General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (bigtree) on Tue Aug 5, 2014, 12:24 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
morningfog
(18,115 posts)thought out. Ignore the shills and trolls on DU.
I've never understood someone who takes legitimate criticisms of a president personally offensive.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... between those who take criticism of the President as personally offensive, and those who take attributing a non-existent quote to the president as being offensive.
Criticism of what the president has actually said has a place on political websites. Criticism of what the President has NEVER said only has a place on FOX-News.
bvf
(6,604 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for the torture of other human beings?
randys1
(16,286 posts)At least liberals discuss this shit as if it matters regardless of who does it, the other side dont know how to do that as they ALWAYS pick party over country, party over earth, party over life, etc.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I would hope that liberals could discuss disagreements w/o attacks. I don't agree with you but even if I did, I don't think it's appropriate to try to push your POV by attacking those that disagree. The issue is whether we are going to rationalize and minimize the war crimes of our government. It appears that Pres Obama is moving in that direction. If you disagree, give your best argument instead of ad hominem attacks. These ad hominem attacks appear to me to be attempts to distract from the real issue.
My stand is that war crimes were committed in our name and should be punished. Short of that, the actions should be exposed and severely rebuked and not rationalized.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)It was a matter of attributing a statement to Obama that he never said.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The title of his post made a claim about what the President "thinks." That claim was based on what he said, and reasonable people can disagree about the accuracy of Bigtree's conclusion about what the President thinks. But you owe Bigtree an apology for suggesting that he attributed a non-existent quote to the President.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- That comes next.
K&R!
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)No, it had nothing to do with you "saying things people disagreed with". It had to do with you saying things that were a complete misrepresentation of what Obama said - clearly and in plain English - about torture.
Obama never said anything remotely close to calling those "who think torturers should be prosecuted" as being sanctimonious. But you posted an article that said exactly that - and defended it.
Given that I am the "poster who responded" to you citing my boredom, I will reiterate my complete boredom with your pitiful attempts to change the subject.
"I realize now that effort was a waste and that I'm actually dealing with something other than a debate over the issues at hand."
It was was never a "debate over the issues" - it was a non-debate over whether you posted and defended an out-of-someone's-ass "quote" that Obama never stated - which you did.
If you had the courage of your convictions, you wouldn't have self-deleted - and then come back with yet another OP about having NOT said exactly what you DID say.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-we-tortured-some-folks
- So whom else would Obama be talking about, if not those who want the torturers brought to justice? That was the whole point of the CIA bugging the Senate wasn't it? To find out what they knew about their torture games? Then he goes on to say what a swell guy the State Torturer & CIA Director John Brennan is and how he like to paint cats or some shit like that. And then pat us on the head and send us on our way.
Geeze.....
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)Whom else would he be talking about? He clearly stated who he was talking about in the preceding sentence. Do you think he was implying that ALL law enforcement and nat'l security people were engaging in torture?
This is really Fox-News bullshit - taking what Obama said in plain English and twisting it to mean something else entirely. I guess FOX news-speak syndrome is more widespread than I'd thought.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Whom else could he have been referring to as being sanctimonious -- is what I am referring to and which was your point or so it seemed.
It makes no sense for Obama to make the statement that ''for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect'' and not conclude that the object of his jibe were those who seek to have the torturers convicted of the crimes they perpetrated. Who, coincidentally, also happen to be the ones admitting their guilt at bugging the Senate and reading their emails.
And quite frankly I'll have to pass on the ''enormous pressure'' BS line. That's why they're supposed to be professionals. Otherwise any Tom Dick or Harry could do it, right? Maybe that's the real problem, we did have any Tom Dick or Harry doing things. Things they shouldn't have.
In point of fact these were the exact times the Constitution was written for. To guide us through rough waters and to help us keep our bearings when emotions and revenge runs high. But we didn't. It's easy to be a democracy when there's no pressure on you to prove it. Obama is just making excuses for abhorrent and barbaric behavior. And I'll have none of it.
You have to admit that there's a serious problem when there is pressure on our elected leaders and their impulse was to torture someone to make them pay, or to make them tell you who should pay so you can torture someone else, until you feel yourself vindicated.
- This was the worst speech of any kind that I've heard in a long time. And he seems more pathetic every time he opens his mouth to defend the indefensible.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)while inflicting pain on their victims at the time, and that there was powerful hatred partially motivating their actions.
And if I'm being *sanctimonious* by understanding that all these torturers were nothing but a bunch of sick, twisted fascist fucks, who got off on inflicting horrible pain on others, and me not condoning it because it is 100% inexcusable under any circumstances, then I'll consider my condition of *sanctimony* an honorable one.
Torturing people is unacceptable and is a heinous crime under any circumstance. The President might as well have told us that we shouldn't get all sanctimonious over Nazis torturing Jews or LGBT, because the poor fascist dears were under enormous pressure to do so under the circumstances at the time. It's not ok when we do it.
It's never OK.
The people and government of Iraq did nothing to harm the United States. The United States had a court appointed, completely mad, rich spoiled brat "leader" who heard and believed voices in his head that told him it was his special mission to free the people of Iraq by killing them and destroying their country.
"President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
And we're being condescendingly advised, like we are errant children, not to get too sanctimonious because we *don't really get it*, and may want to see some justice here?
And the real national ignominy of all this is that these heinous acts and murders were committed (under orders from a mad puppet lunatic) for no other reason than to further the profit interests of wealthy capitalist war profiteers.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts) - Excellent points. And not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't take this man Obama lightly either. He has already shown that he will kill both indiscriminately and with purpose, and then justify his actions under reams of memos from his lawyers that no one can ever see. Because, national security.
[center]“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” ~George Orwell[/center]
If this were a Bush, DU would be ringing!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you. 
"Patriots," my ass. 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)what they were doing. So did Rummy who, airc, sat in on a torture session 'just to observe' of course. We have NOT yet seen the photos and videos which were far worse than what we saw already as the release of those photos was stopped in the courts, and even when a court ruled that they could be released, they were stopped again.
I wonder if the President ever watched any of the torture videos. Women were raped, children were sodomized, people were tortured to DEATH.
But the president, who asks us not to be sanctimonious by judging these criminals, to try to understand why they did it, was not so altruistic when it came to Chelsea Manning. Chelsea Manning REPORTED TORTURE and when her reports were ignored, she became a Whistle Blower to try to stop it. The President, airc, had zero understanding for Chelsea Manning stating that she broke the law. There was no 'I understand why she did it' for Manning.
So now the same president who called Manning a criminal, is asking us to 'understand' why the torturers did it?? Unbelievable.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)were involved in torture. That's a strawman argument. But it's my opinion (vs. your opinion) that he was including those that were involved in torture among "our law enforcement and our national security teams". He was telling us not to be sanctimonious about the jobs that all of them did "trying to deal with this". Your opinion isn't fact and it's inappropriate for you to disparage (comparing the opposing OPINION to Fox-News bullshit) those that disagree.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... that torturers would be part of the group he was referring to - and "our law enforcement and our national security teams" is a very, very large group of individuals.
However, he did not call torturers "patriots", nor did he call those who feel they should be prosecuted "sanctimonious". That's where the Fox-News bullshit comes in - attributing statements to Obama that were clearly never made.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)blow and not conducive to decent discussion.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)He was not part of law enforcement and NS teams, so by us he can't mean law enforcement and NS teams. He clearly he is talking to us about what we think about what they (law enforcement and NS teams) did.
And by saying us (including himself) instead of you (which would refer to us, not including him), he may be using a common hedge or dodge employed to lesson the blow-back from those one is actually criticizing.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)if you try to figure out his objective for saying it. It's clear to me that he was rationalizing and minimizing the torture and torturers.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... that is contrary to what you've just stated.
He was talking about law enforcement and security teams who he referred to as "those folks".
He told "us" (the nation) not to be too sanctimonious in our assessment of what they (law enforcement and security teams) did.
He said what he said. Plain English. Obviously it wasn't plain enough for some people to understand. "He may be using a common hedge or dodge employed to lesson the blow-back from those one is actually criticizing."
Or maybe he was just saying what he actually said, which seems to be a possibility - nay, a probability - that some people just can't accept.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)He's saying he understands why these people who tortured did it. Well this sanctimonious person, ME, does not understand it.
I remember a female soldier who was asked to participate in 'enhanced interrogation', or to put it plainly, TORTURE. She couldn't do it, being sanctimonious I guess, she killed herself rather than participate in war crimes.
Does the President understand that there WERE people who were not driven by fear after 9/11 to throw away all of their principles and participate in WAR CRIMES? He says he understands those who DID, but he said nothing about the many who refused, people like Chelsea Manning eg. Does he understand that Chelsea Manning was unable to ignore torture, that her conscience drover, NOT FEAR of 9/11, to report torture to her superiors and when they told her to stfu about it, she became a Whistle Blower, thinking, as we ALL did that this country had morals.
So who IS the president talking about when he asks 'us' not to be 'sanctimonious'. He told us that Chelsea Manning had committed a crime, treason. Chelsea Manning exposed war crimes.
He did NOT say he understood Chelsea Manning's reasons for exposing war crimes, he said he understands those who COMMITTED War Crimes.
HE said these things. If you agree with him, fine, just say so, but don't try to tell us that he did not say he understands those who tortured, or that he condemned Whistle Blowers who did the opposite, who reported it, who refused to participate in it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to deny the fact that war crimes were committed.
Why don't you tell us what the president said about those who committed those war crimes?
bigtree
(94,269 posts). . . I reasoned that I was closing it to demonstrate that the sentiments in this op were sincere.
They weren't my words. My thoughts were concisely contained in my response to you that you characterized as 'boring' and an attempt to divert from the subject.
My thoughts and opinion of the President's remarks are also contained in an earlier post I made:
Pres. Obama is hoping that we're goddamn idiots out here, still cowed by talk of 9-11
Interestingly enough, Nance, your responses to me were mostly personal criticisms of your view of my motivations in posting the piece. Out of all of your posts, I got but a smidgen of your own definition of what you believe the President said, and the majority of the rest of your diatribe was dedicated solely to your opinion of me personally.
I don't have any interest in debating the details of that one article on this thread. It's not my writing, and I don't have any interest at all in spending time debating the original author's words with you. you might be interested in visiting the site where it resides and taking it up with them: http://scholarsandrogues.com/2014/08/02/president-obama-thinks-youre-sanctimonious-for-insisting-torturers-be-charged-with-felonies/
What you failed to understand in that exchange was that we just had a difference of opinion over what the President meant. Specifically, whether he was defining a broad spectrum of folks when he referred to "law enforcement and our national security teams," or if he was specifically referring to the people that were actually involved in the subject he was responding to.
You offered only one explanation for his remarks. You posited that he wasn't describing the tortures or their superiors at all, but rather a nebulous collection of first responders.
I wondered in my response to you whether he was just waxing nostalgic about those heady days of September, or if he was actually addressing the subject he had raised - the torturing.
After beginning his remarks immediately preceding his 'sanctimonious' comment with his explanation for "why it happened," the President went on to lecturing Americans about how much pressure there was on "law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this" (I assumed 'this' meant the subject of torture that he began his remarks with) - and that we not "feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had" (I assumed that he meant 'those folks' who were directly associated with the subject that he began with."
'Those folks", specifically, the "law enforcement and our national security teams" appear to be the only people remotely associated in his remarks with the individual subjects of the investigation he was responding to.
I didn't agree, as you characterized them, that they were just first responders in his description. I don't know why the President would assume that anyone would "feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had," why he would assume that Americans would feel sanctimonious about first responders.
I assumed the President was referring directly to the individual subjects in the investigation. I understand that you disagree, but that's the sum and substance that you offered me explaining your view of what he said and who he felt Americans shouldn't "feel too sanctimonious" about.
As you know, it has been the aim of critics of the president on this issue that the principles involved in the tortures and the ones who ordered them be prosecuted. You also know well that this administration has refused to go further in even investigating the crimes - much less prosecute anyone - than the two cases the Justice Dept. abandoned.
It's not a stretch for critics of that inaction to view the President's remarks as a preemptive defense against that decision not to seek prosecutions. That's the vein in which I viewed the President's remarks. That's the same vein the author of the article in the op viewed the President's remarks.
I'm no pied piper. The posters who responded on that thread and the hundred or so who recommended it, all read the same remarks that you and I did. The suggestion that anything the author of the article wrote, or anything I wrote was misleading people into their view disregards the fact that the President's remarks are right there for everyone to judge them for themselves.
The argument you have with my view is an argument with countless people who read or heard the President's statements and came to their own conclusion. Nothing I wrote, or nothing the author wrote in that article is more defining than the President's actual words. People are free to make up their own minds about what he said.
I would note that it's not unusual for these calculated statements from the White House and other politicians to contain ambiguities which are often the subject of debate, as well as revision. They are often deliberately obtuse, and I think these remarks of the president's are no exception.
That doesn't preclude anyone from positing their own interpretation, though. Nor does it preclude the President or anyone else from expanding on, or clarifying them. I fully expect that to happen in the coming days and weeks, and I look forward to those discussions with an open mind and an ear to what I expect to be a direct explanation and presentation of the findings of the Senate investigation in the 'executive summary' that will represent the only public offering of the information contained in the Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Now I'm fully aware that I could be mistaken in my view. I don't believe so, but I'm willing to accept that I may have 'mis-characterized' his remarks, as you have counseled me.
But, that represents a difference of opinion, Nance; not an attempt by me to distort his words, but my interpretation of them which differs from your own view.
Again, the subject he was responding to in his remarks was the Senate investigation into tortures; both the practitioners and the folks who ordered them. It's not a stretch at all to assume that he was lecturing Americans about considering the "tough job" that the interrogators and their superiors were engaged in.
I believe that he will actually expound on those remarks and they will be echoed in almost every defense offered by the CIA, the WH, and anyone else who will opposed the Senate investigation findings. I'd be very interested in a reporter questioning the President or the WH just who he was thinking of when he lectured Americans to not "feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had.
It was clear enough to me, but I'm willing to accept that I could be wrong. That's a hell of a lot more that you offered me in your diatribe about my motives and my own view. I think that willingness to concede that your view might be correct is the best we can offer in debating issues here at DU. I would hope that consideration is reciprocated, even after getting nothing more from you, so far, than the most personal and denigrating responses to my view.
. . . are you still with me, Nance? Or am I boring you?
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... those he was referring to as "first responders". If you will remember, there were many instances (especially in NYC) of Muslim and Arab-looking men being manhandled by the police, detained without charges, denied access to due process, etc.
That is one example of "law enforcement and our nat'l security teams" having stepped over the line due to pressures they were under in extremely unusual circumstances.
You posted an OP declaring that Obama had called people who think torturers should be prosecuted "sanctimonious". He said no such thing, nor anything even remotely close to that.
'Nuf said.
bigtree
(94,269 posts). . . not any of the things you accused me of, Nance.
I respect your view and I'll take it into consideration.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... about torture, or what I believe should be the fate of those who engaged in it. That's another topic entirely, so you really don't know my "view" in that regard.
The only reason I engaged in this discussion at all was because you posted an OP that attributed a statement to Obama that he never made. I find that kind of thing despicable when the RWers do it, and I find it equally despicable when Democrats do it.
Many people feel that Obama should have investigated fully, determined who took part in torture, and prosecuted them. And there is an extremely valid argument to be made there. But attributing statements to him that he never made, nor even implied, does nothing to further that argument.
In fact, it only serves to detract from the very real issue of the use of torture, and what should be done about those who engaged in it.
Obama did not call torturers "patriots", nor did he call those who believe torturers should be prosecuted "sanctimonious". One can get on his case all they want about what he actually DOES say. But when one finds it necessary to criticize what he DIDN'T say, they've already lost the argument.
bigtree
(94,269 posts). . . I can accept your difference of opinion about what he said without labeling your characterization as something 'RWers do,' or anything other than your view, which I've already indicated several times in this thread and the other that I respect and am willing to take into consideration.
I gave a concise explanation for why I interpreted his remarks the way I did; why I agreed with the author of the article's characterization of those remarks; and why I regarded his mention of "law enforcement and our national security teams" and his mention of "those folks" in the paragraph which followed as a reference to the principle subjects in the investigation report on torture he was talking about from the outset.
I don't agree that he was talking about a separate issue or some other group of individuals. I find it hard to believe he'd feel Americans would be 'sanctimonious' about anyone else
That represents a difference of opinion with your own interpretation, which you described in your original response to that post as "every single person who had a job to do after the September 11th attacks."
You do realize that he never said "every single person who had a job to do after the September 11th attacks." That's you're own interpretation which represents the difference I have with the opinion you expressed. That came out of your own orifice, not his.
I don't think the President was speaking that broadly, but I accept your argument that he might have been. I disagree with you, but I think yours is a legitimate difference of opinion.
I'm a bit done with opening myself up to more characterizations of my own views expressed as "RW" or any other invective you invent. You take the last word between us on this, if you want.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)I think it would be helpful if we moved beyond arguing about Obama to focusing on issues and what we can do about them, much as you did in your OP about how to pressure the government to act on prosecuting torturers. Ultimately, what people think about Obama really isn't as important as what WE all can do to make a difference. Obama is not running for election again, but we all continue to live in this country and world. What I find most frustrating is that many seem to want to wait for a President, either this or the next, to give them what they want. That is an exercise in futility. Politicians will not act in meaningful ways without relentless pressure from below, when they are left with no other choice. If we could focus on the issues we want to do something about, I think that would be far more productive than arguing endlessly about a man who will only be in office two more years.
littlemissmartypants
(33,624 posts)Forward together. Not one step back.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Forward into NSA spying, Wall Street crime, Patriot Act, etc? Deeper into Orwellian dystopia?
Let's see how the victims of crime feel about the system where justice is politically motivated to forget the past based on a rule of deference to those with power and wealth.
Why excuse the brutality of torture as a necessary evil by loyal patriots? Is that the new politically convenient reality? Justice as a means to punish only those without the resources to defend themselves? What about murder and rape? Excuse this as well? You don't think this behavior gets a green light from local police as a model of immunity?
If you aren't willing to fight against injustice, correct the abuse of power and correct your own mistakes, you have no business trying to lead a nation "forward" by rewriting history. Jesus, what a literal cesspool of corruption that invites.
Then, are you honestly going to rail against Republicans for simply behaving the same way again, knowing there are no consequences for their behavior?
Instead of leading, the US is degrading into a 2nd or 3rd world system of justice with a weaponized police and military used to intimidate and discourage any challenge to authority.
littlemissmartypants
(33,624 posts)Here is the video. The book is worth the read if video is not your thing.
Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
http://m.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Thank you, whereisjustice. What an excellent post!
Just how many crimes will we forgive?
littlemissmartypants
(33,624 posts)
I hope you find the world you are looking for in the not too distant future. This is what we are doing in North Carolina. Forward together.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)in employment and in housing. That is corruption.
littlemissmartypants
(33,624 posts)littlemissmartypants
(33,624 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)comes from a right wing corruption. Can't cure what you won't talk about.
mcar
(46,059 posts)in NC. That was her whole point.
littlemissmartypants
(33,624 posts)
littlemissmartypants
(33,624 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 4, 2014, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)
I posted the damn thing. I know what it says.
Lately I've been seeing a lot of attacks and erroneous assertions that appear to imply some sort of nihilistic outlook would get us somewhere.
Why throw in the towel
and try to wound in the process?
What is the benefit?
When we should be working together?
Pettiness and infighting are no less corrupt. I talk a plenty. I certainly don't plan to be bullied into silence or belittled for my efforts to the point of exasperated convergent argumentation with no defined outcome other than to bitch or wail and moan...the woe is me approach is not only counter productive it is just plain unattractive.
Lead, follow or get out of the way.
?w=618&h=720
I am wondering if you are grassroots, hit the ground running politically active in you community. Please try. I believe you have too much gumption to be a quitter.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Have a report, or any pics to share?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Well done, bigtree.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... for the word "sanctimonious" when both the gist and spirit of everything you wrote was exactly true.
The President's comments on the torture report were shameful, and to defend them is also shameful. I would have hope that he - and we - are much better than that. To some, however, Party and personalities are more important than principles. I'll argue that without principles we might as well disolve the Party.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Shamefully there are political liberals (supposedly) that defend absolutely everything the president does or says. They apparently have decided to be on that side however it works out. I think that for some the "sides" are unclear. They want their life to be simplified so they have arbitrarily decided that Democrats are good and Repubs are bad. This is unfortunate because the Powers To Be (B613) are smart enough to take advantage of this. But Pres Obama has two more years to prove whose side he is on. Attempting to rationalize away torture is not a good sign.
"To some, however, Party and personalities are more important than principles. I'll argue that without principles we might as well disolve the Party." I think that would make a great signature line (except I'd spell dissolve correctly :hi
I am disappointed that bigtree self-deleted his OP re. the "sanctimonious"-ness of the President's speech. If you notice those that ganged up on the OP didn't have a single reasonable argument. They rely on ridicule and ad hominem attacks and try to shut down discussions they don't like. You can't get them to provide a decent argument.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)checker. I burn them out because they get frustrated as I usually can't get close enough for their help, and they leave in a huff.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)I was going to major in spelling, but my guidance counselors all recommended something less challenging.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Pick out one detail, and pound it into the ground, tying up discussions.
Disrupt, deny, deflect and all those other "D"s the NSA teaches.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)or speaking for FoxNews.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)ODS! 
And no, I'm not laughing, that's not my rofl, that's part of the tactic. It's gone way beyond being a laughing matter.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)and there are a lot of irrational people on this site.
littlemissmartypants
(33,624 posts)littlemissmartypants
(33,624 posts)Love, Peace and the Righteous Fight.
littlemissmartypants
TBF
(36,671 posts)maybe this will help.
POTUS I think is a decent person. He was elected to be the administrator of this country. I do think that is the role he is playing. The folks who drive the show, the moneyed folks, are not going to care if he makes a few gestures now and again. So he was able to pass Lily Ledbetter. I think as a whole the non-religious of the moneyed club is ok with moving forward on LGBT issues so he had some room there. But don't forget that his job is to be in charge of keeping the markets flowing smoothly. If anything his pick of Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education should be proof of that. Privatize, free markets (Dow has been pretty high lately has it not?) and keep our large companies safe wherever they happen to be doing business. That's what he'll be doing, it's what Elizabeth, Hillary or whomever we elect will be doing. It could be worse - we could be talking about President Romney right now (worse for women at least - because he is part of the fringe religious lunatics who desire to completely oppress women). It could also be better - I'd offer up the turn of the century as a time when working folks were actually stronger with their unions and the ability to even run socialist candidates. This of course would have been before the serious socialists/anarchists were run out of the country by Palmer and McCartney.
The way I look at it is that it's still worth working towards a better world. My view is that the better world is not only going hold war and torture in contempt, but will also promote a fair economic system (or resource-based system) in which there won't be quite so much inequality. I do think it helps to keep that bigger picture in mind, and work towards it daily by trying to elect local people who are better, and then those people get promoted (I don't have many examples here in Texas but I can offer a few like Julian and Joaquin Castro or Wendy Davis). It's going to be tough sometimes on a daily basis for those of us who are sensitive. We are going to look at things like the torture report, the children being turned away at the border, and the carnage in Gaza with absolute disbelief that humans are capable of acting so poorly. I look daily for positives in the world. Places where working folks are fighting back. My goal is to be in solidarity with anyone who is fighting against unjust systems in the goal of making things better overall.
My hope it that you will continue to post and not let the jerks get to you. There are many of us who are working towards that better world and we may not be as loud (or have hidden post teams at our disposal) but we support the same things you do.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)In the context of this OP, I think it is very important to note that when I came to DU, when Obama was first running against Clinton, his stated policy was 'I oppose equality for LGBT' and his style featured lots of right wing hate preachers like McClurkin and Rick Warren both of whom he lavishly praised shortly after each had attacked minority groups they don't like with vicious lies. Called us pedophiles and child murderers. Yeah.
Now the Straights here pretend they always supported equality and so did Obama, but THE reason I am barred from BOG and considered a critic of the President is that I advocated for my own damn rights when he opposed them.
You say 'Obama had some room on that' but you ignore the massive tide of cultural change that provided that 'room' and you make no mention of the endless pressure put upon Obama by LGBT activists and our true allies. We had to force his hand.
If we had sought the approval of those who exploit Obama by claiming to be his 'supporters' and by claiming the right to judge other people's support in his name, we would have gotten nowhere on our issues. The BOG and the 'supporters' have demonstrated this, they have not taken up even one single simple issue to advocate. They echo what Obama does. They stand for what he says, not for any objective for the people or for themselves. They advanced no path even one step forward, in fact they were part of the push back and resistance to progress on equality issues, they were always demanding that gay people just 'wanted a pony' and they demanded that 'civil Unions are the best you can hope for, for at least a generation, so be pragmatic, settle for half a loaf, stop asking for that fabulous pink pony'.
The 'supporters' were of no value to those of us who actually accomplished change during the last few years. The same people who berated and attacked LGBT aspirations now fly the rainbow avatars and claim they were there at Stonewall.....
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)community, you never ever gave him a break. Your hatred for him was much more personal. This man has done more for the LGBT community than any in history and is continually trying to do even more. But he could walk on water and you'd still be consumed with Rick Warren and Donnie McClurkin, ignoring the fact that he has publicly embraced LGBT couples on the same stage (Melissa Eldridge and her partner, Ellen and her partner, Robin Roberts and her partner, etc.) You don't care that many homophobes in the black community--MY COMMUNITY--have also experienced a teaching moment due to Obama's "evolution" on this issue and was forced to confront their own hatred, accept their own friends and family members who are LGBT. You ignore all of that progress because you hate so much. You can't forgive this man for his mistakes. That makes you seem like a very small person.
If one man can change and through that change, can encourage others to change and embrace those who are different, then can't we? Can't we learn from that; or, will we just hold on to resentment and hatred?
Sad and disgusting, Bluenorthwest. I thought you were better than this.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You attack me, personally, without any basis in fact. You declare that you know what I 'don't care about' and 'care about' and you do not even know me at all. Disrespectful, exploitative and rude.
Just as I stated in my post. If we self advocate, we are attacked for that by those who advocate nothing.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)By the way, read what I wrote to bigtree. You'll see that it was very conciliatory, and I meant every word. However, you, BlueNW, continue to berate this president in nearly every single post re: LGBT issues despite everything he has done for the community. You haven't acknowledged anything positive that this administration has done. No progress. Nothing. Which, again, leads me to believe that it's more about hatred than reasoned, principled disagreement such as what bigtree has expressed.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)you have, among other things, never asked me a single thing about myself, my life, my relationships. How can you claim to know how I think, you don't even respect me enough to respond to what I have said.
I have made many positive posts about Obama, for whom I voted 4 times, donated money, time and as I said in my post, enormous amounts of political effort that helped make progress. You speak mendacity, and you do so in personal terms. You attack me as a person for daring to advocate my own equality. It is uncivil, uncalled for and it is so utterly like the man Barack Obama whom you claim as pattern and role model. Whatever.
Feel free to list for me the specific accomplishments of the 'non critics' here. Tell me what you got done by singing the praises alone. I know what we got, and we got it the hard way, which was the way presented to us by Barack Obama, a politician so clever that even when you see him get something done, you still don't know how he did it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)after a long and well-fought campaign by LGBTQ activists. Any credit for advances in LGBTQ equality belongs with those activists, not the President.
Like so many other politicians, he saw which way the wind was blowing and then jumped out in front of the movement for political gain.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)And yet, you give Bill Clinton a pass and explicitly ran on an anti- gay marriage agenda. Why?!?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)DOMA.
Obama should get credit for his response to pressure from the LGBTQ community, but your post:
implied that Obama was the driving force behind the change. He was not.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)he would have caught more hell for DOMA as well as a lot of other things. I think in retrospect, he wasn't held as responsible as he should have been for the errors he made (which were plenty).
TBF
(36,671 posts)succinct and I didn't want to leave out the shift on LGBT. You're correct of course that the advocacy pushed the issue, but I don't think Obama had any big change of heart. I think he has always been quietly doing what he thinks he can get away with to help folks where he can - and at some point it became clear in this country that folks were more supportive of LGBT than not. The American public has shifted especially in the younger generations (due to the advocacy of you and others), that shows in the polls, and politicians (not only Obama but others as well) see that and don't want to lose those votes.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)for many long years, most of which happened before Obama was on the national stage. Barack Obama never really opposed marriage equality, it was a stance that allowed dialog to occur, he volunteered to play naysayer. We volunteered to be the heat. Between us, we made progress.
This is the way Obama has done things since Illinois. My cousin, now passed, was an early Illinois supporter of Obama 'we argued for months, he pissed me off, then he listened, changed his mind and took up our position as his own, do not forget that when you are looking for rights when he becomes President, because he will be President. Make use of his skills.'
That's what I did, what we did. The folks who like to sing songs of Obama full time are missing out on the most useful politician ever to hold the office of President.
democrank
(12,598 posts)I voted for President Obama twice and held on to that "hope" notion as long as I possibly could in good conscience. It pains me to say that I believe President Obama squandered a historic opportunity, but that is exactly what I think.
If Obama really believed that the best plan of action for this country was to re-use Bush people in very important positions and continue Bush policies, he should have said that before we voted. I never would have voted for him.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)It's a fair, reasoned assessment.
I've stated many times where I've disagreed with the president on decisions, on issues he's made. O.K.
I didn't like how he said, "we've tortured folk." To me, it was a very cavalier way of putting the brutal treatment of human beings. I'll give you that and agreed with you there.
However, I have to stand my ground (no pun intended) when it comes to many of the president's critics who do so out of pure derision, hatred, and for reasons other than logical, well thought-out policy stances. Not made up, feigned outrage or lack of knowledge about how government works; or about events that haven't yet occurred.
So, hats off.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)logical, well thought-out policy stances."
This is a bit of a straw-man, because the number of posters fitting this description is so extremely small as to be irrelevant.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You claim that "many of the president's critics who do so out of pure derision, hatred, and for reasons other than logical, well thought-out policy stances." This is an intentional misrepresentation of the critics' position, which you then use to justify your own position.
Orrex
(67,112 posts)And I'm confident that, as with 50 Shades, people are posting without having read most of it.
progressoid
(53,179 posts)Apparently you either worship the president or you hate him with every cell in your body.
I've been accused of both.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)will tolerate no criticism of the president stop you from doing what you have always done. Most of us just ignore the few who engage in personal attacks rather than discussion of the issues most in question.
Good OP, thank you.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)discussions. For some, that's their apparent only mission here. Others are just scared by the truth and fight it tooth and nail.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)explain the issues. Unintentionally maybe, but any opportunity to explain why, eg, TORTURE is such an important issue, should be taken, imo.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Often they sidetrack the discussion and their attacks often piss people off. bigtree's OP on "sanctimony" is a good example. Also, Manny has a recent OP where he is the subject of a tremendous attack. IMO those here that never speak to issues but only ridicule, alert, lock and hid, hurt decent liberal discussion.
Other than that
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)isn't going away apparently, I guess I try to use it by responding, not so much to them, but to anyone reading. Not saying it wouldn't be a whole lot better if we didn't have to deal with it, but we do and imo, the best way is to USE them to help do exactly what they do not want us to do, stick to the topic, never go on the defensive especially on important issues like Torture etc.
Lol, mostly we agree though, I'm just trying to see how best to use, even those whose goals are very different, in the best possible way.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I will work on it. 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts) 
I hope the OP can ignore those that supposedly "left" DU but can't resist dropping in with (it seems) the sole intent to toss turds in the DU punchbowl.
Pretty funny when you think about it.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)world view, effect our discussions. In other words, don't let "them" get you down.
I greatly appreciated your OP on the President's speech. It hit a never with those that think the President can do no wrong. The President is smart and his speech was deliberate and clear to me. He has begun the rationalization and minimization of the seriousness of "torturing some folks". Well Mr. President, some of these "folks" were children. Maybe you should have said, "we tortured some folks and kids, but we were scared, so I understand." Mr. President, the torture killed some, ruined the lives of the rest, and significantly damaged America. Ignoring or soft-selling what the American psychopaths did, will not help.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)said before the discovery of the evidence, which we have not yet seen btw, the photos that ended up in court, the ones that even Lindsey Graham was so shocked by he had a moment of conscience when he told Cheney to 'let us do our work, Mr. VP, we are talking about rape and torture and murder here'. Only a few members of Congress took advantage of the opportunity to view that evidence. But yes, some of those unfortunate 'folks' WERE women and children.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)However, what we do know about is way beyond "understanding", rationalizing and minimizing. I am trying to figure out why this President would try to rationalize away this blight on America's soul. I can only think of a few possibilities the best of which is that he wants to spare us the humiliation. But that's not likely as he is a smart man and knows that he can only postpone at best which will make the eventual revelation worse. I am sticking by my CT that he is being directed how to act by his superiors.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)here who can. That's just one of the things I have always admired about you. Anyone who has a problem with anything you say? Ignore them, they more than likely have some serious issues going on.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts) Autumn
(48,962 posts)During the nastiest of primaries bigtree was a rock and always fair.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Well I don't feel too bad. Unless Pres Obama makes a progressive move in the near future, I think it will really get ugly in here. Those that defend him at all costs are getting more and more desperate.
How's hosting? Any obsessive lockers?
Autumn
(48,962 posts)forums. The expanded SOP seems to be working well and that makes it much easier.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Autumn
(48,962 posts)
Of course that may change, one never knows. 
Newsjock
(11,733 posts)
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)In-depth rationalizations for torture and its support are deeply disturbed attempts to normalize exceptionally horrid actions.
It's not difficult to understand that torture in inhumane, or that its supporters have placed themselves in a distinct group of horrific individuals in the history of mankind.
You're not betraying anyone by refusing to go along with it, you are in fact, standing up for humanity itself.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)I agree with you 100%.
Uncle Joe
(65,140 posts)Thanks for the thread, bigtree.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)apparently having a hard job is an excuse to break the law.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)according to Obama, we were all clamoring for action after 911, and our brave leaders just did want we wanted. yes....it does sound like he is blaming the public for the zeal to torture. our brave leaders were just giving us what we wanted 
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Even popular Democratic presidents.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)... not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.- Abbie Hoffman
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I had to check a couple of times because I always saw bigtree as an ardent supporter. But the posts in this thread are correct. So many people think their only cause is to defend the President against all criticism. I have never seen anything like it (except on the right). Defending a Democrat for doing things that would make you howl if a Republican did it?
Try it. Imagine for a moment Bush standing there saying, "We tortured some folks. After 9/11 it was scary so we made some mistakes. Quit being so sanctimonious." Can you imagine the reaction?
So why is it worthy of defense when President Obama does it? Why do some feel the need to defend his very blatant attempt to get out in front of the Senate report? Why is it cool for a President to betray his own party in favor of neocons? What on earth could make anyone here defend torture, rape and murder as well as spying on and lying to Congress? What on Earth?
I guess there will always be 23%ers. And like any blind, hypocritical partisans, they should not be allowed to derail all discussion, give "purity tests" such as was done to you, then gaslight everyone. I wish they would stay in their protected place and share photos with each other singing La La La La LA with their fingers in their ears. If you're willing to sell out every principle you have because you have some sort of crush on a celebrity figure, you're too far gone to be reasoned with.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)is that no one who attacked you had any reasonable alternative interpretation of Obama's remarks to offer. They reminded me of strict constructionsists who insist only at looking at the literal interpretation of the actual words and never making any inferences based on those words and their context. You truly got a big does of a certain sort of irrational Obama loyalist.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Agree with those that agree with you, and ignore the rest of the petulant pedestrian crowd of anonymous whiners.
That's what I have been doing, and I have been here for 10 years!!
I left DU for awhile in 2004 when people like me who supported John Kerry for President were called Kerryokies, and Skinner let those people post here clear through that election period.
I went to the JK forum and posted amongst supporters who didn't waver in their efforts to promote Kerry for President.
I came back to DU early in 2005 to see DU on fire, with numerous threads blaming Bill Clinton, Kerry, and everyone else who was a Democrat, even though Bush stole Ohio's election results in 2004.
In 2006, I tried to make as many positive comments about getting out the vote in the mid-term elections that year, and I had some success.
Then in 2007, I got behind Barack Obama early in the year, and started working towards getting him in the White House, while others at DU did their level best to undermine him.
So then, in 2008, DU once again lit up like a 100 Christmas trees as the PUMAS ruled the forum, so it wasn't worth much of my time to post here, so I left for a duration once again.
I returned in 2009 to see members still fuming that Hillary wasn't the President of these United States, and saw all of the threads they had started within just 2 weeks of Obama taking the oath of office, urging her to run again in 2012.
By 2010, some members were crying here about the upcoming mid-term elections more than being positive or optimistic, and it was evident that the admins had low standards for who they would allow to post here about the politics that would affect our lives.
In 2011, the consequences of the 2010 mid-term elections were becoming apparent, and of course, some here blamed Obama for the Tea Party coalition of the GOP party forming, which was totally illogical and something from out of this world.
Then in 2012, I began talking here about Obama being re-elected, and although by then Skinner had created the jury system with this new version of DU, it was obvious to me that some people sitting in those juries didn't agree that a black man named Obama should be re-elected.
Too bad for them . . . he's still there!
The same cries of "it's all Obama's fault" are still shrilled here today at DU like they were 2 years ago.
They will be like the same sad, pathetic cries made here over the next 2 years about Obama.
Use your time wisely, because the fact is -- we are all mortals, and while we make comments on the internet, the clock is busy ticking down towards that day that each and every one of us must face -- when we will no longer be strolling on this green earth.
I really like your nickname, by the way.
It reminds of a bitter time in my life, a time that I have spent the last 23 years resolving.
Good luck in the future, bigtree.
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)"Are you not of the body"? -- Star Trek TOS.
"Landru, guide us"!
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)I'm sorry but this is all BS to me !! I'd like to see anyone stand up to the slice and dice scrutiny you're putting on our President. Let's get an even more powerful microscope to examine every little word he's said and for good measure ... HOW he said it ... I mean what inflection did he use? Or did he pause in the right or wrong places ?
So to some he's done good on this but not on that .. maybe only scoring a 2.5, or a 3 but didn't hit the magic 4.0 !! Lordy Lordy he's just NOT perfect enough!!
Hello out there ... He's a DEMOCRAT! He's our PRESIDENT! We celebrated for a good reason. Start supporting him. I have faith that even in areas where I don't understand his position, that he has a reason. You will NEVER find the PERFECT being to hold that office - even the best Democrat you can find.
This is the DEMOCRATIC Underground. Let's try respecting and supporting those in office.
Sorry for my rant ... I just couldn't hold it back anymore.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)and rather than attacking and alerting when we don't like the turn of phrase or wording someone uses, we should be tolerant of others and state why we disagree without taking very little thing personally. If we keep an open mind to the beliefs and positions of others, we give ourselves a chance to grow and learn.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)espouse your opinions. What's your real motivation here? 
bigtree
(94,269 posts). . . and you can't find my 'motivation' in the op?
Just make one up.
What's your motivation, jaysunb?
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)Reading through the comments I obviously didn't realize what this conversation was really about, but I stand by my statement that no one should have to justify their opinions or feelings. They're yours, so own em.... just like you did.
bigtree
(94,269 posts). . .this is an interesting place.
apples and oranges
(1,451 posts)Your headline is inflammatory/flamebait. You should edit.
bigtree
(94,269 posts). . .that a unique observation.
let me look at it again . . .
"I like President Obama, but, I'm not as willing anymore to spend much time here defending him"
Hmm. I'm open to differing opinions on that. I'll certainly consider yours.
bigtree
(94,269 posts)I'd like to do something that I don't see much, but would welcome . . .I'm going to close this discussion down on my own using the excellent self-delete function.
Any other comments are welcome in the short time before I do. Thanks again for reading and responding.
best regards, Ron.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The CIA should be prosecuted for spying on Congress. The BFEE should be prosecuted for Iraq. If all crime is equal under the law. If we hold ourselves unaccountable and refuse to join anykind of international court, then we are immune from crime in our own eyes.
Obama has a huge hurtle with Congress and the $COTUS and he dam well didn't start WWIII so that is a big plus. However, his control over the MIC is in question imo. The govt control over the MIC is in question imo.