Let’s just say you have a conveniently myopic definition of terrorism that assigns an emotionally charged term to offensive actions of small groups while sugar coating equally offensive actions of large, powerful groups.
And you’re not using the word terrorism because it is an emotionally charged term. No, not at all. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of “terrorism,” you’re using the word the way God and justice intends it to be used, right?
I haven’t commented on the size of the groups involved, so I don’t think you have any basis for this conclusion either.
It’s inherent in your responses. The outcome is equally offensive. Would you have an issue if the thread title was Barack Obama is as offensive as a terrorist?
Good for Obama. Fire a missile for me, Barack.
I agree that claiming every person his was a terrorist is extremely disingenuous, but I understand why he has to do it politically. This thread is evidence for that. This thread has also stirred me to donate a small amount of money to Obama’s campaign.
Ok, now I understand: it’s not based on anything I actually wrote, much like the accusation that Obama is a terrorist or the drone program is a “terrorist tactic” are based on lots of things but not on the actual definition of terrorism.
The ideas about Obama and the drone strikes would be the same regardless of what the thread is called, so there’s not much point in quibbling with the thread title. We’re discussing the ideas here (and I’m also being required to debate some absurd characterizations of my posts). For the record though, yes, that is also an absurd proposition unless perhaps you are an Afghan villager who has lost a family member because of a military screwup.
Do you think Obama’s policies that favor the monied elite and other key constituencies are more important than avoiding the killing of innocent children abroad?
Do you admit the administration is lying to cover up the civilian deaths? If so, do you always regard lies made to you by your preferred officials as politically necessary? Do you think we would all be better off if our wise officials kept sad things like this from us?
Oh so you think these are military screw-ups? I don’t think we have anything more to say to each other.
I rememeber when this practice was condemned when Israel was doing it…
I’m going to the bathroom now. No offense, but when I get back I’m sitting at the other end of the bar.
Sorry, what?
Or maybe it’s because it’s a running theme of the Obama administration that he cares less about not doing evil than he does about getting caught? Or have you not noticed that out of everyone at the CIA who used or knew about the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”, the only person the Obama administration is willing to prosecute is the whistleblower?
When innocent people are killed, yes.
I don’t think we’ve said anything to each other yet. I’ve mostly been arguing against your bizarre reinterpretations of my posts, and I am happy to have done with that.
I’m voting for Romney, whose policies don’t favor the monied elite.
Cite that the US is intentionally targeting civilians, aid workers, or weddings and funerals? Because I don’t think that statement you made is factually correct.
As the system is currently set up, a 3rd party candidate has to have a HUGE amount of appeal, across broad spectrums. Neither of the candidates you have mentioned have that, and thus voting for them isn’t a “statement” or anything of the sort. It is literally a waste, as most sources don’t even report on 3rd party candidates.
I find your moral purity ethically repugnant.
If you think crony capitalism and bailouts don’t favor the monied elite you’re an Obama voter as well as an idiot.
You’re not allowed to insult other people in this forum, WillFarnaby (and before you ask, the insult is “idiot,” not “Obama voter”). Don’t do it again.
Is there any real reason to believe that if Stein or Johnson was actually elected President, they wouldn’t be doing the same things that Obama or Romney would do?
And the OP has another misconception common to third party supporters - the belief that somehow the “system” is wrongly forcing people to vote for Democrats and Republicans. And that some fix would allow people to vote for the parties they really like - the Greens or Libertarians or Socialists or Natural Laws or whatever.
The reality is much simpler. The system isn’t rigged against third parties. They do poorly in elections because most people don’t agree with their platforms. People don’t choose Democrats and Republicans over Greens and Libertarians because of some coercive force. People vote for the parties they like and a lot more people like the Democrats and Republicans than like the Greens and Libertarians.
Art of the possible, Grumman. A vote for anyone but a Republicrat is the same as staying home on eday, and Obama is at any rate almost certainly far better than Romney would be in this regard. You know all this.