What is your opinion about drones?

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Usually not a happy ending to those who play in a sandbox too long-
Sincerely,
Mr. Hellfire

... Enter Sandman!

 

<okay, okay, that's really a very very bad song... I mean, cool guitars, scary lyrics...>

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On 11/22/2016 at 9:44 AM, NeuroTypical said:

 did we stop using drones to assassinate US citizens who had gone to another country to fight for Al-Qaeda?  Or did the media just stop covering it because Obama was president?  I guess if it starts being a story again in 2017 I'll have my answer. 

This is intended as a neutral comment...

We definitely haven't stopped using drones in the military. Obama ordered many drone strikes. 

Perhaps the media stopped covering it because...oh! squirrel! Brad and Angelina are getting divorced...or whatever else distracted Americans.

I read that in spite of Obama's promise to get us out of the war, when he leaves he will be the only President to have lead the country on a war his entire eight years. Though thanks to drones less of our soldiers have been in danger.

[Guest MormonGator]

27 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I read that in spite of Obama's promise to get us out of the war, when he leaves he will be the only President to have lead the country on a war his entire eight years. Though thanks to drones less of our soldiers have been in danger.

Sadly correct. Something to remember Lit-the mainstream media isn't covering this. If you ask the average guy/girl they'll think Bush was more "war happy" than Obama. Not true. There is a perpetual war doctrine that the US subscribes to. I'm not a whack job pacifist. In fact, I think pacifism is naive and dangerous. But you don't have to be one to be a little frustrated with the US playing world police and seemingly always being at war. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

... Enter Sandman!

 

<okay, okay, that's really a very very bad song... I mean, cool guitars, scary lyrics...>

Oh.  I thought you were talking about Spiderman's rival.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

50 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Sadly correct. Something to remember Lit-the mainstream media isn't covering this. If you ask the average guy/girl they'll think Bush was more "war happy" than Obama. Not true. There is a perpetual war doctrine that the US subscribes to. I'm not a whack job pacifist. In fact, I think pacifism is naive and dangerous. But you don't have to be one to be a little frustrated with the US playing world police and seemingly always being at war. 

It's true that I didn't learn about Obama ordering all those drone attacks from the media.  (It was from a class.)  At the same time, isn't the NYT considered Liberal? They are the ones that said Obama is the only President with two full terms of war

"Pres. Obama came into office seven years ago pledging to end the wars of his predecessor, George W. Bush. On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president."
 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/obama-as-wartime-president-has-wrestled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html?_r=0

I'm not trying to debate here just pullling a Sean (from "Psych") "I see it both ways."  LOL! 

Edited November 23, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

This is intended as a neutral comment...

We definitely haven't stopped using drones in the military. Obama ordered many drone strikes. 

Perhaps the media stopped covering it because...oh! squirrel! Brad and Angelina are getting divorced...or whatever else distracted Americans.

I read that in spite of Obama's promise to get us out of the war, when he leaves he will be the only President to have lead the country on a war his entire eight years. Though thanks to drones less of our soldiers have been in danger.

The last paragraph is not quite accurate.  For example... there were twice more American soldier casualties of war in Afghanistan in the Obama years versus the Bush years... There are a drastically lower number in Iraq but that's because we pulled out of Iraq.  But, in the Obama years, the US engaged in new wars "unofficially" like the one in Yemen and Syria.  And no, they were not just drones.  They were boots even as they don't count them as such.  It's just that, during the Bush years, every soldier who dies gets splashed on the news.  Not so much in the Obama years.

Edited November 23, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

58 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

It's true that I didn't learn about Obama ordering all those drone attacks from the media.  (It was from a class.)  At the same time, isn't the NYT considered Liberal? They are the ones that said Obama is the only President with two full terms of war

"Pres. Obama came into office seven years ago pledging to end the wars of his predecessor, George W. Bush. On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president."
 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/obama-as-wartime-president-has-wrestled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html?_r=0

I'm not trying to debate here just pullling a Sean (from "Psych") "I see it both ways."  LOL! 

You are exactly right @LiterateParakeet, the NYT IS liberal. No question, 100% correct. But the issue is a bit more complicated than what both conservatives and liberals admit and understand. 

Now this is what conservatives don't understand: just because they are liberal , doesn't mean they are actively advancing their liberalism 24 hours a day,seven days a week. What you also have to remember is that while they are liberal, they'll smack down their own liberal children for a headline. Hence why when Anthony Weiner (a huge, huge liberal) got into trouble they rightfully annihilated the little pervert.  If they cared more about liberalism than the news, they'd say "La la la can't hear you" when liberal politicians get in trouble. They don't do that. They care more about news than political ideology. Conservatives just don't understand that.  

Liberals foolishly say "There is no liberal bias because the Times is mean to liberals who get in trouble." That's garbage too. Again, the Times cares more about news than politics. No reporter is a social conservative, that's for sure. They all think the same way on abortions, guns, death penalty, gay marriage, taxes, everything. So they begin to think that "liberal" means "moderate". After all, all my friends are good people and they think the same on every single issue. So all good people must think the same.

While the media gave Obama a huge pass and didn't apply the same criticism to him as they did to Bush, that doesn't mean they will stick their heads in the sand and never report negative things about him.

Edited November 23, 2016 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

While the media gave Obama a huge pass and didn't apply the same criticism to him as they did to Bush, that doesn't mean they will stick their heads in the sand and never report negative things about him.

Note for example...no coverage of those that died..  Under Bush... every dead solider was waved as an indictment against Bush and his war policies.  Under Obama is... hey look he just passed a milestone for duration of war time presidency.. and "gosh darn it" it is a hard thing to be president and have to make hard choices, but lets not talk about those people who pay the price for that hard choice.

Honesty I would have no problem with either form being applied to both... Its the huge difference between the two that is the problem. Hardly an equal treatment by any definition,

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Note for example...no coverage of those that died..  Under Bush... every dead solider was waved as an indictment against Bush and his war policies.  Under Obama is... hey look he just passed a milestone for duration of war time presidency.. and "gosh darn it" it is a hard thing to be president and have to make hard choices, but lets not talk about those people who pay the price for that hard choice.

Honesty I would have no problem with either form being applied to both... Its the huge difference between the two that is the problem. Hardly an equal treatment by any definition,

Absolutely, 100% true. They do that with homeless too. Homelessness is a huge social problem with Bush/Trump/Reagan. With Clinton and Obama it's oddly ignored by the mainstream media. 

What they'll also do is bury the news. On page 45 of the Wednesday edition before Thanksgiving (which no one, not even me reads) they'll announce that Obama has had more soldiers die overseas then Bush has (no, I'm not claiming that. Just an example).  Or some other bad news that paints Obama and other democrats bad. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

Remember though @estradling75-it doesn't work the way some (no, not you personally- just an example) conservatives think it does. They don't huddle around and say "Let's get those nasty conservatives by spinning the news this way. :: evil laugh::" That wouldn't be tolerated even by the Times. 

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Remember though @estradling75-it doesn't work the way some (no, not you personally- just an example) conservatives think it does. They don't huddle around and say "Let's get those nasty conservatives by spinning the news this way. :: evil laugh::" That wouldn't be tolerated even by the Times. 

While I agree, if we are talking about the rank and file....  If however we are talking about the leadership then I am not so sure I agree

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

While I agree, if we are talking about the rank and file....  If however we are talking about the leadership then I am not so sure I agree

If you asked Sulzberger if he likes taking down conservative politicians more than liberal ones, he'd answer yes. 

If you asked him if his editorial page is liberal, he'd answer yes. 

If you asked him if his front page is slanted towards liberals, he'd answer no. 

[unixknight]

I read an article a couple of years ago in which a guy shot down a neighbor's drone that was directly over his yard.  The judge ruled that it was NOT okay to shoot down a drone, even if it's over your own property.  Partly it's because it's illegal  to discharge a firearm in a residential area (Basic Physics 101 tells us that if you miss, that bullet will be moving as fast when it comes down as it was when it went up, only you don't know where that'll be), but also because it's never okay to just destroy someone's property.  If a drone is over your house you call the police and let them handle it.

As for military drones...  I'm fine with using them for reconnaissance in war, but not as a weapons platform.  It makes killing very impersonal, very sterile, and that makes killing easy.  It's the same moral issue that was raised in the classic Star Trek Episode "A Taste of Armageddon."

Edited November 23, 2016 by unixknight

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If you asked Sulzberger if he likes taking down conservative politicians more than liberal ones, he'd answer yes. 

If you asked him if his editorial page is liberal, he'd answer yes. 

If you asked him if his front page is slanted towards liberals, he'd answer no. 

And I would say his first answer... makes it so his third answer of no is false no matter what he says.

For example take Anthony Weiner his indiscretions brought him down twice...  Had he been a Republican he would have never gotten a second chance and the press would have done everything in their power to take down any Republican even remotely associated with him. That might not be the result of back room dealing, but it is very much the result of the Higher up in the news rooms considering the embarrassments of their "Friends" are less newsworthy then the embarrassments of their "Enemies"  

[unixknight]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

And I would say his first answer... makes it so his third answer of no is false no matter what he says.

For example take Anthony Weiner his indiscretions brought him down thrice...  Had he been a Republican he would have never gotten a second chance and the press would have done everything in their power to take down any Republican even remotely associated with him. That might not be the result of back room dealing, but it is very much the result of the Higher up in the news rooms considering the embarrassments of their "Friends" are less newsworthy then the embarrassments of their "Enemies"  

Fixed.

(INORITE?!?!?!?!)

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

For example take Anthony Weiner his indiscretions brought him down twice...  Had he been a Republican he would have never gotten a second chance and the press would have done everything in their power to take down any Republican even remotely associated with him. That might not be the result of back room dealing, but it is very much the result of the Higher up in the news rooms considering the embarrassments of their "Friends" are less newsworthy then the embarrassments of their "Enemies"  

 Yup. If Anthony Weiner was a republican he'd have already been indicted and would have not got a second chance. I agree, big double standard. No question whatsoever. 

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

And I would say his first answer... makes it so his third answer of no is false no matter what he says.

 

True or not, it doesn't matter anymore. The Times won't be here in 10 years and it's influence is basically nil. It's losing so much money that there is no way it can be as powerful as it as before. 

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Fixed.

(INORITE?!?!?!?!)

there was a  third time?...  I guess I was too busy pondering the relevance of this last name given the circumstances to notice

[unixknight]

9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

there was a  third time?...  I guess I was too busy pondering the relevance of this last name given the circumstances to notice

Haha yeah.  (Yes, that's right, Weiner's sexting scandals now have their very own Wikipedia page.)  The first time, in 2011, ended his Congressional career.  The second time in 2013 ended his mayoral candidacy for New York City, and then this last one that, arguably, helped keep Clinton out of the White House because the investigation turned up a bunch of those E-mails.

And actually, he's been sending pics to a lot more than 3 people... but it only took him down on 3 occasions.

Edited November 23, 2016 by unixknight

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Haha yeah.  (Yes, that's right, Weiner's sexting scandals now have their very own Wikipedia page.)  The first time, in 2011, ended his Congressional career.  The second time in 2013 ended his mayoral candidacy for New York City, and then this last one that, arguably, helped keep Clinton out of the White House because the investigation turned up a bunch of those E-mails.

And actually, he's been sending pics to a lot more than 3 people... but it only took him down on 3 occasions.

Him running for mayor after the first scandal broke was among the most obnoxious/arrogant things I've ever seen in politics. If he had an once of integrity he'd simply have gone away. 

[unixknight]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Him running for mayor after the first scandal broke was among the most obnoxious/arrogant things I've ever seen in politics. If he had an once of integrity he'd simply have gone away. 

 

I agree.  But you know what I was thinking?  A guy whose career as a Congressman was destroyed because he was sexting women... then goes on to keep doing it, presumably after the dust settled and people quit paying attention.  He then runs for Mayor and gets busted again.... Then gets busted again later because he was doing it again only this time possibly with an underage girl...  That's the sign of a man with a problem, and he needs to seek help.  Seriously.

I feel sorry for him, to be honest.  He went from being a Congressman with a sweet, sweet income to a dude who just lost his family, is under investigation for a possible sex crime, and is probably hated by most Clinton fans because his actions resulted in a re-opening of the Clinton E-mail thing which definitely had an effect on the election...  That man probably ought to be on suicide watch.

Edited November 23, 2016 by unixknight

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, unixknight said:

 

I agree.  But you know what I was thinking?  A guy whose career as a Congressman was destroyed because he was sexting women... then goes on to keep doing it, presumably after the dust settled and people quit paying attention.  He then runs for Mayor and gets busted again.... Then gets busted again later because he was doing it again only this time possibly with an underage girl...  That's the sign of a man with a problem, and he needs to seek help.  Seriously.

I feel sorry for him, to be honest.  He went from being a Congressman with a sweet, sweet income to a dude who just lost his family, is under investigation for a possible sex crime, and is probably hated by most Clinton fans because his actions resulted in a re-opening of the Clinton E-mail thing...  That man probably ought to be on suicide watch.

That's one of the reasons I admire you, to be honest. You have the compassion that I lack. Being serious, not sarcastic.  

I don't feel sorry for him at all. It's one thing to cheat and be a player. We all have problems, weaknesses and failures. But to get caught and drag your wife though this publicly on multiple occasions and destroy her reputation as well as your own is where I personally draw the line from "sympathy" to "scumbag". 

Edited November 23, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The last paragraph is not quite accurate.  For example... there were twice more American soldier casualties of war in Afghanistan in the Obama years versus the Bush years... There are a drastically lower number in Iraq but that's because we pulled out of Iraq.  But, in the Obama years, the US engaged in new wars "unofficially" like the one in Yemen and Syria.  And no, they were not just drones.  They were boots even as they don't count them as such.  It's just that, during the Bush years, every soldier who dies gets splashed on the news.  Not so much in the Obama years.

I don't want to hijack my own thread. But for clarification, I was just reporting what I had read in the article I mentioned:

"Granted, Mr. Obama is leaving far fewer soldiers in harm’s way — at least 4,087 in Iraq and 9,800 in Afghanistan — than the 200,000 troops he inherited from Mr. Bush in the two countries. But Mr. Obama has also approved strikes against terrorist groups in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, for a total of seven countries where his administration has taken military action."  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/obama-as-wartime-president-has-wrestled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html?_r=0

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

You are exactly right Lit, the NYT IS liberal. No question, 100% correct. But the issue is a bit more complicated than what both conservatives and liberals admit and understand. 

Now this is what conservatives don't understand: just because they are liberal , doesn't mean they are actively advancing their liberalism 24 hours a day,seven days a week.

Here I go, hijacking my own thread again, LOL.   I like this whole post, just quoting a small portion for brevity.

I've been thinking something along the same lines.  Recently in my writing class we had to write a synthesis argument paper.  For it we had to take a topic that is debated and share opinions from both sides of the argument without sharing our opinion, until the final portion of the paper.  What I learned is that it is really hard to do!  I wasn't the only one that had a hard time with it, several of my classmates did as well.  Some more so than others.   Of course, I realize that a reporter for the NYT has a lot more practice, experience and education than we do.  But I think this is human nature that it is difficult to report both sides without tipping your hand on what you view is.  

I think we could say the same of Fox or any Conservative news.  I don't think they mean to advance their agenda 24/7.  It's just that being neutral is tricky.  And for both sides...if you have even the slightest inclination to slant things, and some talent, you can definitely give something a spin.  I'm sure that happens as well, but I don't think that describes every reporter or every media source.   

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Here I go, hijacking my own thread again, LOL.   I like this whole post, just quoting a small portion for brevity.

I've been thinking something along the same lines.  Recently in my writing class we had to write a synthesis argument paper.  For it we had to take a topic that is debated and share opinions from both sides of the argument without sharing our opinion, until the final portion of the paper.  What I learned is that it is really hard to do!  I wasn't the only one that had a hard time with it, several of my classmates did as well.  Some more so than others.   Of course, I realize that a reporter for the NYT has a lot more practice, experience and education than we do.  But I think this is human nature that it is difficult to report both sides without tipping your hand on what you view is.  

I think we could say the same of Fox or any Conservative news.  I don't think they mean to advance their agenda 24/7.  It's just that being neutral is tricky.  And for both sides...if you have even the slightest inclination to slant things, and some talent, you can definitely give something a spin.  I'm sure that happens as well, but I don't think that describes every reporter or every media source.   

That's the sign of a good teacher, frankly. What I would do is find out how you feel about issue "X", check your passion-than make you write the paper from the opposite viewpoint. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's the sign of a good teacher, frankly. What I would do is find out how you feel about issue "X", check your passion-than make you write the paper from the opposite viewpoint. 

That's a good idea.  My paper was about pornography.  It was a bit unsettling to wade in, so to speak, to the other side and try to understand it throughly.  What an interesting experience it was.  And since my class is through BYUI online, how do I "promote" pornography to my teacher?  LOL.  Fortunately, she was very understanding, and when I my bias showed she called me on it.