HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » merrily » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AM
Number of posts: 7,756

Journal Archives

Hi. I saw Most Wanted Man this week and recommend it.

As you film fans probably know, it was Philip Seymour Hoffman's final film and some say his best performance ever. I don't know about that. I always love his performances. But he was damned good in this film. His fans will love it, I think.

If anyone has seen it, I would love your thoughts on who was "the most wanted man."


Question submitted by merrily

The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators

I agree that Republicans lie. However, I believe that super majority rules help

conceal the truth about both successes and failures.

For just one recent example, I think it is much easier to fool the public with a cloture vote than with a vote against Warren's concrete bill seeking to make student loans more affordable. I tried, but I could not even find the yeas and nays on that cloture vote.

Before 2010, when Democrats had the Oval Office and a majority in both Houses, it was easier for Republicans to claim that Dems did little those two years but ACA. (Lily Ledbetter had already passed, but Bush vetoed. Obama signed it Inauguration Day.)

Besides, think about what you are saying. We have a situation now where very little that we like gets done for he benefit of Americans and Republicans already lie to blame failures on Dems and take credit for whatever successes, if any, make it past the cloture rules.

You are saying it would be worse for Americans if good things actually do get done for Americans, like more affordable student loans, and Republicans continue lying, which they already do anyway? How would that be worse for Americans?

Excuse? I posted a substantive reply, which you ignored. For what do I need an excuse?

Since you chose to go that way, though, what is your excuse for ignoring everything in my post, criticizing me for what I did not address, then bringing up an entirely new point? What about what you never addressed?

I offer you this deal. Support your own claim that McGovern and Mondale lost those elections because they were liberals rather than simply posting a meme and expecting it to go unchallenged. Then rebut my points about why a tunnel vision view of the McGovern run doesn't prove that McGovern lost because he was a liberal. That is only respectful of the effort that I put into my prior post. Then, ask me to discuss the Mondale loss. (The Mondale loss ainst the Gipper, former head of the actors' union, former friendly host of of a respected television show, like GE Theater, that came into America's living rooms every week when there were only 3 networks competing for the attention of all Americans, and former Governor of California, after Americans had to wait on line for gas under a Democratic President, years of the hostage crisis, etc.--I imagine some of those things impacted Mondale's run, as well as Lee Atwater etc.)

I will then be happy to examine more fully whether Mondale ran as a liberal at alll; and, if so, whether Mondale lost to the Gipper because Mondale was a liberal and not for other reasons.

I know the claims about Mondale and McGovern were convenient claims for conservative Democrats to make, especially those who wanted to run for the Presidency from Southern states. However, they do not stand up to analysis, unless you use tunnel vision.

As for When Kerry ran for President, Kerry was then a member of the Senate New Democrat Caucus; i.e., not holding himself out as a liberal at all. And Kerry had the endorsement of the DLC when he ran. The DLC endorsement had originally gone to Lieberman, who had been a founding member of the DLC. However, I see that as a courtesy given Lieberman because it was clear that Lieberman never had a chance at the nom.

When Lieberman dropped out, which was relatively early in the primary, New Democrat Kerry got the DLC endorsement for that primary. So, Kerry never ran for President as a lliberal. Also, Kerry was from the Northeast in general and Massachusetts in particular, a region and a state that many political analysts had considered a dead zone for Presidents after the South went solid red.

Besides, some think that election was also stolen, though in a different state. So, the Kerry run is like the Gore run, not like the McGovern run. IOW, it hurts the meme rather than helping it.

Reagan was the reason that the Democratic Party just had to go right in order to win Presidential elections. Since Reagan though, several New Democrats ran for President as New Democrats. They were Clinton, Gore and Kerry. Of those three, only Clinton won. In 2008, Obama ran to the left of Hillary. (For purposes of this analysis, it does not matter if Obama is in fact to Hillary's left. All that matters is whether voters perceived him as to Hillary's left; and they did.)

Hillary lost the primary in 2008 and Obama won the general.

After he won in 2008, Obama said he, too, was a New Democrat. Then, he won in 2012. However, by then, he was unopposed in the primary and a war time incumbent-and no war time incumbent has ever lost a Presidential election in the US. Besides, there was that handy recording of Romney dissing 47% of Americans, including vets and seniors.

So, since Reagan, New Democrats have not proven their point about needing to go right to win Presidential elections at all. Still, the meme gets repeated as though its truth were self-evident. It isn't. It requires proof, and that is lacking.

There is a difference between vetoing because you do not believe a bill should pass

and vetoing funding to try to get the resignation of an elected official, maybe even an appointed official, who heads an agency that was set up to serve the public.

It is the job of an elected President or Governor to veto a bill he or she does not believe should pass because the bill is not in the best interests of the people. It is not the job of a President or Governor to try to remove officials the people have elected, leaving an agency that serves the people without funding in the bargain.

As far as I know, whenever President Obama has threatened a veto, it has been because he does not believe the bill should ever pass, not because he is trying to accomplish something totally unrelated to that bill. IOW, his veto threats, whether you agree with them or not, are an ordinary part of doing the job that the Constitution of the United States describes.

What if Obama said he would veto a bill funding the military unless McConnell, or even Secretary Hagel, resigns? And then did veto, leaving the military unfunded?

I am not sure how I feel about the Perry indictment specifically. However, I know that the two things you are trying to equate, namely Perry's veto threat in this case and Obama's veto threats are not similar at all.

Cannot say that was not in the back of my mind as I made that post.

We indulge ourselves in too many false dichotomies and double standards, not to mention hero worship. Those things serve the establishment very well. Us, not so much.

This is not the false equivalency that there is no difference between Democratic and Republican politicians. IMO, though, there is not enough difference.

Again, the withdrawal date was set between Dimson and Iraq.

Truly. It was in all the papers, or what's left of them.




During Obama's administration, the US tried to persuade Iraq to extend the date. However, Iraq would not agree to a hold harmless of our troops and mercenaries. As a result, the withdrawal was completed per the 2008 withdrawal agreement (SOFA).

Democrats need to stop giving Obama credit for ending our involvement in Iraq and Republicans need to stop blaming Obama for the withdrawal.

Oh, look. Sanders used the A word (anoint). But, what does a U.S. Senator who caucuses with

Democrats know?

Obviously, DU's centrist loyalist posters know better.

You are mistaken. It did happen. You didn't read my entire post,

including the edit I made on my own, before you posted, or Reply 18.

And you didn't mention 2009 to 2011 at all, though the years I had mentioned were 2007 to 2011.

ETA: Thanks for the great example of the fallacy of the "If Democrats did not do it, it could not have humanly be done in the real world" theory.

I call bs. It was totally understood.

Nonetheless, President Obama and the D of J decided not to prosecute anyone whose ass had been covered by "legal advice," even if the advice was not so legal and not even sought until after the acts had begun. The so-called legal advice was that interrogation techniques up to and including death of the person being interrogated did not violate applicable law.

The two Attorneys most involved in the "legal advice," aside from Gonzo, were Yoo and Bybee.

Bybee had called Gonzo about getting a judgeship. Gonzo told him to come to work giving these legal opinions and then people would see about his judgeship. After giving his bullshit cya legal opinions, Bybee was nominated and confirmed for a seat on the US Circuit Court of Appeals, where he now sits for life, unless and until someone prosecutes and/or impeaches him. Guess what? Neither has happened.

Yoo went on to--wait for it--teach law. Also to write books and law review articles, both of which may well get cited in legal opinions (if they have not already been), as well as get credence from students and scholars. Bybee and Yoo are well worth your reading their full wikis and otherwise researching, along with how the Obama administration used their legal opinions to exonerate everyone who supposedly had relied on them.

As to Yoo:

In June 2004, another of Yoo's memos on interrogation techniques was leaked to the press, after which it was repudiated by Goldsmith and the OLC.

Yoo's contribution to these memos has remained a source of controversy following his departure from the Justice Department; he was called to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in 2008 in defense of his role. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) began investigating Yoo's work in 2004 and in July 2009 completed a report that was sharply critical of his legal justification for waterboarding and other interrogation techniques. The OPR report cites testimony Yoo gave to Justice Department investigators in which he claims that the "president's war-making authority was so broad that he had the constitutional power to order a village to be 'massacred'"

The OPR report concluded that Yoo had "committed 'intentional professional misconduct' when he advised the CIA it could proceed with waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda suspects", although the recommendation that he be referred to his state bar association for possible disciplinary proceedings was overruled by David Margolis, another senior Justice department lawyer.


No one would even send a letter to the bar associations of Yoo and Bybee suggesting that the bar association might want to look into their actions. And by the way, the degree of evidence necessary to back up such a suggestion is zero.

Now, if legal opinions that were leaked said waterboarding, even death, of the "suspect" was legal, even massacring a village would be legal, what exactly was not previously understood about the degree of brutality of the interrogations by the CIA?

And, while I know Abu Ghraib was not about interrogations or the CIA, wasn't that a fucking clue to everyone in the world, including Congress and the Obama administration, that gambling brutality just might have gone on in Rick's Casino the Bush Administration?

Why do we continue to accept this lame, corrupt bullshit?

When are we going to demand return to the rule of law?

Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »