# Finally! The DNC grows some balls. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 9, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248 "2009-10-09T22:30:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/181 "2009-10-16T20:25:14Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > So you’re saying that he didn’t do a “terrorist fist bump” with his wife on national TV? He didn’t harbor “anti-white” sentiments? He didn’t attend a church led by a “racist” preacher who hated whitey? He didn’t want to institute “death panels”? > > The Anti-Liberal Squad will denounce ANYTHING Obama does. Le Duc Tho’s situation was pretty damn different from what Obama’s having to deal with. **Lightnin’** , I have invited everyone to give me one example of Obama (or any other politician) being abused for being too modest or for turning down an undeserved award. Nobody has brought up a single example. Not one. Funny, that … so until you do, I will say that the idea that Obama will be abused for being modest about his achievements to date is nonsense. Abused for many things, yes, some deserved and some not, some reasonable and some ridiculous. But ANYTHING? Not. That’s just propaganda from the Anti-Conservative Squad. (And while the “fist-bump” was puerile blather from the brain-dead, the Reverend Wright is racist. Explaining why he hadn’t talked to Obama after the sermon blew up in his face, Wright said _“Them Jews aren’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office.”_ Of course, when called on it, he explained it all … \* “Let me say like Hillary, I misspoke. Let me just say: Zionists… I’m not talking about all Jews, all people of the Jewish faith, I’m talking about Zionists."\* But then he apologized for that as well, saying _“I mis-spoke and I sincerely meant no harm or ill-will to the American Jewish community or the Obama administration… I have great respect for the Jewish faith and the foundational (and central) part of our Judeo-Christian tradition.”_ Now to me, black racism is much more understandable than white racism. However, it is still racism. But that’s a different thread.) ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/182 "2009-10-16T20:39:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > [QUOTE=intention] > … Nobel Peace Prize because Obama has visions? Sure, no problem… Illustrates my point perfectly. You are all about Holy Joe, how you refrain from lying and spin, then you pull crap like this with a straight face. Someone emphasizes that Obama has the admirable quality of “vision”, and you twist it to hallucination. You’re on our side? If we have bake sale and raise enough money for a bribe, will you consider switching? [/QUOTE] **elucidator** , that was not my meaning nor my aim at all. My writing was very poor and unclear, my bad. I meant visions of a better world, without Guantanamo, or war in Afghanistan, not religious visions. The other interpretation didn’t occur to me. My apologies for the misunderstanding. However, it is another example of killing the messenger. Too many Democrats seem to think that anyone who opposes something Obama has done should be drummed (or bribed) out of the Democratic Party … where’s the “big tent” when it is needed? I say again, Obama makes mistakes just like the rest of us. If we don’t clean up our own party’s mistakes, the Republicans will be more than happy to do it for us, and I guarantee that it won’t be pretty. But if you want to send me cookies, I’ll eat them, especially if you use the Toklas recipe, I’ll see if I can’t “twist it to hallucination” … ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/183 "2009-10-16T20:53:48Z")
> [@intention](#): > > **elucidator** , that was not my meaning nor my aim at all. My writing was very poor and unclear, my bad. I meant visions of a better world, without Guantanamo, or war in Afghanistan, not religious visions. The other interpretation didn’t occur to me. My apologies for the misunderstanding. > > However, it is another example of killing the messenger. Too many Democrats seem to think that anyone who opposes something Obama has done should be drummed (or bribed) out of the Democratic Party … where’s the “big tent” when it is needed? I say again, Obama makes mistakes just like the rest of us. If we don’t clean up our own party’s mistakes, the Republicans will be more than happy to do it for us, and I guarantee that it won’t be pretty. > > But if you want to send me cookies, I’ll eat them, especially if you use the Toklas recipe, I’ll see if I can’t “twist it to hallucination” … The Big Tent, with an elephant and everything, was the Republicans (at one time). In fact, there was a time when they liked, and promoted that image (meaning there was room for everyone, and room for differing opinions). We’ve seen how that turned out, during the “support our president or you’re helping terrorists” years. It seems that the “dissent = treason” outlook was perfectly fine with some people for ummmmm about 8 years. I don’t see many Dems saying “get out of the country” or anything like that. We were always at war with Oceania. We were never at war with Oceania. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/184 "2009-10-16T20:58:40Z")
Does anyone else here think Intention is a troll? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/185 "2009-10-16T21:04:05Z")
I think \*\*intention \*\*is someone who dares to question the anti-Reupblican orthodoxy on this MB, and is getting a pile-on for doing so. I don’t agree with his idea that Obama should decline the prize, but I understand where he is coming from and why he’s not particularly thrilled with the DNC’s statement. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/186 "2009-10-16T21:16:05Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Who said closing Guantanamo would be easy? Of course it won’t be. Having the vision of closing Guantanamo is easy. Actually doing it is quite hard. So we agree about that … but it seems you are missing the point. Generally, prizes are awarded for doing the hard stuff, not the easy stuff. When Obama does the hard stuff, he may deserve the prize. What is this, one of those demented American grade schools where you can’t give one kid a prize unless you give everyone a prize, because it might be bad for their self-esteem if someone wins and they don’t? (People in other countries might think I’m kidding … I assure you, I’m not.) This is where the actual disagreement occurs between you and the Nobel committee. They are pleased that he is taking the difficult step of closing the prison down. As has been said (even by Lech Walesa), this award was a indication that the folks at nobel appreciate the direction that Obama is going in. You would prefer that the award be given after the fact. Of course, another thought just occured to me (which is noteworthy as I’m only known to have one or two a day tops) that this was not just an “atta boy” to the president. It was in part a message to the american people that this is the sort of direction the rest of the world agrees with. An attempt to cut through some of the noise being generated by the nattering naybobs of negativity. Pure speculation on my part but something to chew on. > [@](#): > > And again we find ourselves basking in the presence of your awesomely poor reading skills. I never said anyone who disagrees with me thinks I’m allied with terrorists. That would be the DNC, which is hardly “everyone”. I never said everyone thinks Obama is perfect. I said that “many people” have shown here that they are disturbingly close to the Republican allegations that they see him as The Perfect One. I never said everyone is cheering prematurely. That would be you and some others on this thread, which again is hardly “everyone”. Not the fault of my awesomely poor reading skills. It’s alla them big words you done been throwin’ with yer liberal elitist disyllabic and polysyllabic words. Makes my poor brain justa start ta sizzle. All smartassery aside, I’d like you to point out a post of mine in this thread that comes across as Obama worship or premature cheering. > [@](#): > > This may come as a shock to you, but I don’t actually think Obama should climb a mountain. That would be poor comprehension on your part. It’s called an “example”, something which is given for illustrative purposes in order to assist someone in understanding … oh, never mind, I take it back. You can continue to believe I said Obama should climb a mountain. I know when I’m beaten, some mountains are just too hard to climb. And I’d rather that neither I nor Obama climb a mountain, so I agree with you, it’s all OK, nothing to see here folks, move along … Turns out that whooshing sound wasn’t just the wind over the majestic peaks of the himalayas. May have been the wind between my ears, or the wind beneath Bette Midler’s wings. > [@](#): > > And yes, I know that (as you point out) real world limitations mean that hard things take time to accomplish. I know that Obama can’t end a war right now, or close Guantanamo overnight, or do any one of a number of difficult real-world things immediately on the spot, like win a Nobel Peace Prize, or … oh, wait … > > I would be more encouraged, however, if he were winding the war in Afghanistan down rather than gearing it up, and reducing Bush’s government spying rather than extending it, and prosecuting past torture rather than ignoring it. And before you say it, yes, those are hard things to accomplish too … that’s why historically we have given prizes for doing them rather than for having a “vision” about doing them. And on this, you and the nobel committee have a disagreement. Not something that renders the award meaningless. The award was given as an encouragement. As for your points regarding Afghanistan, wiretapping, and prosecuting torture, I think **Punoqllads** explained the logic behind those rather well. You may disagree with the reasoning behind it, but that’s not been addressed and I would so hate to argue prematurely. I’m still having problems with the cheering and all. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/187 "2009-10-16T21:20:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think \*\*intention \*\*is someone who dares to question the anti-Reupblican orthodoxy on this MB, and is getting a pile-on for doing so. I don’t agree with his idea that Obama should decline the prize, but I understand where he is coming from and why he’s not particularly thrilled with the DNC’s statement. For my part, I have little problem with his views. I only take objection to the way he is stating them. There is a difference between “I don’t feel Obama should have accepted the award” and “Obama is a thief and this renders the NPP entirely meaningless.” It’s possible that he’s knee jerking as a result of offense taken to the DNC’s statement, but as of yet he has not indicated such. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/188 "2009-10-16T22:13:12Z")
Where did he say Obama was a “thief”? ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/189 "2009-10-16T23:10:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think \*\*intention \*\*is someone who dares to question the anti-Reupblican orthodoxy on this MB, and is getting a pile-on for doing so. I don’t agree with his idea that Obama should decline the prize, but I understand where he is coming from and why he’s not particularly thrilled with the DNC’s statement. The DNC’s statement deserves condemnation. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/190 "2009-10-16T23:57:41Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > … All smartassery aside, I’d like you to point out a post of mine in this thread that comes across as Obama worship or premature cheering. … Since I neither said nor implied that you were the one who worships Obama, I find your sensitivity on this point quite interesting. Regarding premature cheering, unless I misread the tea leaves, you think he deserves a Nobel Prize for something that he has not yet done. I call that “premature cheering”, as in cheering someone for an accomplishment that hasn’t occurred. Perhaps my meaning was not clear, that’s been going 'round lately … ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/191 "2009-10-17T00:02:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Where did he say Obama was a “thief”? I said he was stealing the prize from those who actually deserved it, back a few pages. Probably over the top, I know … but hey, call me crazy, I do think the guy who actually climbs the mountain should the mountain-climbing prize. Not the guy who came up with the idea of climbing the mountain. Not the guy who laid out the route. Not the doctor who stayed at Campground 4 while the climber went to the top. The one who actually stood on the summit deserves the prize. If the guy who said “I have a vision, that we could climb Everest” accepts the prize, to me he’s stealing it from the man or woman who should have gotten it. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/192 "2009-10-17T00:05:58Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > For my part, I have little problem with his views. I only take objection to the way he is stating them. There is a difference between “I don’t feel Obama should have accepted the award” and “Obama is a thief and this renders the NPP entirely meaningless.” It’s possible that he’s knee jerking as a result of offense taken to the DNC’s statement, but as of yet he has not indicated such. I said it greatly diminishes the Peace Prize (or something like that, I can’t be arsed to look up my exact words right now), and in this case, I do think it is a meaningless accolade. I find it hugely ironic that the immediate effect of this “Peace” prize has been to divide the world into warring camps … which should tell people something right ther. And yes, my response was, to some extent, a knee-jerk reaction to the DNC’s statement. I don’t like being equated with terrorists, particularly by my own party. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/193 "2009-10-17T00:14:39Z")
> [@intention](#): > > I said he was stealing the prize from those who actually deserved it, back a few pages. Probably over the top, I know … but hey, call me crazy, I do think the guy who actually climbs the mountain should the mountain-climbing prize. > > Not the guy who came up with the idea of climbing the mountain. Not the guy who laid out the route. Not the doctor who stayed at Campground 4 while the climber went to the top. The one who actually stood on the summit deserves the prize. If the guy who said “I have a vision, that we could climb Everest” accepts the prize, to me he’s stealing it from the man or woman who should have gotten it. If he had actively pursued such an outcome, you would have a case. My two bits, if he had any hint this was about to happen, he would have been on the horn to the US ambassador to Norway _toot damn sweet_, begging for a diplomatic way to put the quiet kibosh down. He’s a long-tailed cat in a room full of stainless steel rocking chairs, and this shit he does not need. And the man I voted for is smart enough to know that. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/194 "2009-10-17T00:41:13Z")
> [@intention](#): > > And yes, my response was, to some extent, a knee-jerk reaction to the DNC’s statement. I don’t like being equated with terrorists, particularly by my own party. If it’s any consolation, I believe the spokesman was specifically referring to a statement that Rush Limbaugh made: > [@](#): > > Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn’t deserve the award. Now that’s hilarious, that I’m on the same side of something that the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban. The White House and the Democratic Party have been pushing the meme that Limbaugh is the chief spokesman for the Republican Party, and I believe the statement was in that vein. They weren’t saying that everyone who believes that a more worthy candidate should have won was allying themselves with terrorists, but that the Republican Party did so explicitly. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/195 "2009-10-17T01:10:39Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > … > > And on this, you and the nobel committee have a disagreement. Not something that renders the award meaningless. The award was given as an encouragement. That’s not a disagreement between me and the Committee. It is a disagreement between the Committee and Alfred Nobel’s will, which they are ignoring. Nobel said the money and the prize were for people who have done things. Not to encourage people to do things. Which is why, as I said, that the Prize has lost its lustre. > [@Harborwolf](#): > > As for your points regarding Afghanistan, wiretapping, and prosecuting torture, I think **Punoqllads** explained the logic behind those rather well. You may disagree with the reasoning behind it, but that’s not been addressed and I would so hate to argue prematurely. I’m still having problems with the cheering and all. Sorry, I missed **Punoqllads** explanation. **Punoqllads** , thanks for taking the time to defend them. Let me take them point by point. He said: [QUOTE=Punoqllads] The Guantanamo prison can only be shut down once we determine an appropriate place to move the prisoners and setting up the logistical apparatus to safely transport them. There’s a lot of inertia involved and everyone in the current and previous administration have been saying for a while that it’s not a simple process. Still, Obama’s administration is still moving forward in the process and still have the end of the year as the goal for the jail shutdown, even though they’re saying that it will be tight. [/quote] But … but … but that is exactly my point! That’s what I’ve been saying all along. It is easy to envision this stuff and hard to accomplish it. You say in effect ‘Just wait, he’ll do it’. And in response I can only say ‘OK, you’re right, so we’ll just wait, and we’ll give him the plaudits when he’s done it.’ Which is why Nobel offered the prizes for people who have accomplished something. And it is also why the cheering is premature. [QUOTE=Punoqllads] Continuing Bush’s spying ways – I’m not familiar with any plan to continue using warrantless wiretaps. The Department of Justice has asked for some lawsuits regarding warrantless wiretaps to be dismissed because they say there are state secrets that would need to be revealed in the discovery phase of the trial, which they say would cause harm to national security. They also say that there are also some constitutional issues regarding legal interactions between the executive and judicial branches of government – there might be some unintended harmful side effects from the precedent if this lawsuit moved forward. Now, I’m no lawyer, so I don’t know the merit of these arguments, but I’m fine with the executive branch putting such arguments up against those of the EFF’s lawyers and letting a judge decide. But, again, all that I have seen or heard from the administration is that they have shut down the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program. [/quote] Nope, the issue is not state secrets in the discovery phase of this trial, you have totally misunderstood the issue. It is about whether the government can issue a warrantless wiretap. From [Slate](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/obama-stands-behind-state-secrets-in-spy-case/) (emphasis mine) > [@](#): > > Hours after the Justice Department announced it would limit its use of the state secrets privilege in new cases, the administration appeared before a federal judge here Wednesday and continued to invoke that defense in a closely watched spy case. > > The litigation at issue, now five years old, tests whether a sitting president may bypass Congress and adopt a warrantless surveillance program, as President Bush did in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks. > > “We need to protect information concerning the manner and methods by which we seek to detect and prevent a terrorist attack,” Justice Department special counsel Anthony Coppolino said Wednesday while arguing to a federal judge to dismiss the case on the basis of state secrets. In other words, we need secret warrantless wiretaps. Here is Eric Holder, Obama’s pick for Attorney General: > [@](#): > > Attorney General Eric Holder testified on Capitol Hill Wednesday and refused to declare President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program to be illegal. Holder was repeatedly questioned by Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. > > Sen. Russ Feingold: “Now that you’re the attorney general, is there any doubt in your mind that the warrantless wiretapping program was illegal?” > > Eric Holder: “Well, I think that the warrantless wiretapping program, as it existed at that point, was certainly unwise, in that it was put together without the approval of Congress.” > > Sen. Feingold: “But I asked you, Mr. Attorney General, not whether it was unwise, but whether you consider it to have been illegal.” > > Holder: “The policy was an unwise one, and I think that the concerns that I expressed then have really been remedied by the fact that Congress has now authorized the program.” > > Sen. Feingold: “But did you think it was illegal?” > > Holder: “Well, I thought that, as a I said, it was inconsistent with the FISA statute and unwise as a matter of policy.” Fookin’ weasel, but obviously Holder doesn’t think it was illegal … and you seriously believe Obama has renounced warrantless wiretapping??? Puh-lease … Note that the issue is not state secrets. It is whether a president can bypass Congress and adopt a warrantless surveillance program. But hey, don’t worry, Holder says they won’t abuse the privilege, viz: > [@](#): > > Attorney General Eric Holder announced Wednesday that, under new guidelines for the Obama administration, the government would only invoke the privilege when there’s a possibility of “significant harm” to the country, and won’t use it to hide embarrassing or illegal government programs. Holder did not say whether the Bush administration cases it is now defending, including Wednesday’s case, comport with the government’s new philosophy. Gosh, that makes me feel much better, Holder is protecting us. And of course, when the next Bushalike comes to power and Obama has made warrantless wiretapping established law, who will protect us then? Quick, give Holder a Nobel Peace Prize to encourage him to protect us forever … See also the discussion of the [EFF’s case](http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush) here. The money quote is: > [@](#): > > Sad as that is, it’s the Department Of Justice’s second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes. Great. Not only can they do it, but if we find out, Obama says we can’t do a damn thing about it. Peace Prize for that? No problem, it is to encourage him to do better next time. In addition, in 2008 then-Senator Obama voted for the warrantless wiretaps (the FISA Act), as well as for immunity for the telecoms that gave the information to Bush. But here is Obama on the campaign trail … > [@](#): > > For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and “wiretaps without warrants,” he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans’ phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.) > > It’s hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities. > > In our own Technology Voters’ Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: “No.” That’s why having “vision” is not enough. He had the vision of no warrantless wiretaps … until he became President. But now they’re all right, and Holder says they’re not illegal, and Obama says even if they are illegal, too bad, we have no recourse. And that deserves the Peace Prize … how? [QUOTE=Punoqllads] As far as advising Holder to not initiate prosecutions of those implementing the previous administration’s “enhanced interrogation” techniques, i.e., what many people feel is torture, I disagree with him on this point. But I can understand the viewpoint that these people were given legal arguments as to why these techniques would not actually be illegal under US law, and that proceeding might cause chilling effects on future actions by soldiers, having to second-guess legal advice handed to them by government lawyers without themselves having the benefit of 8-plus years of study of US law. I’m hopeful that the lawyers who actually issued those legal opinions are brought to task, and I haven’t heard him come out against investigating legal actions against that set of people. [/QUOTE] You have this one totally backwards. Obama has said a number of times that he doesn’t want legal action taken against the people at the top. Not the sergeants and corporals. He doesn’t want to try the people at the top. As a result, Holder is reduced to investigating low-level flunkies who went outside the Bush guidelines, the ones that you say should not be prosecuted, and letting the big boys walk. The worst part of this misguided course of action is that this enshrines the despicable idea that the only illegality was going outside the Bush guidelines. This, of course, means it is legal for the President to set the guidelines on what is and what is not torture. I find that stance morally repugnant, that is not and should never be a Presidential power, but you think that it deserves the Nobel Peace Prize … how? [QUOTE=Punoqllads] Finally, regarding the military action in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, I think it’s pretty clear that the Taliban, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, have little regard for human rights and little desire for peaceful relations with moderate governments. They also have military-grade weaponry and the skill and desire to use them to further their goals. And throughout his campaign, Obama made it quite clear that he felt the war in Afghanistan was justified and that he intended to reduce our military forces in Iraq precisely because he felt we needed a stronger presence in Afghanistan to finish the job. [/QUOTE] So if you ramp up and fight a terrible unjustifiable war like Bush did, a war against against somebody with little regard for human rights and “military-grade weaponry and the skill and desire to use them”, that’s terrible and you deserve ostracism by all right-minded people. But on the other hand, if you ramp up and fight a justified war as Obama is doing, a noble war against somebody with little regard for human rights and “military-grade weaponry and the skill and desire to use them”, then you are a great guy and you deserve the Nobel Peace Prize … how? Seriously, guys, you need to take a hard look at what is actually happening to our Democratic Party and our country. Not the dream, not the vision, not the Holder “I won’t answer” myopic view, but what is actually happening. We’ve become the war party in Afghanistan, the “we won’t prosecute torture” party in the courts, the “no habeas corpus” party in Baghram, the “we’re going to close Guantanamo someday soon and send the prisoners to Baghram” party in Cuba, the spying party in the US … And that deserves a Nobel Peace Prize … how??? And, of course, I’m the bad guy who should be bribed to leave the Party for pointing these things out … ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/196 "2009-10-17T01:24:47Z")
> [@intention](#): > > I said it greatly diminishes the Peace Prize (or something like that, I can’t be arsed to look up my exact words right now), and in this case, I do think it is a meaningless accolade. I find it hugely ironic that the immediate effect of this “Peace” prize has been to divide the world into warring camps … which should tell people something right ther. Well, that’s definitely over the top. I certainly wouldn’t describe the situation as two “waring camps”. People disagree, sometimes vigorously, but this is just a blip on the radar screen. > [@](#): > > And yes, my response was, to some extent, a knee-jerk reaction to the DNC’s statement. I don’t like being equated with terrorists, particularly by my own party. I understand that. I fully understand where you think their statement isn’t helpful. I think a lot of people on this MB don’t distinguish between gestures that make them feel good, and gestures that actually accomplish something. The Republicans have turned off many of the independents and swing voters with their vicious rhetoric. The Dems shouldn’t follow suit. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/197 "2009-10-17T02:50:48Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Since I neither said nor implied that you were the one who worships Obama, I find your sensitivity on this point quite interesting. I can’t help it. I do have a feeling. You could say I’m hooked on it. > [@](#): > > Regarding premature cheering, unless I misread the tea leaves, you think he deserves a Nobel Prize for something that he has not yet done. I call that “premature cheering”, as in cheering someone for an accomplishment that hasn’t occurred. Perhaps my meaning was not clear, that’s been going 'round lately … Never said he deserved it. I think the rationale expressed by the committee makes a certain sense. Next time read posts instead of tea leaves. > [@intention](#): > > I said it greatly diminishes the Peace Prize (or something like that, I can’t be arsed to look up my exact words right now), and in this case, I do think it is a meaningless accolade. I find it hugely ironic that the immediate effect of this “Peace” prize has been to divide the world into warring camps … which should tell people something right ther. Can’t be arsed to go back to page one on a message board? Bad enough you barely read the posts of others. You can’t even bother to read your own. And “warring camps” is another in a string of ridiculous overstatements on your part. What warring camps? I think “strong disagreement” would be overstating it, and that’s not even mentioning that a fair chunk of one of these “warring camps” would be arguing if Obama proclaimed that water could leave one feeling damp. > [@](#): > > And yes, my response was, to some extent, a knee-jerk reaction to the DNC’s statement. I don’t like being equated with terrorists, particularly by my own party. As I said in my first post in this thread, I do enjoy to a certain extent the republicans being hoisted by their own overly accusing petards with regards to being in cahoots with terrorists. I do not like the continuing degradation of the political conversation taking place in this great nation that results from these allegations (I know that sentence reads silly, but it makes more sense if you hear it coming from Jesse Jackson), which of course the possibly endless stream of hyperbolic vitriol clattering forth from your keyboard is a part of. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/198 "2009-10-17T02:59:23Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > … Never said he deserved it. I think the rationale expressed by the committee makes a certain sense. Next time read posts instead of tea leaves. … “The rationale expressed by the committee makes a certain sense”? What, you’ve been taking evasion lessons from Eric Holder? Just answer the question – do you think he deserves the Nobel Prize or not? It’s not a complex question, a simple yes or no will do, ignore the “rationale expressed”. I think you do, but you might surprise me. [QUOTE=Harborwolf] And “warring camps” is another in a string of ridiculous overstatements on your part. What warring camps? I think “strong disagreement” would be overstating it, and that’s not even mentioning that a fair chunk of one of these “warring camps” would be arguing if Obama proclaimed that water could leave one feeling damp.As I said in my first post in this thread, I do enjoy to a certain extent the republicans being hoisted by their own overly accusing petards with regards to being in cahoots with terrorists. I do not like the continuing degradation of the political conversation taking place in this great nation that results from these allegations (I know that sentence reads silly, but it makes more sense if you hear it coming from Jesse Jackson), which of course the possibly endless stream of hyperbolic vitriol clattering forth from your keyboard is a part of. [/QUOTE] I’d say that “warring camps” exactly describes what is happening here in this thread, unless you think that “endless stream of hyperbolic vitriol” is some term of endearment. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/199 "2009-10-17T03:09:31Z")
> [@intention](#): > > “The rationale expressed by the committee makes a certain sense”? What, you’ve been taking evasion lessons from Eric Holder? > > Just answer the question – do you think he deserves the Nobel Prize or not? It’s not a complex question, a simple yes or no will do, ignore the “rationale expressed”. I think you do, but you might surprise me. To be blunt, I could give a crap. To be more reasonable, I was surprised that Obama won the peace prize. I have my doubts as to whether or not he was the best person for it but having read the explanation I can see where the folks at Nobel were coming from. [If it helps, I come from the Neutral planet](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ussCHoQttyQ). > [@](#): > > I’d say that “warring camps” exactly describes what is happening here in this thread, unless you think that “endless stream of hyperbolic vitriol” is some term of endearment. As I’ve said repeatedly, I’ve no issue with the essence of your disagreement. Merely the tone of your response. Not sure what camp that puts me in in your little war. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2009, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248/200 "2009-10-17T03:23:21Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > … Can’t be arsed to go back to page one on a message board? Bad enough you barely read the posts of others. You can’t even bother to read your own. … I didn’t think the exact wording was an important enough issue to waste my time looking up. If you think it’s so crucial, then do your own work and look it up yourself. Or not. But don’t abuse me because I won’t do your work. And if you don’t think it’s important enough to look up, then what are you on about? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/finally-the-dnc-grows-some-balls/513248.md?page=11)