• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thank You, President Obama

gnomon

Well-Known Member
It's only been across major newspapers, news sites, NPR and pretty much everywhere with the ACLU filing multiple lawsuits over the last two years to get the administration to own up to the drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. The strikes started up in 2004 but were increased in activity and conducted covertly after he took over.

If we believe the CIA every drone stroke has hit only a few dozen high level targets or bottom level fighters. If we believe the Pakistanis innocents are being killed by the dozens of strikes going on year after year. The CIA halted the program after they killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers. They were definitely not Al-Qaeda.

The actual use of the word terrorist is a misnomer in this war at this point. The presence of Al-Qaeda, the one group we were after, is minimal and has been for a long time in that area. What is in that area are multiple groups who didn't give a damn about the U.S. but have been fighting against each other for some time. However, our policy has taken all of them and wrapped them up in one big bundle called terrorist.

If this program is nothing but a 100% guarantee hit against terrorists, is useful in keeping soldiers alive and no innocents are harmed why isn't it being touted out in the open like it should be?

However, if the CIA is claiming not to hurt innocents with these strikes yet had to stop the program to improve relations with Pakistan after killing two dozen of their soldiers.....

I'm sorry, sounds like continued indiscriminate ******** to me when we probably don't need to be over there at all.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I would trust these conservatives more if they didn't start attacking Obama even before he took office. They blame things on him that he had nothing to do with, attack about his eating dog, and now this.
The way I see it, the conservatives have been pouting for 3 and half years that their candidate lost. They want to make sure that their candidate wins this time.
It's really sad.

Edit: About the eating dog. I meant to mention "what does what he ate when he was young have to do with running the country?"
 
Last edited:

Murdoch1232

Member
I would trust these conservatives more if they didn't start attacking Obama even before he took office. They blame things on him that he had nothing to do with, attack about his eating dog, and now this.
The way I see it, the conservatives have been pouting for 3 and half years that their candidate lost. They want to make sure that their candidate wins this time.
It's really sad.

Edit: About the eating dog. I meant to mention "what does what he ate when he was young have to do with running the country?"

I have to agree with you on this. I think the birthers or whatever they're called discredit legitimate criticisms against Obama. There should be legitimate critiques of Obama's policies, but trying to prove that he's not a real U.S. citizen is a waste of effort, in my opinion.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I would trust these conservatives more if they didn't start attacking Obama even before he took office. They blame things on him that he had nothing to do with, attack about his eating dog, and now this.
The way I see it, the conservatives have been pouting for 3 and half years that their candidate lost. They want to make sure that their candidate wins this time.
It's really sad.

Edit: About the eating dog. I meant to mention "what does what he ate when he was young have to do with running the country?"
I have a secret (soon to be formerly secret) technique to avoid feeling dismay at the low state of political discourse.
Just expect that all sides will always stoop to dishonest, erroneous & nasty tactics. Expect the worst & accept that
it is normal.....not right, but normal. You won't be disappointed.

Of course, we Libertarians are different. You can even see the faint shimmering of a halo over Gary Johnson's head.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
I wonder if conservatives and the anti-Obama crowd realize just how ridiculous and idiotic they sound. I'll take a dishonest Obama over the most honest republican any day of the week. Obama is the only person who can save America, and it's a shame that not being a US citizen I can't legally vote for him.

I mean... does anyone really want to hear Obama's lengthy *** talk about how he came to decide that this was right? That would take forever, and no one would want to listen to something that isn't rhethoric. So, it's not his daughter. Almost every politician has lied, or spun the topics, or used rhethoric in the public sphere. How did I not see before...?
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I have a secret (soon to be formerly secret) technique to avoid feeling dismay at the low state of political discourse.
Just expect that all sides will always stoop to dishonest, erroneous & nasty tactics. Expect the worst & accept that
it is normal.....not right, but normal. You won't be disappointed.

Of course, we Libertarians are different. You can even see the faint shimmering of a halo over Gary Johnson's head.

It's just that I expect the best from people and I am always disappointed. Maybe if I were more cynical, I could lower my disappointment rating. ;)
 
Top