If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Dolt)   Media now significantly more interested in Obama's clay pigeon strikes than his drone strikes   (thedailydolt.com) divider line 67
    More: Obvious, President Obama, mom jeans  
•       •       •

629 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Feb 2013 at 12:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-05 12:04:30 PM
If he misses the clay pigeon does he call in a drone strike on it?
 
2013-02-05 12:08:20 PM
I truly, honestly, really don't understand the controversy over drone strikes. How it bombing with drone any worse than bombing from a plane?
 
2013-02-05 12:13:57 PM

Frank N Stein: If he misses the clay pigeon does he call in a drone strike on it?


You've just come up with the greatest and most awesome waste of tax payers dollars.

well we could call it training.


/want to see this happen
//please someone make this happen.
 
2013-02-05 12:45:17 PM
As are Republicans.
 
2013-02-05 12:52:54 PM
i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-05 12:53:44 PM
They also care not that Obama is killing Americans

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/05/report-memo-backs-u-s-using- l ethal-force-against-americans-overseas/?hpt=hp_t2">http://security.bl ogs.cnn.com/2013/02/05/report-memo-backs-u-s-using-l ethal-force-against-americans-overseas/?hpt=hp_t2
 
2013-02-05 12:53:57 PM

DamnYankees: I truly, honestly, really don't understand the controversy over drone strikes. How it bombing with drone any worse than bombing from a plane?


The problem is the bomb, moron.

The next time Obama orders a cavalry charge we'll be more than happy to wave signs with horses on them.
 
2013-02-05 12:55:32 PM

DamnYankees: I truly, honestly, really don't understand the controversy over drone strikes. How it bombing with drone any worse than bombing from a plane?


Honestly?

Probably because it doesn't place anyone on our side in any danger.  You'd be more circumspect with sending manned aircraft over territory where they might get shot down.  In other words, it's a way to strike without having any skin in the game.

Honestly I could probably go either way on it.
 
2013-02-05 01:01:08 PM

DamnYankees: I truly, honestly, really don't understand the controversy over drone strikes. How it bombing with drone any worse than bombing from a plane?




Drones are planes....
The problem is mainly how he's pursued undeclared wars without congressional approval. People only complain about the method because it adds a hint of coldness to the existing quasi-legality of it all.
It would still be an a scandal under different circumstances.

/I'm thinking when the next president or two try similar actions, the media will rediscover its outrage and try to make up for lost time.
 
2013-02-05 01:01:52 PM
 In other words, it's a way to strike without having any skin in the game.

Bull crap, those drones cost a lot of money.
 
2013-02-05 01:06:58 PM
 
2013-02-05 01:09:15 PM

Ned Stark: DamnYankees: I truly, honestly, really don't understand the controversy over drone strikes. How it bombing with drone any worse than bombing from a plane?

<b>The problem is the bomb</b>, moron.

The next time Obama orders a cavalry charge we'll be more than happy to wave signs with horses on them.


This.
 
2013-02-05 01:22:44 PM

DamnYankees: I truly, honestly, really don't understand the controversy over drone strikes. How it bombing with drone any worse than bombing from a plane?


As I understand it, it's because it makes people uncomfortably aware we're now fighting a war without borders. A recent editorial in the LA Times said something about this, discussing how it wasn't right to be bombing targets in "undeclared" war zones. Cf. my post yesterday on how the Global War on Terror has essentially given us this scenario: A war that simply cannot have a front line, and thus requires targeted strikes into friendly countries IF we're going to attack our "enemy" where he is.

Since it's not actually being phrased that way, the problem people have is more existential, and they're not clear on WHY they don't like drone strikes, they just don't like them. But really, if our "enemy" is a nebulous foe who can vanish at will into any of a dozen non-hostile nations, the only way to attack him is with drones. And civilians aren't going to like that much because it's not fair somehow, or not heroic enough. It seems sneaky. Which it is. But there you go.
 
2013-02-05 01:25:23 PM
Still not interested in one of the most famous US snipers of all time getting killed at a shooting range.

/guess it's a non-story as  everyone knows gun violence only happens where guns are prohibited
//damn liberal Fark bias!!
 
2013-02-05 01:25:46 PM
"Security" spending?  What do you mean?  We have to cover skeetgate.  And then the spending problem that totally involves social security, Medicare and welfare but nothing else.  And then the importance of creating jobs by cutting taxes.  Also the deadly threat to religious freedom posed by insurance funding of birth control.

Look, we're sorry if we're incompetent, what can you expect from a liberal-biased media.
 
2013-02-05 01:40:45 PM
The media wouldn't be making a big deal about Obama skeet shooting if the GOP didn't make a big deal out of the lack of pictures of Obama skeet shooting.
 
2013-02-05 01:41:52 PM

way south: The problem is mainly how he's pursued undeclared wars without congressional approval.


Bull. In over two hundred years, the United States has only declared war five times, against a total of ten enemy nations. That's it. All of the dozens of other military adventures, misadventures, and frolics in which the various Commanders in Chief have deployed forces have been undeclared, and few people ever cared.
 
2013-02-05 01:43:41 PM

Gyrfalcon: Since it's not actually being phrased that way, the problem people have is more existential, and they're not clear on WHY they don't like drone strikes, they just don't like them. But really, if our "enemy" is a nebulous foe who can vanish at will into any of a dozen non-hostile nations, the only way to attack him is with drones. And civilians aren't going to like that much because it's not fair somehow, or not heroic enough. It seems sneaky. Which it is. But there you go.


Well for me, it's not that I don't know why I don't like drone strikes.  I know EXACTLY why I don't like drone strikes. It's because there is no oversight from anyone short of the president and his team who came up with the rules.  I have no doubt that probably 90+% of the people targeted are Very Bad People.  However, there's nobody at this point who has any ability to put any brakes on the program.  Who determines that the threat is imminent?  The same guys who have defined imminent down tio the point where it's essentially meaningless.  Who determines the legality of any specific strike in any specific country?  The same people who have already written the memo declaring this to be legal!

I fail to see how this is any different than John Yoo saying that of course the president can crush a child's testicles because the president would NEVER crush a child's testicles unless there was a very good reason to pull out The Claw.  Hell, I fail to see how this is much different than Jimbo and Ned being able to scream "It's coming right for us".
 
2013-02-05 01:45:59 PM

BSABSVR: I know EXACTLY why I don't like drone strikes. It's because there is no oversight from anyone short of the president and his team who came up with the rules.


But what does this have to do with drones? The problem here doesn't seem to be the drones, but the general idea of bombing people outside of a defined war zone. It seems like the fact that we're using a particular weapon to do so is completely tangential to that issue.
 
2013-02-05 01:47:25 PM

Empty Matchbook: Still not interested in one of the most famous US snipers of all time getting killed at a shooting range.


It wasn't a "shooting range", per se, more like a cleared area with a berm.  I checked the place out on Google Earth, and it's freaking huge, and according to the article you linked to, it happened in a very remote corner of the place.

/Still trying to find actual *RANGES*.
//Usually you can see a firing line with a berm at 100 or 200 yards.
 
2013-02-05 01:51:14 PM

Muta: The media wouldn't be making a big deal about Obama skeet shooting if the GOP didn't make a big deal out of the lack of pictures of Obama skeet shooting.


Also, this.  The media respond to whatever the outrage of the day is.  That tends to be about crap like skeetgate.  And Michelle Obama's lack of sleeves and whether Obama watched people dies in Benghazi while laughing so he could get back at people for Fast and Furious and hey that Sniper that was killed at the gun range, was he killed because he knew too much?

Drones are more popular than committing actual people.  Sure the GOP makes some drone cracks, but Romney's position on drones was essentially "DOUBLE IT!" and he never took any heat for it.

The only people in the media who have been consistent on drones have been places like Mother Jones, and Reason and wherever the hell Glenn Greenwald is word-barfing now.  And all of those sources have significant weaknesses.
 
2013-02-05 01:56:24 PM

DamnYankees: BSABSVR: I know EXACTLY why I don't like drone strikes. It's because there is no oversight from anyone short of the president and his team who came up with the rules.

But what does this have to do with drones? The problem here doesn't seem to be the drones, but the general idea of bombing people outside of a defined war zone. It seems like the fact that we're using a particular weapon to do so is completely tangential to that issue.


True.  My issue is not the fact that it is a drone.  A bomb is a bomb, the method of delivery is fairly irrelevant to me.  My issue is that the Obama administration has pursued a policy that seems to consist of granting themselves the legal right to launch airstrikes nearly anywhere in the world whenever a target of interest may be there, with little to no accountability as to the necessity of the operation being done in that manner or as to the success/failure of the results.

It's just easier to type/say "farking drone strikes" than "farking Obama administration has pursued a policy that seems to consist of granting themselves the legal right to launch airstrikes nearly anywhere in the world whenever a target of interest may be there, with little to no accountability as to the necessity of the operation being done in that manner or as to the success/failure of the results. "
 
2013-02-05 01:58:26 PM

Muta: The media wouldn't be making a big deal about Obama skeet shooting if the GOP didn't make a big deal out of the lack of pictures of Obama skeet shooting.


To be fair, the president said that he often shoots skeet at Camp David.  Releasing a picture of him doing it only shows he did it once.

Also, remember that the president made that statement in the context of establishing his "gun cred".  Republicans didn't force him to make the statement, or to release a picture.

But hey, good for Barack Obama.  He's shot a gun.  A Fudd gun.  Guess that makes him an expert, huh?
 
2013-02-05 02:09:02 PM

dittybopper: Muta: The media wouldn't be making a big deal about Obama skeet shooting if the GOP didn't make a big deal out of the lack of pictures of Obama skeet shooting.

To be fair, the president said that he often shoots skeet at Camp David.  Releasing a picture of him doing it only shows he did it once.

Also, remember that the president made that statement in the context of establishing his "gun cred".  Republicans didn't force him to make the statement, or to release a picture.

But hey, good for Barack Obama.  He's shot a gun.  A Fudd gun.  Guess that makes him an expert, huh?


And still this means something!
 
2013-02-05 02:15:54 PM
i.imgur.com

/made this hastily in the first skeet shooting thread
//never thought I'd get to use it so many times
 
2013-02-05 02:22:27 PM

dittybopper: Muta: The media wouldn't be making a big deal about Obama skeet shooting if the GOP didn't make a big deal out of the lack of pictures of Obama skeet shooting.

To be fair, the president said that he often shoots skeet at Camp David. Releasing a picture of him doing it only shows he did it once.

Also, remember that the president made that statement in the context of establishing his "gun cred". Republicans didn't force him to make the statement, or to release a picture.

But hey, good for Barack Obama. He's shot a gun. A Fudd gun. Guess that makes him an expert, huh?


Every syllable - no, every character - of this post oozes equal parts of stupidity and mendacity. Well done, sir, well done indeed.
 
2013-02-05 02:24:16 PM
You know what I love about Obama?  He just lets the Republicans talk and talk and talk and lets them make up all sorts of bullshiat... and then BOOM!  He releases the birth certificate/shotgun photo/INSERT VERY THING THAT WILL EMBARRASS THE REPUBLICANS EVERY TIME HERE.

What the Republicans don't realize is that all they need to do to stop this vicious cycle is the following 2-step process:

1.  Shut up.
2.  Do your jobs instead of screwing the country over.
 
2013-02-05 02:28:21 PM
To be fair, the president said that he often shoots skeet at Camp David. Releasing a picture of him doing it only shows he did it once.

sweet tap dancing jesus farking christ
 
2013-02-05 02:30:47 PM

Jackson Herring: To be fair, the president said that he often shoots skeet at Camp David. Releasing a picture of him doing it only shows he did it once.

sweet tap dancing jesus farking christ


Whar is the long form skeet-shooting, libtards?

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!

/wait... eww, no I don't
 
2013-02-05 02:31:52 PM

dittybopper: A Fudd gun.


What an interesting pejorative. Following your link, it seems that the gun nut culture has now taken to dismissing all sporting arms as inferior, and reserve all their respect for firearms that look like something recovered from the body of a Mujahideen. How curious.
 
2013-02-05 02:34:09 PM

BMulligan: dittybopper: A Fudd gun.

What an interesting pejorative. Following your link, it seems that the gun nut culture has now taken to dismissing all sporting arms as inferior, and reserve all their respect for firearms that look like something recovered from the body of a Mujahideen. How curious.


I noticed that. That phrase pretty much killed the last of my goodwill for gun "culture." All I've ever owned are "Fudd" guns. What a dickish phrase.
 
2013-02-05 02:35:03 PM
I guess the difference is Obama is lying about  Drone Strikes.
 
2013-02-05 02:36:08 PM
isn't

isn't laying about Drone strikes

/stupid browser. can't even troll the libfarts correctly.
 
2013-02-05 02:37:10 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: BMulligan: dittybopper: A Fudd gun.

What an interesting pejorative. Following your link, it seems that the gun nut culture has now taken to dismissing all sporting arms as inferior, and reserve all their respect for firearms that look like something recovered from the body of a Mujahideen. How curious.

I noticed that. That phrase pretty much killed the last of my goodwill for gun "culture." All I've ever owned are "Fudd" guns. What a dickish phrase.


I can't imagine that "gun culture" types are going to get anywhere by dismissing a large portion of gun owners as "Fudds".  At least not anywhere they think they are going to get.

I thought that categorizing  people who were really into something and "posers" ended in high school.
 
2013-02-05 02:44:21 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I noticed that. That phrase pretty much killed the last of my goodwill for gun "culture." All I've ever owned are "Fudd" guns. What a dickish phrase.


well then you aren't a real gun owner

do you even have a man card
 
2013-02-05 02:45:53 PM

Jackson Herring: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I noticed that. That phrase pretty much killed the last of my goodwill for gun "culture." All I've ever owned are "Fudd" guns. What a dickish phrase.

well then you aren't a real gun owner

do you even have a man card


I guess not. Time to get gay married and have myself an abortion. Oh, if only I'd bought something manlier than a shotgun.
 
2013-02-05 02:49:06 PM
IT IS NOT TOO LATE

i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-05 02:53:13 PM

dittybopper: Probably because it doesn't place anyone on our side in any danger. You'd be more circumspect with sending manned aircraft over territory where they might get shot down. In other words, it's a way to strike without having any skin in the game.


History doesn't bear that out though. "Skin in the game" didn't stop Vietnam or Iraq, and the drone strikes (and anti-terrorist actions in general under Obama) have actually been extremely circumspect despite having a fairly small military footprint.
 
2013-02-05 03:01:46 PM

Pick: In other words, it's a way to strike without having any skin in the game.

Bull crap, those drones cost a lot of money.


Meh, we can just print more money.  It's how we've solved so many of our other problems.
 
2013-02-05 03:06:56 PM

dittybopper: DamnYankees: I truly, honestly, really don't understand the controversy over drone strikes. How it bombing with drone any worse than bombing from a plane?

Honestly?

Probably because it doesn't place anyone on our side in any danger.  You'd be more circumspect with sending manned aircraft over territory where they might get shot down.  In other words, it's a way to strike without having any skin in the game.

Honestly I could probably go either way on it.



Not a terrible convincing rationale.  Soldiers are called cannon fodder for a reason.  The only reason nations don't strike one another with drones, fighter aircraft, cruise missiles, what-have-you is to avoid diplomatic incidents that might result in war -- they could care less if some peon the in military gets killed in the process.

We, on the other hand, are the United States and we bomb who we please when we please with whatever we feel like and no one is going to stop us.  The whole obsession with drones is bizarre, they don't change anything fundamental to the nature of geopolitical conflict.  It's just another aircraft.
 
2013-02-05 03:16:51 PM
The media doesn't want you to think about Obama's targeting of American citizens by drone strikes or of the argument by Obama that it's legal because he says it's legal.Instead we are supposed to believe that Obama is a real friend to gun owners because here's this picture of him shooting a gun and don't you dare think that photo is staged!
 
2013-02-05 03:17:50 PM

BSABSVR: My issue is that the Obama administration has pursued a policy that seems to consist of granting themselves the legal right to launch airstrikes nearly anywhere in the world whenever a target of interest may be there, with little to no accountability as to the necessity of the operation being done in that manner or as to the success/failure of the results.


Which has always been true.  It's like when Lincoln  proclaims in the movie he's "clothed in immense power."  That's the long and the short of being commander in chief.  There is no accountability per say.  If congress raises an army, the president can use it as he sees fit to peruse our interests (hopefully.)  Congress is not in the chain of command.  It's one very good reason a crazy person should never be anywhere near the presidency.

Is Obama using that power recklessly or counter productively?  I have no idea what kind of intelligence he sees, but then, part of electing a president is to assess threats and respond to them appropriately.  That's true of Lincoln, FDR, Bush, Obama, you name it.  If they fark it up, then we, the electorate have failed to hire the right commander.
 
2013-02-05 03:48:24 PM

BMulligan: way south: The problem is mainly how he's pursued undeclared wars without congressional approval.

Bull. In over two hundred years, the United States has only declared war five times, against a total of ten enemy nations. That's it. All of the dozens of other military adventures, misadventures, and frolics in which the various Commanders in Chief have deployed forces have been undeclared, and few people ever cared.





Continually letting presidents act in violation of the war powers resolution (without modifying or repealing it) is breaking law no matter no matter how much you like the guy that's doing it.

With fewer soldiers controlling more weapons by remote, our international presence is growing with less accountability and less visibility to the people at home. Everything we don't see is still affecting our credibility and costing us money.

Habitually "not caring" is going to be our undoing.
 
2013-02-05 03:48:52 PM

BSABSVR: Well for me, it's not that I don't know why I don't like drone strikes. I know EXACTLY why I don't like drone strikes. It's because there is no oversight from anyone short of the president and his team who came up with the rules. I have no doubt that probably 90+% of the people targeted are Very Bad People. However, there's nobody at this point who has any ability to put any brakes on the program. Who determines that the threat is imminent? The same guys who have defined imminent down tio the point where it's essentially meaningless. Who determines the legality of any specific strike in any specific country? The same people who have already written the memo declaring this to be legal!


Drone strikes have exactly as much, and in some cases more oversight as traditional bomb/ missile strikes.  Drone video feed can pretty much be sent anywhere in the world to get whatever level of approval is required to make that decision in real time.  And there are set specific rules about what they can and can't do.

Requiring the President to sign off is pretty much the ultimate oversight.  That means it passed every other level and they still recognized it needed more.
 
2013-02-05 04:11:27 PM

PanicMan: Requiring the President to sign off is pretty much the ultimate oversight. That means it passed every other level and they still recognized it needed more.


True, I'm not saying Obama isn't being accountable, or taking steps.  But his rules as to what constitutes the acceptable  time and place for a targeted strike seems to be "when it feels like the best option".  that's a little vague for my liking.  And other than refusing to renew the entire AUMF (which will never happen ever), what recourse is there at this point should Obama or the next president start using drones in Dearborn, MI?  Or blowing up entire villages to get one dude who may be there?
 
2013-02-05 04:38:03 PM

Gyrfalcon: DamnYankees: I truly, honestly, really don't understand the controversy over drone strikes. How it bombing with drone any worse than bombing from a plane?

As I understand it, it's because it makes people uncomfortably aware we're now fighting a war without borders. A recent editorial in the LA Times said something about this, discussing how it wasn't right to be bombing targets in "undeclared" war zones. Cf. my post yesterday on how the Global War on Terror has essentially given us this scenario: A war that simply cannot have a front line, and thus requires targeted strikes into friendly countries IF we're going to attack our "enemy" where he is.

Since it's not actually being phrased that way, the problem people have is more existential, and they're not clear on WHY they don't like drone strikes, they just don't like them. But really, if our "enemy" is a nebulous foe who can vanish at will into any of a dozen non-hostile nations, the only way to attack him is with drones. And civilians aren't going to like that much because it's not fair somehow, or not heroic enough. It seems sneaky. Which it is. But there you go.


Interesting way to look at it. I also have a problem understanding why drones = bad. But, if the real issue is that we are free to be at war with anyone at anytime, yes, I have a problem with that. Of course, the president has always been free to order bomb drops without going to congress. Not every bombing is the same as war. I was a young adult in the 1980s, and it seemed like Reagan ordered attacks on key places without having the press too upset about wars without congressional consent. That only seemed to come up if we were putting boots on the ground. Drones are sort of like a cross between bomb drops and boots on the ground.
 
2013-02-05 05:05:24 PM
"In other words, one week's worth of clay pigeon carnage has produced roughly 20 times more online media coverage than the past four years of drone attacks combined, notwithstanding the fact that drone strikes the deaths of  actual human beings."

JTFC, if he was *piloting* drones there would be a billion references to it.
 
2013-02-05 05:07:23 PM
I can't get too worked up over the picture. Everyone, including FARK Liberals; know the guy isn't a shooter.

The real problem is that Obama was trying to disingenuously signal that he's really one of us, which strained credulity even for the press corps.

Note that the shotgun being fired is compensated.... one of those "Evil" features that us Plebes would not allowed to have under several proposed bills.
 
2013-02-05 05:23:22 PM

RightWingWacko: I can't get too worked up over the picture. Everyone, including FARK Liberals; know the guy isn't a shooter.

The real problem is that Obama was trying to disingenuously signal that he's really one of us, which strained credulity even for the press corps.

Note that the shotgun being fired is compensated.... one of those "Evil" features that us Plebes would not allowed to have under several proposed bills.


You know, this whole thing...as I understand it, during an interview, somebody asked Obama, in the context of all the crap about guns, "So have you ever actually fired a gun?"  I guess you can interpet this one of two ways--either the reporter was trying to sting Obama, or maybe the question was set up..."this would be a good question for you to ask".  In any event, he was asked the question.  I suppose if he had shrieked, "EWWWWW NO, GROSS!" or if he had said, "No and I don't cling to a Bible either, stupid rednecks can kiss my ass," or if he'd burst into flames and vanished forever, or something like that, this would have made the right happy, or at least given them the level of poutrage they feel they deserve.

Instead he said, "Yes, we have skeet shooting at Camp David."

WTF was he supposed to say?
 
2013-02-05 05:27:21 PM

Kibbler: WTF was he supposed to say?


"We have skeet shooting at Camp David which I have done in mom jeans and whilst using what totally kool doodz call a "Fudd Gun" because I am totally uncoordinated and scared Jesus it's amazing I haven't been impeached yet, and don't I just look tired?"
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report