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.
When George Bush was in office and supported the invasions of or threatening other countries (Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc.) and violating civil liberties (signing the Patriot Act, FISA, indefinite detention, drone strikes, etc.) there seemed to be protests held every week or month condemning his actions and there were demands for his arrest for war crimes and violations of civil liberties.
Ever since Barack Obama has taken office and has threatened other countries (Iran, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc.) and violated civil liberties (extending the Patriot Act & FISA, using a kill list, signing NDAA, employing extrajudicial drone strikes, etc.) there seem to be much fewer protests and condemnations during his time in office.
Did some, if not many, so-called "liberals" and "progressives" only oppose warmongering and civil-liberties violations because a Republican/conservative was in office?
If warmongering and violating civil liberties were considered wrong during the Bush administration, are they now considered acceptable during the Obama administration?
The late christopher Hitchens, was for most of his life hard left, yet supported the Bush invasions. Similarly, murdered dutch 'far right' politician Pym Fortyn was actually a homosexual and liberal in pretty much every issue, but didnt want muslims in his country, because, er, Islam is a far right (religious) ideology that generally isnt too fond of Homosexuals.
Not all the left is unable to overcome their cognitive dissonance that says only white males can be hateful, backward bigoted types, and that their are quite a few such people in the middle east and South Asia, and maybe opening the door for all of them to come here unchecked isnt always a great idea...
Yes, but it goes both ways. Republicans had their heads buried in the sand when Bush did it and now Democrats are doing the exact same thing. It's difficult to watch. People need to wake up and stop justifying horrible policy along party lines.
When George Bush was in office and supported the invasion of or threatening other countries (Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc.) and violating civil liberties (signing the Patriot Act, FISA, indefinite detention, drone strikes, etc.) there seemed to be protests held every week or month condemning his actions and there were demands for his arrest for war crimes and violations of civil liberties.
Ever since Barack Obama has taken office and has threatened other countries (Iran, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc.) and violated civil liberties (extending the Patriot Act & FISA, using a kill list, signing NDAA, employing extrajudicial drone strikes, etc.) there seem to be much fewer protests during his time in office.
Did some, if not many, so-called "liberals" and "progressives" only oppose warmongering and civil-liberties violations because a Republican/conservative was in office?
If warmongering and violating civil liberties was considering wrong during the Bush administration, are they considered acceptable under the Obama administration?
Obama has threatened other countries, but he's still taken lighter stances on foreign policy than conservatives. No one expects him to invade Iran to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, for example, while in his former opponent Mitt Romney's case, that was the primary option on the table. I guess it is all relative, as in it's hard to say exactly how aggressive a foreign policy is without having something to compare it to. With what comparisons we're able to make, Obama's a moderate.
His record on civil liberties is pretty bad, and it is one of the most solid reasons to dislike Obama. At least we can't say he started it, or something. There has to be an excuse in there somewhere.
Obama has threatened other countries, but he's still taken lighter stances on foreign policy than conservatives. No one expects him to invade Iran to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, for example, while in his former opponent Mitt Romney's case, that was the primary option on the table. I guess it is all relative, as in it's hard to say exactly how aggressive a foreign policy is without having something to compare it to. With what comparisons we're able to make, Obama's a moderate.
His record on civil liberties is pretty bad, and it is one of the most solid reasons to dislike Obama. At least we can't say he started it, or something. There has to be an excuse in there somewhere.
I hope you warmed up before contorting yourself into that viewpoint lol
Ever since Barack Obama has taken office and has threatened other countries (Iran, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc.) and violated civil liberties (extending the Patriot Act & FISA, using a kill list, signing NDAA, employing extrajudicial drone strikes, etc.) there seem to be much fewer protests during his time in office.
Funny to watch conservatives claim that there was anything approaching a protest against taking the war to Al Queda on the part of Democrats aside from a small minority leftist religious folks, see Quakers and Left Catholics. As for "Axis of Evil"â„¢ anybody seen any military actions despite plenty of provocation? In fact its hard to go a week without Republican Hawks or neo-cons screaming that Obama hasn't been threatened military action against either of the two. As for Libya and Syria, again the loudest critics of Obama's reluctance to used military force has come from the right, despite the fact that in the case of Libya when he finally did use limited force suddenly he was a war monger... funny how that works. As for Pakistan, it sort of funny that the truth is the very drones used in Pakistan are based in Pakistan.
If you have anything worthy of discussing has been Obama's reliance upon the Patriot Act which even then was a reformed version of that which was initially enacted.
Obama has threatened other countries, but he's still taken lighter stances on foreign policy than conservatives. No one expects him to invade Iran to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, for example, while in his former opponent Mitt Romney's case, that was the primary option on the table. I guess it is all relative, as in it's hard to say exactly how aggressive a foreign policy is without having something to compare it to. With what comparisons we're able to make, Obama's a moderate.
His record on civil liberties is pretty bad, and it is one of the most solid reasons to dislike Obama. At least we can't say he started it, or something. There has to be an excuse in there somewhere.
Assuming that you're politically left-leaning, do you oppose his belligerent foreign policies and violations of civil liberties?
Assuming that you're politically left-leaning, do you oppose his belligerent foreign policies and violations of civil liberties?
Of course all we liberals blindly support Obama. We have been turned into Obama zombies, lurching around and blindly agreeing with ever last thing he says or does. We'd agree with him if he decided to nuke the United States.
Just like you right wing types agree with every last thing NJ Governer, Chris Christie says, or Romney says or Rush Limbaugh says, right?
When George Bush was in office and supported the invasions of or threatening other countries (Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc.) and violating civil liberties (signing the Patriot Act, FISA, indefinite detention, drone strikes, etc.) there seemed to be protests held every week or month condemning his actions and there were demands for his arrest for war crimes and violations of civil liberties.
Ever since Barack Obama has taken office and has threatened other countries (Iran, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc.) and violated civil liberties (extending the Patriot Act & FISA, using a kill list, signing NDAA, employing extrajudicial drone strikes, etc.) there seem to be much fewer protests and condemnations during his time in office.
Did some, if not many, so-called "liberals" and "progressives" only oppose warmongering and civil-liberties violations because a Republican/conservative was in office?
If warmongering and violating civil liberties were considered wrong during the Bush administration, are they now considered acceptable during the Obama administration?
The anti-war movement died out around 2006, before Obama was elected
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.
