A big contradiction of DU--heroes turning into villains

John Conyers, Bernie Sanders and Al Gore are extremely popular here, and are viewed as solid progressives. Those who oppose impeachment at this time are accused by DUers of being traitorous cowards who don't care about the Constitution. So why do such solid people as Sanders, Conyers and Gore disagree? What are they seeing that some on DU aren't, in your view? Nancy Pelosi and other figures are called enablers and collaborators for this stance. Are Conyers, Gore and Sanders enablers and collaborators? Why or why not?

RFK Jr., Barney Frank, Walter Mondale and George McGovern have all shown big support for Hillary. With astonishing speed, I've seen all these folks being called corporatist sellouts, DLC establishment hacks, etc. as a result, when just a few weeks ago those slinging the insults had a very positive or mostly positive view of all these public figures. Is it that they've wholly changed as people as a result of this position, or is it perhaps that one can be progressive and still support Hillary? It really angers me to see these people demonized based on a single rather superficial stance, which seems to ignore their years of great public service. Again, what are they thinking that DU plainly isn't?

How does one explain this contradiction? Heroes of DU throwing in on a side of a debate that DU detests? Are those heroes now villains (which seems arbitrary) because of their stance on these issues? Or is the stance simply one datum to tie in with a lot of other factors in their careers? Do we need to consider more carefully why such respected politicians are taking these stances DU common wisdom disagrees with, or should we ignore it as an aberration? I like to think, at least in these two cases, that one dram of evil doesn't dout all the noble substance of these folks.

What do you think?

different strokes for different folks
and
everyone isn't who they say they are

than the actual subject matter.

I posted a positive thread the other day about Obama, and some nutjob attacked me for trying to play some sort of dirty trick! Made the entirely unfounded claim that I have a history of slamming Obama, which is just a flat-out lie.

It was pure insanity!

heads up

when someone makes such a claim, it's incumbent on the poster to provide at last one lick of evidence, or just admit they were wrong.

for stating your opinions. Weird.

she should at least provide one shred of evidence for her slanderous assertion, or just admit she was wrong.

She can't do either. It shows a lot about her character.

Opinions are what DU is all about. However, to work diligently to tank an opposing candidate and then claim "what, me?" when someone has the audacity to point it out is the epitome of denial, and that renders the question posed rhetorical.

I like Obama.

You're just confused or dishonest when you say I've done anything to bring him down.

Praise or defense of Hillary = attack on Obama, etc.

Actually, for the record, I WISH it was as you described it. That would be fabulous. But, alas, GD-P has become a veritable tag-team Clinton Gestapo slug-fest with systematic trashing and a boot on the neck of each of her opponents. It's spectacular.

It's possible, yeah, and even likely in some cases, but throwing around accusations without evidence is no fun when it happens to Obama, right? Why is it any more fun when it's directed at another candidate supporter?

(I don't support Obama or Hillary, for full disclosure.)

after all this time, you should've been able to find examples of me trying to bring Obama down.

You made the wild-ass accusation - you should either back it up or apologize.

dishonest for making that accusation against me, and dishonorable for not apologizing.

But since you are not, here's all I have to say to you on this subject. You are flat-out denying your participation in the GD-P slugfest. While I wasn't inclined to entertain your absurd denial, I did receive several PMs with links to your greatest hits.

Although I will not involve anyone else in this nonsense, the consensus, the main complaint ascertained was that you turn a blind eye and join the pile-on on the plethora of anti-other candidate threads (i.e., Obama, Edwards, and even Kucinich when his words hit a nerve), and then, and here's the kicker, you turn around and berate others, calling them RW tools, for posting threads you deem not flattering to Hillary.

It is an impression, mine and others. You are not by far the worst, but your fingerprints are all over GD-P. I hope that helps your wide-eyed faux innocent demands for an apology.

Tell you what, if and when Hillary apologizes for the IWR, hell - I'll make that a freebie, if and when she apologizes for voting YES on Kyl-Lieberman, then I'll apologize. I won't hold my breath.

We're done.

when I have smeared Obama?

My "greatest hits"?

I think I said I was disappointed in Obama when he did the McClurkin thing, but if you consider that a smear, you're just wrong.

You can't point to any "slam" I've made against Obama, and your post is yet another insinuation and lie.

You pretend to have received info demonstrating it, but oddly, you won't provide it. You should be ashamed.

Are you going to provide some evidence of your accusation against me, or are you going to apologize?

I see you've put me on PM ignore. How brave.

You said you'd seen my history of slamming Obama - I asked for one example.

Are you going to defend your claim?

with some noted rare exceptions

Then villian be your name.

Pelosi and Sanders both oppose impeachment at this time, but is one more of a villain than the other? If so, there must be some degree of variation and things cease to be so absolute.

Fanaticism, pure and simple. People who go from praising someone one minute to condemning them the next just because of they choose to support in an election are showing obsessive characteristics.

it borders on obsession. :scared:

I don't know whether this is a phneomenon influenced by the internet, but I see posts from people who have chosen a particular candidate, and they make that candidate out to be the literal Savior of Humanity. There's been so many posts stating "Candidate X must win or the US is doomed" that I have to wonder if there will be mass suicides if Candidate X doesn't win.

i don't agree with people on some issues but i'm not going to disguard them because we don't agree 100%.

Why can't people control their emotions enough to make reasoned arguments?

numbers of innocent people to their deaths for a fucking lie, not to mention ruining careers, stealing freedom, spying, theiving 4.6 trillion before it's even thought of being over doncha thank?

post I can relate to..thank you, lonestarnot!~ That's what matters.

The oft used prosecutor analogy backs this up--cases that do not yet have evidence that will convince the jury (that'd be the Senate for impeachment) are not so readily brought to trial as cases where the evidence is solid enough to convict even supposing a recalcitrant, biased jury. You can make the argument that the crimes are so bad they have to be tried immediately, and that's a fair argument, but I just intend to point out it isn't completely black and white.

Right Now!

http://dr-blog.asiandrug.jp/archives/Pussy%20Galore%20Right%20Now!.JPG

I just recommended it. (19 up to 20).

the way.
When did Gore say anything against Bush impeachment? have you listened to any of Gore's speeches? he was actually the first one to stand up and call Bush treasonous 2 years ago. The January speech. So you're creating an assumption based on.......nothing?

He used to be but he isn't anymore.

but said it won't happen as long as the leadership doesn't want it to happen. Even when people (Cindy and Code Pink) got angry with him he still did not say he was against impeachment, ever. He said personally I'm with you on this, get more people, scream it louder.

he is pro. He is not stepping out on his own against the democratic party. You are reacting to people's interpretations of what he said, not what he actually said!

He not only is AGAINST impeachment, he had impeachment activists ARRESTED in his office to shut them up and get them out of his hair.

And I know exactly what he said, since many of those people he had arrested are friends of mine. He said if he worked at impeachment, Fox News would crucify him.

So he is more concerned about his image on Fox News than in doing his JOB.

No he is NOT for impeachment. If he really truly was in favor, it would be a done deal by now.

once it became possible he decided it wasn't such a good idea.

I don't recall Gore ever saying he was against it, but I don't really follow him that closely, so I could well be wrong.

We often forget that all of these people have one very important common trait, they are politicians, and just like any salesman, are professional liars. Regardless of party, they all lie for a living, so it is no surprise when the lie they told you last year or last week is counter to the lie they are pushing now.

Gore (from his PBS interview, I believe):

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1100316

Conyers's balanced but mostly negative view:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0707/S00416.htm

Or is it more of an absolute thing?

antifascism and respect for the US Constitution are two exceptions

They mean different things to different people. Your idea of respect for the Constitution doubtless varies greatly from, say, Clarence Thomas's. Then you come into trouble about what to do even -if- you agree the Constitution is being violated (as all agree here it is, I believe.) In the time of the Founding Fathers the US was faced with a crisis: Congress passed and a president signed legislation that was patently unconstitutional--the Alien & Sedition Acts. Was Adams impeached? Nope. Were the authors or sponsors of the bill impeached? Nope. Did the authors of the Constitution therefore have no respect for it, because they didn't impeach those who violated its rules? No, but they evidenced their respect (particularly Jefferson and Madison) in other ways. Those ways did -not- include impeachment.

Do you see what I mean about the consideration this requires? It just simply can't be black and white.

and is

Everyone says that. It would work out great, but the problem arises that no two people will agree exactly on what is good and what is bad. Do you believe the founders failed in their responsibility to impeach when the Constitution was under attack? What about Lincoln's attacks on habeas corpus? FDR's internment of the Japanese? Some otherwise great presidents have subverted the Constitution. Impeachment for all of them, or just some? And do you realize now that we are talking a matter of degree, not absolute binary exclusivity?

To clear that up, Bush, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Adams all engaged in activity that violated the Constitution. Are they all worthy of impeachment? Are they all -equally- worthy of impeachment? To maintain your hardline stance, you'd have to say yes to each question.

for mere humans to understand; that there is no right or wrong, just ambiguous acts; that there is no truth, just opinion

prior bad acts do not excuse everyone for all eternity who may commit the same or other bad acts

Just because I don't agree with your absolutist view of an exclusive choice:

a) hate the Constitution
b) impeach immediately

Doesn't mean I believe no one can make any argument as to what's good and what's bad. You're throwing me in with another extreme because I don't agree with yours. Just because I don't think in black and white doesn't mean I see everything in the same shade of grey. Again, you're assuming two exclusive polar options exist, and nothing inbetween is possible.

therefore, is it okay to abuse the constitution in any way one chooses, as long as one can make the argument that "some people" believe that abuse is okay (therefore it is too "gray" for anyone to render a black or white judgement)

so, just for discussion, there are groups of people who believe that income tax is wrong. is it therefore okay for these people to not pay income tax? after all, there is plenty of gray area about the constitutionality of such a tax.

some people believe that torture is okay. does this mean that torture IS indeed okay? just watch CNN. there are plenty of "reasonable" mainstream Americans defending the use of torture. in fact torture is happening. okay? or not okay?

not everything is a matter of interpretation.

I do not understand your first sentence. I offer no such choice. I don't claim that the congressional "democrats" who oppose impeachment hate the constitution. rather, I believe that no reasonable person can dispute that they have abrogated their constitutionally defined duty. there is no doubt that serious crimes have been committed by members of the executive branch. it is congress's unambiguous duty to "check" abuses of executive power. the congressional "democratic" "leadership" is failing in that duty. on one hand, you say I am entitled to that opinion. on the other hand, you say it is invalid because their duty is ill-defined or might be interpreted differently than I have described.

That isn't the case. It is, however, equally invalid to pretend there are only two possible points of view on impeachment or Hillary--that of the good wholesome heroes and that of the abominable, wholly inhuman villains. To deal with impeachment, I've given you several historical examples of presidents who have suborned the Constitution. You argue that doing so is a black and white issue, and support impeachment for the offenders. So should all those presidents have been impeached? FDR, Lincoln, Adams--all of them? If no, then you no longer have a situation where you can maintain your absolutism. You must acknowledge a difference in degree. Yes, all violated the Constitution, but some did so more egregiously than others.

Does Bush deserve to be impeached? That's the easy question for any progressive to answer, as the facts are all there to show he committed crimes and misdemeanors as defined by the founders. Now, the questions become: can we impeach? What are the risks of impeachment? Do the risks outweigh the benefits? Those questions will foster disagreement irrespective of whether everyone agrees that Bush -deserves- impeachment.

In other words some of those who oppose impeachment at this time may not be committed enemies of the Constitution. Bernie Sanders and John Cornyn are both against impeachment, but I would say the former has great respect for our founding document and the latter has very little if any.

who thinks "democrats" opposed to impeachment are "abominable, wholly inhuman villains."

I just think they are bad Democrats (or not really Democrats at all in many cases) and bad citizens who should not be elected to public office. A charming person who helps a little old lady across the street and then robs the bank is still a bank robber. It does not mean they weren't nice to senior citizens. But they're still a bank robber. If the town marshal decides not to arrest the bank robber, fleeing from the scene with a gun, a mask and a bag of money, that is a bad thing. The town needs a new marshal.

I don't really care how any of the current anti-impeachment "democrats" *feel* about the Constitution. The Constitution
defines a government in which the Legislative is responsible for checking Executive branch abuses of power, including commission of high crimes and misdemeanors. The current "democratic" leadership and most "democrats" in Congress have failed in their Constitutional duty as members of the legislative branch. I think they should be held accountable for this failure.

You apparently believe that Congress does not necessarily have a duty to hold the Executive accountable to either the Constitution or to the law. Fine. Scary, but fine. At issue is not whether impeachment successfully removes bush from office. It is about establishing clearly for the historical record that honorable people tried to do the right thing and hold him accountable. Failure to stand for the rule of law is to become accessory to crime.

It's because your inflexible ideology is inapplicable to the real world. It's only a comforting abstraction, it isn't useful as a concrete, working philosophy. I've given you several historical examples of presidents violating the Constitution. By your rationale, and your bank robber analogy, there is no mitigating factor to subverting the Constitution. All violation is naturally an oathbreaking act, and if not confronted via impeachment each member of the respective Congress is unfit for duty. So Adams, FDR, Lincoln and others would all be impeached, by your own logic. Also, all the great Congresspeople from each era, who failed to impeach in each case, are unworthy of office. Is that reasonable? Most historians would say "no."

is irrelevant. The existence of previous offenses does not excuse present crimes. Neither do past failures of duty excuse current failures. The possibility that either of these Presidents escaped a deserved impeachment does not change the current Congress's duty to hold the current "president" accountable for crimes that even you admit he committed.

Because Lincoln and FDR both acted during time of (Constitutionally!) Congress-declared war, the issue of whether their acts were unconstitutional is legitimately debatable. The Constitution grants only Congress the right to declare war (which they have not done in my lifetime, ergo bush is not really a "war-time" president) and grants the Executive broader powers during time of war. For example, the President can declare martial law, which negates Constitutional liberties. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was probably not unconstitutional. Article One, section 9 states:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Lincoln took action in response to widespread riots, local militias run amok and the possibility that Maryland would join the Confederacy, leaving the capitol "surrounded."

FDR and the Japanese internment? Horribly unjust and I find no defense for it. He may well, however, have had the legal right to do it.

As for Adams? I don't know and don't really care. He was basically an early (albeit far more intelligent) version of a bush.

And sounds much more reasonable. To me anyway. :hi:

that's the main thing

:hi:

and self-indulgent.


and your phony "absolutist view of an exclusive choice" strawman perpetuates all the tired, redundant uninformed, MISLEADING arguments that have festered on DU all year.


while you're pontificating about black, white and grey, all your rights are swept away.............. :hi:

a deep philosophical dive into the dynamics of all these peoples positions and du's reaction...

ok, I'm thinking...

thinking....


no, I still can't stand Hillary

sorry, she gives me the Willeys

I don't like her myself. But I think to crap on all those who support her without some consideration for why they make that decision isn't very productive.

but those who support her obnoxiously, well, crap on them!

But the people who need that message the most will never read this thread thoroughly enough.

funny - I guess human nature is what it is, regardless of one's political persuasion

More people jump into the "tastes great!" / "less filling!" phony arguments and name calling than don't. Whether pugs calling Hillary a witch, progressives calling rudy a scumbag, or someone here calling Biden the devil over the bankruptcy bill or Edwards a "phony" over his house, the schoolyard namecalling "I am not" "you are so" seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

I don't have anything against Hillary; I just don't like her apparent positions on a number of things - and don't like the fact that I have to say apparent. I might or might not find her appealing as a person in a social setting. I do not find it necessary, though, to call her names or make something out of nothing over prompting the audience at a rally to try to paint her as the wicked witch of the west (my line above about can't stand her was a lighthearted attempt at humor). I think my preferred candidates will overtake her on the merits of their positions and personalities, and I will be torn over which of them to support. I intend to keep contributing to them and look forward to the time when one of them can offer Hillary a senior position in the administration.

Those who have come out supporting her have their own reasons. I have yet to hear one of them say something to persuade me to follow them. But I don't find it necessary to call them names either.

He's enjoyed a more exalted status on DU than almost anyone in the last few months... but now the hammer is falling and the piling on is beginning. So it goes...

Sometimes I wonder if some DUers profess support for particular politicians or candidates simply so they can loudly disavow that support when they feel the time is right... who knows?

But yeah, some people are frustratingly mercurial about their heroes and villains. Frankly I don't know most people here well enough to do anything but guess at the reasons.

that there is a preponderance of data that supports Hillary's allegiance to big business and the corporate agendas inherent in that support. And, as the majority of our body of elected representatives is also subservient to these sponsors, it matters little that your citations are in favor of HRC.

Such as: Because Bernie Sanders and Steny Hoyer don't support impeachment, they are equally at fault in being establishment stooges and equally disregard the Constitution. There is some variation there between the two poles, and other considerations beyond that -single issue- that have to come into play, and neither is wholly a hero or villain, but has some good points and bad points. To my reckoning, Hoyer has far more bad points than does Sanders.

however, what has become a dividing force is the inability of our advocates to be our advocates. No doubt there are many subjective attitudes that permeate this forum. No doubt that we have great variance in how we would like to institute restitution. The critical point that emanates from the discussion is... we need to act NOW.

Some don't care about either, some want both carefully considered, etc. We agree on most things here, but this is a discussion board, so naturally we'll be inclined to hash out the more specific disagreements instead of just agreeing with each other in broad terms in every thread. :D

if those that were "on our side" lay down with dogs. This country is not just in peril, it teeters on the precipice of insignificance. My thrust is all about involvement. Without a concerted effort by all of us -- populace and Representatives -- we are soon to be relegated to the so-called scrap heap.

You asked how "we" can toss the warriors in with the enablers and impart one label. It is urgency that drives the outspoken criticisms. Some here (some say, lol) are not compelled to view the situation as a majority of the country does. Whether it is an assumed superior intellect, circumstance, or just ignorance, I don't know.

Your point, I think, was to illustrate that those "in the know" have our best interests at heart and we should be wary of grouping them in with our adversaries. Perhaps. Or, perhaps we need to become even more vocal and express ourselves with enough force that we can exact change. Just my 2 cents...

In other words, someone -could- disagree with immediate impeachment and still respect the Constitution. The disagreement doesn't have to lie with interpretation of the document, so much as how to best defend it. Some will consider risks and practicality, others will say those considerations are not meaningful, but the point is that even those who admit Bush deserves impeachment will disagree on whether to immediately impeach or not.

With Hillary it's a similar thing. RFK Jr. is hardly in the pay of corporate DLC masters based on his public history. George McGovern was probably a big hero to many older people on this board. Yet to support Hillary in any way brings accusations of "DLC establishment whore," and to me that's just too simplistic.

I can't pretend to know the motivations, but I wish people wouldn't just separate everyone into two exclusive columns "good" and "bad" when it's a complex issue at hand. I do believe, however, that one can make the argument that one position is more supportable than another. I would much prefer that to unsubstantiated, black & white name-calling that doesn't take into account any complexity at all.

There was a time in my DU experience where the Heroes/Villains hysteria really pissed me off, but then I realized that personalites, black/white thinking, and good ole trolling had more to do w/ the subject than anything else. I don't take any of it seriously anymore, and some of the more unhinged posters here I'm convinced are doing a particularly over the top version Internet Performance Art.

It also has to do with who's doing the screaming and dominating the conversation; here, there's alot of one-issue axe-grinders, more so than on most political boards I frequent, so the examples about Hillary are to be expected.


Everybody gets ripped to shreds here sooner or later, often on the flimsiest of evidence; that's why the Kucinich/Ron Paul thing is so hilarious since more than a few of posters defending Kooch and wailing about the unfairness of it all have been on the other side of the debate when it comes to other issues/candidates.

I just can't take it seriously; it's too over the top.

...and very disheartening.

I have no idea why this is such a popular pastime.

Good luck with this topic. You'll need it.

Hekate

Well, not me, really. I like all those folks quite a bit. I'd walk through fire for some of them.

Ya know what I mean.

Looking for an answer to your query?

"Because I fucking said so."

There are several answers to the question. That reply of mine is one of them.

Yeah, I know. It sucks.

:toast:

What Ever Happened To Baby Jane, believe it!! A function of not having a center and being proud of it...imo of course

makeup of certain people, and a groupthink mentality than anything else. Funny really when you consider how DU rails against the "sheeple". It's about hate and anger taking precedence over logic.

for not addressing the situation. Therefore, something is wrong and something is wrong with us if we let it go as well.

It's a function of people growing up suckling at the teat of television.

Every event portrayed on TV must be pared down to a 2 second representation so they can get to the next event and the commercials.

There's no time for subtlety or complex analysis. TV reinforces the (probably evolutionarily useful at one time) habit of making instantaneous judgments about issues and about whether a person is friendly or dangerous to your tribe.

80% of the entire world is a grey area.

I wish all public schools would make the teaching of debate (emphasizing identifying fallacies), and logic and reasoning mandatory.

I think, as you find in any large message forum, there are a wide range of people. There are those who crave drama, those who love to be outraged, people with tunnel vision on one issue, people who like to argue, etc. etc.

It would be my guess that the majority of Democrats on this site do not think this was about the Dems you referenced. Unfortunately it just seems that way because the others yell louder. That really is all it is. They yell louder, they post more.

When I see people bashing the most Liberal elected party members we have as being right wingers or corporatists, or whatever the catchy word of the day is, I just put them on ignore. It makes life on DU alot more calm and rational.

and I think it's pretty simple, when you connect these two facts:

We are on the brink of Martial Law. Everything's set up for it. It can happen with the stroke of a pen - and they don't even need a real good reason for it.

Democrats won't impeach in 2007 or 2008 - nor will they even talk about what they'd do in 2009. Dems like Conyers, who have been vocal about impeachment in the recent past, have suddenly clammed up.

Why do you think that may be the case?

But definitely playing the moderate card as a means of helping to solidify sentiment within the public mind. Sentiment for what? Maintaining business {travesty} as usual. The overarching system cannot be held "accountable" in the eyes of those who comprise it. Hence impeachment is "off the table."

When we were the opposition party, we insisted our party leaders fight back. And we were told they were playing it smart, so we could get into power and really fix things. Well that vain hope kept getting us beat, year after year. We lucked into power in 2006, thanks to some big GOP scandals and growing public opposition to the occupation of Iraq. And sure enough, now we are getting the same type of poor representation we've gotten ever since Bush got into office.

It is remotely possible that the leaders in Congress know something we don't know, and are taking the wise course based on that. Its a lot more likely that their first cause is self-preservation and that the will of the public does not even make the top 5. Elected officials are not known for their altruism. (Where is the big ethics reform many of them ran on?)

And that's really all it comes down to.

person and always have been, and I realize that there are at least a dozen ways to approach an issue and NONE are perfect.

what I find disturbing is that one can't express displeasure with several candidate's actions without being labelled a sycophant for the other girl/guy, a troll, or a DLCer (an organization I don't care for, but they belong at DU, too).

The whole thing has turned me off. Try to start a thread debating an issue like health care and 3 people will chime in with intelligent thoughts, all 3 will recommend, and then it sinks like an anchor.

I've been thinking the same thing.

Ideological absolutism, groupthink, and sheepishness isn't just a right-wing thing.

bush/Cheney being considered loyal democrats or an opposition party.

Remember, about almost half of us here are under 30.

Too many 'over-thirtyers' are far too complacent as they've had more time to be indoctrinated into establishment thinking. Young people who instinctively know to piss all over that weak shit is precisely what we need more of.

Some on DU turn against people like JFK, Jr. or Al Gore simply because they disapprove of impeachment at this point. That's the kind of point the OP was making, and the one I was responding to.

While we may disagree with them about impeachment, I don't think we're going to allow that disagreement to cause us to disrespect people like JFK, Jr. and Al Gore.

That the threshold of outrage is higher among some of our progressives than in others shouldn't surprise us, nor that they disagree about precisely when impeachment will become politically viable.

They want influence on her when/if she comes to power. It's not because they agree with her. I saw Jim McGovern and Dennis at the school of americas protest and vigil. It's obvious Jim agrees with Dennis far more than Hillary, but if Hillary becomes President he wants her to listen to him and he thinks by endorsing her he'll have influence.

The posters here that are the most vocal about these MISTAKES that the Democratic leadership keep making are most likely a lot smarter or better informed or better educated than those people you list.

You should be asking:

What are the DUers seeing that these leaders aren't seeing?

instead of:

"What are they seeing that some on DU aren't..."

You have it all backwards.

If these people are really the heroes that you think they are, then they have to be simply misinformed. Bush is the first American despot, and trying to sweep this fact under the carpet, along with all of his crimes, will not work. Anyone who takes that position is not very well informed, either about the current events or about history. It really is that simple.

They've had long experience at the highest levels, and Sanders has had experience from the lower levels to one of the highest. Sixty plus years between these guys--a whole lifetime of experience. Conyers, for example, probably knows more law than you or I, and has been through a successful takedown of a criminal administration before. And you believe you understand the situation better? What are you basing that on?

Lawmakers are into different stuff than what DUers are into. Wasn't it Henry Waxman that was informed (publicly) by concerned citizens from this community as to what http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/193">"inherent contempt" was all about and why it should be used as a tool to combat the administration's stonewalling?

All those guys in Washington have never read this list of documents, have they?

And that is just one single post, by one single poster.

The collective knowledge at this site is tremendous. Anyone logging onto to DU during the horror and shame of the Katrina aftermath knows much, much more about what took place there than just about any public official in Washington.

That's just one single historical event. I guarantee there are posters here that know far more about Sibel Edmonds or Valerie Plame than ANY elected official or their staff knows.

So, most likely in most cases, it's probably just a matter of being exposed to different information, a separate reality so to speak, with DUers falling into the category of being exponentially MORE informed about what is going on.

Others though, no one can be too sure about. Feinstein and Schumer want to condone torture, and their reasons aren't all that clear to me, or to any else, for that matter.

What do you think people like Feinstein and Schumer's motives are? Do you think they know more secret information than the rest of us, something that makes what they are advocating more acceptable? I doubt that. Do you really think that could be true?

"Anyone logging onto to DU during the horror and shame of the Katrina aftermath knows much, much more about what took place there than just about any public official in Washington."

and this?


"So, most likely in most cases, it's probably just a matter of being exposed to different information, a separate reality so to speak, with DUers falling into the category of being exponentially MORE informed about what is going on."

I don't for a moment think any DUer knows more about Katrina than say, Henry Waxman.

I don't believe any DUer is exponetially more informed than Bernie Sanders about... anything.

Waxman knows all this? And more?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4630068

Your kidding, right?

more material than that? unbelievable. Unless you actually do believe that bushco detonated the levees and caused the flooding. And yes, Waxman's heard that too.

What are their names?

I'm surprised you haven't dislocated your shoulder trying to pat yourself on your own back like that.

what is the real reason that these people are refusing to hold this administration accountable?

who gains?

and they call you a baby-eater for the rest of your life.

and people refer to you as a blowhard for the rest of your life too.

If you read the link I posted above, you saw posts like the following:

>

symbolman (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-05-05 03:29 AM
Response to Original message
68. I've been told by a lobbyist that's tuned into blogs, etc
that there is a concerted effort to discredit them now, with funding from the right wing - and not just trolls, I mean BANKROLLED "perseption management" folks like H20man refers to..

They are going to infiltrate in such a manner as we've yet to see, they have no other option as blogs are the New Media with communities just like DU that love to research, CNN, FOX and others can't hire or pay enough people to do the research that web communities do for the love of truth.

Even Satan realised that you have to add an element of truth to something to make it fly.

We need to remember folks that have been around a long time, just like EarlG on the DU and Buzzflash, Bartcop, TalkingPoints, you know who they are and of course, Takebackthemedia.com for content, etc..

>

beetbox (428 posts) Sun Sep-04-05 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
17. I want to thank you for the following reason.
The Internet has not only become easily the best news directory in the world but it is slowly becoming one of the most important places for historical archives. This event in New Orleans will, I believe, be looked upon as one of THE seminal events in American (Post-Modern?) history. The implications of this tragedy, the hurricane and its aftermath, are too enormous for us to grasp at the moment.

Eloriel's thread contained within it an enormous amount of important info that can be used to begin a current and ultimately historical analysis of sorts. When I came back this afternoon to see it had been disappeared I felt like a wealth of important knowledge was gone with it.

I am in the process of compiling and cataloging info on this tragedy with the hope of writing a booklet for small scale distribution. Eloriel's thread, as well as many others, goes a long way in helping this small project.

Again, thanks.

>

AbbyR (727 posts) Sun Sep-04-05 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. Thank you for all the work
It must be awfully difficult during this time. I made my first DU donation during this period when I realized that I was getting all my directions and my major information from here.

Again, thanks.

>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4630068#4632467

Are we all wrong about this, or just me? I must just be some kind of self-agrandizing nutjob.

whatever reasons each leader has for capitulating to the administration, the ignorance of citizens who dismiss the case is what allows them to ignore the legitimate outcry of an informed public.