Skip to main content

View Diary: Schoolhouse Rock, the sequel (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the purpose of this site has never been clear (33+ / 0-)

    On the one hand, we claim it's to forward a progressive agenda.

    On the other hand, we claim it's to elect and support Democrats.

    Those two purposes are fine as long as Democrats are progressives. But when they are not (as they are not now), then those two purposes become contradictory and inherently incompatible. As they are now.

    Hence we have the eternal war between the party pragmatists and the dirty fucking hippies.

    •  And STILL Obama is my choice over Romney (7+ / 0-)

      Despite the eternal war within myself, Inner Party Pragmatist vs. Inner DFH. I rather expect Barack Obama has the same war within himself.

      •  That's simply because you have only 2 choices (13+ / 0-)

        and Rmoney is unacceptable.

        Ergo, we vote for Obama.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:03:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, that, and the fact that I think (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MarcKyle64

          Obama, while he has serious faults, has performed very well in incredibly difficult circumstances.

        •  And thus, the batshit crazy teahadist wing (0+ / 0-)

          of the Rethuglican Party -- i.e., about 90% of the Rethuglican Party at this point, especially if you include those pandering to it -- enables and supports the corporate, Constitution-shredding so-called "moderate" wing of the Democratic Party (a wing well to the left of the mainstream Republican Party of 40 years ago).

          And thus, we have no good choices.  Only bad ones, and worse ones.

      •  that's not the issue (8+ / 0-)

        I don't see ANYONE here advocating that we elect Rmoney.  Do you?

      •  For a long time, I agreed with this: (21+ / 0-)
        I rather expect Barack Obama has the same war within himself.
        I dearly wish I still could believe that.

        I can't.

        Kill lists and massive escalation of drone warfare leave me no choice but to conclude that the President has no "inner conflict" such as you describe. This isn't pragmatism or bipartisanship; no one was demanding this stuff.

        He's chosen this policy because it's what he's comfortable with.

        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

        by PhilJD on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:50:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not like he even tries to hide it... (10+ / 0-)

          killing a US citizen with no charge.... an "easy one" says the Nobel Peace Laureate.

          •  That's what Truman said about the decision to (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD, TimmyB, efraker, cruz

            drop the atomic bomb, that he lost no sleep over it.

            The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

            by lysias on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:54:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The comparison is certainly possible (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cruz, joe wobblie, HairyTrueMan, blueoasis

              But didn't Truman stop after two?

              To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong. -Joseph Chilton Pearce

              by glitterscale on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:32:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Truman dropped two because he only had two (4+ / 0-)

                ...or such is my recollection. That, and the Japanese surrendered soon after. They were able to surrender, because we used a little bit of intelligence and didn't assassinate the people who needed to be alive to surrender.

                Of course, Al Qaeda can't meaningfully surrender. We've killed every notable spokesman they have, and we've demonized them as insane religious fanatics who will stop at nothing to wipe us all out - completely ignoring their stated grievances.

                I'm not exactly sure why we're still fighting AQ. They probably don't have enough trained, combat-ready personnel to fill out a basketball team.

                "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                by efraker on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:01:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The third bomb (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  efraker, PhilJD, glitterscale, kurt

                  would have been ready to drop on August 20.

                  You know what's scary?  Folks left Hiroshima by train after August 6 and went home to Nagasaki.  One man says he saw 'Bock's Car' diving away after the drop, remembered Enola Gay doing the same thing over Hiroshima and had enough warning to find shelter and survived.  I wonder if there is a japanese word for a double hibakusha?

              •  Harry S. Truman's collaborations (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueoasis

                with Stalin and French Imperialism were also responsible for millions of deaths
                in the Korean, Indo-China and Vietnam wars!
                ANYONE, whether he renounces his American citizenship or not, who ingages
                in plotting, conspires to plot, and/or the carrying out of terrorist attacks against America or any of Her Citizens here or abroad, is a Traitor and guilty of
                High Treason!  Such a person(s) is a legitimate prime target for termination
                with all possible haste and extreme prejudice!

                ! The swinistic greed and racial hatred of the American ruling elite is abysmal !

                by joe wobblie on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:37:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Um, actually, no, sorry. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  douc66, PhilJD

                  That person is a legitimate prime target for something called a "criminal prosecution".  That's because High Treason is something called a crime, and being convicted of it involves that prosecution thingy.  It involves charges and the right to be informed of the nature of those charges, the right to legal counsel, an adversarial process, the right to be confronted in public with the evidence against you, the right to rebut that evidence including the right to call witnesses in your favor through compulsory process, and so on.  It does not involve becoming an instant target for "termination with all possible haste and extreme prejudice" by unilateral decision of one branch of government.  At least, not in a republic of laws.  (In a monarchy or a dictatorship, yes.)  That person becomes a Traitor and guilty of High Treason! after that thingy (that's a technical term) called a "conviction".  Look it up.  It's in this quaint piece of paper called the United States Constitution, which, at least formally, has not yet been repealed.  The Google Machine can get you a copy if you don't already happen to have one.  To save time and mental effort, I'd suggest beginning your reading with Amendment Number IV and continuing from there.  If you're bored you can stop after Amendment Number VI, with perhaps a brief skim of Amendment Number VIII.  And since you have invoked the crime of High Treason!, you might also take a little side trip over to Article III, section 3, which specifically identifies the nature of acts and the nature of evidence required for a conviction of that crime. But no matter, such things would probably bore you, and apparently "due process of law" is not a concept with which you are familiar.  Which was the point of Tom's cartoon.  

                  Have a nice day.

        •  I think this is a man who has known from Day 1 (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          efraker, PhilJD, sidnora, JonBarleycorn

          that Democratic Party electability would not survive a domestic radiological dispersal device detonation or other major incident of domestic or foreign terrorism. And I think he has been drawn into the enormous, alarming power that now resides with the Executive branch, a devil's bargain if ever there was one. Perhaps -- PERHAPS -- a leader such as Jimmy Carter would be made of the stuff required to cede some of that power, but I'm not so certain.

          I cannot vouchsafe David Sanger's sources, but in his interview today on Fresh Air, he asserted that Obama wanted our Stuxnet people to be very sure the program would not cause unintended power failures in towns, hospitals, etc., adjacent to the Iranian centrifuge facility. If that's true, I take it as an indication that his moral compass has not completely gone kaput. But I do think he has taken a disastrous turn with targeted assassinations of American citizens, and considering his background in Constitutional law, he has done so deliberately and knowingly. How the hell are we going to put that genie back in the goddamned bottle?????

          I want to get him re-elected, then I intend to fight him hammer and tong over this, such as I can.

          •  Obama's Moral Compass? (9+ / 0-)

            Two points:

            First, we are not slaughtering tribesmen in Yemen, Afganistan and Pakistan on a daily basis because they are building "radiological dispersal" devices that they plan on detonating inside the United States.  There may be other reasons we are killing these people, but the bald faced lie "we do it to keep you safe" is not a justifiaction.  Obama isn't so stupid that he believes this bullshit.  

            Second, be releasing a computer virus to destroy Iran's computers and other physical assets, Obama has committed an act of war against yet another country.  The fact that he was concerned that the Stuxnet weapon didn't destroy hospitals means nothing.  Destroying hospitals is in itself a war crime.  

            Thus, Obama's moral compass, as you call it, lets him kill  people and commit acts of war against countries we are not at war with, but prevent him from commiting war crimes.  Sorry, but that doesn't make me feel better about Obama.          

            •  its not like Iran doesn't hit back... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              raincrow

              The US and Iran have been regularly committing acts of war against each other since they captured our embassy during their revolution against the tyrannical government we helped to impose on them. I have a pretty low opinion of the Iranian government, and am just fine with President Obama doing a little industrial sabotage in their nuclear facilities to increase the time it'll take for them to reach 'break-out' nuclear weapons capability.

              I think Stuxnet is way more ethically justifiable than the embargo, which in itself is an act of war.

              It is a good thing that President Obama was specific that Stuxnet shouldn't accidentally commit war crimes. I think the last ~3 years Obama has been rational, calm, and calculating - I'd hate to see what would happen if he actually lost his cool.

              "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

              by efraker on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:02:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You seem not to have noticed that Stuxnet (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TimmyB

                spun out of control.  We just don't know how much damage it ended up doing (and how much damage it has yet to do).

                The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                by lysias on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:41:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Iran claims no injuries or deaths (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  raincrow

                  If Stuxnet had killed anyone, Iran would have been talking about it in the media and at the UN for as long as they could.

                  "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                  by efraker on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:47:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, the Financial Times doesn't think Stuxnet (0+ / 0-)

                    did much good either.  Financial Times: Cyberattack clouds US-Iran nuclear talks:

                    However, Iranian anger over the attack has been tempered by the fact that Stuxnet largely failed in its efforts and the Iranian nuclear programme has quickly made up lost ground.
                    So how was it worth even the risks, never mind any harm that it may have done (and Stuxnet spread far beyond Iran, according to reports, for example infecting at least hundreds of computers in Japan, where the Fukushima nuclear power plant used exactly the kind of Siemens control unit that Stuxnet targetted)?

                    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

                    by lysias on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:37:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  what is the goal of sabotage? (0+ / 0-)

                      I wish they'd note the source that said they've "quickly made up lost ground". Its hard to know what that means when Natanz, the largest refining facility in Iran, hasn't been visited by an outside inspector since 2006 (link is to the PDF of the last third-party report on the Natanz facility).

                      Given that - the claim that they've quickly made up lost ground either came from the Iranians or an intelligence agency. Right?

                      Ultimately, I don't think anyone who commits industrial sabotage, whether they're whipping clogs into gears or loosening the stiffening cables on cellphone towers, expects that they're doing anything more than making their target spend more time and money to accomplish the same task.

                      During the US Civil War, General Sherman melted and bent hundreds of miles of railroad leading into Atlanta, yet the Confederacy was still able to restore railroad service within a few weeks... yet I don't think anyone in Atlanta would have said it wasn't terribly effective.

                      If you estimate the value of sabotage based on whether or not the target ever restores their destroyed infrastructure, then all sabotage is doomed to failure.

                      So how was it worth even the risks?
                      In my opinion, it wasn't - all acts of war are ultimately self-defeating and wasteful.

                      From the perspective of the Commander in Chief of the US military, I suspect that anything that can buy a little time has value.

                      the Fukushima nuclear power plant used exactly the kind of Siemens control unit that Stuxnet targetted
                      This is true, but the cause of the Fukushima meltdown is well understood - it was caused by a tsunami breaking the physical connection to the necessary generators.

                      Pointing out that Fukushima was infected with Stuxnet is like pointing out that a crashed car with the hydraulic brake fluid line cut also had faulty windshield wipers. True, but irrelevant to the tragedy.

                      "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                      by efraker on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:50:37 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Iran Hostage Crisis Was 32 Years Ago (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BradyB, Foreign Devil, CT Hank

                The fact that Iranian students took over our embassy in Tehran 32 years ago cannot be used as an excuse for our country commiting acts of war against Iran today.  

                Furthermore, the United States overthrew Iran's elected prime minister and installed the Shah of Iran, who, as we now say about our enemies, murdered and tortured his own people.  The Shah killed thousands, but because we installed him and he did as we told him to, it, we didn't care.  This was years before the hostage crisis.

                Any fair reading of the complete history of Iran and the U.S. would lead to the conclusion we are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iranians.  This ledger leaves off the milion Iranians killed in the war with Saddam's Iraq, when we supported Saddam.  Funny how we didn't care about Saddam using poison gas (we supplied him with the chemicals to make it when he was using it) against Iran.  

                Furthermore, without our installing the Shah, Iran would have never been ruled by Islamic clerics as it is today, so we are responsible for that horror too.

                Finally, Obama's attack against Iran is unjustified.  Iran has every right to enrich uranium.  There is no evidence Iran is building a nuke bomb.  Iran's uranium enrichment program is just another excuse for our bullying, same as claims about Saddams' weapons of mass distruction were.  Its all just warmongers' propaganda.

                But, because Obama's moral compass so far hasn't allowed him to commit war crimes against Iran, we are supposed to cheer.  Sorry, but I don't agree.  

                •  Are any acts of war justified? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  raincrow

                  I know the moral education I received in my youth was that you never, ever hurt someone, even if they hurt you first. Killing people being right out.

                  I don't think any act of war is or can be justified. They're all wrong, though maybe not equally so - I know I'd rather be killed than tortured, personally.

                  That said - the same journalists presently reporting on Stuxnet were reporting a few years ago that Iran was supplying EFP IEDs to the Iraqi insurgency which, in the first month the DoD tracked them separately from other IEDs, killed 23 US citizens, and injured 89 more.

                  Both sides have bloody hands, and show no apparent interest in stepping back from the ongoing and systematic violence they are engaged in.

                  I think its beyond question that the US has killed more Iranians than the Iranians have killed Americans... even if you add in US allies killed by Iranians, we still probably take the cake. I don't think there is moral weight to that statistic though.

                  When two groups are regularly killing each other's members,  I think its a sort of moral laziness to point to the one that has been more 'successful' and say that they're the worse party. They're not worse - they're just bigger. They're both killers and they both should stop.

                  "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                  by efraker on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:33:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Both Stories--U.S. Government Propaganda (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    efraker

                    In both instances, this reporter is merely repeating what he was told by official U.S. government sources.  

                    I have no reason to believe the U.S. government stories about Iran supplying IEDs.  These stories were based upon U.S. government claims that Iraqis did not have the know how to make the concave copper plates needed to focus the blast energy of the explosive devices.  Thus, according to our government, these plates were being supplied by Iran.

                    However, our government's claims were unbelievable.  In all seriousness, the manufacture of copper plates is pre-Bronze Age technology.  Tons of copper wire were stolen in Iraq when the electricity grid was looted.  Once you have the copper wire, a cave man could make a concave plate out of it.

                    Our government's conclusion that Iran was needed to make the plates is silly.

                    Concerning Stuxnet, I have no reason to believe that our government is lying.  Why would it take credit for something it didn't do?  The whole purpose of the disclosure was to make Obama look like a strong leader, same as the earlier drone reporting.  

                    So, I believe our government is telling the truth about what it did.  However, I don't believe our government when it makes claims about supposed enemies.

                    Without our government's silly claims, there is no evidence that Iran had any responsibility for IEDs.  Thus, there is no evidence that Iran and the U.S. are regularly killing each other's members.  There is certainly no evidence, other than silly U.S. claims about the difficulty of manufacturing copper plates, that Iran is killing Americans.

                    So I am not making a moral equivilency argument, which you seem to do by bringing up the 32 year old hostage crisis.  Iran isn't killing Americans, while the U.S. is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iranians for the last 60 years.  Plus, we are trying to gin up a war today by making false claims about Iran's nuke program.  The fact that Iran held a number of Americans hostage 32 years ago doesn't even the scale, as you imply.          

                           

                    •  making an EFP lens isn't that simple... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      raincrow

                      You have to cast and machine it. The international standard for copper wire is a temper of either 060, H00, or H01 whereas copper is so ductile its only appropriate for plate casting at H02+. Its not quite bronze age technology.

                      A captured member of the Iranian Quds Brigade has acknowledged that they supplied EFPs and trained local resistance groups in their production in Lebanon and Iraq.

                      The UK Home Office, when asked about the Iranian EFPs, said: "there is evidence of links between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and secret cells under the umbrella of the Mahdi army, operating independently of its leader, Moqtada al-Sadr" which can be read quite diplomatically as affirming that they are, or ignoring the question - a real opportunity for one to show their confirmation bias.

                      In general though, you're absolutely right that the Iraqis could churn these out themselves with a decent machinist and a lathe - that is why I only quoted the first month's reported fatalities and wounded.

                      Ultimately - no-one has ever caught the Iranians red-handed delivering EFPs to the Iraqi insurgency. Its all circumstantial, but I think its probably true, because they did it in Lebanon with Hezbollah... why wouldn't they do it with the Iraqi insurgency?

                      I agree with you on almost everything but apparently not this. I don't begrudge you wanting more evidence considering, and I've never seen you do anything but argue in good faith on DK, so I have no reason to believe you're cherry-picking the evidence.

                      Personally - I think there has been some liberal whitewashing of the terrible things Iran does, in an attempt to forestall a war. Some might say that by talking about how abusive the Iranian government is I'm being a tool of the neocons. Oh well. Truth may be the first casualty of war but I'm not going to be the one to kill it.

                      As to 'evening the scale' - that isn't what I think. It is never appropriate to kill a citizen for their government's past immorality to your citizens. You can't ever even the scale, and I think its grotesque when people do arithmetic with human life. If nation A murdered 10,000 whereas nation B murdered 100, they're both murderers. Why do people spend so much time talking about "proportionality", as if it would all have been better if only they'd murdered a few less fathers-mothers-sons-daughters?

                      The last word is yours if you want it.

                      "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                      by efraker on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:01:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Iran in Iraq (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        efraker

                        We can agree that the Iranian Government is a repressive and brutal dictatorship run by religous fanatics.  However, it had little reason to help kill Americans in Iraq.

                        Shites are the majority in both Iraq and Iran.  The United States overthrew the Sunis in Iraq and installed Shites.

                        To me, it looks like Iran was the clear victor of the U.S.-Iraq war.  There are many connections between Iranian Shites and Iraqi Shites.  Moqtada al-Sadr has spent time in Iran.  So has most of the Iraqi Shite leadership, because Saddam would have killed them if they remained in Iraq during his time in power.  So sure, I realize there are Iranian connections to many Shite groups, including members of the current government, along with the Madhi Army.  That doesn't mean the Iranians were arming any groups to fight against the U.S. and the Shite government it installed.    

                        Why would Iran arm groups to fight Iraq's Shite government?  Why would Iran arm a Sunni insurgentcy to fight the U.S. when the U.S. was acting to protect the Iranian allied Shite government from the very same Sunnis?  The U.S. and Iran shared the same goals in Iraq, the installation and protection of a Shite government.  It makes no sense for Iran to arm the opposition.          

                        I read the IED article you cited to from the Stuxnet article  author above prior to commenting on it.  I couldn't help but note that the picture of the 240 mm rocket has English writing on the rocket.  Is anyone really supposed to believe that Iranian weapons have English writing on them, instead of Persian?  

                        Furthermore, as was well noted, Saddam's weapons depots were looted.  Neither Shites nor Sunnis needed to have weapons imported.  By weapons I also mean explosives taken from artillery shells, which were used in making IEDs.

                        So, while I'm sure we agree that the Iranian government severly oppresses its own people, and that it has many  connecetions to the Madhi Army, I just can't see any reason for Iran to arm any group opposing the Iraqi government.  

                        I don't think I disagree with anything else you wrote.  I'm am sorry that I misunderstood your reference to the 1979 Iran hostage crisis. Less wars and killings would be a good thing.      

          •  historically, whenever US Presidents from (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aspe4, TimmyB, raincrow

            either party have inherited extra-legal programs such as assassinations or illegal surveillance, they have NOT ended those programs, but instead expanded them.

            The first US President to authorize illegal wiretaps against Martin Luther King, for example, was JFK.

            I hoped in 2008 that Obama would be different.  But I didn't expect that he would.

        •  Throws a whole (7+ / 0-)

          new light on his drone jokes at the WH press corp dinner.  Read these articles and more in the Guardian/Observer this morning.... They are covering this extensively unlike our propaganda outlets...

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

          Drone wars and state secrecy – how Barack Obama became a hardliner

          He was once a liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war. Now, according to revelations last week, the US president personally oversees a 'kill list' for drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. Then there's the CIA renditions, increased surveillance and a crackdown on whistleblowers. ......


          Amos Guiora
          "He is making a decision largely devoid of external review," Guiroa told the Observer, saying the US's apparent methodology for deciding who is a terrorist is "loosey goosey".

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
          America's murderous drone campaign is fuelling terror

          Obama's escalation of a war that's already caused thousands of deaths will only destabilise his own allies and bolster al-Qaida

          ....From Pakistan to Somalia, CIA-controlled pilotless aircraft rain down Hellfire missiles on an ever-expanding hit list of terrorist suspects – they have already killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians in the process.

          At least 15 drone strikes have been launched in Yemen this month, as many as in the whole of the past decade, killing dozens; while in Pakistan, a string of US attacks has been launched against supposed "militant" targets in the past week, incinerating up to 35 people and hitting a mosque and a bakery.

             



          •  from your first link, "George Bush on steroids" (3+ / 0-)
            Obama has presided over a massive expansion of secret surveillance of American citizens by the National Security Agency. He has launched a ferocious and unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers. He has made more government documents classified than any previous president. He has broken his promise to close down the controversial Guantánamo Bay prison and pressed on with prosecutions via secretive military tribunals, rather than civilian courts. He has preserved CIA renditions. He has tried to grab broad new powers on what defines a terrorist or a terrorist supporter and what can be done with them, often without recourse to legal process.
            The sheer scope and breadth of Obama's national security policy has stunned even fervent Bush supporters and members of the Washington DC establishment. In last week's New York Times article that detailed the "kill list", Bush's last CIA director, Michael Hayden, said Obama should open the process to more public scrutiny. "Democracies do not make war on the basis of legal memos locked in a [Department of Justice] safe," he told the newspaper.
            Even more pertinently, Aaron David Miller, a long-term Middle East policy adviser to both Republican and Democratic administrations, delivered a damning verdict in a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine. He wrote bluntly: "Barack Obama has become George W Bush on steroids."
            (emphasis mine)

            without the ants the rainforest dies

            by aliasalias on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:38:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  it's OK if you are a Democrat /nt (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shaharazade, mightymouse, aliasalias
            •  Thanks aliasalias (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joe wobblie, aliasalias, PhilJD

              I deleted the line 'George Bush on Steroids' . I was cowardly. I have no excuse other then not wanting to have to deal with the blow back I thought would occur. Glad you gave this article back it's punch. Thanks and sorry I wussed out. It's hard to look at the reality what we are supposed to support here. Sometimes I feel like my thoughts alone are bannable. Perhaps they are in this strange new Democratic reality we are required to adopt. Your a better man/woman then I am and I thank you.  

              •  be kinder to yourself, you post a lot of comments (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD, shaharazade

                that certainly aren't from a 'wuss' ,and many times I'm saying hell yes ! tell it sister/brother. The same thing goes for the article you linked, which I most likely wouldn't have seen otherwise.
                So thanks for the link, others were/are free to read the whole thing so you already put yourself out there (along with the current comment). So fwiw from this man to you, sister or brother, ya ain't no wuss. There have been things I've dropped just to avoid conflict, but sometimes the truth is just too large to ignore, and it needs to be spoken.
                Also, I wouldn't be surprised if my comment wasn't rec'd by some because they didn't want a part of it either, especially with it in the title instead of buried in the article.

                without the ants the rainforest dies

                by aliasalias on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:24:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Obama's drone joke was as bad as Bush's joke (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse

            about looking for WMD's.

            The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

            by lysias on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:42:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Sham liberals (0+ / 0-)

        and cur blue dog enemies of Our President Barack Obama run rampant here...
        This is THEIR Diary!
                 'I am engaged in a fight to the death with sham liberals.'
            - Letter from Karl Marx to Karl Eduard Vehse, end of November 1852.

        ! The swinistic greed and racial hatred of the American ruling elite is abysmal !

        by joe wobblie on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:21:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hence the flaming beauty of it all (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cruz, PhilJD, aliasalias

      We fight with each other rather than yelling STOP in a clear voice.

      To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong. -Joseph Chilton Pearce

      by glitterscale on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:30:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site