Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My guess is as time goes along, and with the ability to reach people through the internet instantaneously, the attacks will only be nastier against a person's political opponents.
Worse than that.
Opposition research has really come into it's own. Attack ads can be (more and more) precisely targeted to the watcher of the ad.
I really think that we've seen a wholesale change in the system when you compare Bush II and Obama. These are gross generalizations, but the former was put up by an existing political mafia, the latter was a creature of media.
Proctor and Gamble like approaches have now defeated the smoke filled backrooms. Be careful what you wish for.
I see that right-wingers are playing the "Obama: Warmonger" card this week. I guess they felt it was time to switch it up after weeks of playing the "Obama: Muslim Sympathizer" card.
Speak to the topic and stop using the moonbat playbook section on deflection.
Osama is keeping the strike reports secret so Americans can't look at them. This guy has lied his ass off, killed many innocent people. He's an embarrassment.
Speak to the topic and stop using the moonbat playbook section on deflection.
Osama is keeping the strike reports secret so Americans can't look at them. This guy has lied his ass off, killed many innocent people. He's an embarrassment.
Well one week Obama is a Muslim, next week he enjoys killin', after that he is King Obama, then he's incompetent..... So you can understand why the far righties don't have much credibilty when they can't make up their mind.
Opposition research has really come into it's own. Attack ads can be (more and more) precisely targeted to the watcher of the ad.
I really think that we've seen a wholesale change in the system when you compare Bush II and Obama. These are gross generalizations, but the former was put up by an existing political mafia, the latter was a creature of media.
Proctor and Gamble like approaches have now defeated the smoke filled backrooms. Be careful what you wish for.
Technology, and its advances, have definitely impacted elections, and with many of these inventions in the past 8 years have seen there impact with the previous two presidential elections, along with the mid-terms. Better tech means more access to info to tailor the ads to whoever the target audience is.
Well one week Obama is a Muslim, next week he enjoys killin', after that he is King Obama, then he's incompetent..... So you can understand why the far righties don't have much credibilty when they can't make up their mind.
How could I say until I see who her opponent is? Personally, I'd prefer Jim Webb for the (D)s and I'm not so sure the eventual (R) candidate has even announced yet, lots of time left for feet to be inserted in mouths.
Fair enough. You may have to vote for a war hawk like Hillary in the general, but in the primary if this is such a big deal you should oppose her then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
I'm not naïve at all, I understand the difference between approving funding and ordering an invasion/occupation. The order was the order of one man and in the wake of 9/11, an ill-advised poorly planned one.
Everyone knew what the vote was for. Everyone who voted for it, knew what they were enabling. It is partisan fantasy land to say that you voted for the authorization of vast war powers in Iraq at the whim of Bush and then pretend there is no correlation.
Without Hillary and MOST Democrat Senators...there is no Iraq war. Of course, without Bush we can say the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
Would you really have us believe the priorities that existed during Clinton's presidency didn't change after we were attacked on 9/11 and that Iraq, a country Dick Cheney rarely if ever missed an opportunity to tell us had NOTHING to do with 9/11, shouldn't have fallen far down the list after 9/11?
#2 "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel).... In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." -Hillary
Sorry, but whether true or not, she is phrasing her policy as a war hawk.
#3 Hillary supported Obama's attempted illegal strike in Syria that was to bypass congress even though 70% of Americans opposed the would be illegal military strike.
#4 Hillary criticized Obama for not being more militarily involved in Syria. She wanted to arm "moderate" Muslim groups and give them training and intelligence.
#6 Democrats are more likely to call Hillary a Hawk than a Dove. 45% of Democrats labeled Hillary a "Hawk" and 21% labeled her a "Dove" and 34% labeled her in between.
Obama has increased the drone program 6 fold and is bombing twice as many countries as his predecessor.
You keep saying that. I don't think it means what you think it means.
It's like saying Truman used more nuclear weapons than his predecessor. The fact is that neither drones nor drone operators were anywhere near as available during the Bush administration. There was still a division between surveillance drones--operated by Air Force enlisted intelligence personnel--and armed drones operated by a handful of CIA operatives running a small program. Scarcity plus law made it difficult for Bush to have used drones.
But Bush had already set up the structure to move armed drone operation into the Air Force. The Air Force itself had to make some changes. It had been long resisting the use of armed drones--that was the "Fighter Pilot Protective Association" at work. The Air Force was danged well not going to allow those enlisted Intelligence troops to do any shooting, so the Air Force determined that the armed drone operators must be trained fighter pilots.
That took a considerable amount of time to push through the bureaucracy and execute. It also took time to pass legislation, sign contracts to increase supply, build more control capability, et cetera.
Bottom line: Obama uses them more because he has them. It's likely Bush would have, if he'd had them--there is no indication Bush was morally opposed to them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
