After full consideration, I am confident a full confrontation is right & necessary.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

Weighing the risks, the possible consequences and benefits, the potential 'emotionalities' and exaggerations, the viciousness by the corporacrats, and so on and so forth,...I am confident an unrelenting confrontation of this 'executive order' is right and necessary.

It is time to take a step towards maturity and an acknowledgement that (1) 'the people' can handle it; and (2) no matter the ultimate outcome, 'the people' will speak to that outcome.

I have no doubt, whatsoever, 'the people' reject a "unitary executive", another word for dictatorship. I know, I just KNOW 'the people' are starving for a strong opposition to those who are Machiavellian, who have profitted off betrayal, who starve a nation.

The USAG situation is one piece of a perfect storm necessary to change direction. WE are stronger than ever and it is time to confront the demons in our own house.

[Taxloss]

1. What are you suggesting?

Sorry if I'm bing slow but I don't quite see what you mean.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

4. I am not suggesting, anything. I am totally confident the administration's assertion,...

,...of power MUST BE CONFRONTED.

Questions?

[Taxloss]

5. How do you plan to confront it? n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

9. What do you mean?

Do you have some notions about how to 'confront it'?

What are you talking about?

[Taxloss]

12. Well, you say that "we" must "fully confront" Bushco's abuse of power,

but you're vague on what that means in practice. What course of action to you advocate? Or are you just saying "something must be done", and hoping that someone else provides the something?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

23. "THE NATIONAL SARCASM SOCIETY",...

Why are you being difficult? Why are you demeaning me and my position, clearly stated in my OP?

Are you trying your best to "run me off" or something?

If so, why?

[Taxloss]

25. No, please don't think that.

I was genuinely curious.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

28. I don't believe you. You'll have to prove it.

My OP didn't invite such unworthy attacks. Provide an earnest explanation and perhaps we can reach some understanding.

[Taxloss]

33. I did not understand your post.

In my first response I asked you for clarification, taking the "we" in your last paragraph to mean that you were suggesting DU do something. I did not attack your post - I asked a question, and even suggested that it was my own fault that I did not understand your post, rather than your fault for not being clearer. But rather than actually spell out your meaning, which is all I wanted, we've waded into this morass of suspicion. All I wanted was a clarification. You are seeing attacks where none exist.

[SlowDownFast]

42. "we've waded into this morass of suspicion..."

LOL!

:rofl:

I was at a loss as to what the OP's gist was, also.

[bryant69]

13. Very suspicious as you know

Leaves it open to a wide range of possible ways to "CONFRONT" this power. I mean you could be suggestion we get down our shotguns and march on the White House. Or you could be suggestion we give our congresspeople a call and encourage them to fight for our rights. Or anything in between I suppose.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

19. No. I do not understand this "very suspicious" thing, at all.

I simply stated my position.

What I am seeing in reaction,...is something bordering paranoia (sorry, but, the 'skeptics' are expressing what certainly borders paranoia).

This is uncomfortable, needless to say. Maybe, I came to the wrong place.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. Pay No Mind To Them. It Was Very Clear What You Meant. n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

26. Thank you. Why are they being so belligerent?

Do I inadvertently 'challenge' their senses or something?

:shrug:

[bryant69]

24. My shtick is reading conservative dialogue

This reminds me a bit of some of the articles they write on the "Muslim Menace" arguing that we must at all costs win this "class of civilizations" They carefully rule out everything that sounds like a peaceful solution to the "Muslim Problem" and then studiously avoid saying what they think should be done. So that you leave the article worried and angry that nothing is being done to the Muslims, but convinced that peace is not possible.

I'm not saying you are necessarily doing the same thing, but I do think you'd be better off saying what you mean by confronting those in power rather than leaving it up to us to guess; cause as you can already see there is a wide range of possible interpretations.

Bryant

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

31. But YOU ALL ARE DUers and know what the heck's going on.

I suppose I should have treated you like,...

,...well, this reaction is,...

:wow:

:shrug:

Just "wow". I thought the neocons were terrific at 'creating' enemies. Geez. I'm sorry. Comparing you to the neocons is a horrible insult but,...you hit me hard when I am and have been my whole life an advocate for human rights. That hurt.

[bryant69]

35. Well I apologize if I offended you

Such was not my intent.

But I still don't see how asking you to clarify what you mean is such a terrible insult; there are people who post at DU occasionally who clearly would like to see direct action, of the Weatherman sort. By failing to clarify yourself you leave yourself open to that speculation.

But at the end of the day you are the person who has to make that call. Good luck in your future endeavors.

Bryant

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Dude Will You Leave Him Alone Already?

You're like overdramatizing this to the n'th degree.

The poster means Congress needs to fight back hard this time and not give in. The time has come etc.

That premise really isn't friggin obvious to you? If not, then it's not really the OP you should blame IMHO.

[Kelly Rupert]

40. OMC, there's like three or four people

who all had the same thought. If he had responded to the first requests with "Oh, sure, I meant..." instead of getting defensive, this wouldn't have been an issue.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

43. Read the thread. SHE WAS ATTACKED. Save the thread.

When you are in a more objective mood, review it.

You are right, though. I should not stay on here and defend myself against such petty attacks.

[Kelly Rupert]

47. There's been little attacking going on here.

I know you're new here, but I should warn you that if you don't develop an immunity to hardballs, you'd be best served either sticking to the Lounge for a while or limiting yourself to the conservative-bashing threads (you know, of the "can you believe X said Y?" variety. While most conversation here is of the civil variety, things can get a lot harsher than this.

[uppityperson]

49. Excuse me for asking, but who is "SHE" that was attacked?

Thank you.

[bryant69]

55. You poor delicate person

I'm sorry that questioning your motives offends you; that some how life has left you with such a childish mindset that you feel that you should be exempt from the normal slings and arrows of participating in a discussion forum. I'm sorry that you are so inwardly turned that you believe we all know what you meant even when several of us ask you to clarify yourselves. I do agree with some others, if this this is your mentality, perhaps you would be better of finding someplace where everybody agrees with you already. I can tell you this can be a rough crowd at times.

Bryant

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. I Think The Disconnect Is The Fact That The OP Seems So Clear And Obvious, That

the OP can only surmise that they're being unfairly judged and questioned on a clear premise, likely because they are new. Though I won't speak for the poster, I can understand why they would take the position they have in not clarifying further. From my perspective it does seem like some of the questions of the OP were not totally innocent; regardless of claim; but were more putting forth a hidden premise of the OP not being legitimate.

I think the OP was perfectly legitimate and the post quite clear, and still think that lack of further clarity or not that the questions seen here would not have existed if a common name DU'er had posted it. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but that's my take on it. I think everyone should just shake hands, give a pat on the back and let it all go.

[knowbody0]

2. if this is not "that" final straw

we are indeed what steven colbert called us last night.

the world watches.

[Critters2]

3. Agreed. If these bastards refuse to testify, to a full committee

under oath and on the record, they should be held in contempt of Congress. It's time for the leadership to sprout a spine!!

[baldguy]

6. Its long overdue.

[Kelly Rupert]

7. Please tell us what you mean.

Who do you mean whan you say 'we,' what is the 'confrontation,' etc., etc?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

11. I assumed the Democrats' opportunity to challenge the notion of a "unitary,...

,...executive" would be understood, here.

My apology to you.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. You still have not explained your position.

"Confrontation" and "challenge" are very, very broad words. How will they "challenge" or "confront" unitary-executive theory? When this appears to be a wholly legal battle headed for SCOTUS if neither party blinks, why do you keep talking about "the people" bearing this out? You haven't clarified your opinions one bit.

[baldguy]

14. Bush under oath, alone under kleig lights at a really big table, sitting in a really small chair.

Make him look like a 6 yr old sitting at the grown-ups table

[Kelly Rupert]

17. Okay, so other than humiliating the President,

what's the plan? I'd rather not let personal vendettas define our nation's politics.

[baldguy]

30. If he's done nothing wrong, he's got nothing to worry about.

But i'm not going to cry if the man who murdered a million people gets a little uncomfortable.

[mmonk]

8. It's the only exit from this nightmare (constitutional confrontation).

[cali]

10. Gosh. Whom to trust here, you? Or Senator Leahy

and Rep. Conyers?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

16. Have I stepped on Leahy or Conyers by expressing myself?

I doubt either would interpret my position as somehow diminishing theirs.

Your post is confusing.

You seem to assume something that is not real. Why?

[Kelly Rupert]

18. Since you haven't really taken a position,

you couldn't possibly have.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

21. ??? "I am confident an unrelenting confrontation of this 'executive order' is right and necessary."

That's not a position?

Are you running me off? If so, why?

[Kelly Rupert]

29. No, I'm trying to get you to explain your position.

You're giving vague rhetoric, not opinion. You could be claiming a hundred different things. You could be saying anything from "we must pick up rifles and declare open rebellion" to "we must impeach him" to "we must issue strongly-worded statements expressing disapproval and let the people vote them out of office in 2008"

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

34. Screw this. Thanks A LOT for all demeaning challenges.

My position is unchanged. Too bad you were unable or unwilling to comprehend that position.

So sad you seem bent upon attacking someone like me.

[Kelly Rupert]

36. Hey, it wasn't intended to be demeaning or attacking

at first. If you're going to make claims, you should also be able to defend them. Why would you post an opinion, and then take repeated requests to clarify it as attacks?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

41. I'll keep this, print it out,...and present it to you, later. Then, you judge.

For now, I've had enough.

[Kelly Rupert]

45. No need to hold vendettas. We're all friends here.

We can play rough-and-tumble, but vendettas aren't useful.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

53. Friends. Friends are willing to look back at behavior and own it.

Why you would characterize my suggestion that you look at this thread at a later time as holding a 'vendetta' is not a suggestion by a friend.

You all also accuse me of being defensive yet you assert I am being vindictive because I will save this thread and present it to you, later, and ask that you thereafter make a judgment.

:shrug:

I can promise this: I'll be far less punitive towards you than you have been of me, this evening, no matter what your judgment of this thread, later.

[SlowDownFast]

50. Bizarre.

How does printing anything out make things different?

How are you going to present said printed material in cyberspace?

Which comes first? The presentation or the printed material?

To be or not to be?

Is THAT the question?

:shrug:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

54. ,...so is your name,...

,...but, who knows,...you could very well be an Utopian Secret Agent for ????

:rofl:

[Ilsa]

20. I was hoping for a duel, but I'll settle for served subpoenas

and whatever follows to get those douchebags down to Congress to 'splain themselves.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. I Think People Are Jumping On You Because Of Your Post Count. I Feel For You.

Some of them I even respect as posters but am disappointed in how they're treating you. I thought your post was very clear and obvious in referencing the need for Congress to take a firm stand and not budge to the Administration on the concept of the Administration thinking they have the power to snub their noses at Congress. That you were inferring this time the Dems should not keep their powder dry but go all out. I personally thought what you were inferring was quite clear, but I fear others may be misinterpreting it based almost solely on your lower post count, which is monumentally unfair to you. I hope you'll forgive them though, because I hope you understand lately there has been great reason to be suspicious towards newer members. Just a natural reaction ya know? But I still think your post was clear in premise.

Welcome to DU,

OMC

[Kelly Rupert]

32. Well, it wasn't post count, but it wasn't really his fault.

I'm kind of weary with vague prophecy/calls to action (yeah, so why are you on DU, Kelly?) and this seemed a particularly fine example of the craft, so I tried to see if I could pull some sort of solid opinions out of it.

Still, it was impolite of me, and I apologise for the unfriendly "welcome" I gave.

[Taxloss]

38. I don't think I jumped.

I asked a question, and even stated that my first assumption was that I was being slow on the uptake rather than any problem with the post.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

39. Frankly, this treatment seems as bad as what I've experienced at protests BUT,...

,...it's worse because I never expected it here. And, frankly,...I am,...upset. I should go.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. Don't Be Upset. They Are All Good People Here.

Rule number one here is that to be part of this community you have to at least have some sort of thick skin. Threads can get quite heated and passionate sometimes and trust me when I say that this one doesn't even come close to the battles you could face in other threads on other topics. But never take it personally or let it get ya down. It's just part of being here.

But no matter how defensive or challenging some can be at times (myself included) we are all still for the most part really good people here who would never truly want to hurt the feelings of another. I'm sorry if that's happened here to you tonight, but I know for certain these posters didn't intend to break you down. Sometimes discussions just simply go off on the wrong track is all, but it's just a message board. Never take the replies too seriously.

I do think you were being a bit unfairly challenged here, but it is known to happen and could happen far worse. Strong debate is what it's all about. But you HAVE to have a thick skin to survive here. Things can get far more debateful then what you've seen in this thread. But just take it in stride and never lose the smile from your face. Remember; even at times if it seems otherwise, don't ever forget you're in the company of fellow progressives who care immensely and would do anything for you when push came to shove, no matter how heated discussions can get.

So enough of my babble. Just hang in there and keep a thick skin. We need all the good liberal voices here we can get and I have no reason to believe you don't have one. So rock on and don't let it get to ya. It's all good. :)

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

51. Okay. I guess trying times try peoples' ability to be decent and balanced.

I just expected to be treated,...better than this on this forum. Did the pokes and weird assumptions hurt? Well, yes, because I expected a more positive response.

But, I understand desperate times produce such negative reactions.

On edit: I'm not sure that I'll get over this 'surprise', though. And, that's okay. Maybe, I just don't belong in such an environment and am better off reading or participating in other manners.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. Well, If It Makes Ya Feel Any Better,

I agree with your OP 100%. They need to stand tall on this one!

:toast:

[uppityperson]

48. Welcome to DU.

A suggestion for you, which was given to me also. If someone asks you what you mean, take it first as an honest question, asking for clarification. Sometimes we have an idea and write in a way that makes sense to ourselves, but not to others. Asking for clarification is a good way to NOT jump to assumptions, but to find out more of what is on someone's mind.

The easiest way to clarify is by the person writing simply responding more. A harder way is by having others guess what you mean. Clarifying can be good, is usually good. We cannot read minds, and frequently things come across wrongly in internets land.

Peace to you, welcome to DU.