HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why should I endorse, or ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:50 PM

 

Why should I endorse, or vote for, a President who signs this into law?

When Bush came out and stated that he had the right to have American citizens declared enemy combatant and held indefinitely, we here on DU screamed bloody hell at this unconstitutional outrage, and rightfully so.

Funny though, when a Democratic President signs a bill that codifies these powers into law, many here not only support the action, but defend it as well.

The NDAA of 2012 does just that, it allows the president to have anybody, citizen or not, seized and held for an indefinite length of time. Yes, Obama promised that he wouldn't use this power, but is that really any comfort? Promises mean nothing to politicians, and even if Obama does keep this one, he has still opened the way for future such abuses by future presidents. Think if Santorum acquired this power, or Romney, or Newt, or. . .

The sad thing is, Obama doesn't even seem that reluctant about breaking that promise of his.
"One official explained that President Obama does believe, however, that American citizens can be temporarily detained, and that the military has the right to capture and hold any citizen who is engaged in conflict against the United States. If various provisions in the law prove unworkable, the president could go back to Congress to ask for changes."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/with-reservations-obama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/

So the question becomes this; why should I support or vote for somebody, anybody, who signs this kind of legislation? Why should I support or vote for a candidate who continues to tear up the Constitution? The lesser of two evils argument is getting mighty thin, truly. I should vote for a candidate who signs the law into being, but promises not to use it, never mind the weapon he is putting into the hands of future presidents? I think not.

One of the foremost duties of a president is to defend and uphold the Constitution. I didn't support Bush when he shredded the Constitution, neither did most Dems. Why should I support Obama when he also shreds the Constitution?

188 replies, 11247 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 188 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why should I endorse, or vote for, a President who signs this into law? (Original post)
MadHound Jan 2012 OP
CrispyQ Jan 2012 #1
FreakinDJ Jan 2012 #42
CrispyQ Jan 2012 #147
FreakinDJ Jan 2012 #148
CrispyQ Jan 2012 #155
emilyg Jan 2012 #116
Kablooie Jan 2012 #162
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #2
Robb Jan 2012 #3
Sherman A1 Jan 2012 #40
baldguy Jan 2012 #4
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #144
Little Star Jan 2012 #5
bigtree Jan 2012 #6
rhett o rick Jan 2012 #21
bigtree Jan 2012 #26
rhett o rick Jan 2012 #63
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #77
bigtree Jan 2012 #95
rhett o rick Jan 2012 #115
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #120
rhett o rick Jan 2012 #139
SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #142
patrice Jan 2012 #47
rhett o rick Jan 2012 #64
MadHound Jan 2012 #82
patrice Jan 2012 #93
MadHound Jan 2012 #94
patrice Jan 2012 #98
MadHound Jan 2012 #102
patrice Jan 2012 #108
patrice Jan 2012 #109
patrice Jan 2012 #110
patrice Jan 2012 #107
MadHound Jan 2012 #114
patrice Jan 2012 #123
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #146
patrice Jan 2012 #149
CrispyQ Jan 2012 #136
Sheepshank Jan 2012 #151
patrice Jan 2012 #50
rhett o rick Jan 2012 #65
patrice Jan 2012 #76
MadHound Jan 2012 #80
bigtree Jan 2012 #96
MadHound Jan 2012 #100
Ohio Joe Jan 2012 #7
Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #8
Number23 Jan 2012 #59
RoccoR5955 Jan 2012 #9
rhett o rick Jan 2012 #61
RoccoR5955 Jan 2012 #133
rhett o rick Jan 2012 #138
bvar22 Jan 2012 #160
rhett o rick Jan 2012 #164
CrispyQ Jan 2012 #140
RoccoR5955 Jan 2012 #157
MadHound Jan 2012 #181
MisterP Jan 2012 #10
MineralMan Jan 2012 #11
SaintPete Jan 2012 #170
limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #12
CrispyQ Jan 2012 #143
gateley Jan 2012 #13
grantcart Jan 2012 #14
cliffordu Jan 2012 #23
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #15
WonderGrunion Jan 2012 #16
getdown Jan 2012 #45
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #73
CrispyQ Jan 2012 #145
struggle4progress Jan 2012 #17
ronnie624 Jan 2012 #158
struggle4progress Jan 2012 #168
ronnie624 Jan 2012 #169
struggle4progress Jan 2012 #171
ronnie624 Jan 2012 #174
joshcryer Jan 2012 #18
Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #27
joshcryer Jan 2012 #29
Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #33
tkmorris Jan 2012 #19
Lisa D Jan 2012 #20
cliffordu Jan 2012 #22
elleng Jan 2012 #24
TBF Jan 2012 #25
joshcryer Jan 2012 #31
Whisp Jan 2012 #28
ronnie624 Jan 2012 #159
eridani Jan 2012 #30
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2012 #32
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #34
joshcryer Jan 2012 #35
getdown Jan 2012 #46
joshcryer Jan 2012 #51
getdown Jan 2012 #52
joshcryer Jan 2012 #54
getdown Jan 2012 #55
Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #36
Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #41
woo me with science Jan 2012 #43
Jester Messiah Jan 2012 #167
lonestarnot Jan 2012 #37
jefferson_dem Jan 2012 #38
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #39
CrispyQ Jan 2012 #156
ronnie624 Jan 2012 #161
Autumn Jan 2012 #44
Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #48
Autumn Jan 2012 #53
getdown Jan 2012 #49
patrice Jan 2012 #56
Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #58
patrice Jan 2012 #67
Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #69
patrice Jan 2012 #71
Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #75
patrice Jan 2012 #78
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #81
patrice Jan 2012 #88
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #187
patrice Jan 2012 #97
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #188
MadHound Jan 2012 #83
patrice Jan 2012 #90
MadHound Jan 2012 #91
patrice Jan 2012 #154
patrice Jan 2012 #70
Motown_Johnny Jan 2012 #57
Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #60
patrice Jan 2012 #62
Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #66
patrice Jan 2012 #72
unkachuck Jan 2012 #68
patrice Jan 2012 #74
unkachuck Jan 2012 #79
WillyT Jan 2012 #84
indykatie1955 Jan 2012 #85
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #86
xchrom Jan 2012 #87
JI7 Jan 2012 #89
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2012 #92
Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #99
MadHound Jan 2012 #101
Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #113
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2012 #112
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #103
MadHound Jan 2012 #104
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #105
MadHound Jan 2012 #106
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #117
SidDithers Jan 2012 #111
bvar22 Jan 2012 #163
Dragonfli Jan 2012 #173
Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #118
treestar Jan 2012 #119
MadHound Jan 2012 #125
LiberalAndProud Jan 2012 #121
ProSense Jan 2012 #122
MilesColtrane Jan 2012 #124
lamp_shade Jan 2012 #126
MadHound Jan 2012 #127
joshcryer Jan 2012 #128
joshcryer Jan 2012 #130
inna Jan 2012 #152
krawhitham Jan 2012 #131
inna Jan 2012 #153
lamp_shade Jan 2012 #172
joshcryer Jan 2012 #129
MadHound Jan 2012 #182
joshcryer Jan 2012 #186
jeff47 Jan 2012 #132
onenote Jan 2012 #134
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2012 #135
Octafish Jan 2012 #137
slay Jan 2012 #180
WI_DEM Jan 2012 #141
Sheepshank Jan 2012 #150
Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #165
patrice Jan 2012 #177
Jester Messiah Jan 2012 #166
lamp_shade Jan 2012 #175
DeathToTheOil Jan 2012 #176
T S Justly Jan 2012 #178
slay Jan 2012 #179
great white snark Jan 2012 #183
ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #184
DevonRex Jan 2012 #185

Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:53 PM

1. Because O said he wouldn't use this power & the other side is worse.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:44 PM

42. So we can shred the constitution here so they won't shred it over there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:59 AM

147. And who better to shred the Constitution than a constitutional scholar?

~sigh.

I don't put it all on Obama, not at all. What we have now has been in the making since Reagan - maybe even since November of '63. I did think Obama would be a better voice & fighter for the people, but I'm willing to admit that the monster he encountered, the system with it's corruption & rot, was much bigger than he expected. By exponential amounts, likely. I'm not sure we can change it via the electoral process, which is also corrupt & compromised.

What a cesspool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #147)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:15 AM

148. Makes you wonder why any Lawmaker would think we need provisions like that

Why would Congress, Senate and the President feel they need protection from "Home Grown Terrorist"

Suspension of Medicare
Termination of Social Security Benifits
Collaspe of Monitary System

makes you wonder

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #148)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:52 AM

155. Makes you wonder why we vote for any of them.

What if they had an election & no one voted? What if we all went to DC & our state capitols instead, & made a rucus ten times what OWS has done to date?

a girl can dream

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:22 AM

116. I on't believe politicians anymore.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emilyg (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:48 AM

162. That's probably wise.

But then it's always been wise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:53 PM

2. Stay home. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:56 PM

3. Why pose the question as if you want an answer?

There is nothing anyone here can say to change your mind. That much is abundantly clear.

Why should anyone waste their time trying to "argue" with you about this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:22 PM

40. and yet........

........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:56 PM

4. Because his opponent will do somethings which are much, much worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:44 AM

144. I'm trying to imagine what that would look like.

honestly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:57 PM

5. The part about future presidents is truely frightning. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:57 PM

6. Obama isn't about to do anything like the critics complain about

The provisions have always been subject to what the courts will allow. This bill is actually positioned for a court review by the very statements of the legislators who put the provisions in the bill.

Furthermore, it's just silly to expect that republicans in the WH will follow ANY law. The bill doesn't dismantle the courts and Congress. They'll have to hold pols accountable no matter how perfect we think we've crafted the laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:19 PM

21. Why sign a bill that is "positioned for a court review"? Besides the courts have done terrible

with both Hamdi and Padilla. The courts wont save us. And it wont go to court until after it is misused. So we are saying that some poor bastard will have to be the test case like Padilla who, I believe, has been driven insane via torture.

Sadly most Democratic Senators dont give a shit about our freedoms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:36 PM

26. veto wouldn't have stopped the bill

signing it enabled him to make his signing declaration defining his view of the bill's limits and parameters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:17 PM

63. He didnt need to sign the bill to tell everyone that he wasnt going to enforce it. If his veto was

overridden he could have publicly explain his intention. But he signed it and it is law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #63)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:42 PM

77. "he could have publicly explain his intention"

Sure he could have done that, but his critics would have then said..."I don't believe him, talk is cheap"
He put that "cheap talk" down on paper and signed his name to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #77)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:34 PM

95. It's for the courts, not pr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #77)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:22 AM

115. Good grief. You are desparately trying to rationalize why he should have signed that horrible bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #115)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:35 AM

120. "Good Grief" well no, I didn't rationalize anything but stated fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #120)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:29 AM

139. Predicting what his critics would say isnt a fact.

"but his critics would have then said" He could have written it on paper and signed it in either case.

You rationalized that it was ok for him to sign that piece of garbage because it allowed him to make a signing statement. The rationalization is that the signing statement is worth signing the bill. I dont agree. Make the bill right before signing it. If Congress doesnt cooperate, then it's on their head. Besides, his signature on a signing statement is worthless. He cant be held to it.

I appreciate that he at least wrote the signing statement, but wish he would have vetoed the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #139)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:39 AM

142. I stated what his Critics HAVE said

I didn't just peer into their minds and pull that out. I've heard it and seen it.

I didn't rationalize anything about why he may or may not have signed it, only that he did. Which is fact. Also fact, in signing it, he added a signing statement stating that his administration would not use it, and questioning the provision(s) in the bill. It is left to the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:55 PM

47. Because the clause putting Sec Def in charge of detentions was replaced with an elective position

POTUS, making such decisions, which were going to get voted in anyway with a guaranteed veto-over-ride, more accountable to the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:18 PM

64. If it's a bad bill, send it back. Force Congress to override. This

is a piece of crap bill that the republicons love.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:52 PM

82. Ooo, replaced the Secretary of Defense with the President, now that just inpires confidence,

 

Obama might promise not to use this power, but what about the next 'Pug in office? Does that particular POTUS inspire such confidence? If not, then why bother handing he/she that power now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #82)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:27 PM

93. The court issues outlined in the signing statement were too arcane for me, but if

this kind of presidential power makes people more specifically critical about candidates in this regard, until the legals issues are determined, at least that much would be a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #93)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:30 PM

94. Wow, just wow,

 

I really don't know what else to say, just sad to see party interests trump the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #94)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:40 PM

98. You display your prejudice that it is party interests and not considering that someone CAN

have other motives, like humanity and freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #98)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:50 PM

102. I'm not the one displaying here, but hey, carry on. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #102)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:06 AM

108. That's pretty funny given OP. So . . . if not display, what IS your purpose? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #102)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:12 AM

109. If you are not displaying, why don't you just be quiet and not vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #102)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:15 AM

110. Is there some reason I should not "display"? Pray, tell!! I missed it. Am I not qualified

somehow?

Are my first amendment rights qualified somehow that I am not aware of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #94)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:04 AM

107. So anyone who disagrees with you is anti-Constitution? There are major social justice sources like

Mother Jones who are not characterizing this legislation in your dire terms. They're anti-Constitution too, huh?

Is The Constitution a purpose unto itself, or is it supposed to facilitate Life and Liberty? There IS such a thing as mistaking the referrent for that which it only refers to, you know. Creating false idols and killing the very thing that that-which-refers was created for in the first place. You can make a sacred cow out of anything, miss reality in the process, AND actually end up enslaving millions to events that were not even unknown unknowns to the "sacred cow".

These false dichotomies are a lie. We CAN deal with current reality AND respect The Constitution and those who say we can't very possibly don't give a rat's ass about what happens to people compared to THEIR OWN PERSONAL idolatry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #107)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:20 AM

114. Let's look at what Mother Jones has to say, shall we

 

Did Congress Just Endorse Rendition for Americans?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/did-congress-just-endorse-rendition-americans

The Defense Bill and Rendition of US Citizens
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-and-rendition-us-citizens

And frankly, most civil liberties group are, justifiably, up in arms about this.

The only idolatry I see going on here is burning the Constitution on the altar of the Democratic party. The NDAA simply codifies powers that Bush assumed for the office, and he was wisely, and roundly criticized for overstepping presidential authority. In fact Democrats screamed bloody murder. But now that a Democratic president actually signs these wrongly seized powers into law, suddenly they're OK?

No, sorry, that simply doesn't fly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #114)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 01:26 AM

123. I don't dispute the criticisms. I dispute what to do about them, as though the whole path initiated

by the authorization of military force and the ensuing 10 years of recruiting terrorists with our wars, and everyone who was involved in all of that, including the ir-responsibility of a whole lot of Americans, and the political power of those whose every action has been designed to take this President down - all of that is meaningless, ir-relevant to this legislation and everything can be fixed by taking this President down. That's what I dispute. It's just mighty odd that this is always **ALL** about PO and Congress, 10 years of Congressional corruption, gets off without the slightest mention.

It's just interesting that those who love that nearly meaningless cliche about "the lesser of two evils" never seem to have anything to say about how actively (which is a distinct possibility in this anonymous place called the internet) or passively supporting the greater of two evils will not only not solve any of the problems they putatively care so deeply about, but, much more likely than supporting the lesser of two evils, WILL result in all of those problems getting much worse and HURTING many many more people.

You make your case very suspect by ignoring all of the facts and some relatively likely consequences of your proposed course of action. Whether you credit others with authenticity or not, the fact is that at least some people are trying to take all of that into account in figuring out what to do about NDAA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #123)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:50 AM

146. Maybe it's just me but it's ironic

this sub thread is comprised of two people with peace symbols for their avatars fighting with each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #146)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:17 AM

149. A peace symbol does not mean that you forsake the struggle for truth. It does mean that you engage

without enmity. Have you seen Mad Hound and I insult one another personally?

Do you really think that peace means that you stand down when something important is at stake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #93)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:12 AM

136. Do you think most people, even those that vote, know or care what the NDAA is?

A good litmus test for policies that O signs is to ask, "What if Bush had signed this?" This board would be 99% united in outrage if that were the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #82)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:28 AM

151. Actually makes more sense to have a civillian

be in charge of any possible civillian detention rather than the military...the military mentality is a tad different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:56 PM

50. Because more people will know more about the WHOLE thing because of court review. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:20 PM

65. I am sorry but no. How many people know where the courts stand on Hamdi and Padilla?

Make the bill good from the start. Dont pass a piece of crap (that the republicons love) and then hope the courts will fix it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #65)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:38 PM

76. You're making perfect the enemy of better. Increasing awareness is a good thing, especially

when it comes to who wrote the detention language the way they did and why they might have done that, McCain, Lieberman, and Levine.

Now THAT'S something Americans NEEED to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:49 PM

80. Did you read what you wrote? Seriously?

 

Do I really need to go into chapter and verse about what the courts allow? Heck, floating around GD right now is the latest court outrage, permitting the secret installation and monitoring of GPS on a private vehicle. If you put your faith in the court system you are incredibly naive.

Not to mention that by your logic we should just stop trying to follow the Constitution, since it's going to be scrapped anyway. Why bother with such trivialities when the other side doesn't, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #80)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:35 PM

96. Ilove the way you say you want a civil discussion and you lead your response with ridicule

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:50 AM - Edit history (1)

game over

It was a mistake to take you off of ignore. I don't know what you're trying to prove by bullying folks here with your drivel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #96)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:47 PM

100. I love the way you try to slip out of questions and criticism by creating strawmen

 

And then knocking them down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:58 PM

7. So whats your plan?

You have decided you cannot vote for Obama... What do you do now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:58 PM

8. So don't vote for him, then.

 

Do you need help with anything else? I'll be around for a few minutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dewey Finn (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:11 PM

59. You won the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:00 PM

9. So I guess, according to you, the RepubliCONs are better?

Are they? Will you then vote RepublCON, or stay home, thereby letting the RepubliCONs win?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:14 PM

61. I think the OP is showing the frustration some have with a president

that seems to be accepting or worse codifying many of the intrusions into our freedoms carried out by the previous administration. I realize that that frustration is futile, and that's why we have Occupy. But your argument, that he is better than the alternative is shallow and childish. You seem delighted that we have only one choice. Personally I am suspicious when we have only one choice. I smell manipulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:18 AM

133. How is it shallow and childish?

Though I am not delighted in my choices in most elections, often times I have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Personally, I find it pragmatic and realistic, not, as you say, shallow and childish. Let's live in this universe, assess our choices, and pick the best, or least worst one.
This is not so in primaries. In the primaries, I vote with my heart. In '08 I voted for, who, in my heart of hearts, was the best candidate. That was Dennis Kucinich. In the general, I voted for Obama, because he was the better choice over McCain. I didn't like either of them, but I had to vote for one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #133)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:20 AM

138. Bad selection of words. I am showing my frustrations.

Having people continually point out that I have no choice makes me wonder of their motives. I know there is no choice. But I am very skeptical. I believe that is a good trait and typical of a Democrat. When I am left with only one choice I suspect manipulation. And I dont like to be bullied. When people say "If you dont vote for Obama then it will be your fault if we have republicon rule."

I just wish that the Pres recognized that we need a complete turn-around, not just minor changes. I know that he has to fight uphill but I am skeptical when he surrounds himself with conservatives.

I am one of the many on the left that are counting on him making a hard left when he wins reelection. If not, we will just have to wait for the revolution. I am not looking forward to it, it will be a disaster, but I see no other course. Power is addictive and those in power wont give it up w/o a fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:40 AM

160. When someone smugly and arrogantly tells me I have no other choice,

...I become DANGEROUS.
People generally don't try that with me more than once.

There is ALWAYS another choice.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #160)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:09 PM

164. Yes sir there is always another choice.

I wonder of the motives of those that arrogantly try to tell us that there is only one choice. It certainly isnt to unify the party. It sounds very much like bullying to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:29 AM

140. That's bullshit & you know it.

No one on this site is advocating voting repub. Our frustration stems from the fact that the repubs terrify us & the dems scare us more every year.

When we continue to vote for repub-lite 'dems', we not only end up with more of the same, the party continues to swing to the right. The dem party has taken the easy, (& lucrative!) way out -- "Oh, we'll just swing to the right like the rest of the country & our supporters will go with us because the alternative is so much worse."

And where are we now? With a democratic party that more closely resembles the republican party of the 1950s. That's not progress! And if we keep voting this way, where is our party going to be in 30 years? At what point do we stand for something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #140)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:23 AM

157. We do something by

Changing the Party from within. It took quite a while for us to do it here in Ulster County, in NY. I have been here since the early 80s, and finally, we have a decent Democratic Party.
If you want change, you have to work for it. The best way to work for it is to change it from within.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #157)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:39 PM

181. Umm, nice thought and all that,

 

Been there, tried that, more than once. Sorry, but it doesn't work, not on a national scale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:01 PM

10. reminds me of one of the supposed rationales for the '09 attack on Gaza:

Qadima started the war to keep Likud from gaining power and starting a war

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:02 PM

11. Then don't do those things.

Wasn't that simple?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 01:22 PM

170. Cute, but no--it isn't that simple

Avoid getting labeled as a terrorist? Simple you say? What a wonderfully refreshing sense of naivete! What if the definition of "terrorist" were to change? What if it changes drastically? What if you found that the definition had changed so as to include people who criticize the Republican Party. Do you think it impossible that such a thing could happen?

When Obama was elected, did you think it possible that he would ever sign a law that sought to reduce your 5th amendment rights? I sure as hell didn't, and yet here we are.

And much more broadly, what gives Congress the right to craft a law that counters at least two sections of the bill of rights? Don't you have to pass a Constitutional amendment for this type of change?

Your cute little answer ain't so cute after all...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:03 PM

12. He's the lesser of 2 evils.

That's the only reason. If we don't vote for Obama, we'll surely end up with something even worse. No real choice.

You want more choice, real choice. You might want a government that is responsive to the needs and rights of the population.

Sorry the hard truth is that no longer exists. Obama supports unlimited government power to detain but promises not to use it. That might be the best we can get.

It's hard for us to accept because for a while there in the 20th Century we seemed to have a real popular democracy and real rights, and people took it for granted a little bit, and they got scared because of terror, and now what we had is gone.

We still have more freedom than if we lived in China or Cuba or Iran. So that's something I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:42 AM

143. This is a hard pill to swallow:

You want more choice, real choice. You might want a government that is responsive to the needs and rights of the population.

Sorry the hard truth is that no longer exists. Obama supports unlimited government power to detain but promises not to use it. That might be the best we can get.

It's hard for us to accept because for a while there in the 20th Century we seemed to have a real popular democracy and real rights, and people took it for granted a little bit, and they got scared because of terror, and now what we had is gone.


While I would say that it was more than just terror that got us here, you are right about losing what we had & that is where so much of the frustration on this board comes from. While part of me says I must be pragmatic, another part asks how that will work to bring back the kind of system I want?

In 2012 I will either vote for O or write in someone I really believe in. I suspect I won't know until the moment my ballot is in front of me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:03 PM

13. Are you really looking for a response with a reason you might consider? Or just trying to win

others over to your viewpoint?

If your vote is too precious to do what it takes to keep a Republican out of the White House, then don't vote.

See? Easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:08 PM

14. why should we care about the particular unfactual hyperbole of a particular anonymous poster?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:23 PM

23. I talk to you, don't I????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:08 PM

15. It appears that no one can give you a good answer. Criticism, yes. A good answer, no.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:10 PM

16. The signing statement makes it impossible for American citizens to be held indefinitely

Of course the next Republican president could always ignore that signing statement. Your duty as a citizen who respects civil rights is to now do everything in your power to insure no Republican is ever elected president again. Anything less by you means that YOU are trampling on the rights of your fellow citizens. That is why you should endorse, vote for, phone bank and endorse for every democrat that runs for president from this day forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:51 PM

45. couldn't a Democrat ignore it too?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:31 PM

73. It does no such thing. Obama himself is under no obligation to hold to it.

I also have to add that yours is the most cynical post I have ever seen. You have essentially twisted an assault on our rights passed by a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President into a gun with a stick with a carrot at the end.

Vote for us and we won't dissappear you but we have assured the power so that should a TeaPubliKlan be President EVER again, there is more power for the wicked villians to abuse with impunity.

That is insane on the face, you can't remember back to 2000???

I'm hoping this is the thought process of a lone hyper-partisan. I had never thought of such a deep treason, I can only hope others with power didn't share your Machiavellian mentality but considering the loose principles, triangulation, and general whoring for dollar$, it cannot be utterly ruled out.
Afterall, who in any good conscience could shovel this shit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:47 AM

145. To insert the sarcasm tag,

type the word sarcasm between two colons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:13 PM

17. Insofar as you seem to be complaining of a bill that contained waffle-language, to the effect

that the bill did not change existing law regarding detention of US citizens, perhaps it is really your responsibility to show us exactly where the dividing lines in the federal judiciary currently lie, on the topic of detention of US citizens

To my view, that waffle-language merely means the courts may not appeal to this bill, when deciding issues of detention of US citizens -- and that, in turn, signifies to me the importance of appropriate judicial appointments -- which further underscores the necessity of obtaining the most favorable Senate actually possible in practice and the most favorable President actually possible in practice

So I cannot understand your actual point of view, which seems incoherent to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:31 AM

158. What do you mean by "waffle-language"?

It's my understanding that the legislation passed in 2001 (Authorization for Use of Military Force) applied strictly to those responsible for 9/11, although both Bush and Obama interpreted the areas about detention and such over-broadly, and that their interpretation was, technically at least, susceptible to a legal challenge. The NDAA on the other hand, specifically codifies into statute, The indefinite detention of anyone who offers "substantial support" to anyone whom the U.S. regards as its enemy in the "war on terror".

So no, the NDAA does not change existing law, but it most certainly supplements it considerably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #158)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:46 PM

168. As passed, HR 1540 (the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012," signed

by POTUS December 31, 2011) contains a section 1021 (renumbered from earlier versions) AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE in which you will find the following subsection:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #168)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 01:14 PM

169. Whom does the legislation recognize as a "covered person"?

Could you post the relevant sections regarding indefinite detention? I cant right now. I'm certain the 2001 legislation targets only those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 terrorists.

If you don't wish to post the information, I don't mind. I intend to look it up after work tonight, anyway. I would never depend on others to provide me with info.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #169)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 01:27 PM

171. That's defined in 1021(b)

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

But there is a long history of court decisions regarding detention of US citizens, and other persons on US soil, which cannot be swept away by a simple act of Congress, as recognized by 1021(e)

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #171)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 01:51 PM

174. That is as I remember it.

There is a lot of vague language that technically and clearly expands the legal scope of what is permissible with regard to indefinite detention, and it clearly includes U.S. citizens.

The upholding of the Fourth Amendment and due process also has a long history in American jurisprudence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:15 PM

18. You shouldn't do anything you don't want to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:37 PM

27. Posting in detail about what he doesn't want to do

 

is apparently necessary, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dewey Finn (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:38 PM

29. I'm perfectly fine with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:44 PM

33. Oh, me too.

 

But I hope this sort of thing inspires a lot of dissertations in advanced new media studies at institutes of higher learning worldwide. Someday maybe science will be able to explain its origins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:15 PM

19. I can't really speak for you. As for me...

I know that no matter how angry I get with some things he does (and I really, really do. Often) come November a President will get elected whether I participate or not. Furthermore I know that President will either be Obama or whoever is left standing in the Insane Clown Posse US Tour that is occurring right now. I'd like a better option to be sure, but I cannot imagine one will be available.

Besides, if we REALLY want to move the nation Left, we need to elect a far more Liberal Congress than the one we have now. I will be doing everything I can to make that happen, including being in an election booth in November, so I may as well cast my vote for President as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:18 PM

20. You don't have to do anything.

There--problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:22 PM

22. Let your conscience be your guide.

That is all any of us can do, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:27 PM

24. WHY?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:34 PM

25. Anybody is more than one decision.

And, frankly, we are dealing with a 2-party system here and don't have much choice.

Personally I don't think voting changes much anyway. We can have more impact at grass roots level with organizing (OWS) and other educating, agitating, and resistance. True that this legislation makes it harder for us to do just that, but I think we have to consider all factors and realize what happens if we sit it out and let this country go completely to hell. Some may be willing to do that - I've decided too many would be hurt in the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:40 PM

31. I think there's still a functional difference between parties, but that doesn't merit...

...my telling other people what they should or should not do, I can maybe influence their decision making process, but typically I've found that people already have made their minds up before joining internet forums.

The lesser of two evils paradigm is still instructive, but again, if you don't want to do something for whatever reason, don't do it. That includes doing good things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:38 PM

28. don't.

 

he doesn't need your kind of support anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:38 AM

159. The only kind of support he needs from the poster is a vote.

People need a reason to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:39 PM

30. Because with a Republican, you get the same decision plus a lot of crap that is far worse

If you wanted a progressive populist for president in 2008, you should have started working on it in 1976.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:43 PM

32. Answer:

Don't.

OK, we done here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:49 PM

34. Please note: no one is seriously arguing with you. They're going limp.

They're playing dead, telling you things such as "well then don't vote". Then some moron tells you that you must be in support of Republicans if you don't like Obama. What they're not doing is offering any direct answer to your question whatsoever. They cannot. Obama has done what we wanted to impeach Bush for, and there are many here who will defend him no matter what he does.

Thanks for pointing out a truth at a time when truth isn't a popular currency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:54 PM

35. The question did not ask for argument. If asked "what convincing reasons might I have to vote?"...

...I might be more amiable to respond argumentatively. The question was whether or not they should do something they didn't want to do based on their own perceptions.

It is and continues to be a highly privileged view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:54 PM

46. that makes no sense

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:56 PM

51. Feel free to substantiate why you do not believe it makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:56 PM

52. too squirrelly

 

to bother

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getdown (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:58 PM

54. K, I'll consider it unsubstantiated, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #54)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:01 PM

55. carry on

 

with your confusion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:13 PM

36. Yep. nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:27 PM

41. That seems to be the norm around here recently!

Hmmmm... makes you wonder!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:45 PM

43. +100000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:40 PM

167. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.

Or perhaps I don't agree with your characterization. You can call it "going limp", but I think a better summation would be "yes, we've heard this before and we're not interested in treading the same old tired ground that we've been over a thousand times. Vote or don't, we no longer care."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:18 PM

37. Do you like pancakes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:21 PM

38. Whatevs...

Concern-of-the-day posts are so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:22 PM

39. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone,

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:57 AM

156. Outstanding sig line!!

It's going in my quotes file.

Love Adams & Jefferson, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:45 AM

161. Our founders had many faults,

but they spoke universal truths with great eloquence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:49 PM

44. There are thousands of reasons to vote for him.

Every word that comes out of the mouths of these ape shit flinging low life sub human batshit crazy mother fuckers running against him is a reason to vote for him. These bastards are all fucking crazy. They are dangerous. You don't have to like him, you don't have to support him, I"m not going to criticize any one who is disappointed or doesn't like what he has done. That is your right to feel that way and I can respect that. But consider the alternative. Those fuckers are deadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:55 PM

48. It is a shitty position to be in as a voter who cares about the Constitution, but...

...there we are..

I have no idea what the hell exactly is going to happen in 2016 (presuming he wins in 2012) because presumably the same shitty law will be around.

A little ember of tyranny just waiting to tempt another, and another...

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:58 PM

53. Very true. We have gone down the rabbit hole.

I don't like it, it scares the hell out of me but...

...there we are..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:55 PM

49. because we've been reduced even further to pretending that our votes count.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:04 PM

56. Because LIFE is about degrees of "the lesser of two evils", that is, unless you support genocide

of the opposition.

The REAL questions are about the terms of our deals with one another. Anyone who pretends otherwise is useless or outright of an oppressor of one type or another. It is NOT necessary to forsake one's values/principles to make those deals; in fact, it CAN make them stronger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #56)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:09 PM

58. Exactly. Which is why the President should have chosen the lesser of two evils and VETOED it. nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:26 PM

67. That is an absolutist and, hence, oppressive position.Whose evils? How much greater or lesser? When?

It was veto proof. He got the changes he could get and then did the courageous thing and is taking the political hit from people who very likely NEVER really supported anything he has ever done anyway.

Would you have preferred that money to bring troops home from Iraq be delayed?

Would you have preferred that money to supply troops in Afghanistan, who just recently lost NATO supplies & logistics, be delayed?

What are your plans for the military families and veterans' services that would have had their paychecks delayed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:28 PM

69. You mean absolutist like...a recess appointment?



You're going to throw out your back contorting like that.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #69)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:29 PM

71. Deflection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #71)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:35 PM

75. Deflection- such as turning my distaste for an unconstituional law into an issue about veterans...

...families?



What are your plans for the military families and veterans' services that would have had their paychecks delayed?


Priceless, Patrice! Priceless.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #75)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:42 PM

78. Not nearly the deflection of trying to turn it to Recess Appointment. BTW, NDAA = FUNDING, so

it's actually deflection to say that funding is deflection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:51 PM

81. The answers to your questions is absolutely. Would I rather there be a delay in military spending

than give up our most fundemental civil liberties? And to do so with nothing more than a whimper???

I'll take it further, I'd permently kill those allocation rather than suffer this destruction of our rights.

Talking about an oppressive position, blackmailing fucking due process for money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #81)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:12 PM

88. That's your right, but it's not your right to REQUIRE that of others. If you have a right to

choose, so do they and theirs is as worthy of protection as yours is.

Your assumptions about the meaning of this legislation and how these issues will play themselves out in the future are not THE sole arbiter of those truths. What freedom is there in always and forever making these questions up to The Constitution, instead of people actively addressing what is actually happening and figuring it out from that? This seems similar to me to how people have killed The Bible by making a false idol out of it instead of engaging a living event known as truth. If we expect people to be Americans, we must call upon them to freely make those living determinations for themselves every day. I know that's a high standard, but if we never commit to it, it will never happen.

Freedom cannot be codified in any document. It's the displacement of responsibility for that authority that oppresses us, no matter how sacred The Constitution is held.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #88)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 08:32 AM

187. Without the rule of law, there is no framework available for deciding for ourselves save strength of

arms our fate is then decided by the powerful, wealth, and the well placed.

You are seriously arguing against codification of legal protections as freedom limiting? How will we "decide for our selves" from a black site gulag or an unmarked grave?

Social Darwinisim isn't freedom, Patrice. We have yet to achieve rule of law, much less evolved beyond it. If not rule of law then it rule of might.

Only by not having rights can we be free to set our own individual course with the rising of the sun???? What in the world are you talking about, explain what you mean in practical application because it sounds impossible and highly optimistic and dismissive of the realities of power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #81)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:38 PM

97. But then perhaps I'm making a mistake in thinking your concern is freedom and not a

specific kind of country that certain people think is absolutely defined in The Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #97)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 08:36 AM

188. There is no freedom in being permently detained without charge, much less trial.

There is no freedom for the dead or disappeared?

What kind of freedom are you discussing? How are those choices unmade save by arms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:54 PM

83. Cool, let's defund the war, now,

 

And bring the troops home. Seems like the only way to stop our imperial excursions anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #83)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:16 PM

90. Yeah, just fuck the people we fucked-over with our little mistake, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #90)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:22 PM

91. Which fucked over people are you talking about?

 

Our soldiers, or the innocents they continue to kill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #91)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:32 AM

154. Apples & oranges. Both of course and with special focus on the SHIA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:28 PM

70. Everyone repeats that "lesser of two evils" line like there is great unquestionable wisdom in it.

That's a SURE sign of oppression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:07 PM

57. This gives the ACLU a chance to fight it while it won't be used

because he did issue a signing statement saying as much.


In the long run this is the best possible outcome. It can be fought in the courts without it being used and becoming "established law".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:11 PM

60. I don't believe any court will hear the case until someone is victimized by it.

And then and only then can the the person who has been victimized bring the case or, rarely, someone on their behalf.

Given the nature of the law, it may even preclude such redress entirely.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:15 PM

62. Because reducing voter turnout can be harmful to other voters' personal issues & to America.

However imperfect any or all choices are, disengagement displaces personal responsibility for citizenship that strives not just in election years but always, and in ALL WAYS, to do the best one can for one's self and for others no matter the circumstances and, thus, to EARN the right to challenge *A*N*Y* and all others, especially candidates and elected persons, to do the same.

If this is not our agreement amongst ourselves, then there is nothing here to call a nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #62)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:23 PM

66. Again, agreed! Which is why I was surprised to see so many telling the OP NOT to vote for Obama!

I mean...WTF?! How about at least argue why they think the President made the right call on this.

Very weird. And sad.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #66)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:30 PM

72. Agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:27 PM

68. "...why should I support or vote for somebody, anybody, who signs this kind of legislation?"

 

....good question....as of now, Obama's made it impossible for me to support him....

....blind obedience to the Democratic Party has condemned Progressives to bad choices and failure....for me, upholding the Bill of Rights and civil liberties, trumps Party loyalty....

....but we shall see....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unkachuck (Reply #68)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:31 PM

74. You ASSUME "blind", without finding out. Why do you do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #74)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:43 PM

79. I'm not sure what you're asking....

 

....but that's my story and I'm sticking to it....it's not my fault Obama signed this horrible piece of legislation....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:56 PM

84. Your Protest Could Make You An Actual American...

And I love ya for it.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:59 PM

85. Then Don't Vote For Him- Stay Home or Vote for Someone Else

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:06 PM

86. Be nice to at least be able to throw out a signing statement, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:09 PM

87. Legislation like this - others that happened under Bush -

Is what you get in post democracy America.

What I don't get is the hysteria that justifies it in any way.

Had Bush signed it - you couldn't hear for the garbled outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:15 PM

89. if you don't want to you shouldn't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #89)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:27 PM

92. I'd be shocked if OP ever voted for Obama

Why start now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #92)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:47 PM

99. You mean they're a troll pretending to have voted for him?

Do you have any evidence of that?

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #99)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:49 PM

101. Can't you see the evidence? It's right there in the OP

 

The poster dared to be critical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #101)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:18 AM

113. I suppose either "You're pleased with Obama's performance" or "You're a Republican dupe."

That seems to be the meme here and it's not just at play in this thread. See, on the old DU, you posted just as openly about your disappointment in corporatist Democrats- even as you defended Obama from the scathing attacks from Clinton supporters during the primaries you were still open about not liking his policies or (at the time) where he was heading with cabinet appointments, etc..

Nine years almost 30,000 posts of being pretty open about your opinions and in all that time the moderators and administrators never decided that you were a troll.

Only to be smeared here, tonight. And by a person who was with you in some of those threads defending Obama.

Oh well. I suppose it's too fucking much to ask to Google a fellow DUer before attempting to shit all over them here because they don't toe the line.

I might not have always agreed with you MadHound, but I respect you, FWIW. You've been consistent in your opinions for the last 9+ years, across 3 different incarnations of DU. Again, you didn't pull any punches then and you don't now and in all that time the Administrators and Moderators, felt your contributions enriched the site.

They were right, BTW- at least in my opinion.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #99)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:16 AM

112. Watta ya mean, troll?

We're a big tent here.

Now, some of us pretend that "daring to be critical" is some kind of heroic act or something, but generally speaking, even bitterly disappointed Hillary fanatics and weirdo pseudo-progressives are accepted here. Believe it, you better. We're a friendly bunch that way.

But when people who obviously and bitterly hate the President pretend to come on here asking why they should vote for him, nobody should be surprised by a proliferation of eye-rolling responses. People make their own bed, as it were.

But we then, of course, get the embarrassingly melodramatic and self-congratulating claims that some nefarious forces are trying to silence courageous critics, or some such, where anyone with a lick of sense gets that it's mostly the case of people laughing at what they perceive as terminal stupidity. Of course, it's merely a perception. I'm sure even those who puff themselves up as brave critics or whatever have some point, however elusive. Big tent and all, yeah?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:51 PM

103. Oh, YAY, it's Wedge Issue Wednesday!

You guys should come up with a jingle!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #103)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:52 PM

104. Ah yes, that pesky Constitution, such a wedge issue.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #104)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:58 PM

105. The President was damned if he did and double damned if he didn't

So he went with damned. Check me off on your Obamabot bingo card! On Wedge Issue Wednesdays, you get a free oven mitt!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #105)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:01 AM

106. It is we who are truly double damned,

 

As the Constitution is continually sacrificed on the altar of party politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #106)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:23 AM

117. You understand this has been in play since the AUMF was passed, right? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:15 AM

111. Why do you need us to care about your not voting for Obama?...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #111)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:52 AM

163. Will YOU be voting FOR Obama in the coming election?

I don't think so.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #163)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 01:36 PM

173. He would love to, but all he has is Harper, being a Conservative neo-liberal in Canada and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:35 AM

119. Please do a lot more reading and research about "this"

before jumping on the condemnation bandwagon. Your prejudices are showing. You choose to believe he worst, and won't look into the matter further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #119)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:09 AM

125. Oh, I have,

 

And I find nothing good about it. What prejudices of mine are showing, by the by?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 01:16 AM

121. I think that

you don't have a better alternative. And I hope it hasn't escaped your attention that the bill was authored in Congress and passed by the Senate before it reached Obama's desk. My point is, there have been many hands in the shredding of the constitution, beginning with George Bush and continuing onto now.

There is no doubt that our government does not respect the liberty and lives of citizens deemed subversive*. The only travesty here is that it has been codified. Perhaps the constitution can one day be resurrected. It will depend on our Justices. And so we will begin the long road forward.

* "He is extremely eloquent...therefore extremely dangerous" - FBI memo on John Trudell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 01:18 AM

122. Well,

..you'd have found a reason to vote against FDR.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100285511

In this case, you're conflating Obama's and Bush's actions to justify not voting.

Do what you like. Your vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:16 AM

124. Well, looks like your options are vote for someone who has no chance of winning, or...

stay home and watch the Maurey Show.

I hear the first part of November will be "I'm Not That Baby's Daddy, And I Can Prove It" week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:11 AM

126. 38 recs. A little short of what I would have anticipated. Anybody else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lamp_shade (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:12 AM

127. Do recs somehow contribute to the validity or worth of a post?

 

I find it amusing that so much stock is set on recs around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #127)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:16 AM

128. I agree, some of those recs are clearly detractors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lamp_shade (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:21 AM

130. Some of those recs are people who disagree but appear to rec for other reasons.

So it's less than it appears at first glance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #130)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:30 AM

152. i think your claim is unfounded

(and, in fact, slightly amusing!)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lamp_shade (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:52 AM

131. Where is unrec when you need it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lamp_shade (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:31 AM

153. i just became #51. ask, and you shall receive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inna (Reply #153)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 01:32 PM

172. Hey... thanks.

:grin:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:20 AM

129. The lesser of two evils argument seems to apply to you the most.

For a lot of people it's not a "lesser of two evils" argument, particularly the poor, downtrodden, minorities, the afflicted. There are actually issues that are more important to them than, yes, things like indefinite detention, or much worse, targeted killing. Being encouraged that the whole indefinite detention thing wouldn't be enforced, they'd feel even less inclined to care about it.

So, if you believe that this issue you have brought up would apply to you in the future, from a purely issues standpoint, I would indeed encourage you to contemplate very hard the vote, as if it does affect you, the choice would be quite clear.

I know that I myself, during my activist years, could've been detained under this law, and I would have been hard pressed to vote for it at that point in time, had it existed then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #129)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:44 PM

182. Actually, the poor, downtrodden, minorities, the afflicted

 

Are the ones who recognize the futility of the lesser of two evils the most. That is why they are the largest components of the largest group of voters out there, the apathetic voters. Their reasoning is why bother, they're going to get screwed either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #182)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:34 PM

186. That's due to voter suppression. In the end the Democrats get their vote...

...more than the privileged vote. The privileged vote for the Republicans almost across the board. This is particularly apparent in the white male vote which trends toward Republicans overwhelmingly (Obama couldn't even muster half of the male vote in the 2008 elections).

Meanwhile you completely neglect the millions of American's who can't vote because of discrimination based on citizenship status, underscoring that this view of "non-voting" citizens is itself privileged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:01 AM

132. You should probably read that constitution you're defending

First, there's no special protection for US Citizens. Due process rights apply to everyone in US custody regardless of citizenship.

Second, Congress can pass whatever laws it feels like. Doesn't make them constitutional.

When Congress blocked Obama's attempt to try Gitmo prisoners, they blocked the only legal remedy to the "Gitmo problem". So this law is Congress's way of saying "the status quo is OK with us". But that doesn't make the status quo legal, nor does it override the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:19 AM

134. It depends on why you're voting

If you don't actually care who gets elected and you're only voting to make a point, then vote (or write in) the name of a candidate that expressly states his opposition to the NDAA.

If you're voting to influence who gets elected president, and both major party candidates support NDAA, that issue is cancelled out and you should decide who gets your support based on their positions on the issues that divide them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:21 AM

135. It's partisan rivalry

Most of it. My guy vs. your guy. That is the thing that makes me sick and worried. How some would easily accept that which they condemned in another only because it's their team who has the ball. Scary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:20 AM

137. You ask a good question, at the heart of what's wrong with the Democratic Party.

We're being conditioned to accept right-wing values as our own, specifically the power of the state over the individual.

Going by what he said when a candidate, I expected a hell of a lot more out of Obama. I didn't expect him to be going along with Bush Justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #137)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:33 PM

180. +1

 

indeed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:31 AM

141. don't--vote for Romney or vote for someone on the left who has no chance of winning

and will help elect a republican. I don't care! just vote the way you want to vote and don't moan about it on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:25 AM

150. Stay the fuck home

and eat some cheese.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:18 PM

165. K&R

It's frightening to read about how many Dems are fine with this Bill. Blind faith in a politician is dangerous, regardless of Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wind Dancer (Reply #165)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 03:06 PM

177. Mischaracterizations such as "fine with this bill" do nothing for any case. In fact, it is possible

to see mischaracterizations as legitimate support for discounting a point of view that either:

- doesn't recognize/know/understand its own counter-points, or
- doesn't care, or
- intends damage to the discourse.

Mischaracterizations are of the Oppressor.

Honest proactive questions liberate one's self and others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:37 PM

166. Who is forcing you to do so?

There will be at least one other candidate running as well. If that person is more in line with your conscience, vote for them. Or stay home. Read a good book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 02:46 PM

175. Come on folks. 12 more recs needed. There's money in it for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 03:00 PM

176. Takin' those marbles and goin' home, eh?

 

Get real already!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:17 PM

178. K&R (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:31 PM

179. Good question

 

i do not have a appropriate answer for you. ideally you wouldn't vote for someone like that. but then you look at the batshit crazy republicans and that is surely no option. this is why i say the system is broken - it's Obama or a republican so we are stuck in a bad spot. in the end you should do what you think is right. i have not decided yet if i will vote for Obama or write in Bernie Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:20 PM

183. Whatever you decide please let us know in the same dramatic fashion.

That is, if you were ever undecided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:23 PM

184. Let's see how mighty thin the lesser of two evils argument is under President Santorum.

NGU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:25 PM

185. So don't. I'm done with trying to change minds on DU. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread