General Discussion

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)

170. Nice try

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 07:56 PM

Jul 2013

Your feelings about Occupy and how the government should have dealt with them are pretty obvious, there is concrete, undeniable evidence of a coordinated military-style crackdown on the various Occupy camps, and your response was "what do you expect government to do?".

What I expect them to do is to respect the demands of people exercising their constitutional right to free assembly and free speech. The people were telling the government to listen to them and not just to the banksters and monied interests. The response was for the government, working in concert with the corporations and local police forces, to violently attack and arrest the peaceful protesters, ending what was the finest attempt I have seen in many years at making their government responsive to the issues the people need and care about. No thanks to people like you.

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