patrick.net

No, no, you're getting it wrong. The idea in this picture is not that Dems and Repubs are the same. One's on the left hand, the other's on the right....it's just that they're both puppets of the rich. (Some of) the rich want you to be poor, desperate for benefits, in debt til ya die, too weak to fight back, and powerless. To do that they have to use both fists to work you over.

A fer'instance: Dems tend to take away gun rights, Repubs tend to take away freedom of speech.

Not saying I agree with this statement completely either. But you gotta interpret the cartoon correctly first.

#5 Dept of Education is almost wholly subsidies and guarantees for PRIVATE issuers of student college loans.

Protecting Banks against default, so that "Even if they lose, they win."

tomoeDave says

A fer’instance: Dems tend to take away gun rights, Repubs tend to take away freedom of speech.

"Repubs tend to take away freedom of speech?" What on earth are you referring to?

Paralithodes says

“Repubs tend to take away freedom of speech?” What on earth are you referring to?

Sorry, it's more subtle than that, I should've said...both sides tend to erode freedom of speech from different angles. Surely you can agree with this assessment? GOP creates "free speech zones" and passes the Patriot Act, DNC is all for banning "hate speech" and for leaning on "political correctness" and such...etc. I'm sure it's not hard to come up with more examples.

Perhaps if I wanted to contrast things...republicans are more likely to erode separation of church and state or freedom of religion...whereas dems are more likely to erode gun rights. That's the idea, anyway. Again, you can debate how accurate it is overall, but there are people on both sides who want to make various things you do illegal.

thanks for the post marcus, good one.

marcus says

Dare I say there are probably a few intelligent conservatives who love NPR?

And you would be full of shit.

Am and independent, and there's only so much smug condescending lip smacking I can take.

michaelsch says

4. It presided over the destruction of the whole generation of American young people who at that time massively became business administrators rather than pursuing any productive career.

Yeah how's that working out for us?

Go to Wal-Mart and everyone is an "Associate".

President ignores own staff's legal opinions about the legality of the War Powers Act, starts war anyway.

This comes from a guy who swore he'd not act *before* getting approval from Congress.

SULLIVAN
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/king.html
GREENWALD
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/18/libya

Be sure to check out Greenwald's piece.

thunderlips11 says

President ignores own staff’s legal opinions about the legality of the War Powers Act, starts war anyway.

That's not really true. He asked for opinions and got some each way. He didn't ignore them, he evaluated the opnions on each side of the issue and made his decision. That's what Presidents do.

freakizoid libs wanted Bush to ask NATO for permission to respond to 9-11 ...... and now they think Bozobama is cool for avoiding congress ?? stunning.

Bap33 says

freakizoid libs wanted Bush to ask NATO for permission to respond to 9-11

Weren't we wanting NATO allies to be with us in Afghanistan, where as in this case, NATO was asking us to help them with something they would have done with or without us in Libya? I'm sure that in every other way its exactly the same though, because you know, the word war is involved and everything.

Bap33 says

freakizoid libs wanted Bush to ask NATO for permission to respond to 9-11 …… and now they think Bozobama is cool for avoiding congress ?? stunning.

Again--not true. The freakizoids wanted Bush to get NATO permission to attack a country that was not involved in 9/11 in any way at all.

Personally, I wasn't in favor of attacking Libya. I think it was a poor decision--but saying he ignored his advisors is inaccurate.

What was the upside of Obama involving us in Libya without getting congresses approval ?

MY guess is that it was probably one of two things. Either:

1) there wasn't enough time, or some loss of impact, given how and when Nato was asking us to act.

or

2) It would cost too much politically (ie republicans would make him kiss their ass before voting for it) . There is a pattern of such a strong desire to prevent Obama from being successful, that they probably would have made him agree to undoing all "liberal" legislation of the last 50 years and to do retroactive billion dollar tax rebates for the rich, before they would even allow the discussion to reach the floor.

tatupu70 says

That’s not really true. He asked for opinions and got some each way. He didn’t ignore them, he evaluated the opnions on each side of the issue and made his decision. That’s what Presidents do.

tatupu70 says

Personally, I wasn’t in favor of attacking Libya. I think it was a poor decision–but saying he ignored his advisors is inaccurate.

In this case, Tatupu, the President is defying convention by ignoring the conclusions of the OLC. In this case, not just OLC Head Krass, but also DoD General Counsel Johnson and AG Holder.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?_r=2&hp

BTW, Obama is violating the 60-day War Powers Act which was passed by a Democratic Congress during the Nixon administration.

I should also add, just like the Bush Administration, the President is refusing to share his chosen justification as to why Libya isn't "Hostilities" and why he does not need to comply with the War Powers Act.

He won't even explain why it doesn't apply. I guess it's okay though, because if the Republican President can not explain himself, Obama doesn't have to either.

He won’t even explain why it doesn’t apply

They do, actually. Read your damn nyt article immediately above. They say that no Americans are being put in harm's way, now that NATO is taking the lead and our efforts are RPV controlling and logistics.

Everybody -- to the right of Kucinich -- clutching their pearls over bombing Khaddafi and his thugs is being highly disingenuous.

I personally disagree with this, I think the spirit of "declaring war" in the Constitution means Congress must always be consulted and sign off anytime we engage any foreign power on the military level, regardless if they can "shoot back" or not.

But I'm not losing sleep over this since the political situation of this counter is completely and totally fucked at the moment.

If the Republicans could behave like responsible adults for a change then we could have a better government process.

So far, no such luck.

thunderlips11 says

the President is defying convention by ignoring the conclusions of the OLC. In this case, not just OLC Head Krass, but also DoD General Counsel Johnson and AG Holder.

Big deal. Opinions differ. OLC does not have any constitutional power over the CiC. Your own article also says :

"Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice"

I think Obama went off half-cocked in not getting a Concurrent Resolution through Congress granting him the express permission of Congress to take Khaddafi out.

Bap33 says

freakizoid libs wanted Bush to ask NATO for permission to respond to 9-11 …… and now they think Bozobama is cool for avoiding congress ?? stunning.

Cowboying things on the ground -- leveling villages and entire cities -- in Afghanistan and Iraq, like we did 2001-now is a bit different from just bombing the shit out of Khaddafi and defending those taking arms against his regime.

Technically both are "acts of war" and thus require Congress, but no President should have a blank check to "respond to 911" without Congress, and Congress should insist on sensible international cooperation so that we don't make colossal fuckups like what we did in Iraq, and Afghanistan to a large degree.

No, they are not the same.
1) 9/11 response should not have been slowed by the libs wanting everyone else in it. We dont need help, everyone needs our help. Congress voted to go to war. It was the freak libs wanting NATO, and counting bodies, and busing Code Pink around, remember? That took months, so WMD could be moved, so Russia and China and maybe even France could save face.
2) We are fighting a type of person in Iraq, and all over the world, not a friggin country. Not a nation, other than the nation of islam. Since all of arabia is infected with islam we have to go where it is. islam and it's terrorists have no borders and no nation. We are at war with coward terrorist muslamislamohamidites - not "Iraq" or "Afganistan" or "Arab State X".

ON THE OTHER HAND. Lybia is a place. We have no issue with Lybia. Lybia has a governing system. It is having some private issues. There is no outside nation taking Lybian land or treasure. Congress was not asked to vote by Bozobama. We have no business there. Pakistan, well, they are on thin ice.

Isreal is a place. Isreal is under constant attack to lose land and treasure. We have to support Isreal because they are a FREE nation that is not infected by the nation of islam, rather they are a target.

Mexico is having much worse public saftey issues that greatly effect the health and welfare of Americans. Where is the Bozobama position on protecting American's from mexican terror and erosion?? Oh ya, that's right, he clowns about moats and alligators while taking Arizona's voters to court for not wanting to be invaded like Mexifornia has been. Get out of Lybia, and head to Mexico ... the Zetas and La Familia are waiting. In this example, America needs protection from the mexican national that are stealing land and treasure ... and lives.

The leftist/liberal/progresive mindset will be blamed for the destruction on America. And the destruction of America will result in famine and darkness and death coving the entire planet. When you are standing around hungry, with no electricity and now fuel and no food, remeber to thank a leftist/liberal/progressive for what their activism has brought to us all.

Bap33 says

That took months, so WMD could be moved

what the fuck? Nobody in Afghanistan had WMDs. Iraq had zero to do with 911 and everything to do with PNAC's mission of taking out Saddam.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

so Russia and China and maybe even France could save face.

Here in this statement there are the seeds of actual wisdom available for you should you choose to see it. Russian and French opposition to our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with "saving face" and everything to do with preserving their established investments in Saddam's regime. Once the sanctions were lifted both Russian and French interests would be reallowed into Iraq.

The US going in like we did was something of a "hostile takeover" meant to eject European economic ties and replace them with American-based ones.

This was seen from the earliest days:

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=30391

The leftist/liberal/progresive mindset will be blamed for the destruction on America. And the destruction of America will result in famine and darkness and death coving the entire planet. When you are standing around hungry, with no electricity and now fuel and no food, remeber to thank a leftist/liberal/progressive for what their activism has brought to us all.

I'm beginning to believe that conservatism is in fact a mental affliction of some sort. Very high on emotionalism and bullshit and very low on facts and reason.

Bap33 says

ON THE OTHER HAND. Lybia is a place. We have no issue with Lybia. Lybia has a governing system. It is having some private issues. There is no outside nation taking Lybian land or treasure. Congress was not asked to vote by Bozobama.

Bozobama? Why do you write like this? Do you have the mental capacity of a 5 year old?

Bap33 says

Lybia is a place.

No, it's not.

Bap33 says

Isreal is a place.

Troy says

Why do you write like this? Do you have the mental capacity of a 5 year old?

Perhaps not the mental capacity, but certainly the ability to communicate effectively.

Bap33 says

When you are standing around hungry, with no electricity and now fuel and no food, remeber to thank a leftist/liberal/progressive for what their activism has brought to us all.

I'll "remeber." Whatever that means.

Bap says

The leftist/liberal/progresive mindset will be blamed for the destruction on America

But how do you really FEEL? I'm reminded of the sappy song. "Feelings, nothing more than feelings."

The interesting part to me, is that we are in troubled times to be sure, but progressivism or liberalism and the policies that get those names have been in decline for DECADES.

For anyone who wants to hate Obama, there are PLENTY of people you can listen to, and grow your ignorant hate. They are extremely well funded, but they aren't looking out for you. They will be perfectly okay with this becoming even more of a third world country than it already is.

Congratulations on your gullibility.

marcus says

But how do you really FEEL? I’m reminded of the sappy song. “Feelings, nothing more than feelings.”

OH MY GAWD! Marcus, you've ruined my day... that song shall be stuck inside my head for hours today.

Bap33 says

The leftist/liberal/progresive mindset will be blamed for the destruction on America. And the destruction of America will result in famine and darkness and death coving the entire planet. When you are standing around hungry, with no electricity and now fuel and no food, remeber to thank a leftist/liberal/progressive for what their activism has brought to us all.

And we'll all be forced to say about the liberals that...
"they had marvelous judgment, if not particularly good taste."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_and_His_Dog

It's really quite parlous that nobody understands the *central* importance of that $1T/yr+ spike in borrowing 2003-2006:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=RS

People like Krugman and Reich make mouth-noises acknowledging the bubble machine:

Reich: "the vast middle-class, unable to borrow as it could before, no longer has the purchasing power need to get the economy growing again . . ."

without showing that growth in bubble debt.

$1T/year was ~$10,000/yr per household of free money. Doesn't sound like much but it's also TEN MILLION $100,000/year jobs, and probably THIRTY MILLION total global jobs, all funded via temporary debt infusion.

The first time I saw that CMDEBT chart my jaw dropped.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT

Most of that was home bubble debt of course:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=RT

Bap33 says

The leftist/liberal/progresive mindset will be blamed for the destruction on America. And the destruction of America will result in famine and darkness and death coving the entire planet.

Interesting. The last two big economic crashes both happened at the end of 8 years of Republican presidency. As did the great depression. Let's see 24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence, I think not.

Bap33 says

Lybia is a place. We have no issue with Lybia

Ever hear of something called the Lockerbie bombing? We don't have any issue with Libya funding terrorists? Really? Really, Really? Just out of curiosity, does reality every crash in on you?

bob2356 says

Let’s see, 24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence, I think not.

I knew that it was a conspiracy!

Bap33 says

@bob … The bombers are all cowardly arab muslaislamohamadites. So, what branch of the Libyan armed forces should we attack first? And what must be completed for the mission to be a success?

So let me get this clear in my head. We should have immediately attacked Iraq without letting liberals slow down the process long enough to ask questions for having nothing to do with 9/11 and not killing US citizens, but we have no interest in helping bring down Guadafi who has actually paid people to kill US citizens. Did I get this right?

Oh wait, that's right Hussein was an evil dictator. Not in the top 10 but one of the club. Plus, he had weapons of mass destruction. Nukes right? Just like North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, China, etc.. Well no, actually he might or might not of been trying to make nukes. But he did have biological and chemical right? Well yes, but so does everyone else on the planet that cares to bother. AHA! He was the only evil dictator with WMD sitting on lots of oil that the neocons thought could be knocked off on the cheap!!! Ding, ding, ding we have a winner. Let the good times roll.

bob2356 says

Oh wait, that’s right Hussein was an evil dictator. Not in the top 10 but one of the club...

We attacked Iraq because that's where President Cheney wanted to finish the job that Senior started. We attacked because it was convenient. Timeline:

March 19, 2003 - Bush/Cheney launch invasion of Iraq

March 30, 2003 - "We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Rumsfeld [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]

May 1, 2003 - Mission Accomplished fiasco ("[M]y fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended). [Bush, 5/1/03]

May 29, 2003 - "We found the weapons of mass destruction. [Bush, 5/29/03]"
July 11, 2003 - "All that I can tell you is that if there were doubts about the underlying intelligence in the NIE, those doubts were not communicated to the President. [Condoleeza Rice, WH Gaggle, 7/11/03]"

July 14, 2003 - I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. [Bush, 7/14/03]
NOVEMBER 6, 2003: Bush signs $87 billion supplemental spending bill into law [Bush, 11/6/03]

January 28, 2004 - No WMD found. "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing. [Kay, 1/28/04]"

March 24, 2004 - "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere" [Bush, 3/24/04] (he was joking, to be fair)

October 7, 2004 - CIA report: Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes. [CNN, 10/7/04]

Read it yourself: http://thinkprogress.org/report/iraq-timeline/

Oops, might I add that WMD were never recovered because, as was stated over & over, we had bad intel? Oops. We've spent billions overthrowing a dictator that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten out - but a great read is "The Imperial Life in the Emerald City."

dang ... I forgot to take off my prime-rib shorts before jumping in the dog pen!! lol
@ellie,
I have a gut feeling, not much more. lol

@bob,
which branch should we hit first? And what will be a completed mission?

anyways, Happy Father's Day

Bap33 says

dang … I forgot to take off my prime-rib shorts before jumping in the dog pen!! lol

That's a new one to me, and I shall quote you. ;)

Troy says

He won’t even explain why it doesn’t apply

They do, actually. Read your damn nyt article immediately above. They say that no Americans are being put in harm’s way, now that NATO is taking the lead and our efforts are RPV controlling and logistics.

You mean this bit:

The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.

The US has been harping on "NATO" but it's pretty obvious what nationality the bulk of "NATO forces" are. There was a hilarious exchange a few weeks back when a Pentagon shill who just mouthed the "Mostly just Support" line had to admit to a reporter (based on the very charts and graphs behind him) that the "NATO forces" assigned to the Libyan Theatre were mostly American. I can't find it, but I did find this:

The revelation came as Pentagon officials laid out U.S. participation in the Libya conflict over the past 10 days, including that Americans have flown 35 percent of all air missions.

Those missions, they said, include bombing attacks against Libyan surface-to-air missile launchers, as well as surveillance and refueling operations. It was the first time the Pentagon acknowledged that airstrikes continued after the U.S. handed over control of the Libya mission to NATO on April 4.

According to Pentagon officials, eleven U.S. fighter jets were assigned to NATO to look for and take out the air defense systems.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/libya--us-airstrikes-nato_n_848817.html

Now granted, the President said "Early April", and in lawyer speak April 13th can be construed as "Early April", however, let's review what the War Powers Resolutions states.

The War Powers Resolution says "Hostilities". The word "Servicemen" or the phrase "Placing Servicemen at risk" or any similar language, does not appear anywhere in the Resolution.

Hostilities don't require the commitment of land forces. Violating another country's airspace with military aircraft, not to mention actually launching missiles and bombs from them, is certainly an act of overt warfare and thus hostilities. Drone attacks launching explosive devices is hostilities, even if they are unmanned. Cruise Missile attacks are also hostilities. If one country drops cruise missiles on another, I doubt the recipient wouldn't hesitate to characterize the missile attacks as "Hostilities".