths--though it says "the facts are hard to come by" and that "there are not fully reliable counts of civilian deaths." Nova does mention that some estimates are that 30 percent of those killed are civilians, and talks about one attack that killed 23 civilians in Pakistan.

But, in keeping with the generally upbeat tone, Nova tells viewers that technology will help turn things around. "Drones can strike with pinpoint precision," the programs explains, "but their visual sensors are limited in ways that can lead pilots to make mistakes." Not to worry, though; "engineers are working to create new sensors that can see more in greater detail than ever before."

The program's sponsorship tie to the drone industry were never mentioned--though there were opportunities to disclose that relationship. In addition to Lockheed Martin's connection to one of the interview subjects, the show discussed a U.S. drone that was captured by Iran--without mentioning that it was manufactured by Nova's underwriter. And when Nova discusses the drones of the future, it's talking about the kind of miniature drones Lockheed Martin is developing to provide "constant surveillance capabilities" (TPM IdeaLab, 7/4/12).

Though the broadcast included an underwriting announcement at the beginning ("Additional funding from Lockheed Martin: Inspiring tomorrow's engineers and technologists"), that credit was removed from the webcast, and the company is not credited on the Nova website for the episode.

So can a corporation really provide "additional funding" for public TV journalism that discusses its own interests? PBS rules would seem to say no. The network has three tests that "are applied to every proposed funding arrangement in order to determine its acceptability":
* Editorial Control Test: Has the underwriter exercised editorial control? Could it?
* Perception Test: Might the public perceive that the underwriter has exercised editorial control?
* Commercialism Test: Might the public conclude the program is on PBS principally because it promotes the underwriter’s products, services or other business interests?

On the perception test, PBS explains:
When there exists a clear and direct connection between the interests or products or services of a proposed funder and the subject matter of the program, the proposed funding will be deemed unacceptable regardless of the funder's actual compliance with the editorial control provisions of this policy.

On commercialism:
The policy is intended to prohibit any funding arrangement where the primary emphasis of the program is on products or services that are identical or similar to those of the underwriter.

It is difficult to see how PBS could argue that the Nova special does not violate these rules. And PBS wants you the believe they take such matters seriously:
Should a significant number of reasonable viewers conclude that PBS has sold its professionalism and independence to its program funders, whether or not their conclusions are justified, then the entire program service of public television will be suspect and the goal of serving the public will be unachievable.
If PBS really believe these words, why did they allow the Lockheed-funded "Rise of the Drones" to air?

ACTION:
Ask PBS ombud Michael Getler to investigate whether Nova's "Rise of the Drones" violates PBS underwriting guidelines.
CONTACT:
PBS Ombud
Michael Getler
[email protected]
Phone: 703 739 5290
 
Since we are on the topic of drones... here is mega-zord drone!

Watch the World’s Highest Resolution Drone-Mounted Camera in Action
http://gizmodo.com/5979372/watch-the-worlds-highest-resolution-drone+mounted-camera-in-action

45500_598637493486776_1036645221_n.jpg
 
The administration's legal case for drone strikes on Americans was leaked today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/u...ews-on-killing-citizens-in-al-qaeda.html?_r=0
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...egal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”
Click to expand...

What al-Qaida associated force was Abdulrahmen al-Awlaki a senior operational leader of?
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']
528810_177874859010248_1176371937_n.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Don't if I'd take it that far, homie.

[quote name='Finger_Shocker']How sad ...... a person who fought against Bush became Bush ...LOL[/QUOTE]
And that's why when someone calls Obama a socialist or the MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVAR1!!11!1, you know they're full of shit.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Don't if I'd take it that far, homie.


And that's why when someone calls Obama a socialist or the MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVAR1!!11!1, you know they're full of shit.[/QUOTE]

Doh, on your first point, as you know, has had the largest drone campaign ever and it seems like he is leading the charge into this brave new world of "acceptable" warfare. In fact, he's normalized it. Under the fake liberal veneer that you rightly point out. He's expanded the criteria for targets to the point that that is no need for criteria except "I feel it in my gut!" to quote a certain clown prince. Dubya at least had very strict criteria. Now, we can have that Orwellian constant state of war.
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']Doh, on your first point, as you know, has had the largest drone campaign ever and it seems like he is leading the charge into this brave new world of "acceptable" warfare. In fact, he's normalized it. Under the fake liberal veneer that you rightly point out. He's expanded the criteria for targets to the point that that is no need for criteria except "I feel it in my gut!" to quote a certain clown prince. Dubya at least had very strict criteria. Now, we can have that Orwellian constant state of war.[/QUOTE]
You missed my points completely. Honestly, your macro is in very poor taste and you being one of the more educated people in vs. in regards to these types of issues(social and political), I really expect more from you. I shouldn't have to explain the white washing of MLK and that quote, which your characterization employs.

Dropping it all on Obama ignores the fact that if it wasn't Obama, it would've been someone else and the country has been under a constant state of war since it's inception. This is a systemic problem, not an individual one. Hell, I'd blame John Yoo long before I'd blame Obama, but you also have to know how a person like Yoo can come to such an influential position to begin with. And if it wasn't John Yoo, would there have been another person that would come up with the same legal manipulations?

This type of warfare has been in the works for over 30 years and the idea of killer robots is even older. Do I like the situation? No. Does Obama deserve some blame? Hell yes because he has some agency especially now that he's in his second term, but pointing your finger only at him and not at the system is missing the forest for the trees.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
And that's why when someone calls Obama a socialist or the MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVAR1!!11!1, you know they're full of shit.[/QUOTE]

Since when does socialism or liberalism get confused with pacifism?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Since when does socialism or liberalism get confused with pacifism?[/QUOTE]
Thanks for proving my point and I know what you're getting at. According to your "logic," the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic run by the people of Korea.

McCarthy is dead and the Red Scare is over. Deal with it.:cool:
 
[quote name='dohdough']You missed my points completely. Honestly, your macro is in very poor taste and you being one of the more educated people in vs. in regards to these types of issues(social and political), I really expect more from you. I shouldn't have to explain the white washing of MLK and that quote, which your characterization employs.

Dropping it all on Obama ignores the fact that if it wasn't Obama, it would've been someone else and the country has been under a constant state of war since it's inception. This is a systemic problem, not an individual one. Hell, I'd blame John Yoo long before I'd blame Obama, but you also have to know how a person like Yoo can come to such an influential position to begin with. And if it wasn't John Yoo, would there have been another person that would come up with the same legal manipulations?

This type of warfare has been in the works for over 30 years and the idea of killer robots is even older. Do I like the situation? No. Does Obama deserve some blame? Hell yes because he has some agency especially now that he's in his second term, but pointing your finger only at him and not at the system is missing the forest for the trees.[/QUOTE]

Hey Doh, I think you're inferring a lot which is not there. Or we see that that pic is saying something completely different. I am 110% with you on MLK whitewashing. I hate the MLK Day infinite loop of "I have a dream." Me, I like me some of that MSM censored Beyond Vietnam speech.

Of course, I understand this is a systemic problem. Why would you think that I put all the problems on him? I don't. You clearly know that I am not one of those conservative fools who thinks all these issues started with Obama. I think every post war US president is a war criminal because they are. Even Mr Peace, Jimmy Carter.

I like the juxtaposition of the pic because Obama (and his handlers, supporters, etc) have tried to connect Obama to MLK. He just took the oath of office on MLK's bible! Liberals eat that shit up! The serious problem of Obama is that as a supposed "liberal," or more accurately, the alternative to the lunatic right, he normalizes right-wing policies. All this while seeming like the "reasonable" alternative!!! You know this. Slick Willie did the same. Obama is moving the goalpost. This is a far greater threat to this country than the expected right-winger. I'm sorry, this meme is a great one. I don't see how this picture could be so problematic for you.
 
I find it problematic because it uses right wing framing...MLK being one of the "good ones" with Malcolm X/Obama being an agitator. I never bought into his cult of personality because he's just another neo-liberal politician, so I guess the message is lost on me, but things like this are always up for interpretation I suppose. It's like when libertarians talk about Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, I just find it cynical.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I find it problematic because it uses right wing framing. I never bought into his cult of personality because he's just another neo-liberal politician, so I guess the message is lost on me, but things like this are always up for interpretation I suppose. It's like when libertarians talk about Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, I just find it cynical.[/QUOTE]

I don't see it as right-wing framing. It's far left to me. Since when does the right-wing care about drone bombing? I've heard maybe one say something critical about it.

And what do libertarians say about Bernie Sanders???
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']I don't see it as right-wing framing. It's far left to me. Since when does the right-wing care about drone bombing? I've heard maybe one say something critical about it.[/quote]
I edited my post to be more descriptive...or maybe you should stop knee-jerking! Kidding of course.:D

Most libertarians tend to be right wing regressives, so I just group them together. Only a couple of them on vs. are exceptions...and that's being generous to their numbers.

And what do libertarians say about Bernie Sanders???
Click to expand...
About how they'd love to see Paul and Sanders together on a Presidential ticket or how we should be supporting Paul because of superficially being on the same side as liberals on some issues.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I edited my post to be more descriptive...or maybe you should stop knee-jerking! Kidding of course.:D

Most libertarians tend to be right wing regressives, so I just group them together. Only a couple of them on vs. are exceptions...and that's being generous to their numbers.


About how they'd love to see Paul and Sanders together on a Presidential ticket or how we should be supporting Paul because of superficially being on the same side as liberals on some issues.[/QUOTE]

Yup, my knee was a jerkin! Well, it's too bad but makes sense that they don't bring up MLK's condemnations such as...
“The evils of capitalism and militarism are as great as the evils of racism.”
"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world... my own government."

Now, I take exception to speaking about "Malcolm X/Obama being an agitator" without mentioning that the latter is an agitator only because of his skin color. Malcolm was an agitator due to his skin but mainly because of his views.
 
Doh, I took a glance at your earlier posts on the misunderstanding of the general public on the liberal/conservative dichotomy here. I agree. It begs the question of what liberalism really is. (Right-wing fucktards need not apply with their juvenile explanations.) After reading Immanuel Wallerstein's The Modern World-System IV: Centrist Liberalism Triumphant, 1789-1914, I got a better understanding of what liberalism was historically and it seems some things do not really change. It was more accurately liberal-imperialism and was a political affiliation which sought to marginalize the working class and advocate for liberties... theirs only. They basically helped to embed liberal values (market-based) in the conservative party. Sound familiar? Chapter 3 of the book has the thick of this. You might be able to find a pdf of it. I highly recommend it.
 
It's pretty sad that it currently takes more legal justification to hack a cellphone outside the U.S. than it does to kill someone.
 
Last thing I want is to defend or justify the Obama admin in regards to this. Really do the right wing have any right to denounce and attack Obama on this when Obama is basically following right-wing though process.

We all know right wing gun nuts have long argued that they want their guns in order to shoot any intruder that comes on to their property, that they have no hesitation on pulling a gun out when someone break into their house, or that they will shoot anyone who comes near their family

Well lucky YOU Obama is using that same type of argument to justify Drone Killing, terrorist are the intruders and the USA is your property.. So in Obama's argument and right wing gun nuts argument, if you choose to enter my property in a threatening manner I will KILL YOU, and then we will let the courts sort it out later.

You see any right wing gun nut, ever mention that people who break into their house deserves a trial by jury and that they will always try to capture them to allow them to face justice? NO, many times the gun nuts just say if you enter my property you are DEAD and I maintain my guns so that if someone breaks into my house, I will shoot them dead.

Obama is basically applying right wing thinking on a gov't justification scale.

So right wingers why complain about Obama, he is basically one of you.... except he is black...lol
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']Doh, I took a glance at your earlier posts on the misunderstanding of the general public on the liberal/conservative dichotomy here. I agree. It begs the question of what liberalism really is. (Right-wing fucktards need not apply with their juvenile explanations.) After reading Immanuel Wallerstein's The Modern World-System IV: Centrist Liberalism Triumphant, 1789-1914, I got a better understanding of what liberalism was historically and it seems some things do not really change. It was more accurately liberal-imperialism and was a political affiliation which sought to marginalize the working class and advocate for liberties... theirs only. They basically helped to embed liberal values (market-based) in the conservative party. Sound familiar? Chapter 3 of the book has the thick of this. You might be able to find a pdf of it. I highly recommend it.[/QUOTE]Political parties/factions change over time, we know this. Now I get the feeling you're saying not much has changed, and I wouldn't agree with that. All of this is based upon your perspective and whether or not you really want to lay things at certain feet. some of us have different perspectives and aren't willing to lay the countries problems at the feet of just a few people. To put it simply, the problem with America is Americans.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I find it problematic because it uses right wing framing...MLK being one of the "good ones" with Malcolm X/Obama being an agitator. [/QUOTE]

hey, hey, hey, even in using it as an example of lunacy, not cool to ever put a hero and martyr like Malcolm in the same rhetorical group as a president, even a black one. Post-NOI Malcolm is one of the greater men to have ever lived, IMO. Obama is a US President. :/
 
[quote name='berzirk']hey, hey, hey, even in using it as an example of lunacy, not cool to ever put a hero and martyr like Malcolm in the same rhetorical group as a president, even a black one. Post-NOI Malcolm is one of the greater men to have ever lived, IMO. Obama is a US President. :/[/QUOTE]
I totally get what you're saying and that's kinda the same point I was making. I'm just saying that others do it cynically and make that false equivalence.

And thanks for the rec joeboosauce. Now I have another book in the backlog.:D
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Democrats used to champion these issues back in the day, when their guy wasn't President and they were the minority party in Congress. Now it's confined to the realm of Ron Paul Liberterians and old school 60s liberals who still believe that ever increasing government power is antithetical to freedom. Sad state of affairs.[/QUOTE]
The willingness of the mainstream liberal movement to pretend its not happening will go down as one of the greatest failings of Obama's term. There will come a day when a Republican gets elected and the feedback loop of hypocritical bullshit will be complete as "we" suddenly remember we care about these kinds of things.

Oh wait no we don't. It's just a bludgeon we use because we're childish assholes.

This is our version of Republican's bullshit on the deficit. The caring will begin the nanosecond the election is called for the other party.
 
[quote name='speedracer']The willingness of the mainstream liberal movement to pretend its not happening will go down as one of the greatest failings of Obama's term. There will come a day when a Republican gets elected and the feedback loop of hypocritical bullshit will be complete as "we" suddenly remember we care about these kinds of things.

Oh wait no we don't. It's just a bludgeon we use because we're childish assholes.

This is our version of Republican's bullshit on the deficit. The caring will begin the nanosecond the election is called for the other party.[/QUOTE]

What makes you think that mainstream liberals actually care about imperialism, which is slightly different than what you're saying, but the actual term for it? I'd bet that a vast majority have absolutely no problem with the US using soft power to manipulate another country into doing it's bidding or act in US interests. People care about the method in which we exercise power, not that we do.
 
[quote name='dohdough']What makes you think that mainstream liberals actually care about imperialism, which is slightly different than what you're saying, but the actual term for it? I'd bet that a vast majority have absolutely no problem with the US using soft power to manipulate another country into doing it's bidding or act in US interests. People care about the method in which we exercise power, not that we do.[/QUOTE]
The method kills noncombatants. It kills children indiscriminately. We both know this. It has killed a substantial number of these people. I don't think a reasonable person would disagree.

Is this method acceptable then because there are no complaints? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
 
[quote name='speedracer']The method kills noncombatants. It kills children indiscriminately. We both know this. It has killed a substantial number of these people. I don't think a reasonable person would disagree.

Is this method acceptable then because there are no complaints? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?[/QUOTE]
I think you're missing what I'm saying. My point is that imperialism via soft power is even more indiscriminate in it's victims and affects more people than all the victims of drones strikes put together.

edit: Even if we eliminated drone strikes right now, we'll just use another method that might be even more deadly than drones and even less covert.

It's not "acceptable because there aren't any complaints," but there are less complaints because it's not a full scale invasion and virtually no complaints when it comes to soft power. People are more concerned with these overt methods rather than the goal, which is empire. Drones aren't the problem; imperialism is. I'm not saying that we can't be critical, but that we need to attack both.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top