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
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Just because we were against it when Bush did it, does NOT mean we are hypocrites now [View all]socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)80. ...therefore it is legal."....
Slavery was legal too. As were Jim Crow laws, as was the imperialist war in SE Asia, as was any number of things that I've protested against along with a lot of other people. And those laws don't get changed by legislators alone. In fact, if we relied on legislators alone to change things, things would NEVER GET CHANGED. They're comfortable with the way things are, it got them their cushy jobs lording it over everybody else. Things only get changed when you make the legislators UNcomfortable.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
104 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
Just because we were against it when Bush did it, does NOT mean we are hypocrites now [View all]
graham4anything
Dec 2012
OP
exact reason we have continued wars..drones..corporate whoring. dumbest thing I've read on du
xiamiam
Dec 2012
#94
One of my SILs is Italian, and every Xmas she makes two things that I love:
R. Daneel Olivaw
Dec 2012
#26
Franken games the system. When 60 is needed, he votes as should. When it's not he votes his way
graham4anything
Dec 2012
#17
Some of the strangest, most disjointed shit I've ever read. Regularly.
cherokeeprogressive
Dec 2012
#29
That is exactly what it means. It doesn't mean that two people are the same person.
TheKentuckian
Dec 2012
#18
And it may be a bit of a mystery to those who don't know anything about moral relativism, let
patrice
Dec 2012
#50
Perhaps one's 'moral center' can be flexible enough to allow for a certain amount of relativism.
ronnie624
Dec 2012
#75
Honest inquiry here: How do we write perfect laws for everything that needs to be done, so that no
patrice
Dec 2012
#21
If the rabid mob got everything they wanted, they would burn each other down after that
graham4anything
Dec 2012
#23
Do you like Liz Warren? Gay Marriage? 2 liberal women on the US Supreme Court?
graham4anything
Dec 2012
#44
Hahahahahaha!!!!! If the "good President" is doing the same thing that the "evil President" did...
Luminous Animal
Dec 2012
#34
Nope. I'm on the correct forum. I've read your posts and I'm wondering exactly
BlueCaliDem
Dec 2012
#97
Here's a little emo of my own, though not so prog 'cause I just never have been part of the IN crowd
patrice
Dec 2012
#51
The vast majority of congress just voted for the 3rd time to reaffirm the patriot act
graham4anything
Dec 2012
#66
Took both parties to get the 13th amendment, then 100 years to get the Civil rights acts...then
graham4anything
Dec 2012
#96
I have always been, and will always be here, all week...be sure to tip your waitress
DisgustipatedinCA
Dec 2012
#83
When Obama kills people with drones it doesn't hurt as much as when Bush kills people with driones,
Tierra_y_Libertad
Dec 2012
#93
Yes, it does. "BULLSHIT"...You should've stopped there, because it sums up your OP rather succinctly
Bad_Ronald
Dec 2012
#99
No, if a policy was wrong when Bush instituted it, it's still wrong if Obama continues it
Lydia Leftcoast
Dec 2012
#100
If we're talking about Presidential powers, you should always assume a bad President
Recursion
Dec 2012
#101