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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Greenwald: Obama "excellent at finding excuses not to prosecute the most powerful" [View all]MindMover
(5,016 posts)133. Everybody better hold on ... the next decision from our potus will ..
Curl your eyebrows and sharpen the spurs .....
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
372 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Greenwald: Obama "excellent at finding excuses not to prosecute the most powerful" [View all]
Exciting Trip
Jan 2014
OP
NO he didn't....if he did the REPUBLICAN Congress would be all up in his shit...
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#60
So because the Republicans are upset, therefore he didnt lie. Is that your argument?
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#99
So the big question is why did he keep two of Bush's authoritarian Republicans?
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#217
So you forgive his obvious lie because why? The question was simple and yet he lied.
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#179
Your argument is very limited. How do you come to the conclusion that he didnt
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#211
limited because I do not believe we live in a Black and White world like you?
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#212
AND that has been explained to you multiple times...IF it was such a bald faced lie
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#224
Thanks for the link which finished with, ""Perjury is a serious crime. Mr. Clapper should resign
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#243
and it is not being prosecuted for it....but YOU deem him guilty without a trial...
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#244
I trust a Democratic Senator over a Republican General. How about you? nm
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#228
Do you trust Rand Paul and Darryl Issa? Because they both agree with YOU!
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#232
and I trust President Obama over Rand Paul, Darryl Issa and Jim Sensenbrenner....
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#242
Do I believe that there are those in this conversation that agree with the positions of
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#262
your world is incredibly binary: Anything Obama does or says: Good, great, must be
cali
Feb 2014
#271
Mostly I do yes....You have a problem with Democrats supporting the Democratic President?
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#274
YOU have a huge problem with liberal dem politicians who don't support the President on
cali
Feb 2014
#278
You made the statement...I was just asking...sounded like a veiled one to me...
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#316
please post anything I wrote to you that can be construed in any way as a threat.
cali
Feb 2014
#362
there are some "rightwing Repukes" that DO agree with YOU on this matter...
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#285
He lied, period. And what is a Bush loyalist and appointee doing in a Democratic (note the spelling)
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#182
NOT Period...just like I said IF it was sooooo "period" he would have been charged...by the
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#209
Yes, it's been "period" since it happened for anyone who isn't an idiot or a shill.
DisgustipatedinCA
Feb 2014
#353
I'm accusating? You know the George W Bush glossary is supposed to be humorous, right?
DisgustipatedinCA
Feb 2014
#361
This is the second time I've seen you use that laughably stupid, circular excuse.
Marr
Feb 2014
#165
No he didn't but Darryl Issa, Rand Paul and Jim Sennsenbrenner all agree with you...
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#237
Robert Litt is general counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence nt
G_j
Feb 2014
#87
Bullshit only because Rand Paul, Darryl Issa and Jim Sensenbrenner agreeing with you
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#302
I do...I posted what THEY think earlier in this conversation that you thought you just had to add
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#313
He was provided the question in advance, the question was straight forward and easy to
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#94
and he THOUGHt he was being asked a question about National Security in an open forum
VanillaRhapsody
Feb 2014
#264
You have to excuse some around here, their abilities only allow them to make 'fuck xyz' statements.
Rex
Feb 2014
#249
Now it is as bad to criticize the opinion and actions of some gays as it is to criticize the actions
kelliekat44
Feb 2014
#72
"Criticizing the actions of some gays" is not the issue. There's nothing wrong with that.
nomorenomore08
Feb 2014
#177
I wish the edit feature was only for grammar and not a quick retreat from someone's true ...
slipslidingaway
Feb 2014
#12
Hating someone for who they are, and being suspicious because of what they *do*, are not at all
nomorenomore08
Feb 2014
#174
Perhaps *you* haven't traveled far enough not to take every damn thing personally...
nomorenomore08
Feb 2014
#184
Well, that's a shame, but even if misguided that doesn't mean there's no reason for it.
nomorenomore08
Feb 2014
#197
What do you mean? Those fighting against homophobia are heterophobic? Please clarify, using
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#86
Simple, if a known gay person has something negative said against them then it turns into
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#88
Thank you. Could you give me an example of either of those, I'd appreciate seeing what you mean.
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#90
Sure, in this thread Greenwald accuses Obama of not prosecuting the powerful,
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#100
Do you mean this now edited homophobic post or the ones talking about it?
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#102
Post #7 is saying the previous post is homophobic. Do you think it is homophobic? Are you LeftyMom?
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#111
Aw, you know me. I like to clarify before jumping on someone's shit as words can be used in differen
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#117
you wanted to know where homophobic was, i gave you the post information.
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#119
No, I wanted to know if YOU think that post is homophobic. I wanted to know where heterophobic
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#124
You mean one about heterophobia you haven't answered yet? Yes. I see it. Will you answer?
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#126
Neither should be in DU, if someone calling another homophobic then they need to have heterophic
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#129
If I call a racist a racist for saying something like all n*ers love watermelon, that makes me a
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#136
Someone who calls out a bigot for bigotry is because of that a bigot themselves?
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#128
There are times when one may be bigoted one way and call the other bigoted but likewise be bigoted
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#130
You do realize this is the same argument used by Pat Robertson and his ilk?
riderinthestorm
Feb 2014
#132
Why in the hell can there not be civilized dicussions without jumping in with "homophoic"
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#134
Why in the hell can there not be civilized discussions without jumping in with homophobia?
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#137
Yes, do I like to see and hear racism or sexism and I do not like the titles bestowed on others.
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#144
I DONT LIKE THE HOMOPHOBIC OR THE HETEROPHOBIC!!! I never said I like one or the
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#148
WTH, do you want me to say, I get along with both groups. Can a person get along
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#154
People who call others on their bigotry are, by your definition, bigoted. Wow.
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#135
Calling me confused, wow, oh the name calling. You can step on whatever side you want, I
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#138
You have a problem and you need to deal with it. You are writing a script which has totally
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#146
No, you are the one complaining about us calling out bigotry. Or is it is sexual orientation bigotry
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#150
Thank you, trying to clarify what they meant rather than insulting. Language, esp on the internet,
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#161
One last simple (truly) question. Where in the world do you live? What country, state, etc, as you
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#143
I am a natural born citizen of the US, many generations in the US. Proud American, lifelong
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#156
Thank you for answering, your grammar sounded ESL and I wanted to make sure we were
uppityperson
Feb 2014
#157
I write hoping others do not confuse what I am trying to convey, I must point out you
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#160
I tried to alert but got a split vote. Seems this is "too difficult" for DUers to understand
riderinthestorm
Feb 2014
#164
In this thread, #1 and #3 were strongly anti-Greenwald, but they did not mention his sexuality
muriel_volestrangler
Feb 2014
#202
Actually post #4 was homophobic, someone replied there was not a need for homophobic
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#205
I do not diminish homophobia any more than I diminish heterophobia in which many seems to
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#247
This is what I did on my first post on this thread and the responses went bad so
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#292
I need to ask you, is there any reason you to try and change my opinion from being neutral?
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#306
I will not change my opinion, I am required to work everyday in the public, I refuse
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#317
Here is where you and several others here are totally wrong, if you had read many post
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#367
My comprehension is quiet well, this has been overblown by others, the only thing I can
Thinkingabout
Feb 2014
#370
I don't agree with deleting posts. People ought to stand by what they say or don't
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#39
Edit history allows us to see that you made a homophobic comment typical of those
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2014
#58
Is the entire BOG populated with bigots, or would you consider yourself an outlier?
Doctor_J
Feb 2014
#103
When did it become the President's job to prosecute people for Congressional testimony?
ProSense
Feb 2014
#14
When they dont have an argument, they try to distract. Strawmen abound. nm
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#36
Asked and answered. Interesting that you love to give the Pres credit for things like
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#34
GG's idiotic on public policy, a crappy lawyer,a lousy political analyst, and an all-around a-hole
struggle4progress
Feb 2014
#16
I couldnt get past your ad hominem attacks. Where do you get your hatred for Greenwald?
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#26
Sorry but I didnt get past your ad hominem attacks. I figure if you think that's necessary
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#37
As there is no way anyone in the public eye can say anything at all WITHOUT running the risk of
sibelian
Feb 2014
#200
Looks like homophobic smears and straw man arguments are all the Swarm has to offer.
last1standing
Feb 2014
#65
I know, Obama should prosecute anyone who is trying to get out of paying their back taxes.
randome
Feb 2014
#110
new poster, you think? i'd wager a bunch of return customers in this thread...
dionysus
Feb 2014
#167