Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:03 pm**

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:50 pm The way I remember it was that Afghanistan was supported by dems, but Iraq was described as a bad idea and having nothing to do with 9/11. They (the dems) were greatly frustrated by the 'wmd' and 'yellowcake' crap that was being played.

Iraq was supported by the Dems, mostly because of the lies the Bush Admin (VP Cheney, in particular, didn't like the real intel he got, and so he made up his own dept which pretty much relied on discredited sources to sell the war) fabricated to get us into the war. It wasn't until more and more evidence of the con-job came out that the Dems (at least those in congress) started flipping.

Afghanistan was supported by everyone, until the Bush Admin dropped the ball there to focus on Iraq.

It's also important to note how Trump is also not a fan of the Iraq war.

Posted: **Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:24 pm**

The Iraq war resolution was supported by basically all Republicans and about 60% of Dems. Politically it was difficult to oppose sending troops against a Middle East enemy, but many Dems (and no Republicans) expressed reservations about the longevity of the commitment even as they supported initial action. There was definitely an understanding that Afghanistan and Iraq were not the same thing.

In 2018 we're still engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq with recruits who weren't even born before 9/11.

Posted: **Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:45 pm**

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:39 pmAnyway, my point is, assuming memory serves, there were plenty of Dems who went along with the Iraqi war, even if some of them did so "with much concern and doubt".

I guess it was the scare quotes around "with much concern and doubt" that I was pushing back on. Maybe GG didn't mean it this way, but I took that to mean that they didn't really concerns or doubts regarding the justifications they were presented with.

The dems that supported it, IMO, were doing it because, as Holman said: Politically it was difficult to oppose sending troops against a Middle East enemy

But I recall from the very beginning there being honest resistance to that war that just failed to compete against the political pressure.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:23 am**

Awesome.

But don't worry because you just have to follow this simple procedure to be able to overcome this new hurdle.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:42 am**

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:20 am**

Every success he has he completely negates by furthering the divisiveness in this country. He needs to divide us, or at least widen that divide, in order to survive. If he would just shut up he would only be half as horrible a human being.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:42 am**

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:39 pmSitting back and letting the intelligence agencies do their work for a decade was not a satisfying idea.

Satisfying, no, but probably less costly for us overall and likely equally effective. Sure, we've bombed the crap out of a lot of terrorists - but how many more have we created in their children and neighbors who see us as aggressors? I don't think we're diminishing the volume at all. We've inserted ourselves into a seemingly perpetual cycle.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:03 am**

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:45 pm

But I recall from the very beginning there being honest resistance to that war that just failed to compete against the political pressure.

How quickly we forget. Afghanistan was about the Taliban bogeyman and was largely supported. Granted the specifics were debated, but not the general idea.

Iraq had plenty of opposition and rooted mostly in the view was that it was a convenient add-on about oil, military-industrial complex dollars, and/or revenge for daddy rather than terrorism.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:11 pm**

That’s what I remembered.
Dems finding the Iraq war contrived and the ones that eventually allowed it were doing so only for political cover.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:02 pm**

There were a total of 23-24 nay votes on iraq, one of which was a Rep.

That's an awful lot of "just for political cover" for the Dems.

Lawbeef's views are accurate, in that those are the reasons it happened. They are not accurate as far as what was publicly discussed by the Reps or the majority of Dems.

Dem support dwindled over time, sure. When it mattered? Plenty of Dems were supportive.

Did they need political cover? Who cares? Many who voted for Kavanaugh needed political cover too. That's hardly a forgivable excuse for sending Americans to die in a needless quagmire that continues 15+ years later.

edit: Tidied up a bit.

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:53 pm**

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:02 pm There were a total of 23-24 nay votes on iraq, on of which was a rep.

That's an awful lot of "just for political cover" for the Dems.

Lawbeef's views are accurate, in that those are the reasons it happened. They are not accurate as far as what was publicly discussed by the Reps or the majority of Dems.

Dem support dwindled over time, sure. When it mattered? Plenty of Dems were supportive.

Did they need political cover? Who cares? Many who voted for Kavanaugh needed political cover too. That's hardly a forgivable excuse for sending Americans to die in a needless quagmire that continues 15+ years later.

+1

Posted: **Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:28 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:03 amAfghanistan was about the Taliban bogeyman and was largely supported. Granted the specifics were debated, but not the general idea.

I would argue that it was about Al-Qaeda. If the Taliban hadn't granted sanctuary to Bin Laden, I doubt that there would have been an outright invasion.

Posted: **Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:32 pm**

Tangentially related to SCOTUS, but it seems as if standard GOP practice is that if it isn't legal, pack the judiciary to make it legal:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions wants to do things his way, and he's not going to let a little thing like legal advice get in the way...

...His circumventing of legal advice is allowed, the Times notes, but a former DOJ official said that, while legal, "it would be inappropriate to ask people to tailor legal judgments to policy preferences." Several of Sessions' policy changes have been challenged or blocked in court...

...The "underlying message" from President Trump and Sessions, said Norman Eisen, a former special counsel for government ethics, "is that department employees are either enemies of the White House or vassals doing its bidding."

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:46 pm**

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says she has been diagnosed with "the beginning stages of dementia, probably Alzheimer's disease," in an open letter that was released Tuesday.

I'm not so sure she isn't just reading the news like the rest of us.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:35 pm**

Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:09 pm

Only chance to block Kavanaugh now is for both Manchin and Collins to vote no. Looks like he's heading to confirmation.

The conscience of a conservative.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:20 pm**

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:35 pm
Captain Caveman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:09 pm

Only chance to block Kavanaugh now is for both Manchin and Collins to vote no. Looks like he's heading to confirmation.

The conscience of a conservative.

There aren’t enough GFY’s in the world for Flake.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:28 pm**

I mean, what would you have him do about it? He's just one man. One vote never changed anything.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:42 pm**

RE: The GFY - absolutely. He seems genuinely puzzled - like he has no choice. "I didn't really believe Kavanugh but what can I do?" That's why the whole thing is a dog and pony show at this point. The new McConnell rules require that a Supreme Court Justice will only be seated when the President's party matches that of the Senate. Anything else? Don't bother. This whole experience has been like watching a train crash into a cruise ship crash into a hotel...in slow motion...for two years.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:52 pm**

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:42 pm The new McConnell rules require that a Supreme Court Justice will only be seated when the President's party matches that of the Senate. Anything else? Don't bother.

Yet Flake was literally the one person who could have thwarted this. For about 24 hours, it was within his power to actually undo the cynical new order.

A man of keen moral sensitivity, dedicated to high principles, not even running for re-election, he had nothing to lose but his lucrative GOP-aligned post-congressional lobbying career.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:00 pm**

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:52 pmA man of keen moral sensitivity, dedicated to high principles, not even running for re-election, he had nothing to lose but his lucrative GOP-aligned post-congressional lobbying career.

Maybe. He also might go into industry or sit on the board(s) of a GOP-aligned Corporation or a GOP-aligned think tank. His strong sense of ethics and decisive nature will be appreciated there.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:09 pm**

Good. If they lied in their sworn letter, they should be investigated:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday referred Julie Swetnick and her lawyer Michael Avenatti to the Department of Justice for a possible criminal investigation over allegations they made false statements to Congress about now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
"I am writing to refer Mr. Michael Avenatti and Ms. Julie Swetnick for investigation," Grassley wrote in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, for potential "materially false statements they made to the Committee during the course of the Committee's investigation. "

2 huge notes:

1. No mention of Blasey-Ford whatsoever. Grassley would have gone after her too, if he felt he could have.

2. This could backfire seriously, though not before the election. Just think of discovery...

Final note on Avenatti:

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:26 pm**

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:09 pm Good. If they lied in their sworn letter, they should be investigated:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday referred Julie Swetnick and her lawyer Michael Avenatti to the Department of Justice for a possible criminal investigation over allegations they made false statements to Congress about now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
"I am writing to refer Mr. Michael Avenatti and Ms. Julie Swetnick for investigation," Grassley wrote in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, for potential "materially false statements they made to the Committee during the course of the Committee's investigation. "

Grassley continued, "But in the heat of partisan moments, some do try to knowingly mislead the committee. That's unfair to my colleagues, the nominees and others providing information who are seeking the truth."

As far as I'm concerned Avenatti is a potential SCOTUS nominee.

I'm very interested in these "materially false statements", but I'm not gonna hold my breath. "materially" means different things at different times, to different investigations, even when it's the same thing being investigated.

If I had any faith in the process, I'd be more supportive.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:38 pm**

Avenatti is a scumbag, IMHO. Just because he's opposed to Trump and clever, especially with the Media, doesn't make him a person worthy of respect.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:42 pm**

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:38 pm Avenatti is a scumbag, IMHO. Just because he's opposed to Trump and clever, especially with the Media, doesn't make him a person worthy of respect.

Is he rich? Because being rich (or purportedly rich) and media savvy makes you an American icon nowdays. Being a scumbag is not a consideration.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:43 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:42 pm
Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:38 pm Avenatti is a scumbag, IMHO. Just because he's opposed to Trump and clever, especially with the Media, doesn't make him a person worthy of respect.
Is he rich? Because being rich (or purportedly rich) and media savvy makes you an American icon nowdays.

Probably minor league rich. Making that assumption based on the 4.5 million judgement against him from his last lawfirm.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:44 pm**

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:38 pm Avenatti is a scumbag, IMHO. Just because he's opposed to Trump and clever, especially with the Media, doesn't make him a person worthy of respect.

Doesn't mean putting him in jail for typos and wrong dates, either. I'm sure the investigation will be more thorough than Kavanaugh's though.

Due process has (should have, in theory) nothing to do with the subject in question. Respect doesn't enter into it.

If we're going to trump (hah!) up charges because the subject is a scumbag, clean up your own WH backyard first, GOP.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:47 pm**

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:43 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:42 pm
Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:38 pm Avenatti is a scumbag, IMHO. Just because he's opposed to Trump and clever, especially with the Media, doesn't make him a person worthy of respect.
Is he rich? Because being rich (or purportedly rich) and media savvy makes you an American icon nowdays.
Probably minor league rich. Making that assumption based on the 4.5 million judgement against him from his last lawfirm.

If he overspends on cars, clothing, and birthday parties, that's good enough. Debt ain't no thing.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:52 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:47 pm If he overspends on cars, clothing, and birthday parties, that's good enough. Debt ain't no thing.

Gilding counts for double!

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:52 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:47 pm
Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:43 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:42 pm
Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:38 pm Avenatti is a scumbag, IMHO. Just because he's opposed to Trump and clever, especially with the Media, doesn't make him a person worthy of respect.
Is he rich? Because being rich (or purportedly rich) and media savvy makes you an American icon nowdays.
Probably minor league rich. Making that assumption based on the 4.5 million judgement against him from his last lawfirm.
If he overspends on cars, clothing, and birthday parties, that's good enough. Debt ain't no thing.

Well, until it catches up with you. Ask Paul Manafort

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:20 pm**

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:43 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:42 pm
Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:38 pm Avenatti is a scumbag, IMHO. Just because he's opposed to Trump and clever, especially with the Media, doesn't make him a person worthy of respect.
Is he rich? Because being rich (or purportedly rich) and media savvy makes you an American icon nowdays.
Probably minor league rich. Making that assumption based on the 4.5 million judgement against him from his last lawfirm.

The Internet tells me everything from $10 million to $58 million.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:12 am**

Supreme Court: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 85, hospitalized after fracturing 3 ribs in fall at court

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:12 am**

If this was a tv show, it would have jumped the shark right about now.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:25 am**

tjg_marantz wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:12 am If this was a tv show, it would have jumped the shark right about now.

Trump's nephew Buster, played by Tony Hale, would be seen leaving the back door of the court in his janitor's uniform carrying floor wax and a carpet staple remover. Whisting, he would be proud that he "made the steps shine" like Uncle Donald had asked.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:55 am**

Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:12 am Supreme Court: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 85, hospitalized after fracturing 3 ribs in fall at court

I yelled “NOOOOO” in the car when I heard this. Wrap her in bubble wrap. We need her healthy for a few more years.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:06 am**

After which Kavanaugh was heard to say, "Whoopsie!" as he pulled back his foot.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:19 am**

Not to worry, I'm sure Trump has a 40 year old judicial prodigy ready to step up. A real legal wizard, and grand guy all around...
Sorry, misread the tweet, it's just a grand wizard.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:58 pm**

$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:55 am
Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:12 am Supreme Court: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 85, hospitalized after fracturing 3 ribs in fall at court
I yelled “NOOOOO” in the car when I heard this. Wrap her in bubble wrap. We need her healthy for a few more years.

I'm still mad at her for not retiring in 2013.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:52 pm**

2013 would've been way too close to an election year.

Posted: **Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:22 pm**

link

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:07 am**

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:58 pm
$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:55 am
Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:12 am Supreme Court: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 85, hospitalized after fracturing 3 ribs in fall at court
I yelled “NOOOOO” in the car when I heard this. Wrap her in bubble wrap. We need her healthy for a few more years.
I'm still mad at her for not retiring in 2013.

I keep thinking about that Ruth Vader Ginsburg costume...

Octopus Overlords

SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Re: SCOTUS Watch