I'm a loyal member of the Democratic Party and I don't have a problem with Drones

[patrice]

103. I was just thinking about it like this:

For example GWB and the whole "Preventative War" paradigm and the Constitution:

Today is very different from when the Constitution was written. Threats can be extremely small and have the biggest consequences there are, e.g. biological warfare.

Just because some people, e.g. GWB, use the concept of Preventative War in services to very limited and dishonest agendas for the 1% and in so doing he did something similar to adding 2 + 2 and a lot of people helped him by LYING and others helped him by contributing Plausible Deniability, "accidentally" getting the calculation wrong on purpose, and others, like most of us American people, just honestly got it flat out wrong . . . . just because GWB got Preventative War wrong and, by way of analogy, added 2 + 2 and got 100,000,000+ (and a bunch of NO BID, guaranteed cost+10% contracts in the process !!!) - NONE of that means that 2 + 2 DOES NOT , CANNOT, = 4.

Just because something has not happened that does not mean that it cannot happen. There are different probabilities to whether X can happen and we CAN calculate those. And making somekind of FALSE GOD out of the Constitution smacks of FASCISM to me, so my guess is at least SOME of the pressure against drone projects is coming from people who don't want the rest of us to be aware of whatever they are doing. We are just supposed to trust that ALL OF THEM are all about "Imagine all the people . . . ". We are just supposed to trust that they (or someone around them) aren't doing something that can likely get a bunch of people, who had NO CHOICE in the matter, hurt, suffering, and dead. So the tasks are about determining the strength of my last use of the word "likely", as in just how probable certain outcomes/consequences are and then to make RATIONAL decisions based upon that empirical information.

And if "Constitutional" FASCISTS want all of us to just pretend that X is more important, so important that we should risk lives for it, they MUST pony up here and tell us what the acceptable price of X is, i.e. just HOW MANY PEOPLE IS IT OKAY THAT THEY DIE if they are wrong about how important that "Constitutional" X is. They need to tell us what the price of being right or WRONG about "Constitutional" X is in DEAD PEOPLE and since that IS their claim they also should be completely willing to utterly reveal everything about themselves and anyone who agrees with them.