Skip to main content

Gosh, where did I hear that before?  Oh right, from Nixon who was the first President who was forced into resigning in disgrace, when the laws of our nation meant something...when we could call on a both parties, to defend their positions, as to their responsibilities to protect it's citizens from both Domestic and International terrorists, but that was a long time ago.   God that seems like centuries ago now.

The spin is spinning my head so fast, that I feel like I have vertigo, right now.  I'm hearing all the bullshit memes so that do nothing to answer the facts and evidence to date:  Why is the Middle East exploding?  What for Freedom and Democracy?  Bullshit.  Why are we escalating the endless wars, while pretending that we need 'austerity' measure's at home?  More bullshit.  

Regardless, of what you may want to think:  Support the Troops meme, that is the ultimate lie.  We are in it for the Oil, nothing more, nothing less.  At least, we can be assured of that fact by one Democratic Representative: Edward Markey:

"We are in Libya because of oil," Markey said on MSNBC. "It all goes back to the 5 million barrels of oil we import from OPEC on a daily basis."

"I think all Americans know why the president made this strike," he said. "As long as no American soldiers are on the ground ... then I think it's a good decision for the president."

http://thehill.com/...

Wow, a 'good decision,' how is that so?  How many wars do we have going now?  How many of you still believe, that the Bush Doctrine is not fully in place?  How many of you do not fully apprehend and understand, that if you can and will connect the dots to how the destruction of our own economy is led by the same speculators, that have moved commodities and food prices, and gas, to directly affect these revolutions taking place?

Yes, what a great deal, Ed.  It all seems so righteous and sensible, but at least we have a voice of truth:  We are in it for the OIL, always have been always have been.  It has nothing to do with Freedom, or Democracy, or Truth, or LOL, protecting the civilians.  

What a fucking joke, and a lie.  

We refuse to admit it, because we have a Democrat in the White House: that we have fully lost our moral compass in our nation.  That the Imperial Presidencies are not fully in charge.  That we no longer have a voice in our votes, for those that we continue to give money to support, hopefully pretending that 'they' are listening at all.  

That is all gone.  What breaks my heart is this:  I came from a military family:  I know the cost.  I listened to my dad, scream in his sleep suffering from PTSD, all of his life.  He was kept in Stalag 11 for a year an half.  I know what our brothers and sisters go to war for, and now, how many wars do we have going?   Who is supporting them?  

This is OIL for Blood, nothing less.  

But hey, don't let me point out the obvious, that our own President is fully incapable and fully beholden to the MIC, and how we have lost the ability to understand where we got here, and why we got here.

As we move into yet another way in Libya, it is the same exact pattern:  We let the UN decide, the (secret Oil whores on our side) transgress into this meme:  'We will move away and let others take on the task of a new war,' only that never happens, does it?

Welcome to your new war, that is brought to you by the very same people that destroyed our national economy:  The same Wall st./Banking cartel that is speculating on Food prices and oil prices.  That is why these revolutions are taking place.  

The eyes on the prize, has nothing to do with Freedom and Democracy and Justice for all.  That is bullshit.  What we are witnessing is a direct result of the destruction of moral and ethical and legal presentments, that have been knowingly destroyed by our government.  NO ONE IS ACCOUNTABLE, NO ONE IS RESPONSIBLE, EVER.  

What we are witnessing is a continual repeat of the Bush Doctrine, all the way to the Bank.  Wish it were not so, but it is.

I've been a dyed in the wool Democrat all my life, and I cannot help but face the truth:  We know, after the Supreme Court, had destroyed our nation's laws, by way of Bush vs. Gore, and of course allowing Corporations the same rights as citizens, to fully understand, we are in a state of full and critical regulatory corruption, and I wish it were not so.  But it is.  We've been sold down the river by both parties all the way, and if you want to ask yourself one question, ask yourself this:  Where are the jobs, and where are the laws protecting the Middle Class?  

The amazing thing to me, is that we keep pretending to talk about: these issues: financial reform for elections, and reform for the unprecedented idea of Filibuster Reform.  What makes anyone think, that the 'Pigs at the trough' are going to vote those changes?  It is the ultimate lie, and ultimate delusion of the masses.  NO ONE IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT.

Sorry, but get a fucking grip on that.  The real truth is one we don't want to face:  these power brokers, formerly known as 'public servants' have been bought and paid for, so how in the hell, do you think your vote is going to change that?  It will not, not now, not ever.

Where are we now:  Caught in a morass of 'don't do nothing' and relying on this:  We cannot get out this mess, without a two party system:  Wrong.  

We can see, clearly that President Obama is a tool, and he is not who we elected to stand up for our party platform:  Our only alternative is this:  We elect and move the Unions into a Labor Party.  

We can sit on our asses, and simply deny the truth, or we can get behind the real grass movements that built our party to begin with.  We can demand that the Unions lead the way, or not.  Otherwise, guess what?  We are totally lost.

There is no one, like most of you that wish we had not come to the is place in our nation.  I will not deny it any longer.  We have the courage to move forward, or guess what?  We will be totally 'Roved to death by the Republicans' and who will we blame then?

This is our last chance people.  Don't you get that?  I can clearly see where Obama is leading us, and this is not who we are all about, is it?  Lay down like a dog, and take it, or get up and fight like a real Democrat.  I suppose that is up to you.  

 I have absolutely no idea, who and what President Obama stands for, since he continually hides in the shadows, and then caves, worse than Harry Ried, to do exactly what the 'fake two party' system does all the time:  Good cop/bad cop, as long as they both get the fucking money they need to keep us all fooled and beholden to their immoral government, that had led to world wide revolutions, without any laws, with out any accountability, without any moral compass.  

Guess, what?  This is not how civilizations survive.  Ever.  

What I am looking for is this:  As Democrats, how can we move forward to demand that our President and government esp. in 2012, adhere, to the rules that have and will adhere to the responsibility to of the laws of our nation?  

Regardless of what we all may be willing to apolgize for in place of Obama, we cannot and should never forget, that we are a nation of laws, not men.  I don't give a shit about the Republicans cut throats, but I do give a shit about my own party.  I think you do too.

So, I challenge you all to a completely civil debate:  How do we dare to gain our party back, knowing that the reulatory capture is fully in place, knowing that we cannot ever change these issues: financial reform for elections, and reform for the unprecedented idea of Filibuster Reform.  What makes anyone think, that the 'Pigs at the trough' are going to vote those changes?  It is the ultimate lie, and ultimate delusion of the masses.  NO ONE IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT.

This is not about electing new and better democrats any longer.  It has gone way beyond that idea.  It has gone to the point of understanding that our government is under deep duress, of those that are bought off and paid for, against those that have less than nothing in terms of dollars and vocies that matter.  Otherwise, with about 50 to 70 percent of the American people wanting an end to the endless wars, the HCR to provide and public option, the Financial Reform Bill to return to Glass-Steagall, our voices would have mattered.

But they did not, did they?

So regarless of what party we vote for, it no longer matters for our nation, and now we find ourselves in endless wars, with no end in sight.  With no vision, with no plan, as we continue to pay for those that are enjoying the best years of thier lives, on our dime.

Wish it were not so, but that is the way it really is.

Ms. B.

Originally posted to Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:03 PM PDT.

Also republished by oo and Progressive Policy Zone.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Who knew Nixon was right? (39+ / 0-)

      If there's anything politics over my lifetime has taught, it's precisely that when the president does it, it's not illegal.  Watergate is the exception that proves the rule.

      If anything, Nixon understated the truth.  When the Pentagon does it, it's not illegal.  When the Masters of Wall Street do it, it's not illegal (even when it is).  When the wealthy and powerful break the law, the prosecutors go on trial, not the defendants.  If things get hairy enough for the oligarchs or their minions in government, some flunky will be found to take a well-padded fall (see Libby, I. Lewis).

      I have to thank Barack Obama for showing me that supporting the Democratic party is a fool's errand.  Individual Democrats, sure.  But the better-ensconced they are in the party leadership, they more useless and treacherous they will be to the people's interests.  Unless we can lead a hostile takeover of the Democratic party from its plutocratic controllers, I agree that a third party is the only answer.

      Capitalism conquered communism, and now it's got democracy on the ropes. (JP Barlow)

      by Dallasdoc on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:20:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks doc, as usual we are on the same page.. (16+ / 0-)
        Individual Democrats, sure.  But the better-ensconced they are in the party leadership, they more useless and treacherous they will be to the people's interests.  Unless we can lead a hostile takeover of the Democratic party from its plutocratic controllers, I agree that a third party is the only answer.

        Above all, I see clearly who led our nation to this place, and regardless of the the apologists, I will not concede that point:

        We can continue to deny that but it will come out in the end: this world wide revolution, is the result of soaring food prices, and our government's continual Bush Doctrine policy.  

        Let those deny it, I will not.  In the end, the truth will come out, I shall not be moved from that truth.  God bless all those people in my country that have suffered underneath to false notion of paying the greatest cost for those that were able to set our nation onto a deep domino path of destruction, and who continue to deny it.  

        I chose not to.

        Ms. B.

        “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

        by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:34:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Right. (9+ / 0-)

        Before Nixon they just didn't say it. Except for Andrew Jackson.

        Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

        by dadadata on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:16:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  On exceptions (4+ / 0-)
        If there's anything politics over my lifetime has taught, it's precisely that when the president does it, it's not illegal.  Watergate is the exception that proves the rule.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        When the president does it, it's not illegal.

        Nixon was forced out of office over Watergate.

        'But the exception proves the rule.'

        Sorry, but this seems to fall under serious nonsense.

        I'm finding a lot of things funny lately. But I don't think they are. -- Ripley

        by tytalus on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:16:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your crowd is a tiny minority in the Democratic (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        malharden, blueyedace2, foufou, fcvaguy

        party.  

        Leaving is your only option if you can't tolerate those who depart from your ideological purity.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:20:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hell, it's ONLY the Constitution... (20+ / 0-)

          ...international treaties, and federal laws.  But who's counting?

          "Pragmatists don't DO things! They explain to you how things CANNOT be done." - AndyS In Colorado

          by Uberbah on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:19:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the advice (21+ / 0-)

          ... but I don't think I'll be taking my marching orders from you.  If you want to meekly follow the corporatist controllers of the Democratic party, be my guest.  Don't expect me to join you, or to shut up about it.

          You can call me a Naderite troll behind my back, but the more the party follows your prescription, the fewer adherents it will have.

          Capitalism conquered communism, and now it's got democracy on the ropes. (JP Barlow)

          by Dallasdoc on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:23:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  behind your back? (4+ / 0-)

            they will do it to your face. i'm used it  ;-)

            "In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress." -John Adams

            by rcnewton on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:41:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I was agreeing with you! (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueyedace2, NedSparks, foufou, fcvaguy


            I have to thank Barack Obama for showing me that supporting the Democratic party is a fool's errand.  Individual Democrats, sure.  But the better-ensconced they are in the party leadership, they more useless and treacherous they will be to the people's interests.  Unless we can lead a hostile takeover of the Democratic party from its plutocratic controllers, I agree that a third party is the only answer.

            Good luck with Nader and McKinney and anyone else who promises you to impeach Barry Hussein GoldmanSachs Obama.

            You're not one of us Democrats, so please do not expect to be treated like one of us.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:04:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah war and torture is so COOL these days (12+ / 0-)

          Used to be good morals wasn't called purity. It was what was expected of good democrats.

          Sometimes I wonder how far down the rabbit hole of denial the "pragmatists" would be willing to go?

          •  Yes, you people are the New Moral Majority. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueyedace2, foufou, raina, fcvaguy

            Leftwing Jerry Falwells.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:05:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Is this what you honestly believe, Geek? (12+ / 0-)

              Is this what you honestly think? Because, for the sake of sheer clarity, I'd love to see some justification / rationalization for this "leftwing Jerry Falwell" business.

              How, exactly, is the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party similar, at all, to Jerry Falwell? Please explain.

              No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up. -- Lily Tomlin

              by Colorado is the Shiznit on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:25:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, the people who want Obama impeached (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueyedace2, NedSparks, foufou, fcvaguy

                and thrown in jail (Both Badabing and Dallasdoc have expressed that sentiment) are that far out there.

                People who are leaving the Democratic party because it's headed by Barack Obama are fanatics.

                People who would prefer a Republican (as geraldlaslo has stated he does) are fanatics.

                Note:  I do not lump you in with that crowd.    

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:35:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Where did me or Dallas doc talk about Impeachment? (5+ / 0-)

                  What a bunch of bullshit on your part.  talk about going to not dealing with the laws of this nation.

                  OMFG.  We can agree on the Bush Doctrine, but not debate that?

                  Is that you answer?

                  “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

                  by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:06:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf (7+ / 0-)

                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    Obama is a BUM and a REAL BUMMER (16+ / 4-)

                    Recommended by:
                        expatjourno, chuckvw, Dallasdoc, Goldfish, vigilant meerkat, pgm 01, DocbytheBay, Badabing, Mike Taylor, BigAlinWashSt, angel d, MixedContent, Earth Ling, anarchyintheusa, Patience John, miningcityguy
                    Hidden by:
                        amk for obama, virginwoolf, sephius1, Curt Matlock

                    I'm not going into another recital of the various statutes which are readily available to put these theives in jail.  That has been done too many times now here at DKOS.  I'll simply say that Obama, and AG Holder, should be put in jail for obstruction of justice, by reason of their inexcusable failure to investigate and prosecute these self evident malfactors.

                    Indeed, Obama has been the weakest president since Herbert Hoover.  Furthermore, I don't know what political party he really supports; but I can surely tell you that it isn't the Democratic Party. A curse on him!!!!!

                    Please, no more white washes of the ENABLER!!!

                    Isn't it time that we smarten up, friends?

                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    obama is the WORST president of my lifetime (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                        Badabing

                    w bush?  sure he sucked ass.  but everyone knew where he stood.  obama?  he's a corporate/wall street whore, a closet neocon and a war criminal.

                    yeah.  congrats on winning the nobel peace prize a couple years ago, barry.  now keep killing.  asshole.

                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    I love truth (3+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                        Dallasdoc, zedaker, AuroraDawn

                    Thats why I have read your post and want to move on .. not see it every page.. I understand he is popular but so  have other ciminals.. Nothing you could say coudl make me ever love this guy again.. No matter if 99 percent lvoed him. He is morallay bankrupt. Dont you understand some of us think torturing or hiding a torturere is wrong. adn regardin Cheney.. its not even teh torture that hs is medding it is bribary charges.. Obama is a criminal.. deserves jail time. Both you and I would go to jail if we were covering up for war criminals.. just because yoru POTUS does not mean you can break the alw.. thats what thsi country is about.. kk take care.. Hiddeen.

                    So please don't sit there and pretend you people aren't motivated by hatred of the President.

                    You people hate him.  Hate him.

                    Much moreso than Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich do.

                    No reason to treat you any differently.

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:25:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  the answer is found in history (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Situational Lefty

            Lots of movements based on authoritarian followers have achieved political dominance. We know what happens afterwards.

            Peak Oil is NOW! Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 03:34:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  you're an asshole (2+ / 2-)
          Recommended by:
          Badabing, Words In Action
          Hidden by:
          fcvaguy, Statusquomustgo

          and anti-american, geek.  you enable these corporate kleptocrats to ruin our nation.  go to hell.  i guarantee you won't be lonely since the cheneys and obamas will all be there to pat you on the back and thank you for all you've done for them.

          •  You and your crowd are mirror images (7+ / 0-)

            of the Tea Party/Pat Robertson crowd.  Same sheer hatred for anyone who departs from your ideological purity.

            Same fanaticism, same nihilistic hatred of anyone who has the audacity to win elections.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:08:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oy vey. (7+ / 0-)

              That's projection on an epic scale, dude.

              No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up. -- Lily Tomlin

              by Colorado is the Shiznit on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:26:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Political extremists who want Obama (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueyedace2, NedSparks, foufou, fcvaguy

                impeached and thrown in jail.

                Why is it unfair to lump such people together, regardless of ideology?

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:36:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Who said anything about Impeahment? just you. (3+ / 0-)

                  “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

                  by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:08:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, in order to satisfy your fantasy of throwing (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueyedace2, NedSparks, foufou, fcvaguy

                    him in jail, you'd have to remove him from office first.

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:11:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's funny... (7+ / 0-)

                      You're going on and on about a fantasy you have about Badabing having a fantasy about throwing the President in jail and everyone other than you is a fanatic.  Precious.

                      -9.50/-7.59 - "Why are the missiles called peace-keepers when they're aimed to kill?" -Tracy Chapman

                      by Situational Lefty on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:27:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Heh. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        foufou, blueyedace2, fcvaguy

                        You impeachniks gotta stick together.

                        Obama is a war criminal. (25+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                            ColoTim, joe shikspack, mattman, Montreal Progressive, PhilK, An Affirming Flame, elwior, Words In Action, esquimaux, theboz, MixedContent, johnnygunn, Anorish, wblynch, HopeNope, NYCee, keikekaze, Timaeus, JuliaAnn, Alumbrados, cpresley, Cory Bantic, moira, Situational Lefty, dreamghost

                        If this was a sane country, he would be impeached.

                        But impeachment is only for blowjobs these days.

                        by Imam Rin Tin Tin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 03:42:02 PM EDT

                        [ Reply to This | Recommend Hide ]

                        As I have said in the past, there is more support for impeaching President Obama (and personal hatred for him) amongst the extreme leftwing faction at Daily Kos then there is in the Republican caucus.

                        Y'all are more out there then Michelle Bachmann.

                        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                        by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:06:50 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Whatever, dude... Do you have anything to say (5+ / 0-)

                          about President Obama's war crimes other than daring the left-wingers to impeach him?

                          Of course you don't.

                          It's a new strategy invented by OFA to excuse Obama of any ethicalresponsibility for Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya by blaming it all on Republicans and Liberal agitators.

                          There is no support for impeachment on the Left end of the spectrum.  We expect a whole lot more from a Democratic President than more of the same.

                          -9.50/-7.59 - "Why are the missiles called peace-keepers when they're aimed to kill?" -Tracy Chapman

                          by Situational Lefty on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:45:55 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, it was invented by ACORN. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, blueyedace2, fcvaguy

                            Thank you for providing another parallel to the Tea Partiers--the bizarre conspiracy theory involving groups like ACORN and OFA.

                            Which OFA operative hijacked your account and caused you to recommend a comment calling for Obama to be impeached?

                            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                            by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 11:22:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ACORN was actually Liberal in its organization... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            alizard, TheMomCat, Dallasdoc, angel d

                            ACORN was destroyed by right-wing propaganda ferreted out by FoxNews and people like Geek who oppose bottom-up organizations like DailyKos.

                            -9.50/-7.59 - "Why are the missiles called peace-keepers when they're aimed to kill?" -Tracy Chapman

                            by Situational Lefty on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 11:42:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh for fucks sake. (6+ / 0-)
                            It's a new strategy invented by OFA to

                            Can you diagram that out on a black board for us?

                            I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

                            by Mike S on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 11:30:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The blackboard reads 'doofus' and (2+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            alizard, angel d
                            Hidden by:
                            fcvaguy

                            there's a long arrow pointing to Mike S.

                            -9.50/-7.59 - "Why are the missiles called peace-keepers when they're aimed to kill?" -Tracy Chapman

                            by Situational Lefty on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 11:38:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OH SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueyedace2, fcvaguy, Geekesque

                            Good to see you're still reading "Boy's Life." I know it's above your head but good on you for at least trying not to be a moron.

                            I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

                            by Mike S on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 11:42:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  At least I don't waste every waking (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Dallasdoc, angel d, priceman

                            moment attacking the left-wing of the party I pretend to belong to.

                            -9.50/-7.59 - "Why are the missiles called peace-keepers when they're aimed to kill?" -Tracy Chapman

                            by Situational Lefty on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 11:46:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, blueyedace2, Geekesque

                            I spend "every waking moment attacking the left-wing of the party I pretend to belong to."

                            You need to take a break. You have become a pathetic blithering idiot. A Palinesque victim of those horrible people who are doing everything they can to destroy you.

                            Fuck man, the fact that you wrote that idiotic comment just shows what reading idiotic diaries like this with enflamatory titles that have nothing to do with the content does to people.

                            I made a mistake earlier. You aren't the type to diagram things on black boards. Your the type that laps that idiocy up. You're the lefts version of a Beck fan.

                            I'd feel sorry for you if you haven't proven yourself to be an this way for so long. And I don't "pretend to belong" to the Democratic party.

                             I was door knocking for Dems when I was 9 years old and joind the party on my 18th B-day. I know assholes like you would like to decide who gets to be a Democrat(one more way you are like Republicans) but you don't.

                            It does help prove what an ass you are though.

                            I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

                            by Mike S on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:05:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sigh. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Situational Lefty, Uberbah

                            "You're the lefts version of a Beck fan."

                            There is no left equivalent to a Beck fan.  If this weren't already a day old thread, I'd HR your comment for the Beck-equivalence, laps up idiocy, asshole and ass.

                          •  Golly. (0+ / 0-)

                            I sure am glad you were unable to hr me. Especially since you recced his bullshit comment about me spending "every waking moment attacking the left-wing of the party I pretend to belong to."

                            Sit Left's friends sure are idiots.

                            I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

                            by Mike S on Fri Mar 25, 2011 at 11:39:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Even better: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque
                            The blackboard reads 'doofus' and (2+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:xxxxx, angel d
                            Hidden by:fcvaguy
                            there's a long arrow pointing to Mike S.

                            -9.50/-7.59 - "Why are the missiles called peace-keepers when they're aimed to kill?" -Tracy Chapman

                            by Situational Lefty on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 11:38:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent | Reply to This |  Recommend  Hide  ]


                            I guess people calling others names is only HR'able when they call your friends names. When your friends call others names is reccable.

                            I love the smell of hypocricy.

                            I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

                            by Mike S on Fri Mar 25, 2011 at 11:48:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Joe Biden now a political extremist (5+ / 0-)

                  In 2007, then Sen. Joe Biden appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball and said launching an attack without congressional approval is an impeachable offense. This flashback comes on the heels of Obama launching an attack on Libya without congressional approval.

                  Biden said:

                  "I want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made that comment is a warning. The reason, I don’t say those things lightly, Chris, you’ve known me for a long time. I was chairman of the Judiciary committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of Constitutional scholars together and write a piece I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate in pointing out the president has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that– but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that- I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly."

            •  Actually that one is a brand new troll (6+ / 0-)

              wgo signed up yesterday. I can smell an agent provocateur troll a mile away.

              This one must be laughing pretty hard since it is being praised by these idiots.

              I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

              by Mike S on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:34:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  wrong (3+ / 0-)

              The authoritarian followers in the GOP are the teabaggers who used to be the Bush 22%ers. The authoritarian followers in the Democratic Party are found exclusively among the ranks of the diehard OFAnatics who would follow your "Great Leader" anywhere and do anything he tells you to do. Luckily for the nation, all Obama's major political donors want you to do is vote and phonebank as you are told unless you are in military service, in which case you are expected to follow ANY orders, legal or otherwise given you by a representative of the Commander-in-Chief as if Obama had given them to you personally.

              In other countries, "Great Leaders" told their civilian followers to do . . . other things.

              The dominant characteristic of an authoritarian follower is a willingness to do anything your chosen "Great Leader" tells you to do.

              A characteristic that's remarkably absent among the actual progressives at this site.

              You presumably consider us "nihilists" because you can't even imagine not wanting to follow a "Great Leader" you can abdicate your moral responsibilities as a citizen and as a human being to.

              Peak Oil is NOW! Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

              by alizard on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 03:43:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So ironic (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Geekesque

                Geekesque makes the case that some on the far left coopt the memes of the far right and vice versa, he gets slapped around for it, and here you trot int with "Great Leader".

                LOL@U

                •  for the sake of the prisoners at (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Situational Lefty

                  Gitmo, I'm glad that the guards are not selected on the basis of membership in OFA.

                  Toward the end of his life, Goldwater publicly regretted bringing TEH CRAZY into the GOP. I wonder if Obama will regret bringing TEH CRAZY into the Democratic Party?

                  Peak Oil is NOW! Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                  by alizard on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 10:08:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  it's a sign of ideological purity (3+ / 0-)

          to want to belong to a party with a program with some discernible connection with a viable future for Americans who are not wealthy?

          Alternately, one could say that to want to belong to the Democratic Party as it now is if one does not own a private jet is a sign of being an authoritarian follower.

          Peak Oil is NOW! Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 03:31:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  obama is the WORST president of my lifetime (3+ / 0-)

        w bush?  sure he sucked ass.  but everyone knew where he stood.  obama?  he's a corporate/wall street whore, a closet neocon and a war criminal.

        yeah.  congrats on winning the nobel peace prize a couple years ago, barry.  now keep killing.  asshole.

        •  And Badabing wonders why her mob gets (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueyedace2, James Allen, foufou, fcvaguy

          accurately labeled as 'haters.'

          I can't wait until Obama accepts the nomination in 2012 and this site gets an overdue enema.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:45:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Above all, let's not dissent or disagree, how un- (5+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Situational Lefty, wyldraven, TheMomCat, Dallasdoc, cumulo
            Hidden by:
            fcvaguy

            American of us, how Republican of us, let's all do the 'goose step' and pretend that we cannot have a right to different opinions in our own, big tent party.

            How is that working out for you Geek?

            I happen to welcome every single person in my own party, gay, brown, black, poka-dot, the Middle Class and poor, the ones that stepped up to the plate and put this President in office, who promised us all to stand up for those that stood up for him...

            I love the diversity of my party, and you know why?  They are the fucking greatest party there ever was.  They actually believed in Obama, and now we have another reality, don't we?

            This President does not deserve his own base, because he lied to get into office, and we know that now.  He turned on a dime, and put into office, all the Wall St,/crowd, that is draining us dry.  He stand for nothing and no one.  He hides in the shadows, and refuses to stand up for anything, and anyone....

            He had sent nothing more than trial balloons, and has no vision of narrative, and that is the way he wants it.  

            My 'mob' as you call it Geek, has nothing to do with me, it has to do with the truth.  We can keep denying it, or we can have the courage to embrace it.  Either way, we can see what is coming down the pike:  Austerity at the hands of those that Obama loves: Pete Pederson, Alan Simpson, and the rest of the Republican base he really stands for.  Obama was never a true Democrat, and he never will be.  So here's a clue:

            Get a grip.  He's the perfect guy for the perfect job:  He is going to destroy our party, exactly the same way Bill Clinton did, and make a shit load of money doing so.  Oh nozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzze. How dare I say that?  

            Obama may accept the nomination in 2012, but remember this Geek....it will be at our own peril, and when the shit goes down, and we lose our final safety net, Social Security and Medicare, then come back and tell us how it was all worth it, won't you?

            “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

            by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:24:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry, objecting to your hatred does not make (6+ / 11-)

              me a Nazi ("goose step").

              Yes, you are an Obama hater.  That puts you on the extreme fringe of not only the Democratic party, but quite frankly American society.

              He is not the supervillian you and your compatriots in the Tea Party portray him to be.

              Sorry, but there is no common cause between the extreme haters and folks such as myself.

              "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

              by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:37:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So Badabing is an "Obama Hater" (10+ / 0-)

                and has "compatriots in the Tea Party"?

                Classy, as always Geekesque.

                -9.50/-7.59 - "Why are the missiles called peace-keepers when they're aimed to kill?" -Tracy Chapman

                by Situational Lefty on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:50:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  "Obama hater" = hr'able n/t (12+ / 0-)

                "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

                by catnip on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:56:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I feel like registering one little aspect of abuse (17+ / 1-)

                that really gets under my skin.  You needn't respond, Geekesque, because I'm not having a fantasy of being able to engage with you.  It's just that this has been on my mind, and it is appropriate for here.

                One of the worst things is that, after taking over the media and nastily marginalizing the left at every turn, after buying Congress, the Presidency, and even, it seems, the Supreme Court, after stealing from the workers, making health care into an obscene profit machine, after lying and scheming themselves into a nearly unassailable position of power and influence, those greedy, psychopathic assholes manipulate suckers like you into to taking pleasure in mocking "us" for being so unempowered, so ineffectual, such a tiny influence on the nation.  It doesn't matter that, on most important issues, polls show our politics to be the politics of the majority even in the face of the most pervasive and most skilled propaganda machine in history.

                And there are always people like you, ready to kick sand in the face of the perceived 90-pound weakling.  I always think of the abuser who enjoys toying with his prey, mocking her for the abuse she has not yet found a way to get out from under.  And worse, of the toady sidekick, always ready to kick someone another person threw to the ground.

                Well, I don't feel unempowered.  I would like to be persusasive, but knowing that I am true to what I think is best for the most people is enough for me. Desperation to belong will never cause me to change my politics.  For me, arguments on the basis of popularity have zero persuasive powerl.

                Don't believe everything you think.

                by geomoo on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:33:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Fuck you for calling me a wife beater. (6+ / 2-)
                  And there are always people like you, ready to kick sand in the face of the perceived 90-pound weakling.  I always think of the abuser who enjoys toying with his prey, mocking her for the abuse she has not yet found a way to get out from under.

                  Seriously, just go fuck yourself, geomoo.

                  I don't care if I get HR'd for this.  The majority of my pro bono work has been for battered women.  My wife represents battered women for a living.   I hear the stories every night.

                  For you to compare me to the people who do that--who rape, torture, murder, brutalize--because of blog comments--

                  Just, fuck you.  

                  "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                  by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:43:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Can I have another Catnip? (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    foufou, blueyedace2, Rustbelt Dem, fcvaguy

                    I mean, while your crowd is combining gutter-level insults with HRs, might as well continue your rank hypocrisy.

                    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                    by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:48:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I wonder if we would actually agree about a lot, (10+ / 0-)

                    If you were capable of reading for meaning.  I seriously do think it is possible.  If you work with abused women, then you should be able to understand the feeling I am expressing all the better.  I don't make the comparison lightly.  And, quite frankly, I think the outcome is even worse, seeing as how the effects are on a global scale.

                    Don't believe everything you think.

                    by geomoo on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:49:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Go fuck yourself. (6+ / 3-)

                      If you really think calling me a wife beater was appropriate, you are mentally ill.

                      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                      by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:50:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Wow, and now HR someone with whom you are (6+ / 0-)

                        disagreeing. Way to go with the consistency thing.  Something that, uh, "you people" have decided difficulties with, in my experience.

                        Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbraith

                        by Vtdblue on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:54:03 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Geekesque, I didn't call you a wife beater. (7+ / 0-)

                        Believe it or not, I'm feeling bad that you obviously are so upset.  I was going to go away and ignore it, but I do feel bad.  Hey, it's just the internet.  It's just dkos comments.  No one thinks you're a wife beater.  And no one has claimed to think so.

                        Don't believe everything you think.

                        by geomoo on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:58:20 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh bullshit you didn't. (5+ / 0-)
                          And there are always people like you, ready to kick sand in the face of the perceived 90-pound weakling.  I always think of the abuser who enjoys toying with his prey, mocking her for the abuse she has not yet found a way to get out from under.

                          Anyhow, congratulations.  You managed to get under my skin, to push my button, to find my weak spot.

                          You should be proud of yourself.  Own your moment.

                          Don't lie like a little coward and pretend you didn't write what you wrote.

                          Anyhow, I've wasted time with you people instead of spending it with my wife and my cat.  What an atrocious decision to neglect those I cherish while arguing with those who mean nothing to me.

                          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                          by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 11:01:45 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  You're not getting away with that (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          raina, trashablanca, Geekesque

                          You made a disgusting and highly inappropriate analogy. Despite your pathetic attempt at trying to walk it back, the record speaks for itself. There's really only one option for a decent person at this point - apologize.

                          •  You expect ME to apologize (4+ / 0-)

                            to someone for whom I've just expressed sincere concern despite being told to "go fuck myself" repeatedly? Despite being called a coward?  Despite being called "mentally ill"?  Despite having my words twisted absurdly?  It's a strange world you inhabit.

                            I know it makes some people crazy when a person they hate says something reasonable, and behaves in a way that belies their opinion of that person as completely evil.  I have noticed that the more reasonable-sounding the comment from the "other side" the more vociferous the insistence that that person is indeed not worthy or being treated with respect.

                            I also notice that the battle seems to be over who is the victim.  Nobody, but nobody, is a bigger victim here than Geekesque, and it is in fact abusive of ME to claim that I feel abused.  The fact that Geekesque has called me names and told me to "go fuck myself" does not change the fact that I am the abuser and he is the abused.

                            Utterly, hopelessly irrational.

                            I don't care what you think.  I felt bad that Geekesque got so upset.  I wish he would take a break and be with his wife and his cat instead of continuing.  I wish he would be able to put it into perspective.  I'm not the evil person you wish I was.  But I don't "walk back" a word of my comment.  I am not responsible for the reading skills of others.  Most of the response to my comment is in other people's heads, a place I cannot go and a place I cannot change.

                            The world is going to pieces, and a few people are obsessed with gaining some kind of imaginary moral high ground on dailykos.  Meanwhile, I feel dirty and petty for taking the time to even respond to this delusional nonsense.  I am done.

                            Don't believe everything you think.

                            by geomoo on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 11:43:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The wife beater dog whistle (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Geekesque

                            was over the top. And, your initial comment in this thread is what instigated this entire shitstorm of a thread. Take some personal responsibility for your own bad behavior.

                          •  There was no dog whistle in my comment (4+ / 0-)

                            There was a metaphor, referring to the old Charles Atlas ads in which a 90-pound weakling gets sand kicked in his face on the beach by a bully.  I have no idea how "wife beating" got thrown in.  Someone else will have to explain that.

                            As to bad behavior being acceptable when someone else presumably did it first, well, that's just irresponsible.

                            In any case, I know we're not really talking about what we're talking about.  The point is that I'm not a decent person, something which you and a few others are determined to prove about me and others any time we cross paths.  You are wrong about me.  I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you of that.

                            I had a point to express, and I expressed it to the best of my ability.  It may be true, it may be false, it may be delusional, I don't know.  But it had nothing to do with wife beating.  It had to do with what Geekesque had just said in a comment.  It was a response to that comment.  And it was a response to that sort of comment in general, a kind of comment I find abusive and insulting for the reasons I stated.  To claim I was making a statement about Geekesque personally, about his personal life is, please forgive me, idiotic.

                            Don't believe everything you think.

                            by geomoo on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 07:27:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you serious? (0+ / 0-)
                            There was a metaphor, referring to the old Charles Atlas ads in which a 90-pound weakling gets sand kicked in his face on the beach by a bully.  I have no idea how "wife beating" got thrown in.

                            Do you not know that your words are a matter of record here? Not to keep throwing it in your face, but you did indeed say alot more than what you admit to here. And we both know it. And we both know exactly what words they were. The simple fact that you blatantly ignore those words at this point is just foolishness. And that was foolishness back to back with your "goose step" nazi dog whistle. My god, where does that sort of entitlement come from; the entitlement that you seem to think you have because you are so right in your views, so righteious, that it is completely within your right to be abusive to other people like that? Its really disgusting.

                            Yes, decency would demand an apology at this point.

                          •  Are you John McEnroe? nt (0+ / 0-)

                            Don't believe everything you think.

                            by geomoo on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 08:06:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Because I feel abused, I should apologize? (4+ / 0-)

                            Because it is abusive to accuse someone of being abusive?  Unless the person being accused was abusive first, by accusing someone of being abusive, so therefore is actually abusive, unlike the first person, who was, naturally, not actually being abusive, it goes without saying.  And, in fact, has gone without saying.

                            It's clear who the abuser here is.  It's the person who was told to go fuck themselves, called a coward, and mentally ill.  Because that person accused the person who used that abusive language of being abusive.

                            I think I get where you're coming from.

                            Don't believe everything you think.

                            by geomoo on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 08:11:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ha, I just noticed that this is a perfect example (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            angel d, Vtdblue, JesseCW, greeseyparrot

                            of what I referred to in my initial comment--the piling on of abuse with more abuse.  And now you want me to apologize for having felt mistreated.  Like people want people to apologize for arguing that Obama is assisting in the rape of the middle class.  Hippie punching taken to ever new heights.

                            It doesn't matter what anyone says to me, it doesn't matter what Obama does, it doesn't matter how much shit the left is made to eat, there is always room to insist on something more humiliating.

                            It's sick.

                            Don't believe everything you think.

                            by geomoo on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 08:18:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Geomoo....you are not dealing with (5+ / 0-)

                            a good faith actor.

                            You'll drive yourself nuts if you try to look for any consistency here.

                            fcvaguy has no objective other than to waste your time and prevent the discussion of any actual political issues.

                            On the other side of ..."Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the gunfire, pointing towards their chests...in an invitation to shoot.

                            by JesseCW on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 08:23:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll take that as a verbal face slap. (5+ / 0-)

                            Thanks, I needed that.

                            You're right.  I need to be writing about war crimes.  It is effective, which I suppose is why they do it.

                            Don't believe everything you think.

                            by geomoo on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 08:28:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yup. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            geomoo

                            Any time you're talking about some shit some asshole said here...instead of talking about what our actual problems are and how to solve them...

                            they're winning.

                            On the other side of ..."Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the gunfire, pointing towards their chests...in an invitation to shoot.

                            by JesseCW on Fri Mar 25, 2011 at 12:12:31 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And btw, have you noticed that I feel abused? (5+ / 0-)

                            Since you are so concerned about abuse and decency, and since my comment was an accusation of abuse (not of the wife beating kind, but of the political discourse kind, natch), I'm wondering when we're going to get to the part where you address the actual content of my remark.  Does that come after you finish putting words in my mouth and calling it a dog whistle?  I guess "dog whistle" means, "I know you didn't actually say this, but I'm going to claim you said it anyway."

                            Don't believe everything you think.

                            by geomoo on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 08:05:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Kind of like how you "take... responsibility for (6+ / 0-)

                            YOUR own bad behavior," dude?  Hate to piss tawny truth on your parade, but you proudly reaffirm your uprates and recs for diaries like this -- so have no high horse to sit on, Mr. Inconsistency.

                            Come and get me, trolls! (With poll)
                            Little lulu
                               Tip Jar (342+ / 67-)
                            Recommended by:
                                Kestrel, tsackton, citizen k, dorsano, TXdem, fcvaguy, Jonathan, nolalily, loretta, laurak, jennybravo, askew, Christin, folgers,

                            You are delusional, by the way, about the "dog whistle" thing. Or perhaps it's just your usual disingenuous, tawdry argumentation.

                            Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbraith

                            by Vtdblue on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 08:51:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  There's no excuse (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      trashablanca

                      for your disgusting and raunchy analogy. NONE

                  •  You're a bully, jackass. Plain and simple. (8+ / 1-)

                    Sorry you don't like hearing the truth -- but acknowledging you have a problem is the first step in becoming a full-fledged member of civilized cyber-society.

                    And yes... I'm holding my breath (though not for as long as you'd prefer).

                    Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbraith

                    by Vtdblue on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:52:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  No one called you a "wife beater". (8+ / 0-)

                    Geomoo said

                    And there are always people like you, ready to kick sand in the face of the perceived 90-pound weakling.  I always think of the abuser who enjoys toying with his prey, mocking her for the abuse she has not yet found a way to get out from under.  And worse, of the toady sidekick, always ready to kick someone another person threw to the ground.

                    Where you got to "wife beater" out of that...

                    Well, I guess we all bring our own baggage to every conversation.  Sometimes it results in  angry denials of accusations no one made.

                    On the other side of ..."Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the gunfire, pointing towards their chests...in an invitation to shoot.

                    by JesseCW on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:25:46 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your BS is worthy of an HR itself (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Geekesque

                      Let me help you get past your avoidance:

                      And there are always people like you, ready to kick sand in the face of the perceived 90-pound weakling.  I always think of the abuser who enjoys toying with his prey, mocking her for the abuse she has not yet found a way to get out from under.  And worse, of the toady sidekick, always ready to kick someone another person threw to the ground.
                      •  Then throw one. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        angel d

                        Your nonstop bullshit about what's "worthy" of an HR is pathetic.

                        Put up, or, well....

                        On the other side of ..."Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the gunfire, pointing towards their chests...in an invitation to shoot.

                        by JesseCW on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 08:28:20 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  The use of "abuser" plus the feminine (0+ / 0-)

                      pronoun makes it crystal clear that he was referring to domestic violence.

                      I always think of the abuser who enjoys toying with his prey, mocking her for the abuse she has not yet found a way to get out from under.

                      You can pretend that's not a reference to domestic violence, but anyone who's spent three seconds dealing with that subject would recognize the analogy.

                      But, wevs.  I generally shouldn't debate people who agree with Ann Coulter and Osama bin Laden that America has declared war on Islam.

                      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                      by Geekesque on Fri Mar 25, 2011 at 05:26:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Maybe you* should stop being such (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JesseCW

                    a comment-bully.  And by that, I mean don't make comments that other people feel or would like feel are rude, insulting and dismissive.

                    * Not just you, personally, but anyone who objects to being called abusive should step back for a second, and ask themself, "Wow, was I abusive?"  'Cause I know when people say something negative about me, the first thing I do is a little introspection, a little circumspection even.

                    Just a thought.

                •  And your upraters Badabing and Slinkerwink (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  foufou, blueyedace2, Rustbelt Dem, fcvaguy

                  well they just proved I was right in calling you all a bunch of haters.

                  "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                  by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:46:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  thank you Geo, as usual, you said what I could (6+ / 0-)

                  not say.  Often I lose my thought process, into a mass of emotional adherice, in a pocket of my own weakness. I fully admit that weakness, but I will not because of you and others, give into that.

                  I am, as are you, fully aware of our nations laws and where we stand now.  I am, as you and others, are fully aware, as to why we have come to this insane presipece of standing by helplessly, as Obama, did nothing to stop the Wall St./Bankstas, globilzation of our nation.  

                  We can admit a few realities here, can't we?

                  1.  The Bush Doctrine never ended, nor did the Bush plan to bail out and let our nation into the greatest 'Heist of wealth' in 2008, as Bush left the White House, and Obama signed on for. Not only has nothing changed, it has indeed led to further denial of how the failed 'bubble' economists are all but fucking idiiots who have destroyed our nation, and housing market, which has crashed, with no relief, and leaving us befet with the same discusting predators, that are being allowed to destory our property rights.  The revolving door continues, with no end in sight, with no laws, with no hope for those that elected this President into office.

                  2.  The War machine is in full control of our government, with 10 years, in full control of our Presidency and all that be in that vien.  There is a full scale, now 10 nations in the Middle East, that are raging in full scale wars, but let us not forget:  This is War for Oil.  It always has been, and always will be.

                  3.  The fact is that we fail to connect how the Great Heist of 2008, is directly the fault of where we are now, regardless of what anyone feeds us.  Soaring food costs and oil is what has led to the full scale of the Middle East rebellion.  Let us not be so foolish as to deny that fact.  

                  Let others deny where we got and why we are here.  I will not.  They can continue their meme:  It was all legal, it was just, but that is the big lie:  I fail to understand why we cannot see this reality.  It all is so transparent, and real.  

                  I just want to take a moment to thank you Geo, and everyone here.  You have no idea, how much you mean to me.  There are days, that I feel like, I'm just so lost.  But that is ok.  I know we all feel like that.

                  Sissygirl/Badabing
                  xoxooxooxox

                  “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

                  by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 11:05:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Top comment (7+ / 0-)

                  geomoo, you have described this situation perfectly and goddamnit, this needed to be said.

                •  insipid and vile, yet boring n/t (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fcvaguy, Geekesque

                  I'm from the "winning elections" wing of the Democratic Party.

                  by Rustbelt Dem on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:14:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  WOW, WTF??????? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Geekesque
                  And there are always people like you, ready to kick sand in the face of the perceived 90-pound weakling.  I always think of the abuser who enjoys toying with his prey, mocking her for the abuse she has not yet found a way to get out from under.  And worse, of the toady sidekick, always ready to kick someone another person threw to the ground.

                  Disgusting.

                •  Certainly does (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  angel d

                  appear to be his schtick, trotting out the shop-worn "purity" label at every opportunity, and characterizing all critics as teabagger equivalents and "haters".

                  Quite pathetic in light of the giant sell-out that is underway.

                  ... just floating by ...

                  by cumulo on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 08:56:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  typical (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dallasdoc, angel d

                Nice deflection.  In Geek's opinion, the problem is not things like a rescue helicopter shooting six civilians yesterday who were only welcoming the downed airman, the problem is "Obama haters" who are upset Obama is pulling typical Bush bullshit.   Face it, you are just another corporate chickenhawk chickenshit with a boner for shock and awe II.

            •  "Goose step?" (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Geekesque, foufou, blueyedace2, fcvaguy

              You are pathetic.

              I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

              by Mike S on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:36:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The fact that badaning tells you all that (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou, blueyedace2, fcvaguy, Geekesque

          you need to know about her. The idiot commenter signed up yesterday and is obviously a troll but the patently dishonest badabing loves the idiotic comment enough to rec it.

          Fucking morons.

          I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

          by Mike S on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:23:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  and 3 recs for "barry" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geekesque

          Badabing, you have zero credibility on your denials in the face of Geekesque's admittedly harsh criticism of you.

        •  barry? First Post. eom (0+ / 0-)
      •  There is a HUGE 'middle'in this country (4+ / 0-)

        that agrees with you...and they are ripe and ready to be organized into a serious party outside of the two party system...Labor party?  Okay, but I prefer to think of it as the Normal American Party.

        Forget the Democratic Party...it is a lost cause...

        "Get up, Stand up" ~ Bob Marley

        by trinityfly on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:05:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  agreed, except for (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc, Badabing

        "Watergate is the exception that proves the rule."

        While rules often have exceptions, "exception that proves the rule" is a logical fallacy.

        I've said that I would vote for a viable primary challenger against Obama, but it's also very likely that I'd vote for, volunteer for, and donate to a viable third party.

        Which would probably have to be built around what's left of labor, since the interests of the oligarchs and organized labor are now openly opposed to each other.

        Peak Oil is NOW! Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 03:28:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This diary should be deleted. n-t (4+ / 0-)

      This better be good. Because it is not going away.

      by DerAmi on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:35:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  uh no (10+ / 0-)

    complete garbage.

    facepalm

    My thoughts are with Christchurch... Please donate to http://www.christchurchearthquakeappeal.govt.nz/

    by GlowNZ on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:15:05 PM PDT

  •  I assume that you're using the royal "we" here... (22+ / 0-)
    We can see, clearly that President Obama is a tool

    ...since you sure as hell don't speak for me.

  •  If you're going to claim its illegal, (12+ / 0-)

    you need to give us something, anything, that shows it is.

    What Obama has done is consistent with the UN process and with what the courts have allowed other presidents to do.

    "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau -6.38, -4.15

    by James Allen on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:20:36 PM PDT

    •  As I said on another thread: (13+ / 0-)

      when, in 2013, President Palin starts launching cruise missiles without Congressional approval (let alone consultation), at Russia simple because it ruins her view what will your position be?

      What's The Matter With Kansas? -Nothing. Folks like to have their dreams, is all.

      by RyanBTC on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:23:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In the real world, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fogiv, second gen, FiredUpInCA, foufou

        where it's impossible for Palin to become president.

        But to get to the meat of your question, my opinion is that it SHOULD be illegal for the president to engage US forces without congressional approval, but that its NOT clearly illegal for them to do so currently.

        "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau -6.38, -4.15

        by James Allen on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:26:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  Cite the law. (13+ / 0-)

            Apparently nobody can do this.  I keep asking, and it hasn't happened.  Cite the law which stops the president from using the American military without getting congressional approval before doing so.

            Cite the case in which the courts have stopped a president from doing so.

            "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau -6.38, -4.15

            by James Allen on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:30:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  He did actually not. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VickiL, blueyedace2, second gen, foufou

            He has 60 days to get their approval.

            We can argue the law should work that way, but currently it doesn't so he's within the bounds of US law.

            Repeal the Fascist Un-American PROTECT Act NOW ! ! !

            by Dom9000 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:41:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  No he did not. (7+ / 0-)

            He informed Congress within 48 hours as the War Powers Act requires. . Now you are certainly free to argue that the WPA is unconstitutional, but until someone with standing takes it before the Supreme Court it is the law.

            In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

            by jsfox on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:57:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the excuses, the apolizists just keep coming (5+ / 0-)

              through, like no bodies business...Its all legal but immoral, but that fact no longer matters, does it, as long as the citizens of our nation are paying the greatest price.

              Tell me how you can disavow the fact, and how you can sleep at night?  

              I don't give a shit about your laws, and your legalese...it all comes down to the same reality, does it not?

              Who is paying for it all?

              In this way, nonviolence does not mean acceptance, but resistance - not waiting, but acting. It is not at all passive. It involves strikes, boycotts, non-cooperation, mass demonstrations, and sabotage, as well as appeals to the conscience of the world, even to individuals in the oppressing group who might break away from their past.

              Direct action does not deride using the political rights, the civil liberties, even the voting mechanisms in those societies where they are available (as in the United States), but it recognizes the limitations of those controlled rights and goes beyond.

              ...

              “The law is not a holy thing. I remember Dan Berrigan broke the law and they interviewed his 80 year old mother and they asked her, “What do you think about your son? What do you think about him breaking the law?” I guess they thought an 80 year old woman would have 80 years of respect for the law behind her and she’d give them the right answer. And Dan Berrigan’s mother said, “It’s not God’s law.” And she had it there. The law is made by very mortal people, very limited people, very opinionated people and people who have very special interests. They make the law. They tell us what the law is and then they act as if it’s holy writ.”

              “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

              by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:58:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  That is not all the War Powers Act (6+ / 0-)

              requires.

              I used to think "They're just like Bush loyalists, and will excuse anything" was hyperbole.

              On the other side of ..."Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the gunfire, pointing towards their chests...in an invitation to shoot.

              by JesseCW on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:01:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's apparently now OK if you're Obama. (6+ / 0-)

                The utter, rancid hypocrisy of the excuses made for Obama by people who would be laying down and having kittens if it was a Republican taking these actions... well, it's pretty fucking nauseating, is what it is.

                ‎"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France

                by Mehitabel9 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:45:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Where the fuck did I say that (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  virginislandsguy, foufou

                  The point here is that he followed the letter of the law The War Powers Act.

                  And it states:

                  (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

                  Now you want to have the discussion about what constitutes a threat? I am happy to have that one.

                  Now if you care to go back through my comments on the Libyan intervention you will find that I am not cheering it.

                  And please the moral question? I am more than convinced had Obama done nothing and let things just proceed in Libya  as they were headed. The same people screaming we shouldnt be doing this would be screaming how Obama had allowed Gaddafi to kill his own people and kill the uprising across  the middle east.

                  The intellectual dishonesty in this place is at times stunning

                  In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

                  by jsfox on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:57:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Under that act... (2+ / 0-)

              ... the President is only allowed to commit armed forces abroad IF  

              ...the United States is already under attack or serious threat...

              So perhaps you can explain at what point we were under attack?  Or did Gaddafi slaughtering his people represent a serious threat to the US?

        •  Well, I disagree (slightly) (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Allen, joanneleon, Badabing

          I think the President does have the power. And in the case of imminent threat who wants him dicking around with Congress?

          But an imminent threat is not likely for the world's lone superpower.

          In all other cases it just makes sense to, at the very least, consult with Congress. Maybe they don't agree, maybe they are all from the opposite party and it's election time. Fine. That's why we have elections, and why Congress has the Power Of The Purse.

          But not even consulting with Congress? Why? Makes no sense, and it's a bad precedent.

          What's The Matter With Kansas? -Nothing. Folks like to have their dreams, is all.

          by RyanBTC on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:34:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're talking about what makes sense. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            trashablanca

            I'm talking about the law and the courts.  See the problem there?  ; )

            "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau -6.38, -4.15

            by James Allen on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:36:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't see a problem as much as (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joanneleon, Badabing, blueoasis

              I see co-equal branches of Government in a power struggle. So behave already, Mr. President.

              He had plenty of time for the UN, the Arab League, and Nato allies. Just set aside 30 minutes for Congress.

              Is that asking too much?

              What's The Matter With Kansas? -Nothing. Folks like to have their dreams, is all.

              by RyanBTC on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:40:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We've had 212 years since the constitution (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueyedace2, trashablanca

                was written and we still haven't settled definitively who has what war powers.  One would think that'd be "plenty of time" too.

                "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau -6.38, -4.15

                by James Allen on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:44:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You miss the point (7+ / 0-)

                  We won't ever "settle" it. It's two co-equal branches of Government. But we can have a Gentleman's Agreement, which is what the War Powers Act is.

                  Why would Obama, in this instance, act without Congress?

                  Isn't that the real issue?

                  Why?  Why just blow them off?

                  What's The Matter With Kansas? -Nothing. Folks like to have their dreams, is all.

                  by RyanBTC on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:47:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  what part of this that you don't get? (6+ / 0-)
                  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                  “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

                  by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:22:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That part (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueyedace2, foufou

                    about the War Powers Resolution not being recognized by anyone but Congress as actually being binding on the President.

                    And that even if it was it wouldn't apply anyway:

                    The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

                    "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau -6.38, -4.15

                    by James Allen on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:24:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  thanks for you bullshit comment on this. nt. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rcnewton

                      “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

                      by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:01:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  You're simply restating the premise (6+ / 0-)

                      of this diaries title.

                      Over and over, you're claiming the President isn't bound by laws if he pretends they don't exist.

                      On the other side of ..."Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the gunfire, pointing towards their chests...in an invitation to shoot.

                      by JesseCW on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:03:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  The law is the Constitution (14+ / 0-)

                      Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief (Article II, Section 2).

                      That's legal precedent, of course there are legal arguments about it's Constitutionality, but the inaction of the courts on this doesn't prove this action is legal. After all they didn't get involved when Congress invoked it and there was some application and enforcement of the law regarding Reagan's involvement on Lebanon.

                      Lebanon: How Can Congress Invoke the War Powers Resolution?

                      The War Powers Resolution faced a major test when Marines sent to participate in a Multinational Force in Lebanon in 1982 became the targets of hostile fire in August 1983. During this period President Reagan filed three reports under the War Powers Resolution, but he did not report under section 4(a)(1) that the forces were being introduced into hostilities or imminent hostilities, thus triggering the 60-90 day time limit.

                      On September 29, 1983, Congress passed the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution determining that the requirements of section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution became operative on August 29, 1983. (34) In the same resolution, Congress authorized the continued participation of the Marines in the Multinational Force for 18 months. The resolution was a compromise between Congress and the President. Congress obtained the President's signature on legislation invoking the War Powers Resolution for the first time, but the price for this concession was a congressional authorization for the U.S. troops to remain in Lebanon for 18 months.

                      The events began on July 6, 1982, when President Reagan announced he would send a small contingent of U.S. troops to a multinational force for temporary peacekeeping in Lebanon. Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Clement Zablocki wrote President Reagan that if such a force were sent, the United States would be introducing forces into imminent hostilities and a report under section 4(a)(1) would be required. When the forces began to land on August 25, President Reagan reported but did not cite section 4(a)(1) and said the agreement with Lebanon ruled out any combat responsibilities. After overseeing the departure of the Palestine Liberation Organization force, the Marines in the first Multinational Force left Lebanon on September 10, 1982.

                      The second dispatch of Marines to Lebanon began on September 20, 1982. President Reagan announced that the United States, France, and Italy had agreed to form a new multinational force to return to Lebanon for a limited period of time to help maintain order until the lawful authorities in Lebanon could discharge those duties. The action followed three events that took place after the withdrawal of the first group of Marines: the assassination of Lebanon President-elect Bashir Gemayel, the entry of Israeli forces into West Beirut, and the massacre of Palestinian civilians by Lebanese Christian militiamen.

                      On September 29, 1982, President Reagan submitted a report that 1,200 Marines had begun to arrive in Beirut, but again he did not cite section 4(a)(1), saying instead that the American force would not engage in combat. As a result of incidents in which Marines were killed or wounded, there was again controversy in Congress on whether the President's report should have been filed under section 4(a)(1). In mid-1983 Congress passed the Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983 requiring statutory authorization for any substantial expansion in the number or role of U.S. Armed Forces in Lebanon. It also included Section 4(b) that stated:

                          Nothing in this section is intended to modify, limit, or suspend any of the standards and procedures prescribed by the War Powers Resolution of 1983. (35)

                      President Reagan reported on the Lebanon situation for the third time on August 30, 1983, still not citing section 4(a)(1), after fighting broke out between various factions in Lebanon and two Marines were killed.

                      The level of fighting heightened, and as the Marine casualties increased and the action enlarged, there were more calls in Congress for invocation of the War Powers Resolution. Several Members of Congress said the situation had changed since the President's first report and introduced legislation that took various approaches. Senator Charles Mathias introduced S.J.Res. 159 stating that the time limit specified in the War Powers Resolution had begun on August 31, 1983, and authorizing the forces to remain in Lebanon for a period of 120 days after the expiration of the 60-day period. Representative Thomas Downey introduced H.J.Res. 348 directing the President to report under section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution. Senator Robert Byrd introduced S.J.Res. 163 finding that section 4(a)(1) of the war powers resolution applied to the present circumstances in Lebanon. The House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment to the continuing resolution for fiscal year 1984 (H.J.Res. 367), sponsored by Representative Clarence Long, providing that after 60 days, funds could not be "obligated or expended for peacekeeping activities in Lebanon by United States Armed Forces," unless the President had submitted a report under section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution. A similar amendment was later rejected by the full body, but it reminded the Administration of possible congressional actions.

                      On September 20, congressional leaders and President Reagan agreed on a compromise resolution invoking section 4(a)(1) and authorizing the Marines to remain for 18 months. The resolution became the first legislation to be handled under the expedited procedures of the War Powers Resolution. On September 28, the House passed H.J.Res. 364 by a vote of 270 to 161. After three days of debate, on September 29, the Senate passed S.J.Res. 159 by a vote of 54 to 46. The House accepted the Senate bill by a vote of 253 to 156. As passed, the resolution contained four occurrences that would terminate the authorization before eighteen months: (1) the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon, unless the President certified continued U.S. participation was required to accomplish specified purposes; (2) the assumption by the United Nations or the Government of Lebanon of the responsibilities of the Multinational Force; (3) the implementation of other effective security arrangements; or (4) the withdrawal of all other countries from participation in the Multinational Force. (36)

                      Where were the courts to stop this invocation of the WPR? Non involvement doesn't mean what you think it means. It just means this is an issue we should clarify.

                      Also I thought Democrats really didn't like the Unitary Executive Theory? Do you like it? Congress funds wars and government in general and this has constitutional precedent, whether precedent is ignored as it was in Bush vs Gore or not. Funny how all of a sudden people are fans of the powers Bush invoked just because Obama has invoked them. Funny how "I believe in the Constitution" means "I will be the president's defense lawyer."

                      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

                      by priceman on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:12:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  priceman, (0+ / 0-)

                        I am arguing this because I think the ambiguousness that the courts have allowed is a terrible problem, but it is true that they have allowed it.  That they have not acted does not prove that it is legal, but when Congress is the only entity stating a law is constitutional, the president says it is not, and the curs sit on the sidelines, we don't have any clarity on whether it is illegal either.

                        Compare this to DOMA: the congress says its constitutional.  Obama says its not and he won't defend it.  Is Obama wrong to do this?  Its essentially the same.

                        I wish it weren't so.  I don't think the president should have this power.  But he does because of the ambiguousness the courts have allowed, and he hasn't done anything wrong given that.

                        "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau -6.38, -4.15

                        by James Allen on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:52:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  well here is clue to you James, and others like (0+ / 0-)

                          you.  No one gives a shit about your laws, and
                          your legal point any more in our nation when we
                          have paid the greatest price of all.  Don't you fucking get that?  No one gives a shit about your laws and
                          legal morality if it simply destroys our nation.  Got thaha that  yet?  You and others, like you can go ahead, and continue to spout your laws, but the laws mean nothing to the rest of us, when we have been destroyed by the sthe system?  Or don't you get that.  I fully admit, to yoru bullshit argument:  That is it all legal.  You win the Panda stuffed toy on the right side of the Goldman Sachs prsent, but guess, what?  No one gives a shit, about that.  We are fucked in our nation.  No one is looking out for us, and no one gives a shit about the Middle Class and poor anymore, and that is why we elected President Obama, who has turned out to be the biggest sell out in our party.  So sSo just stop telling us how it is all 'legal' we fucking get that part of it.  The fact is, is this:  it is immoral, and ethichcally what has destroyed this nation?

                          Cut the fucking REBOP.  We get it.  You may be right in a court of law, but the citizens of this nation are sick to fucking death of hearing about how you and others are telling us how legal it all was.  No one gives a shit about that.  We need jobs.  We need an honest leader, and guess what?  There is none coming forward, let alone Obama.

                          We get that it was all fucking legal, but tell me this? won't you?

                          How can you feed your family on how legal it all is?  How in the hell can we rebuild this nation, when both parties are whores, and sold off, to the highest bidder, and stop telling us all how 'fucking legal' it all is, because you know what?  We don't give a shit about that anymore.  

                          Do you even get that James, or not?  Just asking.  You You can continue to make your point, but guess what, it will not feed our families, and it will not excuse the Obama Administration for not standing up for Democrats, the the party platform, will it?  I don't really give a shit about people like you that tell us it was all legal, what matters in the end is real leadership and where we can dig ourselves out of this hell hole we are in.   Good luck with your fucking meme James, butg guess what?  People are starving, in this nation. They have no where to go, and now we are facing a huge and disgusting President, who is telling us that the ane answer is to destroy the last New Deal, which is at the heart of our party.  

                          So tell that to someone else, and BTW, fuck you and the horse you road in on.  I'm all done with the caving and the pretension of what Obama is all about.  Find another sucker, and please go forward, and tell us all how 'legal' it all is.  We already know that fucking meme and guess what?  We already paid, and we are fucking sick of paying.

                          “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

                          by Badabing on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:13:27 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Does this make sense to you? (9+ / 0-)

              The Bush Doctrine is alive and well, and that is:

              what is really going on in Libya and the Middle East.  I have now officially lost count on how many countries we are currently 'at war' with, and/or having secret missions.  Does anyone have a specific number for this?  

              I must have missed the part, where Obama was given the go' ahead, by Congress to bomb Libya, or the advise and consent of the Senate.  

              When did the UN take the place of our Congress, and when is preemptive strike, no longer considered as such?  

              As many will recall there was a group of neo-cons that had planned a strategy to change the entire geo-political map of the Middle East, and they did this primarily for one reason:  The Oil.  This plan was developed way before 9/11 of George W. Bush took office.  Dick Cheney was part of the original group that developed this plan.  

                  Origins of the Bush doctrine
                  Although the Bush doctrine was not publicly articulated until September 2002, its origins actually go back to the early 1990s. In 1992, a document written at the direction of Richard Cheney, then the secretary of defense, first introduced the idea that the United States should never again allow another rival superpower to emerge. When the contents of the document were leaked to the press, however, it was disavowed.

                  One of the authors of the document, Paul Wolfowitz, later joined with a group of neoconservatives who formed an organization called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Among the founders of the PNAC in 1997 were men who later became key policymakers in the administration of George W. Bush. They included Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz. Among PNAC's most prominent actions was an open letter addressed to then-President Clinton, calling for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and the use of force, if necessary, to remove him. That goal became policy soon after Bush took office and before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

                  Justification for the Bush doctrine
                  All this changed under the administration of George W. Bush, and the full contours of the new Bush doctrine became apparent in September 2002 with the publication of "The National Security Strategy of the United States." As outlined in this position paper, U.S. foreign policy rests on three main pillars: a doctrine of unrivaled military supremacy, the concept of preemptive or preventive war, and a willingness to act unilaterally if multilateral cooperation cannot be achieved.

                  Criticism of the Bush doctrine
                  The Bush doctrine, however, has met with significant criticism. The arguments against the doctrine, expressed both before and since the invasion of Iraq, accuse it of leading the United States to act unilaterally and to behave arrogantly. The United States risks alienating world opinion, critics of the doctrine say, thereby jeopardizing the international cooperation essential to hunt down terrorist organizations.  The doctrine of preemptive war, these critics add, is likely to encourage rather than discourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and if adopted by other nations, could increase the likelihood of regional conflicts.

                  "It cannot be in either the American national interest or the world's interest to develop principles that grant every nation an unfettered right of preemption against its own definition of threats to its security."

              http://www.peace.ca/....

              The Bush Doctrine is alive and well, as is the Imperial Presidency, make no mistake about that.  The Military Industrial Complex never had it so good, and let us remember who is holding the Nobel Peace Prize in the Oval office,  President Obama who is also holding Bradley Manning without a due process in a nation that has become lawless, regardless of whether is comes to Wall St./the Banking system, or the lawless nature of endless wars, that have not been approved nor voted upon by our own Congress.  

              Taking the middle-east, once country at a time, seems to be the ultimate reason we are there: for the oil, regardless of what it will cost our nation in lives, in money, and regardless of what our Constitution denotes.   The Bush Doctrine ended.

              “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

              by Badabing on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 08:43:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent | Reply to this ]

              “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

              by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:55:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  No, Obama is not a tool, He is an instrument (18+ / 0-)

    A willing participant in the whole scheme and quite comfortable with the status quo and the MIC ruling the show.

    •  Agreed. He's long ago shown himself completely (7+ / 0-)

      willing and complicit in the shit that's been going on. Sure, he might be partly a dupe, but mostly he drank the KoolAid long ago and believes all the conservative and radical reactionary shit that's being dished by his advisers.

      Remember: This is the guy who wanted that douchebag Rethug, Judd Gregg, to head his "Democratic" Dept. of Commerce, and who had that fucking homophobic American Taliban ayatollah, Rick Warren, give a speech at his inaugural.

      Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbraith

      by Vtdblue on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:31:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama Is A Right Wing Corporatist (9+ / 0-)

      ...who happens to be a democrat. Many of his actions put him closer to the politcal views of Dick Cheney than those of Paul Wellstone.

      Action is the antidote to despair---Joan Baez

      by frandor55 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:33:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Spot on, frandor. Which is why he's so much (5+ / 0-)

        more dangerous, in many regards, to the Democratic principles, platform, historic legacy, etc., than a Republican would be.  

        With the latter, we would know where they stood (well, more or less -- despite their usual lies and obfuscation); but with Obama, he's Nixon going to China in he ability to wreck the New Deal and Great Society social safety net that was so painstakingly built over generations.

        Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbraith

        by Vtdblue on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:40:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's Europe's oil not ours. (16+ / 0-)

    Jesus, you're giving those of us who are against the intervention for sane reasons a bad name with this bullshit.

    First of all France started this not Obama, France has a lot of oil on the line, so does Italy, almost no oil in Libya goes to the US, so to say we're in it for the oil is simply factually not true. As you would know if you would have bothered to learn something before shooting off your mouth.

    Second of all, this is not illegal. I have no fucking clue why you'd compare him to Nixon, you can think he's a corporate sell out but if you knew shit about the law you'd know he has complied with the law all the way. I will repeat that: You can argue that he has no moral compass, but that doesn't change the fact he's entirely within the bounds of his authority.

    Delete this diary, study up on the laws concerned, bother to learn the real reason we entered this, and then come back and reiterate your position in a sane fashion. Then we can have a real reasonable discussion. A civil debate if you will. As I said with this you're just giving those of us who know what the hell we're talking about a bad name.

    Repeal the Fascist Un-American PROTECT Act NOW ! ! !

    by Dom9000 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:31:42 PM PDT

    •  Wow. (11+ / 0-)

      I can't add anything to that post. Well done.

      "If you think the other side is EVIL, you're part of the problem." -Chris Matthews

      by malharden on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:35:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are you for real? (7+ / 0-)
      First of all France started this not Obama, France has a lot of oil on the line, so does Italy, almost no oil in Libya goes to the US, so to say we're in it for the oil is simply factually not true. As you would know if you would have bothered to learn something before shooting off your mouth.

      How fucking long have we been in the Mideast...?

      10 years....................good luck with the line of bullshit.

      “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

      by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:41:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. (8+ / 0-)

        We've been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where lots of US oil pipelines run. In Libya however it's Europe who has oil on the line, Italy, France and Germany more then anyone else if I'm not mistaken. The President is lending a hand and complying because many of the countries who have oil on the line are our allies and because of Gaddafi's bad reputation he has nothing to lose by helping.

        The "mideast" isn't just one place. It's many different countries. To say the US doesn't have much oil on the line in Libya is simply a factual statement. You could argue we're there because of oil, it's just not our oil for once.

        Repeal the Fascist Un-American PROTECT Act NOW ! ! !

        by Dom9000 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:50:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So what, you are admitting we are in it for the (0+ / 0-)

          oil?  is that you answer?

          “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

          by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:57:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your posts are not cogent. (11+ / 0-)

            Yes. France is intervening in Libya because they have oil on the line, Italy is joining in zealously because they have even more oil on the line then France, we're assisting because many of our European allies have oil reserves on the line. The fact that Gaddafi is an oppressive dictator is just a plus for France and Italy and the rest. Aren't these mideast wars always about oil?

            Going back to your post, your post is simply completely devoid of facts. You start off comparing Obama to Nixon which is ridiculous, Obama has not broken a single law, which as I said, if you would have bothered to conduct even a preliminary google search on the matter before posting your semi-coherent ramble, you would know.

            You also falsely claim the US is there because of oil, this Libya fiasco is ultimately about oil but the US personally is not there because of oil, again if you would have done a preliminary google search to find out where the oil in Libya goes, you would know this.

            This diary deeply upsets me because your uninformed and ultimately ridiculous opinions are casting a bad light on those of us who are aware of the facts of the matter and are opposed to the intervention for real, sane reasons.

            Repeal the Fascist Un-American PROTECT Act NOW ! ! !

            by Dom9000 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:12:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  It's not who buys the damned oil. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Badabing, Dallasdoc, blueoasis

      It's who pumps the damned oil.

      If you're looking at where the oil happens to be going, you're already lost.

      You don't know the damned law.  You know what fucking talking points you've heard in last 48 hours.

      This is, you know, the actual law.

      the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

      No attack.  No serious threat. No authorization by Congress.

      On the other side of ..."Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the gunfire, pointing towards their chests...in an invitation to shoot.

      by JesseCW on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:05:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No matter how many times we say this, there (0+ / 0-)

        no amount of people on this site, that will not connect or admit that Bush/Obama are on the same page.  It does not matter, how many facts and evidence we point out Jesse, they will not deal with it.

        I was looking today on a map that was on the news, of all the Middle East countries that are in revolution.  I was astounded.  I was awestruck.  I did not want to look at that.  It made be deeply afraid.  There were like 10 nations all lined up, from Pakistan to Afganistan, and Iraq, there is now new countries that are all coming forward, and we keep telling ourselves this is all about 'Democracy and Freedom'...........

        No, it was never about that, and it never will be.  It's about Oil and Money for blood.  It is also about how our nation started the greatest economic meltdown since the great crash of 1930's.  No different.  Same people same players.  

        I suppose we can sit in denial for the next couple of years, as we pretend to think that Obama or Pawlenty  will make a difference, but the ugly truth is that they are simply the same candidate working for the same team, and it has nothing to do with uplifting the crushed middle class or poor of our nation.  They both could care less about that.  I've learned the lesson well.  I hope others do too.  No one is looking out for us anymore.

        We are on our own.

        Ms. B.

        “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

        by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:55:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Senator Obama might disagree. (6+ / 0-)
      The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

      Source

      I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. I'm one of the Angry Gays. Deal with it.

      by psychodrew on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:16:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tell me (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen, Geekesque, malharden, raina

    what you think Gaddafi was other than a reliable source of oil for the international markets?  The "did it for oil" clearly was true for Iraq, but Libya isn't Iraq; western oil companies have very beneficial leases there.  And so do other oil companies.

    As for the "if the President does it" logic, that's been the way it's been since Harry Truman entered the Korean War in 1950.  If Congress wants the responsibility, they can easily take it by passing a strong War Powers Act.  If someone with standing considers it unconstitutional, they can take it to court up to the Supreme Court.

    It is obvious that we have a broken system of checks and balances and a broken representative democracy.

    The election for progressives to focus on is 2014.  And we should start building the infrastructure to make the same argument progressives did a century ago -- corruption.  Until we deal with the revolving door and the unlimited money in campaigns, having labor as the core of the base can win some elections but not make major changes in policy.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:35:43 PM PDT

  •  You know I hate it when people mention (14+ / 0-)

    ...Obama. It is so infantile.

    He has no power, whatsoever, over matters of defense or finance. Thos parts of our government are fully privatized and out of our hands. US citizsens don't even own their own natural resources, for heavenssake. They are Colonists by definition.

    As for any acts of "defense" -- pulease.

    If a nation (like Libya) happens to be sitting on oil rightfully owned by Western powers -- Our Corporate Overlords will use any military powers necessary to keep the people murdered, divided, and killing one another over puppet dictators and fake elections -- while keeping their eye off the only ball there is (their ownership of their own natural resources).

    [And, if they aren't sitting on our oil, fuck 'em.]

    I do not know why Americans find this so complicated.

    Could we please exclude President Obama from these types of conversations?

    It is just silly and embarrassing.

    Who's your Daddy?

    •  thanks Pluto...its all about the fucking Oil... (6+ / 0-)

      always has been...

      I go to this place of Democracy and Freedom and all that other bullshit for a reason:

      I am wondering about my fellow men/women who have died over there, and for what reason?

      I see stickers on cars: that say Support the Troops, and it just disgusts me.  

      My dad, was a huge military hero in my life, but he taught me the real deal, as to what was really happening.  I will never forget him for giving me that lesson.

      Ms. B.

      “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

      by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:46:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, Ms B. (6+ / 0-)

        I just don't get the angst.

        It's as simple as gravity.

        Reality is really, really easy -- even if everyone around you is hallucinating.

        And, also, I like President Obama. I think he makes a very handsome Grand Ambassador for State affairs.

        •  when you live it Pluto and listen to your dad (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pluto

          scream in his sleep every night, you could feel differently, its not as simple as gravity, it is about love and pain and compassion.

          It's not easy, its' not hallucinating, its the real deal.  People I have loved deeply died in the wars, that were meaningless, including my own brothers, but hey, you know what?

          Unless you see it up close and personal, none of it means any thing.

          I did.  I wish I had not.  My loses haunt me everyday, for those that suffered for no reason at all.  I get that now.  You do not.

          It is not about gravity or angst, Pluto, it is about losing those you have loved deeply who lost their lives to a cause that had nothing to do with Freedom and Democracy.

          Until you have experienced it, please, do not be so flippant about it.

          Thanks.

          Ms. B.

          “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

          by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:30:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  take a look (8+ / 0-)

      at geomoo's diary for further confirmation of that point: [And, if they aren't sitting on our oil, fuck 'em.]

      "Thunder is good, thunder is impressive; but it is lightning that does all the work." ~Mark Twain

      by Lady Libertine on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:50:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The diary title and the diary (8+ / 0-)

    content have absolutely nothing in common. Might as well be:

    "Just because the President kills kittens doesn't make it right."

    The diarist would probably get just as much praise for that as she will for this.

    I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

    by Mike S on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:42:23 PM PDT

  •  The contrast between this Obama hatefest (8+ / 0-)

    and David Mizner's thoughtful diary couldn't be more striking.

    The difference between honest policy critique and unhinged ranting.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:12:14 PM PDT

  •  Things the diarist does not address: (8+ / 0-)

    1)  The fact that the Arab league requested the no-fly zone and the Arab world is united in wanting Gadaffy gone;

    2)  The notion that the President can't order the use of armed force without Congressional authorization has never been operative in US history.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:17:57 PM PDT

  •  On civil debate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dom9000, blueyedace2, Fogiv
    So, I challenge you all to a completely civil debate:  How do we dare to gain our party back, knowing that the reulatory capture is fully in place, knowing that we cannot ever change these issues: financial reform for elections, and reform for the unprecedented idea of Filibuster Reform.  What makes anyone think, that the 'Pigs at the trough' are going to vote those changes?  It is the ultimate lie, and ultimate delusion of the masses.  NO ONE IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT.

    Do you realize, ma'am, that you're asking 'how do we change that' after asserting that 'no one is going to change that'. Assuming your claims for the sake of argument, then we don't. Is that the civil debate you wanted?

    Or if I don't assume your claims for the sake of argument -- what do you do then?

    I'm finding a lot of things funny lately. But I don't think they are. -- Ripley

    by tytalus on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:28:52 PM PDT

  •  In the 70's I joined the (5+ / 0-)

    Women's political caucus.  It did a lot of things to help women get elected.  It created classes for people to learn what it takes to be in a campaign, for one.  It created a great network for women who wanted to become an elected official to find supporters and donors and foot soldiers.

    We also had a vetting for all candidates.  We interviewed them and had them fill out a questionnaire and based on that they got our support or not.

    I assume the unions do this as well.  It is time that we, as progressives did the same.

    No campaigner gets our support, or donations or foot soldiers or endorsements UNLESS......

    There are enough of us.  If we join hands with other progressive bloggers - using actblue - for instance as a clearing house.  But we have to have the questionnaires and those have to be on line so that each progressive can make up their own mind.

    If you remember the 70;s we did push women further out into the political playing field.  It wasn't easy, but local candidates especially wanted that leg up.

    My Grandma Daisy: "If you are right and the other fellow is wrong, it is your duty to set him straight!"

    by glitterscale on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 06:33:14 PM PDT

  •  I Like Dennis Kucinich but..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foufou

    he is wrong calling our participation in the No Fly Zone an impeachable offense.  He now wants to "challenge" the War Powers Act.

    The President was compliant with the War Powers Act which delegates authority to the President for our No Fly Zone, limited participation as long as Congress is notified within 48 hours.  

    •  That's not the only condition. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      priceman, Badabing, Situational Lefty

      Who told you it was?

      On the other side of ..."Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the gunfire, pointing towards their chests...in an invitation to shoot.

      by JesseCW on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:08:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Understand..... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueyedace2

        that an important provision of the Act is if US armed forces go into combat,  the President must get a resolution from Congress authorizing the mission, and if the resolution is not passed the forces must be withdrawn from combat within 60 days.  

        Isn't today day 3 of the No Fly Zone?  So far, the only US forces on the ground have been a mission to retrieve our downed pilots.  

    •  Wow, I am amazed at the disconnect, how many (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, Preston S, blueoasis

      nations in the middle east are in revolution and why is that?

      I keep asking the same questions, but no one is addressing these questions. I get that.

      The entire point of this diary was to try to address these issues: that to this point no one has addressed:

      How did we get here?  Why is this happening?  Who caused the soaring Food prices/and world wide revolutions?

      I just do not get people who cannot connect the dots, of what is going on.  We are in the deep state of denial, and still, we do not fucking get it.

      So here is a clue:  The Great Heist of 2008, led to a world wide domino destruction of our economy and the world wide economy.  No one was held responsible, so they have been allowed to speculate on the remaining commodities, such as food and oil prices.  This lead to the revolutions we are seeing in the Middle East.  

      This is not rocket scientists shit, this is reality.  But still, we are acting as if, none of this is the real deal.

      I don't get that.  Sorry, but I do not.  We refuse to see the forest for the trees, and so we bite into the 'decoys' and blame each other in these class wars, that are not even what is going on.  

      I cannot ever believe, that I see my fellow Democrats, telling me to delete this diary, when they refuse to face the truth.  No one wanted Obama to succeed more than I did, but now we are faced with the destruction of our nation, under the so called 'austerity' measures, which is nothing more than paying off the 'toxic debts' that Wall St./the Bankstas have gotten away with.

      Indeed, the MIC is fully in charge of our nation, but god forbid, I should point out the laws of our nation, that Congress must be given advise and consent, when bombing yet another nation.

      But hey, I'm just another fool.

      thanks for at least coming by and asking the real questions, that we all need to ask:  What happened to our Democracy, and who is responsible.

      Ms. B.

      “I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together.” William Jennings Bryan

      by Badabing on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 07:25:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes, you are just another fool (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gator Keyfitz, blueyedace2, foufou, raina

        not because you are wrong that things are fucked up, but because you think you have connected the dots and figured it all out and that everyone else is just fucking stupid for not listening to you or seeing things the way you see them

        you are mistaking your 'filtered thinking' for 'clear thinking'.  

        let me ask you a serious question.  what do you propose everyone should do with what you say?  in case you haven't noticed there are billions of people on the planet and it's really complicated to make any changes.  

        you can't even convince people that you are right, so, how do you propose to convince them to make the changes you would make?  

        get real.  you are wasting everyone's time.   you can't change the whole world.  your scope is way to big for you to handle.  

    •  Denniss doesn't care about the people of Libya (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA, blueyedace2, foufou

      Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

      Look at the face he makes when Ed asks him if we should help save the lives of the people of Libya from being massacred.  His answer is essentially 'meh' and 'we can't afford it' and 'it's not our problem'.   It's certainly his right to have that opinion but I will NEVER take him seriously about single payer health care.  He's for health care for everyone but 'meh' when it comes to saving human beings from being massacred.

      This is why MOST people don't take Dennis seriously, because it's really easy to see that he's full of bullshit.

  •  Thank you for the diary, Badabing... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Badabing

    and what I know as we try to cry 'warning' to our fellow citizens who are determined to not hear, is that the change will come.

    It won't be orderly and it probably will be painful, but it will come.  

    What you can COUNT on is all the people who fight against the truth you speak will say after the change that they "were with you all along"...day will follow this long night.

    We have lots of work to do and it is not within the present political system.

    "Get up, Stand up" ~ Bob Marley

    by trinityfly on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 08:20:28 PM PDT

  •  You have (5+ / 0-)

    the right to your own opinion but you don't have the right to libel. Similarly, Dennis Kucinich doesn't have the right to slander.

    You may not like the military action supported by the Arab League, the UK, France and Germany, but that gives you no right to claim that it's illegal.

    The President sent his notification to Congress regarding the Libya situation in accordance with the War Powers Act. The law requires such a notification within 48 hours of commencing military actions.

    Quite a bit of ink was spilled yesterday by folks suggesting the President was not complying with the War Powers Act because he had not notified Congress. But, of course, the criticism was premature and in this case unwarranted since the 48 time period had not yet elapsed. It has now, and his notice has been delivered.

    At this point the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves. We'll have to see how that plays out.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  Your movement... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy, foufou, raina

    needs a Larry Johnson type figure to move it forward. Yes, you've become that ridiculous.

    "Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world." — Howard Zinn

    by blueyedace2 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 09:47:43 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site