General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI've figured out the hostility to the President, and its not "Obama Derangement Syndrome"...
...it's the transference of "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Some people are (justifiably) so angry at the Bush Administration that they are projecting the same behavior on President Obama:
Bush lied about foreign intelligence to get us into a war, so President Obama is lying about foreign intelligence to get us into a war.
Bush was seen as beholden to the "MIC", so President Obama must be as well.
Bush was a "warmonger", so President Obama is also.
Bush ordered military attacks without considering the consequences, so President Obama must be equally irresponsible.
My only question is: will they decide that Bush should have impeached, so.....
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pkdu
(3,977 posts)
CK_John
(10,005 posts)
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)But then many were saying Obama=Bush withing six months of his inauguration.
Yavin4
(35,438 posts)when he invited Rick Warren to speak. People here lost their shit over that.
Old Union Guy
(738 posts)President Obama is a warmonger, even if he's telling the truth about the poison gas.
He is selling war, and you just bought it.
Or rather phase umpteen plus one of the forever war.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)LearningCurve
(488 posts)Just throwing that out there.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)We have a winner!!
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Didn't you know? Progressivism is all about passive agreement with authority on basis of party alignment! Well, at least some peopel seem to think it is.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)They need to have blind allegiance to their leader because if it is shown he isn't the hero they believe him to be then their world construct collapses.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)People didn't just mysteriously somehow become "deranged". People
who worked and voted for Obama are pissed because he LIED HIS WAY
INTO OFFICE disguised as a candidate who is for "peace, hope & change,
transparency, civil liberties, etc. Obama then betrayed his supporters by
insisting that we not prosecute US war criminals, by giving Wall St.
everything it wants, by not closing Gitmo, by prosecuting whistleblowers,
etc.
but then you knew all that, right?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)people who worked for this President became disillusioned, and you hit the nail on the head.
He announced the 'forgiveness' of the Bush War Criminals almost as soon as he was elected.
The amnesia regarding this most important issue is simply stunning.
We were told in 2008 when Pelosi stunned Democrats by announcing that Impeachment was off the table, that 'she had to say that because we don't have control of the government, just wait until we get Congress'. Well we 'got Congress' and the goal post shifted to: We can't do it until we have the WH and the Senate. Just keep electing Democrats and we can hold the Bush Criminals accountable.
So we did it, we 'got' the WH, the Senate and Congress. And then we were told 'We are moving forward, it will be better for the country'. And that was when people began to wake up. We had been fooled, for over a decade.
Prosecuting War Criminals would have restored America's moral authority. This was such an important issue, more important after the Bush years for many people, than many other issues. But it was dismissed, kicked aside and we were told to stfu and just 'keeping electing Democrats'.
I don't think they understand the importance of this issue.
But maybe if they had listened to members of the British Parliament pointing to the 'hypocrisy' of the US regarding War Crimes, they might finally see why it was so important.
We now have zero moral authority around the world. Did they really think that War Crimes of the magnitude of the Bush criminals could just be swept under the rug?
It was that announcement, to move forward from War Crimes, which we would have expected had a Republican won, that began the total disillusionment of Democrats regarding this President.
They just don't want to talk about that.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)and sullen American public, I will never vote Democratic ever again (thereby taking Bvar22's pledge to a new level).
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Maybe she was referring to what Russ Tice (the orginal NSA whistleblower you
may not have heard about) is pointing at here. i.e. that it is the "intel community"
or Mercenary Class (as Moyers has coined the term) who is really running this
country, not Congress, Potus & Scotus.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=142835
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The very idea of practically admitting that War Crimes were committed, certainly enough evidence was available to justify an investigation, and then to basically 'exonerate' War Criminals, is beyond comprehension in any civilized society.
Volaris
(10,270 posts)I think even GOP types know this, even if they don't want to admit it. They EXPECT this kind of nonsense from the GOP by now, and the Majority voting for Obama was some indication that this country really, REALLY wanted the Democratic party to be more aligned with the traditional values of Liberalism associated with the history of FDR and the Kennedys...if, in the next Pesidential election, Democrats win and DON'T get the gods-honest incarnation of FDR elected, this country will be DONE electing "Democrats" for another 20 years or so, (and we liberals will have to start the whole damn process all over AGAIN) because at least when Republicans lie to the American People, they are honest about it, and it's kinda what people have come to expect, they aren't shocked when GOP-types end up fucking them over. But if you're the party of "we believe that the purpose of Government is to kinda help keep you SAFE form the people who want to do the Fucking" and then you demonstrably don't do that, well...
ancianita
(36,053 posts)to stop any and all voting interest from 300 million so that the global plans of elites could more smoothly go forward.
delrem
(9,688 posts)
Raksha
(7,167 posts)Some of us have anyway--but some haven't.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)don't happen to give a crap about THOSE issues!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I told you....you don't give a crap about THOSE!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)War criminals should not get a walk in exchange for watered-down health insurance reform.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that because we got Obama elected...suddenly we would become the "bleeding heart, pacifist, ivory-tower living, tree hugging, fancy-pants wearing, hippy haven".
I on the other hand am a realist....I don't expect miracles.....
This is a big freaking cruise ship....and it doesn't turn on a dime...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I happen to feel that not having pre-existing conditions and me not having to pay twice as much for health insurance as my male counterparts is a BIG FUCKING DEAL!
you can try to diminish that achievement if you want.
I am sure some thought Civil Rights was not that important during the Viet Nam war either....
delrem
(9,688 posts)But I'm sure you don't mind.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the achievement was disregarded as insignificant when other people died that day....
but I am sure you would gladly see that put off for another 100 yrs in light of that!
delrem
(9,688 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)However......there are OTHER things that some find very important...that just mcight not be on YOUR list of whats important. To YOU they might not be as big a "big fucking deal" but to others they are...
My ability to vote...set me free...and my grandmother was born into a world where she didn't have that right. But of course other important world issues WERE happening at the same time...
You seem to think that nothing else is important compared to this...and I say...bullfeathers!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That is not the issue for me.
My problem is that Obama did these things on his own:
* Authorized "signature strikes" targeting weddings and funerals
* Authorized "double-taps" targeting first responders
* Changed the rules of engagement to designate all military-aged males in a strike zone as "militants" to manipulate collateral damage numbers in his favor.
* Declared the power to execute U.S. citizens far from any battlefield,k without due process, without oversight and without accountability.
* Bombed Libya in direct defiance of a Congressional vote.
* Pressured the Yemeni government not to release a journalist held as a political prisoner.
* Criminalized adversarial journalism.
* Preemptively immunized the Bush Administration from prosecution for war crimes.
None of these things were necessary, all of them degrade our democracy and they are all things completely under Obama's control. I can live with a crummy health insurance law, but this Imperial Presidency bullshit he's perpetuating? No.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Just because he doesn't do everything you expect doesn't make him a failure....
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and made insurance companies spend 80% of their profits on actual healthcare...
when he got rid of Corporate bankers from Student loans
when he got rid of Dont Ask Don't Tell
When he made insurance companies charge the same amount for women as men...
when he got rid of pre-existing conditions...
But somehow because YOUR issues are not addressed to your satisfaction...he is a failure....and I and those who agree with me should just STFU and accept YOUR determination?
Obvious severe case of ODS...take two aspirin and call your doctor in the morning!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I reserve the right to be appalled by reckless cowboy diplomacy based upon Might Makes Right reasoning. You can accept it as a cost of doing business as you see fit.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Obama administration extending benefits to gay veterans' spouses
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)But I'm not willing to buy them with the dismembered limbs of innocent people who happen to be in the way of our military machine as we dance on the MIC's puppet strings. The cost is too high.
Why can't we have those good things WITHOUT dropping hellfire missiles on Yemeni villages and attacking the First and Fourth Amendments?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am going to go with what the guy that did THOSE things....and YOU have NO idea WHAT the man is going to do...
You act like he might relish dead bodies...in fact I am sure he would go out of his way to limit it as much as can possibly be.....
He is nothing if not a measured man....he puts a great deal of thought and intropsection into the decisions he makes. I respect THAT.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I'm vehemently disagreeing with his policies.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)perhaps you missed that fact.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Some people feel very strongly about their country waging elective war. That feeling can stir up some strong emotion, which naturally can be directed at the President because, after all, he's the one on TV pushing for the war. But make no mistake - it's the war that's making them mad, not some irrational dislike of the President. Most are like me: I cheered in the street when he was elected. But I won't tolerate unnecessary killing in my name.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)good luck with that...
Because allowing Assad to keep his weapons...or method of delivering said weapons...will mean many many more unnecessary deaths...you can count on THAT. And when it does and it will...will you feel a seconds worth of introspection?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)we will be neutralizing Assad's weapons. Not so - the Pentagon believes that only a ground invasion will have a chance of doing that:
http://www.alabamanewsday.com/national/12157-revealed-pentagon-knew-since-2012-that-it-would-take-75-000-ground-troops-to-secure-syria-s-chemical-weapons-facilities.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/04/study_to_destroy_syria_chemical_weapons_boots_on_the_ground_needed/
Your argument is based on a fundamental falsehood: that somehow we can prevent future atrocities in Syria because we launch a missile strike. It will take much, much more than that to attempt to neutralize the chemical weapons stockpiles, and such an action entails extraordinary risk without guaranteed success.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)since you seem to know what I "say"
delrem
(9,688 posts)And of course I know what you say in your posts, warmonger.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)not the individual items on the list...as a point of fact.
delrem
(9,688 posts)For the love of all that's holy, just STOP.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you have a problem with consistency?
delrem
(9,688 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I have added at least two sources for information....what have you contributed? Calling me names doesnt count as a contribution...
delrem
(9,688 posts)Which shows where you're at with your warmongering attacks.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)one of the things I supplied (thanks for reminding me of the third source I supplied) is the websters dictionary definition of Anarchist...
Definition of ANARCHY
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
or are you going to suggest Merriam Webster also do not know what Anarchy is?
delrem
(9,688 posts)But that would be work - and you have your prejudices and preconceptions to safeguard.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)from Webster for crying out loud!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
delrem
(9,688 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Its Websters definition of Anarchy...
You don't have to like it....but its the truth...
Definition of ANARCHY
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
Anarchy...either you are one or not...
delrem
(9,688 posts)I suggest starting with
Peter Kropotkin 'Mutual Aid:a Factor of Evolution'
http://www.complementarycurrency.org/ccLibrary/Mutual_Aid-A_Factor_of_Evolution-Peter_Kropotkin.pdf
Unless you prefer talking warmongering smack on a message board to self-education.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)But "please continue"...
delrem
(9,688 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)most of this country's resources will be spent, see the SS fund eg, and the tax breaks for the Wealthy. Do you know how much the past decade has cost this country, and have you been paying ANY attention to the so-called Deficit Commission's 'recommendations' regarding Social Programs.
Even if someone didn't care about the grotesque Human Rights violations against millions of people they certainly should understand what happens when a country becomes nothing more than a war economy. History is filled examples unless one wishes to remain willfully blind.
Once a government has the population in the palm of its hand there won't be any need to throw them any more crumbs, and we are already seeing that work with the suggestions of cuts to Social Programs.
Nothing good ever comes from killing people all over the world. Other Empires have done it, we are not the first, except for the top 1% who profit from it all.
And the negative results of our warmongering are coming home to roost. We are finding it more and more difficult to get others to tag along and before long we will be on our own still proclaiming ourselves to be Numero Uno while the rest of the world moves on into the future, maybe even gathering their forces to do what we have failed to do, begin the process of holding War Criminals accountable.
It took 50 years in South America to begin the process of dealing with their war criminals. There are way too many victims who will not forget even if Americans in their isolation think it has all been forgotten. It has not.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)some people here seem to think they are living in the USSR. To them, the USA is not "the country that they love, which sometimes strays from its ideals" rather it is "an imperialist, corporate controlled evil empire".
So they will see both Obama and Bush as puppets being controlled by one corporate MIC master.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)corporate controlled empire.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)You must have meant Russia.
Still, I love the country that Ike and JFK both warned us was in peril, under
attack by enemies "domestic" aka the MIC, the Shadow Gov't/Mob, et. al.
THAT is the country I love and believe in, even now, as it's being pillaged
by Wall St., drawn & quartered by the Mercenary Class hired to "keep the
rabble in line", to insure those corporate dollars keep flowing "up the line"
to the wealthiest .01%.
The fact that Obama is acting pretty much like Bush-lite is bad enough, but
then to pretend that isn't even true, to keep trying to pass himself off as a
"progressive", is even worse.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I meant the USSR, which certainly does exist - in the past.
Is the USA being pillaged by Wall Street, or ruled by a Chamber Of Commerce politbureau?
And the wealthiest .01%? Are you joking? They don't get excrement when it comes to the income of the USA.
With the richest .01% you are basically talking about the 14,000 tax filers with incomes over $10,000,000. In 2005, there were 13,776 such filers and they got a mere 5% of the national income.
The rest of us got the other 95%. Even the top .67% got a mere 18.7% of the national income.
"Mere" I say, compared to the slice going to the top 10% - 48.6% http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/123
Now THAT, to me, is an outrage. Almost half going to 10% and the bottom 90% with the other half. But the hits just keep on coming. Divide that bottom 90% in half. The top half gets 40% of the national income, and the bottom half gets a mere 10%.
There's even a little bit of symmetry there - 50% of the income to the top 10% and 10% of the income to the bottom 50%. Approximately. My point being, it is not just the top .01% who are squeezing the rest of us.
As for Obama being "sold" as a progressive, who is doing that, and who cares? Obama is a lame duck. He's not running for anything. He doesn't need to sell himself.
Progressives, however, do need to sell themselves, or to sell the progressive point of view to the American voter. For myself, I am not even sure what a progressive foreign policy is supposed to be. I probably do not have well defined ideas about foreign policy myself because I tend to care more, far more, about domestic policy.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)How lame is that?
Oh, well, pretty lame actually.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Since elected, he's been bought & sold apparently, or blackmailed,
or somehow pressured to NOT do many of the things he promised.
As for the details of income inequality, which I've been studying
and/or observing now for 30+ years since being in grad school:
while I agree it is informative to look also at the top 10%, it matters
little whether we talk about the richest .01%, the 1% or the 10%.
The fact remains that WE are being buggered to death by a tiny #
of Rich Fucks at the top of the heap, and it will keep getting worse
exponentially until we do something about it. The only reason it
may appear that the Rich Fucks "aren't earning most income now" is
that they already HAVE (AND ARE SITTING ON) all or most of their
ill-gotten gains.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Members of the top 10% are doing pretty well, eating their big slice of the pie. They just LOVE to point at the top .01% because it allows them to go on eating their pie without having the canaille ask them "hey, how come you get so much pie?"
Consider the accursed payroll tax cut, which even Mother Jones magazine thinks should have been permanent. About $3.4 billion of those tax cuts went to the top 1% and $4.3 billion to the bottom 20%. Yay, it's a victory for the 99%!!
But it's a big loss for the bottom 40%. Only $13.6 billion going to the bottom 40% compared to more than twice that going to the top 10% - $29.9 billion. There's an increase in inequality.
And the accursed payroll tax cut which cost $112 billion a year was a replacement for the making work pay credit which cost $57 billion a year.
Making work pay
$16.47 billion to the bottom 40%
$5 billion to the top 10%
accursed payroll tax cut
$13.6 billion to the bottom 40%
$29.9 billion to the top 10%.
There's $3 billion taken from the hands of the bottom 40% to put another $25 billion into the pockets of the top 10%, and even the very leftwing Mother Jones does not give a crap.
But the top 10% is NOT a tiny number, it is 11,000,000 households, and it may even include some editors who work at Mother Jones.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)a term coined by Bill Moyers I believe, which refers to those who sell their soul to the Devils
of Greed, Averace, Murder, et. al. in order to prop up a few Rich Fucks at the top of the heap.
PS - What is it about "
the Rich Fucks) already HAVE (AND ARE SITTING ON) all or most of their
ill-gotten gains." that you did not understand?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I just disagree with it. The Waltons and Gateses and Kochs are not just sitting on their gains. They own and control major corporations, and they make money as well as increase their wealth by doing so.
Alice Walton, for example makes about $400 million a year in dividends from the Wal-mart stock she owns (and she probably has a portfolio of other stocks she is "investing" in (or some money manager is doing it for her) from which she makes even more income from dividends and capital gains).
Thanks to the permanent Obama tax cuts, Alice Walton's dividend income will only be taxed at 15% instead of the top rate of 39.6%. This will save her almost $100 million a year in taxes - permanently.
And yet, and yet, even people on the left think
1) Obama increased taxes on the very rich
2) Obama could not let the Bush tax cuts expire because that would be a tax increase on the MIDDLE CLASS
Thanks to a combination of Obama and OWS, the "middle class" now includes the top 80-99%. That is, it somehow includes a lot of people who make more money than 95% of the rest of us. Because it is all about the 1% or the .01%, but why stop there? That is still 11,000 families - why not blame it all on the Fab 400? It's not like anybody else is rich, and squeezing the rest of us.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)as I said, I think the top 10% and top 20% are squeezing the bottom 50% about as much as the top 1% is.
But the Fab 400 does make a good example of bad tax policies.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/123
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)That's basically all I need to know. "Going after" The Fab 400 is at least a good start; and by going
after I mean taxing the shit out of them, like 80-90%. If it was good enough for Ike, it's good enough
for me.
http://www.good.is/posts/the-400-richest-americans-are-now-richer-than-the-bottom-50-percent-combined
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Well played 
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
Puglover
(16,380 posts)I am 59 years old. Never have voted for any candidate that wasn't a Democrat. The difference is, I have never looked at politicians like I looked at my Mommy when I was 3. She could do no wrong you know. At least back then.
Obama is a politician. Nothing more, nothing less. I still like the guy. I can't even imagine what he is thinking regarding Syria.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)If you are saying that "all pols are equally corrupt", then why do
you even care who gets elected?
Puglover
(16,380 posts)"all pols are equally corrupt" from my post is beyond me. And why you put it in quotes is equally mystifying.
I said, President Obama is a politician. So was Kennedy, Clinton and Carter. I don't and didn't always agree with any of them. My point was I do not understand people that look at politicians in the way that a 3 year old looks at their Mommy.
I meant exactly what your header said, "There are politicians who do tell the truth, and those that don't"
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)but not if Obama is one of them or not.
I don't feel like Obama tells the truth nearly as much as our country needs.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)that he is doing things very much different than what I expected. I knew from the very beginning that he was a centrist closer to the Clinton range of politics than he was a 21st century version of George McGovern. Many people for reasons I never understood thought he was going to be a left-wing, progressive firebrand who would support sweeping Great Society type legislation, while dismantling the Military Industrial Complex and the surveillance state- or at least the gargantuan version of it that has grown bigger and bigger over the last few decades while fundamentally turning American foreign policy upside down on its head. I never thought that. But some people did, encouraged on by much of the media which did seem to represent him as a fundamentally left-wing figure. So, for those who did expect that - they are deeply disappointed.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)With you 100%! I cannot believe people thought that was going to happen! WTF can so few not see that this is a really huge cruise ship we are on....and it takes ALOT to turn this ship around...it doesn't just suddenly start driving in the opposite direction. I don't understand why so many think that is possible....but ANY measure that we are not still going in THAT trajectory we were headed on is a huge accomplishment in itself. You need 40 acres to turn this rig around as that old trucker song used to go....
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)strawberry daiquiri? I ordered it ages ago. 
deutsey
(20,166 posts)I think people believed (or were hoping) Obama would come in after the economic meltdown and do something like FDR's first 100 days during the Depression.
The big problem with that is FDR had growing social movements (labor, socialist, etc.) that had been percolating as the Depression deepened that he could tap for support. He could also make a case to the elites that if they don't give in on some concessions, there was going to be more violent upheaval (as was already happening with some strikes) and possibly Communist or Fascist revolution.
There are no such movements among working people today that Obama could've tapped into in '08 to attempt anything as bold as FDR, assuming he wanted to.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)as the Dem nominee I knew he was far from left-wing.
Even though I voted twice for him (or against McCain and Romney, really), I've always seen him as a centrist with much more of a rightward lean than a leftward one. He's done nothing to make me believe otherwise.
With the Syrian intervention, I am suspicious about his apparent rush to strike, especially without even trying to make the case beyond "trust me". Kerry's emotional appeals (as opposed to presentation of facts) and the overall flimsiness of the current evidence about Assad's involvment continue raising suspicions for me about what's really going on.
Assad may have done it, or some loose cannon in his regime. But Hillary Leverett raises some interesting questions in the clip posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017142926
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)happens regardless of who is in the WH?
Of course not.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)country in over 50 yrs...check....uh took out the number one most wanted man....check......drastic changes to the Student Loan Program......check....Ended Don't Ask Don't Tell....check...
Nope none of that stuff counts! The two parties are EXACTLY The same....(</snark>
You may now go about your writhing in agony from a chronic case of ODS!
uhnope
(6,419 posts)all belong to you
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Would you do some good. But seeing that you are yet another persona with nothing but personal attacks, good bye, off to ignore you go
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Even when the person running for office announces that if elected, he will be different.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I fear that if Grayson or Bernie were elected there are forces afoot that would force them to continue these polucies.
On the bright side we are increasingly acting like an empire in decline. That is also scary at the same time, since declining empires at times do really stupid shit
reformist2
(9,841 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Bush=Obama
It's one thing to disagree with him, but yet another to compare him to the worst president in the history of the United States.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Have you ever considered that those critics might be looking at this in the context of long-standing US foreign policy, and not just being 'mean girls' to your hero?
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)...just an intelligent person who's thoughtfulness and judgement I respect, even if I don't agree with his every decision.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I think Bush Sr. was thoughtful and intelligent, too-- but he was against the interests of people like me in almost every way. I've no doubt he felt he stood for all that was right in the world, too.
I think Obama has some very different basic philosophical positions from me, and they show through in his policies. From my position, it's not just a matter of disagreeing with a judgment call here or there. When it comes to economics and foreign policy, I see a man who is very consistent in servicing world views to which I am completely opposed.
wandy
(3,539 posts)With our country in debt. With the standard of living in America slowly sinking. With the continued republican attempts to shred the safety net. With our infrastructure sliding into disrepair. With hungry children packed thirty to a classroom. With a people disheartened by two optional wars of necessary.
What can we possibly gain by attacking Syria?
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)...and I'm willing to acknowledge that military action isn't certain in its outcome. But the ugliness of people using terms like "liar", "warmonger" and ""evil" suggests a different cause.
wandy
(3,539 posts)Military power is not the only consideration. Their must be moral and structural strength to support it.
We are rapidly loosing ground on both those fronts.
We squander resources building empire when we can not afford to maintain our own home.
Our elected officials vote death at the whim of the highest bidder.
We have been in an active state of war for over ten years.
How long will it be before war is the only course of action we understand.
How much more of our resources both in resolve and physical wealth will we have thrown away if/when we find ourselves faced with a conflict that is not optional.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)...or to anyone else who can frame a responsible argument for opposing military intervention (up to and including total isolation). It's the personal animus and insults that seem to suggest a different motivation.
wandy
(3,539 posts)Oh no, that does not mean we shouldn't be screaming blue bloody murder at the UN.
That does not mean we should not provide humanitarian assistance.
DirkGently did a rather good OP earlier today.....
What do people favoring Syrian intervention envision as the result?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586699
Keeping in mind that I am against military action, maybe their should be an OP like..........
What do people opposed to Syrian intervention envision as the result?
What would happen if from a military perspective we took the attitude.
It's their country. It's their war. Let them sort it out?
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)Is being right so important to you that you'll support dropping missiles on people for it?
Never mind. I know the answer.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Norm Coleman and Joe Lieberman.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586304#post17
Why should we take anything you say seriously, given the war criminals, torturers and all-around scalawags with whom you're cuddling up so closely?
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)...we can do this all day!
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)me ashamed I ever registered as a Democrat.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)
And everyone at FREE REPUBLIC?
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
tridim
(45,358 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,818 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I bet Bernie Sanders will vote against it. Elizabeth Warren; we will have to wait and see.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)...which goes further than some people here. Warren has said (rightly) that a military response needs to be well thought out -- something I have no doubt the Administration is doing. Sanders hasn't opined on a response, but what's his delay?
Response to brooklynite (Reply #38)
Post removed
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)I pointed out that neither have opposed it, and that Warren has defined terms:
I fully concur and have no reason to assume the President doesn't as well.
As for Bernie Sanders:
If you see opposition, please point it out to us.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Everyone cares what you think!
Your hidden posts and the number of posts in 90 are all I need to know.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)
uhnope
(6,419 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)
snooper2
(30,151 posts)See how easy that is?
uhnope
(6,419 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)as just that, a continuation.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Didn't really need any change. So what if the bankers and Wall street are taking 49 cents out of every dollar of profit generated in this country? They are living off investments.
When local libraries shut down, they just order the books they want on amazon. Same about the schools - their kids go to private schools.
And they sure as heck are not about to sign up to go and fight in the war against Syria. Nor would they suggest to their 19 year old kids that they should go and fight.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
And the replies in this thread show that they can't see it in themselves.
Sid
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)More map!
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)leftstreet
(36,107 posts) HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Sort of like more cowbell!
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Though I doubt we're thinking of the same people.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)I've seen lots of disappointment and, especially recently, confusion, which is pretty reasonable given the complexity of the situation.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)a wide variety of sources trying to learn what was going on and the stupid crap so many have been posting is disgraceful.
It's willful ignorance. From people boiling things down to a cartoon version of reality.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)confusion, to me. Trust is earned. Anyone who sees what is going on as clearly black and white is utterly oversimplifying things - just my opinion, of course.
Response to KittyWampus (Reply #36)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Check some of the responses below your post to the OP. The hostility they can't take out personally on the President, they do to anyone here who doesn't share their viewpoint. Plain as day right here in this thread, and in a number of others.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)obsolete as 'international law' when the brave new world of the Unitary Executive and Star Chamber beckons?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)He was a Harvard law school student/graduate, not a Harvard professor. As to the oft touted claim of "constitutional law scholar" He was NEVER a constitutional law professor or SCHOLAR, never published a scholarly paper, and wasn't on tenure track. If one is hired to teach the introductory, basic course on constitutional law, one could fairly describe oneself as a constitutional law professor. But to be a constitutional law scholar, one has to not only teach the ENTIRE Constitution, but also publish learned papers in professional journals and participate in law school conferences on constitutional law. Obama did neither. Constitutional law is such a basic part of the law school curriculum that it is a required class, and is only taught by a faculty member in the tenure stream - never by an "instructor". Obama was hired part-time by the University of Chicago law school to teach classes related to race.
At the school, Mr. Obama taught a total of three courses, ascending over the years from lecturer to senior lecturer. His most traditional course was in the narrow constitutional area of (1) DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION of constitutional law. His (2) VOTING RIGHTS class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on (3)RACISM AND LAW. Mr. Obama had other business on his mind, embarking on five political races during his 12 years at the school.
Note that the school had almost no black faculty members, a special embarrassment given its location on the South Side. Its sleek halls bordered a neighborhood crumbling with poverty and neglect. In his 2000 Congressional primary race, Representative Bobby L. Rush, a former Black Panther running for re-election, successfully used Mr. Obama’s ties to the school to label him an egghead and an elitist and to defeat him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Very interesting article on his years as a part-time instructor at the University of Chicago Law School. He was a popular teacher, but refused to intellectually engage with his fellow faculty. One sentence particularly sticks with me as showing that even at the beginning of his political career, he identified his future success and power as dependent upon wealthy whites. This came after his first political race wherein he was defeated 2 to 1 by black voters when he chose to primary a black Congressman.
"Before he helped redraw his own State Senate district, making it whiter and wealthier, he taught districting as a racially fraught study in how power is secured."
For those not familiar with Obama's first foray into politics, it was a primary race for the U.S. Congress. His opponent:
Bobby Lee Rush (born November 23, 1946) is the U.S. Representative for Illinois's 1st congressional district, serving since 1993. The district is located principally on the South Side of Chicago with its population percentage being 65% African-American, higher than any other congressional district in the nation.
A member of the Democratic Party, he holds the distinction of being the only person to defeat President Barack Obama in an election, as he did in the 2000 Democratic primary for Illinois' 1st congressional district. He continues to serve as Congressman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Rush
http://rush.house.gov/about-me/biography
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)You must not do that because even though what you say is legitimate, some people around here don't like it.
It is okay for Obama to take us into an unnecessary and illegal war like Bush, but comparing these two presidents is just wrong and must be silenced at all costs.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts) 
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Bush fought for what he believed in.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)That'll leave a mark.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
LibAsHell
(180 posts)It must be a lot easier than admitting the truth.
And, by the way, I haven't seen a lot of people say Obama is lying; just that what he is saying is nonsense.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)this war crime in the making.
Of course, maybe if Pelosi and the other geniuses in the Democratic Party leadership hadn't taken impeachment off the table and then given Bush and Cheney immunity for their war crimes, we might not be seeing quite so much nonsense.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)it`s pretty clear that the house next year and maybe the senate will become even extreme right wing. the first order of business will be impeachment. if this happens he stands a very good chance of being impeached
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)i was being sarcastic. so far warren and hillary are no longer viable candidates in 16. kerry is what the swift boaters said he was.
i`m going over to kos to reread the senate and house counts on the actual voting possibilities on the war resolution.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)the president being the top politician.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)I just have no patience for anyone who thinks this man is Bush II. Absolute crap.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)No psychoanalysis required.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...or I'm a racist.
You guys are really coming up aces tonight.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)1) Impeachment was off the table.
2) The Obama administration wanted to look forward and not backward.
3) The Justice Department wants to grant immunity to BushCo. Hmmm....
3) No, it's not Bush Derangement Syndrome, but thank you for trying to paint wanting to stay out of a direct engagement in a civil war as hostility. Oh the irony.
It does not matter if there is a D or R that describes the President's affiliation. Rushing into a conflict that does not affect us directly, is a fools errand.
But thank you for the false intel on the BDS = ODS BS. Is this a varriant of the Dems = Repubs vaudeville show?
It is enlightening to reveal your core beliefs on the peace purists.
Should Obama be impeached? Has he committed a high crime or misdemeanor?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Ask any Syrian in the path of our missiles about that.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)They make it clear their concern is about Obama!!!! Not their homeland being bombed
Who got to tjem or did they always hate him???
http://www.fightbacknews.org/2013/8/30/more-300-anti-war-syrian-protesters-march-chicago
MisterP
(23,730 posts)but because Obama is pushing for a war of choice and a war of aggression (well, the second--and on top of relentless bombing runs not aimed at the government)
it's not that hard to figure out
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)Please define the aggression.
LibAsHell
(180 posts)And you're not doing it to defend an attack, that's aggression.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)(I'm with you. The OP is an insult posing as an argument.)
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)If you don't want to drop bombs and continue killing innocent people with drones you're just a big mean libertarian racist!
leftstreet
(36,107 posts)Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, now he wants war?
Who's got some 'transference' problems?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)If you're a Dem and you DON'T support bombing Syria, you're Randian/libertarian.
If you're a republican and you SUPPORT bombing Syria, you support it because you're a warmonger.
If you're a republican and you DON'T support bombing Syria, you're a racist and an obstructionist.
I'm so fucking dizzy I'm gonna be sick and I don't even understand motion sickness.
upi402
(16,854 posts)worth looking closely at.
but when you ignore Obama's words and look at his actions - he is more hawkish than bush in some ways. smarter always, but still bows to the MIC.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--is that Obama is not a deranged macho cowboy. However, our real rulers would not let anyone within a 1000 miles of the White House if s/he didn't go along with US imperialism. Imperialsm never has, and never will, exist to do good in the world. It exists only to amass more and more power.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Bush never did that, did he?
uhnope
(6,419 posts)The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)If or who did what, he wants to kill him some Arabs,
sibelian
(7,804 posts)No, not really.
It wasn't really deranged to be pised off with Bush, so it isn't really deranged to be pissed off with Obama for doing the same, similar or worse things. It's not so much a syndrome as just straightforward consistency.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Anyone who disagrees with President Obama on anything is deranged either way now.
Just to review our lesson: Those of us who disagreed when the DOJ requested George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law, were we suffering from this BDS in that case or was this ODS? I'm so deranged, I can't see which one I am suffering from.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)I recall a recent motion to request by the DOJ which gives blanket immunity to charges that would have involved crimes purportrated by the Bush administration when they sold us their war.
One hand washes the other.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)...as has been said time and time again: this was nor immunity from criminal charges; it was immunity from a civil suit for Government officials being sued as individuals, when the appropriate target for the suit was the US Government. But you knew that, didn't you?
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)Obama doesn't give a shit.
JHB
(37,160 posts)...odds are when your figuring is too neat, you've left out something. Or several somethings.
bigtree
(85,996 posts)You can find that Bush lied about WMDs and believe that Obama's telling the truth about the chemical attacks and STILL find that BOTH presidents inflated the standard of an actual threat to our national security to include attacks occurring totally inside of a sovereign nation.
Both presidents misled the American people about an actual threat to our security JUST to secure the power to launch military attacks unilaterally. It's a despicable manipulation of public opinion; at the least, it's the product of a deep and profound ignorance about the demonstrated limitations and often counterproductive consequences of the use our military force abroad.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)from the Bush administration.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)but when the DLC lives in bubbles with their meetings and the DC betlway the obvious truth alludes them.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
One of my college classes asked me why they are even considering this Syria thing, and I explained the difference between the way Congress works in theory and in reality.
In theory, we think they debate and convince each other to change their minds.
In reality, most look at who gives them the most money (and will later give them high paying jobs as lobbyists, CEO's, and do-nothing board members) and what they want. The rest is just reading the PR talking points that will convince, confuse, or put the rest of us to sleep.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)or if he grudgingly did some good like Nixon?
I wouldn't have cared about his mangled language, or failing up the food chain if he did no harm.
Likewise, I didn't particularly give a shit who Bill Clinton slept with since he slowed the conservative tide in some ways (while riding it in others).
This whole "hater" thing is one of the laziest talking points out there.
It might work on TV and talk radio because no one can respond to it, but here it just looks vapid and pathetic.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)in real life. On here I get very hostile and angry at some of the astoundingly stupid arguments his most loyal supporters will make rather than address any issue honestly. It's just a constant stream of lies, misdirection, and character assassination from a probably small group of loyalists that makes my blood boil. I try to address things cooly and rationally, but sometimes my anger at such blatant dishonesty does get the better of me. And I can think of a couple times where I've been more harsh with someone than they probably deserved where they were clearly simply so frightened of the worst case scenario (complete Republican takeover), or reacting to some nice personal emotional experience with the man that they weren't really making much of a real rational argument in the first place.
Though some things are certainly disappointing about President Obama (and even make me legitimately angry), I had no illusions of him being a tough progressive that would push us hard in a non-authoritarian leftist direction. Everything I read about him prior painted him as a pragmatic moderate which means some bad compromises when you have an increasingly radicalized right wing.
As for Bush projection, I think that's somewhat valid, though it's more like hindsight being 20/20. And I want to be clear that it's not just a George Bush problem, but rather experiencing Bush's presidency opened some eyes to things that have been occurring since Reagan and before. While the scale of blatant corruption and incompetence with Bush was exceptional, the acts themselves were not.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)So you think everyone who is anti war is projecting Bush on Obama? Geeze ...that is worthy of the BOG worshippers. Just for the record I was also against Clinton using force in Afghan ...so according to you I was projecting that on Bush too. Silly shit hardly worth responding to ....now back to my coffee and intelligent reading pursuits
polichick
(37,152 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
Hey... wait a minute...
Let's recap a few things...
Obama took Bush's illegal and unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping and rather than stop it, as should have been done, he expalnded it, and made it "legal" but still unconstutional.
Bush gave retroactive immunity to companies aiding in warrantless wiretapping, Obama gave secret immunity to companies aiding in same "legalized" yet secret spying.
While Bush made it clear whistleblowers were an unwelcome sort, Obama prosecutes them at every opportunity.
Obama has taken drone strikes to a whole new level, increasing their use.
Bush most likely worked/talked with banksters behind the scenes, Obama put them smack dab in the middle of the White House.
Do the math. And not some Third Way/DLC/moderate Republican version of Karl Rove's math either. Real math.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)
City Lights
(25,171 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I hope you have a firm grasp on that straw, sir.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)War's been the family business for generations.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2596898
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)FWIW - my point was not to criticize people who are opposed to military action. There are many good arguments that can be made against military intervetion, and I'm not gung-ho on action at this spoint myself. Unfortunately, there are a great many bad arguments, along with hyperbolic criticisms of the Administration, and that's what I'm seeing around here lately. If you say the President is lying; if you say he's part of an "MIC" conspiracy; if you call him and his supporters "war criminals", when you attack DU members who have some faith in the President's judgement and temperment "warmongers", ALL of which I've read here, you're going iver the line in my personal opinion.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)too harsh? Seriously, this is some frothy self service.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)should surprise nobody
Dr Fate
(32,189 posts)Voters (and far left malcontents on DU-who do NOT represent the majority, thank God) are lazy for thinking that just b/c we still cannot to pay off Bush's wars that we cannot afford a new deminimus one.
I trust Obama when he says we can too afford it.
Besides, it is not even going to be a war, and it will pay for itself in freedom.
Duers and voters need to stop projecting Bush's war costs onto one that we can too afford.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)It could just be that we're tired of war and being lied to, and we don't care which party is doing it, we just want it to stop. But go ahead and indulge in your little fantasies, because that's all they are, fantasies.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
alarimer
(16,245 posts)And he has, many, many times, including this foolish effort to join the civil war in Syria, complete with made-up excuses about how "we're in danger."
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)who think Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader can lead us to LaLa Land with a wave of their magic wand.
Democrats make gradual change for the better. That's not good enough for the utopians.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Notices far too many of Obama's policies to be to the Far Right of Nixon's, I have to disagree.
He has basically handed the nation over to the Big Banking Crowd, who now grab 49 cents out of every dollar of profit. Nixon hated bankers, and actually instituted a price rollback in the summer of 1973.
Under Nixon we had the EPA come into being. It dealt with big and small polluters, and the Big Corporations had not yet seized the very mechanism of the EPA out from under it.
Under Obama, we just watched, over the last 6 months, as Lisa Jackson was shoved out of her role as EPA Director, as she was far too concerned about the environmental and health risks of fracking. The new director has seen to it that mid level employees at the EPA are no longer doing any research that might help anyone living in a fracking nightmare environment. With that research shut down, the possibility of receiving a court settlement against a Big Energy firm for the destruction of your aquifer or health is no longer possible.
If you have any photos or secret diaries exposing how the President couldn't help but make the appointments that he has made, as the mean and evil Republicans have twisted his elbow, I'd love to see them. Most Presidents make all their appointments on their own. If the economy is viewed by you as a nightmare, then you have Obama to blame. Right now, only the investment crowd can be free from economic worries. If the fracking and Keystone XL Pipeline have you worried, again, you have Obama to blame. These appointments that favor Big Banks and Big Energy are of his making.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... one thousand. sometimes I think I'm stuck in DoppelGangerFreeperLand here. Folks who have zero critical thinking skills, simply parroting the idiotic comments of others with no thought process beyond "yea for our team". It's sickening.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The education levels in this nation have dropped down so low that people don't even understand what led to our entering a war against Germany in Dec 1941. And back then, people understood what war was about: the real sacrifices that would be called for, including rationing, and the draft, and loved ones going away and never coming back.
Now it is all about us and our smart bombs embedded on the smart drones, no repercussions.
Two talking heads from USA Today were discussing the possibility of a war with Syria, and the male commentator actually said, "Well, if Russia is upset with us, so what? They are not a problem."
In the 1950's and early '60's, every grammar school kid in the USA knew that confronting another nation that had nuclear bombs was a problem. It made the news the other day that Russian Naval Carriers are now headed for the area we plan on striking. And that problem school kids worried about some 60 years ago is still a problem.
At least 1500 Russian nukes are ready to go at any point in time. And about 2,600 other nukes can be prepped and launched within an additional 96 hour period. How a person an be a live TV commentator and not realize that is really mind blowing for me.
.
sendero
(28,552 posts)..... war has become a spectator sport for too many Americans.
War, and economic collapse, tend to be harsh taskmasters. When they do go wrong, people will be awakened from their dream world and nightmare won't be hyperbole.
I realize that this is all human nature, that the success of America has put us in this place of entitlement and complacency. It's a cycle, and we are at the precipice of the lowest point in that cycle.
I guess I could stomach all this a bit better if our "leaders" and the "media" would just tell the truth once in a while. If we strike Syria, which I'm betting we do one way or another, it has nothing whatsofuckingever to do with chemical weapons.
QC
(26,371 posts)that they opposed from 2001 until 2009.
In fact, that opposition is what brought many of us to DU, where we are now being told that unless we support the GOP policies that we have long opposed, we're not really Democrats.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Wow.
Re-read your post.
Seems like you are saying something is wrong with people who oppose some Obama policies.
Something is wrong with critics. They're not thinking straight. Is that it?