Thanks for posting.

Yep, that's what's supposed to happen, all right. But try as I might, I just can't quite trim my ideals to fit the fashion. This is a crime against humanity, and EVERYONE involved, from the legal eagles who provided the ass-covering opinions to the executive branch carrying out the crimes to the people squinting at the monitors and pushing the buttons needs to go in the dock.

it's the same deal with the economy on DU: stock market's up? "He's pulling through for us!" market's down? "GOP economic sabotage!" and they flip between the two without a hitch

that's what "veal pen" means--an emphasis not on economy or policy, conditions or decisions, but a single person, no matter what happens or is done

Looks like TRP has been reading DU's Home Page. Bless you Rude for calling out our bizarre political psychosis.

I've never been ok with the war on terrorism and it's belief that it is ok to preemptively attack anyone anywhere because they might be a threat to us in the future. It goes against everything this country was supposed to be about. One cannot be judge, jury and executioner. And drones attacks are just as bad as indiscriminately bombing the hell out of people. We have supposedly killed the same bad guys numerous times only to find out we got the wrong person. Or just wiped out a bunch of completely innocent people. The wars and the drone program are our shame. But hey, heard last night on the Nooze that Iran helped Syria with that massacre so clearly more war is on the horizon...

Well I am sure the banning has added some cross draggin' cred for you at least. Ugh. How sad when people go into protected groups to stir up shit. I always feel sorry for such folks as it reveals just how much they've got going on in their empty lives.

Julie

The old "empty lives" routine?
"Cross draggin' cred"?
You obviously don't know me, but that's OK.

When I made my post in the BOG group, I wasn't really paying attention to where I was, just to what was being said. I suppose I didn't realize at the time that there are places now on DU3 where one simply is not allowed to say what one wants to say. Some rah-rah group host decided to call me ignorant and ban me from saying what appeared to me to be the obvious.

When Bush was expanding presidential power, part of the reason why we here at DU were opposed to what he was doing, was so that future presidents would not have inappropriate powers over we, the people. Now that it's a Dem president that has those powers, and is extending some of those powers even further, it's OK?

And it's not appropriate to point out that "our" president is now using executive powers that we wouldn't want the "other guys" to have? Does it not bother you that "our" president has a list of people he wants assassinated by drones without any kind of legal protections for those to be assassinated? And if some kids or other innocents just happen to be there when the bombs rain down and get caught in the crossfire, it just "collateral damage" and "oh well!"? Do you want Romney to have that kind of power? Didn't we spend years here complaining about Bush having that kind of power?

I suppose I need to take Ari Fleischer's advice, and "be careful what I say"?
Is that how it works now?

You'd get the same treatment if you went to the Atheist forum and started to try and win converts.

I can understand the mix-up between forums. It is easy to see something on the Latest Page and click through without being aware of what group you land in. I have done that.

It's a shame you went on with your post after that point. You either don't know what's been the norm on DU for years or you were being less than straightforward in trying to paint the BOG as somehow different, perhaps more privileged than the other groups.

Julie

I don't know or care if the BOG is "somehow different, perhaps more privileged than the other groups," and I wasn't trying to paint anything. I personally don't like the idea that the very same statement is acceptable in one area of DU, and unacceptable in another area, depending upon the whims of whoever is hosting a particular group.

But, so be it...

Addendum - Would the Rude Pundit post to which this is all a response be acceptable in Barack Obabma group? If not, why not? Didn't he raise some important questions, in his own rude way, about things that we have been talking about here for years? Some of the same questions I asked in post #13?

Another addendum - DU, you're so silly!!!

I tried to read the rest. I skimmed it in a sincere effort to give it a fair reading but it's just too dumb. I mean really dumb. As in IQ-siphoning dumb.

Raping robots? Seriously? Obviously this is an analogy for the killing that takes place during a war. As rape and murder are considered equal in the degree of atrocity the one is analogous to the other.

But that's a gross mischaracterization of war. The deliberate, calculated and methodical taking of human life is not the same as rape in every circumstance. When the bath salts cannibal was shot he was killed by a police officer armed for the express purpose that (s)he might have to take human life. The officer was sent to training ranges to learn to shoot and given rules to decide -- absent any immediate ajudication by others -- on when it would be appropriate to kill a human being.

War, on a larger scale, is two population groups combating each other. Whatever their grievance, be it control of resources, pride or ideology they cannot resolve their differences peaceably. The only resolution is to simply end the existence of one party or the other or at least to proceed on that course until one party capitulates.

Rape isn't the objective (Spare me the deliberate rape warcrime stories, I know; I'm speaking in the most essential terms). Ending the existence of the other party is the objective. You cannot secure the resource, assuage the insult or sweep away the opposing ideology while the other belligerent is dead or surrenders.

FDR didn't approve the dropping of dildos on Gerrman and Japanese cities; he approved the fire bombing of them to destroy their ability fight by killing as many people as possible and their industries. Tens of thousands died trying to destroy a ball bearing plant because those tiny round pieces of metal were used to build tanks and planes. It made more sense to go after the BBs than the tanks and planes once they were operational and why bomb a tank factory then bomb a plane factory when the one factory making BBs were essential to both.

The tens of thousands that died in those bombing runs were mostly civilians. From what I've read the Allied bombers being shot down did more damage to the factory than the bombs themselves which fell mostly away from their intended target. I'm sure the German pilots that raced skyward to fend off the Allied bombers felt sick at the sight of their country glowing in the night, not out of love of Hitler or his madness but because their friends and families were caught in that glow. I wouldn't expect anything short of their hatred for us.

So Obama is sending drones out. And he's taking personal responsibility for who is targeted rather than consigning the responsibility to some third tier functionary to insulate himself beneath a cloak of "plausible deniability." The fact is, there are people out there trying to do harm. They cannot be convinced to peaceably end their efforts. Rather than chase after tens of thousands individual guerillas it makes more sense to go after the people who guide, plan and supply those efforts -- they are, metaphorically, the ball bearings that make the rest of the machines run. Instead of dozens of bombers flown by hundreds of men dropping thousands of bombs that kill tens of thousands of civilians over the course of hours a single missile is sent to a single car or building and it hits 90% of the time or better.

Yeah, people are dying. It's gut-wrenching just to think about it. I don't want to equivocate or diminish that fact. "War is Hell," one general once remarked. He said it in reply to the elders of the city of Atlanta who pleaded with him to spare the city. Nonetheless, he ordered the city burned to the ground because they refused to surrender it to him and he was determined to break the slavers once and for all. They were at an impasse in their respective goals so force was used to settle what could/would not be mutually, morally agreed to.

But please, none of this prattling nonsense that Obama is ordering the moral equivalent of robotic rape attacks. It fails even on its own terms.

I thought that when Bush invaded two Middle Eastern countries he was setting the stage for a total meltdown/destabilization in the region. I wonder if Mitt can spell Armageddon?