Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

True Blue Door

(2,969 posts)
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 06:52 PM Dec 2014

If you believe Obama is protecting torturers, then you're advocating his impeachment.

If you believe that and aren't advocating his impeachment, then you are protecting torturers by your own (tortured) logic.

So, when do you folks plan on meeting with the Tea Party to plan your impeachment strategy?

You've already gone halfway there by distracting the discussion away from torture and its implications in favor of spamming one-liner smears on Barack Obama, so why not go the whole way round? Straight up join the torturers in their Teahad against the President.

Get as far away as possible from bringing the torturers to justice - disrupt and distract every possible discussion that might lead to greater unity and cooperation in pursuing them, and instead do their bidding.

I'm sure there have been tons of instances where the Justice Department under prior administrations has prosecuted CIA agents and Pentagon commanders for crimes committed by top-level policy...I just can't find any them anywhere because that darn Obama must have censored the history.

But trust your gut rather than, you know, the facts. Facts are for libruls.

56 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If you believe Obama is protecting torturers, then you're advocating his impeachment. (Original Post) True Blue Door Dec 2014 OP
K&R . YoungDemCA Dec 2014 #1
has Joe Biden made any statements about torture? nt grasswire Dec 2014 #2
I believe that the leader of this country has a moral obligation roguevalley Dec 2014 #55
but they wouldn't be able to use DU if they did that , and that's even MORE important JI7 Dec 2014 #3
ROFLMAO.. SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #4
Well, if indeed he is protecting them (not saying he is), perhaps he deserves impeachment Reter Dec 2014 #5
Lol! neverforget Dec 2014 #6
I like how you write, I think you went to school instead of that internet course Swearinger 101. LawDeeDah Dec 2014 #7
The flowchart of irrationality seveneyes Dec 2014 #8
Nice jump Fonz! bluesbassman Dec 2014 #9
Quit acting like it is a good or decent or ok thing mmonk Dec 2014 #10
K & R nt okaawhatever Dec 2014 #11
That is some dam fine pretzel logic you just came up with! Rex Dec 2014 #12
pretzels remind me of someone neverforget Dec 2014 #13
You know what? I knew if I looked through this thread Autumn Dec 2014 #43
Pretzels can be dangerous around coffee tables. Rex Dec 2014 #54
K & R stevil Dec 2014 #14
Member since 2007. Under 500 posts. Yet, agreeing with this OP motivated one of your rare posts. merrily Dec 2014 #29
Good catch! zappaman Dec 2014 #33
Thanks. It's true. It does always interest me when I see a post like that. merrily Dec 2014 #35
Is it true? stevil Dec 2014 #40
Yep. It's true and yes, lots of "long time lurkers." We're all free to post as we wish. merrily Dec 2014 #44
No one made you single me out from others who kicked or recommended.... stevil Dec 2014 #46
Nope, no one made me, but I am not complaining that anyone did, either. merrily Dec 2014 #47
No stevil Dec 2014 #48
Put thoughts in your head? wtf? merrily Dec 2014 #50
Alright then stevil Dec 2014 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Dec 2014 #15
That is what is called a sophism. I eat apples. I eat oranges. Therefor apples are oranges. robinlynne Dec 2014 #16
What is this logical fallacy? "The opposite of an orange = an orange." merrily Dec 2014 #30
I know, my sophism wasn't really there, but I wanted to type quickly... robinlynne Dec 2014 #36
There was more than one kind of logical fallacy. I was not faulting you for merrily Dec 2014 #37
lol robinlynne Dec 2014 #38
No, he is being called on to do his duty to the constitution, the rule of law, justice, and humanity TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #17
Unrec for twisted logic and denial and apologism to the nth degree...nt joeybee12 Dec 2014 #18
I assumed this was a parody post. Wow, it was a serious one. nt Logical Dec 2014 #19
Then I guess you missed the OP this jury commented on. merrily Dec 2014 #27
I advocate the President do his Constitutional duty and apply... 99Forever Dec 2014 #20
Did we torture? whatchamacallit Dec 2014 #21
If Obama is protecting torturers, I am advocating for his impeachment and I'm not ashamed to say it. 951-Riverside Dec 2014 #22
"I don't think left vs right, I think right vs. wrong." wildbilln864 Dec 2014 #34
I think you forgot "America: Love it or Leave It." WinkyDink Dec 2014 #23
NOT prosecuting Bush and Cheney should be grounds for impeachment. Doctor_J Dec 2014 #24
Woo hoo! truebluegreen Dec 2014 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author truebluegreen Dec 2014 #26
Opposing torture = teabagger. On DU, Opposite Day doesn't come only once a year. merrily Dec 2014 #28
Every president that America has ever had committed acts worthy of impeachment. SolutionisSolidarity Dec 2014 #31
This message was self-deleted by its author Autumn Dec 2014 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author Iggo Dec 2014 #39
OK GeorgeGist Dec 2014 #41
I agree, "Facts are for libruls." Which is why your OP is devoid of facts. Autumn Dec 2014 #42
If I believe this post made any sense, then I'm advocating for nonsense REP Dec 2014 #45
Why would the GOP want to impeach Obama for colluding with them to not prosecute GOPers? Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #49
Nonsense dissentient Dec 2014 #51
"You've already gone halfway there by distracting the discussion away from torture" Number23 Dec 2014 #53
+1 you said it, and so did the OP Hekate Dec 2014 #56

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
55. I believe that the leader of this country has a moral obligation
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 03:44 AM
Dec 2014

to explore the idea that the bushies committed a war crime, then act. Anything less is bullshit. This happened with the Nazis and Japanese during WWII. They were hanged for it. Our fucking government is doing nothing and last time I looked, Mr. Obama was the president. If he does nothing, what else is there to say?

 

seveneyes

(4,631 posts)
8. The flowchart of irrationality
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 07:10 PM
Dec 2014

Consists only of branches into the unknown. Logic does not come into play until reality strikes.

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
10. Quit acting like it is a good or decent or ok thing
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 07:15 PM
Dec 2014

and we're allies with Republicans if we find evil repugnant. Have a nice day.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
12. That is some dam fine pretzel logic you just came up with!
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 07:16 PM
Dec 2014

Bonus points for using a RWing dog whistle at the end! That is about the best example of projection that I've ever seen!

Bravo! You've outdone all your peers hands down!

Autumn

(45,447 posts)
43. You know what? I knew if I looked through this thread
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 10:04 PM
Dec 2014

I would see you and I knew what you would say. It was so obvious.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
29. Member since 2007. Under 500 posts. Yet, agreeing with this OP motivated one of your rare posts.
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:37 PM
Dec 2014

Always interesting to see what motivates DU's many "long time lurkers" to post.

stevil

(1,537 posts)
40. Is it true?
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:24 PM
Dec 2014

Perhaps you would like to run me out of town? I'm a long time lurker who loves this site and am free to post as I wish.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
44. Yep. It's true and yes, lots of "long time lurkers." We're all free to post as we wish.
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 10:05 PM
Dec 2014

No one stopped you from posting what you wanted or forced you to post anything you didn't want to post. No reason to play victim.

stevil

(1,537 posts)
46. No one made you single me out from others who kicked or recommended....
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 10:54 PM
Dec 2014

But you did and implied I'm a troll, all because you don't respect my opinion. I'm not your victim.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
47. Nope, no one made me, but I am not complaining that anyone did, either.
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 11:09 PM
Dec 2014

I said and meant that I find it interesting what motivates infrequent posters to post. For you, it agreeing with a bunch of rationalizations about torture was the motivation for one of your rare posts. Why should I not notice that and remark about it?

I'm not your victim.


Exactly my point. So stop acting as though you think you are. Or don't. It's entirely up to you.

stevil

(1,537 posts)
48. No
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 11:30 PM
Dec 2014

You wrote "long time lurkers" - jut like that in caps. If I am not a long time lurker then what did you mean to imply I was? Don't put thoughts in my head - you have no idea what I was thinking when I posted, just what you thought I meant. Ironic if you actually read the diary.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
50. Put thoughts in your head? wtf?
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 11:40 PM
Dec 2014

I gave your join date, your number of posts and remark that agreeing with this OP about torture motivated to make one of your rare posts. That is all both factual info and info visible to anyone on the board. I never commented on your thoughts or, heaven help us, even tried to put thoughts in your head. It's bad enough you've been complaining this long. Complaining about stuff you're making up is even more annoying. If you want to keep whining, go ahead. You are, of course,k free to post whatever you wish. However, I will not be reading any more of your responses to me on this thread.

Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

merrily

(45,251 posts)
30. What is this logical fallacy? "The opposite of an orange = an orange."
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:39 PM
Dec 2014

Whatever it is, DU's admirers of the Third Way philosopy sure do seem to love that logical fallacy the most.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
37. There was more than one kind of logical fallacy. I was not faulting you for
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 09:04 PM
Dec 2014

not getting to all of them. (So many fallacies, so little time.)

TheKentuckian

(25,310 posts)
17. No, he is being called on to do his duty to the constitution, the rule of law, justice, and humanity
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 07:36 PM
Dec 2014

so he does not foolishly make himself an accessory to crimes against humanity and being very much deserving of impeachment.

As for the rest of your spiel, it is lame nonsense. How is rationalizing, hiding, and making light of these crimes an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice? That is just bullshit and it is flailing as you have already made a mountain of excuses why such a thing shouldn't happen and now are playing another weak tactic toward what you bilge out here as projection, it is your clear intent to drive as far from justice or it's pursuit as possible as you have at every turn and with every excuse and rationalization.

Hell, he is still stupidly "standing with" that piece of pigshit, Clapper, and in turn said human porcine excrement is protecting his underlings even though they have been caught red handed in the cookie jar spying on and interfering with their own civilian oversight which is another huge constitutional crisis level fiasco. So what possible path are we on toward any correction? You can't climb out of the hole if you won't stop fucking digging.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
20. I advocate the President do his Constitutional duty and apply...
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 07:38 PM
Dec 2014

... the Law of the Land to those who have willfully broken it, instead of letting throw this Nation's credibility, legal and moral standards down the toilet.

You want to bend that up like a fucking pretzel to pretend it's anything else, have at it. I see you for exactly what you are, so your opinion of me is worthless.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
21. Did we torture?
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 07:41 PM
Dec 2014

Yes.

Is that a crime?

By most accounts, yes.

Should the president act to bring justice?

Most would say yes.

If he fails to act what should happen?

You tell me.

 

951-Riverside

(7,234 posts)
22. If Obama is protecting torturers, I am advocating for his impeachment and I'm not ashamed to say it.
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 07:55 PM
Dec 2014

I'm also advocating for putting Cheney, Bush, John Yoo and any military, private or clandestine personnel who encouraged or engaged in rape or torture that led to serious injury or death on trial and anyone in the Obama admin who may be aiding and abetting these people and preventing a real investigation.

I don't think left vs right, I think right vs. wrong.

 

wildbilln864

(13,382 posts)
34. "I don't think left vs right, I think right vs. wrong."
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:46 PM
Dec 2014

love that quote! Hope you don't mind me stealing it?

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
24. NOT prosecuting Bush and Cheney should be grounds for impeachment.
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:08 PM
Dec 2014

The executive branch is supposed to enforce the law of the land

Get as far away as possible from bringing the torturers to justice


Since you claim the president and AG can't do that, who should? And how is calling for prosecution "getting as far as possible from bringing them to justice"


 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
25. Woo hoo!
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:10 PM
Dec 2014
Get as far away as possible from bringing the torturers to justice - disrupt and distract every possible discussion that might lead to greater unity and cooperation in pursuing them, and instead do their bidding.

That's our president--bringing the torturers to justice! Yeah! ....oh, wait...

Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

31. Every president that America has ever had committed acts worthy of impeachment.
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:40 PM
Dec 2014

Obama let the torturers go, and this violates the law. Whatever the ramifications of that are, it doesn't change the truth. But you don't get impeached for violating the law, or we wouldn't have presidents. Bush violated international law routinely, most obviously in Iraq. Clinton also violated international law when he felt like it, such as our illegal attacks on Iraq after the failed attempt on George Bush Sr. Bush and Reagan violated international and American law frequently, such as Grenada or the Contras. To be fair, I don't know of an incident where Jimmy Carter ignored the law, but that could just be my own ignorance. Ford should have been impeached for pardoning Nixon, since he was only allowed to become president by promising not to pardon him, but he also partnered up with a dictatorship in Indonesia that was committing genocide, again in violation of international law. And of course Nixon, who I don't think I should even have to go into on this site.

You don't get impeached for violating the law. You get impeached by angering the major stock holders of America, including the intelligence community. Obama's more likely to be impeached for enforcing the law than ignoring it in this case.

Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Autumn

(45,447 posts)
42. I agree, "Facts are for libruls." Which is why your OP is devoid of facts.
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 10:00 PM
Dec 2014

Completely devoid of facts. Truthfully, OMC or PW did it so much better.

REP

(21,691 posts)
45. If I believe this post made any sense, then I'm advocating for nonsense
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 10:13 PM
Dec 2014

If I believe this post isn't nonsense and should be taken seriously, then I'm advocating for protecting nonsense.

If you take either - or any - position, you prove my point.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
49. Why would the GOP want to impeach Obama for colluding with them to not prosecute GOPers?
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 11:34 PM
Dec 2014

That' where your argument breaks down.

If torture did occur and Obama is not taking action against it then he is an accessory after the fact except no one of consequence is going to pursue him because they are the perpetrators.

Obama is also politically safe because a plurality of Americans will shrug-off this report. I'd wager after 9/11 most Americans would have poured the water themselves. If they believe the interrogations in any way contributed to finding other terrorists or preventing additional attacks they will turn on Obama if he seeks to prosecute. It may be an ugly fact to admit but it is a fact that must be admitted nonetheless.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
53. "You've already gone halfway there by distracting the discussion away from torture"
Sat Dec 13, 2014, 12:38 AM
Dec 2014

Hasn't that been the intent of all of this jack assery?? Starting 125 threads rehashing a quote he made a while ago and saying practically nothing about Cheney, Bush, Rice -- the people who started this odious practice in the first place?

I wish to GOD that the "he talks purty but doesn't do anything" crowd would make up their freaking minds. Because this endless wailing over a quote and saying little about what he's actually DONE sure sounds like the squeals of the impotent, not politically engaged grown folks talking about a really important event in our history right now. It's times like this that DU shows how utterly clueless and embarrassing it can be.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If you believe Obama is p...