"I do think the frustration that people have with the "withhold my vote" set is the failure to solve for problems. I don't like drones. And I agree they create more enemies. But I also think there are terrorists who would hurt us every chance they get. I also think that a significant attack during a Democratic Presidency would hurt progressives policy even more than 9/11 did. So I think for both humanitarian and politically progressive reasons the President needs to prevent terrorist attacks. He has chosen to do that with drones. I don't think he has chosen that because he is a heartless, pathological killer (like a flesh eating psychopath in one diary). I think he legitimately thinks it is the best way to fight terrorism with the fewest American casualties. I understand that people disagree and in many ways i think they could be correct. But what I do find to be unacceptable is a failure of drone critics to try to solve for the problem of terrorism. Or to make the case that there is nothing to fear from terrorism."
The chameleon like nature of the current administration has outdone Orwell so much that his writing seems sadly inoffensive and passe. This shit just boggles my fucking brain, the ways people twist their thoughts and reprogram their beliefs to fit the prevailing political climate of their favorite team. This was even one of the more tame examples from the thread I found it from. There's something to be said for the argument that electoral politics fundamentally and dynamically reprogram people with an efficiency that makes standard religions blush.
It really shouldn't at this point, but it still manages to awe me.
W. O. W. The 'problem' of terrorism - this f*ck*ng guy! Actually, who is this ID 10 T error? The case to fear terrorism pails in comparison than the case to drive a car, or exit your house for fear you might be murdered by any one private citizen you might consider a 'neighbor'.
Not only the fewest American casualties. The fewest casulaties, period! Iraq, anyone? 1M civilian casualties. Afghanistan? All those casualties, including our 3,000 civilians, could have been prevented by a single drone strike. Bill Clinton was too paralyzed by the left to give that order. That's all that was happening. American politics killed all those people. I drives me nuts to see people make those same arguments again and again. Drones are the most human way to wage war ever implemented. The question is "do we need to wage war?" Those with the red binders think we do. IMO we need an awfully good argument and a willingness to accept 1000's of American casualties in return for not having 1000's of foreign casualties. I don't see that happening.
Not only the fewest American casualties. The fewest casulaties, period! Iraq, anyone? 1M civilian casualties. Afghanistan? All those casualties, including our 3,000 civilians, could have been prevented by a single drone strike. Bill Clinton was too paralyzed by the left to give that order. That's all that was happening. American politics killed all those people.
I drives me nuts to see people make those same arguments again and again. Drones are the most human way to wage war ever implemented. The question is "do we need to wage war?" Those with the red binders think we do. IMO we need an awfully good argument and a willingness to accept 1000's of American casualties in return for not having 1000's of foreign casualties. I don't see that happening.
FUCK YEAH PROGRESSIVISM!!!!
Why am I posting these? It gives me some sort of perverse cathartic effect, I guess. I guess things like this are the reason why no amount of libertarian or socialist or progressive rhetoric or ANY rhetoric that conflicts with the State will ever prove more effective than the State's civic religion.
Vote for OBAMA - here is why. There are only two candidates who have a chance of receiving enough votes to get a 270 (or more) electoral vote majority. They are President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. If for only ONE reason, I suggest that a vote for anyone other than Barack Obama is THROWING AWAY YOUR VOTE IN THE MOST DANGEROUS WAY POSSIBLE. That one reason is the fact that the President of the United States gets to nominate people for the position of Supreme Court Justice. Barack Obama has shown he can and will nominate people of high intelligence and of high ethical standards. Mitt Romney has stated that he thinks the proper sort of nominee is in the mold of John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Supreme Court Justices typically serve for decades. Voting for anyone other than Obama would make the election of Romney more likely, with the possibility that several upcoming nominations would be made by Romney, and that they would be very conservative people who would have to pass a Romney "litmus test" as true conservatives. Do you REALLY want to take that chance? And have it affect the laws of this country for DECADES?? No President is perfect. In politics, you sometimes have to go for what is POSSIBLE, instead of what would be PERFECT. We get there a step at a time. As "wonderful" as it might be to elect a Jill Stein, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN IN 2012. But if you vote the wrong way, Mitt Romney might happen, just like George W. Bush happened when 90,000 Floridians voted for an egotist named Ralph Nader. You want that? Then think about voting for Jill Stein. Obama/Biden 2012.
There are only two candidates who have a chance of receiving enough votes to get a 270 (or more) electoral vote majority.
They are President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
If for only ONE reason, I suggest that a vote for anyone other than Barack Obama is THROWING AWAY YOUR VOTE IN THE MOST DANGEROUS WAY POSSIBLE.
That one reason is the fact that the President of the United States gets to nominate people for the position of Supreme Court Justice.
Barack Obama has shown he can and will nominate people of high intelligence and of high ethical standards.
Mitt Romney has stated that he thinks the proper sort of nominee is in the mold of John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Supreme Court Justices typically serve for decades.
Voting for anyone other than Obama would make the election of Romney more likely, with the possibility that several upcoming nominations would be made by Romney, and that they would be very conservative people who would have to pass a Romney "litmus test" as true conservatives.
Do you REALLY want to take that chance? And have it affect the laws of this country for DECADES??
No President is perfect. In politics, you sometimes have to go for what is POSSIBLE, instead of what would be PERFECT. We get there a step at a time.
As "wonderful" as it might be to elect a Jill Stein, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN IN 2012.
But if you vote the wrong way, Mitt Romney might happen, just like George W. Bush happened when 90,000 Floridians voted for an egotist named Ralph Nader.
You want that? Then think about voting for Jill Stein.
Obama/Biden 2012.
But if you vote the wrong way, Mitt Romney might happen, just like George W. Bush happened when 90,000 Floridians voted for an egotist named Ralph Nader. You want that? Then think about voting for Jill Stein. Obama/Biden 2012.
Damn that's exploitative BS. It was no better with the conservatives and their "Vote for Romney because he's not Obama!". Some Townhaller's now insist that not voting for Romney was a vote for Obama. At the same time pro-administration people will say that not voting for Obama is a vote for Romney. Considering the number of people who didn't vote, I suppose that a vast majority of Americans voted for both Obama and Romney at the same time! Imagine that!
On MSNBC, the anchors were talking about how Republicans and Democrats were obstructing gov. operations by grilling the Supreme Court Justice appointees. Plus the republicans were -gasp -making it impossible for about 25-33% of federal courts to operate. My only thought was "like any of this matters".