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

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
326. The collapse of the US is due to the fact that during the 1970s,
Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:06 PM
Dec 2011

as oil prices began to rise, legislation was passed that eventually encouraged many Americans to invest their life savings, their retirement savings month by month in pension funds and 401(K)s that were placed in the stock market.

During the 1980s, our Congress contemplated "free trade" and opening our markets to foreign manufactured products.

In that "free trade" environment (which increased in scope over the past 30 years), instead of investing the pension funds of Americans in American-based businesses and industries, Wall Street, seeking higher short-term profits by using cheap labor, rushed to fund the building of industry and prosperity in countries like India, Singapore, China, etc.

So, now, Americans import most of their consumer goods. The excess of imports and the comparative lack of exports has lead to a chronic balance of payments problem.

We hardly make any consumer goods at all. Not only does that mean that we are left with an economy of jobs that are either extremely poorly paid or extremely well paid with few jobs in between, but we have to borrow money in order to sustain the infrastructure and lifestyle to which we have been accustomed for decades.

It is politically nearly impossible to tell the American people the truth about our perilous economic situation. None of our politicians have dared to deal with this honestly. And if they did, they probably could not be elected.

On top of our trade and deficit problems, on top of the fact that our standard of living is declining, our currency is the currency in which oil and a lot of other commodities are traded. So what happens to commodity prices affects us even more than it does people in other countries. Right now, commodities are expensive (although not more expensive than they have been at times in the recent past) so we still feel that we are not doing too badly. But this will not last.

Wall Street has made a lot of bad choices. They blame the problems they almost single-handedly caused on ordinary, middle-class Americans. They lie. Ordinary, middle-class Americans did not make the important choices. Wall Street did. Wall Street and wealthy investors. And they have increased their profits in recent years as the rest of the country's belts have been pulled ever tighter.

How the world will respond? It may be that each country will try to look out for itself. We will have trade war, hopefully not worse, and everyone will suffer. Countries will compete to impose austerity in order to prevent their citizens from having the money to purchase foreign-made products.

We need just one politician who can speak the harsh truth to Americans: Wall Street squandered our future.

As for Wall Street: if a bunch of Wall Street traders want to go into a back room and gamble, say play poker, with their own personal fortunes that they earned from honest work, then that's nobody's business.

But they took the pension funds and savings of Americans, and they use money from the Fed, money that is printed in the name of the American people, so they should conduct their business in the open, with transparency. Above all, they should follow the rules that are established by Congress and those rules should protect ordinary people, our American infrastructure and our American industry.

Don't worry, every other country will do the same thing. Free trade has not worked. I am for capitalism, but I do not support the kind of socially irresponsible capitalism that is now destroying our economy and the future of our children. Anything too big to fail should be made small enough to fail or succeed on its own merits.

Well on the record, I am not one of those! n/t teddy51 Dec 2011 #1
Me, neither. n/t Zalatix Dec 2011 #64
Nor am I RoccoR5955 Dec 2011 #153
I would only add that he failed to close the Pandora's boxES that Bush opened. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #344
One of my biggest objections with President Obama. Jake2413 Dec 2011 #205
I was blown away when Bush was president and sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #2
History always repeats. hobbit709 Dec 2011 #12
You don't have to give up your rights bhikkhu Dec 2011 #18
I've always been a firm adherent of Franklin's comment. hobbit709 Dec 2011 #27
History repeats Pharaoh Dec 2011 #240
It is Fascism. Go OWS! dotymed Dec 2011 #156
I'll be there with you. Something has to be done to stop this and it's clear now sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #345
many Americans were perfectly willing to throw away the freedoms AlbertCat Dec 2011 #239
we have become an echo chamber. nt awoke_in_2003 Dec 2011 #298
I'm fine with bigtree Dec 2011 #3
What about policy, tactics, and actions? PufPuf23 Dec 2011 #139
I used to really enjoy your posts Marrah_G Dec 2011 #409
What's ProSense Dec 2011 #4
In what way is that hyperbole? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #7
You ProSense Dec 2011 #11
And the fact that American citizens are exempt from indefinite detention without trial. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #15
It's really weird that you call yourself "Far Left Fist" when you spend most of the time Ken Burch Dec 2011 #63
There's really nothing more Left than the truth. Which is all I'm speaking. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #97
No, actually Ken Burch is correct. DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2011 #378
+1 nashville_brook Dec 2011 #191
That has always been SOP at DU for the 10 years I have been here. bvar22 Dec 2011 #206
especially if they choose the Che avatar AlbertCat Dec 2011 #245
but that Avatar makes sense, and isn't used to deceive people fascisthunter Dec 2011 #390
I think you've got it. Support Bradley Manning. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #341
I have noticed that too. But his name is "Far Left Fist", so how can you question his "leftness". nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #343
But not extrajudicial assasinations Riftaxe Dec 2011 #89
I have no problem with those DissedByBush Dec 2011 #96
In combat. Zero evidence presented anywhere at any time that Awlaki was a terrorist. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #126
Disagree - Awlaki was killed in a combat mission NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #163
In your example, you use an incident from a "Declared War" against another Nation bvar22 Dec 2011 #209
Like the "war" on drugs pscot Dec 2011 #233
I have ony two thoughts as to the entirely of your thesis indepat Dec 2011 #281
That's an excellent observatiion bvar, there is no end to it and just as Uncle Joe Dec 2011 #363
And we are still waiting for evendence that there was any combat involved in that killing. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #223
The GWOT is similar to the Barbary Wars. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #280
There was most definitely combat DissedByBush Dec 2011 #340
We are at war with Yemen? Since when?? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #352
If that sovereign country gives us permission, then no, it's not a crime. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #364
Were we at war with Tunisia? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #366
We are not at war, unless you are accepting the Bush/Cheney policies. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #369
We are at war DissedByBush Dec 2011 #373
Who are we at war with? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #377
You need to read the news more DissedByBush Dec 2011 #381
OBL is dead. You cannot be at war with an idea. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #383
Did you read the Authorization? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #384
Regarding your last sentence, I don't know what you have been reading, but sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #388
Wow, where to start DissedByBush Dec 2011 #407
I read that piece of garbage when it first was voted on, unfortunately by too many sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #408
This wasn't the authorization for use of force in Iraq DissedByBush Dec 2011 #413
I do not support Bush policies, the US Government has adapted Bush policies. sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #414
You just completely bypassed all facts DissedByBush Dec 2011 #417
I have read it. The whole WOT is nothing more than an excuse sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #418
Are you sure this time? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #420
Yet we are not at war. Haven't been in a war since WWII. Congress has issued no declaration of war. mbperrin Dec 2011 #276
We are at war - Congress has authorized this war. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #284
Can't declare a war on a noun. mbperrin Dec 2011 #350
Of course you can declare war on a noun. A nation's name is a noun. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #358
Naturally no one is going to challenge it. It makes too much money for the right people. mbperrin Dec 2011 #360
Naturally, I should have specified a common noun. mbperrin Dec 2011 #361
You need to go the other way DissedByBush Dec 2011 #375
That was the Bush administration's claims. We elected Democrats to put an end to those sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #370
Congress authorized the war. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #379
What war? Who are we at war with? sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #380
You refuse to accept the answer. NutmegYankee Dec 2011 #386
I refuse to accept the Bush claim that we are at war with the world. Yes, absolutely sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #387
You have got to be kidding me DissedByBush Dec 2011 #338
Show me that mountain of evidence. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #342
You have got to be kidding DissedByBush Dec 2011 #382
Haha! Wikipedia, indeed. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #391
"Constitutional conditions" DissedByBush Dec 2011 #401
In regards to a U.S. citizen? Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #403
This isn't a criminal proceeding DissedByBush Dec 2011 #406
WWII was a war declared by congress via the powers in the US constitution. Javaman Dec 2011 #220
Congress authorized these military actions DissedByBush Dec 2011 #335
authorizing and declaring are two vastly different things. Javaman Dec 2011 #349
It's completely constitutional DissedByBush Dec 2011 #367
And the barbary wars also were illegal according to the constitution. Javaman Dec 2011 #371
Show me that determination DissedByBush Dec 2011 #372
and because they disregarded the war powers act that makes it okay? Javaman Dec 2011 #389
Post of the year! DissedByBush Dec 2011 #402
"Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war," Javaman Dec 2011 #404
Why do you support my argument? DissedByBush Dec 2011 #405
Perhaps we are just arguing about the same thing and don't Javaman Dec 2011 #412
Can you show me where in the Constitution these rights are limited to citizens? Bjorn Against Dec 2011 #182
not if you are overseas. Javaman Dec 2011 #218
Three myths about the detention bill Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #229
Actually, NO we are NOT. plantwomyn Dec 2011 #278
Two things: ChadwickHenryWard Dec 2011 #304
One of us has a reading comprehension problem. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #16
It's ProSense Dec 2011 #23
Apprently the ACLU has a reading comprehension problem dflprincess Dec 2011 #42
Speaking ProSense Dec 2011 #52
83 traitors to the Constitution and the American People. Fuddnik Dec 2011 #100
Yeah, ProSense Dec 2011 #108
+1. nt MADem Dec 2011 #116
His statement is weasel worded Major Nikon Dec 2011 #132
yes, traitors for making it possible for another president to abuse fascisthunter Dec 2011 #192
+1000 n/t dotymed Dec 2011 #158
Here you go Major Nikon Dec 2011 #135
Once again, please read...it's professionally written, and makes a lot of sense... Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #230
ProSense, Are you an attorney? Have you researched the precedent, the case law on this? JDPriestly Dec 2011 #266
You don't think there is a chilling effect noise Dec 2011 #20
Its not really vague. It actually says it very plainly and clearly. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #25
You are assuming they will abuse the power siligut Dec 2011 #196
The President can order arrest and assassination caseymoz Dec 2011 #140
Well, I took your word for it that the bill was amended SomethingFishy Dec 2011 #202
Yes, sure Cherchez la Femme Dec 2011 #238
ProSense, your comment expresses shock but does not JDPriestly Dec 2011 #263
Very well said, JDP. nt tpsbmam Dec 2011 #297
So tell me what your opinions are of these things without the WWII monikers icymist Dec 2011 #303
The collapse of the US is due to the fact that during the 1970s, JDPriestly Dec 2011 #326
Well said, JD MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #317
This message was self-deleted by its author icymist Dec 2011 #301
Does that mean you think we still honor habeas corpus? Or does that mean you are ok with not rhett o rick Dec 2011 #351
So, what is your position on this? Codifying Bush's sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #109
Not a person who supports that at all. Burgman Dec 2011 #5
Where does it say U.S citizens don't have a right to trial? FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #6
In the cherished NDAA MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #14
None of those are the NDAA. But here it is: FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #19
The *requirement* does not extend, but the *option* sure does MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #28
The option? We are protected under the Constitution. It even says that in the NDAA, along with FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #33
We'll have to agree to disagree MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #53
OK, and I'll side with the Bill itself. If the language changes to be used against us in the future FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #57
If you're for depriving habeus to anyone caseymoz Dec 2011 #142
I'm siding with Mother Jones. Robb Dec 2011 #180
US citizens aren't entitled to a trial if detained under the provisions of 1031 a-e Major Nikon Dec 2011 #133
US citizens can't be held under section 1031, as section 1032 exempts them bhikkhu Dec 2011 #244
You might want to read 1032 again Major Nikon Dec 2011 #261
If they are "covered persons", involved with the Taliban or Al-qaeda in the war against the US bhikkhu Dec 2011 #265
There is no exemption for US citizens Major Nikon Dec 2011 #277
1031 defines "covered persons", who are to be held in the military detention system bhikkhu Dec 2011 #286
That's not what 1032 says and you are passing very bad information off as fact Major Nikon Dec 2011 #337
That is exactly what it states. N/T zeljko Dec 2011 #353
You should go and read the debate. plantwomyn Dec 2011 #282
How can you be for the end of Habeus Corpus in regards to any human being? Marrah_G Dec 2011 #410
You can't tell the difference between a blog at a URL, and a vetted media story? boppers Dec 2011 #107
"REQUIREMENT to detain" Martin Eden Dec 2011 #178
The "requirement" refers back to section 1031 bhikkhu Dec 2011 #251
So then, a US citizen by definition can't be al Qaeda? Martin Eden Dec 2011 #274
The logic is pretty straightforward bhikkhu Dec 2011 #279
Man you are passing misinformation all over the place. zeljko Dec 2011 #354
I think what is missing from this discussion is the Patriot Act bhikkhu Dec 2011 #355
Of course it gives it new explicit power. zeljko Dec 2011 #356
Brush up on the patriot act - its all in there bhikkhu Dec 2011 #365
Some laws do require a lawyer to explain them to you. caseymoz Dec 2011 #193
And "associated force that acts in coordination ..." THAT COULD BE ANYONE! AllyCat Dec 2011 #247
But not in the bill itself, apparently bhikkhu Dec 2011 #24
And who decides who qualifies as an al Qaeda member? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #32
If you are a U.S. citizen then a judge does. And you have to be proven to be planning an attack. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #36
I think that you're mistaken MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #41
Al-Awlaki was already convicted by a Yemenite court to be captured dead or alive. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #44
Did the Yemenis kill him? That's news to me. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #46
Rushdie did not aid a terrorist organization against us. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #48
Wait - did we execute US citizen al-Alwlaki because Yemen wanted him dead, MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #60
I'm sure the reason was because he was aiding Al-Qaeda, like the NDAA says is allowed. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #73
Then a US court could have tried, convicted, and sentenced him MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #78
Rushdie? FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #85
Manny, This bill is shit and goes against our freedom dotymed Dec 2011 #160
so if they say i am aiding al quida they can strip my citizenship? SwampG8r Dec 2011 #59
No, not if THEY say, if YOU say. He was videotaped waging "jihad" on the U.S. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #76
Sorry, FarLeftFist, there is no definition for terrorism that is clear and understandable. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #264
A terraist is anyone TPTB say is a terraist, even if the supposed connection is indepat Dec 2011 #295
Yes. It is overkill. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #300
Well put. Rethugs have been able to set most of the national agenda since WWII imo indepat Dec 2011 #314
Thanks for your input. True, true, true. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #347
Ridiculous, the President of the US caseymoz Dec 2011 #143
YEMMEN ?? !!!! bvar22 Dec 2011 #213
The National Security Council approved that, and it wasn't done lightly bhikkhu Dec 2011 #50
You mean like Al Awlaki and his teenage son who were given the death penalty without sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #114
"proven" ... how? Martin Eden Dec 2011 #179
But who determines who's a member of Al-Qaeda? caseymoz Dec 2011 #144
The President doesn't even have to "determine". bvar22 Dec 2011 #216
Where does the Constitution say non-citizens don't have the right to trial. Bjorn Against Dec 2011 #184
As far as military detention, section 1036 details the rights to trial and recourse bhikkhu Dec 2011 #254
IOKIODI KG Dec 2011 #8
IMO it's putting us on a very dangerous path for abuse by someone, eventually. Imagine the RKP5637 Dec 2011 #9
Habeus corpus is a foundational right. PDJane Dec 2011 #10
When you refuse to exercise your rights, you lose them. boppers Dec 2011 #110
Uh, come again? Where the fuck did you get THAT idea? Zhade Dec 2011 #127
When you refuse to show up for your trial, you don't get to moan about your defense. boppers Dec 2011 #129
Accused criminals, self admitted or not, are read miranda rights. Ed Suspicious Dec 2011 #171
None of which is really true, but none of which has anything to do with my point. PDJane Dec 2011 #328
I'm not old enough to personally remember, but by the 80's it turned out to be all theater anyways. boppers Dec 2011 #357
That was my point. PDJane Dec 2011 #362
I'm astonished that so many buy into that crap bhikkhu Dec 2011 #13
Not a police state because we do not yet have check points at state border crossings? RC Dec 2011 #61
I go though a border check point coming into Calif. from Oregon. WHEN CRABS ROAR Dec 2011 #105
I went through one of those coming from Nevada. The bastards wanted me to MADem Dec 2011 #119
I went through one just a few weeks ago... KansDem Dec 2011 #159
This Bill makes the US a Police State fascisthunter Dec 2011 #392
According to the bill itself: bhikkhu Dec 2011 #395
Orwell is rolling in his grave. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #16
no actually he isnt SwampG8r Dec 2011 #62
LOL! nt MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #72
Orwell? I'm surprised we're not getting reports of an earthquake in Philadelphia dflprincess Dec 2011 #88
Go USA! Land of the Free and Home of the Brave! neverforget Dec 2011 #21
land of the free to keep your mouth shut and home of the airport molesters leftyohiolib Dec 2011 #267
Aside from the broad assumption about DUers, how are we ending Habeas Corpus specifically? pinto Dec 2011 #22
What do you think habeus corpus is? Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #201
It does specifically exempt US citizens from military detention bhikkhu Dec 2011 #256
No it doesn't. Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #285
This is a very good write-up on the major difficulties with that: bhikkhu Dec 2011 #289
"Not intended to state a policy which changes anything" except, you see, it does. Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #296
What about human beings who are not US citizens? Marrah_G Dec 2011 #411
I agree with you, Manny. I think the complacency here is due to confusion about what JDPriestly Dec 2011 #26
Obama has the right to veto it if it's sloppy MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #38
But its not sloppy. Obama is a lawyer. I'm sure its plain to see for him. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #51
+1, I'm surprised how many seem to treat it as a joke. while others demand evidence but then ignore limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #29
This message was self-deleted by its author limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #111
Japanese internment camps nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #30
They had them for Germans and Italians living in this country too. hobbit709 Dec 2011 #55
Absolutely nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #66
Not to the same extent. Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #226
Obama = Third Reich? NYC_SKP Dec 2011 #31
The protections were diminished before Hitler came to power MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #35
Let me list a few others more palatable examples nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #49
+1 n/t area51 Dec 2011 #136
Obama is going to be President for about 5 more years Autumn Dec 2011 #141
The best solution is to end the war soon bhikkhu Dec 2011 #257
The war on terror will never end. Autumn Dec 2011 #260
I agree and will add that I think that most likely a President Obama will not abuse this power - But Douglas Carpenter Dec 2011 #34
Which is exactly what happened in Germany. nt MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #37
US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause ii: struggle4progress Dec 2011 #39
The NDAA is congressional approval to suspend Habeas Corpus MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #43
Where in the bill is habeas suspended? The writ is guaranteed by plain language of struggle4progress Dec 2011 #56
Congress can and does pass laws nullifying the Constitution RC Dec 2011 #71
No one will subscribe to the legal theory that Congress has the power to override the Constitution; struggle4progress Dec 2011 #83
Habeas corpus was suspended for foreigners in 2006. Having lived Overseas, I have been waiting for Overseas Dec 2011 #195
OH NOES! Godwins LAW! FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #40
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #45
But our protections AREN'T diminished. We are still protected by the Constitution. It even says that FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #47
First they came for the trade unionist... nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #54
You expect the bill to say it violates the Constitution? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #58
No, the bill actually says it upholds the Constitution for U.S. citizens. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #80
but we all watched as Dimsun 'misunderstood' his way to robust presidential power... StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #70
But it IS written clearly. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #81
Not when the Fascists own 5 SCOTUS justices. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #74
This is getting very fringe. Lets talk about jobs, the environment, economics. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #84
You Sir, need to change those rose colored glasses 2banon Dec 2011 #253
The Constitution is only as strong as the current courts inforcement. The courts ruled rhett o rick Dec 2011 #346
we're doomed to repeat it anyway. enjoy the ride leftyohiolib Dec 2011 #268
Actually they are not so much for it Jakes Progress Dec 2011 #65
I think this is the best post in the thread. smokey nj Dec 2011 #219
We should all be concerned for the potential Administrative abuse of power ... AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #67
Amen, Om shanti shanti shanti, and All Hail His Noodly Appendage! SaintPete Dec 2011 #68
Too many uppity serfs made the powers-that-be take off the velvet gloves to show us their steel fist phasma ex machina Dec 2011 #69
K&R midnight Dec 2011 #75
I second that. I remember how people went crazy when this type of law was brought up during the Justice wanted Dec 2011 #77
Thats because Habaeus Corpus actually WAS dropped under Bush. This bill doesn't do that. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #86
It doesn't restore it either. It basically drop what few part of Habaeus Corpus we had left. Justice wanted Dec 2011 #92
It doesn't drop anything, it actually just keeps the status quo, being: FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #94
the bill codifies the power of the president to designate who gets detained indefinitely Fiendish Thingy Dec 2011 #122
I read the bill, 6x already. It EXEMPTS U.S. citizens. UNLESS they are proven to work for Al-Qaeda. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #138
Truly none so blind as those who will not see. COLGATE4 Dec 2011 #165
Tell me about it. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #174
well, I guess you can count me among the "blind" Fiendish Thingy Dec 2011 #186
Not aware of the level of concern during Bush Regime.. got to be inside a the DC bubble 2banon Dec 2011 #255
I Do Think the DC bubble exists on DU fascisthunter Dec 2011 #393
Election year cheerleading is just getting warmed-up... JCMach1 Dec 2011 #79
Or election-year implosion bhikkhu Dec 2011 #101
Haha, this has been going on for about 2.5 years now. joshcryer Dec 2011 #121
I forgot the election year 'trolling' as well! JCMach1 Dec 2011 #164
I can only imagine what those on this board who support this bill would be saying dflprincess Dec 2011 #82
bush and obama are two different people leftyohiolib Dec 2011 #271
But when it comes to ignoring the Consitution dflprincess Dec 2011 #321
I've yet to see a cogent explanation of why the ominous legal gibberish in this bill is necessary. Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #87
Aww, Manny, what'cha complainin' about? Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus, the Geneva Conventions - all kath Dec 2011 #90
not cool with it at all <eom> catrose Dec 2011 #91
Nothing surprises me here anymore, Manny. n/t Blue_In_AK Dec 2011 #93
ACLU: President Obama: Veto Indefinite Detention steve2470 Dec 2011 #95
I'm not even cool with indefinite detention used against non-citizens. JoeyT Dec 2011 #98
me too. What is wrong with putting people on trial? dana_b Dec 2011 #415
Putting people on trial requires evidence. JoeyT Dec 2011 #419
War, Constitution shredding, universal surveillance are OK if Democrats do them kenny blankenship Dec 2011 #99
Ah, I bet they do a comeback tour Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #102
Joe's dead, mate. boppers Dec 2011 #113
I know. I was making a joke, like if "Habeas Corpus" were a band. I used a picture of The Clash Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #120
Heh.... boppers Dec 2011 #124
From Oxnard, no less. Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #128
Obama has to work with Congress LuckyTheDog Dec 2011 #103
There is no fight this guy will have. bowens43 Dec 2011 #154
+1 andlor Dec 2011 #157
If you are going to make absurd assertions... LuckyTheDog Dec 2011 #293
well said! fascisthunter Dec 2011 #394
"...this is not a fight Obama wants to have..." HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA panzerfaust Dec 2011 #177
Feel free to vote for Obama's opposition LuckyTheDog Dec 2011 #294
repeat ad nauseum U4ikLefty Dec 2011 #309
I am serious LuckyTheDog Dec 2011 #310
It's fine when the right party does it... Modern_Matthew Dec 2011 #104
But fascism is trending now! It's so tomorrow! Zorra Dec 2011 #106
So this is what my father gave his life for in world war two. WHEN CRABS ROAR Dec 2011 #112
Senator Merkley Explains How YOU Could Be Indefinitely Imprisoned With No Trial thanks to NDAA 2012 limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #115
On the contrary, it's hard to keep up. emcguffie Dec 2011 #117
You are mistaken about how the bill is applied to US Citizens. The Feinstein amendment specifically BzaDem Dec 2011 #118
Guantanamo? AllyCat Dec 2011 #169
Yes -- that Supreme Court decision specifically applies to detainees in Guantanamo. BzaDem Dec 2011 #176
And are they getting that? AllyCat Dec 2011 #242
the Feinstein amendment didn't make it to the final bill Fiendish Thingy Dec 2011 #189
Nothing Shocks Me Anymore. nt bananas Dec 2011 #123
SO AM I, MANNY... MrMickeysMom Dec 2011 #125
eh.. certainly not me but DU3 probaby PatrynXX Dec 2011 #130
Nope, I am not cool with it. Please tell me what we should do about, Manny? juajen Dec 2011 #131
I challenge you to link one post where a DUer, who believes Habeas Corpus is ending... joshcryer Dec 2011 #134
Yeah I second that. Rex Dec 2011 #145
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. joshcryer Dec 2011 #146
Well I won't hold my breath... Rex Dec 2011 #147
I have not seen a denial that Obama will eat all newborn babies. boppers Dec 2011 #148
Is that like something that is unseen? Rex Dec 2011 #149
Supporting this bill is supporting Habeas Corpus AllyCat Dec 2011 #168
Yes, I would like that too. emulatorloo Dec 2011 #188
I second that. AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #210
anyone supporting this Bill is doing just that fascisthunter Dec 2011 #396
No, they don't believe the bill does that. joshcryer Dec 2011 #399
Weren't you saying this very same thing ever since Obama came into office? Whisp Dec 2011 #137
No - but feel free to present refuting evidence. nt MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #172
I think folks would need to be mental to support the ending of Habeas Corpus MichaelMcGuire Dec 2011 #150
I was astonished so many were fine nineteen50 Dec 2011 #151
I'm certainly not ok with it. bowens43 Dec 2011 #152
Obama = Hitler comparisons. jefferson_dem Dec 2011 #155
Manny, from reading the responses to your O.P. dotymed Dec 2011 #161
For those thinking some of us are interpreting NDAA wrong, please look at justiceischeap Dec 2011 #162
+1 n/t Laelth Dec 2011 #166
All the posts from people saying "If he just had his magic wand" and "You whiners! Just because you AllyCat Dec 2011 #167
It all depends on whose inking the dotted line. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2011 #170
Republiscams and Birchers won't be able to vote from their detention facility L. Coyote Dec 2011 #173
I wouldn't think a single DUer is "cool" with that, Manny. I'm guessing everybody gateley Dec 2011 #175
There are some, who will defended the president, and their party, no matter what they do. got root Dec 2011 #181
I'm not astonished at all. Something pernicious is going on here (at DU).... truth2power Dec 2011 #183
The definition JEB Dec 2011 #185
Just another item on a growing list. 99Forever Dec 2011 #187
I'm Not.... Too Many Here live and breath "the end justifies the means" fascisthunter Dec 2011 #190
Unsupportable & inexcusable. DirkGently Dec 2011 #194
A fair number of "DUers" don't seem to care for the Constitution at all... saras Dec 2011 #197
Yeah sendero Dec 2011 #198
That's what it amounts do. Vinca Dec 2011 #199
It is like living in a surreal nightmare inhabited by brain dead pod people. Dragonfli Dec 2011 #200
How did that Habeus Corpus work for the American Citizens MineralMan Dec 2011 #203
Under Hamdi, a plurality of SCOTUS Justices said that Habeas Corpus can be suspended if MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #207
Plurality, not majority. Bucky Dec 2011 #215
OK, then the answer has to be to elect a Congress that won't OK it. MineralMan Dec 2011 #231
Aw c'mon. Using the Bill of Rights for toilet paper is OK if the person has a "D" after their name.. abq e streeter Dec 2011 #204
This is a good thing! donttazemebro Dec 2011 #208
win Bucky Dec 2011 #214
K&R (n/t) a2liberal Dec 2011 #211
The 3rd Reich analogy is incorrect (and hysterical) but I recommend anyway. Bucky Dec 2011 #212
Amazing, isn't it? Javaman Dec 2011 #217
I'm disheartened but not surprised. I've been reading DU for a long time. /nt yardwork Dec 2011 #221
We are the NEW Democratic Party! donttazemebro Dec 2011 #222
I fear both parties in Congress love to have the power to keep the "little people" under control... spin Dec 2011 #236
I call it Phlem Dec 2011 #241
Not in favor of Habeas Corpus, but you have to have a CONGRESS who believes in DEMOCRACY CarmanK Dec 2011 #224
If the Leader of the Political Party currently in Power... bvar22 Dec 2011 #225
Well Phlem Dec 2011 #227
I've been astonished that DUer's have accepted the constant shift to the right ever since Obama took slay Dec 2011 #228
Let The Arrest Begin! donttazemebro Dec 2011 #232
Only the usual Obama-fellators RetroLounge Dec 2011 #234
Habeas Corpus papa3times Dec 2011 #235
MannyGoldstein Diclotican Dec 2011 #237
This whole issue was put to rest in Ex Part Milligan soryang Dec 2011 #243
Did you mean to link to your other post? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #246
Thanks Manny! soryang Dec 2011 #270
Links soryang Dec 2011 #273
Nicely Put colsohlibgal Dec 2011 #252
There is no emergency that justifies this kind of action Jack Rabbit Dec 2011 #248
you really should post when habeas corpus ended and how many du'ers are cool with it spanone Dec 2011 #249
Yes, I would like to see that too. emulatorloo Dec 2011 #258
That's how the author rolls. great white snark Dec 2011 #262
Oh, hell . . . there's no unrec button any more. mistertrickster Dec 2011 #250
Count me out on this one too. Giving up our liberty for security is unacceptable. ScottLand Dec 2011 #259
I've seen many troubling things during this presidency - TBF Dec 2011 #269
We have won...now lets ROLL! donttazemebro Dec 2011 #272
oh Lord Broderick Dec 2011 #374
I'm astonished so many DUers think they know precisely what so many other DUers think. patrice Dec 2011 #275
I would be if that was happening Capn Sunshine Dec 2011 #283
And who decides who is a member of, or is aiding, al Qaeda? MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #315
Isn't mischaracterization of others THE tactic of propaganda? patrice Dec 2011 #287
Which Duers do you mean? What "so many"? Link or hyperbole? uppityperson Dec 2011 #288
IOKIYAD Jack Rabbit Dec 2011 #290
Not just DU members...Americans in general.... Pachamama Dec 2011 #291
some will kiss obama's butt even as they are loaded on the trucks. consider roguevalley Dec 2011 #292
Not cool with it... AT ALL!! Lifelong Protester Dec 2011 #299
Obama has done the right thing for the nation donttazemebro Dec 2011 #302
During a Repub Admin will the law still be on our side? nt Taverner Dec 2011 #306
Welcome to DU Pamela Troy Dec 2011 #307
Me too - but I can understand defeatism at this point Taverner Dec 2011 #305
Do you really believe they see it as ending Habeas Corpus? ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #308
Rose colored glasses...get your rose colored glasses right here.... ooglymoogly Dec 2011 #311
I'm astonished anyone in this country is cool with it. nt Deep13 Dec 2011 #312
Unfortunately Manny.... DeSwiss Dec 2011 #313
Yet you couldn't name any if your reputation depended on it. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #316
I could, but that would be "calling out" which is against DU rules. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #319
Bullshit. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #322
If Obama doesn't want it, he can veto it. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #323
My PM box is open. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #325
Yes, if you apologize and delete your posts, I'd be happy to answer your questions. MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #329
Oh goodness. I could never, ever erase my shame so readily. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #333
Yep, that's what I thought. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #359
k&r Liberal_in_LA Dec 2011 #318
This was so disappointing after the great speech of the previous week that I'm left speechless diane in sf Dec 2011 #320
Where's the link that shows many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus? Sounds fishy to me. nt valerief Dec 2011 #324
Ain't gonna see one. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #330
Anyone Supporting this Bill fascisthunter Dec 2011 #397
I was never a fan of miranda rights and all that crap so im ok with it...n/t IamK Dec 2011 #327
Uh-huh. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #331
But... But... We Have An Election To Win !!! WillyT Dec 2011 #332
I am astonished that someone would make such a claim without any evidence. yellowcanine Dec 2011 #334
Excellent explanation: zeljko Dec 2011 #336
Have you ever seen the president with his shirt off? n/t QC Dec 2011 #339
Agree 100%. REC. nt bertman Dec 2011 #348
see: patriot act shanti Dec 2011 #368
I support the ACLU on this Broderick Dec 2011 #376
I asked the students in my class about this Charlemagne Dec 2011 #385
Wanna know why the US is becoming a Police State fascisthunter Dec 2011 #398
You know the more I think about it nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #400
What's Habeas Corpus? Zorra Dec 2011 #416
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I'm astonished so many DU...»Reply #326