Your tax dollars at work

[_beastie]

You don't see any difference between a few people on the left and right asking for answers from the administration and the widespread calls for Bush's impeachment and prosecution? I'm sorry if I expect consistency from people, maybe because I expect it from myself. It's obvious to me, at least, that whatever outrage there is on the left to these targeted killings of Americans and others without due process pales in comparison to their outrage at Bush. I don't think there's a difference in what Bush and Obama have been doing, except that Bush, so far as I know, didn't target Americans.

You're trying to make this into a partisan issue, and I couldn't care less about partisanship. Do you think I should be happy that the left has largely ignored these issues just because the right has as well?

I'm not the one who made this a partisan argument. It was partisan from the moment it was raised because the accusation was that lefties didn't even know about the subject, much less criticize it. So I simply pointed out that I think there is evidence that there is more than a "whimper" on the left regarding drone strikes. And yes, it felt like you were moving goalposts. You rejected the HuffPo article because it wasn't NYtimes, ABC, NBC. So then I provide evidence that the NYTimes has, indeed, criticized the drone strikes. Frequently. Then you said that it would only count if the left were calling Obama a war criminal.

I have always agreed that the left is not as vociferous on this issue as they would be if it were a republican. And yes, that is tribal hypocrisy, which is almost universal in all human beings. I'm not justifying it, just stating what I see as a hard truth about being human.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I'm not the one who made this a partisan argument. It was partisan from the moment it was raised because the accusation was that lefties didn't even know about the subject, much less criticize it.

Actually, the accusation was from Kevin, that we conservatives approve of government waste as long as it's used to kill people. I didn't even mention political parties in the OP, but Kevin decided we needed to be called happy murderers just because we don't like our government paying for people to play cards.

So I simply pointed out that I think there is evidence that there is more than a "whimper" on the left regarding drone strikes. And yes, it felt like you were moving goalposts. You rejected the HuffPo article because it wasn't NYtimes, ABC, NBC. So then I provide evidence that the NYTimes has, indeed, criticized the drone strikes. Frequently. Then you said that it would only count if the left were calling Obama a war criminal.

You ignored the part where I cited the Times op-ed as indicting the Times for largely ignoring this issue. I don't know why this is controversial at all: neither the right nor the left seems especially concerned about the drone attacks. Yes, I engaged in a bit of hyperbole, but the comparison is striking to me.

I have always agreed that the left is not as vociferous on this issue as they would be if it were a republican. And yes, that is tribal hypocrisy, which is almost universal in all human beings. I'm not justifying it, just stating what I see as a hard truth about being human.

That was my point, as well.

[Tator]

Actually, the accusation was from Kevin, that we conservatives approve of government waste as long as it's used to kill people. I didn't even mention political parties in the OP, but Kevin decided we needed to be called happy murderers just because we don't like our government paying for people to play cards.

Yes, that was unwarranted hyperbole.

You ignored the part where I cited the Times op-ed as indicting the Times for largely ignoring this issue. I don't know why this is controversial at all: neither the right nor the left seems especially concerned about the drone attacks. Yes, I engaged in a bit of hyperbole, but the comparison is striking to me.

I didn't mean to ignore it, but I wanted to show that this was not an isolated piece. The NYTimes may not have met its full burden, but it has paid attention to this issue. As have other lefties. Whether or not it's getting the attention it warrants is another issue. I just don't agree with EA that it's nothing more than a whimper. After all, I knew about it, and it's not like I'm some hard-nosed investigative reporter.

That was my point, as well.

I think perhaps we misunderstood the other's intent.

[_Bob Loblaw]

beastie,

I hate it when I discover that I am in almost complete agreement with a "leftist."

[_EAllusion]

My position is that the criticism is muted. Because it is. Articles here and there don't blunt that point. I refer you back to my posts on the first page of this thread for a comparison between criticism of Obama and Bush when it comes to civil rights abuses, war crimes, and the war on terror. The obvious example is the differences in protest movements from the left during the Bush and Obama years because its easy to see the difference between hundreds of thousands of people flooding streets and not.

[_Bob Loblaw]

My position is that the criticism is muted. Because it is. Articles here and there don't blunt that point. I refer you back to my posts on the first page of this thread for a comparison between criticism of Obama and Bush when it comes to civil rights abuses, war crimes, and the war on terror. The obvious example is the differences in protest movements from the left during the Bush and Obama years because its easy to see the difference between hundreds of thousands of people flooding streets and not.

Agreed. It is definitely muted, and the only reason seems to be that Obama is not a Republican. This is the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and it would be unseemly to criticize him for killing people.

[_beastie]

My position is that the criticism is muted. Because it is. Articles here and there don't blunt that point. I refer you back to my posts on the first page of this thread for a comparison between criticism of Obama and Bush when it comes to civil rights abuses, war crimes, and the war on terror. The obvious example is the differences in protest movements from the left during the Bush and Obama years because its easy to see the difference between hundreds of thousands of people flooding streets and not.

Ok, as long as you concede that there IS criticism on the left on this issue, I'll concede your point that it is muted, in comparison to the criticism of Bush.

I think it is also a phenomenon of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, perhaps even moreso than simple hypocrisy. Lefties believe that the left will be more protective of civil rights and human life, so tend to "not see" disconfirming evidence to the contrary. It's human nature. It's a wonder we've gotten this far.

I admit that sometimes politics is so depressing that I am tempted to opt out, but since I would then lose my right to complain, I stay engaged. :O

[_beastie]

I'll tell you all another "secret". I am so freaking sick of this whole circus that I'm at the point where I almost don't care which one wins, as long as it ENDS. I get three to five pieces of political junk mail every single day (usually from Romney), and it's all the talking heads yammer on about. And I do admit to wondering whether it will make any difference which one gets elected. Their main differences, when put under a microscope, are probably not THAT significant. Ralph Nader was probably correct on that point. It's the same big money behind each side, who are we kidding?

Hey, maybe I will vote for Jill Stein.

[_EAllusion]

If you're not aware, there's a 3rd party debate going on right now. Since it's not a high stakes affair with campaigns unwinding tightly controlled, focus group tested talking points in response to predictable questions, it's a more interesting event.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2012 ... sday-6-pm/

[_EAllusion]

Ok, as long as you concede that there IS criticism on the left on this issue, I'll concede your point that it is muted, in comparison to the criticism of Bush.

I conceded that on the first page Beastie. I just don't think that criticism is substantial.

I think it is also a phenomenon of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, perhaps even moreso than simple hypocrisy.

The vast majority of people don't have a coherent political ideology. They don't get that far. This oversimplifies it a bit, but many simply have a political identity and go with whatever they're vaguely aware associates with that identity. "I'm a Democrat" doesn't mean "I support civil liberties." Most people can't even describe what civil liberties are. It means "I support what Democrats seem to be saying and doing at the moment." That's why it's so easy for a party to shift views in the rank and file. As I've pointed out before, Republicans collectively went from vociferously anti-torture to pro-torture in a heartbeat simply because of the actions of the Bush administration. Others don't even have that. They're basically guessing their views based on how they feel that day.

The leadership and the unusual, more informed voters are a different story. There you get into confirmation bias, cynical messaging, debate, and so on.