General Discussion

randome

(34,845 posts)

135. Right. Because law enforcement stating that Occupy is peaceful is evidence...

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 05:34 PM

Jul 2013

...of a coordinated crackdown on Occupy. Sorry, I don't buy that has anything to do with the subject of the OP.

I teach my daughters to challenge authority, including my own. They have learned how best to find their way to critical thinking. In the past, when I was proven right about something, I would challenge them: "So what are you going to say next time I say 'Trust me'."? At first they said they would trust me but I pointed out that was the wrong answer and that they should always think for themselves, even when I'm involved.

I don't bother asking that question any longer because they have passed into the realm of thinking for themselves.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

171 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If we DON'T criticize the admin for this, there's something very wrong [View all] cali Jul 2013 OP

How long before the first "But I trust my president" post? nt Bonobo Jul 2013 #1

I sincerely hope not cali Jul 2013 #2

It also shouldn't just be true for US citizens. Bonobo Jul 2013 #3

of course. but aside from the war powers concern cali Jul 2013 #6

There is no such thing as 'due process' during war. randome Jul 2013 #15

" There is no such thing as 'due process' during war." Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #25

I meant no such thing as 'due process' for combatants. randome Jul 2013 #30

But who is a combatant? Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #43

A 'combatant' is someone who is on the field of battle. randome Jul 2013 #47

So, if an enemy invaded US territory they wouldn't be "enemy combatants" Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #49

I don't know the answer to that. Let's hope it never happens. randome Jul 2013 #51

Would a person who exposes classified information about troop movements Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #53

I would think a person who betrays their country in a time of war would be a legal target. randome Jul 2013 #54

To threaten our energy supply in a time of war-- Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #56

No. You're trying to conflate them all but it doesn't work. randome Jul 2013 #58

Riiiiiiiiiight. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #60

And for a little trip down Memory Lane� Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #62

In your top photo, with all the National Guardsmen, it's amazing that they only managed to kill 4, AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #106

I didn't realize how many rounds were fired. truedelphi Jul 2013 #127

kent state questionseverything Jul 2013 #131

This is seared into my memory as if it was yesterday. nt Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #150

I think the DA's decision was right since all the circumstances were not filmed. randome Jul 2013 #64

that is why we have these things called trials dsc Jul 2013 #69

A trial is still possible even without the DA's help. randome Jul 2013 #76

I guess it must have happened in a crowd where there were no witnesses� Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #82

Oh, you mean somebody they can shoot! ret5hd Jul 2013 #130

Why the hell do you think I would want someone shot? randome Jul 2013 #136

Except when you ARE condoning it dreamnightwind Jul 2013 #132

Right. Because law enforcement stating that Occupy is peaceful is evidence... randome Jul 2013 #135

Nice try dreamnightwind Jul 2013 #170

Bearing in mind this has nothing to do with Federal anti-terrorism or war policy..... brooklynite Jul 2013 #171

Yes, we've seen the Bush definition before. Pholus Jul 2013 #68

Then YOU define 'enemy combatant'. randome Jul 2013 #78

Why should I? Pholus Jul 2013 #81

Can't be defined, because it's a diplomatic fiction used to justify... TheMadMonk Jul 2013 #156

The problem is that "the field of battle" has been defined as anywhere. Maedhros Jul 2013 #161

Also, What is WAr? Is the "War on Terrorists" a war? If so is the war on drugs a war? etc etc. nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #137

"War on Terror--" Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #143

A war on war would be a better use of resources. randome Jul 2013 #144

Exactly. So the War Powers Act does not apply. nm rhett o rick Jul 2013 #145

so all of the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan is a battlefield? cali Jul 2013 #63

I'm not really defending it, I'm pointing out it's a complicated situation. randome Jul 2013 #67

bzzzt. fail. not anymore we don't but even were that true, it's not a battlefield. cali Jul 2013 #94

Right. Just as soon as TPTB get done killing the SNAP program, matthews Jul 2013 #138

I would not mind withdrawing from the world, basically. randome Jul 2013 #141

what war? cali Jul 2013 #27

You know how complicated Pakistan is. randome Jul 2013 #31

that was true in the past. not so much anymore. cali Jul 2013 #65

What war is right. Bonhomme Richard Jul 2013 #133

It amazes me to no end to think that we think we can justify a perpetual state of matthews Jul 2013 #142

You are so right. We are living it now. LuckyLib Jul 2013 #160

The US did NOT intentionally target US Citizens during WW1 or WW2, even through there were quite a leveymg Jul 2013 #33

This is not the 1940's. It's an entirely different century, in fact. randome Jul 2013 #55

You know, that is really pathetic. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #59

lol. this is NOT the 18th century, damnit! That pesky bill of rights? cali Jul 2013 #70

Congress wields the ultimate power over this country. randome Jul 2013 #75

Sorry, but the SCOTUS disagreed with you in Marbury v Madison, 1803. Justices have ultimate power leveymg Jul 2013 #87

Thanks for setting me straight on that. randome Jul 2013 #92

my god. how on earth do you maintain such an incredible cali Jul 2013 #96

Strength of character? randome Jul 2013 #99

Executive Order 9066. Try again. SwankyXomb Jul 2013 #149

That order did not target Japanese Americans for death during WW2. leveymg Jul 2013 #151

Unbelievable statement! So you DID agree with Bush then. Did you say this when Democrats sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #77

As I clarified, there is no 'due process' for enemy combatants. randome Jul 2013 #79

and as I've explained to you literally dozens of times cali Jul 2013 #93

So you believe we're murdering people for fun? randome Jul 2013 #97

Uh...yeah LiberalLovinLug Jul 2013 #122

seriously? just how desperate are you? my advice? stop digging. cali Jul 2013 #123

It is intellectually dishonest to put words in their mouth. No one said that we're murdering rhett o rick Jul 2013 #139

I'm not concluding anything. I'm not there making the decisons. None of us are. randome Jul 2013 #140

I'll preemptively post a "Would you trust President Cruz?" MNBrewer Jul 2013 #4

Is that a trick question? nt eilen Jul 2013 #148

doesn't matter how depraved an action by the prez or the dem party, the cadre KG Jul 2013 #5

It really is a window Broward Jul 2013 #7

"the cadre" Kolesar Jul 2013 #11

So what do you think of the admin's drone policies? cali Jul 2013 #12

another thread for the zerohedge kids to dance around in ... eom Kolesar Jul 2013 #13

Those dead innocents never loved him anyway. JoeyT Jul 2013 #19

wowzer. there's some brilliant analysis. defensive much, hon? cali Jul 2013 #28

I do. SkyDaddy7 Jul 2013 #22

Democrats have been in charge for ten years? randome Jul 2013 #16

Or, how can a racist white American judge a black presidenr? East Coast Pirate Jul 2013 #10

I trust my President on this.... nadinbrzezinski Jul 2013 #46

You still haven't answered me on your Comicon thread. Why not??? nt msanthrope Jul 2013 #129

Yet another policy where Obama is virtually the same as Bush. :( reformist2 Jul 2013 #8

I hear civil liberties Riftaxe Jul 2013 #9

Finally! chervilant Jul 2013 #14

It's early yet and then there's the avoidance-hope-it-sinks-thing. cali Jul 2013 #17

Related - Take the poll: How do you feel about the FBI using drones? wanttosavetheplanet Jul 2013 #18

In America, nothing is exempt from judicial review. kentuck Jul 2013 #20

An opinion article by a Nixon appointed judge and you want us all to be angry?. pwb Jul 2013 #21

And we have a winner Savannahmann Jul 2013 #23

Gag. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #24

Bush did not assassinate US Citizens abroad, AFAIK. That is an Obama expansion of assumed power. leveymg Jul 2013 #29

oh brother. is there a worse argument you could have used? Not likely. cali Jul 2013 #32

Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower. Terrible Judge. A real reactionary that one! ;-) leveymg Jul 2013 #34

Its interesting how the opinion author equates how you deal with JoePhilly Jul 2013 #35

yes, because nothing says threat more than cali Jul 2013 #71

Due process always, always, alway requires judicial oversight and review. Divernan Jul 2013 #36

And yet you fawn over Republicans Hagel and Comey as they drone and judge... Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #37

Rec AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #72

LOL Oilwellian Jul 2013 #89

"He is trying to close Guantanamo. The Pukes will not let him zeemike Jul 2013 #38

Read the Constitution before posting ridiculous claims Progressive dog Jul 2013 #40

Well in case you did not know. zeemike Jul 2013 #44

In case you don't know, he can't close the prison Progressive dog Jul 2013 #48

Better yet point to where the constitution says that zeemike Jul 2013 #50

Okay, if you choose to continue your three word Progressive dog Jul 2013 #61

Well then you do not understand the military zeemike Jul 2013 #66

So the President of the USA is a dictator over the Congress Progressive dog Jul 2013 #73

No he is dictator over the military. zeemike Jul 2013 #86

You sir are either not American or Progressive dog Jul 2013 #88

Well I served 8 years in the military. zeemike Jul 2013 #90

And the Congress of the US is not in the military Progressive dog Jul 2013 #91

Again, show me where it says that. zeemike Jul 2013 #100

IF CIC is all you know or care to know about the US Constitution, Progressive dog Jul 2013 #102

I feel sorry for you. misdirection and bizarre nonsense about how people cali Jul 2013 #107

Now we should change the subject to drones, Progressive dog Jul 2013 #114

As commander in chief he IS a dictator of the military zeemike Jul 2013 #112

Repetetion doesn't make arguments stronger Progressive dog Jul 2013 #116

Right you are. zeemike Jul 2013 #120

Well to be fair, you are correct that Congress voted to not let him send the prisoners Vinnie From Indy Jul 2013 #125

"President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants; Congress isn�t actually stopping him." Hissyspit Jul 2013 #155

That is such garbage that wow just wow Progressive dog Jul 2013 #164

Yes, I clearly think citing anti. Hissyspit Jul 2013 #165

I deleted the incomplete sentence Progressive dog Jul 2013 #166

The point wasn't who he is. The point is his argument against claims that Obama Hissyspit Jul 2013 #168

The point is that he is an idiot and Progressive dog Jul 2013 #169

Eric Posner also advocates abolition of both the Progressive dog Jul 2013 #167

He absolutely CAN close the prison, what congress is blocking him from doing hughee99 Jul 2013 #111

Eric Posner: Hissyspit Jul 2013 #154

This sounds correct, and is certainly more comprehensive than my explanation. hughee99 Jul 2013 #158

"President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants" Hissyspit Jul 2013 #153

Agreed. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #74

A person can't be both a terrorist and an American citizen at the same time?? Demit Jul 2013 #41

Civilians can criticize the commander in chief bobduca Jul 2013 #42

LOL! I hope you are not serious. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #57

WINNER: "no matter where they are in the world. " Pholus Jul 2013 #84

Quakers are known trouble-makers. They have been for some time. Since the 1600's. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #110

Lol! NealK Jul 2013 #163

We do it to them now . . . another_liberal Jul 2013 #26

Prophetic words that all should listen to. After March 20, 2003, we have no grounds any HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #85

This is a scourge on BO and the U.S.. We have allies who were practicing this behavior GoneFishin Jul 2013 #39

Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #45

The sad answer is. zeemike Jul 2013 #52

Rec'd with full support Catherina Jul 2013 #80

Thanks Catherina. I'm actually finding this thread heartening cali Jul 2013 #98

How many have adopted Britney's philosophy? xocet Jul 2013 #83

K&R Solly Mack Jul 2013 #95

broken record. MjolnirTime Jul 2013 #101

damned straight. I've posted dozens and dozens of threads on the cali Jul 2013 #104

Thank you. And please keep up the good work. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #108

Seems that the broken record is MT's 13 hidden posts. L0oniX Jul 2013 #119

Your transparency page also looks like a broken record. L0oniX Jul 2013 #118

K&R MotherPetrie Jul 2013 #103

Thank you, MP. I really appreciate it. cali Jul 2013 #105

What the apologists forget is that from the point of view of an Iraqi or Afghan... Lydia Leftcoast Jul 2013 #109

Here's a solution for those who (1) say that Congress will not allow Obama to close Gitmo and AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #113

That's thinking outside the box! randome Jul 2013 #115

Who needs courts, laws, and other fripperies when we have a "decider" in office? Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2013 #117

HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Jul 2013 #121

K&R Howler Jul 2013 #124

SNOWDENS CHARACTER NEEDS TO BE ATTACKED DONTCHA KNOW1111!!!!! Apophis Jul 2013 #126

It is sad that John Yoo's stupid positions Vattel Jul 2013 #128

Well, durn... chervilant Jul 2013 #134

+1. blkmusclmachine Jul 2013 #146

DURec leftstreet Jul 2013 #147

Cali, your heart is in the right place. You fought tooth & nail for Obama during the primaries pacalo Jul 2013 #152

thank you for remembering. cali Jul 2013 #162

+1000 blackspade Jul 2013 #157

I remember when we were the good guys... n/t FourScore Jul 2013 #159