So here's a question...

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

However, I have been reliably informed by liberals that criticising such a policy will only make Sarah Palin demiurge over this material Universe, through processes they cannot precisely explain, but certainly feel very strongly. 

You have to invoke her, Rush Limbaugh or Bobby Volare in order to criticize a Democrat.

[Kai]

...what exactly is the difference between Obama's "kill list" policy and the policy of the Serbian Army at Srebrencia?

Just thinking about it, the policy of the latter was that any "military-age" male be seperated from the population at large, then killed as a possible enemy combatant.

Obama's policy is that any "military-age" male in a "strike zone" (defined as: most of the Middle East and South Asia) is a combatant, unless it can be proven afterwards that this is not the case, and that drones be used to do the killing.

Except for scale, I'm having problems finding the point of departure between these two methods.

There's no difference, except that one is considered legitimate by several world powers, and the other is not.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

The other options being Romney or simply sitting the election out, it's not like we really have a choice here. 

You can vote third party.  They may not win but the major parties do pay attention to which third parties get how many votes.

lol

here in mexico the trend for radicals is to rather not vote, by voting you are only legitimizing a shit system with shit options

In the US the assumption is if you don't vote you don't care.

a very comforting and convenient interpretation

Edit: fixed my quotation

Assuming it's not all rigged and pre-decided, not voting/voting third party takes a vote away from the lesser evil (I know, I know...) you would have voted for and helps the greater evil.

Obama is a fucking sellout and a tool of the evil fucks who are really running the shit. But Romney would have to dance to the same fiddle and he's batshit on crackers, besides: "HE CAN'T LOOK LIKE THAT!!!!"

[The Johnny]

The other options being Romney or simply sitting the election out, it's not like we really have a choice here. 

You can vote third party.  They may not win but the major parties do pay attention to which third parties get how many votes.

lol

here in mexico the trend for radicals is to rather not vote, by voting you are only legitimizing a shit system with shit options

In the US the assumption is if you don't vote you don't care.

a very comforting and convenient interpretation

Edit: fixed my quotation

Assuming it's not all rigged and pre-decided, not voting/voting third party takes a vote away from the lesser evil (I know, I know...) you would have for and helps the greater evil.

Obama is a fucking sellout and a tool of the evil fucks who are really running the shit. But Romney would have to dance to the same fiddle and he's batshit on crackers, besides: "HE CAN'T LOOK LIKE THAT!!!!"

Theres this movement right now called "#yosoy132" ("i am the 132nd", long story)... i just think they are silly...

They say that not voting is not the answer, rather that the answer is to demand transparency and stop the violence that is happening in the country and corruption...

The end result is just screeching for change and hoping someone in power listens to them while legitimizing voting and 3 party scheme...

Regarding 3rd party and voting for them... i dont know if this happens in the USA but... here, the -more appropiately demonited 4th parties, because theres 3 major parties- 4th parties are in reality not another party... they are fronts for the major parties...

The Green Party (Verde Ecologista) is in reality a front for the "Old Regime" (PRI), which in previous elections merely stole votes from the PRD (pseudo progressive Obama "HOPE/CHANGE" style party)... what they do, is, assume radical positions, so that the radicals will vote for them, so they think theres a very vague and ambiguous, but possible, representation of their radical views instead of being cast off and just being denied the possibility.

Its a crowd control sort of deal... if you pretend to listen to somebody, instead of outright ignoring them, its easier to keep them content.

[East Coast Hustle]

The other options being Romney or simply sitting the election out, it's not like we really have a choice here. 

You can vote third party.  They may not win but the major parties do pay attention to which third parties get how many votes.

lol

here in mexico the trend for radicals is to rather not vote, by voting you are only legitimizing a shit system with shit options

That's the conclusion I've come to. And it's fun to see the looks on peoples' faces when I explain to them that no, I'm not lazy or apathetic, I just think America fucking SUCKS and I refuse to legitimize the farce that is our "republic" in even the smallest of ways.

[Pope Lecherous]

Theres this movement right now called "#yosoy132" ("i am the 132nd", long story)... i just think they are silly...

They say that not voting is not the answer, rather that the answer is to demand transparency and stop the violence that is happening in the country and corruption...

The end result is just screeching for change and hoping someone in power listens to them while legitimizing voting and 3 party scheme...

Regarding 3rd party and voting for them... i dont know if this happens in the USA but... here, the -more appropiately demonited 4th parties, because theres 3 major parties- 4th parties are in reality not another party... they are fronts for the major parties...

The Green Party (Verde Ecologista) is in reality a front for the "Old Regime" (PRI), which in previous elections merely stole votes from the PRD (pseudo progressive Obama "HOPE/CHANGE" style party)... what they do, is, assume radical positions, so that the radicals will vote for them, so they think theres a very vague and ambiguous, but possible, representation of their radical views instead of being cast off and just being denied the possibility.

Its a crowd control sort of deal... if you pretend to listen to somebody, instead of outright ignoring them, its easier to keep them content.

This, along with all the other comments in the thread, fills me with despair and hopelessness for the people of United States and humanity in general.  It really gives depth to the term 'rat race.'  When I hear the youth expressing similar feelings I feel something akin to 'welcome to the real world' and 'this is just the beginning' but then I realize that these feelings are a pretty normal response and in my participation in the rat race pursuit of the American Dream^TM I've only ignored/forgotten all the problems that create these feelings.

[The Johnny]

Theres this movement right now called "#yosoy132" ("i am the 132nd", long story)... i just think they are silly...

They say that not voting is not the answer, rather that the answer is to demand transparency and stop the violence that is happening in the country and corruption...

The end result is just screeching for change and hoping someone in power listens to them while legitimizing voting and 3 party scheme...

Regarding 3rd party and voting for them... i dont know if this happens in the USA but... here, the -more appropiately demonited 4th parties, because theres 3 major parties- 4th parties are in reality not another party... they are fronts for the major parties...

The Green Party (Verde Ecologista) is in reality a front for the "Old Regime" (PRI), which in previous elections merely stole votes from the PRD (pseudo progressive Obama "HOPE/CHANGE" style party)... what they do, is, assume radical positions, so that the radicals will vote for them, so they think theres a very vague and ambiguous, but possible, representation of their radical views instead of being cast off and just being denied the possibility.

Its a crowd control sort of deal... if you pretend to listen to somebody, instead of outright ignoring them, its easier to keep them content.

This, along with all the other comments in the thread, fills me with despair and hopelessness for the people of United States and humanity in general.  It really gives depth to the term 'rat race.'  When I hear the youth expressing similar feelings I feel something akin to 'welcome to the real world' and 'this is just the beginning' but then I realize that these feelings are a pretty normal response and in my participation in the rat race pursuit of the American Dream^TM I've only ignored/forgotten all the problems that create these feelings.

Wouldnt it be more of a type of disillusion with the American Dream and how-things-are-supposed-to-work what is being expressed?

I mean, the American Dream of living happily and abroad when you finally get to retire is very much tied to old morals that are linked to protestantism... a sort of "i have been virtuous in my life, this is the money i saved up as proof of it, now i can die in peace and go to heaven"...

I cant speak for others, but, things like buying a house or forming a family doesnt sound like a good idea at all in this times... not like one can do it appropiately anyhow, most jobs are based on one year contracts that might or might not be renewed, but that also means one doesnt get the long term benefits that a job used to give...

[Pope Lecherous]

Wouldnt it be more of a type of disillusion with the American Dream and how-things-are-supposed-to-work what is being expressed?

I mean, the American Dream of living happily and abroad when you finally get to retire is very much tied to old morals that are linked to protestantism... a sort of "i have been virtuous in my life, this is the money i saved up as proof of it, now i can die in peace and go to heaven"...

I cant speak for others, but, things like buying a house or forming a family doesnt sound like a good idea at all in this times... not like one can do it appropiately anyhow, most jobs are based on one year contracts that might or might not be renewed, but that also means one doesnt get the long term benefits that a job used to give...

Both really.  The hardest hitting part for me is really the role of the government, the wealthy and the general population in today's state of affairs.  Makes a man want to frown.

[The Johnny]

And speaking more oriented towards the OP in a way...

In Mexico we have this big drug war going on... nobody seems to like it, yet it carries on.

Two candidates speak of continuing the war... another one speaks of accountability and human rights... the other one doesnt seem to talk about it...

The bottom line is that the war will go on... 2 "tough on crime" candidates... 1 "human rights" advocate... 1 with no clear position...

So this is the government for you, the population at large doesnt want the war, but it will go on, but with different spins marketed for their respective target-audience, so that in their little screeching partisan heart they feel somewhat at ease with it:

"Nobody wants the war, we shall end it soon by escalating the conflict"

vs.

"Nobody wants the war, but we'll make it politically correct"

Politics is a popularity contest to see which discourse becomes the valid one, but discourse and actions are two very different things... discourse can go "mutatis mutandis" with practically no cost... to me, if theres a change in discourse while there is no change in actions, its not worth my time.

There was this news article in the Fluff Thread about blacks being deported from Israel (correct me if im wrong)... the population wanted them out of the country because they were "stealing jobs and being criminals"... the government deported them "for their own safety"...

Citing the drug thread while making history of similar positions... religious nut jobs want to get rid of drugs because its "a sin"... the government wants to get rid of drugs because "its supporting terrorists"... preventionists and PTA organizations want to get rid of drugs because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN"... but the bottom line is that they want to make restrictions on what another person can and cant do.

So fuck all the tailored and measured discourses that are just justifications for doing what is convenient for themselves.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

...what exactly is the difference between Obama's "kill list" policy and the policy of the Serbian Army at Srebrencia?

Just thinking about it, the policy of the latter was that any "military-age" male be seperated from the population at large, then killed as a possible enemy combatant.

Obama's policy is that any "military-age" male in a "strike zone" (defined as: most of the Middle East and South Asia) is a combatant, unless it can be proven afterwards that this is not the case, and that drones be used to do the killing.

Except for scale, I'm having problems finding the point of departure between these two methods.

I'm seeing pictures of dead toddlers supposedly killed by drone strikes being passed around facebook with captions like "Suspected Terrorist".

How factual is this?

[Don Coyote]

...what exactly is the difference between Obama's "kill list" policy and the policy of the Serbian Army at Srebrencia?

Just thinking about it, the policy of the latter was that any "military-age" male be seperated from the population at large, then killed as a possible enemy combatant.

Obama's policy is that any "military-age" male in a "strike zone" (defined as: most of the Middle East and South Asia) is a combatant, unless it can be proven afterwards that this is not the case, and that drones be used to do the killing.

Except for scale, I'm having problems finding the point of departure between these two methods.

I'm seeing pictures of dead toddlers supposedly killed by drone strikes being passed around facebook with captions like "Suspected Terrorist".

How factual is this?

Are they brown and are they in some place that doesn't look like america?

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

...what exactly is the difference between Obama's "kill list" policy and the policy of the Serbian Army at Srebrencia?

Just thinking about it, the policy of the latter was that any "military-age" male be seperated from the population at large, then killed as a possible enemy combatant.

Obama's policy is that any "military-age" male in a "strike zone" (defined as: most of the Middle East and South Asia) is a combatant, unless it can be proven afterwards that this is not the case, and that drones be used to do the killing.

Except for scale, I'm having problems finding the point of departure between these two methods.

I'm seeing pictures of dead toddlers supposedly killed by drone strikes being passed around facebook with captions like "Suspected Terrorist".

How factual is this?

Are they brown and are they in some place that doesn't look like america?

Yeah. 

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

...what exactly is the difference between Obama's "kill list" policy and the policy of the Serbian Army at Srebrencia?

Just thinking about it, the policy of the latter was that any "military-age" male be seperated from the population at large, then killed as a possible enemy combatant.

Obama's policy is that any "military-age" male in a "strike zone" (defined as: most of the Middle East and South Asia) is a combatant, unless it can be proven afterwards that this is not the case, and that drones be used to do the killing.

Except for scale, I'm having problems finding the point of departure between these two methods.

Perceived legitimacy of the actors. Or in short, just perception. Obama's harshest critics perceive him to be a socialist, America-hating, hippie, earth-muffin type...not a ruthless hawk. Obama's biggest proponents perceive him to be the champion of health-care reform and now marriage equality...not a ruthless hawk.

I find myself arguing with conservatives a lot along the lines of "NO, DUMBFUCKS! This is why Obama really sucks." It just never hits home.

Any good sources on international reaction to the al-Awlaki assassination? That's something I would find very interesting.

[BabylonHoruv]

...what exactly is the difference between Obama's "kill list" policy and the policy of the Serbian Army at Srebrencia?

Just thinking about it, the policy of the latter was that any "military-age" male be seperated from the population at large, then killed as a possible enemy combatant.

Obama's policy is that any "military-age" male in a "strike zone" (defined as: most of the Middle East and South Asia) is a combatant, unless it can be proven afterwards that this is not the case, and that drones be used to do the killing.

Except for scale, I'm having problems finding the point of departure between these two methods.

I'm seeing pictures of dead toddlers supposedly killed by drone strikes being passed around facebook with captions like "Suspected Terrorist".

How factual is this?

According to the NYT article only men of military age are considered to be combatants, so dead kids would count as civilian casualties.  However, according to the Telegraph there have been 168 kids killed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8695679/168-children-killed-in-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-start-of-campaign.html

This part in particular disturbed me

In just a single attack on a madrassah in 2006 up to 69 children lost their lives.

A madrassah is a school.  Sending drones to blow up a school is pretty fucked up.  You have to know you are going to be killing children in that case.

The telegraph article is also nearly a year old, so there may be quite a few children who have been killed since then.

[Don Coyote]

...what exactly is the difference between Obama's "kill list" policy and the policy of the Serbian Army at Srebrencia?

Just thinking about it, the policy of the latter was that any "military-age" male be seperated from the population at large, then killed as a possible enemy combatant.

Obama's policy is that any "military-age" male in a "strike zone" (defined as: most of the Middle East and South Asia) is a combatant, unless it can be proven afterwards that this is not the case, and that drones be used to do the killing.

Except for scale, I'm having problems finding the point of departure between these two methods.

I'm seeing pictures of dead toddlers supposedly killed by drone strikes being passed around facebook with captions like "Suspected Terrorist".

How factual is this?

Are they brown and are they in some place that doesn't look like america?

Yeah. 

Check with non-mainstream new sources to see if the pictures are from them.