I'd Like To Apologize To DU...

[WillyT]

I had a few Higgs Boson Particles of HOPE left...

I actually thought that our President, the former editor of the Harvard Law Review and constitutional law professor, was threatening a veto of The National Defense Authorization Act because of principle, and its inherent un-Constitutionality...

I was a fool, and I was absolutely wrong... he just wanted the language changed so that he/his administration, and any future President/and their Administration, will have the final say...

I apologize for having such hope... I apologize for not seeing what was plainly in front of me...

And... I apologize to all of my former students that I took each year to this Nation's Capitol to show them the sights, and reaffirm everything that I.... had been taught... everything that I had taught them... everything that I thought this country was about... And everything my mother and father's generation fought for, a number of wars back.

Please forgive me... it won't happen again.

[geek tragedy]

1. If you had posted a single positive thing about the President

then one could argue this was necessary. But, since your record is 100% anti-Obama, no apology necessary.

[TheWraith]

3. Well, he might want to apologize to the truth, for so often mangling and destroying it. nt

[Number23]

7. OMG, my fingers were mere seconds from typing something similar

The absolute HILARITY of someone who does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but post one anti-Obama piece after another saying "he won't make the mistake of supporting the president again" is enough to make your eyes roll out of your head.

But, since your record is 100% anti-Obama, no apology necessary.

Exactly.

[jefferson_dem]

15. And next week it will be yet another exercise in ott

Very concerned outrage.

[DeathToTheOil]

31. I see

I didn't know he was a perpetual Obamahater. Jeez, I guess I should apologize to DU!

[secondwind]

92. You said it.

[CakeGrrl]

115. OP gets small props for packaging the same "I don't like the POTUS" message in a different wrapper.

Woo hoo!

[WillyT]

9. You Mean Voting For Him Wasn't Enough ???

I mean... I believed almost everything he said.

[noise]

10. You had an accountability moment in '08

That was it. No criticism allowed until the next AM.

[Jakes Progress]

43. No. It required more.

A willing suspension of logic. A blind eye to Democratic principles. And an abiding, enduring, and over-arching faith in the perfection of the man.

You are guilty of thinking and holding onto principles that you supported PO. The change that was promised is the change you must have in your principles. Sure those things were bad under republicans. No longer. You have to keep up. Many here will be your guide to the New Democratic Party - you know, like New Coke.

[okieinpain]

67. yep because every democratic president since the begining of the country has

done exactly what you and other progressives have wanted them to do. well until president obama lied to you. lol.

[Jakes Progress]

95. Well. It's good to see that you finally understand.

Thanks for seeing the light.

[okieinpain]

133. dang it i forgot the sarcasm thingy

[Jakes Progress]

134. me too.

[randome]

59. That was naive.

Why would you believe everything someone tells you? Were you looking for a savior?

Obama is not the New Christ. He's a politican and a human being. 'Nuff said.

[G_j]

70. are you keeping track? nt

[MjolnirTime]

73. Obama does something, Outrage comes out ... Never a Miscommunication.

[ihavenobias]

90. 3 Big Positives: Lilly Ledbetter, DADT repeal, two seemingly solid SC justices...

So let's flip it around to those who have records that are 100% in support of President Obama regardless of the facts. I just don't get it.

The problem at this point is when you look at the major issues (terribly weak financial reform, terribly weak health insurance reform, continued/escalated trampling of civil liberties, pushing GOP memes while not adequately promoting progressives memes - see how tax and budget cuts dominate the discussion as one major example, etc...) it's incredibly disappointing.

[bluestate10]

108. Bingo! The winner. The OP has NEVER posted ANYTHING positive about President Obama. nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. Re-#Occupy begins the 17th.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. +100000!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

33. Can we look forward to the Obama 2012 DUers

marching with us? After all, they've been fair and balanced with their criticism of OWS.

[Capn Sunshine]

111. wtf?

seriously. OWS does not WANT Democratic Support. Pleant of Democrats are marching with them though. Don't pretend otherwise.

But OTOH I certainly believe in the movement. I also believe it needs to remain non political, as the issues OWS raises are really less partisan and more (both sides ) political.

The President shares this take.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

112. I meant the ones who post here.

Most of them don't have a good thing to say about OWS. Sometimes I feel like I'm arguing with Republicans.

[sabrina 1]

5. To be fair, we all hoped to see the president truly stand up against this egregious Bush era

trashing of the Constitutional Rights of US citizens. But bad as this is, it is even worse that the president can now, and HAS ordered the assassinations of US Citizens without charges and without trials. So I guess the lucky ones will be the ones just HELD without charge or trial. At least they will be alive, sort of.

[noise]

8. The President and his secret panel

have secret evidence the public hasn't seen. Definitive evidence. Amazing evidence.

We should trust them. They deserve our unconditional trust.

[MattBaggins]

16. I did not know that Brittany Spears was a DUer

[sabrina 1]

101. I didn't either, can you point her out? Not a fan, but

I wouldn't want to miss her. Unless, wait a minute, are you calling me Britney Spears? Lol, now that really is an insult. I assure you I look much better for one thing, don't do drugs and have never been stupid and/or blinded by partisanship enough to put politics before principles.

You're a fan I guess, sorry to disappoint you

[MattBaggins]

109. Nah not you

it was a joke based on her support of Bush based on an empty vapid "we have to trust him since he knows best" argument.

[sabrina 1]

110. Lol, yes, I remember that ~

[ooglymoogly]

102. Correction....they demand our unconditional trust.

We are forewarned of the consequence of disobeying.

Without the constitution, all depths of depravity are not only a possibility but a foregone conclusion.

The constitution, after all, is the only thing standing between us and dictatorship and the fascism necessary to protect it.

With this turning of events...

The writing is on the wall.

[cstanleytech]

88. Actually the person you are refering to who was killed might well still be alive

if he hadnt kept fleeing to avoid getting arrested so deadly force was authorized much like how the police will sometimes shoot a suspect who is fleeing, as for the other criticism of him I dont know what people expected him to do to get around the republicans when they used their ability to stall, mutilate and or outright kill bills he advocated passing, after all its not like he is a king who can issue a royal decree and have it as the law of the land.

[sabrina 1]

119. Actually he wasn't fleeing, he was living in a country with a government that has proven itself

more than willing to cooperate with the US Government, even to the point of allowing the US to bomb its own country while lying to its people and pretending THEY did it.

Sorry, but these powers given to the US PResident by the Bush gang were a huge problem then, and not just because it was Bush, but there is no greater power a government can have over its people than to give one individual the right to order the killing of its citizens without even filing charges. This should and does scare the hell out of people who care anything about this COUNTRY. I thought this was clear during the Bush administration and didn't really need to be argued on the left of all places.

I'm sure the Bush supporters who defended it back then, who I know I reminded about the probability of a Democrat once day using those powers, are probably regretting their unquestioning support for giving the POTUS or anyone, the powers of a king right now.

This is not about this one individual case, nothing ever is, it is about undermining the very foundation of this country.

You are telling me this guy was guilty, of something, and you are taking it on faith because a Democrat is in the WH. Did you take Bush on faith when he had these powers? But I see nothing to back that up, nothing of substance, other than 'our guy is in the WH so we have nothing to worry about'.

I don't take anything on faith. I have seen no list of charges in this case or in the case of the teenager. I have seen 'we are the good guys and he was a bad guy' kind of arguments. Sorry, I believe our Constitution is the best way to run a country. And to say we have to abandon it for the great, and mostly phony WOT? What does that say? That you don't trust a system we are taught is the best in the world suddenly?

I want our elected leaders to abide by the laws of THIS land and the treaties they signed internationally. If that makes me a traitor, which I was certainly told often enough when Bush was president, then I disagree, sorry.

But I never thought I would be arguing this way on the 'left'. This is the biggest shock to those of us who stood up against Bush when it was often not easy to do. That now we are making the same arguments to those WE thought were also opposed to those anti-Constitutional Policies. This is a shock frankly and is causing people to have to rethink everything they thought they knew.

[cstanleytech]

120. If anyone is telling you he is guilty its him in the many videos he kept filming

all I am saying is that I can understand why they did this because he kept evading arrest for years and he more than had a chance to turn himself into the authorities and if you think they didnt abide by the law then petition the courts but I suspect the courts will agree with the administration in taking this action and not because of some vast conspiracy to protect the government but because the government had already made attempts to apprehend him without success.

[sabrina 1]

121. Turn himself for what? Do people who have not been charged with any crime, generally just walk into

a police station and 'turn themselves in'? There were NO CHARGES filed against this man.

What were they 'trying to apprehend him' for?

We have a legal process, in case you forgot, it starts with accusing and charging someone with a crime. Even in the case of OBL he was never charged with being responsible for 9/11. He WAS charged with other terrorist acts. But Al Awlaki was never charged with a crime. Allegations are not enough for the death penalty, although that is what you seem to arguing for.

[cstanleytech]

122. Actually you are right

there wasnt an active warrant out for him though there had been earlier however I cant help but feel that overall considering where he was and all the video tapes he was making calling for more attacks against US citizens (and those arent allegations those are facts) so all that aside I think it was still the right decision, in the end the one really responsible for his death was himself.

[ProSense]

6. Actually

I actually thought that our President, the former editor of the Harvard Law Review and constitutional law professor, was threatening a veto of The National Defense Authorization Act because of principle, and its inherent un-Constitutionality...

I was a fool, and I was absolutely wrong... he just wanted the language changed so that he/his administration, and any future President/and their Administration, will have the final say...

...many people knew he wasn't going to veto it, and that the only reason he wanted to veto it was because it limited his authority. So it's not a shock that he didn't veto it with his power hungry self.

Maybe we can get Congress to change this bill?

[Mojorabbit]

12. I had a friend tell me if he did not veto this

then this country as we thought we knew it was done. I totally agree with his assessment. This violates the heart of what this country was supposed to stand for.

[WillyT]

13. At THIS Point... If The President Signs It, It May Be Decided By The Supreme Court... But...

the interesting thing with THAT, is how this conservative court will rule.

Will they want to agree that ANY President has such powers, or will they want to get rid of this authority because Obama might just win a second term, and be that President???

[Tx4obama]

35. Please explain 'why' and 'what' in the bill would be decided by the Supreme Court.

You've confused me.

As the bill reads now the bill does NOT change 'current law' regarding US citizens.

So, what 'issue' would be brought in front of the Supreme Court due to the DoDA Act bill being enacted?

And regarding that issue who would have 'standing' to bring forth a case to the Supreme Court?

[sulphurdunn]

69. Certainly not someone

who has disappeared down the black hole of indefinite, incommunicado incarceration in an unknown location.

[Mojorabbit]

84. I read a lovely article on it earlier today.

If I can find it again I will post it here. It stated unless congress addresses this, someone will have to get arrested and then a suit filed in their behalf which will have to work it's way up the legal system. It described the Hamden case and how the court's composition has changed since then. It stated it would be years in the reversing if ever in a legal manner but possible if Congress reassesses the vote..

[cstanleytech]

89. Which could very well be what he wants since if he opposed it the onus would be on him

and the republicans would as many of us know claim is showing his true colors by supporting the "muslim terrorists!!!" during the run up to the election yet he has to know it will be challenged before scotus if he signs it and scotus will finally have to render a real ruling rather than tiptoe around indefinite detention without charges as they have been doing.

[styersc]

11. Apology accepted. But don't let it happen again.

And there should be plenty of opportunities in the near future with an election looming and "punch the hippy" the favorite strategy.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Good gracious.

The drama is deep.

[WillyT]

19. And You Call Yourself A...

Damn... the rest of my thought... probably isn't allowed.


Sorry jefferson_dem... I apologize again.

[a simple pattern]

17. Zee mask is off zee monster

quick, while it's still legal!

[Magoo48]

78. The true nature of the beast......rare footage indeed...thanks

[Odin2005]

18. Welcome to the under-the-bus club!

[WillyT]

20. Proud Member !!!

[xiamiam]

23. pretty soon ignore will be back and it wont be so much of an endurance feat

in the meantime, just know that you are not a lone voice..far from it

[WillyT]

24. :)

Thank you for that.

[Sherman A1]

37. +1

Wish I could find the emoticons to add a thumbs up!

[hifiguy]

48. Here ya go!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/

[Sherman A1]

53. Thank You Kindly

[tpsbmam]

41. I always counted you as a member....I was surprised you ever counted yourself among the

DU dearly delusional! But I have to admit I was right there with you -- I held off OB criticism, giving him the benefit-of-the-doubt for a millionth time. And once again I was a total fucking patsy, believing his bullshit rhetoric when Levin was telling me exactly who he is and his vast accumulation of past behavior has told me exactly who he is. So I guess I get my own 50 lashes with a wet noodle. Or hell, I'll just have an extra strong gin & tonic tonight.

to valued members of the club!

[RKP5637]

71. The 'my president, right or wrong' crowd is definitely riding in the bus, I prefer under the bus.

I've watched this country fade far from what I admired as a youth. Yep, it was never perfect, but at one time I thought it was improving. Now, more and more IMO, it's becoming a repressive regime. And on top of that the latest report shows 50% of Americans are living in poverty. I'm sure you've probably seen this already, but if not ... Most Americans IMO live in denial.

"Census data: Half of U.S. poor or low income" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/

[Mnpaul]

105. How about some Teddy Roosevelt?

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

I just love that quote.

[RKP5637]

106. Yep, I love it too, it's excellent and very appropriate. IMO we should always question the

president and TPTB, and be critical when needed.

[Javaman]

51. I'm seriously considering getting a tattoo of

tread marks on my face.

[SidDithers]

21. I can't wait for election season to officially begin...nt

Sid

[WillyT]

22. I Feel Your Pain...

[SidDithers]

27. I'm pretty sure those "critics" will silence themselves...nt

Sid

[joshcryer]

29. What do you expect to happen?

DU3 = end of "election season support."

[Bonobo]

34. = "I have no substantive rebuttal to your OP." nt

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Why? Can you say honestly you will vote in that election?

Of course, you understand that policy is always on the table for discussion. You must. There is no rule under the sun that can make me or other good people start shouting agreement with 'one man, one woman' tripe. The President's opposition to equality is wrong, and we are not required to agree with all policy on DU. So get used to it. That policy is backward, ignorant, anti-science, bigoted, superstitious and foul. His last campaign included hate preachers who called gay people child killers, Sid. That will always get my strong reaction. I always stand against hate and slander of anyone, myself in particular. I'm funny that way. I stand up for my family no matter what some snarky poster wants to attempt to define as right and wrong from some other country.
Any person, such as the President, who opposes full equality for all minorities is an ignorant and bigoted fool. Those who, like Mr and Mrs Obama, shout Biblical excuses for their intolerance while simply ignoring the passages that apply to their own behaviors are also hypocrites of world class standing.
Folks who hold the coats for such policy are also unethical and frankly, not in line with DU policy, which is full support for equal rights for all, no matter what some political professional claims his religion is. He does not follow that religion, nor does h is wife. They make a gesture, some rhetoric. They simply reject the bulk of the teachings as written. They feel they are allowed to edit the Scriptures, and decide that some parts are no longer 'The Word of God' while the bits against others are 'Divine Law'.
His 'policy' is nonsensical rhetoric with words like 'Sanctity' and 'Sacrament' which carry no meaning in civil law.

[SidDithers]

46. LOL...

Again, stopped reading at "Bluenorthwest".

Save yourself the trouble next time.

Sid

[LiberalLovinLug]

83. La La La La La ....

[SidDithers]

85. Hotlink fail...

Image available exclusively from www.dvdactive.com

Get yourself a photobucket account if you want to properly insult someone.

Sid

[12AngryBorneoWildmen]

47. He who lives in mirrorless houses…….

"I always stand against hate and slander of anyone, myself in particular. I'm funny that way." Review your past posts.

[dionysus]

63. "...the President ... is an ignorant and bigoted fool" rinse, repeat. and repeat. and repeat.

[slay]

25. I've been there WillyT

held much hope for Obama - over and over and over. we had such HUGE potential for change after Bush and... nothing. he would rather partner up with republicans - who hate him - and be "bipartisan" than to side with the change he promised - than to side with the people. it's sad, pathetic, and sickening all at once. we deserve better. we at least deserve another option that is not a republican.

[DirkGently]

28. Think a lot of people thought the veto threat was to protect people, rather than executive power.

[bhikkhu]

30. The best way to protect civil rights is to avoid war

Lincoln suspended Habaeus Corpus very publicly and controversially, as did FDR (though in secret). Both during wars. Huge numbers of US citizens were rounded up and imprisoned during WWII. What we did in the Philippines was much worse than anything currently proposed or suspected, Vietnam was no picnic, including secretly bombing a neighboring country to rubble because it was strategically "necessary", etc...

the whole issue with this is how the "war on terror" is conducted, and nothing the bill provides for is worse than what was done before the bill. I'm not in favor of it, but I think its a little hypocritical (as a nation, if you will) to criticize a bill as being far out of bounds when it really limits things down to a fraction of what was done without any clear laws under the last president. Right now the Iraq war is over, and Afghanistan is winding down...if the wars end the provisions end.

[MedleyMisty]

40. It declares America a part of the "battlefield"

The "war on terror" will never end, not until we force the people who profit from war out of power.

[pscot]

54. No worries, mate

Even if the WOT were to end, we'd still have the War on Drugs.

[bvar22]

77. "nothing the bill provides for is worse than what was done before" ... Oh REALLY???

The two examples you offered were Declared Wars against other Countries with Identifiable Armies.
The GOAL of these Declared Wars was Tangible and Obtainable:
Defeat the Organized Army of the Enemy on the Battlefield, and Occupy the capitol and government of the enemy.

Extending these questionable War Time Exclusions to include undeclared WARS against a Tactic or any other intangible
is an unprecedented Drastic Deviation from ANYTHING that has happened in the short history of the USA.

Please offer to us a one sentence GOAL of the War on Terror so that we may all know when we have WON.

Were you as supportive of Bush-the-Lesser and the Republicans when they grabbed these Supra-Constitutional Powers for the Unitary Executive?

I wasn't THEN,
and I'm not now.
What was WRONG under BUSH,
is just as WRONG today.






You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[onenote]

80. That may be the worst defense for FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans

that I've ever seen. It was okay to round up American citizens of Japanese descent because we were in a declared war with Japan?

[bvar22]

94. ....And your post may be the Worst Strawman EVER posted at DU.

(since you vaulted into the fantasy land of hyperbole, I'm also free to abuse it)

In NO way can my response to bhikkhu post #30
be twisted into an argument FOR the internment of Japanese-Americans.

My post was a specific rebuttal to expanding Presidential Powers to include Non-Declared Wars against intangible, immortal enemies.
It is possible to OPPOSE this expansion of Presidential Powers
AND condemn the abuses that occurred during WW2 AT THE SAME TIME.

These positions are mutually exclusive only in the imaginary land of Strawmen,


...but you already know that.

[ooglymoogly]

104. It is sad that I have to come to the defence of FDR even to another

Democrat... However I cannot let such claptrap go unchallenged... This is a post I made to a similar post a few weeks ago...

There were actual Japanese spies in the US, according to historical record; between 5 and 7 thousand, who were known, plotting to undermine and thwart the war effort; working mainly on the west coast and Hawaii;

several plots of historical note are fully documented, upturned under discovery, after the war along with the number of spies.

This does not excuse the decision, which other than in times of war would and must be illegal and dastardly.

It is just one of the many mitigating circumstances effecting the war and its outcome at that time...Add to that, America had been savagely attacked and was in a war for it's very survival as a sovereign nation.

Hind sigh is 20/20 and mistakes become clear in that sight.

Be that as it may;

No apology can ever be great enough, to those incarcerated and the terrible hardship they had to endure; for no other reason, than that they looked like...and by heritage...those we were at war with and were, in fact, by an overwhelming majority, not spies, but as loyal Americans as any patriot;

an unjust circumstance that can never be reconciled.

When a president bears the unfathomable responsibility, and is under the weight and hysteria of Pearl Harbor, (think 9/11 and consider having war declared against this country far worse) of saving the life of this country by war, when every piece of scrap metal and paper is being collected to insure success; when every American is asked to sacrifice, to lend a hand to the war effort...when everything was being rationed, gas to butter; the fact that 5 to 7 thousand spies plotting against this country on American soil, bears considerable weight.

FDR, who near single handedly created the middle classes of this country; who with a stroke of the pen, created the New Deal securing the elderly and downtrodden, certainly was one of the greatest leaders who ever lived in any century.

[ooglymoogly]

113. Comparing FDR, a legally elected president,

guiding a country that an actual war was declared against, to Herr *'s phony wars; fought with the cannon fodder of our youth, to the fiddle of banksters and warlords for financial gain....and then having a new president uphold that fakery without prosecuting the admitted war crimes.


Comparing them to the grave decisions of a leader fighting deadly wars on two fronts, either of which and together might have; and almost did, put an early end to this country and the free world...

is indeed bizarre.

[Zorra]

32. NO, WillyT!

"Keep hope alive. The truth will prevail."

Occupy.

This message brought to you from Rev. Jesse Jackson and Occupy Phoenix.

[Jim_Shorts]

36. So much for closing Gitmo

Now all they have to do is classify Juian Assange as a terrorist, pick him up and hold him indefinitely without ever charging him - problem solved - Ra Ra USA.

We now have government officials who are judge and jury of the world - good plan

I hope ordinary people in other countries aren't paying attention to the laws the empire is passing.
(the law is WAY too broad, but thats probably the idea)

[malaise]

38. Great post

A sad day indeed

[MissDeeds]

39. Great post, WillyT

I'm right there with you.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. "Make No Mistake: I pledge to never use these powers to imprison Americans

who run banks.

These are smart businessmen, not terrorists."

[Jakes Progress]

44. And job creators.

If you don't count the thousands laid off by BOA and friends.

[slackmaster]

49. Free WillyT!

[boomerbust]

50. I hear ya

The cycle seems to be repeating itself, with talk of Newt having a 50-50 chance of running with the nuclear football. Seems like complete madness to me.

[fascisthunter]

52. No need... welcome to the real Underground!

[sharp_stick]

55. I WANT MY IGNORE FEATURE BACK PLEASE n/t

[dionysus]

60. FYI, it's back! go into a users profile and the ignore button is back.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

56. Wow! I didn't know that you could be unquestionably true to Democratic principles and post this.

Aren't posts like this supposed to be juried-out?

Or, at least, aren't you supposed to be lectured about being a Gingrich supporter or a traveler with Gingrich supporters?

[Ian David]

57. When do we get the ignore feature installed on DU3?

I'd like to say I've missed you, WillyT, but that wouldn't be true.

[dionysus]

61. it's back.. open up a posters profile and there's an ignore option.

[Ian David]

64. Thanks! n/t

[dionysus]

76. i've been told the button is there but non functional yet.. hope i didn't get your hopes up.

[Unca Jim]

58. Good Lord! Read the actual bill as passed!

The amendment protecting Habeas Corpus for citizens and resident aliens was in the version of the bill he signed!

Freaking pay attention before the meltdown!

I cannot believe I have to point this out to both the far right (who I view as reactionary and ill-informed) and folks here on DU (who I think ought to know better).

http://armed-services.senate.gov/press/NDAA%20FY12%20Conference%20Press%20Release.pdf

I am not always a huge Obama fan, but he stopped a really bad interpretation of law here. He's certainly believes the president has far more authority to detain people than I do, but he did right in this case.

[SomethingFishy]

81. I did read the bill "as passed"

At least the parts that weren't dry as hell.

I can't believe that anyone, and I mean anyone, whoever you support, that calls themselves a "liberal or progressive" can actually support this bill. It's not just the internment sections I have issues with. The War On Drugs section is so vaguely worded that it seems to me the government has unlimited power to fight the drug war with whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, with whoever they want.

The internment section that everyone seems to be happy with as long as it's not Americans being denied their Constitutional rights, is also pretty vaguely worded leaving gaps for the government to do whatever they deem necessary when they label someone a terrorist.

I will slowly read the full bill because I have never read an NDAA before. I probably should have since what I see in this thing so far horrifies me and half of the damn thing is extensions on policies I would have balked against had I known they were policies.

[dionysus]

62. the melodrama.. runs deep.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. I deeply regret not emigrating when I had opportunities in my 20s and 30s

but honestly, I thought Reagan was just a blip on the screen and we'd get back to normal once he was gone.

But no, it's just gotten worse.

This is not the country I grew up in.

[G_j]

66. the audacity! nt

[unionworks]

68. make that

"Unmitigated audacity"

[sulphurdunn]

72. This slipped between

the pages of an appropriation bill coup is a criminal act. Neither Congress, the President or the Court has any constitutional power to pass legislation or make judicial rulings that amend any article of the Constitution without concurrence by 3/4 of the state legislatures or by 2/3 of the states calling for a constitutional convention. Every single SOB behind this should be in federal custody awaiting arraignment for treason.

[mistertrickster]

74. Yup, he gave up any chance to be great and settled for "marginally better than them"

a long time ago.

He could have been FDR and instead settled for Carter.

Carter is a good man. He's no FDR.

[NYC Liberal]

82. The FDR who illegally rounded up and imprisoned tens of thousands of Americans

based solely on their race?

I admire FDR for many things. He was a great president. But FDR is not the best president to be bringing up here.

[SidDithers]

93. Could you imagine what DU would be like if FDR were president today...

and rounded up 125,000 Japanese Americans and put them into internment camps?

The mind boggles.

Sid

[mistertrickster]

99. A lot of us wouldn't have time to worry about posting on the internet

while we were storming Saipan and Normandy.

[mistertrickster]

98. I knew someone would mention that. Apples to oranges.

9-11 was no Pearl Harbor . . . and Afghanistan is no WW2.

[NYC Liberal]

107. Pearl Harbor did not justify illegally imprisoning over 100,000 Japanese Americans

based entirely on their race.

[mistertrickster]

116. Of course . . . I'm not arguing that it was justified.

Just that the threat of Imperial Japan--which had forcibly annexed Korea and Manchuria and was marching almost unopposed across China and Indo-China and Malaya and Indonesia--was much more dire than than anything Al Qaeda could ever pose.

Then one should also bear in mind that some of those interred were actually Japanese spies--little known fact.

[NYC Liberal]

117. And some of (or more likely, a lot of) the people at Guantanamo are actually terrorists.

The percentage of actual terrorists at Gitmo is most likely way higher than that of actual Japanese spies in the internment camps. But that's not the point.

The point is, if you're going to post in a thread to support an OP that bashes Obama for supposedly violating the Constitution - particularly having to do with detaining supposed enemies - FDR is not the best president to bring up as a model.

[mistertrickster]

118. My point was not about the indefinite detention. It was about Obama blowing his chance to be great

in the sense that FDR is great or Teddy Roosevelt or even LBJ is great.

And, I know, LBJ ramped up the war in Vietnam.

[mvd]

75. I read it as exempting U.S. citizens from being required to be detained indefintely

If so, it is a compromise too far the wrong way which has happened often.

[got root]

87. alert

[mistertrickster]

100. & 2nd-ed. nt

[mmonk]

86. Why? Why won't it happen again?

[RoccoR5955]

91. Have you found the Higgs Boson?

Inquiring minds want to know. Especially those at CERN.

As far as Obama, I didn't have much faith in all his hype. He seemed to be pretty middle of the road for me, which is too far right for my taste. Dennis Kucinich was my guy in the primary. I only voted for Obama, because the alternative was so repugnant. I will probably do the same, and expect even less.

WE THE PEOPLE have to fight for what we need. We have never been able to rely on the government to make any meaningful changes without us protesting, getting arrested, and sometimes even killed to achieve these higher goals. We have a good group now, in #OWS, and I hope that it can keep up the heat until something is done, and even after something is done. Heck, I have been trying to wake people up for over 30 years now. Friends of mine have been working for more than twice that amount of time. Every so often there is a surge in the Movement, but each time, it is not spurred on by politicians, or corporations. It is spurred on by people, unions, and community organizations, who are finally fed up with the way that things are and then DEMAND change, until they get it.

Oh well, that's just my two cents.

I still want to know if you found the Higgs. That would be real news.

[girl gone mad]

97. CERN likely did find it.

Sad to say.

https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CONFNOTES/ATLAS-CONF-2011-163/ATLAS-CONF-2011-163.pdf (pdf)

[Anatos]

124. How could

you be involved for 30 years and still sound like someone who fell off the turnip truck just yesterday? Honestly, if self-righteousness had a quantum function, you'd be throwing off Higgs like they were candy. We've had plenty of the kind of pure uselessness that Dennis Kucinich stands for. It's thanks to guys like him that truly competent folks like the President can't get anything done.

[RoccoR5955]

125. I resent that statement.

Dennis Kucinich stands for Peace, understanding, and WE THE PEOPLE. Obama is merely another tool of corporatists. Why else would he have put members of the banking industry in key positions? Why else would have Obama not stood for a public option on the healthcare bill? Why else would he cave each and every time to the RepubliCONs, on each and every issue? Obama is the one with little legislative experience here. Kucinich has more experience in crafting legislation that the president has by a country mile.

[Anatos]

126. Dennis Kucinich

Is a man of great honesty and integrity who is terminally outmatched politically by practically everyone around him. I love his speeches. His legislation is laughable. I do not, therefore, consider him an exemplary Representative. I hope he accomplishes much more out of government than he did as part of it, because he accomplished nothing as part of it. "Crafting" legislation, you see, isn't a matter of writing it. It is a matter of getting other people to support it (often by rewriting it to make it acceptable to them, a process you would probably deride as 'caving'.) Mr. Obama crafted legislation quite well, shepherding several worthwhile bills into law in his very brief time in Congress. Mr. Kucinich, in contrast, annually submits a "Department of Peace" (to replace the "Department of Defense", a tactic which might be more effective if the DoD were still named the 'Department of War') bill that is little more than satire-bait and then he seems to take pride in the fact that nobody takes it seriously.

President Obama is running the country. A task that Mr. Kucinich is not capable of doing. Nor would you be, nor anyone you think would be, if you see what I'm saying. Because what you will no doubt call 'selling out', like the childish anti-authoritarian you are, is actually simply running the country. Allowing the economy to collapse because you think it is founded on evil 'corporatism' is not running the country, it is instead failing to run the country. But as a privileged white hipster cynic, you don't have to worry about that, you get to just keep spouting off and voting for incompetent idealists and insulting those of us who have a firmer grasp of the real world.

[RoccoR5955]

127. I believe that you should look at Kucinich a bit closer.

As far as administrative duties, he was the youngest mayor of a major city, Cleveland, where he successfully saved the city almost $200 million, while facing the wrath of the local press. He was also threatened by the mob, but stood by his convictions. After he was mayor, he was pretty much broke, so he knows what that's like. I think it's key in these times.
He co-sponsored a bill that would have given us all universal healthcare, not the commercialized garbage we are being fed. Yes even Kucinich caved, and gave in on the bill, because there was some good to come out of it. He is one of only a few who voted against the Patriot Act, which effectively takes away Constitutional rights. He proposed Articles of Impeachment against a president who clearly operated against the law.
There are other things that prove my point, just read his wikipedia page for starters.

Yes, Kucinich is considered an extreme Liberal, but this country has gone too far to the right for my taste. As far as I'm concerned, Kucinich is a centrist, who stands for the people, and not so much for the corporations. A true extreme left wing Liberal would call for the State takeover of many industries. Face it, if the State was in charge of oil production, for instance, the price of gasoline would be regulated, and not speculated upon, thus raising its price. More people would have jobs as production would not be held back in times when it was needed the most.

Yes Obama is running the country, but I am afraid he is far too inexperienced. He tends to show his hand, and "bargain" down from there. He should be bargaining up. When he shows his hand, the other side has time to formulate opinions which they use to divide the public, and get out their corporate message. These days they even have unlimited corporate money to put out their propaganda.

As far as your personal attack of me as a "privileged white hipster cynic," I'm afraid you are only correct on one count. I am, in fact white by birth, but mulit-cultural by osmosis. I was born in Brooklyn, NY, and spent the formative years of my life in the projects. I know what it's like to be broke, and be a minority in the community. I am more a bookworm than a hipster. Call me a techno-nerd, because since I was a kid, I was fascinated by electronics, so I often scrounged the neighborhood for parts to build things. I built radios for several of us. I was the kid in the building who would come and adjust your TV, and tell you what tubes needed to be looked at to get things better.

It so happens that I fell into my current job. After being fed up being a strap-hanger on the subway, I decided to move "upstate" about 75 miles. The job that was "waiting" for me was a farce. I was broke for quite some time, worked many jobs, and finally got a Civil Service job. As circumstances should have it, I was still a tinkerer at heart, but this was the mid-80s, and the big thing was computers. I was given an old used one by a friend, and that was it. I got a modem, and started to get involved with the BBS community. I helped run a BBS, learning about and helping people with computer issues. So when a position opened up in the IS department for a support person, I was asked and jumped on it. That was about 20 or so years ago. I have spent a lot of time learning this stuff to be at the level I am now. As a Civil Servant for County government, they don't have the resources to provide training for folks, so I have had to learn all this stuff on my own, so I find that it is false to call me privileged in any way. The only thing that I am thankful is for my curiosity.
I forgot to say that I have been active in "Liberal" causes since the days of Nam. I organized rallies in Jr. High school. I helped start the group that saw to it that the Shoreham nuclear plant never opened. I worked to help get PCBs dredged from the Hudson River. I have marched in rallies against the Iran-Contra debacle. I have rallied against the current wars as well. I learn the issues, keep up with them, and act accordingly, not the way that the corporate media wants us to act, so I am no hipster.

So I believe that it would be good, if instead of stereotyping people, and liberal ideas that might change this country for the better, you look more at who is really running the country. It's not Obama.

[Anatos]

128. Too long, but I read it anyway.

Nothing you have written in any way changes my opinion of Mr. Kucinich, or of you.

[Anatos]

130. Addendum

On review, I decided to address your specific questions directly. I hope you don't mind the double response.

Why would he have put members of the banking industry in key positions? Because it was absolutely vital that the banking industry not collapse, so only people who were extremely familiar with it could be considered qualified. A new fresh face might have made you feel confident, but the people trying to keep their banks from failing, not so much.

Why would he have not "stood for" a public option? He did. The Blue Dogs didn't. Rather than have no insurance reform at all, he could not "stand for" the public option. Standing firm for the public option and failing might have made you like him more, but he has more important considerations to deal with.

As far as why he doesn't negotiate as badly as you would, which seems to be what you mean with the 'cave each and every time' baloney, it is because Democrats don't have a super-majority in the Senate. It turns out, though, that each and every time he "capitulated", he ended up with more of what we wanted than we had before! Go figure.

[RoccoR5955]

131. A few points.

First of all, you don't put someone who is in the financial industry, to regulate the industry. It's called a conflict of interests.
Second, he wasn't for a public option even before he the DINOs stated that they were against it
Third of all, you don't lay out your options and work your way down, you put out small gains, and work up from there when negotiating.

[Anatos]

132. First of all

yes, you do. "Conflict of interest" isn't as simple and easy a way to dismiss competence as you appear to desire. What you definitely don't want to do is put someone in charge of regulating an industry that they have no knowledge of. Not a recipe for success, I hope you can see why.

Second, he was for a public option long after the DINOs stated that they were against it. He's for one now! You seem to confuse being for something and having the votes to pass it. I know, you would prefer it if he "put his foot down" and fail publicly, to give you a feeling of righteousness.

Third, as I've pointed out before, the President's negotiating skills are orders of magnitude superior to yours, so your advice is unnecessary as well as unsatisfactory.

[RoccoR5955]

135. Here's a quote for you:

"Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. Well, that's horse puckey, of course. We are NOT entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our INFORMED opinions. Without research, with background, without understanding, it's NOTHING."

Harlan Ellison.

[Anatos]

136. Right back at ya, Guy.

[Generic Other]

103. I have tears in my eyes

because I know exactly how you feel.

[ooglymoogly]

114. KR Excellent post WillyT to the consternation of many. eom

[Anatos]

123. Go cry in your soup in a corner

relatively free from the horrors of either terrorism or tyranny.

[Honeycombe8]

129. So which candidate do you think is in agreement with all your views?

Serious question. I'd like to know. (Mainly I'd like to know so that I can point out how that candidate does not hold MY views on all issues, and is therefore, a bad candidate.)

Grow up. They're all politicians who have to all work with each other. They have to pick a few things they want to accomplish and focus on that. That's all we can ask, and that's all that will happen. Or can happen.

We're all disappointed in Obama for one thing or another. Personally, I t hink the biggest issue is that the pharma no-negotiation provision in Medicare Part D is still there. Why? Because the Dems made a deal with big pharma not to fight the Healthcare Reform Act.

It's all ugly, isn't it? They're all like that. Every single one of 'em. If you think you've found an angel, please let us know.