Death of an Obama fanboy

Thedrin said:

I'll somewhat agree with that. But prior to his VP pick, I was in favour of McCain and seemed to be very much in the minority in this country.

Click to expand...

Just because he has Mc in his name doesn't make him more Irish than O'Bama

Cutlass said:

Just because he has Mc in his name doesn't make him more Irish than O'Bama

Click to expand...

I heard he was born in Central America, a major cocaine cartel region

Thedrin said:

Drones

Most people outside of the US don't care about drones any more than they care about other forms of airstrike. They're technologically superior. That's it. I think that the fear of the technology is being blown out of proportion.

Criticism of how they have been managed is justifiable but also blown out of proportion. I don't think there was anything malicious in how the bureaucratic infrastructure of drone strikes arose. Technology moves faster than the rules that govern it. The power of drone strikes allowed the organisation managing them to use them far more frequently than were anticipated when the guideline were written.

Click to expand...

But the US didn't use many airstrikes to go after al qaeda. Not outside of their bases and bunkers. They would send in troops. That's why he have g'tmo after all. So the prospect of being killed anywhere, suddenly, by a drone that misidentifies you for al qaeda did not exist as such. Now I'm not saying we should stop using drones, but the fear of them by civilians in target countries is legitimate.

I also agree with your second paragraph. But more transparency on how one can become a drone target is needed.

Souron said:

But the US didn't use many airstrikes to go after al qaeda. Not outside of their bases and bunkers. They would send in troops. That's why he have g'tmo after all. So the prospect of being killed anywhere, suddenly, by a drone that misidentifies you for al qaeda did not exist as such. Now I'm not saying we should stop using drones, but the fear of them by civilians in target countries is legitimate.

I also agree with your second paragraph. But more transparency on how one can become a drone target is needed.

Click to expand...

Ah, I'm afraid that I was referring to western countries (a subset of countries that are not targeted) but didn't make the distinction. I should have done so. Nor was there sufficient context for me to assume that this would be understood. My bad.

<wut>

peter grimes said:

I'm not an Obama fanboy, but to most of my friends I come across as one because I challenge them on their assertions. They interpret these challenges as defenses on my part - and thus endorsements.

Click to expand...

This. Just because I don't repeat every garbage slur thrown at the guy on Fox News doesn't mean I particularly like Obama. But the old neighbors in Georgia can't fathom why that is.

Cutlass said:

As a national issue, conservatism in economic policy needs to be eliminated. And Obama is an economic conservative. That is perhaps the most significant issue for the continued prosperity of the American nation and people. So he gets really bad marks there.

Click to expand...

Transparency is a big deal where he's made a little progress, but this is a point where I have been profoundly disappointed. Don't get me wrong, I expect the nationally-electable Democrats to be a little conservative economically (look at Clinton), but Obama has been beyond the pale in enacting the Republican agenda from the 90s.

peter grimes said:

Do you think the uber-hype as being more related to the technology (unmanned aircraft) or to the deaths of innocent victims?

Myself, I don't find the technique troubling, it's the deaths themselves the are the problem. If we had B-52s dropping 500lb bombs on weddings I think we'd see just as much righteous outrage.

Click to expand...

I always thought the controversy was over who was responsible for the attacks--a military that is accountable to Congress is one thing, something done in utter secret by the CIA, never acknowledged, and mostly unreported, is something else.





So one of my big issues is the Supreme Court (as can be told by my prior posts obsessing over legal details, talking about cases, even on the first page of this thread). The other pet peeve of mine is that our national conversation seems excessively focused on the bounds, incursions, and exercise of public authority over individuals without an equivalent focus on the problems that private sources of authority cause. This is true of the two major parties and even of many third party movements such as the libertarians. Maybe the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Bernie Sanders, and a handful of other minor candidates address these issues.

So what I look for in a SC justice is someone who can balance these two ambiguously-related (I say this because it's not a simple matter of one cancels out the other, or there is some sort of linear scale between the two extremes) issues with all the other societal and constitutional questions that come before the court. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, from what I've seen of them on the bench, appear to have some appreciation for this even if they do not have a majority to seriously influence decisions (basically, it's either Kennedy or Roberts who swings and writes the decision on their terms). John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and the prior-nominated "conservatives" do not.

Thus, despite Obama's seemingly inherent small-c conservatism, he's able to pick out people who can engage the public/private authority question. I'd hope the Obama appointees have a chance to shine in a left-majority court where I think this issue would be tackled more forcefully and we'd really see some good discussion, as opposed to half the court basically ignoring the question and all the nuance associated with it.