What the hell, DU?

[NuclearDem]

Alright, I've been out of DU for a few years now. I started lurking again about a month ago, and I just don't know what to say.

The DU I remember was one where liberals and progressives stood up for our civil liberties, were a thorn in the side of the 1% and those in power, and fought for the downtrodden and powerless. After reading some of the threads over the past month, I don't know if I can say that's still the case.

Bear in mind, I'm not lumping all DUers in the same category. In fact, the vast majority of people I remember as fighters then are fighters now. But the disturbing trend--even among people I used to respect and admire--is the surrender to the powerful simply because they have a (D) after their name and they voted for them.

The plain fact is, at this point, our civil liberties are under attack. They have been for years. The surveillance apparatus is expanding dramatically, with no signs of contraction or relenting on the horizon. The rapidly expanding powers of the Executive, military, and private security industry are threatening every right to privacy and personal freedom we hold dear. Dozens are still being held at Guantanamo Bay. The NSA is out of control. The 1% is using its total ownership of police and politicians to suppress dissent and silence the voices for the 99%.

But that's all alright, because Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden are libertarians.

The corporate-owned politicians in Washington love to play this game. Distract, divide, poison the well. When activists rise to challenge the surveillance state or blatant income inequality perpetuated by the rich, they are labeled as "anarchists", "troublemakers", "traitors", "anti-Americans." They dig up every ounce of dirt possible on the movement or the individuals inside the movement to discredit the message. And the corporate-owned media and pundits lap it up, with no sense of responsibility to their journalistic profession.

We've all been there. We were anti-war protestors who were told to "love it or leave it", who were accused of wanting the terrorists to win. We were Occupiers being called "lazy socialists" and "trouble-seeking anarchists." We were ACT UP being called "fascists" and disruptive. We were all bullied and pushed around by the establishment in DC and their friends in the corporate media.

So, what the hell happened? We elected a Democratic president, and all of a sudden civil liberties didn't matter anymore? Our team won, and that meant an end to speaking out?

Has it just become "Obama's America, love it or leave it?"

I don't care what you think about Snowden or Greenwald on a personal level, or what you think about their identification with libertarians, or with their past histories. The fact is, when the corporate-owned Washington politicians were agitated and embarrassed by the NSA leak, they pulled out their usual tricks: distract, divide, poison the well. Their corporate media lapdogs joined in immediately after, digging up every ounce of dirt possible on the leakers and journalists who made their Correspondent's Dinner dates uncomfortable. "Troublemakers", "traitors", "anti-Americans."

Except this time, instead of liberals and progressives fighting for our civil liberties, some joined them.

If you are one of those people, let me be absolutely blunt: You are not a liberal. You are not a progressive. You are joining ranks with the people who went after you not too long ago. You are playing right into the 1%'s hands.

You are part of the problem.

That's all. Had to get that out there.

[sibelian]

1. Thaaaaank you very much.

But I think you'll find that their ever-decreasing circles of definition are too tightly wound at this stage to permit the least deviation from their talking points.

[NuclearDem]

3. I guess there's just no hope with reaching some people.

I don't understand how people can defend this shit and call themselves liberals.

[sibelian]

25. I doubt any of them WOULD openly call themselves liberals.

The rest of us have apparently "moved so far to the left" that we.... believe exactly the same stuff we always did.

[A Simple Game]

88. One of them even bragged to me in a post about being

on the right. Many now openly belittle anyone they see as being liberal.

This hasn't been a liberal site at least since the inception of DU3. Or more accurately since President Obama proved to be to the right of Ronald Reagan.

And you are right, I do believe the stuff I always did, I am a liberal first and proud of it. The Democratic party is going to force me to vote 3rd party, I am getting too old to wait for them to swing back to the left. I can no longer allow myself to vote for evil, even a lesser evil is still evil, that is not why I take the time to vote.

The dirty rotten hippies were right, and so were all of the rest of the liberals.

[sulphurdunn]

163. We're justy s-o-o-o inflexible that way.

[think]

29. there are some bots you just can't reach....

[merrily]

74. Part of the problem is that the word "liberal" is often used interchangeably with

the word "Democrat." So, it really has no separate meaning.

[Plucketeer]

200. Be carefrul of how you express yourself

I just had a thread shut down for the in-your-face, four-lettered exasperation I put up.

[hootinholler]

259. No fucking way

It had to be something other than a little profanity that got the thread shut down.

[panzerfaust]

84. Yep: Some think it repression when 'the other' does it, 'defending freedom' when one does it.

It is in the nature of tyranny to deride the will of the people as the voice of the mob, and to denounce the cry for freedom as the roar of anarchy.
- William Safire

[BlueStreak]

157. What hapened? Congnitive dissonance. Are we pro-Obama or Pro-Civil Liberties

Unfortunately Obama is making us decide between the two, and that is both unexpected and painful.

WHY he is doing that is not entirely clear. And I must say it is rather disappointing to see so many people (a small minority of DUers I believe, but a very vocal group) who have made the choice of being pro-Obama no matter what the question might be.

[AmBlue]

188. Couldn't agreed more.

Very sad, too, that Obama would make us choose. I believed I could have both: faith in my president AND my constitutional right to privacy intact. Very disappointing that he would violate his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

[southerncrone]

2. Yeah, things ain't what they use to be here.

Many of us don't check in here very often because of that change.

[Crow73]

118. I don't see it.

I have been reading most of the posts. I keep reading about people blindly defending President Obama and how the whole thing is crap and this and that.
I don't see what you are seeing. I don't read every comment.
Is there trolls that are posting random things attacking people for pointing out the ACA disappointment, the XL Pipeline bull, the sell out of the EPA, the NSA thing, and TPP backdoor meetings?

I see posts all the time complaining about all those things with little to no push-back. Everyone agrees that the president is a corporatist. I don't see why you guys are so mad.

[southerncrone]

202. Not mad.

Just referring to the level of discourse here on DU has gone way down. Instead of thoughtful discussion, we see more & more outright verbal attacks on fellow members. Anyone who doesn't agree 100% with another often finds themselves ridiculed and verbally attacked w/a vengeance. From my perspective that is not progressive nor useful in our quest to improve our country. That is why I seldom check in anymore.

[newfie11]

4. Thank you so much

You said what I was feeling but couldn't put it into words.
I hope it wakes some up here.

[warrant46]

30. Its changed a lot

In 2003 when the chimp went wild this place was very very kool and roudy---not any more--- there are very few critics around

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. if you criticize the government the terrorist have already won

[sibelian]

6. And the right wing, too! AND the libertarians.

[NuclearDem]

9. Also, Mitt Romney is going to win. Somehow.

[TheMadMonk]

11. Where's the sarcasm tag. You just forced me to exercise idependant thought...

...and consider your sig before I knew where you stood.

[DeSwiss]

16. Who wins if the government.....

...and the terrorists are one and the same?







It's kids and babies.

[dixiegrrrrl]

41. Wow....that is some black or white thinking right there....

[L0oniX]

176. OMG LMFAO

[Jim Lane]

7. The McCarthyism is what really gets me.

If people want to make a reasoned argument that, for example, current surveillance isn't problematic because of the role of the FISA court, that's one thing. It's a legitimate subject for discussion.

But some DUers are, in effect, saying that the current surveillance isn't problematic because of the personal histories of some of the people who've brought information about it to light, or have made a stink about information that was already known. That's right on a par with what McCarthy would've done. You just replace "Communist" with "libertarian" or with irrelevant attacks on other things in someone's bio.

[SunSeeker]

15. Got a link to a DUer saying illegal surveillance isn't problematic?

I can find plenty of posts pointing out the many things Snowden did wrong, but none that say therefore domestic spying is fine.

[DeSwiss]

17. Neither are they saying it's more important than the issue of Mr. Snowden. :-/ n/t

[rhett o rick]

90. There have been plenty but not going to bother pointing them out to you

because you are looking thru special glasses.

I will mention one w/o mentioning the name. "I know Snowden is a liar and I know the NSA isnt surveilling us." Gotta love the open mind there.

[DeSwiss]

161. They're special alright.

- Most don't notice.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. There's been plenty. Try this:

My point by noting these articles, and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands more where they came from steadily since the end of 2001, is that this is not new stuff. It shouldn’t shock anyone. Journalists and pundits to include Greenwald himself shouldn’t be presenting what Greenwald wrote as new or shocking.

I’m really disappointed at my fellow journalists and pundits in general with the coverage of this story. 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.
...
There is another point that I think we should note. The FISA warrant in question discussed in Greenwald’s article allows the NSA to collect phone records for three months, from April 25th until July 19th. I’m surprised no one has made the obvious correlation to how close the start date is to the Boston Marathon bombings which occurred in April 15th just ten days before. I’m making an educated guess here so you all can determine how much you think this makes sense to you, but it seems likely to me that in the wake of the Boston bombing, someone in the justice department asked the NSA to gather this information with the intent of finding patterns of telephone chatter between as yet undiscovered terrorist cells here in the US who might be discussing the bombing. The timing seems too close to be coincidence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981244

[LuvNewcastle]

23. He was the first person i thought of when I saw

the post you're responding to. He defends that shit all the time.

[madokie]

31. It was a whole different world of surveillance under the dick and w

But you wouldn't know that if DU was the only place you read because that little factoid is very seldom mentioned and when it is who ever is saying it is shouted down, berated and treated as if they had just brought a turd and put it in the punch bowl at the latest freakers ball.
Plus I really don't care for some person telling me what I am or what I am not as the op is in his/her screed.
DU used to be a place where its sole source of income to keep it going was the dues paying members, now not so much. With that change has come a totally different mind set than what we used to stand for. A lot of the bull that is posted here now gets a lot of traffic which is good for business but not so good for unearthing the simple truth of which used to be our/my primary concern. I've seen this place go nuts for weeks on end over something that ultimately was seen as the bullshit that it really was and is then dropped like the proverbial hot potato. Simply moved on to the next outrage du jour.
Yes DU has changed and in my eyes it has not been for the better.
The simple truth is under Obama there has been a lot of changes made evidenced by the rise of the tea party. The very people who can't see the forest for the trees. All mostly good changes I might add.
IMHO

[SunSeeker]

58. I agree. Sad that the OP comes out of "lurking" just to smear fellow DUers. nt

[frylock]

86. it's far kinder and gentler under obama..

and i'm sure it will remain that way under the next republican administration.

[NM_Birder]

147. "kinder and gentler under obama" ?

Is this an acceptance of the old, "A calmer calf is easier to slaughter".... tangent ?

I know it's wrong but it's so much more pleasant when a liberal does it ?....yikes.

[sibelian]

220. I suspect poster is being a little dry. nt

[rhett o rick]

169. So you claim that James Clapper changed the surveillance programs when Obama became president?

Do you have a link or two? Clapper admitted that there is a "library" of personal data on Americans. He tried to justify it's existence by saying that the NSA only used what they are authorized to use.

I DONT WANT BOOZ-ALLEN AND THE CARLYLE GROUP TO HAVE ACCESS TO PERSONAL DATA FOR ALL AMERICANS.

If you want to live under a strong authoritarian state, move to fucking China.

The 4th Amendment is as good a place as any to draw the line. As far as I am concerned I am at war with anyone that kneels down and kisses the feet of those that want to step on my Constitutional rights. It's time to ditch the REpublican Patriot Act and the REpublican domestic spying. James R. Clapper has to go. Same with all the fucking Republicans running this country.

[SunSeeker]

53. That post says no such thing.

Nowhere in that post is there a statement that illegal surveillance is not problematic. In fact, it notes disapprovingly of "the Bush administration attempt to ignore FISA and wiretap without a warrant." And it points out that was "a practice that the Obama administration has completely renounced."

[rhett o rick]

167. There is no difference in wiretapping w/o a warrant and wiretapping with a FISA kangaroo warrant. nm

James Clapper and Mueller are still in charge of the same spy programs that were used under Bush and are being used now.

[SunSeeker]

194. You're changing the subject. I asked the poster for a link to back up his assertions.

The adequacy of the FISA court is worthy of debate. And I am sure the President could find someone better than Clapper and Mueller, certainly people that would make me and other progressives a lot happier. But that is not the subject of the OP. The title of the OP is "What the hell, DU"--by a self-described "lurker" who claims DUers believe that the private security industry and Guantanamo Bay are "all alright, because Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden are libertarians."

I don't know of a single DU post that says that. I think every single DUer comment I have seen on the subject indicated they have a problem with the privatization of our national security. And I think every single DUer comment I have seen on the subject indicated they have a problem with Guantanamo Bay. And no one thinks either one is "all right because Greenwald and Snowden are libertarians."

The post I was directly responding to, and who has yet to provide a link, claims DUers saying illegal surveillance "isn't problematic." As I told the poster, I can find plenty of posts pointing out the many things Snowden did wrong, but none that say therefore domestic spying is fine. It is a smear on fellow DUers that has no basis in fact.

Why is it so hard to fathom that progressive DUers can think Snowden did some things wrong AND think at the same time that the privatization of our national security is a problem? I've found that most progressives are pretty smart. We really can chew gum and walk at the same time.

[DirkGently]

49. Right. Got "a link" to someone smearing Snowden AND acknowledging his point?

No one engaging in the ludicrous ad hominem, guilt by association, etc. etc. etc. of Snowden, Greenwald, et al. then turns around and acknowledges we need to look into what they are saying.

Their point, and their only point, in each and every smear, is to attack the messenger in hopes of damaging the message, out of a misguided and irrational belief that it is more important to cover the administration's ass politically than to ever look at the truth.

No one thinks these are honest observations of the importance of how many boxes are in Snowden's garage, or the state of Greenwald's student loans, made in a good-faith effort to bring meaningful information into the discussion.

They are smears, intended to distract and destroy, to avoid discussion the issue at hand.

We all know this.

[SunSeeker]

56. I see. You have nothing. nt

[DirkGently]

57. Well, I kind of put the lie to your post, there.

[SunSeeker]

59. What lie? You did not dispute it at all. nt

[DirkGently]

65. You made an easily demolished specious argument.

You tried to suggest that the smear tactics against Snowden must be accompanied by an affirmative denial that there is any significance to complaints about NSA spying.

But no one thinks that. Because that's not how smear tactics work. The smears are an attempt to hijack the topic and undermine the message *without* addressing it. That's how bad-faith, cowardly argument works.

No one needs to say, "Snowden's a dirty, pole-dancer dating, garage-box-having traitor, THEREFORE, NSA spying doesn't matter. It's implied that the message isn't credible because the messenger is unreliable.

And it would sound really stupid if they acknowledged it.

It would be relevant to show people smearing Snowden and acknowledging the overall issue, but that's not really happening.

But you can't, apparently.

I do see a few of those people now backing off a bit, but holding tight to the idea that it's far more important that Snowden broke the rules and embarrassed the administration.

[SunSeeker]

68. Not true. I asked for a link to back up the poster's assertion. Which no one has done.

You are trying to change the subject and smear fellow DUers. Ironically, that is what you accuse me of.

[DirkGently]

72. Gibberish. No one said you smeared DUers.

You made a specious demand for "proof" that doesn't exist, not because the other poster was wrong, but because people smearing Snowden don't expressly acknowledge they want people to discount what he's saying, even though it's evident to all that's what they're doing.

I don't know where your line about me saying you smeared DUers comes from. I didn't say or imply that.

[SunSeeker]

87. Since when is asking for a link to back up an assertion "specious"?

Jim Lane asserts that DUers say illegal surveillance "isn't problematic." I have yet to see such a post. So I asked for a link. Nobody has been able to provide one.

[sabrina 1]

235. Try doing a search on 'your phone records don't belong to you'.

'What the NSA is doing is legal'

Post a link from one of the more prominent defenders of NSA's surveillance that says 'I oppose these policies, there should be a Congressional investigation'.

[SunSeeker]

237. I see you have nothing either.

Again, why is asking for a link "specious"?

The poster implies there are a lot of links that support his assertion, yet no one has been able to provide one.

[LuvNewcastle]

70. +1000

[Jim Lane]

69. Thanks, Dirk, I'll adopt your answer to the question SunSeeker posed to me.

You saved me some typing.

I'll just add that the NSA and its contractors employ lots of people at Snowden's level, many of whom are probably libertarians (not to mention racists or homophobes or tax evaders or whatever), yet we don't see threads about those people. Snowden isn't particularly important. He's neither an elected official nor a presidential appointee. If some DUers nevertheless devote so much effort to detailing the biography of this particular cog in the surveillance machine, then there's a clear implication that anything unsavory in his past is somehow relevant to the accuracy of his assertions about current U.S. Government practices.

SunSeeker is correct to the extent that this implication isn't spelled out, presumably because it's so obviously indefensible. Instead, people rely on ad hominem attacks on Snowden (and on Greenwald) as distractions. Deflecting attention from the surveillance would have the same effect as demonstrating logically that the surveillance is a good thing, but the former line of argument is much easier to cobble together.

[SunSeeker]

239. It is not an "answer." I asked for a link that says what you claim DUers are saying.

I received no such link from you nor anyone else. Instead, I got attacked. My request was labeled "specious" and left unanswered.

Sad that you, the OP and others on this board have chosen to attack your fellow DUers rather than the right wing.

I came to this board to get away from the offensive baseless attacks on progressives that you see on Huffpo and other boards. I liked that at DU you are expected to back up your assertions with facts and links. I liked that personal attacks were a TOS violation. And I liked the sense of community, the sense of progressives working together.

If a DUer disagrees with you on the virtues of Mr. Snowden, that does not make that person a tool, a troll or an authoritarian. That DUer has a whole lot of things he does agree with you on, and making him your enemy does not serve the progressive cause.

[Jim Lane]

244. It IS an answer if you take the trouble to read what I actually wrote.

My statement (in #7) was: "But some DUers are, in effect, saying that the current surveillance isn't problematic because of the personal histories of some of the people who've brought information about it to light, or have made a stink about information that was already known."

Your response (#15) admitted that people had criticized Snowden personally, but, you asked, "Got a link to a DUer saying illegal surveillance isn't problematic?"

My statement used the key phrase "in effect" because no one comes right out and says this. Because you apparently missed the point the first time, I elaborated (in #69): "SunSeeker is correct to the extent that this implication isn't spelled out, presumably because it's so obviously indefensible."

The undeniable facts are these:
1. Edward Snowden revealed facts that, in the opinion of many people, reflected badly on Barack Obama, a President who was elected as a Democrat.
2. Democratic Underground is a forum generally supportive of Democrats. In particular, a large number of its members are supportive of Obama, ranging from the tepid he's-the-lesser-of-two-evils to the fervent.
3. Snowden is not (and, as far as I know, never has been) an elected official, a candidate for elective office, or a Presidential appointee. He was a Civil Service employee of the federal government and/or an employee of a private contractor doing work for the federal government.
4. There are many, many, many people who meet the description in (3) above. None of them are the targets on DU of the kind of sustained personal attacks that have been directed at Snowden. Snowden was not such a target before he made the revelations referred to in (1) above.

I have asked, and others have asked, if Snowden's views on Social Security and the like have any logical relevance to the current controversy about NSA surveillance. No one has provided such a connection that I've seen.

It's fair to ask why anyone on DU bothers even to mention (let alone make a major topic of) what you call "the many things Snowden did wrong". My conclusion is that this focus on irrelevant personal details about a low-level employee is intended to deflect criticism from what the Obama administration has done.

Finally, I agree with you that DUers have huge areas of common agreement. I try to avoid making personal attacks on other DUers; I haven't called anyone a tool, a troll, or an authoritarian. What I did was to point out that one specific line of argument that people were making was McCarthyite and invalid. Love men, slay errors, as St. Augustine said.

[SunSeeker]

246. I did read your response. There was no link to back up your smear of DUers.

Just backpedaling on what you meant. Like I said, it is sad to see DUers attacking DUers instead of putting all that energy toward fighting the right wing.

[Jim Lane]

250. You complain about DUers attacking DUers -- which is what you're doing.

You say I'm "backpedaling" when I quoted my own original post verbatim. I stand by everything I actually wrote.

I pointed out that the vitriol directed at Snowden was far out of proportion to his importance. I opined that the reason for this barrage was to mount an indirect defense of the surveillance he exposed. I asked for an alternative explanation and pointed out that previous requests for such an explanation had been ignored. Your latest response continues to ignore it. Instead, you assert that my comment is a "smear" of other DUers. It is no smear to point out that a logical fallacy is being perpetrated.

I'm done here. Those of who you who want to obsess over the biography of some low-level NSA schlub have taken up enough of my time. You may now have the last word about Snowden and his heinous villainy. I make only one request: If your assault on him ever reaches the stage of pointing out what you contend are specific factual errors in what he has said about what the government is doing, please identify those alleged errors in a separate thread, one that is not cluttered with attacks on Snowden's views on completely unrelated issues. That way, there's more of a chance that I'll notice it.

[SunSeeker]

252. LOL. So pointing out that you're attacking DUers is "attacking" you?!

You say you were merely pointing out that a "logical fallacy is being perpetrated." I assume you are referring to your statement that DUers say illegal surveillance "isn't problematic because of the personal histories of some of the people who've brought information about it to light." I asked you for a link to back up your assertion. You have yet to provide that link, suggesting there is no such link and you were merely maligning DUers.

I'm not obsessing over Snowden, but I can't say the same for the Snowden worshipers, who are excitedly "hoping" he "will soon be able to see his girlfriend" and gushing over the possibility of hanging out with "our new friend, Eddie" while "sipping mojitos" on the beach.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3184195
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023179373#post100

Seriously, I'm not making it up. Check the links.

[bvar22]

122. Nicely Done, Dirk.

Good Deconstruction and Demolition of a "Specious Argument".

[Union Scribe]

255. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2967456

That's just one I have a link to because it's in "My Posts"--there are others. Perhaps you've not met Mr. "graham"...

[SunSeeker]

256. That poster does not say he supports illegal surveillance.

Uponit7771 responded rather tersely and sarcastically to another post asking the loaded question of whether a poster supported "the President's domestic surveillance of citizens." As he went on to explain further in the thread, "This is the 3rd time in 10 years the meta data story has come out the first we found out Bush was doing it without a warrant now we find out Obama is doing with a warrant and oversight and we have the same reaction as if they were the same and they're not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2967465

And he certainly does not say he supports it "because Snowden and Greenwald are libertarians," which was the assertion of the OP and the poster I was addressing. Uponit7771 does not even mention Snowden and Greenwald.

[backscatter712]

135. The McCarthyism on display is why I have so many hidden posts.

After seeing the constant McCarthyist demonization, I told those fuckers what I really think about them. Multiple times.

Notice when they alert on me when I tell them what I really think of them, when they're on the receiving end instead of the giving end, all of the sudden they're a bunch of delicate flowers who are horrified and made to cry and wracked with hurt feelings! All of the sudden, I'm the one that makes DU suck!

What a bunch of phonies!

[7962]

8. There's a very simple test you can use:

What would I be saying if Bush were still president? Its that easy.

[mattclearing]

12. Exactly. n/t

[Maat]

26. Exactly!

[WinkyDink]

37. It is PRECISELY that easy. As a Catholic and a Democrat, I support principles, not fallible men.

[Nay]

120. Yup. nt

[GoneFishin]

130. Yep. +1

[Vietnameravet]

150. Very shallow response. IMO

[SammyWinstonJack]

228. What DID they say when bu$h was president, should be the question.

What wasn't okay under bu$h suddenly IS under Obama.

[micraphone]

10. Spot On!

Big K & R

[silvershadow]

13. You and I are on the same page it seems...

I just posted this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023181848

[JDPriestly]

14. K&R. Thanks.

[whatchamacallit]

18. It's disgusting

They're disgusting. K&R

[LuvNewcastle]

19. I just don't read posts by certain people.

It's the same shit, over and over, and it's not worth my time. I don't have anybody on ignore, but I always check to see who a post is written by before I click on it. Used to, I would just look at the title of a thread and see if I would be interested. Now it's all about avoiding bullshit, like walking across a cow pasture.

[MichaelMcGuire]

20. You still have a few good soldiers (nt)

[DLevine]

22. Well said. My feelings exactly. nt

[cantbeserious]

24. Thank You - Well Said

eom

[SaveOurDemocracy]

27. Shocking how some will justify ANYTHING because of the 'D'. eom

[Skittles]

108. it's not the 'D' - it's the 'O'

[backscatter712]

110. Actually, I think it's a K...

K for Koch, that is.

Those sons-of-bitches have the money to pay for internet shills, posing as "Real Democrats", to post this sort of propaganda, no?

[Skittles]

112. I know there are plenty of trolls

but I am pretty sure our collection of swooners are real

[marions ghost]

184. I'm sure there's money in it

--independent contractors making good money...

[SaveOurDemocracy]

149. That too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3182075

[backscatter712]

28. Skinner won't police his site. That's the problem.

There's a gang of paid shills spewing authoritarian filth here.

And we have a broken jury system that's constantly gamed so their posts are mostly left alone, while they serial-alert on anyone who dares complain about them too loudly - didn't you know, you're not supposed to call out trolls, because the jury system works sooooo well here!

[Demit]

35. How is the jury system gamed? Honest question.

I get called periodically, and I give my honest assessment. I've alerted on posts, on occasion, and when I get the results sometimes I find that the jury members didn't agree with my take on the post I alerted on. I accept that. Why do you think the system is broken?

[awoke_in_2003]

92. Maybe not gamed, but it is ineffective...

I was a three term moderator. When posts were alerted on, they were discussed between a team. Posting history of the offender was easily available. Moderators were held accountable for their decisions. The jury system is a willy nilly random pick of members who have zero accountability.

[backscatter712]

98. My bet is that the 50-centers or trolls have dummy accounts set up just to do jury-duties.

All they have to do is have a script refresh their web pages periodically, and they'll eventually get selected.

It's probably one of the things they do with their accounts while they're "aging" them - they always make sure their shills have at least a couple thousand posts, so their shit gets past MIRT.

[baldguy]

171. You're talking about the Paulbots.

The Daily Paul even give a run down of what's happening on DU for their readers - to do with what they will.

[nebenaube]

158. no doubt...

I had to jury one of Cali's posts just last night. I let it stand... which might shock whoever Cali is.

[L0oniX]

179. Indeed. If 4 people just don't like you your post gets hidden. Doesn't matter if rules were broken.

The jury system is a bad joke and a sorry excuse for responsible moderation.

[awoke_in_2003]

210. Yep...

At least with moderation, if one had a personal grudge likely it would be overridden by the rest. In some cases, like me with religious posts, being an atheist I recused myself. On more than one occasion, others did the same as necessary. Again, it came down to accountability.

[Posteritatis]

151. It's not.

Whenever people don't get their way here, they just decide it's some cabal abusing the system or whatnot. It's like the supposed organized post unreccing that people whined nonstop about when that function was around, despite the fact that Skinner said straight out numerous times that no such thing was happening.

Basically, people are running into the notion that not everyone agrees with them, and they can't handle that.

[silvershadow]

102. There is a fungus among us, that's for sure. nt

[backscatter712]

109. a black mold - poisoning discussion here! n/t

[Jamaal510]

178. How do you know whether someone is a paid shill or not?

I happen to be one of those "authoritarian" Snowden detractors, yet I'm not getting paid a dime for it whatsoever.

[woo me with science]

204. Yes, and it will continue to get worse

Last edited Sun Jul 28, 2013, 12:11 PM - Edit history (3)

until this board looks like Corporate Defense Underground. A pattern is evident.

We are not talking last-century MSM propaganda on TV and radio. We are talking highly targeted and interactive propaganda across the internet, such that people who believe they are merely having political discussions with others online are immediately and relentlessly countered with corporate talking points and social manipulation/mocking/bullying when they challenge the corporate party line. There is a great deal of theater going on to create the illusion that Americans support what is being done to us and have contempt for those who don't.

DU has a history and an identity that is well-known to those of us who have been here since near its beginning. The flavor of its membership was generally steady during the early years. What is happening to it now is, quite frankly, not natural. It is particularly not natural on a liberal board, given the political climate and the general distrust across the country of our government.

The number of corporatism-celebrating personas, and the ratio of them to traditional Democrats on DU, is constantly, gradually, and unnaturally increasing. The number of expected recs for a post blatantly supporting antidemocratic, anti-Constitutional, corporate (often Bush II) policies used to be in the single digits. It is gradually increasing in a way too steady to be accidental, to the point that such posts now routinely garner 50+ recs. The influx of low-count posters coming in spouting the corporate line is constant and unrealistic.

And this marked change in the quality of the participation on the board is not unique to DU. This is happening all over the internet, on all the major political boards. The corporate forces that have taken control of our government have very deep pockets. Also keep in mind that the primary goal of any state turning to authoritarianism is to manage public opinion and public response so as to reduce the likelihood of pushback and revolt. Millions of us are being pushed into poverty, and our Constitutional protections are being stripped. Of course great attention and money will be poured into managing public opinion and creating the illusion that the people support what is being done to them.

One of the great unresearched and untold stories in the media right now, I am convinced, is the growth of the new Propaganda State alongside the Surveillance State. Governments and their corporate appendages use propaganda, and the more authoritarian and corporate governments become, the more they will rely on such "advertising" and stealth manipulation of public opinion. The level of cash and technology available now makes today's propaganda unlike any we have seen in the the past in terms of its relentlessness and interactivity.

[Enthusiast]

207. PLUS A BRAZILLION!

The propaganda state is as great of a threat as the surveillance state. This site is full of these paid liars, these defenders of the authoritarian state.

[LWolf]

245. +1,000,000 nt

[Catherina]

267. If anyone ever wonders why I love you so much, this post is why n/t

[2banon]

268. Exactly. The definition is called "Manufacturing Consent"..

It's also the title of a book Noam Chomsky wrote several years ago.. It's exactly the same principle.

And what I'm observing along with you, are robotic responses, complete with robotic memes on this speicific topic. Like I believe you pointed out quite well, is the intention is to make it appear as if people were engaged in honest "debate" when there is no debating the issue of concern at all, it's all about attacking the messenger, making the messenger the issue. And as you point out, to make it appear that "most" people are not concerned in the least of the issue at hand.

Unfortunately, a lot of time and energy will likely be required to keep up the reminders in every thread that's posted under this topic. The strategy is to bury this discussion vis a vis attrition.

struggle onward!

[Zorra]

232. In fairness to the admins, the paid shills are very good at not crossing the line.

I believe that the admins are trying to be as fair as possible.

Monitoring the alert system would be a good idea. A poster who consistently alerts frivolously, with obvious intent to use the jury system as a weapon, should be tombstoned, no questions asked.

Few, if any, progressives would use the jury system as a weapon, so the only ones at risk for pizza delivery will be conservatives/shills.

[raouldukelives]

32. One is only as liberal as their most conservative investment.

And many are much more deeply vested in furthering corporate interests than they are progressive ones.

[cali]

33. what a damn great op. spot on. stick around, would you?

emphatic k&r

[Divernan]

34. What happened to DU? Follow the money, honey!

And I'm NOT talking about the DU administration/owners. Kudos to them for this website. I'm talking about the money paid to trolls to register and post on DU. With billions of dollars being spent (by agencies under the control of the present administration) on sophisticated monitoring and gathering of information, there is no doubt there are trolls paid to monitor, distract and disrupt criticism 24/7 on DU of said present administration, any federal agencies under it's control, its appointees (particularly all of those from the corporate/banking world, DINOs and lifelong Republican political hacks), and its sponsors/donors (profiteers in the nuclear energy, fracking, "clean coal", Big Oil, Big Pharma, Monsanto, Wall Street bankers, Keystone pipeline, military industrial complex, etc.).

Let's be real. Anyone who actually benefits from corporatist policies is too damn rich, successful, highly paid and/or otherwise insulated from harsh economic realities to hire out as trolls. And they are too busy enjoying and managing their personal fortunes to spend unpaid time on line at DU. For one example, Rahm Emanuel doubtless backs Obama and Obama's polices 100%. Rahm is well on his way to joining the One Percent. Rahm is not monitoring/posting on DU. Paid trolls are people who can't find well-paid, productive means of employment, and so choose to work against their own long-term best interests by selling out to the profiteers. They are sell-outs with no concern for the long-term health and welfare of the 99%.

Paid trolls become obvious by their over-the-top, canned comments and 100% support of all things Obama. We know many of them on sight. What I also know is that posters in support of progressive groups, actions and points-of-view are posting because of their personal values - not because they are paid to do so. Progressive groups may urge members to actively and publicly support their respective agendas, but they do not have the budget to PAY people to do so. And they don't NEED to pay people, because we are motivated by our own values and concerns for the well-being of ourselves, our families/friend/communties/country/world to give what time we can spare to post at places like DU or Huffington Post.

What kind of progressive groups do not hire trolls? Union of Concerned Scientists, Sierra Club, Veterans for Peace, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Public Interest Research Group, Amnesty International, Habitat for Humanity, Doctors Without Borders, Friends of the Earth, Center for Media and Democracy, NOW, AAUW, ACLU, NARAL, Greenpeace, atheists, humanists, human rights activists, gays and lesbians, animal welfare groups, supporters of medical marijuana - oh, and let us not forget individuals: individuals like Glen Greenwald, Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, W. Mark Felt (FBI/Deep Throat), Karen Silkwood, never hired trolls to post on their behalf.
Full disclosure. I regularly receive phone calls, e-mail or snail-mail from progressive groups like those above, asking me to write letters to editors or contact my congresspersons regarding specific issues. I've never been asked to post anywhere on-line, and I've NEVER been offered one red cent by these groups to advocate in their behalf.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. Exactly!

[PATRICK]

36. The long and short of it

was that Obama's first election was stripped of concern with most major issues, reducing them to background dissatisfaction and the "First Black American President". Hillary would have been all about the "First Woman President".

In my memory and regarding most elections bad things get really worse and good things happen in increments with a lot of pain. A lot of illogical pain and evasiveness. All the unvisited Bush crimes(including election theft! Hello, politician, remember?), law enforcement stoutly and politely set aside, gratuitous gifts and silence on behalf of failed Republicans and acceptance of all too many fraudulent, criminal, immoral and stupid cheater ruling class progress in ruining literally anything worthwhile is a lot more than the desktop picture of the Dem program.

That is the main thing, remains the incredibly insane and ruinous philofoolery of the top of the American pond. As the rot and effects surface they have made the party as predictable as Reagan and Bush with the really good stuff included making it somehow all the more frustrating.

First, the fundamental nature of the party is not all that different from the past. The combative meanness of the coalition always resided in the punished South and has moved with vicious hypocrisy to the party of LINO, Lincoln in name only. The somewhat tamed and spoiled by near success Labor movement was too strident for the "bi-partisan" remains. So the second ball was cut off.

The fruits of this tree are bearing forth, just like the overweening power of elite corruption. Elite, what a word. So kind to themselves. Too much damn money wasted on ostensible claiming to create a wonderful society with half truths. Corrupted every single facet worth a damn.

The Dems seem to WANT to be blamed and be responsible adults about with the eternal surprise of getting impeached for other stuff entirely. Their super friends, and those who need to prop up some hope for progress nobly would deny them. And they just seem to double down on let down and seem more interested in themselves propping up failed Republicanism.

[KG]

38. fanboi's

[baldguy]

39. If you're a left-leaning, 4th Amendment loving, anti-corporate, anti-establishment libertarian

Then people like Ed Snowden, Glen Greenwald and Ron Paul are not your friends.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

44. speak of the devil

[truedelphi]

142. Bwahaha! And that guy doesn't even realize

what has just been said, and probably doesn't realize what yr reply means!

[L0oniX]

181. LMAO

[Enthusiast]

208. Pffft!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL] [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[grasswire]

52. that's ironic

You telling me who my friends are.

[L0oniX]

182. Irony has a built in blindness.

[ananda]

40. DU is infected with trolls.

Period.

[felix_numinous]

43. K&R!!

Welcome back! You said what I wanted to but didn't SO many times here:
'You are not a liberal!'

Thank you!!!

[JaneyVee]

45. Obama is the one calling for power to be scaled back. Vote a different Congress in 2014

[Maedhros]

82. If Obama wants to scale back on power

he could start by:

1. Disavowing the executive power he claimed to execute U.S. Citizens without due process.

2. Telling the Director of National Security, who he controls, to cease the PRISM program.

3. Stop the armed forces, which he commands, from dropping Hellfire missiles on "signature" targets.

4. Refuse to sign bad bills like the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

That's all I ask.

[rusty fender]

111. Posters like her should be called "Catapulters"

because they serve only to catapult the propaganda. There's no need to argue with them. They know that they are lying. That is their only purpose.

[Maedhros]

124. I know. They definitely receive the same scripts.

However, I don't like to let statements like that sit there without response.

Somebody has to look out for the lurkers

[Divernan]

91. I don't care what he "calls for", as per his camaign rhetoric.

It's his actions that we are judging and critiquing here on DU. Put your citations where your mouth is, so to speak, and give us some links to actions he's taken to "scale back" power.

He can try to blame everything on Congress, but he is the Executive and he controls foreign policy, military actions, NSA actions, etc.

In the immortal words of Marlon Brando in One-Eyed Jacks,"Talk is cheap, Jack. Make your play!"

[bvar22]

104. What he "says" and What he "DOES"........

[font size=3]James Clapper: Obama stands by intelligence chief as criticism mounts[/font]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/james-clapper-intelligence-chief-criticism





You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises or excuses.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

117. Heckuva job, Clapper.

[bvar22]

123. LOL.... EXACTLY!!!!

I know where the Obama Administration can get a nice "Mission Accomplished" banner....for CHEAP!

[Dragonfli]

105. Then his rogue justice dept. needs to be leashed, they are going for a cover-up

Justice Dept. urges surveillance court not to release opinions

[SammyWinstonJack]

229. Aw, geeze.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

46. Welcome back

We need to engage these totalitarians head-on!

DU it's self STILL supports the 1st and 4th, so you will have a lot of supporters here, it is just a tiny, but vocal, minority.

[forestpath]

47. knr

[Stinky The Clown]

48. Its the BAB, bub!

Blind Allegiance Brigade

They are no different than any other right- or left-wing people of blind allegiance to a leader.

Note to BABs: this is neither hatred nor racism, so if you're inclined to yap back at me on those points you so love to argue, get over your bad self, mmmkay?

[MissDeeds]

146. + 1000

Agreed - the Blind Allegiance Brigade is dangerous, whether it is in support of a Republican or Democratic politician.

[BrotherIvan]

50. Why do pro corporatism and Obama lurve go hand in hand? Oh wait...

Great post

[grasswire]

51. Wellstone: Stand up. Keep fighting.

That says it all, from a man who was murdered by TPTB.

[AmBlue]

55. Hear, hear.

This is an issue that has the ability to join together citizens of EVERY political stripe and the PTB know it. I think that's precisely why we see so much ”divide and conquer" tactics in this forum. We should all adopt a strategy of blocking the disruptors here-- and not waste so much energy being distracted by them.

[marions ghost]

185. yep

+++

[Savannahmann]

60. Welcome back

we need your voice, because too many have turned from Progressives to Authoritarians and shout the battle cry loyalty to the administration.

[Gregorian]

61. We're being trained to be obedient.

Congressmen are rock stars, not servants.

And people are hurting their necks because they're always looking up. I mean that there are so many specialists who are held in high esteem who tell us what is right and wrong. People don't make up their own minds. In the beginning, we knew how to eat the right plant, and not eat the one that would make us ill. Now everyone is at the mercy of those who know better.

I've never bought in. My doctor is just a guy who went to a few more years of school. Not someone I need to be submissive with. My Representative is just another person like me. Even those elusive billionaires are just like me. Actually, I'm having lunch soon with a billionaire, and I've been thinking how fun it will be to know that he's probably just a messed up person who has to compensate for his shortcomings by making a shitload of money. Not someone I should be bowing and scraping to.

I'm literally sickened by what has happened in America in this sense. Everyone in awe of their superiors.

Junk food. Junk news- My new phrase. It did a lot to usher in this stupid era.

[RainDog]

62. agreed n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Welcome back..

By the way we traitors welcome more into the ranks. And yes, they see us as traitors.

[nineteen50]

173. nadinbrzezinski

I do not know you but I am clearly hearing and appreciating your posts.

[L0oniX]

183. When do we get to have our own church?

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2013, 10:06 PM - Edit history (1)

[nadinbrzezinski]

186. You want to try herding this group of cats

Into a church?

[Ratty]

64. I don't believe they're trolls or paid shills

But yeah, it's baffling why so many here are OK with this.

Some are trying to make this about guilt by association: Snowden is a Libertarian Paul-lover, therefore the message is tainted and should be ignored.

Some see it as an attack on the president: Do you want a Republican in the White House in 2016?

Some claim we're only being duped by a Republican plot: You're just regurgitating Republican talking points.

Some don't think it's a big deal: Hey folks, it's only metadata we're talking about here. Metadata can't hurt you. Besides, we've pretty much suspected something like this has been going on for years.

Some cling to the letter of the law: What Snowden did was illegal therefore he should be tried for treason.

Some seem distracted by non-sequiturs: This all began under Bush/Cheney.

What I don't see much of is a serious discussion of liberty vs security, on which honest people can disagree I believe.

There are some smart people making the silly arguments above. People I have respected over the years. I know they aren't trolls but I just really don't get it. Would these people really be OK with this program under Bush? I find that very very hard to believe.

[NRaleighLiberal]

95. +1. n/t

[marions ghost]

116. Having to look--really look--at the implications

of the choice between "liberty vs security"-- is too disturbing to some. They really can't wrap their beautiful minds around it.

Your list of arguments and rationalizations that even intelligent people use to avoid confronting the terrible truth is to the point. The vast RW-controlled data-mining apparatus probing every aspect of our lives--collecting, analyzing, filtering, profiling, etc--is just too terrible, too much of a betrayal. Too dangerous to confront those indications of our abject failure as a democratic society. And our obscene abuse of others around the globe.

Do you expect people who still believe the system is functional to want to delve into the apparent crash of the noble ideals our democracy was founded on? These are the Dem-voting or unaffiliates who have some degree of "progressive" in there somewhere.

The rest are professional trolls who think of themselves as doing a key job for their authoritarian masters. They are easier to bear, since we know they're always in opposition. It is more depressing to see people who should know better fall into the traps of hiding the skeletons and body parts.

Really sorts out the profiles around here, doesn't it? This division reflects the country's attitudes IMO.

[WillyT]

66. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[ProSense]

67. No

Has it just become "Obama's America, love it or leave it?"

I don't care what you think about Snowden or Greenwald on a personal level, or what you think about their identification with libertarians, or with their past histories. The fact is, when the corporate-owned Washington politicians were agitated and embarrassed by the NSA leak, they pulled out their usual tricks: distract, divide, poison the well. Their corporate media lapdogs joined in immediately after, digging up every ounce of dirt possible on the leakers and journalists who made their Correspondent's Dinner dates uncomfortable. "Troublemakers", "traitors", "anti-Americans."

...it hasn't, and I think that's a huge straw man. It's the same kind of logic that attempts to portray everything that's wrong with America as Obama's fault.

IMO, Snowden is a coward and a hack. I distrust his intentions and find the distortions of the information and the hypocrisy of trying create an international incident by exposing U.S. state secrets to countries that aggressively violate human rights to be disturbing.

I know people love the idea of the poking this country in the eye, but I don't see how this helps in the big picture. It will only serve to steel the resolve of countries who will use this as an opportunity to say to the U.S.: you have no reason to talk.

If anyone think that's good, then s/he is completely naive. There was a right way and a wrong way to approach NSA accountability, Snowden's international escapade was not it.

On the domestic side, the debate should have been ongoing, and it should have been the focus. The debate needs to be on the facts. I do notice that one of Greenwald's recent releases got little attention after it was pointed out that safeguards were in place. The debate briefly returned to: Oh, what about the next Republican President?

Documents Detail N.S.A. Surveillance Rules

By SCOTT SHANE

<...>

On Thursday, in the latest release of documents supplied by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor now believed to be hiding in Hong Kong, The Guardian published two documents setting out the detailed rules governing the agency’s intercepts...They show, for example, that N.S.A. officers who intercept an American online or on the phone — say, while monitoring the phone or e-mail of a foreign diplomat or a suspected terrorist — can preserve the recording or transcript if they believe the contents include “foreign intelligence information” or evidence of a possible crime. They can likewise preserve the intercept if it contains information on a “threat of serious harm to life or property” or sheds light on technical issues like encryption or vulnerability to cyberattacks.

And while N.S.A. analysts usually have to delete Americans’ names from the reports they write, there are numerous exceptions, including cases where there is evidence that the American in the intercept is working for a terrorist group, foreign country or foreign corporation.

The documents, classified “Secret,” describe the procedures for eavesdropping under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, including an N.S.A. program called Prism that mines Internet communications using services including Gmail and Facebook. They are likely to add fuel for both sides of the debate over the proper limits of the government’s surveillance programs.

They offer a glimpse of a rule-bound intelligence bureaucracy that is highly sensitive to the distinction between foreigners and “U.S. persons,” which technically include not only American citizens and legal residents but American companies and nonprofit organizations as well. The two sets of rules, each nine pages long, belie the image of a rogue intelligence agency recklessly violating Americans’ privacy.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/politics/documents-detail-nsa-surveillance-rules.html

<...>

Today, in the latest release of classified NSA documents from Glenn Greenwald, we finally got a look at these minimization procedures. Here's the nickel summary:

The top secret documents published today detail the circumstances in which data collected on US persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the US, and reveals how US call records are used to help remove US citizens and residents from data collection.

I have a feeling it must have killed Glenn to write that paragraph. But on paper, anyway, the minimization procedures really are pretty strict. If NSA discovers that it's mistakenly collected domestic content, it's required to cease the surveillance immediately and destroy the information it's already collected. However, there are exceptions. They can:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023060180

WaPo: New documents reveal parameters of NSA’s secret surveillance programs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058091

Claiming opposition to Snowden's actions is equivalent to being an "apologist" for the NSA is part of the problem. His actions are a separate issue from the debate on NSA accountability.

There is little attention being paid to proposed solutions: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023135750

I will repeat:

In a country where surveillance has been part of the fabric of law enforcement and national security, with the acknowledgment that it's a necessity, the debate is about how to do it while protecting Americans, classified information and the Constitution.

This is the reason that while Senators like Udall and Wyden are critical of the program, they're offering a fix. You can bet there will be those who don't think it goes far enough, and others who will dismiss it.

One thing is certain, whether it’s a SCOTUS decision or a Congressional fix, the U.S. surveillance program, the 61-year-old NSA, isn't going anywhere.

I suspect that any fix in operation can earn the label unconstitutional. I suspect that if the Church Committee existed today and proposed the FISA court, it would be challenged as such.

You don't have to love it. You never did. You can push elected officials for accountability, but will you be satisfied?

My beef is there is no need to distort the facts to debate the issue. That is what Snowden's leak did, and I might add, intentionally.

The NSA doesn't need to be sensationalized to spark a debate. The facts of its operation are enough to do just that, as evidenced by the years of challenges mounted by civil liberties organizations.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. Self parody is the Best parody, so thanks for your entry!

nt

[ProSense]

81. I don't take you seriously. n/t

[Kurovski]

162. You can't say "supercillious" without "super silly".

That's a gem you just typed there. Some will disagree, of course.

So I should say "super silly us".

[woo me with science]

97. Prosense: "Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal."

The hypocrisy reeks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

[bvar22]

119. Ouch. The mark THAT leaves is indelible.

I would hate to have something like that hanging around my neck.


Consistency is the hallmark of an honest broker of information and ideas.
It is the byproduct of a good internal Moral Compass,
and a focus on Issues and Policy, NOT Personality or Party.

It must suck to wake up one morning and be forced to reverse yourself 180 degrees based on the capriciousness of an election, or policy reversal by the political leadership,
but some seem to be able to do this effortlessly and seamlessly.

One day, they are AGAINST something "for the good of the American people",
and then the next day, they are FOR the very same thing "for the good of the American people".
I couldn't do that without vomiting from the dizziness and shame.

[woo me with science]

121. I guess that's why

shamelessness is part of the job description.

[Warren Stupidity]

127. She has backed herself into a corner where she has to deny that any massive domestic surveillance

is going on. It is an untenable position, but she's clinging to it with fierce determination. I have no idea why. I've tried to help her out of this quandary by pointing out that she can still be a party loyalist, an Obama loyalist, and oppose the national security state, but so far she isn't going for it.

[ProSense]

199. You've been duped. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

226. Well I agree you could have been lying.

[ProSense]

231. I guess being disingenuous is cool.

Anyhoo, I'm really happy Obama won re-election with your help.

Thanks a bunch.

[bvar22]

240. "duped"..."disingenuous"

Are you saying you did NOT post this at DU as an OP back in 2006?

"ProSense (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

[font size=3]Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimes by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes. [/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

Are you saying that somebody else posted that?
It sure looks like your name and your account.

Are you saying that it is somehow different now that Obama is President?

...or maybe you have "evolved",
and now embrace Spying on Americans,
That Bush was right all along,
and you were "duped" into opposing him?

Please show us HOW we have been "duped"
so that we can avoid it in the future.




You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their excuses.

[Divernan]

137. Love it! Pro Sense outed as opposed to Obama's spying on citizens!

So what does she really believe? As the trial lawyer says to any witness who reverses their testimony, were you lying then or are you lying now? I'm sure she and her fellow loyalists are alerting like mad on her being outed, but come on - she put it in writing. I believe this used to be referred to as situational ethics.

Snaps to you, Woo Me With Science, for unearthing this delightful bit of DU history! As Sheldon Cooper would say, Bazinga!

[ProSense]

198. Can't quit

being disingenuous, huh: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122617

Do you stand by this post, Prosense?

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't be changed to make that legal.

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

Yup, stand 100 percent behind it.

Ever heard of the PAA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

By all means, go on pretending you never received a response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122942
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3125366
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122700
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122561
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133751
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134370
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134060#post86
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023169023#post167
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023185307#post1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023187207#post21

You know I'm going to post this everytime you post your failed gotcha, don't you?

No, you can't quit being disingenuous:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3186751
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3186886
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3187300

[sabrina 1]

241. So then you DISAGREE with the current surveillance of Americans? That's good to know

because I definitely got a different impression from your posts which seemed to be defending these policies.

[a2liberal]

203. Nice find!

Shows that it's really all about a cult of personality (or party)

[Enthusiast]

211. PLUS ONE! nt

[Enthusiast]

212. ...

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[SammyWinstonJack]

230. opps.

[LiberalLovinLug]

125. The Straw Man is Snowden

"IMO, Snowden is a coward and a hack. I distrust his intentions and find the distortions of the information and the hypocrisy of trying create an international incident by exposing U.S. state secrets to countries that aggressively violate human rights to be disturbing."

At least you had the gumption to preclude that with "IMO". Yes it is only your biased opinion. But once again, its all about Snowden and not about the bigger story.

You know Jeffrey Wigand, the whistleblower against the tobacco industry worked for those big evil corporations like Union Carbide, Johnson & Johnson, and the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. Oh and he also divorced his wife after she acquired multiple sclerosis....kind of a creep in the vein of Newt. So I guess using your logic we should all have disregarded what he exposed and should have kept the focus on him and his personal foibles.

"The NSA doesn't need to be sensationalized to spark a debate. The facts of its operation are enough to do just that, as evidenced by the years of challenges mounted by civil liberties organizations."

Yeah?...and how has that worked out? In fact, and maybe unfortunately, we DO need the story to be "sensationalized", which is BTW no fault of Snowden, in order to have a public debate on it.

[Divernan]

141. Right!Despite"Years of challenges to NSA"it keeps growing like a malignant cancer

Obviously, public outrage is needed to shine the light of day on NSA.

[Cha]

189. Mahalo ProSense for your post replying so well to this disingenuous,

Distorted POSrawman shit.. It's META shite, but of course allowed to stand because it's from a Snowden acolyte.

Not everyone's on the Greenwald, Snowden, Assange bandwagon and that just freaks the hell out those who are. And, they're all too ready to whip up bullhit because.. well, so many are going to lap it up. Rah Rah Rah..

The Leakers make themselves look bad. And, if its exposed and not swept under the carpet then "it's digging up dirt". Better we should stifle the conversation and ALL be behind GG, Snowden, it al.. 100%. Or you're a fookin' "authoritarian" or whatever the bullshit du jour is.

[ProSense]

201. Amazing, isn't it? n/t

[Mojorabbit]

269. Irony up the wazoo in this post. nt

[treestar]

71. Meta

How dare anyone discuss these issues! They should agree with you and not challenge you dammit!

[merrily]

73. Let me guess. When you last followed DU closely, Bush was in office.

Apparently, all Democrats care a great deal when a Republican makes any misstep. Then, it's about principles. However, there is considerably less unanimity when a Democrat makes a misstep. Then, it's about party. At least, for some.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

75. K & f'ing R

Sometime ya gotta get away to see how the kids grew up!
But all in all still a fun place to be.
Personally I love to see all the discussions, name calling not so much, but I can just skip those and do!

[MotherPetrie]

76. K&R

[Zorra]

78. Agreed. nt

[BlueJac]

79. Well said!

[snagglepuss]

80. Hear Hear

[Doctor_J]

83. Liberals still are in favor of rights

the centrist (Clinton/Obama/DLC) wing, not so much. they're hoping abortion rights and utter repulsiveness of every single Repuke are enough to carry the election next year. we will see...

[RevStPatrick]

85. "...the surrender to the powerful simply because they have a (D)...

"... after their name and they voted for them."

I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

"Go Team! Rah Rah Rah!!"

[Not Sure]

89. This is the voice of the DU I joined in 2005

Nice to hear it once again.

[Alkene]

144. Hear, hear. n/t

[go west young man]

93. Personally I think we need a new progressive DU.

And maybe a name to change to "Democracy Underground". The notion of fighting for democrats who are against true progressive ideas and are content with evaporating our rights, freedoms, and the New Deal seems a touch ridiculous.

[NRaleighLiberal]

94. Perfectly stated - thanks for putting down what I've been feeling for weeks. K and R.

[xiamiam]

96. you have to use the ignore feature..

been here since 2004 and you are right, things changed but I increased my ignore list by about 20 or so in these past few weeks and it makes for a much more bearable experience. A lot less gossip and derailing. Should have done it a long time ago but there was no doubt in my mind over these issues.

[otohara]

99. Patience, He'll Be Gone

and we can bash the next president...that's how we operate.

911 changed everything...in Washington
It will be decades before 911 isn't used as an excuse to do what ever they want.

[woo me with science]

100. What's happened to DU?

Same thing that has happened to our MSM and discussion boards all across the internet.

States that build surveillance infrastructures also build propaganda infrastructures. The authoritarians need something to take the place of the investigative journalism they are criminalizing.

K&R for your post. It's good to see fresh outrage, because when you wallow in this shit day after day, you sometimes forget how sick it all looks to someone just walking in. The normalization of unconscionable "debates" over whether we should have Fourth Amendment rights is, doubtless, a goal of the propaganda.

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

They are attempting to normalize the step-by-step elimination of the Constitution.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981711

[Z_I_Peevey]

153. Beautifully put, woo me with science:

States that build surveillance infrastructures also build propaganda infrastructures. The authoritarians need something to take the place of the investigative journalism they are criminalizing.

That needs to be on a T-shirt. Yep.

[Warpy]

101. Recovering Republicans

They're too young to have done many of the things you cited, so recovery is a rough and rocky road for them. They were raised at Mama's knee internalizing all the pejoratives the conservative establishment threw at us and it's really hard for them to admit Mama and Papa were lying to them or worse, didn't know any better themselves.

They've only started to question the steady diet of bullshit they were force fed by parents, media, church, and school. They are going to make a lot of mistakes.

I do think that's what is happening here, not a mass invasion by trolls.

But yes, they have been part of the problem in the past. It's up to the rest of us to make sure they don't poison the future.

[a2liberal]

103. +1000000

This place has become freaking scary with so many prominent DUers being so openly authoritarian.

[richmwill]

106. Thank you. I fully agree.

Some here are so blinded by party loyalty that they feel this is "a wonderful thing our President is doing for us, and if you don't agree- f you! You're not a real Democrat, you don't love Obama". Makes me sick.

[Skittles]

107. THANK YOU

it sickens me, the poison that had invaded DU - I'm pretty sure they are an anomaly though, and will be gone in 2016

[zeeland]

113. I responded to this post earlier this morning

and it had been locked. Very glad to see it up again. I'd like to know why it was taken down in the first place.
The reason given was so ridiculous I don't even remember what it was.

Thank you for posting what needed to be asked and also stated.

[Divernan]

132. Poster "Violet Crumble" posted that the thread was locked.

Then VC deleted her own post. See Post 42 above. Was she being sarcastic and misunderstood or what? If she seriously tried to fool posters into believing the thread was locked, she should be tombstoned, as we used to say in the early days of DU.

[zeeland]

139. What a shitty thing to do.

The post was made to look authentic. I like giving people the benefit of the doubt
but misunderstood is pushing it. I cancelled my post and contacted the OP to thank
them for the OP and suggest I would complain if I thought it would do any good.

Violet Crumble has much better DU credentials than I do so not getting into it
any further except to suggest an apology which I'm sure is not forthcoming.

Thanks for the explanation.

[Violet_Crumble]

197. It was exactly what Scarletwoman said...

There's been a lot of alerts lately on OPs for being 'whining about DU'. This was one of two we were discussing in the hosts forum, and I locked based on what I was reading in the hosts forum. But a former GD host said something that made me think unlocking both was the best way to go, especially as I'm the only one who can unlock something I've locked, and being in a different timezone I was heading off to bed. So I unlocked both and deleted my locking message. There wasn't anything underhand about it, especially as on a personal level and not as a host, this OP resonates with me like very few at DU do....

So, yeah. I'm sorry for any confusion or anything that it caused and hope that clears it up

[zeeland]

215. No problem. It's just the way the timing worked out.

Wrote a fairly long response because like you this post said it all
and returned to post only to find it locked...so glad you reconsidered.

[scarletwoman]

174. She is a host of GD. What probably happened was that some hosts had voted to lock this,

then other hosts argued against it and the no-lock argument prevailed.

As a former GD host, I'm very familiar with how this works. Someone sends an alert to the hosts. The hosts wait for other hosts to show up and discuss the alert. Sometimes a decision to lock is reached and then overturned when more hosts weigh in. That's probably what happened in this case.

When a host is going to lock a thread, if they're going to post a "locking message" - an explanation of why the hosts decided to lock the thread - it has to be posted before the thread is actually locked. Because you can't post to a locked thread.

So, VC posted her locking message, got word that the locking decision was overturned, and deleted her post. She wasn't trying to "fool" anybody.

[still_one]

114. What kind of bullshit is this. You want group think, then du isn't for you

and frankly, you are whining about du

[Skittles]

138. it's not group think

it's like trying to have a serious discussion in a room where a group of 5 years olds are screaming and stamping their feet

[BobbyBoring]

115. A big ol K + R!

If we are to survive as a nation (which looks more doubtful by the day), we have to end the division. The same thing can't be OK if your guy does it and a big no no if their guy does.

The truth is, if you can't write a 6 figure check (in front of the decimal), you don't have a guy!

[bvar22]

126. Proud DURec!

You summed it up well.

[orpupilofnature57]

128. Checks & Balances are what They've deleted ....

[yurbud]

129. most who joined them were paid to do so and are only here for the check

They know how to make their numbers seem much greater than they really are by posting multiple similar threads and bring quick to call anyone who disagrees with their talking points an unrealistic kook.

[GoneFishin]

131. I also suspect multiple avatars for some individuals, since you mentioned

making their numbers seem much greater than they really.

[backscatter712]

134. When the Snowden story broke, they came out with entire sock drawers! n/t

[yurbud]

136. the easy way to tell their real numbers or close to it is post a poll

Even worth multiple user IDs, their numbers are dwarfed by the rest of us.

[woo me with science]

159. There is a system in place, though. Expect the numbers to rise.

I have been closely watching rec counts for blatantly freeper-ish posts for some time now. In the past, they would get single-digit count recs at most. Over time, that number, and the influx of low count posters spouting the talking points, has slowly climbed, much too steadily for it to be accidental. Now a post like that will get recs from 30 to 60.

States that build surveillance infrastructures also build propaganda infrastructures. These people have deep, deep pockets. They could not take over message boards completely on Day One and have everyone believe that membership opinion changed overnight to a board of corporate toadies. But we can expect the level of infiltration by shills and socks to continue to increase steadily and gradually over time.

It is worth noting that the Smith-Mundt Act revision, which ends the prohibition on the government's propagandizing its own people, takes effect this summer or fall.

[nineteen50]

133. The ability to tell

the difference between the truth and a lie has been murdered by blind allegence and his inebriated accomplice hypocrisy.

[Kurovski]

140. Well put-together OP.

Please stick around.

K&R

[ctsnowman]

143. K & R

[blkmusclmachine]

145. Hitler had his followers, too.

[MissDeeds]

148. Huge K&R

And glad to see you back on DU, NuclearDem.

[Corruption Inc]

152. They're republicans playing a democrat on a message board

So you're correct, they are not liberals. I wouldn't even bother posting that except the republicans just keep coming day after day and posting classic republican talking points then attacking anyone who dares call them out.

They're a lot like Obama himself, he plays a good democratic president on TV but in reality appoints lots of republicans to positions, keeps torture camps open, spies on Americans, won't hold criminals accountable, goes after whistle blowers, talks about austerity measures, drills for oil, fully promotes for-profit health insurance, and supports/defends numerous other indefensible positions.

[Herlong]

154. Gives me a better understanding of how we got here

The devotion to the team. The divide and conquer. It's all real, it's been happening for a long time.

[NorthCarolina]

155. What a great post.

I couldn't agree more.

[indepat]

156. You might be on to something. Actually, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head.

All this should be as plain and shiny as the noses on our faces because the one fact everyone should understand is our government is controlled by and does the bidding of unseen forces (1%) to the detriment of almost the entire population (99%). The proof is how immediately dissent is stifled and crushed by big brother and its propaganda machine, the corporate MSM. Further proof is detailed in the headlines every day.

[Civilization2]

160. Hear, hear,. very well said. Nothing can be good without criticism.

Partisan ideologues, like fundamentalists, are always wrong in my book.

[sulphurdunn]

164. Trolls, right wingers

and Democratic Party ideologues are welcome here. They're not very bright generally, and their arguments are easy to rebut, but having them is a good thing. A democratic society is a debating society.

[farmbo]

165. You're kidding, Right?

This site has been all Obama bashing all the time since Glen Greenwald's first interview with Snowden.
You must have logged on to FR by mistake if you've detected people actually defending the President.

I have never seen anything like this.

[SunSeeker]

253. He's not kidding, even though no one can back up his assertions about DUers with any links.

See my exchange up the thread, starting at Post 7. Pretty sad, really.

[MisterP]

166. the worst part of it all is, THEY FEEL THE SAME

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023185536
it's like the 00s' heartfelt cry of "why do they hate us" all over again

[ChiciB1]

168. I'm Also One Who Left Here & Just Recently

came back. Not sure for how long, the past 2 weeks have upped my stress level beyond healthy. Wanted to see what others were writing since I stopped. I see some names that are still here, but your post says it all.

I recently wrote a small post about how I feel, which is how you feel. I think I said I don't ask questions anymore because there are never any answers. Unless & until the people of this nation wake up or better yet RISE up, it's only going to get worse.

As a nation there have always been problems, but there was a time that as a nation people stood up and said ENOUGH! Since I'm a Boomer, I doubt I'll see much change before I check out. AND, I've said too many times in the recent past that in some ways it's better that I'm older because I fear for what's to come. I was taught all my life to stand up for my rights and try to make things better for my children and those who come behind. I joined up with the Occupy Movement, but it fizzled here. I stayed until we were down to less than 10. I CAN'T do it anymore and it DOES depress me.

The best I feel I can hope for is to at least keep my head above water long enough to make it through. Don't have much money, more & more try NOT to spend any money unless it's needed, but I have kids & grand kids. IT HURTS!

[Norrin Radd]

170. kr

[airplaneman]

172. I have coined a new term for some of my "Democratic" friends.

They call themselves Democrats but they think the poor get too many benefits and would never help one. Snowden can rot in prison - he is a trouble maker - they don't care. Global warming - we don't know if it is Man made or not so we shouldn't be doing anything about it just yet. It amazes me the number of people that buy this crap or think they are still Democrats.

I call them Republican Democrats.

-Airplane

[Douglas Carpenter]

180. If Snowden was an unabashed liberal -- and a Republican was in the White House - would you support

him releasing information about the NSA secretly collecting and recording information on all of our phone calls, E-mails and other communications - would you think that was okay then?

[airplaneman]

214. I think I would reserve judgment based on what this guy actually did bring to light.

He certainly opened a can of worms. He brought to light something we were not aware of.
I know he is a Libertarian but ultimately my Liberal slant tell me this guy was a whistle blower.
I think if it were me I probably would have committed suicide afterwords. I expect the conservatives want to lock him up forever. I know what he did was a breach of the oath he took to get the job that gave him the know edge of what was going on. I think liberals want the truth and conservative want to spread lies and hide the truth. To answer your question I don't think my opinion would change if Snowden were the unabashed Liberal and a Republican was president. I am not a one issue and I draw a conclusion person. My term of Republican Democrat is for those that buy multiple conservative talking point and not just one. Snowden, the poor, and global warming is usually the key three that they bring up to me first. Thanks for asking.
-Airplane

[L0oniX]

175. My country right or wrong” is a thing that no patriot would think of saying...

...except in a desperate case. It is like saying, “My mother drunk or sober.” - G. K. Chesterton

[LWolf]

177. Welcome back.

[pacalo]

187. Just wanted to point out that Glenn Greenwald is *NOT* a libertarian...

He has a strong sense of right/wrong & is simply interested in advocating the truth of what our government does in our name. He wrote about the lies being told about him & this excerpt is in regard to the libertarian label being stamped on his reputation:

These labels are hard to refute primarily because they've become impoverished of any meaning. They're just mindless slurs used to try to discredit one's political adversaries. Most of the people who hurl the "libertarian" label at me have no idea what the term even means. Ask anyone who makes this claim to identify the views I've expressed - with links and quotes - that constitute libertarianism.

I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:

* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);

* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);

* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);

* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);

* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);

* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);

* criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);

* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);

* praising and defending the Occupy Wall Street movement as early and vocally as anyone (here, here and here)

* using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;

* co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardin, JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);

* co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);

To apply a "right-wing libertarian" label to someone with those views and that activism is patently idiotic. Just ask any actual libertarian whether those views are compatible with being a libertarian. Or just read this October, 2012 post - written on Volokh, a libertarian blog - entitled "Glenn Greenwald, Man of the Left", which claims I harbor "left-wing views on economic policy" and am "a run-of-the-mill left-winger of the sort who can be heard 24/7 on the likes of Pacifica radio" because of my opposition to cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

There is no doubt that I share many views with actual libertarians, including: opposition to a massive surveillance state, support for marriage equality for LGBT citizens, restraints on government power to imprison or kill people without due process, opposition to the death penalty and the generally oppressive US penal state, contempt for the sadistic and racist drug war, disgust toward corporatism and crony capitalism, and opposition to aggressive wars and the ability of presidents to wage them without Congressional authority. It's also true that I supported the Citizens United decision on free speech grounds: along with people like the ACLU and Eliot Spitzer (the only politician to put real fear in the heart of Wall Street executives in the last decade and probably the politician most hated by actual libertarians).

Liberals and libertarians share the same views on many issues, particularly involving war, civil liberties, penal policies, and government abuse of power. That is why people like Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich worked so closely with Ron Paul to Audit the Fed and restore civil liberties.

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

[sabrina 1]

216. Thanks Pacalo, Greenwald has always supported SS and other Liberal policies. For a

Libertarian, some of his positions on issues are very strange aren't they? Lol!

[pacalo]

218. I pointed that out because I've seen that labeling a number of times & it's factually wrong.

I'm disappointed that Greenwald's expose of the NSA program isn't better received on this progressive site. We're supposed to feel the most protective of our civil liberties.

This isn't about Obama, or wanting him to fail, & certainly not about racism. It's about the incredible overreach of power that provides a wealth of opportunity to abuse it, to our huge disadvantage. If a president with the mentality of a Breitbart or a Romney were in the WH, I'm pretty sure we would all be in agreement.

If spying on Americans is going to be stopped or curtailed, it could only happen when a Democrat is in the WH. Unfortunately, with a high priority of criminalizing whistleblowers, I don't think it's going to happen during Obama's presidency. Whistleblowers risk their careers & lives by trying to right a horrible wrong; an administration that makes punishing whistleblowers such a high priority is guarding the status quo.

It's like nails on a chalkboard for me to see all the bickering about this issue. I generally skip those threads. We all should value our civil liberties here.

[Curmudgeoness]

190. Welcome back, we need you.

The number of rec's on this thread gives me hope.

[gateley]

191. Very well done.

I like Obama so much I always TRY to "understand", but the bottom line is, so much of what he's done (and who he's appointed) baffles and disappoints me.

Thanks for your post.

[DCBob]

192. Sorry a bit of common sense and pragmatism doesnt fit your version of a progressive/liberal.

Last edited Sun Jul 7, 2013, 08:26 AM - Edit history (2)

Its fits mine just fine.

[sibelian]

221. "Common sense" and "pragmatism"

are valueless ciphers for the obfuscation of the fact that you have no point, DCBob.

[DCBob]

222. My point is many of you are completey out of touch with reality.

Is that clear enough?

[sibelian]

223. Another meaningless aphorism.

Possibly LESS clear than the first.

"reality" - pf. Distinguish it from your perceptions of it convincingly. Brings us the "common ground".

[DCBob]

225. I guess for some "reality" is an elusive concept.

[sibelian]

227. So it would appear.

It's a sufficiently all-encompassing term as to be applicable to the bolstering of almost any position. It's "elusive" nature could be considered useful.

[LWolf]

248. Is that you, Chuckles?

[woo me with science]

263. Excellent.

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

From So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish, by Douglas Adams

[brush]

193. You can still be a progressive

if you're abhor the laws that allowed the whole NSA operation, but at the same time be against Snowden fleeing and turning over classified docs to foreign countries.

He miscalculated badly by doing that.

He should have stayed here and faced the music (with the best lawyers, I'm betting, lining up to defend him) — then he would deserve the hero worship. Now it's like, okay he did an honorable thing, then he committed treason.

What is one supposed to do with that?

[Lonr]

195. Absolutely!

+1

[AAO]

196. I proudly give you your 300th rec

Principles are all we have in life. If we allow those to be diminished in ANY WAY, we start the unrelenting slide towards the cowards way out. OK, you can do that this time - but next time, by golly..... (you can finish the sentence).

We need to vote out unprincipled senators and congresspersons. We simply cannot afford to continue down the primrose path to destruction.

I hope we shake things up in 2014 and 2016 - then maybe we will have a fighting change to start the turnaround.

Forgive me If I don't hold my breath...

[Kurovski]

205. Kick. (nt)

[Uncle Joe]

209. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, NuclearDem.

[Vanje]

213. There is no longer a represented left wing in this country

There are two right-winged parties.

Right now, I would, for the first time in my life, turn my back , utterly on my party. Renounce what the Democrats have become. Its all but done, but for two people: Senators Wyden and Udall.


My lifelong identity as a Democrat is hanging on a very very thin line.

My involvement with DU, is lately sporadic, and disappointing.

DU's shills , apologists, and extreme partisans who spend hours and effort posting at DU are NOT winning converts, but are repelling life-long Democrats.
Good work, Pom-pom squad, You're preaching to a very much smaller choir now.

The revolution will not be televised.
And it will not be seen on DU.

[pecwae]

219. Some excellent points in your reply

as well as the OP. This one has the sharpest point: "DU's shills , apologists, and extreme partisans who spend hours and effort posting at DU are NOT winning converts, but are repelling life-long Democrats." My question to them "Do really think you're changing hearts with your oft and nasty attacks?"

[sabrina 1]

233. Maybe that's the goal? n/t

[pecwae]

234. If that's so

I'd love to hear the logic behind it.

[sabrina 1]

236. Well, there's no logic to defending Bush policies on a Democratic forum other

than to achieve what is happening, to divide Democrats.

[MisterP]

238. same goal as Sen. Cranston had in '78 and the DLC had in '88: to move the party

rightward: in the US right and left can be seen as two parallel bundles made of strands and "cords" like "big business," "African-Americans," "women's movements," "the Religious Right," "the religious left," or "right-libertarians," with moderates drinking from both bundles (or one, then the other, same diff), with the two giant parties picking their membership from the rightmost 40% of the spectrum: as of 2012 the party spectrum has been limited to the rightmost 20% of the US's overall spectrum: it's Birchers on one hand and corpo-friendly earned benefits cutters on the other hand

by mainstreaming ever-rightward opinion within the party ("SCOTUS legalized this crazy reading of the 2nd Amendment, and we must abide by it&quot and by declaring increasing advocates of the 4th Amendment as hair-on-fire Chicken Littles panicking before they get the facts in, but also as hegemonic bullies quashing legitimate and serious discussion about--er--fuel gauges and whether an 8 can be with a 5, they win even if they don't get any Dem to accept any of their points or drive Dems out of the party in disgust: because their notion of "legitimate discussion" matches that of politics and media

but by making themselves a laughingstock worse than those trolls screaming about Benghazi or the New Black Panther Party they're unmasking the Ingsoc-level bankruptcy of the national-level party: the Sixth Party System in place since like 1994 began with NAFTA and with Lowell Weicker's replacement by Lieberman, and over the decades has purged and emptied the Dems of most of their lefty tendencies (though of course they'll stop fighting gay marriage after the 12th year of doing so, and LILLY LEDBETTER LILLY LEDBETTER LILLY LEDBETTER); a new meaningfully-populist party for the 70-99% and to the left of Francisco Franco is not inevitable (even without both parties being integrated into the National Security State, they're way too strong to overwhelm by meeting in a Wisconsin schoolhouse) but continuation of the current system (two parties moving rightward, both over the center line, with primaries as the only permissible avenue for dissent) is not inevitable either

[pecwae]

243. How hopeless

this sounds! At least, hopeless for progressive values within the Democratic Party.

[MisterP]

247. not really: it just needs organization and willingness to *fight* for goals and principles

rather than compromise and bartering them away in the name of bipartisanship and partisanship--the labor movement fought outside the law for decades in the 19th c. and the Civil Rights Movement had its roots as far back as Reconstruction, the Nadir of Race Relations (yes, that's what it's literally called), and the 30s and 40s New-Deal Progressives; all the while the 20th-c. Dems' response has been to resist and then co-opt, though it's only liberals doing the fighting

but a lot of it's tied to the economy: the 1970s meant the end of a 140-year boom for the US (in the gross sense: there were gaps and wealth-sharing wasn't good until FDR--and FDR and Truman were the ones starting the National Security State and Big Economics tied to Big Science and Big Academia and Big What-Have-You); neoliberalism was instated to take advantage of downturns and shrinkages as well as the gross growth since the 70s: it's a new regime--one of "financial" rather than "industrial" capital; we also have right-libertarianism's claims and rhetoric playing strong in the counterculture, making it resemble the barking Iron Voices of the Establishment in peculiar ways (heck, it was only because only one of the NSA's Paulbots turned on them that we know the details about the super-CARNIVORE programS they got going)

[pecwae]

258. I hate to gum up this

excellent OP with any more of my OT questions. Would you consider filling your journal at some point? Or at least make some OPs from your responses here? I'd really like to read more.

[MisterP]

264. alas, this is all stuff I've learned over the decade--maybe I'll make a nice, magisterial OP 1 day

[LWolf]

249. Yes. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

224. Oh yeah!

[nolabels]

242. Another thing you might be noticing

The idea of nation state is starting to disappear with these kind of things coming to the forefront. One can see that the corporations and the oligarchs that control them use the borders of nation state to win at their games. Labor, environmental pollution, taxes, control of other governments and now we see they spy on everything and it doesn't matter who or where they are.

So what will it be next?

[JackRiddler]

251. Props!

[Douglas Carpenter]

254. here!! here!!

[liberal_at_heart]

257. 341 recs. You are not alone. There are a lot of us who feel this way.

[whttevrr]

260. k & r

[Orsino]

261. Your memory is selective.

However, mine was, too, so no hate here.

Many of us are natural contrarians, which stood us in good stead under the last president. Our current Chief Executive often gets it right, meaning our stiff necks sometimes have us defending the indefensible.

[Zorra]

262. kick

[leftstreet]

265. DURec

[Catherina]

266. Rec'd before but now it's time for a kick n/t

[DLevine]

270. K&R for the very sad, hard truth. nt