civil war on DU

[DonCoquixote]

Look, many of us are angry about Obama's NSA Policy. It cannot be defended, it cannot be sweetened, and yes, we need to make it clear to whoever wants to run in 2014 and 2016 that we will not tolerate this crap.

However, I have seen a lot of name calling where one side accuses people of being people who just hate Obama, and turn to the Libertarians, and the other keeps calling the other cultists.

Neither approach will help anyone but the GOP, as , yet again, we fight civil wars. We should not worship Obama, nor hate him, from get go, but sadly, both attitudes are easy to do, as many of the various forces under the democratic tent wanted either someone left of Dennis K. or to the right of Bill Clinton. But we need to get clear, not even civil, but clear, that the more we fight, the more ammo the oligarchy has.

[On the Road]

1. I Appreciate the Sentiment,

but in the very first line of your post you refer to one side of the debate as indefensible.

Part of the resolution, if there is one, is to understand the physical and legal detail of what has actually gone on as opposed to mischaracterizations and suspicions. There is no way to establish common ground if the two sides have incompatible beliefs on what it is that they are supporting or objecting to.

[arcane1]

4. Indeed, I still don't know what I should be supporting or objecting!

[cui bono]

18. Because it is indefensible. That's not the issue.

We should not stand for any admin spying on us like this no matter who it is or what party they are in. Period.

[stevenleser]

22. It's absolutely defensible. See my #13 nt

[sabrina 1]

51. No, spying on the American people is not, nor ever was defensible. It is against our laws.

Now we have to figure out what to do about it. We THOUGHT we had already done that in 2008, but apparently not. So on to the next plan because these Bush policies are not now or ever were defensible.

[stevenleser]

52. What the administration is doing is totally defensible. You have never addressed my dissertation on

it because you can't.

[Th1onein]

87. I can.....

Let's take this part:

When you understand the history of when and why FISA came into being and when you understand appeals court rulings regarding Presidential powers with regards to surveillance aimed at foreign directed entities and terrorist groups. When you understand those things and you combine them with the history since 9/11 of the Bush administration attempt to ignore FISA and wiretap without a warrant, a practice that the Obama administration has completely renounced, I think you are left with only one possible conclusion.

President Obama did nothing wrong and there is no scandal here, at least not in terms of the administration. The reporting of this issue by Greenwald and other journalists and pundits, well there you might have a scandal. The history and context matters and not providing those things in this situation completely alters the meaning of the story and is a veritable journalistic crime. Greenwald should be ashamed of himself, and many other journalists and pundits out there should also feel ashamed of themselves.

I've copied only the concluding paragraphs of the history and context section that you wrote about, for brevity's sake. I will address later sections later, if necessary.

Despite Kennedy's creation of the FISA court, and the requirements of a warrant, this is the first time we've ever seen a warrant from this court. And, granted, we have no way of knowing what previous warrants looked like, but this one, DESPITE THE LEGALITY, is overly broad. Warrants are supposed to give details of whom, what, etc., to be searched and what you are searching for. This warrant does nothing of the sort; instead, just saying, words to the effect of "Hey, give us all the data." Period.

Your argument that Kennedy created the FISA courts because, even though, the executive branch already has this power WITHOUT warrants, means nothing when the warrant is this broad, and when the court rubber stamps warrants.

Whether it's legal or not makes no difference, as to the morality of it. Every Verizon customer's records are being scooped up, including Americans. All of them. The fact that we're just now seeing a warrant from this secret court is the only reason that we are up in arms about it. We thought that they had to have probable cause. You can't have probable cause when you're scooping up everything. We thought that they couldn't scoop up Americans' info, but they're doing that, as well. And, even if they find out that we're not foreign, and that we are not terrorists, they are storing our information for years, instead of getting rid of it.

So, Steven, I've read your dissertation. I disagree. No ad hominem attacks.

Would you like for me to continue with the rest of the dissertation?

[stevenleser]

93. That is your opinion, not a fact based response.

Here a the response from one of the judges involved:

Reggie Walton, the FISA court's senior judge, rejects the notion that the court doesn't ask enough questions. He sent this statement to Reuters:

The perception that the court is a rubber stamp is absolutely false. There is a rigorous review process of applications submitted by the executive branch, spearheaded initially by five judicial branch lawyers who are national security experts, and then by the judges, to ensure that the court's authorizations comport with what the applicable statutes authorize.

So your assertion that the "warrants are too broad" is your opinion only and has no appellate court decisions behind it.

Please feel free to address any of what I said or wrote. If it is your opinion only, I will continue to state that. You cannot address facts with opinions.

[Th1onein]

102. Did you see the warrant?

Since it is demanding all of Verizon's records during a certain period, don't you think that's overly broad? You really have to have a court to tell you that it's overly broad?

[stevenleser]

104. What you and I opine isn't at issue. What is at issue is the law and the Constitution. The best

resource for questions about such things are the appellate court decisions and the SCOTUS decisions.

When you read appellate decisions like:

US v Duggan 1984
US v Truong Dinh Hung 1980
US v Buck 1977
US v Butenko 1974
US v Brown 1973
Zweibon v Mitchell 1975

What you find is that the appellate courts have a very broad opinion of Presidential powers when it comes to foreign espionage and foreign subversion/terrorism and they view the Presidents powers to do this in these situations as exceptions to the fourth amendment. The only modification to that is FISA.

Add that to the fact that the courts do not treat metadata the same way as actual wiretapped conversations and the only real conclusion one can come to is that no, in the view of those whose expertise and responsibility it is to consider the relevant laws and constitutional rights, it is not overly broad.

You read my response about what the most senior FISA judge said in terms of how thoroughly the requests are reviewed, right?

[Th1onein]

106. Did you see the warrant?

I ask again, because you did not answer my question.

[stevenleser]

109. I answered. My opinion of the warrant is irrelevant. What's at issue is the law and Constitution. nt

[Th1onein]

130. Your opinion of the warrant is relevant if you wish for others to give your opinion

any weight. (And that i

s what you wish, isn't it? Isn't that why you keep referring people to your dissertation?) You are saying that it is all legal. I am asking you if you saw the warrant. The reason that I'm asking you that is because the warrant is so broad that it violates the Fourth Amendment and is not valid. I think that is what everyone is so excited about.

Everything that Hitler did was "legal," and no, don't stretch this to accuse me of comparing Obama to Hitler. I am saying no such thing. What I AM saying is that simply pronouncing something as "legal" doesn't make it right. Neither does it make it moral. OR constitutional.

And, by the way, it's a little difficult to gauge the constitutionality of a document, warrant, or otherwise, when the legal reasoning behind it is deemed SECRET.

[stevenleser]

131. The fourth amendment does not apply to National Security Surveillances. And I am not asking anyone

to judge my opinions. I am asking people to judge the facts as I have arranged them.

US v Duggan:

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court [Keith, J.], 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith &quot , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.

The change with FISA is that for national security surveillances, you had to go to the FISA court to get a warrant. Again, the Presidents powers and duties in this regard are broad and that is discussed in all of the decisions cited above in Duggan.

[Th1onein]

207. The Fourth Amendment applies to US persons.

And that's why we have the FISA court in the first place. And, by the way? The NSA has no legal standing spying on American's UNLESS they follow the Fourth Amendment.

You STILL have not answered my question: DID YOU SEE THE WARRANT THAT THEY ISSUED?

[stevenleser]

208. That is not completely correct. If Americans are participating in foreign sponsored acts against

National Security, or suspected of it, then for investigating that possibility, FISA warrants can be used.

I have answered you three times now. Whether I have seen the warrant or not is irrelevant. If you do not like that answer, that is your problem. It is the same answer I will give you every time you ask it.

[Th1onein]

209. THE QUESTION WAS: HAVE YOU SEEN THE WARRANT?

You have YET to answer it. I'm not sure why. Are you just being stubborn, or are you being dishonest?

Answer the question. Humor me.

[MNBrewer]

204. Your opinion of the warrant is indeed irrelevant.

And yes, what's at issue is the law and Constitution. Let's check what the Constitution says about warrants. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Saying "this warrant covers everything, anything and everybody" isn't a warrant.

[Th1onein]

210. BINGO!

THE WARRANT IS NOT LEGAL, ON IT'S FACE. You win the prize! To argue anything else, regarding "context, history, or legality" is bullshit and obsfucating.

"Saying "this warrant covers everything, anything and everybody" isn't a warrant."

[HiPointDem]

140. babble. storing all calls is not an 'exception'. it's storing all calls, all data, *everything*.

that's a police state & police states have 'laws' too. but they're tyrannical.

[MNBrewer]

216. Storing, seizing....

Tomayto, tomahto.

It's still collection of a "thing" via an illegal warrant.

[Melinda]

146. Please provide the full legal citations for the all case titles you've posted.

There are multiple federal cases with the names you posted, which isn't going to work. Cites, please.


TIA.

[muriel_volestrangler]

147. Steven, this is about *domestic* surveillance, not foreign espionage

All domestic data is collected.

[Galraedia]

188. The records don't contain content.

Since there is no content and because the data is coming from a 3rd party, you don't need a warrant for each number and it doesn't violate the 4th Amendment.

[MNBrewer]

217. The records ARE content.

[HooptieWagon]

123. Agreed. You can't have a warrant that specifies searching all the houses in Cleveland...

...just on a fishing expidition to see what turns up. Yet that is exactly what the NSA has asked the FISA Court to do, and they rubber-stamped it.

[stevenleser]

126. No, no, and no.

1. National Security Surveillance is an exception to the Fourth Amendment and is instead dealt with via FISA and related laws.

2. Prior to FISA, the appellate courts decisions all indicated the President had broad powers in the regard of electronic surveillance for National Security purposes like foreign espionage and terrorism that were an exception to the Fourth amendment. The main change to that with FISA is the requirement to get a warrant through FISA courts.

3. The courts have already ruled that things like Metadata are not the same as eavesdropping on conversations and entering or seizing your home, car or property.

US v Duggan 1984
US v Truong Dinh Hung 1980
US v Buck 1977
US v Butenko 1974
US v Brown 1973
Zweibon v Mitchell 1975

[HooptieWagon]

128. 85% of FISA warrants in 2011 were drug-related.

WTF does that have to do with foreign intelligence, fighting terrorism, or national security? And they don't need yottabytes of data storage to save meta data, which only requires a fraction of that storage. The memory is to save content....just in case they want to go on a fishing expedition. The government has no business saving content or data of any of my personal communication; be it ph call, email, texts, etc; unless they get a warrant with probable cause and the specific information they're looking for. A broadly casting net rubber-stamped by a puppet court doesn't cut it. I don't care what letter follows the President's name.

[stevenleser]

129. Link please. nt

[HooptieWagon]

134. Transcript of Sen Feingold questioning DOJ.

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 03:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Older info, looking for recent info I read.
http://privacysos.org/node/1043

more:
http://www.alternet.org/story/151356/how_the_patriot_act_is_being_used_to_fight_the_drug_war_and_eavesdrop_on_journalists

[HiPointDem]

141. +1.

[Th1onein]

211. EXACTLY. Thank you.

[Enthusiast]

26. Yup. Indefensible.

How did we ever get by in the cold war without absolute total surveillance? Total horseshit.

[stevenleser]

29. Before FISA, warrantless wiretapping was legal for foreign intelligence purposes. During the cold

war, phones of suspected spies could be wiretapped without a warrant.

[Enthusiast]

33. Now we are all suspected and you sound just fine with that.......nt

[stevenleser]

35. So quick to go ad hominem. Thats the problem with folks on your side of the issue. No, what I want

and am fine with are factually based, non ad-hominem, non-use-of-logical-fallacies, non-emotional-based discussions which it seems you have already demonstrated you cannot handle.

[Enthusiast]

41. If the ad-hominem fits, wear it......nt

[stevenleser]

46. Yes, you should. nt

[Enthusiast]

54. There is no ad hominem about it.

You are defending the indefensible. The government is engaged in the greatest surveillance in history. You are defending it.

[stevenleser]

70. You have no facts, you dont understand the issue being discussed, and are making it all about me.

That's ad-hominem.

[Enthusiast]

80. I do understand that the government engaged in the greatest act of surveillance in all of history.

I am not making it about you. I am pointing out that your attacks on the well reason previous posts were based on bias in favor of complete absolution of any and all surveillance. No ad hominem.

[stevenleser]

81. You're already wrong. Prior to FISA in 1978, warrantless wiretapping was legal. All the President

had to do was say "It's for foreign intelligence or foreign subversion or terrorism purposes" and no one could question him and federal appeals courts decisions backed him up on it. A ton of warrantless wiretapping went on but since there was no warrant and no paper trail, its impossible to know the full extent of it.

FISA reigned that in and provided both judicial branch and legislative branch oversight. I talk more about it here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110210510

[Enthusiast]

82. There are far more solid arguments against your position.......nt.

[stevenleser]

83. No one on DU has ever provided any, despite my transcript being out for three weeks.

That's because there is no fact based argument against what I said on my show. All appellate decisions support me. History supports me. Facts support me.

The only thing I have received in response from those who disagree is ad-hominem comments.

[Enthusiast]

85. I'm not going to dig up the threads but

from my assessment your arguments were crushed. I read the arguments.

You are nothing more than a die hard defender of the indefensible. No, I apologize for that. You are probably far more than a die hard defender of the indefensible. Sorry.

[stevenleser]

86. You can't crush an argument if you provide no facts. Insulting me doesnt crush my arguments.

No one provided any fact based argument. All the responses can be summed up exactly like what you just wrote:

"You're bad!"

"You're defending the indefensible"

"What was done was terrible!"

"Fourth Amendment!!!!" (Without of course any appelate court references to how the Appeals courts treat issues like this.

Sorry no, none of what I said was ever touched.

[Enthusiast]

94. The problem is, your facts are in question..............nt

[stevenleser]

95. No, they're not. I'm supported by relevant federal appeals court decisions and the facts and history

[Enthusiast]

98. I'm sorry to inform you of this fact but

federal appeals court decisions and the facts and history are no longer the arbiters of justice that they were in the past. They now constitute mostly an embarrassment. Anyone can see this.

Hey, if this is the nation you want, you're welcome to it.

[stevenleser]

107. And another comment with an ad-hominem at the close. You really can't help yourself, can you?

So, because they don't back up your view, now we are discounting federal appeals courts opinions with regard to law and the constitution.

You think your opinion is better than the appeals courts. Gotcha.

[treestar]

184. Has the country recognized this pronouncement?

So are you the dictator who gets to cancel the Constitution because you don't like the way it worked out on this issue?

What nation do you demand instead. Your fellow citizens await, all ear.

[stevenleser]

89. Here is the cross post of the transcript in GD. You can see the responses for yourself. No one

came close to refuting any of my arguments. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981244

[zeemike]

99. It is always the same.

"there is absolutely no evidence at all"....no one even came close"
When I hear that red flags go off in my head, and I know I am not dealing with an honest argument...ether that or a flaming ego that cannot accept that they might not have the best argument.

[stevenleser]

103. So make a fact based argument against what I wrote. I'm all ears. nt

[zeemike]

110. What again?

So you can reject it with "there is no facts at all to show that"
There is no way to argue with that...total dismissal makes anything I would say a waste of time.

[stevenleser]

112. IF you are conceding that there are no facts you can bring to bear to refute me, I accept. nt

[Enthusiast]

111. Your arguments are bogus....nt

[stevenleser]

113. With that kind of logic you should apply for a job helping Rush Limbaugh. nt

[Enthusiast]

116. Bogus

[treestar]

186. just repeating that

is not an argument. It's just emotional desperation.

[Enthusiast]

191. When someone makes a bogus assertion, as you have,

pointing it out speeds the discussion along. Stop making bogus assertions.

[Union Scribe]

120. Like your "omergerd you hate Obama!" "logic" in this thread? nt

[stevenleser]

121. Which is something I said never... nt

[Union Scribe]

124. No, because at least that would have been funny.

Instead you extended that inane claim through an entire subthread accusing a poster of being a hater, completely dissolving your remaining credibility in the process.

[stevenleser]

125. Which post, the one where the person had a paragraph long rant at Obama that was all one sided

and the worst possible interpretation of Obama's actions in each regard? That post?
Yes, that person is simply a hater.

[muriel_volestrangler]

148. Now *that's* an ad hominem (nt)

[Th1onein]

215. Now who is engaging in ad hominem attacks?

[Ms. Toad]

137. Legal does not make it right or defensible.

or a policy I am willing to support. I didn't support it in the 60s & 70s, I didn't support it under Bush, and I don't support it now just because the person in the job has a D behind his name.

I also happen to believe it is unconstitutional and that the reality of what they are doing exceeds the authority of the law - but those are really irrelevant to me (other than as an additional avenue of attack). The issue is that I disagree with the policy and supported a candidate for president who, as a candidate, also opposed the policy.

[treestar]

185. What you believe and what the courts interpret

may differ. In order to avoid a dictatorship in which you are the dictator, most prefer to go with the Constitution and the case law.

[Ms. Toad]

198. So how about waiting until the case is heard then,

instead of insisting anyone who has concerns (whether based in policy or law) is wrong, or an Obama hater, or racist, or whatever the insult of the day is?

And, FWIW, I have drafted more than one opinion on behalf of a state or federal judge which is now a published opinion (i.e. case law), so I do have a fair amount of insight.

[treestar]

202. I don't see many posters with their hair on fire on this

willing to wait for the courts to decide this matter. They seem mostly to declare that it's unconstitutional, cite the words of the Fourth Amendment alone and then hold the President to obeying their opinions by not enforcing or using any laws they deemed unconstitutional. So perhaps I have been coming from a place of having read many posts like that.

[Ms. Toad]

203. Or perhaps you are too willing to believe that the ONLY valid objection

would be if it is ultimately found to be unconstitutional.

I happen to think it is also very bad policy - as do most of the posts I have read - and antithetical to the platform on which President Obama ran. So regardless of what the courts eventually hold, I want it stopped.

[MNBrewer]

218. I think you have a very liberal definition of the word "oversight" that I do not agree with.

[Th1onein]

214. Oh yes, Steven, only YOU know about the issue being discussed.

Come on now. That's insulting, and an ad hominem attack on an entire group of people who disagree with you. You are not the only knowledgeable one on this topic.

We disagree with you. And don't buy your "legal" argument. Deal with it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. Wow....that kinda reminds me of something that went down here...

"You talk too much!"

"Really?....




































....you wanna talk about it?"

[stevenleser]

74. Sure, see my #13. nt

[HiPointDem]

142. no ad hom. you are defending it & sound just fine with it. fact.

[Th1onein]

212. We've given you that, Steven, but it doesn't seem to matter to you.

You won't even answer a simple question. All we hear is babble about legalities. These people have a SECRET INTERPRETATION of the laws that allow them to spy on us. The fact remains that they are spying on their own people in a wholesale manner. Nothing "legal" can cover up that fact now. They aren't even bothering to deny it; at least not very well. (ie., Clapper).

You can't look at that warrant that asks for ALL of Verizon's data; a warrant that we've only now seen for the first time, because of Snowden, and deny that they are spying on Americans!

It might be "legal" according to THEIR interpretation; their SECRET interpretation of the law, but it sure isn't right, and most everyone knows it.

[sabrina 1]

55. And thankfully that omission was fixed after it was abused. Then it was unfixed to protect

Bush from the consequences of breaking that law and weakened again. Now we have to find a premanent fix, because it's clear that unless something is done now, it will only get worse.

[On the Road]

36. OK, Well in That Case...

Did you see Midnight in Paris? This is like the part where Owen Wilson says to his fiancee something that he and her father can have a mutually respectful exchange of ideas even if he is a self-absorbed right-wing narcissist I (or something of that nature).

[stevenleser]

43. LMAO. So true! But the folks you are talking about won't see it.

You respond to them and then you immediately get an ad-hominem response.

[Eddie Haskell]

178. In a matter of conscience,

there can be no debate.

[snooper2]

206. They is spying on me!

Blanket statements like that are what get people up in arms..


If anything, I've learned that most folks don't really understand technology at all, and it's easy for people like Limbaugh, Greenwald and Alex Jones to fleece the rubes because they really do think the Internet is a series of tubes.

[Curmudgeoness]

2. I believe most of us are not worshippers or haters of Obama.

I have stayed out of all these dust-ups, but have seen them and completely agree with you. Division of the Democrats is a major coupe for the Republicans, and we should not go there.

I have to believe that the majority of Democrats are expressing their opinions, but will still go to the polls and vote Democratic. These arguments will not stop that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. Except ...

I, honestly, believe that most of the dust-ups are not Democrat vs Democrat; but rather, Democrat vs "liberal" or "Progressive" or "libertarian" that has/had voted for a Democrat.

I might be wrong; but I don't see Democrats among the Obama=evil crowd that has cropped up as of late.

[Curmudgeoness]

60. I do not think Obama is evil, and I have supported him

in some things, and not in other things. I think that is normal. There is no way to find anyone who agrees with your opinions 100% of the time. But I don't see many Obama=evil people here on DU.....and the ones that I see are suspect. To be pissed off at something that he is supporting or not supporting is not the same. I have been pissed. And I am a Democrat, and I vote Democratic.

Don't know what is meant by "Democrat vs. liberal or progressive" since I consider them as equal. Maybe that is where I get disillusioned.

[BlueCaliDem]

168. Me, either. And I've been looking.

But at least some have even come out and claimed they're more Libertarian/Ron Paul supporters. Of course they're against this Democratic president. Their obvious support for Snowden and GeeGee - without searching for or receiving any facts from either of them {not that they'd care} - and their constant attack on President Obama and his Admin after putting a magnifying glass on him - out them.

[arcane1]

3. I'm happy to K&R this rational thread.

I've seen way too much poo-flinging these past few weeks, and it's depressing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. I would suggest ...

"depression" is the emotion that many here are aiming for.

[leftstreet]

5. If people want right-of-Clinton, they should vote GOP

There is no place for rightwingers in the Democratic party

[DJ13]

8. +1, but its a lesson we failed to grasp twice

[Enthusiast]

28. +2

That's simply the way it is.

[stevenleser]

24. You've managed to straw man all of DU with that comment. Quite an accomplishment.

Since no one on DU "wants right-of-Clinton" you've managed to straw-man all of DU. That puts your comment into championship level territory as far as logical fallacies go.

[RC]

64. Actually, no it does not.

With all the DINO's 3rd Way, DLC, and other Right of center denizens, supporting and making excuses for Obama and both of the Clintons, I see his comments as describing the reality here.

You may be correct, maybe, that no one here wants Right of Clinton, but Clinton is plenty Right as it is. The real political Center is way over there to the Left, almost on the horizon now. What we call Center now, is the Right of 40 years ago.

[stevenleser]

68. If I'm right that no one here wants right of Clinton, then that poster did post a straw man. nt

[DonCoquixote]

149. actually, I did not

Note I said some here, not all. There are people here that post as "libertarian" who are against government oversight of corporations, income tax, and regulations on guns. They are indeed to Clinton's right. They are not all, but the term some does not indicate all, does it?

And sadly, that 10 reply plus fencing match in the replies about the fourth amendment is exactly an example of the REAL point of the op, that people who are left of the GOP love bloodsport, and that they are engaging in the bloodsport in such a way that it can only encourage the GOP.

[leftstreet]

69. It was the OP's claim, not mine

both attitudes are easy to do, as many of the various forces under the democratic tent wanted either someone left of Dennis K. or to the right of Bill Clinton.

[stevenleser]

75. I stand corrected and apologize. nt

[L0oniX]

6. After watching Bill Clinton take our party to the right I find it impossible to accept...

any farther movement to the right ...especially to appease new repuke converts, the anti socialist corporatists and apologists to the polluting of our constitution.

[railsback]

7. One thing is for sure:

The GOP / Libertarians are laughing their asses off right now, watching the supposed righteousness of the Left suddenly accept circumstantial evidence as facts, and banging on the heads of those who require more substance. Its just like how they run the Tea Party.

[zeemike]

105. No they are laughing at us because some of us

Have joined them in wanting a police state just like they do...they have moved some of us to their side...
You don't see them calling out Obama for NSA spying...they win on this.

[railsback]

114. No, they're laughing because after years of accusing the Right of being fact-free

the Left is suddenly embracing it while demonizing detractors.. just like the Tea Party. It IS funny.

[zeemike]

117. No that is not true

And I know this because I have had a long term conversation with some right wingers going back some 20 years on the net...they are saying nothing about NSA spying at all...they concentrate on the phony ones like the IRS and Bengasi and say nothing about NSA...because their leaders say it is OK...just like some here do.

They have moved us over to them because we are stuck on Obama must be protected mode...and they love it.










v

[railsback]

173. I didn't say they were concerned about the NSA. They like that shit

They're just enjoying the bickering, and how attention to detail, demand absolute proof on everything Liberals, have now adopted a steady stream of tin foil conspiracies, transforming spotty information into absolute truths. That was the whole premise years ago with the birth of FOX. When EVERYONE is throwing around half truths, there are no truths.

[zeemike]

190. Well that is true enough.

But then it can be used to hide the truth just as well...The CIA called it disinformation...
And the way it works is they create all kinds of wild conspiracy theorys...the wilder the better and the more the better....and then they have a pile of shit they can hide the truth in..and though ridicule, can intimidate people into not looking at the truth...think about how many times you have heard someone say that if you believe that you believe is space aliens or lizard people taking over the world...
And human nature being what it is the majority will not look any further even if it is the truth because they don't want to be ridiculed as a CTer.
i have seen this done many times...and it works on most people.

[treestar]

9. That post lacks objectivity

There has been plenty of name calling from your side.

[DonCoquixote]

150. first off, define "my side"

I have slammed Obama, and praised Obama, as my journal will show.

Second, the post was about the name calling, asking it to stop, because a civil war will only encourage the GOP.

[treestar]

170. the ones calling others "authoritarian shitheads"

or other such things. The black and white thinkers who, if you don't jump right on the bandwagon of any leaker, are ready to claim you don't care about the constitution, are a Good German or a quisling.

[DonCoquixote]

174. and THAT is who you lumped me in with?

at best, it seems there was some sort of misunderstanding, at worst, well, worse.

[longship]

10. Indeed. I am ashamed of many DUers who I have long respected.

There are many who are acting out of anger instead of rational discussion. IMHO, that is school yard behavior, unsuitable for a political discussion board.

I can disagree with people here and still respect their right to be here and express their opinions.

The fucking name calling has got to stop along with the taunting of individual posters. The troll threads are not doing any good either, although I don't know how one could stop that.

I encourage that the admins put new procedures in place that the worst of these, the name calling, will no longer be tolerated here. We should also be able to get rid of taunting which adds no content to a thread. These are childish behaviors which should not be tolerated in a discussion board like ours.

I am disgusted by what's happened here the past couple of months.

Shame on the people doing it.

[HardTimes99]

11. Not trying to be a total smart-ass (OK, maybe just a little), but

you can get all meta on the Civil War idea by reading, and contributing to, MannyGoldstein's thread about John Brown's execution:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023124595

Seriously, though, Manny's thread allows people to explore current issues by looking at a famous person and incident from American history, so emotions don't get quite as heated. Really worth a look-see by everyone, imho.

[Recursion]

92. +1 most important thread on DU in a while (nt)

[baldguy]

101. Accusing me of supporting slavery is fair?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3126475

[marions ghost]

12. That's how you can tell

this is an important topic. When there is serious division, a nerve has been touched. This degree of conflict about this is going on outside DU also, so it reflects the country's reaction.

This is a discussion that we need to have and it is overdue for the country as a whole, since the big picture has been hidden from us. Until now.

So I don't think dampening the discussion is a good idea. Yes, we need to keep it civil. But we should not be so afraid of conflict that we don't wrestle with opposite viewpoints.

Also I don't buy that the more we fight the more ammo the oligarchy has. The more we argue (civilly) the clearer our positions become. That can only be healthy.

[HardTimes99]

133. Damn, but how I wish you would make this an OP, so

I could rec it! There is some mighty fine thinking and writing going on here on both sides and I feel privileged to read it (and often humbled also). I would not suppress a word of it!

[HiPointDem]

143. +1.

[DonCoquixote]

151. key word,civil

"Also I don't buy that the more we fight the more ammo the oligarchy has. The more we argue (civilly) the clearer our positions become. That can only be healthy."

The problem is, we are NOT being civil. I mean, take a look at the very responses in this thread, and you see behavior that would not be tolerated in grade school. When the Oligarchy sees that we will happily slit each other's throats, they know they can screw up as much as they want to, and be able to go "hey, I may be a bastard, but these folks to my left are crazy!"

[marions ghost]

169. To rigid thinkers

we will always be "crazy." Who cares really? Especially since we see them as batshit crazy.

We on the progressive side don't have solidarity in this NSA matter apparently. So it has to be hashed out. People feel strongly about this & are going to vent a lot. What is being done by the NSA should make us all angry but some see criticizing the massive data mining as an attack on them personally. They have invested in this defensive position for a variety of reasons IMO. Not only are they defending Obama, but also defending their own sense of security, and the quaint notion that America operates as a positive force for good in the world. Is this a good country when the government is so corrupt and because it is so corrupt, has to put its own citizens and as many world citizens as it can corral, under a microscope? This country is acting like a self-serving greedy war-mongering bully with totalitarian tendencies. This country is losing the soul it once had. Selling it to the devil. People do not want to see how bad it is. So they defend.

I'm fine with anger and dismay being shown here (within the terms set by the site). Yes, it can be done in a less negative way & still get the point across. But I'd rather see people get angry than worry about what the Oligarchy might "think." We don't have to put on a good show for anybody. That's too paranoid.

People who pay attention to politics should be feeling very angry about what we are learning about the NSA et al. And we need to be strong in our views. So for the moment, I think it's a healthy discussion. Since I'm on the anti-data mining side, I think it's important to see and understand the thinking of people who would defend it.

[stevenleser]

13. I'm surprised I can see your post. I've trashed NSA, Snowden and Greenwald. I've done that because

every time I post something containing facts, I get emotional name-calling posts devoid of facts in response.

Obama's NSA policy can indeed be defended by a rational examination of the facts, history and context combined with an understanding of the relevant case-law involved.

On the other side of things, all attacks I have seen on Obama's NSA policy ignore one or more of those four things, often all four.

I discussed Obama's NSA policy with the facts, history, context and the relevant case law many times including during my show a few weeks ago. Here is the trancript http://www.democraticunderground.com/110210510

No one has been able to refute the facts I provided during that show, or any of my assertions since. It's all emotional stuff like:

1. "I just don't trust the government, and you are foolish if you do because of cointelpro, etc."

2. "Its the fourth amendment!!!!1111" (with no reference to how the appeals courts view this particular issue)

3. "You were probably against it when Bush did it!!!!1111" (No, I was against warrantless wiretapping, and urged a return to FISA in 2007 http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_071028_republicans_turning_.htm which, it just so happens, Obama is using)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

79. I just moved to Vegas this year. The temp hit over 115 today....

Maybe all of this talk is about like this:



Not happy about it.

Can't DO anything about it but live with it.

Long term fix is when things cool off.

And guess what? Mentioning "terrorism" isn't causing a majority of Americans to lose all bladder control.

[MFrohike]

145. Interesting

FISA was and is a stain on the constitution. It's nothing but a thin veneer of legitimacy designed to provide the appearance of procedural safeguards with none of the substance of those safeguards. It was a terrible idea when conceived and it continues to be a terrible idea. Why? It undermines public confidence in the law and the justice system.

FISA was a poorly designed compromise meant to mollify the public after the horrors of the Church hearings. It was sold as a protection for 4th amendment rights and a means to keep the executive in check. It was a pig in a poke and everybody knew it. The purpose of it was not to actually safeguard privacy from government overreach but to make people think that. The surest sign that it was a farce the entire time is that it was an end run around an already existing venue for warrants: the federal courts. It was no different from today's attempts to skirt the courts in regard to enemy combatants.

The problem of confidence is that FISA is rightly seen as a rubber stamp. When it's headline news that a FISA request got denied, that's a pretty clear indication that this particular court is nothing but a legal nicety an administration can use to trumpet about how their actions are within the law. When you create legal process for the purpose of skirting the real process, the completely unsurprising result is cynicism. It would be better had FISA never been created and illegal surveillance, completely illegal I mean, continued. If nothing else, everyone would know the score and there would no confusion about an impotent entity that exists solely to make the national security state occasionally say please before it spies on someone. It would be far more honest as well.

As for the court decisions, don't make me laugh. The federal courts are notorious for forgetting the constitution any time somebody even whispers the phrase "national security." If you need an example, witness the fact that Quirin is still good law.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. Too many people have too much invested in what others on THIS BOARD do or think

The meta posts are an embarrassment, and a step down from what was once vigorous discussion on this board. There was always a little of it, to be sure, but for some posters these days, posts about DU posters is all they ever seem to post, or it's like 80% of their output. It's sad. Sometimes I think most of these people are just lonely, and DU is their little gossip diner. I feel bad for them, but it's turning the board to shit. They should bring back the meta forum and just move every post that has a whiff of meta content to it. It's a drag.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Nothing that happens on DU has any bearing outside of DU. Some may think it does, but no.

We're just a bunch of people with flammable hair throwing matches at each other.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

58. You're right, of course. It's amazing to see the number of posts where some think this matters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Wait for 2014

I can't

Though I said my piece regarding national elections...pretty much done.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. This is nothing new. The right vs left fight has been going on since the founding of the party.

The right wing of the Party has been ascendent since '92 but the left is beginning to fight back. The right feels threatened and makes more demands for "loyalty" and tries to defend indefensible right wing policies. Just as the Scoop Jackson, "hard hat", Democrats tried to defend the war in Vietnam and decried the Reds and Hippies.

So, here we are again. Left vs Right for the heart of the party.

[burnodo]

20. ...and its not a Republican plot

and its not a football game where you cheer for your side to win

[840high]

19. I doubt DU has much

influence on the outside world.

[GeorgeGist]

21. The tent is too damn big.

[flamingdem]

23. If this is Civil War I belong to the Union

You guys can be the Confederates. Game On!

Yankee dem here.

[Enthusiast]

25. K&R! Some don't even recognize the existence of an oligarchy......nt

[still_one]

27. Since most likely Hillary will run in 2016 and be the nominee, I wonder about the "won't tolerate

This" comment, since she stands a very good chance of being the nominee, and I do not see her policies being that much different from Obama's

[Doctor_J]

30. I don't know anyone on DU who hates the president

However, his policies of domestic spying, corporatizing education, corporatizing health care, signing off on more wars, offering to cut Social Security and medicare, play footsie with KeystoneXL instead of just declaring it dead in the water, and so on, are driving independent voters away from my once-great party. Between that, and accomplishing almost nothing of substance while we had two huge majorities in 2009-2010, why would any newbie or fence-sitter vote (D), when the party's only "accomplishments" are things that Republicans want?

[stevenleser]

32. Yes, you are demonstrating so much non-hate with that post. Please, let no one ever "not-hate" me

that way.

[Enthusiast]

34. What a complete load of shit.........nt

[stevenleser]

37. I'm trying to think of a way your two posts to me so far could be worth less. I can't. nt

[flamingdem]

38. +1 well said Steven

[duffyduff]

39. Stating the truth about this "Democrat" isn't "hate."

It's simply truth, and the truth hurts with people who didn't research what he was before he was ever nominated for the presidency.

The neolib was always there for everybody to see.

[stevenleser]

40. It's not the truth, like most negative comments you see about Obama here. It's biased B.S. nt

[stevenleser]

44. There was nothing but hate in that post. nt

[stevenleser]

48. It's a fact. nt

[Autumn]

201. That is fucking awesome.

Thank you, it's just perfect.

[DCBob]

78. +1

[HiPointDem]

144. you can't distinguish between criticism of policy & "hate".

[LWolf]

154. You are apparently under a misconception

about the meaning of "hate."

Dissent, criticism, opposition...those are not hate. Criticizing and/or opposing a Democrat's bad policy is not hate.

[Kolesar]

158. Cleverly written

[leftstreet]

73. +1

[sibelian]

196. +1

[Enthusiast]

31. Arguments for the status quo are ridiculous at this point!

Are you defending this? http://www.nationofchange.org/believe-it-or-not-13-mind-blowing-facts-about-america-s-tax-dodging-corporations-1372514605

[DonCoquixote]

152. er

where did you get defending tax dodges out of my post?

[demwing]

45. To crush your enemies

to see them driven before you, and to hear their lamentations

Welcome to DU's post-election-crash / midterm-madness moment. We need a common enemy. We need an enemy with a face, otherwise we begin to eat our faces out of rage and boredom.

It's how we cathart.

[stevenleser]

49. Excellent Conan reference! And the rest is unfortunately true as well.

Edited to add: There are plenty of common enemies. Boehner, Issa, McConnell, Gohmert, the Family Research Council, Rush Limbaugh...

but, some folks prefer attacking the President to attacking those folks.

[demwing]

97. Yeah, too many, in fact

maybe we can't fight the whole damn conservative clown car act, but if we can rally around the biggest clown of all...

fuck there's just too many, I can't focus

BTW - thanks for the Conan props. I edited the quote just a bit to make it more DU friendly

[wtmusic]

50. Refusing to join the fray, I instead will join this meta-fray ABOUT the fray

where people hate or love the Obama hatas or lovers.

Is it time to start an Obama hater hater hater thread yet?

[MannyGoldstein]

59. I agree that the name calling is awful and pointless

But we really do need to marginalize Democrats who predominantly favor classical Republican policies. And who favor spying on all Americans.

For 20+ years we've put up with radical triangulation from the leaders of our party, and it has been an utter catastrophe for the 99%. We need change.

[Phlem]

72. I believe Obama

has skillfully moved the left to the right during his administration.

That's why I've changed to Independent instead of the audacity of hope. I can't afford to fucking hope anymore.



-p

[summer-hazz]

135. Why can't people see this?

I'm confused :/

[sibelian]

197. +1

[dbackjon]

61. I would say the same on Obama's gay rights policies

Only thing that should be 100% defended is the immediate support for nationwide gay marriage, and passing the ENDA immediately.

Yet, from day one of DU, and of the Obama adminstration, those that fight for equality for all have been dismissed, called names, sent hate mail, etc.

[stevenleser]

65. I would say that LGBT folks would be right to say that, but not so much on the NSA issue, etc.

There is no nuance on equality. Yes, you can say he is making progress, but you cannot say anything but full equality is an acceptable end state.

The NSA issue has a lot more nuance than that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

62. Where you here for the Obama/Hillary War?

[Denzil_DC]

63. Good luck with this, though I think your OP is a little one-sided, but well-intentioned.

It's taken very little recently to be subject to ad hominems, and it's going to be hard to find agreement on which "side" started it, or which has featured the worst offenders, if that matters.

From personal experience, just the other day I piped up on a ProSense thread to express my disapproval of the shameless swarming on her posts. The instant reaction from a couple of Snowden defenders was to dismiss me as a suspicious "dormant account," then castigate me for daring to express an opinion since I don't have a large post count and generally try to avoid piling in on the mudslinging.

You can't click into many threads without seeing sniggering allegations that such and such a poster is being paid, either expressed in code or in plain view. That doesn't help matters, not least in having any arguments those posters may put forward or their motivations taken seriously thereafter.

Then there's the allegations of an "Obama personality cult" and the throwing around of the term "Obamabot" on a supposedly Democratic board from people who cannot seem to see that they have their own personality cult going with Glenn Greenwald, who can do no wrong and must be beyond any suspicion - a standard he never applies to the subjects he writes about.

Then there's the insistence (which is apparent in your OP) that everything in the world is totally black and white, and that it's unacceptable to feel that we do not know the whole story about most things we learn of second or third hand, but only what's filtered through imperfect sources and media that have their own agendas.

Then there's the endless stream of meta threads, complaining that all people want to do is talk about Glenn Greenwald or Snowden rather than "the issues," which I probably don't need to point out piles irony on irony.

So yes, there are divisions, you're right, and they aren't likely to benefit anyone in the long run except the Republicans. And we've seen this play out time after time on different issues over the last few years, the difference at the moment being that we're at a point in the second electoral cycle of Obama's term when the deadlock in Congress has reached near total paralysis, so there's a vacuum of political activity that some seem to feel the need to fill with infighting rather than looking forward.

It's almost as if the Republicans planned it that way.

[flamingdem]

66. ++

[freshwest]

91. The GOP did plan it that way. They've bought out both sides of media. And they're ratfucking us.

Thanks for the depth of your post.

I am tired of being called an authoritarian swooner, fascist enabler, etc. just because I like that Obama is for women, gays, minorities and the poor. And that I see those as more important, because that is hands on oppression there.

The fact that I enjoy having finally having a first family setting a positive example for youth that will benefit our future, gets me called an Obama asskisser, worshipper and all the other names I endured on mixed boards with conservatives save the one, the N-lover.

I'm supposed to 'curb my enthusiasm' in the march to Ragnarok, or I'll be called names. Tired of it when ProSense or others post facts and are called apologists, or paid staff of the White House, or people who have no life and should fuck off.

Since when are facts anathema and those who present them to be cursed, told to fuck off, shut up, damned fools, etc., anywhere but the most conservative sites?

[Denzil_DC]

108. I think ratfucking is always a possibility in political activity, especially online,

and something to be guarded against, but it's insidious because it can spread paranoia - one "side" thinks people are paid shills for the administration (of which I've seen no clear evidence), the other sees libertarian etc. infiltration (of which I have seen clear evidence). And I think some just troll each other with the accusations because that's how they roll.

I think there are plenty of people here who have honest disagreements about issues without all that, and no doubt any malicious intruders will focus on those to capitalize on them. There's no way to guarantee that will never happen short of setting up a very closed forum that I doubt many of us would be interested in belonging to, though some are blatantly using the ignore feature so freely that they're creating such a forum for themselves because they can't brook dissent from their world view.

In the end it's not the disagreement that makes DU suck, it's the way it's expressed and the dogmatism that labels people as beyond the pale if they don't pass some invented purity test.

[Bobbie Jo]

122. Absolutely nailed it. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

67. Hate to burst your bubble, but the party leadership, including anyone that will be

permitted to get through the primaries, are the oligarchy.

That's one of the myths that have to go if we are to make any progress undoing the social damage done since the '80s.

[BOG PERSON]

90. i don't know if they themselves are the oligarchy

their #1 loyalty certainly is to the oligarchy. to the extent there appears to this kind of incestuous relationship b/w the state and the oligarchy, i guess the party leadership are oligarchs. like all those goldman sachs ppl that get appointed to cabinet positions for example.

[leveymg]

76. Any plausible Democratic candidate is just the better wing of the same oligarchy.

Mr. Obama has proven that. But, I still like him. He's probably the best we can hope for - about that, I wish to be proven wrong.

[cantbeserious]

77. We Need To Be Clear That The Democratic Party Is Run By The 1% - Accept That Or Demand Change

eom

[pinboy3niner]

84. There may be an entrepreneurial opportunity here...

As 'war' rages, Gettysburg vendors hope to cash in
GENARO C. ARMAS 55 minutes ago

GETTYSBURG, Pa. (AP) — As re-enacted war raged several miles away, tourists strolled a commercial strip of Gettysburg to survey T-shirts, hats and other trinkets to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War's pivotal battle.

More than 200,000 people — including thousands of re-enactors — are expected to visit this small south-central Pennsylvania town through Fourth of July weekend to mark the milestone.

And it's a prime opportunity for vendors to make some money.

Sightseers can pick up one of the many incarnations of "150th Anniversary" T-shirts at stores along about a two-block stretch of one of the main drags in town, Steinwehr Avenue, less than a quarter-mile from the Gettysburg National Military Park. One store, in between two shops that promote ghost tours, had "Army of the Potomac" and "Army of Northern Virginia" athletic department shirts among offerings hanging on its porch.

...


http://news.yahoo.com/war-rages-gettysburg-vendors-hope-cash-224247209.html

[JEFF9K]

88. knock

The knock on Obama is that he is acting too Republican. I don't see how this can help Republicans.

[Denzil_DC]

100. "I don't see how this can help Republicans."

You really can't see how infighting on a board called Democratic Underground would benefit the Republicans?

[LWolf]

153. How does electing and supporting

a "Democrat" who acts "too Republican" benefit the Democratic Party?

[Denzil_DC]

155. Thanks for providing an excellent example of what we've been talking about above. n/t

[LWolf]

157. I'm not sure what you mean

when you say "what we're talking about." I only saw you talking about attacks on Obama supporters above.

Can you answer the question? I can clearly see how divisions within the Democratic Party benefit Republicans, which is your post that I responded to.

Can you address both, or all sides, of the issue?

[Denzil_DC]

164. "I only saw you talking about attacks on Obama supporters above."

Then you must have skipped a lot of what I wrote.

And no, I'm not going to spend all day trying to "address both, or all sides, of the issue" as I've apparently been clear enough in what I've been saying for others to comprehend.

[LWolf]

165. Okay. I thought I looked pretty closely,

but I'll look again.

Meanwhile, you still haven't answered the question.

[Denzil_DC]

166. This is not an interrogation. n/t

[LWolf]

167. Okay. It's a one-way street. Got it. nt

[JEFF9K]

171. the choice

The choice is between a Democrat who acts too "Republican" and any Republican who will act even more "Republican."

Who in the hell is going to say "Obama acts too Republican for me, I'll vote for someone who will act even more Republican?"

[Denzil_DC]

179. I wasn't aware Obama was standing for a third term. n/t

[JEFF9K]

205. dem. vs. rep.

The midterms will be a referendum on Obama and his policies.

[99Forever]

96. An unintended play on words perhaps?

Civil war, indeed.

Violate the civil rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution, I'll go to war with you.


Any party or office holders that won't protect those rights, that they swear to do so in their oath of office, isn't one I will either respect or support.

That is called having principles and anyone that thinks I'll surrender my principles for "party unity" must be high as a kite or very, very stupid.

[DonCoquixote]

175. sigh again

MY point is NOT, Repeat, NOT to silence a discussion, it is simply to draw the line between 'discussion" and "bloodsport" that has not been drawn, and indeed, has been washed over thanks to a lot of manipulation.

[99Forever]

181. Well sir...

... in case you have yet to notice, that whole capitulating to the bloodsucking 1%ers and their militarized "police" army hasn't yielded very positive results for WE the People. You are quite welcome to "play nice" and be "polite" with the authoritarian/surveillance/police corporatocracy overlords. Just don't expect others to. And goodietwoshoes browbeating isn't going to change that.

[DonCoquixote]

182. I am not talking about GOP

I am talking about the matter that we, as those on the left, talk with each other, or fail to do so. The ugly fact is, a united whole beats a disunited group, and yes, the GOP can enjoy the advantage of using the lowest common denominator in the short run, but as long as any attempt at discussion becomes a glorified mudsling, do not be surprised if we get beat again and again.

[99Forever]

187. Ah yes...

... the old "gotta settle for the lessor of two bad choices" chestnut.

No thanks, I refuse to buy that crap ever again. My principles are far more important than loyalty to a party that does nothing to address my issues and everything to take care of the pampered few. Sorry friend, you'll need to find someone way more gullible than I to browbeat into submission.

[DonCoquixote]

189. Well, at least you admit you dont care to work with people

because if you do the old "I refuse to vote Democratic until they submit to my wishes" bit, you will find you are a part of a whole so small it cannot affect things. Maybe our karma would be good if we just kept voting for the Jill Steins who, without a lot of work, never have a shot to win 51% percent of the people. Somehow, I doubt that letting this country get into the hands of the Oligarchs will make up for it, because even if America is screwed either way, we all know which one really, really wants to invade Iran.

[Ohio Joe]

115. A Civil War... On DU.... And neither side has selected me as their ruler yet? Fools...

[BainsBane]

118. The bright side

is that someone makes the gunner-gun control proponent feud look mild by comparison.

[summer-hazz]

119. Generally, I read all posts before I comment...

This time I will post prior to reading them.

For me..it is quite simple...

NO MORE CENTRIST OR THIRD WAY CANDIDATES!!!!!

I want a "to the left Democrat"! A real Democrat...
We are loosing to much in the way of progress to continue this evolution.

It also seems that, (from what I have read here on DU), if Hillary decides to run for POTUS she would most likely win..and I agree she is brilliant!!!Please tell me why I want another Third Way/Centrist?
Are people just caught up in voting for a Woman? I'm a woman.. why her? Yeah, it would be great to have a woman PREZ, but not at the expense of all other things....

[Narkos]

127. "Look , all you assholes are wrong and I'm right "

[Hekate]

132. Good points, DonCoquixote

Of course, I'm still waiting for that fat paycheck some think I am earning for being an Obamabot, but since I am really an Obama cultist and cultists don't get paid, well there you have it. (cue the irony, sarcasm, and tongue-in-cheek meter)

I really would like to have a civil discussion with more than one or two people per thread, but in my case that would have to start with the other side acknowledging that Obama is a human being and the 44th in a line of presidents and didn't start all this ("this" being the outrage du jour) by himself. I'd like some new perspective, for a change. I'd like to know HOW we can get out of this mess, not just that we are in a mess.

[Fire Walk With Me]

136. What principles do we stand for, together, regardless of whomever is president?

Determine this, and it will be the base from which we may together move forward as a power not to be ignored.

[jeff47]

138. It's a nice sentiment, but we are far too well played by the right.

2014 will be another 2010.

There's going to be screaming scandal after scandal between then and now so that Democrats don't bother working hard, and Republicans win big.

It's really impressive to watch their plan come together so well.

[flamingdem]

139. ^^ the truth is right up there

[Progressive dog]

156. Some of us are not that angry over Obama's NSA policy.

First, Congress is complicit in the NSA policy, they passed the Patriot act and amended it.
Second, if you want a discussion, don't pretend that Obama is responsible for every law that he is sworn to faithfully execute.
Third, this is just another in a long string of "scandals" made up by the GOP, sooner or later they might be able to have some shit stick to the wall.

[Kolesar]

159. It is a "scandal" made up by the GOP, and it is trolling by DUers

...who are really not that invested in the issue, but they know how to drop a few clauses as flame bait.

The way they treated the woman who wrote those long and well referenced posts about NSA was disgusting.

[Th1onein]

213. No, Kolesar, that is not correct at all.

I've been on DU since 2004. I vote a straight Democratic ticket, and have done so since I was old enough to vote, and I'm almost sixty years old now.

I'm enraged that my government is spying on my communications. I feel violated. And I don't blame anyone else for feeling the same way.

We get the government we deserve. We should be Democrats, not Obamacrats.

[maddezmom]

161. LOL....is that a promise?

How many times have you been TS'd?

[In_The_Wind]

172. Darn! I missed seeing another one.

[DrewFlorida]

162. Well said. There is a lot at stake in upcoming elections.

The price to be paid for divisiveness is republican control of Congress, the Senate, 2016 President. The horror of what they would do if they gained control again is very scary! If everybody for one moment thought about what would be happening right now if Romney had been elected!

[Corruption Inc]

176. The people defending the NSA actions ARE republicans

regardless of what they are pretending to be on DU. The real divisions in the democratic party are between "corporatists" and the people, or in other words the corrupt vs. the rest of America. The corrupt support everything corrupt, not just the NSA.

The "corporatists" as I call them, are 1%ers, they support "austerity" and all it's horrors, for-profit health care, continuous war, privatization of everything and basically anything that seems profitable in a predatory, unregulated society. Some of those people also claim to support equal rights which in their minds makes them democrats.

There's the real civil war.

[Oilwellian]

183. Indeed

K&R

[Turbineguy]

177. The Teabaggers want a civil war everywhere.

Becuase there's nothing like a good civil war to really unite people for the long haul.

[davidn3600]

180. Liberals are united against this nonsense...Democrats are not.

[woo me with science]

192. There's no civil war.

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)

DU is solidly against this spying. There's a hell of a lot of very loud propaganda trying to create the illusion of a civil war, though.

All states that turn authoritarian make heavy use of propaganda.

States that build surveillance infrastructures also build propaganda infrastructures.




Dear mother of Gawd, I am tired of arguing with rocks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023128127
225 recs

Don't entertain this garbage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981567
359 recs

Get One Thing Clear: NSA Domestic Spy Op Is FASCISM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023132144
152 recs

Let's Be Clear, say Legal Experts, What NSA Is Doing Is 'Criminal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023120765
116 recs

FBI Knew of Plot to Execute Occupy Activists but Did Nothing [View all]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3119333
198 recs

Take A Break From The Snowden Drama For A Reminder Of What He's Revealed So Far
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3093033
140 recs

Fine, you despise Snowden, have nothing but contempt for the dishonorable, traitorous little fuck
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3083047
235 recs

[sibelian]

195. + 1000

[Harmony Blue]

200. The corporate Dems

live in a bubble and want to believe that "liberals/progressives" are a minority voicing their concerns.

[CakeGrrl]

193. "Civil War"? Hardly that big a deal.

People are pretty firm in their stances, and are just batting them back and forth at this point.

The need to namecall and to create the "us" vs "them" mentality may make it seem like a 'war', but in the bigger picture, it's a dustup in one of many cyber-bowls. There's a lot going on in the world outside these forums.

[Liberal_in_LA]

194. good thread

[Ash_F]

199. It looks to be a little too late for 2014.

Sorry DonCoquixote.