To judge from the books they publish, FoFF has many original ideas:

Separating School and State: How to Liberate America’s Families
The Dangers of Socialized Medicine
The Tyranny of Gun Control
Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax
Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State

Sorta sounds like their platform is: get a gun, pull your kids outta public schools, stop payin income tax, and get angry about socialized medicine and welfare

are being trashed on this Democratic Liberal forum these days. What everyone is noticing is this tactic of pretending to care about 'sources'. Are you aware of how many venues, mostly Liberal these two have been using for more than a decade to speak about these very same issues?

Got anything to say about the ISSUE under descussion which you can find everywhere there are Liberal Dems who opposed all of them since Bush first occupied the WH and started using 9/11 to do so??? You haven't said where you stand on the ISSUES.

So they are quite literally preaching to the Angry Libertarian Male Demographic. I am not trashing them. I am trashing the audience they choose to preach to.

them? I'm not interested in personalities, just the credibility of the personalities, and Schahill has proven his creds for more than a decade right now.

Do you object to all the Republicans Obama has appointed and kept around to keep these policies going?

Surely if you object to ONE of many sources used by Liberal Journalists, you must be OUTRAGED over all the Bush loyalists in Defense and Security if this minor thing has you so upset you forgot to mention the issues.

And btw, they are talking to American Citizens whose business it is to know what their government is up to.

Considering the alternative, I think my choice of Obama was a good one. A McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan administration would have been far more disastrous.

As to his choices, I don't agree with all of them, butI really like some of them. I can promise I will not vote for Obama again.

When so called Liberal Journalists utilize a group as corrosive and vile that bunch I will criticize them.

Politics isn't about personalities, except to extreme partisans who put party before country.

Which is why we supported this President. He SOUNDED as if he would restore the rule of law and end some of Bush's egregious policies shoved through Congress using 9/11 to do so.

I would never support a REpublican because of Issues. This president has appointed Republicans to his cabinet, so it appears he has more faith in them than in Democrats when it comes to Defense and National Security. I find that stunning. If we wanted Republicans we would have voted for them, no?

Why do you think we did not get the Democrats we voted for? I for sure would never have supported Clapper, Hagel, Comey, Alexander or any other of the Republicans we got anyhow. I thought we were voting against them.

Obama was quite open about his views on the war in Afghanistan and the war on terror. He supported both of those wars and advocated a muscular foreign diplomacy.

At least one of things he wanted to do, he could not do because of the Law. (That would be closing Gitmo.) Congress passed a law forbidding him to do that.

Since we are a Representative Democratic Republic, we vote for representatives. Sometimes they don't represent us the way we like.

As to Republicans. I don't vote for them because even if there was one who I believed would work to expand individual rights, put strong regulations on predatory corporations, and support polices that help the middle class and poor, he would never get a chance to enact those policies. Republicans come with an agenda and a world view, and a representative that doesn't toe their line will go no where.

I vote for Democrats because they are reliable when it comes to doing some things that broaden individual rights, support the middle class and poor, and regulate predatory corporations.

I recognize that because we have a mixed government that not much will be done either way. Government requires compromise, and compromise is a rare commodity in Washington these days.

intelligent about the future of the world,” right?

I'm sure nobody can imagine how he happened to show up at a Libertarian forum!

Bush Loyalists, appointees, 'Staunch Republicans' Gates, Clapper, Alexander but he went further, he told us they would make better guardians of our SECURITY so he had the nerve to confirm the Republican accusation that Dems were 'weak on security' by putting REPUBLICANS in charge of it!!! I'm sure nobody can imagine how he happened, as a Democratically elected President, to actually agree with Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly et al. Can you explain that?

See how your attempt to distract from the issues can backfire on you? Why? Because the President has made it VERY DIFFICULT for you to play this game, due to his support for Bush policies and his apppointments and PRAISE for some of the worst, deceptive members of the Bush administration.

I WISH all he had done was to go to a Libertarian forum and SPEAK THE TRUTH about the ISSUES. Like SCAHILL who never appointed a Bush loyalist to anything, or Stone, who never praised a Bush loyalist as long as I have been paying attention to him.

You can try to turn people away from the issues with this weak tactic', but you can't do it. The issues are way, way too serious to the American people.

People don't care what Stone said about Paul. They care whether or not he is correct on the issues.


Here, let me try to make this as clear as I can. I don't care who anyone makes love to, whether they have boxes in their garages, whether they wear boxers or briefs or any other of these well known distractions, so please, don't bore me with such tabloidism

I care about Bush policies still in place six years after we THOUGHT we threw them out.

We were wrong about throwing them out, we didn't, they are STILL in this administration.

"The country Obama inherited was .. in shambles, but Obama took a bad situation and .. made it worse"

As the election approached, Stone got publicity attacking the President's health care plan. He got publicity attacking the President for not closing Guantanamo -- which, of course, is an incredibly dishonest analysis of what happened there. He got publicity attacking the President for allegedly taking a militaristic posture towards Iran -- which is also incredibly dishonest

Maybe Stone is talking before a libertarian group, that wants to abolish the income tax, because today he's a really rich guy who does want to pay taxes and figures anything that helps them organize is a good thing

publicly, giving truth to the lie that Democrats are BAD on National Security. I despise Republicans. We threw them out. But this president restored them to power, REPUBLICANS. THAT is making a bad situation worse IF you wanted to fix the bad situation, isn't it?

And you're talking about trivia here, sticking to the tactic like glue as if that will make Republicans in our Democratic Administration go away.

What do you think of that?? I will try to get this through to you once again, I don't care what Stone said. He has no power to appoint REPUBLICANS to POWERFUL POSITIONS. IF he did, then I would care.

The question I have is why don't YOU care that the Democrat we elected used that power to restore power to Republicans in some of the most important positions in the government, and then watched as they CONTINUED and EXPANDED Bush policies, and defended them. Some film maker giving a talk is more important to you than these facts?? Surely not, but you haven't addressed Presidents preference for Republicans over Democrats for some reason.

Has Stone appoint or voted for Republicans? I seriously doubt it. But this President has. Why are you not angry that after kicking them out, the person we elected to keep them out, put them BACK in power?? Every Democrat I know is furious over this.

so he's not on your side there, either

the ongoing anti Constitutional Violations, anti-International Law Violations which began with the criminal and illegitimate Bush administration and have only expanded AFTER we were told to 'vote Democratic' in order to end those violations.

Not a very good try at deflecting from the facts of what they are saying.

You can catch them on NPR, in Rolling Stone, and on many, many LIBERAL publications and they will be saying exactly the SAME THING.

If you think, and a few others here who have been practicing this 'but look at WHERE the truth is being told' routine, is having ANY effect whatsoever on people getting the facts, you are not only wrong, but these tactics only make people MORE angry.

Got anything to say about the expansion of Bush's Security State?

You know, the actual topic of the OP. Because truthfully, what is going on in this country has gone WAY BEYOND this tactic of trying to point away from the facts.

as not really intending to remove US troops from Iraq, right?

It's pretty typical that liberals will "kill the messenger" when it is THEIR guy being criticized for his actions, but Obama deserves it.

Drone wars are illegal, immoral and WRONG. It was wrong under Bush (not that he had much of this technology at that point) and it is wrong now, even if the guy we voted for is doing it.

Didn't he campaign on expanding the war in Afghanistan and hitting more targets in Pakistan?

I remember Biden and Hillary going after Obama in the primaries when he said he wanted to hit more targets in Pakistan.

There are little to no surprises here.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

that is how I know that that talking point is just that, a talking point to try to deflect from the truth.

Eg, Obama never told us about privatizing the Public Schools.

Or expanding on what Democrats opposed strenuously when Bush started it, all The Drone Wars, now in several countries.

Or get involved in another invasion, Libya eg, Somalia.

Or Expand the Security State we so opposed under Bush.

I see why all these policies are still in place despite our expectations, based on campaign promises, that they would not be.

Obama never told us he would be keeping Bush's Security State protectors, Clapper, Alexander, Gates, among others.

I KNOW because if he had told us all that, I would not have supported him.

AFTER we threw them out or did he not? A simple yes or no would suffice.

And if you are concerned about some film maker speaking at a venue you don't approve of, because it was not a Democratic venue, then surely you must be furious to see Republicans restored to positions of power, praised and honored by the president we elected to keep them out.

There appears to be some disconnect with this latest attempt at distraction from the issues. It is simply not believable that any Democrat who worked to kick out Republicans would not be stunned to see them restored to positions of power, but would be more upset over WHERE someone tells the truth about Bush policies.

I don't need links, my question is simple. I despise Republicans which is why I supported Democrats. I have no idea how you feel about them because you appear to not want to discuss it, which is fine. But you cannot distract people from these major issues with transparent 'look over there' tactics. We've all been around too long for that.

Yes, President Obama said he would be willing to appoint republicans to positions of power BEFORE he was elected. So, it really shouldn't come as a surprise that he did what he said he would do. I think most people took it as a sign that he was open minded and not partisan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Says He’d Consider Arnold For His Cabinet
By Mark Mooney
Dec 20, 2007 8:29am

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/12/obama-says-hed-2/

"ABC’s Sunlen Miller Reports: Barack Obama has often said he’d consider putting Republicans in his cabinet and even bandied about names like Sens. Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel. He’s a added a new name to the list of possible Republicans cabinet members – Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Obama regularly says he would look to Republicans to fill out his cabinet if he was elected, but at a town hall event in Manchester, N.H., he was pushed to name names."

--snip--

Sen. Dick Lugar: “He’s a Republicans who I worked with on issues of arms control, wonderful guy. He is somebody I think embodies the tradition of a bipartisan foreign policy that is sensible, that is not ideological, that is based on the idea that we have to have some humility and restraint in terms of our ability to project power around the world,” Obama said about his Senate colleague.

Sen. Chuck Hagel: “A Vietnam vet, similar approach and somebody I respect in a similar fashion,” Obama added.

--snip--

He has done many of the things that he said he would do if he was elected. I detest the drones. I think they create more people who will want to target American citizens. I am disappointed that we continue to use them so much.

But, if McCain had been elected, no doubt we would have been in a war with Iran and Syria, by now...and who knows who else. That's no justification for policies that displease me, but a stark reality check that the opposition was absolutely NOT a logical possibility.

had I would not have supported him. Nor were people happy about his Afghanistan rhetoric but we were always assured that he had to do it in order to get elected.

I remember him speaking passionately about ending the Constitutional violations instigated by Bush.

Obama did run on expanding the war in Afghanistan. If you read the speech, he also advocated a wider war on terror around the world and a more aggressive National Security strategy. If you think about the speech in total, everything, even the expanded NSA spying, fits.

That was a stupid thing for them to do, but frightened men often do stupid things. So this drone war is legal under US Law.

In my opinion, it should not be legal. The War on terror should not be a war. Terrorists who conspire to attack the US, its citizens, or its interests should be pursued as criminals; pursued, arrested, tried in a court of law, and if convicted, sentenced to the prison for a very long time.

Drones are just a technology we use. The only difference between flying a bomber or a helicopter gunship over a battlefield target is that a bomber of gunship has the pilot sitting in the vehicle. For drones, the pilots sit back here in the US. This makes drones much cheaper to make and to use because we do not need to build in heavy, expensive systems to protect a living pilot. We do not need to worry about rescuing and recovering a downed pilot in enemy territory. Drones should be reserved for a legitimate war where this nation is actually fighting for its existence.

going to support Bush policies, keep Bush loyalists in place in Defense and Security etc. I'm saying that is FALSE because if he had, most of us who worked for his election would never have done so. Afghanistan was a problem, so was his vote for the FISA amendment, we didn't like it, but on most other issues he was talking like a Liberal, THEN.

The technology as we use it now was relatively knew. Oh, sure, General Atomics began to develop it in 1994 under Clinton, but it only came into use under Bush. Why would Obama run on a technology that for the most part was heavily classified? Drones are a technology we use. The problem is not the technology, it is how Congress defined the battlefield in the "War on Terror." Would it be anymore palatable if we flew bombers over Pakistan or Yemen and bombed them that way? Is it better to fly Helicopter gun ships and rain fire and bullets on a village in the Congo than it is to use a drone.

To effectively end the war we need to end the battlefield. We are no more going to be rid of drones than we will be of computers or the internal combustion engine.

country.

So drones are 'just the latest technology'. Really? Have you been following Drone slaughter since they were first used by Bush which we on the Left opposed FURIOUSLY. Did you btw, when Bush began to use them?

Have you ever read, back in the early Bush years a description of the results of this 'new technology' on its victims? Robert Fisk I believe, was present when one of Bush's drones blew some children to pieces. He witnessed their moms come to the scene screaming looking for their children. There was nothing left of them except unrecognizable body parts. A tiny foot, with a shoe a mom recognized as her child's, a hand. Do you have children? Imagine if someone across the globe used this 'new technology' on a mall in this country??? Would by so cavalier as to not even THINK about the innocent victims?

I remember how appalled the Left was as these reports were published, outraged, determined to bring the War Criminals to justice?? Do you?

I am stunned at the change, certainly not what I thought 'change' was going to be, in SOME on the Left regarding these brutal, illegal wars we are engaged in, without the public's knowledge or approval.



Airc, it has ALWAYS been the position of the Left, that Bush's policies were illegal. When did the Left suddenly come to love Bush policies?

Unbelievable, to see the same exact attempts to justify all of this that we used to see coming only from Bush loyalists. But then again, Bush loyalists are still in power, appointed by this president.

It is a very interesting document in American History. Summary included below.

shameful piece of garbage that was supposed to 'fixed' as soon as we got rid of Republicans?

Were you around when that anti-Constitution 'law' was passed? Do you recall the outrage, the magnificent speeches from Democrats who voted against it? And the absolute condemnation of the so-called Dems who voted for it?

That alone was what rallied Dems and others who cared about this country, to work as hard as they could to throw out Republicans so that we could restore the Constitution, the rule of law, we claim to be so proud of as a Democracy.

The Unitary Executive.

Did you support Bush's policies back then, because you are presenting this to me as if it was a 'good law' which I do not understand. This was Bush/Cheney at their worst.

Her vote for that piece of garbage is what lost Hillary Clinton the election and will do so again.

I was hoping you refer to something I had missed. I find it appalling to see people here NOW defending the worst of Bush policies.

No wonder so many people are no longer here, and so many Americans are now Independents, the largest voting bloc as of now.

We do not make International law, but we sure do violate them.

Were you around when the Authorizaton to use force was voted on? You seem to remember stuff that didn't happen. If you don't know what the vote was then you missed everything that happened then. This is all a matter of history and you can read up on the relevant historical facts with a little time.

In the House of Representatives there were 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting. The Nay was Barbara Lee, D-CA. In the Senate, 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).

So much for the great and glorious speeches. Congress was behind it as close to 100% as is feasible.

Nope, never supported Bush's polices. I never called them good law. I said they were legal and Constitutional. That is not all the same thing as good law. They are, as I said, stupid laws. They should not have been passed.

Finally as to international law. Sadly, our government does not recognize the International court and will not let Americans be tried in it. If you check things out, you will find that we are not alone in that. Most of the nations on earth ignore international law unless it suits them.

Americans. I definitely would not have been using that to defend bigotry, 'hey, guess what, it's legal'. The appropriate response would be to condemn it and commit to changing it.

Bad laws are bad laws and can never be used to justify government malfeasance. Bad Governments ALWAYS make their crimes legal.

I don't recall anyone on Dem forums during the Bush years, unless they were right wing trolls who didn't last long anyhow, using that legislation to justify the crimes of the Bush gang.

which was never even discussed in this thread. You should consider sticking to the topic of the thread rather than attempting to change the subject.

I did not write anything that justified the laws, so you might want to read what I wrote again. You seemed to have missed the point of what I wrote, or read things I never wrote.

The Supreme Court can find a law unconstitutional and throw it out. A bad law can be revoked by Congress. Many laws have a end date and must be voted on again. Congress can choose to rewrite a law. Until one of those methods is used, it is still the law.

The war against terror is legal and Constitutional. My point from the beginning was that we need to revoke those laws. I even wrote that our policy on terrorism should be to handle it as a matter of law; that people who commit these acts should be arrested, tried, and if convicted be sent to jail. Bill Clinton's policies on terrorism were, for the most part, handled through he courts. (Check out the attack on the World Trade Center under his administration.) I think his was a reasonable policy concerning terrorism.

Not sure I like this pairing much, but "Dirty Wars" is a must-see.

Of course Obama fans will not like it.

Are JS & OS defenders of Chris Christie? Cuz that's been the focus of MSNBC for couple of months. Wish they'd go after FOX.

though I never cared much for Oliver Stone.

Oh no president Obama has defenders!

of Bush policies, under the now fleet of buses that have become necessary as some on the Left have learned to love the very policies they railed against back in the good old Bush era.

Is there anyone left who exposed, and very courageously considering the times, Bush's crimes, who has not now been tossed under that fleet of buses? It's astounding to watch it, the struggle to justify what was once the cause of protest marches in the hundreds of thousands. I'm so glad I have not changed MY mind, I would find it very difficult to try to justify something I knew was so very wrong, for political reasons, the very worst kind of reason.

are pissed at Obama.

Wake me when this is over....

That clears some things for me.

http://www.omidyargroup.com/firstlookmedia/veteran-journalists-joins-the-team/#.UwGhDV5gsfk

With predictable results.

It was the deal breaker for me.

The film, "Dirty Wars: The World Is A Battlefield," has received an official nomination for 2014 best documentary by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The film follows longtime Democracy Now! correspondent and investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill to Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen as he chases down the hidden truths behind America’s expanding covert wars. It is directed by Richard Rowley.

From the NYT review of the film:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/movies/dirty-wars-directed-by-richard-rowley.html

In the official United States explanation of what happened, the women were victims of a Taliban honor killing, although American soldiers were seen digging bullets out of their bodies. Mr. Daoud’s death was called “unfortunate.”

Mr. Scahill subsequently learns that during one week in Afghanistan, there were 1,700 such night raids. His sleuthing leads to his discovery that the attack was carried out by the Joint Special Operations Command, a covert military unit that operates not only in Afghanistan but also in countries on which no war has been declared. Algeria, Indonesia, Jordan and Thailand are mentioned.

The covert command fully emerged into view after the killing of Osama bin Laden. In a widely circulated image its assistant commander at the time, Brig. Gen. Marshall B. Webb, is shown sitting with President Obama and his inner circle as they observe the operation.

The film devotes special attention to the death by drone attack of the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in September 2011. He is identified as the first American citizen killed in such a strike without due process. Two weeks later his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, also an American citizen, was killed by a drone — “not for who he was,” Mr. Scahill surmises, “but for who he might one day become.”

But I have never seen him as a "well known figure on the left."

To me he is a student if Nietzche-- which makes him a sort of leftist Ayn Rand.

The panel discussion starts at 7:16.

WARNING: If you are not interested in the truth, please do not watch !!!!!