Skip to main content

Tom the Dancing Bug, by @RubenBolling.

HAVE YOU JOINED THE INNER HIVE YET??  

Please click HERE for information.

Originally posted to Comics on Thu May 23, 2013 at 06:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

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

?

More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Nixon was a lot worse - he used the tools of the (7+ / 0-)

    CIA and FBI to go after political enemies.  He personally ordered this stuff.  So, Obama certainly is no Nixon.

    Indeed, I am fairly confident he does not know the tools that Justice uses for every investigation.  I mean, he knows that they spy, but not that they spied on the AP for two months violating their own internal protocols in the process.   I do trust that there is some wall there.

    THAT said, he does set the tone philosophically, and he wants to give the CIA, Pentagon and Justice these tools.  He has greenlighted the killing of Americans, and a sort of drone strike version of "driving while muslim" (the signature strikes).  His view of government infallibility - "if the government does it, it's not illegal" is certainly Nixonian, even if his heart might be in an allegedly better place.

    •  In all fairness, we didn't know that this until... (4+ / 0-)

      ...well after the dust had settled. Given what we DO know thus far, it wouldn't surprise me to have such revelations spring forth after the president has left office.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:29:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, well (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jennybravo, chrismorgan, Eyesbright

        I guess we are in the presence of a super-duper psychic, who can both read minds and foretell the future.

        •  Or a super-duper comment transformer (0+ / 0-)

          who can both read more into a comment than was said and respond with snide outrage.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
          ~ Jerry Garcia

          by DeadHead on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:57:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  that's really close to a CT (0+ / 0-)

        In the time that I have been given,
        I am what I am

        by duhban on Thu May 23, 2013 at 05:18:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How is saying "it wouldn't surprise me if..." (0+ / 0-)

          close to a conspiracy theory?

          Please explain your rationale in making that determination.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
          ~ Jerry Garcia

          by DeadHead on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:06:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as previously discussed (0+ / 0-)

            I don't want to talk to you nor interact with you in any way

            Please leave me alone

            In the time that I have been given,
            I am what I am

            by duhban on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:39:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As previously discussed (0+ / 0-)

              You are posting on a publicly visible thread in which anyone who is a member in good standing may participate.

              I asked you a simple, non-rude question. Like the last question I asked you...you know, the one you accused me of being a STALKER BULLY after I asked it.

              Apparently you are unable to answer these simple, non rude questions. I will continue to ask simple, non-rude questions of you, duhban, if I so choose.

              If you feel I am in violation of site rules, please state what rule I am in violation of. Or, you could just address my original question.

              Thank you.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
              ~ Jerry Garcia

              by DeadHead on Fri May 24, 2013 at 02:41:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  again I will ask you politely to leave me alone (0+ / 0-)

                we have nothing to discuss and I want nothing to do with someone like you.

                This is the third time I have asked you and yes if you persist then you are stalking me.

                Please leave me alone

                In the time that I have been given,
                I am what I am

                by duhban on Fri May 24, 2013 at 03:17:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, I am NOT stalking you (0+ / 0-)

                  Get your facts straight:

                  Thread stalking is defined as having three requirements:

                  1. On multiple occasions, one or more commenters follow a community member into diary threads; and,

                  2. The commenter(s) posts comments that include false information, personal attacks, lies, or implied/express disclosure of private information; and

                  3. The commenter(s) engages in this conduct with the intent to harass, harm, humiliate, frighten or intimidate another poster. This intent may be inferred from the number of times that the commenter follows a community member into threads and/or the nature of the comments posted. Stalking does not include the mere expression of disagreement, seeking out diaries or comments of favorite diarists or simply frequent interaction on the boards. Accusations of stalking should not be made on comment threads but emailed to Meteor Blades or another administrator together with relevant links to evidence that comports with the requirements cited above. Repeated accusations of stalking in the comment threads will lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

                  Please note the bolded text. So you'd better have some good evidence that doesn't also shine light on your trollish behavior that has been witnessed by several credibile members here, duhban, because if YOU accuse ME of stalking one more time, YOU will be reported.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
                  ~ Jerry Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Sat May 25, 2013 at 01:34:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  U should go read the Judiciary Committee report (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eyesbright

      on impeachment of Nixon.  You obviously don't know what you're talking about re: either man.

      •  for what its worth - his continuation of Bush (0+ / 0-)

        policies is reprehensible.  That he ordered such horrible things in some sort of national security spirit does not make it "ok", although from current evidence the difference between the AP story and something like Watergate is considerable.  

        Certainly his team has had a seriously flawed attitude towards free speech and free press and actual transparency.  And he has been pretty derelict in Civil Liberties - no argument there, at all.

        •  How can you not think comments like the last part (0+ / 0-)

          of the start of the chain: "He has greenlighted the killing of Americans, and a sort of drone strike version of "driving while muslim" (the signature strikes).  His view of government infallibility - "if the government does it, it's not illegal" is certainly Nixonian, even if his heart might be in an allegedly better place."

          would not prompt exactly the replies it got?

          Cite me where BO has ever said ""if the government does it, it's not illegal".  I dare you.  And when you can't, stop saying it cause it isn't true.  It may be your opinion, but opinion is not fact and just bc you think it true doesn't make it so or entitled you to expect anyone else to agree.

          Likewise the first part: Many President's since George Washington have "greenlighted the killing of Americans".  Did you forget all the US Tories?  Or Lincoln?  Or all the wars of the 20th C?  You do know US citizens fought with the Germans, right?  And US citizens were killed during the Cold War, and some weren't even spies?  

          I get you don't like these 4 particular drone cases.  I tend to agree that the 3 other than al-A were unwise.  But, the only thing new about it is the technology.  Heck, there isn't even anything new about the 'extended battlefield'.  The whole world was a battlefield in the Cold War too.  

          But they are legal bc of the damn AUMF.  So get rid of the AUMF, as Obama to his credit said today.  (And I completely disagree that the signature strikes are just 'muslim killing', though I think they are bad policy, open to far too great a danger of mistake or abuse by informants even if we act with the best of intentions.)

          And I agree there are actual scandals by this admin.  Like the treatment of Manning.  But, none of the current crop of 'scandals' is of this character imo.  

          But imo  you lose whatever force your arguments may have when you make absurd comments like: "His view of government infallibility - "if the government does it, it's not illegal".

          •  The AUMF actuall forces nothing ... it gives (0+ / 0-)

            him authorization, but the WH conducts the War on Terror in any way they see fit.  In a sense the discussion about the AUMF is a dodge.  It is like the reporter shield law.  The implication is that it is up to Congress to prevent the executive from doing stuff ... while yes, Congress has oversight, that doesn't mandate any sort of behavior on the Executive's part.  Nobody told the Executive to read the AUMF as broadly as they have ... to read the world 24/7 as a battlefield, to kill Americans relatively willy nilly without trial or even a chance to face charges (Awlaki was never charged with anything).  

            The government infallibility thing is a fairly obvious conclusion from the actions, the defense of the actions, and the unwillingness to face counterclaims on merit.  When you are classifying your lawyer's advice on waging killings - you are not wanting to put your legal views into the marketplace of debate, manifest infallibility.  If folks who are spied on, or who are mistakenly on a terrorist watch list, how can they hold the government accountable?  The government in their own defense here goes on the premise that they are right - full stop.  That is infallibility.  

            The examples of killing Americans are all in actual wartime situations and actually targeting American soldiers, directly.  Awlaki offered nothing of the sort - aside from possible planning (which would be a fairly easy crime to prove if they bothered capturing him) or carnival barking of hate (which is run of the mill protected speech).  I am relatively sure the Awlaki killing was "just", but since they don't want to show the evidence to the dude's family - or the logic for killing his son who was not connected - there is no reason to take the government at its word.  Bush deserved skepticism, so does his successor.  

            •  Crap, I had written a detailed reply but the backs (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sk7326

              pace ate it and now I don't have time.

              Let's just say 1) I appreciate your positions and understand you good faith here,

              but 2) I don't agree on a) the AUMF (especially in light of its citation to the War Powers Act and the Art. II duty to defend the US), b) 'infalibilty' bc I think your conflating legal and policy arguments (by nature of how legal arguments are made, the adversary situation and the politics, I can see how you think they are 'absolutist') and the much more nuanced and less definitive and categorical policy arguments - such as in BOs speech yesterday, which in large part continued a dialogue with critics that he has addressed thru various press confernce answers and speechs the last 5 years), and c) 'The examples', on which I reply i) this is "an actual wartime situation[]' by virtue of the AUMF (a declaration of war by any other name, see the War Powers Act it cites), and ii) there are many historical examples where US military targets of US civilians were not folks 'actually targeting American soldiers, directly", see, Washington's campaigns against the Iroquois and Tories, the mini-civil wars in NY and NJ during the Revolution, Sherman's March to the Sea, US sinking of certain merchant ships in WW1 and 2, US citizens killed by DOD and CIA during the Cold War, to name a few.

              But if eveyrone agreed the world would be boring. :-)

              •  I respect your opinion - and there is no doubt (0+ / 0-)

                that in the past the US has killed its own, and innocents among them - them's the breaks.  There is more scrutiny now with the media and technology - but that is fair as well.  And indeed every time we violate the sanctimonious promise we offer in oratory to the rest of the world - it certainly contributes to the advertising that folks can do.

                Certainly some of the hand wringing about Obama's war is how essentially a lot of the Democratic folks have fallen into line with a war that is not at all different from George Bush Jr's.  It comes down to who you want to give the wheel to - and that does make sense to me.  Personally, I've lived through Presidents who funded rapists in Central America and who demolished welfare to score political points ... so everybody deserves scrutiny, if nothing else for the victims of these policies.  If Obama gets a bit of blowback it is the marketing that his team delivered that he is something different and that things would "change" on these fronts - and so blah blah blah.  There isn't a whole lot of imagination working - a notion of solutions that don't involve blowing stuff up real good or appealing to the national military fetish.  

                It is interesting stuff ... appreciate the chat

  •  Yes -- Great comfort in legality (18+ / 0-)

    Gotta love those drones, gotta love that squishy "new" 4th amendment.

    Funny thing -- Apple ducks a bunch of taxes, people get worked up.  Perfectly legal, but we have the sense that it's somehow wrong.

    CEOs get bazillions while screwing over the workers they don't lay off?
    Perfectly legal, but, again, somehow wrong.

    Remote control killing by drone, complete with innocent deaths?  Hey! It's legal, man.

    Grabbing every phone record you can find because it has an "A" and a "P" attached? Hey! It's legal, man.

    Applying content-based criteria to selection of targets for enhanced scrutiny (ie, harassment) by the IRS? Hey! It's legal, man.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:15:59 AM PDT

  •  Oh nicely done (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat, Subterranean, MKinTN

    But in hell the shade of Dick Cheney will haunt the tormented soul of RIchard Nixon

    An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

    by MichiganChet on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:24:00 AM PDT

    •  Wonder where the "Hey, it's legal!" crowd (12+ / 0-)

      Draws the line?  The same acts committed by a Republican president is my educated guess.

      Nothing like a nice, hot cup of partisan hypocrisy.

      And while I'm in wholehearted agreement with the cartoon about the IRS and Benghazi, it's also fair to mention those things aren't emblems of the cancerous growth of the National Security State, something a few of us find more to the point.

      A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

      by MrJayTee on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:06:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Other hater who lies abuot Bush's illegalities (0+ / 0-)

        to push Obama Derangment Syndrome.

        Off your meds again?

        •  I didn't mention "Bush's illegalities" in my post. (0+ / 0-)

          So what exactly are you talking about?

          If one of us is off our meds, I don't think it's me.

          A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

          by MrJayTee on Thu May 23, 2013 at 03:20:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, stop pretending: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban

            "Wonder where the "Hey, it's legal!" crowd Draws the line?  The same acts committed by a Republican president is my educated guess."

            Which Thug President would it be then?   And why do you continue pretending what Bush did was "Hey, its legal"?

            At least have the courage to admit what you said.

            •  Let me explain it to you carefully. (0+ / 0-)

              *President Obama has implemented certain policies like killing some Americans abroad, massive surveillance of electronic communications, and unprecedented scrutiny of journalists and whistleblowers.

              *Many people find these policies objectionable while others find them perfectly acceptable.

              *It appears the courts will agree these policies are legal regardless of some people's objections.

              *Many of the people who think those policies are fine, legal or not, would be up in arms if they were committed by a Republican president.

              How is that lying about Bush's illegalities?

              In other words, WTF are you talking about?

              A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

              by MrJayTee on Thu May 23, 2013 at 03:51:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You began by characterizing anyone who disagrees w (0+ / 0-)

                you as "the 'Hey, it's legal!' crowd".  You then accused them of "partisan hypocrisy".

                This you explicitly invoked legality, thus injecting the issue of same and by comparing BO to "a Republican president".  You did not say "people who think those policies are fine, legal or not," as you now try to.  You said "the 'Hey, it's legal!' crowd".  

                Further, given the context this discussion takes place in, how could you honestly not expect that to be understood as comparison to Bush?  But, as I said, Bush's scandals were largely perpetrated by acts violating the law and Constitution (the 'supreme law'), i.e., illegal acts.  Not too mention the cartoon called bullshite on the accusations of BO being 'Nixonian'.  The peculiar character of Nixon was that the acts he is condemned for were almost uniformly illegal and unconstitutional (IOW also illegal).

                Or, more succinctly, as I said 'Which Thug President would it be then?'

                You then distorted the position of those who point out the current issues re: BO's admin are not scandals bc the acts are legal, as instead somehow approving of the morality or wisdom of them - those are entirely different things, which is kind of the whole pt of the 'it's legal' argument.  And again, it is the entire point of what really made Nixon 'Nixonian', as the cartoon pointed out.  

                Again, you did not say "people who think those policies are fine, legal or not," as you now try to.  You said "the 'Hey, it's legal!' crowd".  

                Finally, you leveled an ad hominem insult of the honesty and ethics of people who note there are no scandals here bc Obama's acts were legal,  i.e. as 'partisan hypocrites'.  In doing so, you misunderstand or choose to ignore the fundamental difference, to wit: Bush's were mostly illegal.

                Only by doing so can you then create the equivalency b/t Bush's actual scandals and these Obama scamdals - and b/t Bush apologists and opponents of current scamdal b/s - necessary to accuse them of acting solely out of "partisan hypocrisy" and assuming they would think Obama's acts scandals if they were done by a Thug.

                •  Rubbish. (0+ / 0-)

                  Again, slowly:

                  The cartoon is about Benghazi, the IRS, and the legality of drone attacks on Americans and the AP seizure, AKA the subject of the diary.  

                  Lots of Democrats are defending the apparently legal drone attacks and the AP seizure, people who would be livid if any Republican were doing it, regardless of legality, putting party and President about principle.  

                  They are the "Hey, it's legal" crowd" and they are hypocrites.  Big ones.

                  Simple as that.  You can churn out as many paragraphs of twisted parsing and bullshit as you like, but you can't make my words say something they don't to fulfill your manic need to defend the President.

                  Don't let that stop you from twelve or fourteen more paragraphs of a really close reading.  At least it'll keep you busy.  

                  Obsess away, my friend!

                  A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

                  by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 05:08:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Put it over your "Edwards '08" sticker. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      furi kuri, kalmoth, chrismorgan, doroma, duhban

      That way, you can affect the purity of judging all pols to be varying degrees of bad.

      "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

      by Inland on Thu May 23, 2013 at 01:02:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sux v. Rox (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eyesbright

        It's all about drawing massive pre-ordained conclusions. I wonder why either side even bothers to read the news, their conclusions and points are so predictable.

        It's also about obsession on both sides. Can't wall all, well, not get along, but find something new to talk about?

        This cartoon merely points out that it's pretty stupid to compare anything going on to Watergate, which is correct.

        But if people who should know better want to make the pretext for a flamewar they've obviously dying for, go for it, baby. Never mind the countless people you're alienating and driving away from the side with your incessant single-minded noun-a-verb-and-obama-is-horrible-perfect lunacy.

        Now residing in Van Nuys, but "LaBobsterofVanNuys" isn't funny and besides, Van Nuys is really part of Los Angeles

        by LABobsterofAnaheim on Thu May 23, 2013 at 02:31:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  what the comic was about: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eyesbright, duhban

          The standard for an idiotic statement is"Obama worse than Nixon"

          Which David translates as, the standard for a president is "worse than Nixon". How did he get that out of the comic?  it fits his narrative of everyone who liked Obama just because they arent as pure and high minded as he is.  Not to say David isn't pure and high minded; but he's not the best at evaluation.

          "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

          by Inland on Thu May 23, 2013 at 02:42:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Compare and contrast (17+ / 0-)

    Hmmm...  Nixon and Obama engage is surveillence of the press.  But, duirng Nixon's time, it was illegal for a president to do that, while under Obama, it is legal (or at least Obama tells us it is).

    Of course, Obama makes Nixon look like a piker when it comes to killing by presidential fiat.  Even Nixon didn't claim that power.  

    Will it be difficult for democrats to complain when a republican is sitting in the White House and claiming the power to go after journalists and kill whoever s/he thinks is an enemy?  Not at all: loyalty to the political party always takes precedence over logic and principle.

    It you don't stand for something, you are bound to fall for anything.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:38:23 AM PDT

    •  You don't remember the Bush administration? /nt (4+ / 0-)

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:54:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama outbushes even Bush (9+ / 0-)

        I remember the Bush adminstration well.

        I remember that Obama carried out the Bush plan for the failed wars to the letter (well, not quite: Obama exceeded Bush's plan for Afghanistan by sending more troops there than were called for in the Bush plan).  Strangely enough, neither adminstration has been able to win the failed war there, regardless of how many troops were sent there.

        I remember that Bush authorized the use of drones to kill people he thought were terrorists, bombing and killing non-combatants, including women and children.  Obama has outbushed even Bush in bombing anyone suspected of being a terrorist; an extra-judicial death sentences by presidential fiat.  Obama claims that any women and children killed in such bombings are supporters of terrorism (eerily similar to what the 9/11 attackers said about people in the World Trade Center).  And Obama has authroized the use of "double-tap" bombings to specifically target first responders, something even Bush would not do.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:38:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um. (4+ / 0-)

          Yes, Obama followed Bush's war plan by invading Iraq.

          Obama opened Gitmo.

          Obama imprisoned Jose Padilla, an American citizen, captured on American soil, and
          asserted to US courts that he could be held forever, without trial or lawyer, in solitary, by virtue of a presidential signature.

          Obama secretly authorized torture and warrant less secret wiretapping.

          Oh.     No he didn't.  That was Bush only.

          I'd continue, butinstead I will wait for the weak rejoinder.

          "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

          by Inland on Thu May 23, 2013 at 02:06:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  oh, they will complain (4+ / 0-)

      And express hypocritical outrage at the inevitable abuse of power. And they will say things like, "...who could have known that President Cruz would misuse Obama's executive over-reach precedence? ".

      And there will be sternly worded blog articles, petitions, and fund raising appeals.

      History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

      by quill on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:28:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nixon was a piker? (6+ / 0-)
      Of course, Obama makes Nixon look like a piker when it comes to killing by presidential fiat.  Even Nixon didn't claim that power.
      I can't think of a better example of "killing by presidential fiat" than Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia.
      Nixon orders Kissinger to come up with a plan for bombing Cambodia. Kissinger, his military aide Alexander Haig, and Nixon’s chief of staff H. R. Haldeman develop the basic plan in two days.
      ...
      Nixon’s secret bombings of Cambodia—dubbed “Operation Menu”—will trigger a wave of global denunciations, further energize the antiwar movement, and help precipitate the leak of the “Pentagon Papers”
    •  What irritates me most abou GOP BS (0+ / 0-)

      is the way it's always obscuring the genuinely scary things about the Obama administration. Using the Espionage Act to go after leakers, for example — that's Nixonian. But as this comic indicates, the shit that the GOP is trying to throw at him is absurd.

      Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
      Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
      Code Monkey like you!

      Formerly known as Jyrinx.

      by Code Monkey on Thu May 23, 2013 at 01:21:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nixon got 40K more US soliders killed by an act (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lost and Found, Eyesbright

      of fucking treason (having Kissenger sabotage US foreign policy/Vietnam peace talks) and millions of Vietnamese, Loasians, Cambodians, etc....

      He conducted a secret, illegal was in Loas and Cambodia (and parts of Thialand btw) for 3 years.  He famously said 'the President can bomb anyone he wants'.

      All on his mere say so - his fiat IOW.

      And you say : "Obama makes Nixon look like a piker when it comes to killing by presidential fiat.  Even Nixon didn't claim that power."

      and expect anyone to listen to anything else you ever utter?

      Are you on crack?

  •  I got a chuckle from comic strip. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MissTrial, Mr Robert, assyrian64

    By the authority vested in me by Kaiser Wilhelm II, I pronounce you man and wife. Proceed with the execution.

    by HarryParatestis on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:39:41 AM PDT

  •  ROTFLMAO. Anything that disgusts Nixon... /nt (0+ / 0-)

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:54:23 AM PDT

  •  Will cartoons be banned? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKinTN, ffour, rb608

    Cartoons can be worth 10,000 DK diaries, sure 'nuff. And this is one of them. Hope the press police don't come drag you away.

    "He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want." Proverbs 22:16

    by catfoodnation on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:21:36 AM PDT

  •  Spin this until you get to your shrink's couch (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Enzo Valenzetti

    But these guys are fucked!!  The cesspool of stink coming from team Obama makes me throw up in my mouth.  He has completely and utterly failed.  He has shockingly little we can hang our hat on and he has utterly ruined his credibility and legacy along with it.  He is a lame duck and we are screwed.

  •  So, if something is legal, it's okay? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sagebrush Bob, cardboardurinal

    You've just retroactively endorsed the vast majority of actions by President Bush.

    Well done, Mr. Both Sides Do It.

    When extra-terrestrial beings make their first appearance on our planet, and ask for representatives of our species to best exemplify humanity, I'm sending a nurse, a librarian, and a firefighter.

    by Wayward Son on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:05:22 AM PDT

    •  Wrong, they were NOT legal when Bush did them, nor (0+ / 0-)

      were his acts made 'retroactively' legal (which you can not do fyi, non-lawyers).

      But by all means lie to further your cause.  Dumbya did.

      •  Document the 51% of Bush's actions (0+ / 0-)

        that were illegal.  If you can't, don't go calling someone a liar.

        When extra-terrestrial beings make their first appearance on our planet, and ask for representatives of our species to best exemplify humanity, I'm sending a nurse, a librarian, and a firefighter.

        by Wayward Son on Thu May 23, 2013 at 03:07:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are the one who posited the claim. Its YOUR (0+ / 0-)

          job to pony up, not mine to do your work.

          Or stop posting bullshite and then running when someone calls you on it.

          •  You have no proof I lied? (0+ / 0-)

            Usually someone doesn't make such a brutish and callous claim without ready proof..  outside of a third grade classroom, at least.

            But I am nothing if not flexible in matters of debate. So let's set the ground rules.  If I select a 3 day period at random from Bush's calendar, research his Presidential actions, and show that greater than 50% were legal, will you apologize publicly and completely for such insulting and wrong behavior?

            When extra-terrestrial beings make their first appearance on our planet, and ask for representatives of our species to best exemplify humanity, I'm sending a nurse, a librarian, and a firefighter.

            by Wayward Son on Thu May 23, 2013 at 04:14:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am not going to waste time 'debating' you. (0+ / 0-)

              From your comments, you apparently believe: 1) if 1/2 a President's acts are legal then he commits no illegalities, not understanding it the magnitude of the acts that matter most, just as with little white vs. malicious lies, and 2) 1/2 of all Obama's acts in any 3 day period are illegal, which is  so farcial it strongly suggests you are  a troll.

              Either way, it suggests that you do not know what your talking about.

              And my life is too short to educate you.

              And besides, that's not my job.  It's yours.

              •  Ok, now I get it.. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MrJayTee

                ..you read something I say, process it in your mind as something different, and then you argue with that result.  Your actions make sense now.  At no point did I ever say anything LIKE that..  I said that calling an act okay because it's legal makes the majority of actions by Bush 'okay'.  Period.  The rest of what you came up with exists only in your head.  

                Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I don't actually agree with that conclusion.. something is NOT okay just because it's legal.  But this diary just shows how many knots a person has to pretzel up just to approve everything Obama does.

                On a personal note, calling someone a liar with no proof, then calling them out on 'running away' followed by your running away from the debate, is definitely no way to get through life, son.  

                When extra-terrestrial beings make their first appearance on our planet, and ask for representatives of our species to best exemplify humanity, I'm sending a nurse, a librarian, and a firefighter.

                by Wayward Son on Fri May 24, 2013 at 04:00:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Seems to be a habit with this poster. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wayward Son

                  "...you read something I say, process it in your mind as something different, and then you argue with that result."

                  I recently experience it myself.

                  A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

                  by MrJayTee on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:23:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've gone beyond thinking it's trolling.. (0+ / 0-)

                    ..and I'm now worried that he has an actual medical condition.  

                    When extra-terrestrial beings make their first appearance on our planet, and ask for representatives of our species to best exemplify humanity, I'm sending a nurse, a librarian, and a firefighter.

                    by Wayward Son on Fri May 24, 2013 at 05:45:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Then learn to WRITE WHAT YOU MEAN and CLEARLY (0+ / 0-)

                  'Cause if someone misunderstands you, it is by definition your fault.  

                  You started by commenting about the cartoon.  You said: 'So, if something is legal, it's okay? You've just retroactively endorsed the vast majority of actions by President Bush.

                  Well done, Mr. Both Sides Do It."

                  IThe cartoon was ridiculing the claimed equivalency b/t Nixon and Obama. It did not say: 'if something is legal, it's okay'.  Nor did it say 'Both Sides Do It'.  

                  Your declaring it did was mendacious.  

                  I will say using 'lie' may have been impolitic. Perhaps I should have said: "stop misrepresenting what the cartoonist said"?

                  Likewise, your comment occurred in the context of the cartoon.  That context was the recent abuse of power allegations against Obama.  In that context, your saying the cartoon 'just retroactively endorsed the vast majority of actions by President Bush' is both absurd - it did not take any position re: Bush, nor did it equivilate 'legal' with 'endorsed', only you did that - and incorrect since - as I pointed out in my response - the abuses by Bush were illegal.

                  From there things progressed as they did.

                  Now, as I've said, I've spent more than enough time on this.  

                  •  I doubt this will help you.. but.. (0+ / 0-)
                    Nixon:  Then have your Justice Department illegally seize the telephone records of leak-reporting journalists.

                    Obama:  That I'll do! Except it's legal now, and the opposition party has been criticizing me for not doing it enough!

                    Seriously, seek help.

                    When extra-terrestrial beings make their first appearance on our planet, and ask for representatives of our species to best exemplify humanity, I'm sending a nurse, a librarian, and a firefighter.

                    by Wayward Son on Fri May 24, 2013 at 05:44:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Ouch (6+ / 0-)

    Butt-hurt for partisans of all flavors.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:21:19 AM PDT

  •  LOL. Mr. Reasonable tries a little evil-doing (0+ / 0-)

    but his heart's just not quite in it.  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu May 23, 2013 at 12:27:22 PM PDT

  •  Secret bombings are SOP now? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe shikspack, Code Monkey

    The government today can snoop everybody's phone conversations and (e)mail?

    Poor Richard Nixon! He was so far ahead of his time.

  •  Ha ha... (0+ / 0-)

    That floating Dick Nixon is hilarious

    "Patients are not consumers" - Paul Krugman

    by assyrian64 on Thu May 23, 2013 at 12:32:39 PM PDT

  •  Aaaa-roooooooooooooooo!!! (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry - I couldn't help but hear Billy West's Futurama Nixon howl.*



    * Because during the 1960 debate Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow made him look like he was turning into a warewolf. Now you know.

  •  Notice how so many of the ODS posters here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eyesbright, duhban

    have new UIDs?  

    I thought about - yet again - trying to educate them on things there is a huge difference between what is legal and what they don't like or agree with...

    but instead I'm just going to ignore the trolls and poo-flingers.

    •  Alot of people have UIDs > 34917 (0+ / 0-)

      And a lot of them are members of the Obama Support Network, as it turns out.

      So your point is exactly what? That somebody upthread has a recently registered UID so that means there's a bunch of recently registered UIDs who have "ODS"?

      Exactly how many have you counted thus far? I assume you have some data, and I'm curious.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:40:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My comment meant no more or less than it said. (0+ / 0-)

        I suppose I might have added 'recently' and 'seem to have'.  I have been checking UIDs these past months tho and it is my impression that there has been an influx of new users who seem to go out of their way to be critical of Democrats and the Democratic president - often to the pt of absurdity (as in comments to this diary that Obama 'is worse than Nixon' or doing all sorts of illegal acts, which simply are wildly factually inaccurate).

        This leads me to be suspicious of the motives and identity of these people since this is far from in keeping with the mission statment of Kos - a blog supporting Democrats - and my recollection of the character of diaries and comments critical of Obama here until recently.  Yes, some have been quite shall we say pointed, but irrc not so many in such ashort time so absurdly over the top and factually wrong and/or uniformed.  Indeed, many of them seemed much closer to what you would see at Red State and the like.

        Now, as I said I thought about trying to correct thier factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies - as I have endeavored to do in other discussions of the topics which were the subject of the cartoon, but then just decided not to waste my time.

        Is that alright with you?

        •  Do you think I was requiring you (0+ / 0-)

          to seek my approval?

          I check UIDs all the time, but usually on people I suspect of being zombies, sockpuppets, or wingnuts. Criticism of the president doesn't automatically trigger my suspicions, because this president has done some shit I'm not happy about. And even though I voted twice for him and think the world of him for choosing Sonia Sotomayor, I don't rubber stamp every fucking thing the guy does.

          You have a different set of criteria that need to be met for your enhanced scrutiny, apparently, and that's fine by me.

          Not that you needed my blessing, of course.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
          ~ Jerry Garcia

          by DeadHead on Fri May 24, 2013 at 02:23:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It was common courtesty since YOU asked ME 2 QUEST (0+ / 0-)

            IONS, i.e., "So your point is exactly what?" etc.  I endeavored to answer your questions.

            It would have been nice if you had responded courteously.
            If you did not want an answer from me, perhaps you should not have asked questions of me?

            •  I have no idea what you found so (0+ / 0-)

              discourteous, but piddling around over words is not high on my list of priorities.

              Happy ODS hunting!




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
              ~ Jerry Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sat May 25, 2013 at 01:45:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  stupid cartoon (0+ / 0-)

    so sick of the idiotic nixon comparisons

    In the time that I have been given,
    I am what I am

    by duhban on Thu May 23, 2013 at 05:17:16 PM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site