General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSome folks seem more OK with the defense of torture and torturers,
than they are with the people who don't want those things protected, or glorified.
Blows. My. Mind.
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
Post removed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)No doubt.
840high
(17,196 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I can't say why this happens because they will alert on me ...and by the term "they" I mean (this was also hidden by jacked out jury decision).
840high
(17,196 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Owl
(3,629 posts)Too many silly hides all around.
Response to Post removed (Reply #1)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Bush and his cabal, notably Kinda Sleazy Rice, actively encouraged the use of torture. Obama merely tolerated it.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)a sickness on the Internet.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Seriously?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Letting known admitted perpetrators of Crimes Against Humanity walk free is aiding and abetting those criminals and is IN FACT the action Accessory After the Fact. Pretend it isn't so, bury your head in the sand. Those of us with MORALS and consciences KNOW better. The corruption reeks like a dead rotting body.
840high
(17,196 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)nilesobek
(1,423 posts)that its a crime NOT to report it?
For instance, if you found out that someone you knew committed a murder but waited 6 years to report it that would be a serious crime.
Can't we just cut through the crap and admit that the torturers are so powerful, so well armed, that not even our military or our police paramilitary forces can arrest them?
I don't mean to come off as sanctimonious over this but I have to constantly watch myself, that I obey every law, because there is a cop under every rock around here. So I wear my seatbelt, I bought insurance, I don't jaywalk or break any laws, no matter how trivial because if I don't there will be certain punishment. But the big shots of murder and torture don't have to worry about any punishment at all.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Eventually, you just learn to laugh, and walk slowly away.
Sid
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)(see, 2 can play this game)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)misinterpret that into me agreeing with him!
840high
(17,196 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)kentuck
(110,950 posts)...would even attempt to defend torture? I certainly would not want to be in the same Party with them.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Including 45% of registered Democrats.
[img]?w=610&h=475[/img]
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-torture-report-public-opinion/
Note the big positive jump right after Obama's inauguration. How's that for integrity?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)of 'lesser of two evils'
Joking aside, that's really an eye-opener. Tanks for posting it. Bookmarking for future use.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to see a poll of the majority of Americans, those who are registered as Independents, now approx 40% of Registered voters, the largest voting bloc, together with a poll of the millions who no longer participate in the system.
That poll only represents partisans.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It takes a special type of moral vacancy to do that type of work.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Go figure.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)---- -- --- ------ ---!!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I don't mean that the folks being tortured are doing that.
11 Bravo
(23,922 posts)the President is caught on tape passing gas. Just be careful when you try to beat that one to death.
(Because sharts can be socially embarrassing.)
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Who is defending the defenders Manny? All I see is a bunch of the usual Obama bashers posting post after post twisting, and selectively editing things to try and make President Obama come off as supporting torture, and it's all just another load of BULL being put out by the same old shit stirs we see here every day.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the Cheney/Bush gang. Now the question is, will they be prosecuted? You can't sugar coat War Crimes. I KNOW we never did during the Bush era.
Is there any reason why now, since what we knew for so long, has been made official, that there will not be prosecutions?
Eg, the Spanish was in the process of prosecuting the Bush Six (for torture) a few years ago. Dems were elated, 'if WE don't do it, SOMEONE should'. Then we stopped hearing about it and wondered why.
And then we found out why. The Wikileaks Cables revealed that the US Government directly intervened to stop that prosecution. Not the Bush administration, this administration.
Can you explain that?
Btw, last I heard those prosecutions may be getting ready to proceed.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)They deserve it. I am asking Manny who all these people on DU are who are supporting torture. I have not seen anyone here support torture, have you?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)I'd like to see those posts and alert.
Where are they?
Don't hold your breath, zap. I asked him for a link as well. You know he always asks for links, yet never gives one. So far I have heard crickets. I will give him more time, I know he will want to supply all the links. He may just be taking a nap after dinner.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Set up those straw men and knock 'em down!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I posted 3-4 links, LOL. Crickets. An an OP about me!
zappaman
(20,605 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts):Headbang:
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Every singer wants the spotlight
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Sad.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)here it is.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 11, 2014, 03:18 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Who the heck alerted on this? For crying out loud.... Sheesh.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm voting to leave it. I would rather leave a really fucking stupid thread and posts by Manny than hide it.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Was going to vote to leave, by the alerter makes a good point, not a direct call out, (and I doubt this will be hidden) however a nasty post.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh good freaking grief. I know I've seen folks doing that. Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Divisive crap my behind. Apparently the shoe fit enough that you feel you can wear it.
2-5 Leave.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)republic", in defense of the president not holding Smirk responsible.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
That'd be the dawn of the republic, I'm thinking.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Washington would think of his country today.
We are so lacking in courageous leaders. Washington would be called a 'purist' if he were here today.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)the colonists were split fairly evenly into 3 parts: 1/3 for independence, 1/3 against and 1/3 neutral. Obviously it could have gone either way, but what we had to do to win was simply stay in the field. Washington avoided pitched battles where superior forces and training could overwhelm him, and concentrated on not losing. It was of great help to him that there were several occasions when the colonists rallied behind / joined the ranks of the American forces after actual or reported atrocities on the British side. Finally the British quit, after the disastrous siege and defeat at Yorktown.
So in a way, Washington's stance on torture, as contrasted with his opponents' (real or imagined), won the Revolutionary War. We have fallen a long way since then.
ETA: "Courage" is exactly what is lacking. I think a large part of our problems can be traced to the fact that conservatives--which in my view are by definition cowards--are ascendant. The only type of courage they do not lack is that of their convictions.
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Spazito
(49,765 posts)and I would add Greenwald to that.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The mental gymnastic going on is at least silver worthy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I don't see it in the OP either, is Manny talking about DU?
Andy823
(11,495 posts)I don't mean that the folks being tortured are doing that. Just some DU folks."
Rex
(65,616 posts)Okay then yeah I too would like to see one post that a DUer made that states they clearly support torture. Like I said, I've seen one person make excuses as to why, but that is it.
helpmetohelpyou
(589 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I have a hard time believing a progressive would support torture of any kind.
So, why did it happen?
helpmetohelpyou
(589 posts)specific circumstances
Rex
(65,616 posts)The only reason I ask, is that it is proven to be an unreliable method of extracting information.
helpmetohelpyou
(589 posts)You're asking me to give a scenario where I would be okay
with our government torturing some one?
I wouldn't know what kind to give other than some type of 24 kind of plot
Hours left with bombs placed and they have the person in custody .
Rex
(65,616 posts)We can make it abstract, just you...and what scenario would force you to go against your own compassionate nature?
I guess I am thinking more along the lines of the movie Prisoners - a man kidnaps or you think he kidnaps your child, you have no proof but he is suspicious and doesn't confirm or deny anything. You are afraid to go to the cops, he might kill your kid.
What would you do to?
helpmetohelpyou
(589 posts)much doing anything to save their lives if they were about to be murdered .
If I was sure but I don't think anyone really knows how they would react to that until
as a parent it happens to them.
marym625
(17,997 posts)One man for 12 years tortured by the US. Horrors, unspeakable horrors. Daily. Every. Fucking. Day.
What information could he possibly have had even after 6 months never mind after 12 fucking years?
And then, after he came to them, more came and they used the torture as a model on them all. Day after day. Week after week. Year after year.
Rex
(65,616 posts)is immoral and illegal. Then again remember we are talking about Cheney and Rummy here - probably two of the sickest people to walk the planet today.
They both personally should have to answer to that man why they put him through meaningless cruelty and violence.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I would know to turn on the tv right fuggin' now to MSNBC, but since you are posting this in GD, isn't the context GD? I mean, otherwise, wouldn't you give a link?
Rex
(65,616 posts)hunt.
Link? Do you ever read current event in the news on the internet?
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)You are a pretty fair person here at DU. So please read the responses bashing Obama and his supporters. Hmmmmm the first response was hidden another states two animals come to mind and there are more. You know darn well who was being referred to in the Op and who are being bashed in the comments.
Rex, for the record I do not condone torture and I don't like the Op implying that I do.
Peace~
Rex
(65,616 posts)Not me and don't speak for me thank you sheshe2. I read the OP and thought about Cheney and Rummy. Manny is not my enemy. You are not my enemy. Go kick his ass if you think he is bashing the POTUS.
For the record I don't think any progressives here condones torture. If he meant DUers, then he can supply a list.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Until he wisely edited it.
It used to say "some folks on DU" condoned torture.
So, yeah, it's a game for him.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I see that now.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sheshe2
(83,355 posts)I was not making your comment into a crime. I was not trying to speak for you or accuse you of anything. Sorry if you misunderstood that.
As I said, you are a fair person here, one I like to talk to.
I see I should have read the replies before posting, that was my mistake. Sorry for getting snippy. A few DUers have pointed out to me that he did reply to others he meant DU.
Like I said, I've seen zero DUers say, "gosh I like torture I don't see the problem." Reminds me of when he was making up numbers about Obamacare to scare people.
Keep up those threads BTW! You are right, we will get our revolution because the people have had enough injustice for far too long.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Appear to consider war crimes and torture to be on the same level as parking tickets or rude behavior, things to "get over" as they are just "things folks do sometimes". Such folks feel we shouldn't be disgusted by, outraged over, or sanctimonious about such mistakes when they are made by some other folks, after all, sometimes even patriots do such things.
Those that worship folks with those limited capacities because of their office, or their dreamy smile simply don't understand why those of us that are fully functioning human beings with a normal capacity for morality and empathy may consider war crimes and torture heinous offenses that should be punished as the prosecutable international crimes that they in fact are.
They think we are making a big deal out of nothing, they have fallen to amorality.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)If we had a Republican in the WH right now DU would be demanding Bush and Cheney be prosecuted. Instead we have a Democratic president who does not want to prosecute so party loyalists are going along to get along. It's really sad to see something as serious as torture be a political football.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)That was absolutely sickening.
It is readily apparent with hindsight that the reversal of most Bush policies and the prosecution of BFEE minions who shit on the Constitution or the banksters who Stole Everything was never, ever going to happen. It was all "off the table" from Day Fucking One. We wuz taken for a ride and chumped. I just can't bring myself to vote in presidential elections anymore.
And in two years we will probably get ANOTHER Clinton and ANOTHER FUCKING Bush. So ya want your right foot or your left removed with a hacksaw, like there's one goddamn bit of difference.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)We see or read that bullshit on DU often. IMO it is pathetic. Who else am I going to vote for? It's becoming more unimportant every day as it becomes more clear that it is all a good cop bad cop freak show that provides entertainment for the rich 1% ...but it's good to have hopes, dreams and goals ...I guess.
peace
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)saw that one rolled out today
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)sheshe2
(83,355 posts)we are not talking about the same people now are we.
Infiltrators come in all stripes and colors.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)you given us, Mr Franklin?"
"A republic. If you can keep it, madam."
We couldn't keep it. Too much greed, ignorance and phony jebus did it in for good.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)as in "We're going to get the folks who did this."
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Was Bush inspired by stupid TV shows?
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Why does the word 'folks' bother some of you so much.
You have heard the President use this term many times before but this time it has been assigned this dangerous, seamy undertone.
'Foooolks' 'Folks!!'
folks ooo000ooo000 did you say 'folks'?
Do you hate folk music? Are they protectors of torturers too?
Lord, gotta laugh while I can!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)to lower resistance to a message and make people feel to be part of a larger group. Limpballs uses it constantly. Obama uses it a lot too. A very popular car was once sold as a folksvagen.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)snake oil technique....
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)i thought he was a POS~
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)omfg hilarious.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)If it even remotely reflects badly upon President Obama, there are those here that would trot out witch-burning as a "rational" recourse.
I'm sick of the "Powerless" Democrats theme. They can't do anything when they are in the majority, they can't do anything when they are in the minority.
It's not that the *can't*, it's that it is financially and politically lucrative to turn a blind eye rather than prosecute crimes.
It makes me sick to my stomach. I support these people, then they turn around and stab their supporters in the back for the sake of expediency.
Response to Aerows (Reply #19)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
11 Bravo
(23,922 posts)I Shit Happily On Obama Today.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)objectionable posts juried.
Number23
(24,544 posts)about how Bush knew, Bush knew, Bush knew. The biggest element to all of this has been the CIA's really surprising response to having their character assassinated ( ) by Bush's implication that he didn't know what they were doing. The CIA has come out with a HUGE response that calls the man a liar almost point blank. This is really unprecedented.
And yet, I come to DU and what is everybody talking about? "Well OBAMA said they were patriots!11" and "why won't OBAMA call for prosecutions??!" I mean GODDAMNIT. This has been in the news for ONE FULL DAY and already the Clown Crew has tried to hang this on Obama's neck.
THIS is why there aren't any "adult conversations" around here. And THIS is why half of these folks don't have a clue what the fuck is going on.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)You must be one of those torturer apologizers.
I kid you not, in one thread here tonight someone said something like: Duh (which wasn't said out loud), Bush used that word 'folks' too! Jumpin Jehosephats this place is riddled with ------------------!
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)Let's see if I understand this thread and others.
Obama=Bush
Ergo Obama supports torture.
Ergo those that support Obama are POS that support torture
Ergo "Folks" has become an evil buzz word
Ergo take his words and edit them, not for what they meant but for what you want them to mean. It enhances your narrative and it sure as hell is going to get you the clicks that you so desperately need.
Ergo no fricking "adult conversation" will ever happen here at Democratic Underground. The children need to be sent to the corner for a time out. They are out of control. They need the naughty mat and sure as hell need to be talked down.
The Naughty Step Technique
The Naughty Step Technique for Discipline
This technique can be applied between the ages of 2 and 6 years old.
The What Ifs of the Naughty Step.
1.) My child doesnt want to look at me when I give them a warning, and puts their hands up over their ears. When a child has done something wrong the last thing they want hear is the authoritative voice of their parent. But trust me when I tell you they can hear every word you are saying. Hold their hands and bring them back down from their face, slow down your speech pattern and continue to give them a warning. Remember, this is your child trying to control the situation.
2.) When I take my child to the step, they keep trying to interrupt me, about what they did. And I never seem to get past step #2. When your child starts to give you a 1000 reasons why they misbehaved. Continue to explain why they are going to sit on the step and let them know that anything they want to talk about after the step is open for discuss. But for right now they are in timeout. This allows the child to realize that you mean what you say.
3.) I have to sit on my child to keep them on the naughty step as they keep running off. It is important for you to do the discipline technique properly and not be side tracked with trying to control what you see happening. Trust in the technique, every child who is strong willed and feisty will immediately get off the step and walk away from it. The reason why they do this is to test, to see whether you will put them back on it. Your follow through is critical to the success of being able to discipline your child for difficult and unruly behavior. Follow through, follow through , follow through.
4.) My child never wants to hear the second explanation. They just want to hug me and get off the step. At this stage it is normally because the child is now feeling sad, which means reflection has taken place, which is a good thing. If they go to hug you, tell them we will do hugs in a minute but it is important that you explain.
5.) Sometimes my child doesnt want to say sorry and tells me to shut up and go away. There are normally 2 reasons why this happens, one is because the child is still extremely angry that they are being reprimanded. When they choose not to apologize it is important for you to leave them there for 30-40 seconds more until they have calmed down and ask for the apology. Sometimes the child will tell you to go away and seconds later get off the step themselves. This is when it is important to take them back to the step and tell them apologies happen on the step. The other reason is simply they just feel like they dont have to apologize. And trust me I can trust you know that when a child is not willing to apologize, I can guarantee they live with parents that dont apologize much either. In this case you will tell them if they are not prepared to apologize they can sit there a bit longer.
Oh Please Read More
http://www.jofrost.com/naughty-step-technique/
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)You literally could.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,698 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)He was labeled by his enemies "Abraham Africanus the First."
But, of course, race had nothing to do with it then either.
Of course, those are all insults by the right, for the most part. You could still write a book about the left and right respectively. I can easily envision a thousand page book about the shit on Obama.
Thanks for the link (for anyone who can't read it due to a sub request Google the title and click the link).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Spazito
(49,765 posts)The reports I read from the international media and even the domestic ones are focused on bush and cheney yet here we have the usual crap by the same posters desperately trying to use this to smear the President yet again.
Number23
(24,544 posts)but sometimes even when you EXPECT to see foolishness, it still knocks you over the head.
The headlines on BBC, Sydney Morning Herald and other papers are all about Cheney throwing Bush under the bus and how the CIA is doing the same. THIS IS HUGE NEWS. Maybe these people trying desperately to make this all Obama all the time see this kind of stuff every day but this is really shocking stuff.
The Times (London) has a front page story on the CIA's really unusual, really strong defence of themselves and saying that Bush knew everything. I would not be surprised if the reason Cheney is covering his ass so forcefully is that he knows there's a chance for prosecutions to happen. This could potentially be the beginning of the stuff that half the people on this site have been BRAYING about for years. And instead of, "hey maybe, possibly this could be the beginning of Bush paying for his wildly criminal behaviors that have damaged this country, weakened our international reputation and damn near bankrupted us" instead we are regaled with impotent wails of "but OBAMA called them patriots!11one"
Sweet LORD in Heaven!! I just cannot BELIEVE how one-dimensional and focused on absolutely NOTHING so many people are here. Any minute now, I expect the (mind numbingly pointless and red herring-esque) ubiquitous Third Way insults to somehow make its way into this conversation, as it does with every damned thing else around here!!
Spazito
(49,765 posts)I read something and think that is the lowest of the low yet, boom, along come another post that goes even lower.
"Third Way" "oligarchs" etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.
"I just cannot BELIEVE how one-dimensional and focused on absolutely NOTHING so many people are here." I couldn't agree more!
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)That's exactly what it is.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)Protect Edward Snowden at any Cost comes to mind. But that's just me~
You are a laugh riot here 1000
Where has the president supported torture?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Dems, but it is VERY important that we elect them according to some people.
What that means ultimately is that we have ZERO chance in changing the direction that this country has been heading for 3 to 4 decades now. If the best we can do in many states is get a conservadem and that prevents us from doing many of the things that we say we stand for that will actually benefit average Americans then we are well and truly screwed. And, well, right now we ARE well and truly screwed because that is the reality that we have been dealing with for quite some time. Republicans WILL lose the trust of the people in this country (of course they will), but if the Democrats don't offer a vision and take steps that actually benefit the lives of average Americans (building support for ideas that WILL benefit Americans would be nice and calling out those that prevent them for passing legislation that would benefit Americans would be great) then average Americans will go right back to the Republicans. That is not rocket science.
Things won't begin to get better until we have a major overhaul of the Democratic Party that will allow for real progressive change to occur in this country. If we don't change the party then the U.S. will resemble developing countries more and more with every passing year (and that's clearly the plan the elites have for us).
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)We're not talking about impeachment. The Senate is not going "Uh, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, would you plese appear at..." no. we're talking about bring the cops in, zip their fucking wrists and toss them in a tank until a trial date is set. We don't need to lick-ass the Republicans nor the third way. The Presidedent can pick up his phone and say one word to Holder - "prosecute' - and it is so.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You're saying, then, that the President could pick up the phone and tell Holder "Prosecute Scootaloo" and it is so?
Please.
The President is not the "boss" of the Attorney General. The Judicial Branch doesn't bow to the POTUS.
The last President who tried to tell an AG what to do was impeached and resigned to escape consequences. He can ask the AG to look into the matter, but he can't "tell" the AG to prosecute anyone.
And when people have immunity already, in order to get the material needed for the report, you can't go back and have a 2nd or 3rd bite of the apple.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The Department of Justice is part of the Executive branch, MADem.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The AG is independent from the POTUS in matters of prosecution and does not bow to him. He doesn't work "for" Obama, any more than Janet Reno "worked for" Bill Clinton when it came to matters of prosecution. Clinton couldn't tell Reno "Don't look into anything I've done." That's not how it works.
You seem to forget a guy named Nixon who told a guy named Richardson to fire a guy named Cox. Richardson told him fuck no and resigned. A cretin named Bork finally went and did it...and thus the term "Borked" came into popular usage when Bork wanted to fulfill his nasty little dream of becoming a member of the Supreme Court.
And remember when Alberto Gonzales tried to game the system and dump all those pesky states' attorneys? http://www.salon.com/2007/02/09/united_states_attorneys/
Why do you think it will go over any better if Obama tries to tell the AG what to do? He can't "tell" Holder (or Holder's replacement) to prosecute anymore than he can "tell" Holder's replacement to NOT prosecute. The AG has to go where the evidence takes him--or her--not where Obama tells him to go.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The examples you cite had other problems, not specifically that the President was telling the AG to do something.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That legislative record, Holder wrote, contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.
You can't make something out of "moral disapproval." The 2nd Circuit said "defend yourself" and the administration said "We got nuttin.'"
It's not the same sort of situation at all.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)know the answer to this. After all, this was the gravamen of impeachment against Nixon.
The President cannot order the AG to come to a legal conclusion. The President, as a matter of fact, cannot order the AG to do anything, except under the auspices of an Executive Order binding on the ordinary business of the DOJ.
So....just as Nixon could not order Archibald Cox to come to legal conclusions about the probe, and therefore, fire the prosecutor, President Obama cannot order Eric Holder to come to a legal conclusion about anything.
What President Obama did do about the DOJ's response to DOMA was right and proper--he asked the AG to review the Administration's stance, provide guidance for the issuance of further Executive Orders, and the White House Counsel provided the AG its own legal summary.
Most importantly...President Obama made sure he picked an excellent AG who would have the courage and conviction to stand up for rights for all.
I am glad you have begun to take an interest in GLBT rights!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Holy crap, you owe me a new 40" TV, damned Pinot Noir's in every nook and cranny.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)username and "Nixon" in the helpful search box provided by admin to take a look at what you've written about Nixon.
Poor Elvis.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Poor Elvis indeed...the balance of his mind was disturbed as a consequence of heavy drug abuse, poor man.
Full marks for you--btw, excellent post just above...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)"Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. "
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I ask you this, because you seem to be perseverating in the idea that the President 'orders' the AG to come to legal conclusions.
So there must be a body of documents you can point to that would reflect Presidential orders in particular cases.
Can you tell me what they are?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Night-night.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)name the Presidential document or other vehicle you are referring to. There's gotta be an archive of these orders.
After all, I've already given you the example of your avatar. What you seem to be suggesting is that Nixon was
improperly investigated.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That's not at all the same as "ordering" Holder or any other AG to "prosecute."
Maybe he should "order" Holder to "prosecute" you, too--because, ya know, he's the King and all...?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Jury their posts....report them to admin.
Come on Manny!
JI7
(89,182 posts)and if jury allowed it to remain i would like to see the details of the jury vote.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)This is just another shit stirring post with no facts, just a bunch of BS. Some here are really good at stirring things up, but never being able to back up what they say. I guess as long as they get recs from their "loyal" followers, they will never stop.
JustAnotherGen
(31,683 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)"Come on ... Straw-Manny!"
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)"We've always tortured, so the president's poo-pooing of this torture is nothing new"
zappaman
(20,605 posts)You cherry picked part of the post.
How about quoting the whole thing?
Number23
(24,544 posts)But you put this really stupid bit: "We've always tortured, so the president's poo-pooing of this torture is nothing new"
in quotes as if that's even remotely close to what that poster said. I am cracking up that you either believe that's what bravenak was saying or that you're trying to get OTHER people to believe that's what bravenak was saying.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)demanded them! Yet here. We get crickets.
And he loves to alert on his threads for those that do not toe his line.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)We want names/links please.
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Are you talking about DUers?
If so, they should be alerted on.
Can you point to one post?
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)is all about alrighty.
Sadly for them that's exactly what he did.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Loyalty to a fucking party is more important than basic humanity and goodness.
Absurd.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)Strawman Manny!
Could be a big hit!
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)Link please. You know how you always demand links. We would like that same courtesy from you.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... with accusing anyone who doesn't agree with them of "defending torture and torturers".
Just like accusing people who don't trust Snowden/Greenwald of "defending the NSA and domestic spying".
Just like accusing people who don't agree that all cops are bigoted bullies of "defending the idea of black men being gunned down".
Just like accusing people who don't fall into lockstep with one's political views of being "Third Wayers".
Just like accusing people who express ANY opinion contrary to what DU now considers the only "acceptable" opinion of being paid trolls.
Et fuckin' cetera.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)Thank you Nance.
Some say the Op is not talking about DU. Was it said directly? No. However it was implied and the commenters know that as you can see from some of the responses.
I am standing here accused of condoning torture. I have been tried, judged and condemned at DU by said posters. Pretty sad on what is suppose to be a Democratic board.
Rex
(65,616 posts)And get nasty? This is why we cannot have nice things like META.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... if everyone agreed with everyone else on everything.
But it's now a place where one MUST agree with a certain contingent - and if they don't, they are obviously defenders of cop killers who want the NSA to read all their emails while they await their paycheques for posting.
I never understood the dissolution of Meta - all it accomplished was making GD pretty much "all Meta, all the time", instead of confining the usual boxing matches to the ring.
Rex
(65,616 posts)GD is now GD/META.
MADem
(135,425 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)leftstreet
(36,081 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... it's a matter of accusing people of being "okay with torture" based on nothing more than the fact that they disagree with you on other issues.
leftstreet
(36,081 posts)... with accusing anyone who doesn't agree with them of "defending torture and torturers".
You didn't mention 'other issues' before now
Perhaps you just forgot
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I was imprecise. I meant "anyone who doesn't agree with them" full-stop. There are many here who accuse other posters of all kinds of things when they are disagreed with on any topic or political issue.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)And the jury results are always enlightening, in terms of how the jury system actually operates.
Second to last hide, Juror No. 1: "I can't stand NanceGreggs, so I'm voting to hide this."
Last hide, Juror No. 3: " She) parses reality through Obama colored glasses to the point of ridiculousness."
You will notice that neither cited any violations of the TOS, nor any disruptive behaviour - merely the fact that they "can't stand" me personally, or that they disagreed with my support of Obama.
And while I'm on the subject, I am still wondering WHY jury results are often cited in threads and left undisturbed. But the jury results that were posted citing "I can't stand NanceGreggs, so I'm voting to hide" was immediately alerted on and "hidden".
Could it be that a bit of transparency in respect of how juries vote and WHY was deemed to be a little too much information that some would rather hide than address?
In any event, thanks for the support, bettyellen! Just be careful you don't get a "hide" yourself for supporting the "wrong person", or what they had to say.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Not talking about DU of course.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)YOU CAN DOOOOOOOOOOOO IT!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I assume you mean people in general and not on du because I have not seen anyone defending torture here.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...thinks torture is OK.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)When did he say that?
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Pretty sly of him, isn't it?
lol, the denseness of the Amazon right in our own living rooms.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Was that stopped as well?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Response to Odin2005 (Reply #119)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]
How many times did you vote for him? Once? Twice? Ever?
And I would love to see the link of those that adore this President saying torture is okay. You made a statement, please provide the links that support it. Otherwise your statement is fucking bullshit!
DU became a sad place today. Obama=Bush and those that support him want people tortured. Really? Put up or shut up. I want links not GOP talking points.
Show me Odin. I want facts not fantasy.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)sheshe2
(83,355 posts)It blows my mind and it stinks like the sewer.
The toilet just overflowed.
Happy now?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I try, but I can't stop sucking.
I. Just. Suck.
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)Did you alert on me again?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Tonight, I just suck.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Autumn
(44,762 posts)Okay
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I could use one about now, I reckon. Or maybe I deserve one of those rehydration thingies.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)
psychologists, a Dr. Jessen and Dr. Mitchell, everybody knows them, their practice has been in the news a LOT lately. I bet a lot of posters in this thread will be tickled to chip in on it.
You are a brat.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)They change the subject....
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)No trials and convictions first, no dragging out into the light just how vile and deliberate their actions are, just blanket pardon them in advance, so that we can continue to ignore injustices by those in power, and they can continue with their lives unhindered, while their victims are either dead or in a living Hell for the rest of their lives.