Taking action in an escalating crisis for his 10-day-old administration, Mr. Trump declared that Sally Q. Yates had “betrayed” the administration, the White House said in a statement. The president appointed Dana J. Boente, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as acting attorney general until Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is confirmed....ADDED: "went so far"?
The extraordinary legal standoff capped a tumultuous day in which... Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, went so far as to warn State Department officials that they should leave their jobs if they did not agree with Mr. Trump’s agenda, after State Department officials circulated a so-called dissent memo on the order.
“These career bureaucrats have a problem with it?” Mr. Spicer said. “They should either get with the program or they can go.”
January 30, 2017
The acting attorney general refused to defend Trump's immigration order... and Trump fired her.
I did not have time to blog about her refusal — I would have said it's up to Trump to fire her — before Trump fired her.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
299 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 299 of 299Remorse said...
No, what's been concerning me is that events are slipping out of everyone's control. I have to say though, the more incompetent Trump becomes and the more support that he loses, the better off we'll all be, at least under most of the scenarios that I can think of.
1/30/17, 10:50 PM
Lol... I think what Remorse really fears is that events are slipping out of the LEFT'S control... they're freaking out and flailing around because they have no idea what to do... everything they've thrown at DJT has blown-up in their faces, and the ONLY tactic they know is how to double-down on stupid and raise the volume to elventy!!1!1!11!
People are FED UP with your side's BS... Like little children you throw temper tantrums when you don't get your way and drape yourself in the flag when it suits you... and you have ZERO understanding of history or reality...
The next 4-8 years are going to be hard for you... Maybe you'll learn to deal with this affront to your reality in a dignified way, and begin to finally understand what the rest of us had to put up with under 8 years of Obama... It wasn't pretty, and now payback's a bitch...
Jeff Sessions questions Yates: "Sometimes you just have to say no. Do you thinink that you have the responsibility to say no to the President?" Video.
A lot of us who held their nose and voted for Trump as the lesser of two evil option are really enjoying watching him make the right people explode with anger and indignation. It's like he's playing chess, while they're checkers. "I have questions about the legality" BUT it was cleared by legal counsel. Oh, no, all these countries! 6 of 7 of which were specifically named by congress. Just about everything he's done so far he can point to a precedent when it was done by the previous administration, or point where Democrats were previously for it before he did it and they're now against it. And he doesn't have to do that job himself. There's myriads of bloggers out there doing it for him. I love it. It's great.
Yates should have made public the DOJ kill list memo that the DOJ has refused to release before she left. That would have really embarrassed the president.
Blogger Sandy Co said...
Jeff Sessions questions Yates: "Sometimes you just have to say no. Do you thinink that you have the responsibility to say no to the President?" Video.
1/31/17, 12:22 AM
Both you and Remorse have completely refused to address a.) 8 U.S. Code § 1182 (f), which blows giant gaping holes in the your side's entire justification for freaking out and rioting in the streets... or b.) Obama's similar 6-month ban in 2011 re: Iraq and his more recent ban on Cuban refugees which he enacted JUST TWO F@#%@ WEEKS AGO!!! Neither of which caused a peep from all the usual Soros-paid idiots.
And the reason for this is a.) you're utterly wrong and don't have a legal leg to stand on, and b.) for those of you on the left it's not really about principles or "defending freedom"... its about raw power and your desperate need to keep it at all costs.. When you guys have it, you want to do be able to do whatever you want, and when you don't have it, you scream bloody murder and take any position necessary to justify your refusal to follow the rules... even if your guy did the EXACT same thing just two weeks before... because again, you're motives are wrapped in ego, narcissism and sanctimony...
You're hypocrites and bad actors, willing to do anything or bend any dogma to the breaking point, just so you never have to own up to anything you've done...
I suppose the rot in the D party began with Bill Clinton. He had a knack for hatred. He got blow jobs from an intern young enough to be his daughter in the Oval Office, and got the Dems to back his claim that this was normal behavior.
The Dems never approved so much as censure for Bill Clinton's irresponsible acts and the obstruction of justice and lies to congress that followed. If Clinton had resigned, as a non-psycho pol would have, we would have had Gore as prez, and likely a Gore prez elected in 2000. No 9/11! Think the libs. No Iraq War!
And when Gore -- Gore! -- lost the electoral vote by a hair's breadth in 2000, they turned the nutsy knob up to eleven. As if allowing the partisan Florida supreme court to pick the president was better than allowing the SC to stop the recounts. Jesus. This was irrational behavior. Trotsky level delusion. What the Hell country do these people think that they live in? Canada?
I think that this would be a great time to review the Obama JD's position on Obama's extra-judicial killing of Muslims via executive order-slash-drone warfare.
She has a right to her opinion, and she has a right to act on that opinion up to a point. If she really had strong legal ethics, she would have made her position known privately to the White House and resigned if her position did not prevail there, which it would not have. If she had done that, she would have been in good standing with me, even though I think the executive order is completely legal and should have been defended by the DOJ in court, where she might well have been proven correct in the end. What she did, though was purely self-interested and will probably lead to many fine invitations to the best parties and is likely to result in lots of cash coming her way- those are fine "ethics".
Remorse said...I've been here a long time in an environment that's not very welcoming or conducive to my views of things. Yet I've shown a willingness to argue and stand my ground without resorting to name calling or snark, or personally attacking anyone. And I think I'm always willing to admit when someone shows that I'm wrong. I think I've kept pretty good grace.
1/30/17, 11:30 PM
Hi Remorse, I haven't been keeping tabs on the posts and arguments you've engaged in here, but just from this post I'll agree that you admit an error and you've kept good grace. But I've been lurking around this blog for about 10 years- I used to be Average Joe until Google disappeared my alternate log-in identity- and I can't remember you, Remorse, at all before a few weeks ago. Did you have another ID before this one? I'm just curious because sometimes there are characters who come and go and reappear under a different name but it is obvious that they are the same individual just using a new ID, like Inga/Unknown/Madison Man/Vicky from Pasadena etc. And there are some sockpuppeteers like A Reasonable Man/Shiloh etc. And there are some characters who left and never returned under their own or any other ID like Garage Mahal and Crack Emcee. Just wondering that's all- keep up the good faith arguing.
Remorse said...
he was refusing to follow an order that she thought might not be legal.
You are mistaken. The order she refused to follow was the President's order to her to defend his Executive Order in court. It would not be illegal for her to follow that order.
SHE WAS PART OF THE REBEL ALLIANCE AND A TRAITOR
Remorse said...
I don't think Trump will necessarily leave of his own volition. This is a guy with some pretty severe ego interests, don't you think?
I daresay by January 20, 2025, he'll have had enough.
Now you may disagree but I think everyone on all sides are wondering how soon before they impeach him.
How about never - does never work for you?
Yates gives us good insight into how the Obama DOJ worked, no?
"'Field Marshall Freder: "Actually, her client is the people of the United States of America. Not the president'
"LOL"
(Don't you think "LOL" is adolescent? That's what I always think when I see it.)
"Those would be the ones who elected President Trump."
Yes, the people who voted for Trump...a minority of the public at large, and even a minority of all those who voted, (also a minority of the public at large).
I'm sure Yates expected to be fired, but as a conscientious officer of the court and public servant, she acted according to her view of what was not only just, but legal.
Would that more persons in public service, regardless of party--whether in government or the military--would do the same. But, such is not the way of human beings. Those honored as heroes long after they're gone are vilified as traitors while alive, though they're the bravest people among us.
(The craven careerist John Yoo didn't, and he wrote his apologia for torture to allow the government to use torture as official policy. He betrayed the American people.)
"...escalating crisis for his 10-day old administration..."? No. For NYT reporters and editors? Gloriously, yes!
It's so typical that those here who vilify the government for overreach are getting hardons at Trump's attempts to govern by fiat. Those who strut themselves most as independent lovers of "freedom from government" are often the most hungry for a dictator to act out their resentments, prejudices, and hatreds for them.
Remember, the powers you accept or applaud when used by a President you like and trust will be taken up eventually by a president you dislike and fear. Always.
“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
― Thomas Paine
"I think that this would be a great time to review the Obama JD's position on Obama's extra-judicial killing of Muslims via executive order-slash-drone warfare."
They were crimes, of course. It's disheartening that Obama officials didn't resign en masse at his continuation and expansion of Bush/Cheney's war crimes.
I'm sure Yates expected to be fired, but as a conscientious officer of the court and public servant, she acted according to her view of what was not only just, but legal.
So...public defenders should be allowed to refuse to defend a poor defendant if they don't agree with them?
Robert Cook said...
"Remember, the powers you accept or applaud when used by a President you like and trust will be taken up eventually by a president you dislike and fear. Always."
Yes, I fully expect that at some point in the future, some Left Fascist will get elected President, and will seize upon this precedent to fire one or more overpaid flunkeys for failing to do what they're overpaid to do.
Cookie, have you ever had a job? That's what happens at jobs. You don't show up for work, they fire your ass. You aren't even eligible for unemployment, you have to go find *another* job. Oh, it's Hell, being a working stiff.
Go on, tell me that Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz would be this much fun. Go on.
"Cookie, have you ever had a job? That's what happens at jobs. You don't show up for work, they fire your ass. You aren't even eligible for unemployment, you have to go find *another* job. Oh, it's Hell, being a working stiff."
Jupiter...read carefully, read slowly, read for meaning.
I'm not talking about Trump firing Yates, I'm talking about Trump governing by fiat, writing executive orders like he's barking orders at his wife or some other flunky in his employ. As I said, Yates certainly expected to be fired. Any president would likely have fired her in the same instance.
"So...public defenders should be allowed to refuse to defend a poor defendant if they don't agree with them?"
Don't "agree with them?" What do you mean?
Defense lawyers become defense lawyers because they believe every accused person deserves a good defense...an essential aspect of our system of justice. It's not about "agreeing" with any defendant, though, at times they might, depending on what they're defending against, (public protests of government abuse, etc.). It's about serving the system and serving the public.
That said, if a lawyer truly felt he or she couldn't provide a good or even adequate defense to a defendant, due to some personal issue, perhaps, that lawyer has a responsibility to recuse him/herself so a lawyer better able to provide a defense can do so.
re all these comments about the AG being the lawyer for the people of the US rather than the president.
Following that logic, which I think is incorrect, wouldn't the AG be the lawyer for the states, not for the people?
It is the states that elect the president. By custom and state law they use popular vote to select the electors but President Trump was never elected by the people. No president is. He was elected by the 50 states plus DC.
John Henry
Freder Frederson said...
Actually, her client is the people of the United States of America. Not the president.
No, the AG represents the US Government. Strike One.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
No, the people of the United States of America are her employer and boss.
No the AG serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by the president at any time. Strike two. 0-2 You might want to choke up and hit to right.
Freder Frederson said...
Those would be the ones who elected President Trump.
So you are arguing, that a duly elected president can not do anything that is unlawful? Maybe you should move to Russia.
Oh, you swung for the fences. Strike three! Grab some bench.
I kind of see where your going with this and the analogy your reaching for. The President is not the Attorney General's client. The People of the United States are.
She didn't resign. She just refused to defend.
So, I'll repeat the question asked by the other poster: Should a public defender have the same choice of simply not defending a client?
There's long been a standard that a lawyer is supposed to defend their client, even if they disagree. If you wish to change those rules, man, indigent people are going to get FUCKED.
Where are you getting this language? She didn't try to "determine and enact public policy." She was refusing to follow an order that she thought might not be legal.
Ignoring that the law is clearly on his side. Her fired her, apparently, because she was too incompetent to read the law.
IMO Trump is still the one who will be under fire come tomorrow, not Sally Yates. How many protesters are there in Louisville streets tonight?
Drag a dollar through a trailer park and who knows what you'll get, amiright?
No, what's been concerning me is that events are slipping out of everyone's control.
Trump seems to be plowing through a checklist of his campaign promises. The Left seems to be losing its mind and losing control.
The Nerds at Slashdot are discussing rumored plans Trump has for making it more difficult to hire H1-B's. Like a lot of people, they understand the economics of immigration perfectly well when it affects their own employment situation, but get all weepy-eyed and sentimental about immigration when that immigration costs other people their livilihood.
It's funny because H-1B visas are supposed to ALREADY require an attempt to hire American first and that these are there in case there aren't enough citizens to do the job needed. That tech firms have abused it horribly --- while being lauded by the Left, mind you --- is hardly Trump's issue. They might want to read up on what H-1B visas were SUPPOSED to be for, not what they are used for now.
But I don't know about the ethics of her decision for sure, it never occurred to me there would be a difference.
Yes, a public defender who says "I cannot defend my murderer of a client" wouldn't have ethical problems to deal with.
Don't "agree with them?" What do you mean?
Exactly what I said.
She cannot point to a law Trump's order violated. Because no such law exists. She refused to defend because she DISAGREED with it.
So, how far does this right go? Do public defenders have the right to refuse to defend a client they simply do not agree with? The Left is saying an acting-AG has that specific right.
That said, if a lawyer truly felt he or she couldn't provide a good or even adequate defense to a defendant, due to some personal issue, perhaps, that lawyer has a responsibility to recuse him/herself so a lawyer better able to provide a defense can do so.
Yates refused to do so.
This is what a true executive does best. We've endured eight years of a drifting, unfocused, extra-judicial infant play acting as president. And I love watching the left implode. Schadenfreutastic!
Mike said...
This is what a true executive does best. We've endured eight years of a drifting, unfocused, extra-judicial infant play acting as president.
Daily Mail said...
An eight-year-old girl and a SEAL Team Six member were killed in Trump's first military raid as President, in which officials have said 'almost everything went wrong.' The raid also resulted in the death of several Yemeni women.
We just saw the opening campaign ads for the first female Governor of Georgia. Yates is anointed as the coming elite Dem from the elite Atlanta-DC Law Firm in Atlanta. King and Spalding Levies taxes rather than charge legal fees to their clients because they function as a quasi-governmental institution that represents most of the huge International Corporate players.
Robert Cook said...
"Jupiter...read carefully, read slowly, read for meaning.
I'm not talking about Trump firing Yates, I'm talking about Trump governing by fiat..."
Yeah, Cookie, you're talking about it. But it isn't happening. Obama is the one who took it upon himself to simply ignore the laws of the United States that he had sworn an oath to uphold. Trump's is simply exercising the powers granted him by those laws.
Jay Elink said:
First you could not BEGIN by making tendentious and unsupported statements.
Second, you could STOP pretending you are making good-faith and reasoned arguments in the first place.
Remorse sez: I haven't called anyone names or disrespected anyone for their personal beliefs. I make myself accountable for everything I say to any reasonable challenge, as I've shown here. I respect anyone who shows me respect regardless of their arguments. I don't know how much more good faith you want from me.
I think you take disagreement and argumentation personally.
Those who strut themselves most as independent lovers of "freedom from government" are often the most hungry for a dictator to act out their resentments, prejudices, and hatreds for them.
That, like so much of what Cook believes, is false. The people "most hungry for a dictator to act out their resentments, prejudices, and hatreds for them" are the patronizing inferiors on the left who believe that government officials know best.
I think you take disagreement and argumentation personally.
Which is so unusual here.
The Nerds at Slashdot are discussing rumored plans Trump has for making it more difficult to hire H1-B's.
I have a family member who used to work at Amazon and so a lot of Facebook friends who are from that world. Lots of misty-eyed reshares about Bezos' statement on the topic, etc and eye-dabbing about what a great guy he is and they're so honored to work for him. Took all my self control not to type in all caps ARE YOU A TOTAL MORON IT'S ABOUT IMPORTING HIS CHEAP TALENT YOU WORK THERE AND HAVE SEEN IT YOURSELF YOU UTTER CRETIN
Thing is, she didn't recuse herself. And, she didn't do it in a way that wouldn't harm her client. Her job at that point, and her legal ethics, required that she get out of the way, and let some Justice atty defend the US in court - otherwise, she was depriving Trump, and the US govt of legal representation. And mere belief that it is bad policy is not sufficient to get her off the hook, and justify her actions. If she had seriously believed that the order was illegal, she should have made the argument. But, of course, she couldn't. Trump didn't make up the list - rather it was mostly made by Congress, and augmented by Obama. It wasn't based on religion, and religion was nowhere mentioned in the order. So, Establishment Clause objections are just plain silly. Trump had express statutory authority to do precisely what he did, and the precedent of Obama having done the same thing while in office. Her refusal to let the DoJ represent the US govt, was unethical and selfishly political. She should be disciplined, but never will be, because, as usual, there are the two sets of rules - one for ruling progressive elites, and one for the rest of us.
Not tired of winning yet!
"betrayed" is such a telling word, not about law, but again the rant of the thin skinned egotist.
"betrayed" is such a telling word, not about law, but again the rant of the thin skinned egotist.
True, but he's still right on both the law and in firing grandstanding egotists that prioritize their political aspirations over their actual responsibilities.
This is so perfect as is that I really don't have to add anything, except the prediction that you won't see Trump taking credit, as Barack did with his "I killed Osama" wimp-machismo act, but you might see actual remorse when events beyond his control go sideways. Thank you for bringing up that issue, ARM. It really clarifies how lousy Obama was for all the people who didn't quite get that we are in brand new territory here.
AReasonableMan said...
Mike said...
This is what a true executive does best. We've endured eight years of a drifting, unfocused, extra-judicial infant play acting as president.
Daily Mail said...
An eight-year-old girl and a SEAL Team Six member were killed in Trump's first military raid as President, in which officials have said 'almost everything went wrong.' The raid also resulted in the death of several Yemeni women.
1/31/17, 7:42 AM
The ACLU apparently intends to sue because they argue it violates the establishment clause.
If true one must conclude the ACLU is staffed with some pretty shitty lawyers these days. Trump's order names countries. not religions. Furthermore, the Establishment Clause is addressed to the Congress, not the Executive.
ARM said...
"Daily Mail said...
An eight-year-old girl and a SEAL Team Six member were killed in Trump's first military raid as President, in which officials have said 'almost everything went wrong.' The raid also resulted in the death of several Yemeni women."
Ah welcome back anti-war protesters! We missed you slimy disrespectful pieces of shit. Hopefully after taking 8 years off you are charged up and ready to go!
Note that everything you say and do on this subject will just embarrass you after the deafening silence of the last 8 years. You people are transparent and depraved.
Mike said...
This is so perfect as is that I really don't have to add anything, except the prediction that you won't see Trump taking credit, as Barack did with his "I killed Osama" wimp-machismo act, but you might see actual remorse when events beyond his control go sideways. Thank you for bringing up that issue, ARM. It really clarifies how lousy Obama was for all the people who didn't quite get that we are in brand new territory here.
Pure undistilled delusion. Genuinely funny. What's your day job, licking the crabs out of Bannon's ass?
Here is the thing abou the difference between Obama letting classes into the country, and Trump excluding a class. First, and foremost, Trump's EO is supported by statute, and Obama's, in DACA, etc, was contrary. But, maybe more importantly, the President's oath of office is different than that required of anyone else in the govt. Presidents swear to protect the Constitution, which has long been taken to mean, the US, since, if the US falls, so does our Constitution. Defending the US is, thus, one of his most, if not the most, important duty. Which means that when he is defending the US, he is acting with his greatest power as the head of one of the three branches of govt. (see Youngstown Steel). He probably can't refuse admission into the US to someone who personally insulted him, based on that reason alone. But he does have plenary power to refuse entry to any one, or any class, who have been determined to pose a threat to the security of the US. And determining that is his call alone. Which is to say that he probably could have legally issued the EO, even if Congress had specifically denied him that power, instead of specifically granting it, like they did. Obama though was not acting at the height of his Presidential power because he was not acting to protect the US, by excluding those who potentially posed a danger to the country, but rather, just the opposite, suspending enforcement of US law on a class basis. Thus, a President is at his greatest in power when excluding a class of people, but not so when allowing entry by a class. (Pardon if the argument was a bit bumpy - it is a work in progress).
She should have just resigned. Her action makes DOJ appear more political than it is. Their job is to defend laws/ executive orders if they have a good faith basis to believe it is lawful. Not to set policy. Most DOJ lawyers understand that.
"Her action makes DOJ appear more political than it is."
-- Than it should be. All evidence points to this being how it is.
Remorse said...
Rasmussen is the outlier of the polls right now. So meh.
The election was the outlier of the pre-election polls. So meh.
My advice to you guys is to pace yourself. You don't want to tip over into irrevocable self-parody like Mike just did before we even get out of the second week. You have four years ahead of you defending this clown show. Take a deep breath, pick your battles. It's gonna be a long four years.
AReasonableMan said...
"An eight-year-old girl and a SEAL Team Six member were killed in Trump's first military raid as President, in which officials have said 'almost everything went wrong.' The raid also resulted in the death of several Yemeni women."
I'm sure it would all have turned out a lot better if we'd brought them to America and set them up with a Section 8 in Tulsa.
Pretty sure living in Tulsa still beats being dead.
… Bush/Cheney's war crimes.
A favorite phrase of the Left, poor shits. They wanted desperately to put these men on trial for something …
Problem #1: In order to have “crimes,” you have to have “laws.” In order to have “laws,” you must have some way to enforce those “laws.” If there is no enforcement, no police force, there is effectively and realistically no “law,” and no “crime.” They become flimsy fictions incorrectly thought to be relevant which are endlessly and meaninglessly cited by the Left.
I'm talking about Trump governing by fiat, writing executive orders …
Just like you objected to Obama doing the same … oh, wait …
It's funny because H-1B visas are supposed to ALREADY require an attempt to hire American first … They might want to read up on what H-1B visas were SUPPOSED to be for, not what they are used for now.
H-1b hires are a legal boondoggle used by silicon valley types to hire cheap foreign technical workers at far lower salaries than would be required to hire an American, period, end of statement. It is long past the time that this law should be repealed.
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
"My advice to you guys is to pace yourself. You don't want to tip over into irrevocable self-parody like Mike just did before we even get out of the second week. You have four years ahead of you defending this clown show. Take a deep breath, pick your battles. It's gonna be a long four years."
The only clowns here are you. You want to guess on whether the dems win back the house or senate in 2018? I will. The republicans will strongly add to their majorities and approach 60 seats in the senate.
The womyns march was a failure. The EO trump wrote was explicitly lawful, extremely limited in nature, and supported by more than half the country. What's more is it did things democrats have already done. You are a minority of hypocrites and losers.
Mike said...
Plenty more chickenhawk braggadocio
One small problem, not a single direct quote from Obama in either link. Emotional instability does not lead to insight grasshopper.
"...you might see actual remorse when events beyond his control go sideways."
Trump? Remorse?
Hahahaha! It is to laugh!
A stone can't bleed and Trump can't feel remorse.
Achilles said...
The only clowns here are you.
Sad.
"Just like you objected to Obama doing the same … oh, wait …"
Yes, in fact, I did. I object to the use of executive orders by Presidents in general.
Also...are you under the delusion that I approved of Obama's presidency? He was a war criminal along with his predecessors, and he betrayed all those who voted for him, thinking he would help the people, when he was--first, last, and always--a devoted servant of the ruling elites who put him in office.
I am not. I enjoy watching you display your hypocrisy and depravity for all to see. Everything you have posted here has been obliterated logically as well as morally and you have embarrassed yourself.
Now go update your profile with a pussy hat photo.
"You people are...depraved."
Mmmm, yes. As opposed to you, who, it seems, does not object to the deaths of innocents in Yemen, or in our war of terror in the Middle East in general.
"Everything you have posted here has been obliterated logically as well as morally and you have embarrassed yourself."
Heh. If it pleases you to think so.
Mmmm, yes. As opposed to you, who, it seems, does not object to the deaths of innocents in Yemen, or in our war of terror in the Middle East in general.
Cookie, on the other hand, prefers indifference to deaths in inner-city America, because for him, moral preening is the supreme value.
On the other hand, he's not indifferent to deaths caused by governments that he lauds as legitimately "leftist". Those he wholeheartedly endorses.
AReasonableMan said...
"Pretty sure living in Tulsa still beats being dead."
When I suggested, ARM, that killing the Muslim assholes in Yemen would be better than bringing them here, I meant "better for us", not "better for them". I suppose that, given your sympathies, your confusion on that point is only natural. If it upsets you, as I suppose it might, to be included in "us", I'll be happy to regard you as one of them. In fact ...
Jupiter said...
I meant
Probably should write what you 'mean' next time rather than provide a long winded post hoc analysis.
AReasonableMan said...
"Probably should write what you 'mean' next time rather than provide a long winded post hoc analysis."
OK, what I mean is, your pose as "A Reasonable Man" is bullshit. A Reasonable Muslim would think that handing Tulsa over to Muslims was a step in the right direction. A Reasonable American would think otherwise. Reason does not come into it. When interests are in conflict, you cannot reason your way to a solution. You can fight for your side, or you can succumb. Or, if your circumstances allow, you can pretend to be above it all, while your betters do the fighting. You remind me of Frost's description of a Liberal as "a man too high-minded to take his own side in a quarrel".
Seen on facebook.
“This is the surreal and painful truth: if Hillary had won there’s a very good chance she’d be bombing Syrians and Yemenis, rather than simply denying them visas, and no one would have protested.”
The left is depraved.
ARM: "Emotional instability does not lead to insight grasshopper."
Trust ARM on that one. He speaks from personal experience with his own demons.
Robert Cook:
when [Obama] was--first, last, and always--a devoted servant of the ruling elites who put him in office.
1/31/17, 9:10 AM
Question: by comparison, which if any elites put President Trump in office?
Please try to differentiate those who merely supported him, from those whom you think were indispensable to his victory, and who may now pull his strings.
Robert Cook: "(Don't you think "LOL" is adolescent? That's what I always think when I see it.)"
LOL
I'm sure it looks that way to you as you stand on the mass graves of tens of millions extolling all the virtues and principles of the political systems that dug and filled those graves.
But hey, we get it.
Next time you'll get it right, for sure!
AReasonableMan said...
"An eight-year-old girl and a SEAL Team Six member were killed in Trump's first military raid as President, in which officials have said 'almost everything went wrong.' The raid also resulted in the death of several Yemeni women."
What if any meaning do you take from this tragic occurrence? Besides using it as a blunt object to try to hurt people with? Do you have any further info on this raid?
"“This is the surreal and painful truth: if Hillary had won there’s a very good chance she’d be bombing Syrians and Yemenis, rather than simply denying them visas, and no one would have protested.”
That is probably true, and an important reason why Hillary also was unfit to be President. Her followers are as unthinking as Trumps's, (as any thinking person could not favor, vote for, or support either of them).
In that sense, perhaps it is better that Trump is president, as he may arouse the public's opposition where Hillary probably would not have.
Robert Cook said...
Mmmm, yes. As opposed to you, who, it seems, does not object to the deaths of innocents in Yemen, or in our war of terror in the Middle East in general.
Since 2003? A thousandish people have been killed by drone strikes in Yemen over the last few decades. No decent reasonable estimate puts civilian deaths much over 150,000. Many of those were caused by terrorists executing locals or direct acts of terrorism by disgusting evil thugs. Thugs we were fighting.
Meanwhile in a much shorter time frame after the US pulled out Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Syria in the last few years. Hundreds of Thousands of Yazidis and Christians have been masacred. There is a humanitarian disaster displacing millions of people from their homes in the ME to Europe.
You just choose to live in a fantasy world where you aren't responsible for anything. You truly lead a worthless and completely unmentionable existence where you stand for nothing and really have no soul.
Bad Lieutenant: "What if any meaning do you take from this tragic occurrence? Besides using it as a blunt object to try to hurt people with? Do you have any further info on this raid?"
We'll have to wait for our resident military and National Security expert Field Marshall Freder to chime in to know for sure.
Achilles: "Since 2003? A thousandish people have been killed by drone strikes in Yemen over the last few decades. No decent reasonable estimate puts civilian deaths much over 150,000."
Poor Cookie is so thoroughly invested in Gary Sick driven conspiracy theories and hilariously false Lancet studies amongst others that he can't think straight.
Quick note for li'l bobbie cook: "Reds" was just a movie, not an instructional video.
"Since 2003? A thousandish people have been killed by drone strikes in Yemen over the last few decades. No decent reasonable estimate puts civilian deaths much over 150,000. Many of those were caused by terrorists executing locals or direct acts of terrorism by disgusting evil thugs. Thugs we were fighting."
So what's a "thousandish" deaths in Yemen, or "150,000"? Heck, we went batshit crazy as a nation because 3000 innocents were killed here 15 years ago. How do you think we'd react if we suffered "only" 150,000? We'd have glassed over the region with nukes.
As for the thugs you allege are responsible for most of the civilian deaths--and you forget the millions rendered homeless in Iraq, and the many others across the middle east who are refugees because of our military violence there--we have also allied ourselves with them when it suited our purposes, and allowed them at other times to operate with little interference.
Heck, we went batshit crazy as a nation because 3000 innocents were killed here 15 years ago.
Robert Cook's inhumanity, demonstrated in a single sentence.
Remorse said...
Now you may disagree but I think everyone on all sides are wondering how soon before they impeach him. I don't think it's totally focused in their minds but a little more than the day he took office.
1/30/17, 11:03 PM
You keep saying stuff like this BUT...
a) I was not a Trump fan. He was my second to last choice. I was a "anyone but Hillary" voter and by far, not the only one.
b) Between election day and inauguration day, the left went out of their way to show me how much I made the right choice with their very public and very wild melt-down.
c) In the short time that Trump has actually been President, he has done (and done fast) things he said he would do. He has been demonstrating that he meant what he said.
How are any of these things "failures" that will cause him to be pushed out of office? He has "done" nothing that is against the law (not nearly so against the law as the most recent former President). Who is "turning against him" other than folks that were already against him? This is the "chick fil a" boycott writ large! All those crying, were already against him.
Have a nice day!
RC: How do you think we'd react if we suffered "only" 150,000? We'd have glassed over the region with nukes.
At that point would you be telling us that more people die in bathtubs and that we shouldn't do anything?
Traditionally -in prehistory I guess - those in government who disagreed with the policy of that government resigned "in protest". It was considered the honorable thing to do. Very few in government today have any concept of what "honor" means. In the continental European armies an officer who acted as Yates did would have been handed a pistol and expected to do the right thing.
"At that point would you be telling us that more people die in bathtubs and that we shouldn't do anything?"
You insist on missing the point.
When we kill innocent civilians--even when it is acknowledged their numbers are in the thousands--well, it's just a mistake, shit happens, what does anyone have to be so upset about? However, if thousands of our innocent civilians are killed, we go crazy.
Well, they have as much reason to go crazy, to hate us, to see us as the bad guys, as do we to those who kill innocent Americans.
Unfortunately, this equation seems like incomprehensible higher calculus for most Americans.
Robert Cook said...
You insist on missing the point.
When we kill innocent civilians--even when it is acknowledged their numbers are in the thousands--well, it's just a mistake, shit happens, what does anyone have to be so upset about? However, if thousands of our innocent civilians are killed, we go crazy.
You insist on missing the point.
We try to not kill innocent civilians and life is generally better for innocents when we are around.
Other countries wipe out orders of magnitude more civilians than we do and cause massive dislocations. Our enemies deliberately kill civilians to fuel douchebags like you. You ignore that because you are a jackass. You would also be the first person they behead right after you tell them how awesome they are for standing up to the US.
Remorse, you think you've been respectful because you haven't called anyone names?
Remorse said: "I'm certainly not qualified (and never said I was or made a judgement) to determine if Trump OR Sally Yates the Acting Attorney General have acted legally in fulfilling their parts in this American drama.
"But given the behaviors of our incompetent President and his inner circle the presumption for me has to be that he is going to be held accountable for his actions and his executive orders. Yates will probably be feted as a defender of American principles who played her role honorably."
So in your first paragraph you admit that you don't know enough to tell who is in the right here; hey, Trump or Yates could be right. Then your very next statement is to declare (with no evidence offered) that in fact you do know, and Trump is incompetent and Yates is totally right.
Does disingenuousness count as disrespect?
Does disingenuousness count as disrespect?
I'm being respectful to people who are respectfully debating here. My presumption is a person is worthy of my respect regardless of their opinions until they show by their behaviors they aren't.
If expressing my opinion - and I made it clear that's exactly what it was - makes you feel 'disrespected' by me, then you're a bit of a snowflake.
"We try to not kill innocent civilians and life is generally better for innocents when we are around."
I guess that's one opinion. I don't think the victims' families and neighbors and countrymen see this fine distinction, assuming it's even true. (Our history in Vietnam undermines any confidence in our "good" intentions.)
If expressing my opinion - and I made it clear that's exactly what it was - makes you feel 'disrespected' by me, then you're a bit of a snowflake.
There are respectable opinions informed by facts and supported by coherent arguments, and then there are "I don't know shit, but here is my opinion" opinions.
Being respectful means, among other things, not insulting the intelligence of your readers.
I don't think the victims' families and neighbors and countrymen see this fine distinction
Probably not, but what actually matters is that people who are decent and objective see the distinction. I'm sure you don't.
Being respectful means, among other things, not insulting the intelligence of your readers.
Evidently having a different opinion than you do = "insulting the intelligence of your readers." I get that.
Cook: You insist on missing the point.
When we kill innocent civilians--even when it is acknowledged their numbers are in the thousands--well, it's just a mistake, shit happens, what does anyone have to be so upset about? However, if thousands of our innocent civilians are killed, we go crazy.
One can't "miss" a point that isn't there. You wanna condemn American foreign policy? Fine. I probably agree with most of your complaints about "our" ME policies. But apparently you think this is some kind of weird, karma-equilibrating tit-for-tat game. Our lovable super-duper-expert ruling class sets the ME on fire, therefore, it's "hypocritical" or "missing the point" for Joe and Jill 'Murican to make a fuss if their kith and kin get shot up or blown to pieces. "Hey, our long-entrenched governing caste uniparty fucked up their countries, so it's only fair we let our country get all fucked up, too."
That's the logic you've got on display here. It's fallacious, and I'm sure you'll insist this isn't your point, but if it isn't, you don't have any point at all.
And by the way, that "shit happens" describes Joe's and Jill's attitude is pure nasty conjecture on your part.
Quaestor: Being respectful means, among other things, not insulting the intelligence of your readers.
Quaest, you are attempting to argue with Remorse in the sense of "to argue" that means "to engage in rational debate". For Remorse, "to argue" means "Brownian motion in a field of feelz, slogans, and talking points".
I submit that Remorse isn't deliberately insulting anyone's intelligence.
For Angel-Dyne ""to engage in rational debate" = trolling.
"But apparently you think this is some kind of weird, karma-equilibrating tit-for-tat game. Our lovable super-duper-expert ruling class sets the ME on fire, therefore, it's "hypocritical" or "missing the point" for Joe and Jill 'Murican to make a fuss if their kith and kin get shot up or blown to pieces. 'Hey, our long-entrenched governing caste uniparty fucked up their countries, so it's only fair we let our country get all fucked up, too.'"
Well, you're not missing the point, you're inventing a point I never made.
My point is that America--and Americans--refuse to see or cannot see our own profit- and power-seeking violence in the world. The ruling elites are aware of it as they are its drivers, and they justify their predation and violence with sugary homilies about our being the "essential nation," the "city on the hill," that Americans are all to eager to accept. Most Americans persist in believing we are well-intentioned, altruistic emissaries and soldiers of virtue, extending ourselves for the benefit of the world's victims. They don't see we are an empire, (the latest one, but not the last one, if human society survives long enough), and we act in the world to aggrandize our power and wealth, (all of which benefits the oligarchic rulers of America). This failure to understand our actual actions in the world leads to the anxiety and free-floating anger of Americans, their readiness to accept stateless terrorists as an existential threat greater than than ever known. If they understood they truth, perhaps they would be angry at our governors for their policies, and would demand a swift change.
As General Smedley Butler acknowledged in the early 20th Century, "War is a racket." As Butler put it in the 1930s:
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
And so it is today.
When we kill innocent civilians--even when it is acknowledged their numbers are in the thousands--well, it's just a mistake, shit happens, what does anyone have to be so upset about? However, if thousands of our innocent civilians are killed, we go crazy.
This is the disgusting left boiled down to a primal murmur. We don't target civilians. In WWII there was all-out war and both sides targeted entire cities for desctruction. That was a different time and a different strategy. Since Korea, our military excursions have concentrated on active combatants, as hard as they are to identify sometimes. That's why Mi Lai was notable, it was an exception to these policies and tactics. When we kill civilians now it almost always a tragic mistake.
Contrast that with our enemies who deliberately target civilians like the aforementioned 3000+ killed on 9/11. Or just down the highway a bit is the San Bernardino Regional Center, which I drove by last Friday. Those were all civilians targeted by the two terrorists in 2015.
If we are killing for profit and power as you say, instead of to squash a menace of spreading evil, then I would expect to see results consistent with your thesis. Where's the profit in Iraq? What power did we acquire? What does ISIS have that we want, Cook?
You don't have an answer because you're wrong. You don't know how a "profit" is made and you can't see the value of a stable peaceful world. We kept the peace in Europe longer after WWII than it has been for all of history. That happened because we won the war but did not take treasure or tribute in return. Instead we gave them peace and they thrived.
Geez if I'd known Cook was stuck at the turn of the 20th century I wouldn't have wasted my time responding. Dude, if you are fighting the oppression of 100 years ago, you are lost. Find an adult and ask them to take you somewhere safe.
@Robert Cook Our history regarding civilian deaths in Viet Nam is probably better than the Viet Namese themselves. A little brush up on what the NVA and Viet Cong visited on the civilian population of Hue (and other population centers) during Tet in '68 would remind you quickly of who did the most civilian harm there. Here's a place for you to start: http://ngothelinh.tripod.com/Hue.html
Note that the civilian death toll headlined here is 7600.
Dude, if you are fighting the oppression of 100 years ago, you are lost.
Cook's not about fighting any oppression - he's about convincing himself of his own superiority by desperately believing the most grotesque and absurd slanders about people that are vastly better human beings than he can even perceive, never mind emulate.
Because members of the government view themselves (and in fact have been) an arm of the Democrat party. Which the civil service system was supposed to prevent...
Robert Cook said...
"Most Americans persist in believing we are well-intentioned, altruistic emissaries and soldiers of virtue, extending ourselves for the benefit of the world's victims. They don't see we are an empire, (the latest one, but not the last one, if human society survives long enough), and we act in the world to aggrandize our power and wealth, (all of which benefits the oligarchic rulers of America)."
Well, there is the fact that America is the only country that ever conquered Europe in order to give it back to the people it was stolen from. But I tend to agree with your analysis, especially the part about "not the last one". If you are clear-eyed enough to see that that there is always another empire waiting in the wings, why are you so determined to see the end of this one? Would you be happier if the ChiComs were running the show? You know, I assume, that what is going on in Chinese organ harvest death camps, and the North Korean prison state they protect and enable, is fully as bad as anything the Nazis ever did. Give 'em a decade or two. They just tested a system to deliver ten ICBMs simultaneously, using the technology Bill Clinton sold them for a few shekels to help him get re-elected. What's your hurry, Cookie? The future likely holds horrors the past could never imagine. Why so impatient?
Peak Acting Studios is an acting school, to provide kids, teens and adults with quality acting classes.
Source: http://www.peaktalentschoolofacting.com/workshops.html
Post a Comment