The thing is its not even surprising anymore (and I'm back from my ban)

im curious how obama can use the "dont vote for romney he is another bush" line...when it actually seems to mean the exact oppsosite of what hes suggesting it means.

Not sure if serious or sarcastic... but that's more or less my feelings.  I mean... hellfire missles can be outfitted to helicopters as well.

Not sarcastic. If it's functionally the same as a chopper, I don't see the sense in getting exercised over it just because drones are being used to kill people elsewhere.

Just saw this thread and I have to say... that's pretty bad.

Don't worry guys. Congress is on this. Instead of assassinating US citizens they are working on a bill which strips citizens of their citizenship. This way they aren't technically killing citizens...

I don't think he has used that line for a while.  Ever since he realized Romney's problem viewed as "Not conservative enough for republicans."

It's hard to sell someone as a hardcore right of center person when he almost loses the primary for being too moderate.

I mean... his latest campaign pitch was "Romney is too much of a punk to violate another countries soverinty and spend billions of dollars to track down a figurehead of a weakened terrorist group that spent his days hiding inside of a compound watching saved by the bell reruns."

He seems to be going for "He's not bush enough, but everything that went wrong was Bush's fault... and still is... nothing is my fault."

I mean heck, watching his AP jokes I'm kinda shocked i haven't seen any complaints about some of the jokes he made being anti-gay and sexist.  I mean not SUPER surprised, but usually you can see one or two complaints somehwere.

I mean... replacing Don't ask don't tell with a policy called "It's raining men".  I could only imagine the field day with that if a republican said it.  (Plus you know... the fact that he only got that vote across because he used the DoJ to stall the implementation of the courts ruling because it was a republican group who won the case and he wanted to make sure democrats got the credit and it didn't give people the idea that there are other ways to fight for gay rights then to blindly vote for the party that says they're for gay rights yet never ever seems to even remotely come close to trying to accomplish anything... except right around election time when NOTHING gets passed anyway.

Heh, i didn't scroll down to this section of the site all day.

But no, that is certainly egregious. The point of drone strikes was about getting results while keeping US Soldiers safe, not about being able to kill whoever you want now so you get a (very slightly) more credible "oops" claim later. Drones should be about increased accountability and safety, and should not be used as a front for more security policy obstruction

Hey, at least they're not flying through America's skies, right?

Oh, wait...

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=214769660919529725423.0004bde31d74fe6eb1ece&hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=m&ll=45.336702,-110.039062&spn=58.987964,112.5&z=3&source=embed

http://www.infowars.com/bill-clears-path-for-30000-surveillance-drones-over-us-in-next-ten-years/

Thanks for the link. Some entertaining stuff over there.