Drone do ents case: federal appeals court rules against CIA

[Winehole23]

by my casual count there are 20+ threads in this forum dedicated in the subject line to Obama's use of UAVs, almost all of them based on news reporting of some kind.

[SA210]

We all know damn well when you turn the tv on, MSNBC, CNN, ABC NEWS, CBS, etc doesn't talk about Obama's drones, war crimes, and lies anywhere near the coverage they had on water-boarding, Bush criticism's, etc. Some issues, not at all.

They even ignored the issue completely during the election, purposely, although they knew it had been going on at a horribly accelerated rate. Now it's on TV here and there, but they still hardly get down to specifics such as the 16 year old murdered American boy, or they have some so called expert change the subject about it and give a bs excuse where the rest of the panel agrees with the schmuck and the dumb American audience is fooled, yet again. Fox ignored it because they love war, but now try attacking Obama on it bc they don't like him. I don't agree with Rand on many things, but he was right to Filibuster. If anything.. newspapers, and the independent media have done a better job. TV is who really influences the masses, and they've done a great job at letting the President get away with murder, literally.

lol msm

[Winehole23]

here's a link to a Bill Moyers TV interview from 2009: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...+moyers+drones

[Winehole23]

suggesting the MSM doesn't cover it is simply wrong. it's where you get most of your supporting links, SA210.

[Winehole23]

I could go on all day, but you wouldn't listen.

ta

[ChumpDumper]

How much TV coverage do people who about TV coverage actually watch?

[SA210]

suggesting the MSM doesn't cover it is simply wrong. it's where you get most of your supporting links, SA210.

If you claim to not like dishonesty, why do you continue to be dishonest?

The point was that the coverage is very weak in comparison to the coverage of Bush. That is a fact. You know they ignored it during the election too, that's not by mistake, these issues ignored in the debates too, also NOT by mistake.

Obama is murdering Americans with illegal secret laws and taking away due process, throwing whistleblowers in prison while protecting Wall Street and the torturers, bailing out Wall Street from their crimes, just signed a bill protecting Monsanto, expanded wars into other countries when he campaigned on ending these types of wars, I too can go on and on.

Considering all that crime, lies and murder, and no transparency that he promised, the coverage is weak, it's garbage, and when they do cover it, it gets spun most of the time or it gets covered very shortly.

Major difference between that, and the lynching they gave Bush (and he deserved it), but since it's Obama and he wears a D, and he's the Messiah they made up, we all make excuses now.

I have posted a few Maddow/MSNBC stories, but most are newspaper, The Young Turks, Benn Swann or RT. Because they cover what most of TV won't. And they are consistent.

You know darn well, if this were Bush doing these things, it would be covered everyday, almost 24/7. Not just a story here and there. Be honest about that. No way Bush murders American with drones without due process with a secret kill list and the msm wouldn't be talking impeachment, treason, etc. No way.

[ChumpDumper]

If you claim to not like dishonesty, why do you continue to be dishonest?

The point was that the coverage is very weak in comparison to the coverage of Bush. That is a fact.

Prove it.

You know they ignored it during the election too, that's not by mistake, these issues ignored in the debates too, also NOT by mistake.

Both candidates pretty much agreed on the prosecution of the war. Beyond that, what was there to talk about?

[SA210]

Prove it.Both candidates pretty much agreed on the prosecution of the war. Beyond that, what was there to talk about?

I'm wasn't talking to you, troll. But to answer the question, they had a responsibility to talk about the drone program and assassinations of Americans, NDAA, etc.
The networks had a responsibility to ask those questions.

Even Gibbs admitted he was told to not even acknowledge the program. So mush for transparency.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm wasn't talking to you, troll.

It's OK. It was largely rhetorical. I doubt anyone thinks you could actually prove it tbh.

[boutons_deux]

SA210 pushing the old bull about liberal media biased against dubya and excusing Barry.

the entire press really, really beat up and questioned dubya and his back-burner-ing of Afghanistan to lie his way into Iraq.

[SA210]

It's OK. It was largely rhetorical. I doubt anyone thinks you could actually prove it tbh.

Well, I answerd your 2nd question, whether you agree with it or not. The first question is bs, you are a liar and you know the truth. But thanks for trying to ask a question that you can try spinning for pages and pages. You do a great service for talking about what's truly important, not.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I answerd your 2nd question, whether you agree with it or not. The first question is bs, you are a liar and you know the truth.

Then it should be easy for you to prove.

Prove it.

Not rhetorical.

[SA210]

SA210 pushing the old bull about liberal media biased against dubya and excusing Barry.

the entire press really, really beat up and questioned dubya and his back-burner-ing of Afghanistan to lie his way into Iraq.

No, they helped him start the war of course, but later when all wanted "change", they torched him and built Obama as the Messiah who would never do the things we are talking about in this thread. And just bc you say it's an old argument to say the liberal media backs the liberal candidate doesn't mean it isn't true. Fox sucks too. I'm not defending them, but I can call a duck a duck.

[SA210]

Then it should be easy for you to prove.

Prove it.

Not rhetorical.

There is the troll attempt for the pages and pages of nonsense. Nothing to prove tbh. You already know it's true, and you are a liar. The end

[ChumpDumper]

There is the troll attempt for the pages and pages of nonsense. Nothing to prove tbh. You already know it's true, and you are a liar. The end

No, I don't know that it's true. I don't know the total TV coverage of either issue. Just knowing you posted it makes me question its veracity. Your refusal to even attempt proving it doesn't help you at all either.

Now you're just trying to shut down a perfectly valid challenge to your assertions with ad hominems and general whining. Not unexpected.

[SA210]

You do know, you are just a liar. It's not something that needs to be researched or proven, it's basic common knowledge. You lie about not knowing such things, that's not unexpected. Instead of talking about dead innocent kids, his lies about ending wars, lies about transparency, his campaign lies, and the obvious common known truth that msm TV gives him a pass and did so during election time, you'd rather waste your life arguing nonsense and sidetracking from more important issues.

That is not unexpected from you. I have no interest in playing your games right now on an issue that you actually know to be true and you will just keep lying about it. This issue is too important to play games with a little troll. Find another playmate, if you can't I can only assume you are still sprung for me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The major publishers as well as the libertarians and more left wing all have been vocal against drone strikes. Rand Paul as well as a group of Democratic senators were all big news lately. Obama has been mocked about it because he dodged the inquiries for most of a year.

The US cleric in Yemen and his son that they killed were all huge news and every ACLU filing and Senate inquiry has been plastered.

The dead kid thing is just typical propaganda everytime there is some collateral damage. It's been true of every was since photographs were invented. War is goes the cliche. If you believe that there are people in those locations planning military strike in our country then we are compelled in my view to act. People die.

The MSM fearmongering that far right radio and ty youtube productions tries and portray is what is dishonest. While it draws you into their 'us vs. them' bull it is still bull . TV news is entertainment news ie ratings driven. If you don't like pop news I recommend reading.

[rjv]

i personally do not think that drone warfare should be politicized but of course it has been (more so by the right as their opposition seems more disingenuous). nevertheless, drones are the next major moral issue of war-today'd version of dresden or hiroshima (or nuclear weapons), with the same potential for very dire consequences that the latter has always presented.

[Jacob1983]

I only want Obama to be criticized and bashed as harshly as Bush was. Bush used waterboarding and torture. Obama uses drones that kill little kids and babies yet there is no outrage. That's not equal. I thought liberals were suppose to be about tolerance and equality. I'm not seeing equality and tolerance.

[Winehole23]

there's a lot you don't see. maybe you should open your eyes a little wider.

[Wild Cobra]

@WC: a quick search of this forum would disclose no small number of drone related threads, almost all of them based on internet, print or TV news.

Yes, there are sources reporting it. Just not as prevalent as sources that reported any suspected wrongdoings of the Bush administration.

Are you trying to say you don't see the bias?

[Wild Cobra]

here's a link to a Bill Moyers TV interview from 2009: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...+moyers+drones

A commentary program. Not a major news program.

[Wild Cobra]

I never said it wasn't in the media anywhere. I said "why don't I hear it in the news, like I did waterboarding?"

What does the qualifier "like I did" mean to you?

What does "news" mean to you?

Do you consider the Bill Moyers Journal a news program? It's commentary, isn't it?

[Winehole23]

Yes, there are sources reporting it. Just not as prevalent as sources that reported any suspected wrongdoings of the Bush administration.

Are you trying to say you don't see the bias?

I see plenty of bias -- both ways. The tabloidization of the press is a fait accompli.

Whatever your bias is, there's a news outlet that caters to it. It's been this way for about 15 years now.