This "Patriots" argument is embarrassing to watch

[Californeeway]

It's an example of why I post so seldom here and feel pretty down on the Left's ability to focus, win elections and really improve people's lives as opposed to a lot of self-congratulatory demonstrations of moral outrage with no meaningful positive effect.

It's a reminder of why Liberals still lose so much even though most of the country agrees with them on the issues. They watch us get lost in the weeds and turn on each other like hungry dogs over a handful of vague words and we all look like a bunch of children lost in directionless moral outrage that doesn't actually help anyone.

It's funny because I'm on the Left of just about every issue, but I hate being called a Liberal and watching this stupid argument is just such a perfect example of why. I'm just embarrassed to be associated with people who on such a regular basis completely miss the point but never ever miss the chance to get on their high horse and pontificate.

Once again the endless argument, Obama is either saint or devil. No in-between, all absolutism. This helps no one. This is why we lose. This is why people who we could be helping continue to suffer.

[okaawhatever]

1. Excellent post. Thank you. nt

[tecelote]

2. I've always thought that the problem was that Dems argue because they think for themselves.

Repubs are sheep. They do as told.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Solution: Indict and try the torturers and their bosses.

Or, at least, fire the bastards.

[rhett o rick]

44. At least condemn their actions. nm

[bigwillq]

4. It's a message board.

I think the "patriot" posts, both sides of the issue, have been entertaining.

It's not the reason why liberals, DEMS lost, imo.

I would never feel embarrassed by the posting habits of people on a message board.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. You can be embarrassed all you want. I don't care. I am proud to be a liberal and proud that some

are proud to stand for values that the Democratic Party used to hold dear but have long since abandoned. If we had a Republican in the WH right now the entire board would be calling for Bush and Cheney to go to jail. But because we have a Democratic President who does not want to prosecute all of sudden it's okay not to prosecute them. Not only is it okay not to prosecute them, if you call the President and Democrats out on it, you are simply a crazy liberal. Well then call me a crazy liberal. I really don't care.

[Aerows]

8. + 100000000

Anyone that doesn't like it can just go ahead and get glad. I'm ASHAMED and EMBARRASSED by those who will cheer on any behavior, vote and action taken by a person merely because there is a (D) after their name.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

11. Except that's not what the OP is complaining about.

The issue of the President's unwillingness to prosecute is what should be relevant here. And you're damn right he should prosecute. I couldn't agree more.

What the OP finds ridiculous is the pointless, circular, multi-thread squabble over whether the President described torturers as "patriots" or not. It's a textbook example of wandering off into the weeds, something that's way too common here now.

[liberal_at_heart]

12. When he used the words patriots he was explaining why he didn't think we should prosecute so

I think it is relevant. Words that back up policy can be maddening. Obama recently said "status quo is morally inexcusable." He was saying this about his education policy. My autistic son spent his entire sixth grade year in tears because he had a 4th/5th grade math comprehension level but was being forced to learn pre-algebra. I am infuriated by both his education policy and him claiming that the status quo is morally inexcusable. So yes it is both the policy and the words used to justify policy that angers people.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

16. And what apparently angered the OP

was the futility of this endless back-and-forth parsing of one ambiguous line in a speech, when there are more important issues at hand, such as the ones you originally mentioned.

[liberal_at_heart]

17. Well the OP can feel however he/she wants. Both points about policy and the words used to justify

the policy are relevant. Here is another example of how words justifying policy sucks.

“The good news is they got a pretty good deal.” says White House press secretary Josh Earnest regarding the budget deal. He thinks the budget bill is a pretty good deal. I think pension holders and tax payers who don't want to bail out banks again would disagree on it being a good deal.

[lamp_shade]

6. Thank you. This needed to be said. So much childishness here. It's truly

embarrassing.

[Aerows]

7. If you don't like DU, the door is that way ---->

You are welcome to be embarrassed by those who still believe in the fundamentals of the Democratic party. I'm not embarrassed by them, and I will continue to stand up for them no matter how much scorn is heaped upon the heads of those that say "Torture is wrong, Bankers should be prosecuted, and I don't want Hillary Clinton to be President."

[Skittles]

9. I bet you have a lot of hobbies

[tblue]

33. Love that. ^^^ Saving for future use.

Sad day. Sad week. Sad time to be in the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

[woo me with science]

10. Is this going to be the new headliner talking points thread?

Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

to defuse that sordid defense of torture? The dismissive accusation of "sanctimony" and refusal to seek justice for breaking of bones and rape/sodomization of minors (or anyone) by the government of the United States of America?

We will know it is, if it is systematically and weirdly kept right on top for hours and hours and hours and recced by the entire stable of corporate personas, as the last one was.

The apologism talking points machine is transparent as hell.

And propaganda is a low, disreputable occupation.

[Major Hogwash]

13. It's popular to hate the President at DU.

Just ask some of the haters.

[Aerows]

15. No

It's reasonable to hate the fact that he has prosecuted exactly no torturers, fraudulent bankers and did everything he could to sweep it all under the carpet.

You don't have to hate the person to hate their wrongdoing, and couching it as such is rather offensive.

[Rex]

20. It's easy to dismiss people that have critical thinking skills as haters.

Doesn't work, but bless their little hearts for never giving up!

[LawDeeDah]

34. Obama is the Prosecuter In Chief?

well gollllllly......

[Aerows]

35. Oh, so the Attorney General

ISN'T part of the President's cabinet and ISN'T the person that prosecutes Federal crimes.

I guess you learn something every day.

[liberal_at_heart]

36. Because he has no influence over who his Department of Justice prosecutes?

Riiiight. We'll keep that in mind the next time he supports the Department of Justice's imprisonment of OWS or whistle blowers.

[SomethingFishy]

37. Ever heard of a Special Prosecutor?

Ever heard of a President appointing a Special Prosecutor?

It's not like we are talking about traffic tickets here. We are talking about state sanctioned torture and murder. Wake the fuck up.

[Rex]

19. Yeah you can push that meme around DU all you want.

But only a handful of people here always say negative things about the POTUS. Sorry, but that is the truth.

[Major Hogwash]

29. I'm not sure that is true anymore.

[rhett o rick]

21. And you define anything but blind faith as hate. Democrats don't blindly follow.

No one here hates the President. Many here think he needs to hear input rather than accolades. His stance on torture is morally wrong. No hate necessary.

[noiretextatique]

14. witf are you going on about?

you are no liberal if you can't grasp the problem with the "patriots" bullshit.

[rhett o rick]

22. He is not liberal if he doesn't understand that Liberal Democrats do not blindly follow. nm

[noiretextatique]

43. +1000 eom

[Rex]

18. Really this has nothing to do with his moral code, this has to do with crime going unpunished.

All the distraction in the world won't make people shut up, just because a few don't like what others post in a public forum.

NP, I won't call you a liberal if you hate it so much. Strange thing to say, but whatever.

[rhett o rick]

23. I agree that the bullcrap about patriots is embarrassing. We have a DEmocratic president

that is soft selling war crimes.

[Logical]

24. 100% BS. nt

[joeybee12]

25. Unrec...

I think it's important to note that Obama did not take a strong stand...people who don't understand why a leader needs to be a leader to set the tone, to be angry sometimes, is the reason we lose elections.

[eomer]

26. You start out okay (sort of) but where you end up is completely wrong.

You've got it right that fighting with each other is defeating us.

But where you go wrong is in thinking that the solution is to meet in the "middle", to accept miserly and insignificant scraps that will accomplish little to nothing. Instead of that, what we really need is for more of us, practically all of us, ideally, to band together and demand real solutions.

So those of us who are already fighting for the real solutions need to continue that fight. The rest of us who've been bamboozled by personality contests and loyalty appeals and who fight not for solutions but for something else, for the sake of "winning" I guess, need to wake up, cast that crap aside, and get on board with the rest of us fighting the real fight.

We don't need less fighting, we need more fighting for the right thing.

[Maedhros]

27. One should never let some wonky policy issue, like holding war criminals accountable,

to get in the way of partisan loyalty.

[tularetom]

28. The point is not that he called them "patriots" but that he didn't prosecute them

His use of that term only makes it less likely that his administration will ever pursue any criminal charges against the torturers.

But, hell, if you haven't yet reached the conclusion that he was never going to take any legal action in the first place, you haven't been paying attention. Regardless of anything he ever said during an election campaign.

He's Bill Clinton with a tan. He presidents a lot less Democratic than he campaigns.

[YoungDemCA]

39. "Bill Clinton with a tan"

And we wonder why there's so few African-American posters here.

[DeSwiss]

30. Oh, poppycock.

We lose because 70% of the eligible people won't vote because the system isn't made for them.

We lose because we've allowed a dollar sign to be placed on everything we value in our society.

So capitalism dictates, not people.

The system's built this way -- to divide us and keep us fighting each other. Keeps us weakened, diffuses our efforts and ultimately defeats us before we even begin.

- So this is a circular argument. Which came first the angst or the egg on our faces?

''Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

''When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their
education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.''

~Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America - Volume 2

[MisterP]

31. the left doesn't win elections because it doesn't represent any moneyed faction

and the people it does help elect aren't interested in improving anyone's lives except fitfully

economics changed between Ford and Bush, and therefore so did politics as it chased the dollars

the old excuses of "herding cats" or "wanting too much" smell funky and should've been disposed of 1982

[liberal_at_heart]

32. +1

[Marr]

38. I don't think it's as black and white as you're suggesting. From my perspective--

that particular argument has liberals on one side decrying the fact that the president minimized the crime of torture for political expediency, and party loyalists on the other attempting to re-frame the argument into a cartoonish strawman; that Obama is accused of 'praising torture'.

It's right for liberals to make noise about the political establishment just 'moving on' from the torture issue without addressing it, and by addressing it, I mean legal proceedings against the people who instituted these illegal policies and the people who carried them out. That is not 'climbing onto a high horse and pontificating'.

[stevil]

40. K & R

Unfortunately you won't reach anyone, minds are already made up. Some can't see the forest for the meta trees.

[NRaleighLiberal]

41. well, this proud liberal thinks that what's embarrassing is your OP.

[Johonny]

42. When it comes to torture isn't absolutism okay. The RW is the one currently arguing it isn't

if your opinion on the subject isn't any different than them then... maybe that's why you don't post so much.

[U4ikLefty]

45. Most of us on the left are more concerned about torture & not Obama's approval ratings.

He defended the torturers & you seem upset about the pushback by those of us who are actually interested in human rights...not as window dressing for the "lesser of tow evils" party.

I really don't give a rat's ass why YOU don't post with a whole year and a half on DU...lol!!! Nor do I care about the cheerleaders who care for the brand more than the platform.

BTW, "we" lose because "our" party sold out to big-business 20 years ago.