Heads Up: DU'er Steve Leser VS "Code Pink is on Russia Today's "Crosstalk Show" with Peter Lavelle!

[KoKo]

War on Redacted
http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/

The enemies of the US: who are they? Are Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden champions of democracy or enemies of the state? Has the war on terror accomplished anything besides violating civil liberties? And, if terrorism is the ultimate threat, how do we know when the war is over? CrossTalking with Steven Leser and Tighe Barry.

'CrossTalk' is RT's flagship program. This TV debate experience presents hot-topic discussions on politics, business, newsmakers, global trends, present-day conflicts, and dangers and challenges facing our world. Host Peter Lavelle poses hard, straightforward questions to his guests, and demands concrete answers in response. Peter's guests are politicians, journalists, scientists and decision-makers of all sorts – anyone who influences the decisions changing our world or plays a key role in forming public opinion.

Watch Here:
http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/

[Fumesucker]

1. Steven is on RT?

That's .. interesting.

Some DUers have been very critical of RT.

[KoKo]

5. Check it out...I just watched it. It's FASCINATING Discussion!

Seriously....

[xiamiam]

41. couldn't watch the entire thing..and I love crosstalk..but

his argument was just lame. not fascinating. .lame.

[sabrina 1]

24. RT is one of the best news channels on TV. Its discussion programs are excellent, its

reporters, many of them young very attractive women actually KNOW the issues and their interviews are fantastic. They ask questions, and then allow the guest to actually finish what they have to say.

They give a voice to all sides of the political spectrum, and their foreign news and discussions about it, are excellent, informed, with people from every side of the spectrum.

The only people here who trash RT are those who cannot bear the truth about US policies, and RT definitely covers all aspects of US foreign policy. It''s not sugar coated enough for those who have become used to the propaganda we get on the Corporate Media.

Thom Hartmann has a great show on RT, Max Keiser, and now Larry King who did a great interview last night with Michelle Rhee, his questions were fair, giving her a chance to try to explain herself.

RT has guests from all over the world.

And the very best thing about RT is we get to hear many of the Liberal voices who are not allowed on our Corporate Media. It is very refreshing to get the 'truth with a liberal bias'.

[Fumesucker]

29. I just get the impression that Steven has been among those inclined to be critical of RT

Nothing I can put my finger on but he seems to be popular with that particular clique.

I can't bear to sit through interviews and the like any more no matter how good they are, it's just too slow and I'm used to firing off a post if I happen to disagree with something so I end up talking to the screen.

[sabrina 1]

33. Actually no, he hasn't to be honest. He has in fact tried to correct some of the phony vitriol

against them here, to give credit where it is due. He has been a guest on RT before, maybe several times.

I asked him once if anyone ever tried to influence anything he had to say there, and he responded that they never had done that, they don't even know what he, or others presumably, are going to say.

I can see why you might have thought that though, but I have been in threads with him where he did try to defend RT against false claims.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I will pass

[KoKo]

8. Don't "Pass" Nadin...you are a Reporter...it will go to You Tube Tomorrow...

when they Pass it off. But, it's an interesting watch especially because it's a Discussion with a DU'er!

Hey...we don't get FAME like this very often. and it's good for the site and for further discussion.

[bunnies]

3. Watching. Thanks! ooh. Its a debate!

adding:

Its like watching a DU conversation with talking and faces. I like it!

[KoKo]

11. I think Peter Lavelle does a good job on that show. And he always has

a diversified panel on his Show.

[Cooley Hurd]

4. Leser is a defender of the NSA overreach...

...like several other DUers.

[KoKo]

6. It's a Must Watch...truly....

[dtom67]

15. he is a political operative ( or "strategist") for the Democratic Party...

so I think he is more interested in damage control on this issue than actually defending it. Since it cannot BE defended, he was ridiculing those of us who are concerned about this issue with a series of " hair-on-fire " posts. What I failed to realize was that he posted many of these from the Barack Obama discussion group, and when I commented on one of these posts, I was barred from the group. My fault for not paying attention, but still a kinda lame tactic. In a weak moment, I angrily presented his "hair-on-fire" strategy in the OWS discussion group and probably came off looking like a jerk.Of course, HE is the strategist ; I am just a worn-out autoworker.

I don't care for crossfire; the debates in my head are MUCH more interesting. If I could only get them to stop talking all at once...

Most of Leser's views are pretty standard; pro-social security (me like!), anti-rape,pro-womens rights,etc. Vanilla positions that do not even NEED to be defended. I may have accidentally implied that he was not very good at the hard stuff (NSA spying), but in all fairness , making up cutsie-poo posts like "Hair-on-fire-bingo" in the Barack Obama discussion group hardly seems like a valid defense of the NSA activities in question.

In fairness to him, I will say (again) that he is probably more interested in protecting the President and the Party "Brand" than actually defending the spying. And I think there are many at DU that worked hard to get the President re-elected and they do not want to see his administration tarnished. I do not see that as a valid excuse, but it IS what I think is going on for many here.

Or maybe we are ALL just hacks .....

[arely staircase]

35. Vanilla positions that do not even NEED to be defended?

"pro-social security (me like!), anti-rape,pro-womens rights,etc. Vanilla positions that do not even NEED to be defended."

[stevenleser]

54. Not to mention...

vociferously pro-union, pro-living wage, pro-LGBT complete equality...

[Union Scribe]

67. Then I look forward to your vigorous anti-TPP articles.

Be sure to post them in the BOG too.

[Marr]

89. +1

Something tells me that "vociferous support" for unions will be limited to specific political campaigns in which the issue is useful to the Democratic candidate.

[antigop]

92. especially highlighting who played a leading part in drafting the TPP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554

Oh, yes, Union Scribe, can't wait.

[dtom67]

96. ALL trade agreements are designed to circumvent Sovereignty in favor of Corporate benefit.

[dtom67]

95. things that any decent person supports without arguement.

[stevenleser]

99. LOL, is that it? Ah, then those of us in favor of those things can stand down and do other things

No need to stick up for gay rights, women, unions, living wage, universal health care, etc.

Interesting point of view. I think you should post an OP suggesting that none of us fighting for those things need to do any more work and can move on. We should see what fellow DUers think of that.

[dtom67]

106. Not at all...

I was merely suggesting that you stick with the less controversial issues,as your NSA position just seems like spin ... or damage control.

[NYC_SKP]

7. Recommended. (nt)

[KoKo]

12. We definitely need to Support our DU'ers who have Fame enough to Get Selected

to Appear on International Media. And Steve Leser has been here on DU and posting his thoughts and that he got this opportunity...makes our efforts here on DU be known...that WE DO ...Have a VOICE...on this site. Whichever way it "sorts out."

[antigop]

18. um, no. Why do you think he gets "selected"? Think about it. nt

[bluestate10]

21. He get selected because he is one of the most intelligent posters on DU, by far.

Some of the big posters here on DU would get into a internationally televised debate and fold their tent when they discover that they can't set their fellow debaters to Ignore.

[antigop]

22. LOL. nt

[sabrina 1]

26. Sorry, cannot agree with that at all. Ask him how he gets on TV. Why don't you send in

a request to be on RT? They are very open-minded about who gets on their programs. No mystery at all about it. Anyone who has a political background can request to be on RT. They do not, unlike the Corporate Media, block Liberals from their network nor do they block Republicans. Or DLCers or Third Wayers.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. RT is owned by a government that hates and oppresses my people, not enough

money in the world for me to be part of that machine.

[sabrina 1]

75. PBS was funded by a Government that oppressed African Americans, Gays and other

minorities. Now of course Republicans have pushed to stop the funding of PBS and have had a lot of success in trying to privatize it.

That fact didn't prevent PBS from producing programs that the US Govt most likely did not agree with.

I have learned from watching RT over the past two years or so, more about Russia's horrendous record on Gay Rights than anywhere else.

They have reported on both the small amoung of progress and the failures of Gay Rights in Russia.

People like Thom Hartman eg, whose show is on RT have not been prevented from expressing their views in favor of Gay Rights.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Can you support any of those assertions in any way, shape or form?

What truck have you had with RT? What experience have you had with other media? What are you basing your promotion of their open door policies upon? Can you prove it with say, a link to RT giving time to LGBT people who openly criticize the Russian government and Orthodox Church for their genocidal and vicious laws and policies and actions?

[RandiFan1290]

48. Is that why Fox "news" picks him?

[xiamiam]

42. nope..second debate I've seen him on his views are so far from mine it would be unethical for me..nt

[DonCoquixote]

9. Hey,I hope they baked a cake for Ron Paul

They never, ever, had to defend Paul, period.

[KoKo]

10. What does Ron Paul have to do with a DU'er in a Discussion on a News Network?

Huh? Can you explain your post...because it's really so Off Topic...I can't get where you are coming from.

[DonCoquixote]

13. Because Code Pink literally made Valentines and gave praise for Ron Paul

even though they know he is anti gay, anti abortion, and using them as his "see, lefties like me" badge.

[KoKo]

14. Did you watch the show...How do you think that DU'er Steve Leser handled

your feelings against "Code Pink?"

Could you give a snip of the discussion that supports anyone there talking about Ron Paul.

I watched the whole thing TWICE...and I never saw Paul of either generation mentioned.

If you can give a mention...I would appreciate your verification of the name "Paul" being mentioned.

[sabrina 1]

27. Nothing,

best not to try to figure it out.

[KoKo]

39. True...don't feed .... or try to ask.

's Sometimes I forget that some things are beyond some folks.

[Agony]

16. In June 2005 she testified before congress, in August 2005 she was demoted.

Bunny

[KoKo]

19. Who is "She?" This was a Discussion between Male,Tighe Barry."Code Pink Rep"

and DU'er Steve Leser who posts on here and has his own radio show. "Code Pink" isn't a totally Female Organization. There are many Males and LGBT who support them and are members.

I thought it was a good "discussion." I'm not saying which side I support...but who is SHE? There wasn't a Female there on that show but a Male Rep for "Code Pink" who did an excellent job in the Debate, imho.

[Agony]

23. Bunnatine Greenhouse

Barry used her as an example of a whistleblower who followed the rules.

http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81

[KoKo]

25. You are Joking. This post has a link and it isn't about "Bunnatine Greenhouse"

LOL's!

It's about DU'er Steve Leser appearing on Crosstalk on RT discussing WhistleBlowers with Code Pink Representative.

What's up with you?

[Agony]

31. I am not joking

Like I said, Barry used her as an example of a whistleblower who followed the rules and was punished in response to Leser claim that no whistleblower who followed the rules had ever been punished for whistleblowing.

Leser refered to this at the end of the segment.

[KoKo]

37. Oh...sorry...I got you. I thought you were saying that she was the

the person the show was about. Sorry about that.

There were more than Bunnatine who were treated badly...but, yes she was!

[reusrename]

44. Steve Leser, our resident "expert" on whistleblowers doesn't know who she is.

It's so pathetic it isn't even comical. Just sad, really.

She was the person who blew the whistle on Haliburton's illegal no-bid contracts.




_ her interview starts at 47:20 of the video;

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/26/exclusive_fired_army_whistleblower_receives_970k


I have little doubt that Steve Leser is sincere, he just doesn't have any command of any facts. It's all propaganda talking points.

To paraphrase: "There's a legitimate way to blow the whistle. Tell Senator Ron Wyden about it, instead of the press."

Wyden is one of the few in Congress that already knew about all this. He sent Clapper the question in writing before hand because he KNEW Clapper was going to continue to lie to the committee. There was nothing that Wyden could do to make them stop lying. He could not come forward himself and remain on the committee.

It's sad, really, that this is so elusive to so many people here.

[stevenleser]

53. See my #52 below nt

[sufrommich]

17. Considering that he was being jumped on by the toady for

the Russian government(and his ironic concerns about US government secrecy) and the guy from Code Pink,I think he did well.

[Union Scribe]

51. Did he call them haters?

[treestar]

20. The host is an emoprog

notice he can't hang on and has to interrupt Steven Leser, plus he does it with irrelevant points.

Oh yeah, there is a way to bring your concerns to light without prosecution, but "we can't trust these people!"

[sufrommich]

28. He's only sympathetic to American dissidents,

Russian dissidents,not so much:

The Pussy Riot trial, conviction and sentence has captured the world's attention, though the vast majority of Russians have little or any sympathy for what this so-called punk band did in one of Russia's most revered places of worship. But what Russians think or feel has never been part of Pussy Riot's (Voina) agenda. Pussy Riot, their handlers, and a growing number of what is called Russia's "creative intelligentsia" have a very different program ­ and it has been attempted and failed before in Russian history.

When it comes to politics, the creative intelligentsia has a sad history of failure, arrogance, and irresponsibility. When it comes to winning power, these same people say they are interested in democracy, but they know they cannot win elections ­ their priorities do not match the interests of the majority of voters. This is where Pussy Riot comes in.

Because the creative intelligentsia is essentially lazy and basically in contempt of the average Russian, this small minority turns to short cuts, shock and awe, and eventually to the West begging it to "save Russians from themselves" ­ let's call them "Bolshevik Punks."

This is a program that attempts to negate the currently political establishment and convince the world that today's Russia is somehow morally illegitimate. All the while, one poll after another in Russia demonstrates that the creative intelligentsia is out of step with what Russians claim to be their self-identity and the kind of country they wish to live in. Insults and vulgarity can hardly create a better society - appealing to the better parts of our nature and winning hearts and minds can.

Peter Lavelle is host of RT's "CrossTalk" and "On the Money" programs. His opinions expressed here are his own and not necessarily his employer's.

http://www.russialist.org/russia-pussy-riot-corrupt-intelligentsia-784.php

He would fit right in at the National Review.

[Fumesucker]

30. An exact mirror image of some attitudes I see here on DU

Must be a coincidence.

[Marr]

62. lol!

Interesting observation.

[arely staircase]

36. Russia Today is to the Russian Security State

what Fox News is to the GOP.

[sufrommich]

38. Yes it is. nt

[sabrina 1]

63. Not even close. CNN is a better comparison to Fox these days. RT is one of the best

news outlets available in the US. Unless of course you only want to hear what you want to hear.

Great coverage of Foreign news, most of the reporters actually know what they are talking about and know how to conduct an interview.

There interviews with prominent World figures are excellent, also their documentaries.

And then we get to see some actual Liberal voices like Amy Goodman and Thom Hartmann.

I think the opinions of media outlets like Al Jazeera and RT tell you a lot about people.

[Progressive dog]

79. ^^^This is true^^ nt

[treestar]

47. In the argument over whether Russians have rights like Americans

I would have to point out that Pussy Riot in the US could be entirely out of step with the vast majority and still not end up in jail for dancing in a church.

[sabrina 1]

32. Lol, that host interrupts everyone, always has. One of the few hosts on RT who does that

actually.

Hilarious, the knee jerk reactions sometimes. Leser has been on that show before. RT, unlike the corporate media, and Steven Leser confirmed this for me himself, doesn't influence any of its guests, it just lets them all present their POVs.

I know it's a difficult thing to see some really independent media after years of the propaganda we get on the Corporate media.

The Code Pink Rep was just better, that's all.

They've been standing up against these abuses for more than a decade now and have not changed one bit.

It's difficult when you are trying to defend the indefensible, not a good position to be in, unless you're on the US Corporate Controlled media where they will protect you from people who actually know what they are talking about.

[RZM]

34. LOL. RT is funded by the Russian government

That's a far cry from 'really independent.'

In fact, it's pretty much the exact opposite.

[Union Scribe]

50. Do you ever watch PBS? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

60. You know Mitt, PBS only gets about 15% of it's running costs from goverenment

the vast majority comes from private and corporate donors. RT is not the same as PBS.
Also, there is the boycott of Russian products due to the anti gay laws, RT is a Russian product. Straight folks lap it up like pablum 'yummy bigoted tripe' they say, 'just like Nova!'.

[Union Scribe]

66. what's with the attack?

The point is that government funding doesn't make something untrustworthy. And that percentage of PBS' funding should be higher so that they aren't beholden to corporations.

And I don't even read/watch RT, so you can but re-holster your accusatory outrage and save it for someone who'd give a damn about you browbeating them.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. If that government doing the fundig is anti gay then yes it does make them

untrustworthy in my eyes. Very much so.

[Comrade Grumpy]

77. That is a very blinkered position, but you are welcome to it.

I'm not a regular RT viewer, but it sounds like they have a lot of good programming.

Perhaps they reflect the biases of the Russian government when it comes to gay issues. I don't know.

It seems like a lot of media outlets have some areas where their coverage is influenced by their ownership, but that doesn't negate everything they do. NBC on the military-industrial complex, for example. I wouldn't count on them to root out all its nefarious implications, but they still provide lots of other good reporting.

[sabrina 1]

80. Well, then you must have never watched PBS which was founded in 1970.

I never noticed that their coverage reflected our regressive Government's positions on issues.

I haven't noticed it on RT either.

That's the good thing about government funded media especially when they are trying to attract an International audience, if they influenced the media to only reflect the Govt's viewpoint, they wouldn't last a week.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. They are State Media not independent, it is well cast with shallow minds and

needy figures, it is the international propaganda arm of a government that seeks to arrest and imprison my people.
Some folks will take a check from anyone, and that sort of folk already knows what they are supposed to say and they say it. Show me any of the recurring 'guests' who speak out about what is done to gay people there. Do they? Because they certainly spend plenty of time pretending it is not going on there.
Show me these independent voices attacking the Orthodox Church and State on RT .Thanks.

[sabrina 1]

76. Have you watched it over any length of time? From your assessment, it appears you have not.

It was on RT that I learned about Russia's horrendous record on Gay Rights. They have covered the progress and the failures and the overall coverage has been about the set backs, the laws, the violence against Gays, etc. More in fact than I saw on our Corporate Media over an even longer period of time.

I have seen no attempt by them to deny the reality of life for Gays in Russia.

Same for the anti-Putin movement. I saw far more coverage on those huge rallies on RT than on our Corporate media.

[one_voice]

40. Interesting debate....

the host was annoying, in the same way as Tweety is.

Thanks for the link.

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. The Esteemed Mr. Leser puts anyone who doesn't agree with his screeds on ignore.

'Nuff said.

[reusrename]

45. What's astounding is that he has anyone left to respond to.

How can a person not have any awareness of how little they know about an issue?

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. Oh nooooo.... he knows LOTS. Ask him. He's on FOX! n/t

[Rex]

85. I trust oldtime DUers that I argue with constantly

more than someone that just appears on the radar overnight.

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. Agree. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

49. Part of the pack of animals attacking Alan Grayson to his face? No thank you.

This is the same poster who joined in with a particularly rabid crew to attack Grayson's post, openly make fun of him for writing the post, and then claiming it was all predicated on an assumption that it wasn't actually the congressman who wrote the post. Then, like OJ off to find the real killers, he was going to use his foxfame to interview the congressman and ask about his DU posting habits. So no thanks, I'll spend my time listening to people a little more worthy than this.

[stevenleser]

73. I never attacked Alan Grayson. Like every other politician, I may have disagreed with a position

of his once or twice.

[stevenleser]

52. Thanks for posting Koko, I havent had the chance yet. It's been a busy end of week!

Was on RT on Thursday (taped on thursday anyway), the KCAA morning show Friday morning (also discussing NSA/Snowden/Manning, etc) and Fox' Cavuto show Friday evening all while doing my regular day job and preparing my radio show for this weekend. I'm completely exhausted and haven't been able to post any links yet.

I think the interesting part of this appearance is that no one could overcome the point I mentioned during my first statement. 2/3rds into the show, Tighe offered Bunny Greenhouse as an example of a whistleblower who went to congress but then suffered reprisals all while warning me that if I assisted whistleblowers, I would be thrown in jail and suffer all kinds of other consequences.

The big reprisal against Bunny Greenhouse is that she was demoted. That's it. No arrest, no exile, no physical punishment, she was demoted. And when she sued, citing the federal whistleblower laws that she had dutifully obeyed, as would be my suggestion, she won and the government settled with her for $970,000.

As far as I am concerned, that is a positive outcome and doesn't make the point Tighe intended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_Greenhouse

My radio show this week will have a large segment on Manning/Snowden/Greenwald/Assange. This link is to my appearance on the KCAA Radio show Friday morning regarding my two TV appearances late in the week http://kcaaradio.celestrion.net/kcaa-podcasts/baxter/20130802.html my part starts at about 6:55

[Whisp]

55. good listen. Steven is cool as a cucumber! n/t

[99Forever]

57. You couldn't pay me enough to ...

... listen to the NSA apologist run his propaganda game for his owners.

No thanks, I'd rather get a tooth pulled.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. I'm boycotting Russian products and this RT is government operated Russian media.

To give them custom is out of the question due to the anti gay policies and laws and actions of the people who operate RT.
Of course I expect many elements of Straight Society to cling to RT and other anti gay outlets of venom such as FoxNews. I expected the upswing in promotions of RT here on DU because of the calls by good people to boycott Russian products.
I am boycotting that which you promote. Difference between us. Definitive, by the way, of allies and those who are apathetic to justice.

[stevenleser]

64. I get it. In my defense, I'm still trying to figure out what my response is going to be.

No question that you have a point, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what I am going to do in response to what has been happening in Russia with regards to LGBT rights.

I'm very interested in thoughts from my friends here on DU in the LGBT community.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Lending legitimacy to them is not good.

We are not even buying their liquor. You are working for their State media apparatus and then promoting them here as if they were something they are not.
It's a choice. I sure have never heard any voices raised against those policies on RT. I am told on DU that RT is uncensored super good journalism. Yet I don't see anyone speaking about the anti gay crap on RT. It is what it is.

[stevenleser]

72. My position in the past has been that my appearance on an agency is not lending legitimacy

particularly if I am opposing what is clearly the viewpoint of the folks in that agency.

I am particularly sensitive to what the LGBT community thinks of that in relation to RT/Russia at this time. I'd like to hear from more of the regular members of the LGBT group here.

[sabrina 1]

82. Why not do as Thom Hartmann does, whose show is featured on RT? Just state your opinion

as he does. I doubt you would be kicked off the network, he hasn't. And taking every opportunity available to promote rights for all human beings seems to me the only thing to do.

[stevenleser]

88. Hartmann is on RT America. There are a totally different group of folks in charge there.

RT America is generally only broadcast here in the US. Plain RT which is the network Peter's show CrossTalk is on is global. I am not sure what the reaction would be and if the rules are the same for both.

[sabrina 1]

90. The US audience only gets RT America on their lineup. I was talking about that and that

where I see Crosstalk and everything else. I have no idea what is on the other RT.

[stevenleser]

91. It's easy to confuse the two. RT America is only 8 hours or so of the broadcast here in the US the

rest, including CrossTalk, is from RT. CrossTalk is broadcast globally.

[whatchamacallit]

65. Turdwaymouthpiece on RT?

Oh joy!

[aikoaiko]

74. And the jury results are in...

...
At Sat Aug 3, 2013, 08:49 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Turdwaymouthpiece on RT?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3398079

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calling a good DU member "turdwaymouthpiece" in NOT OK.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Aug 3, 2013, 09:04 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Violates all of the above.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Content-free personal attack that adds nothing to a civil and productive conversation. It's perfectly possible to criticize RT, and/or to disagree with other DUers, without resorting to mere insulting noise.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Not acceptable to refer to DUer that way
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's ok when he is a public figure who makes a living off of expressing his political views.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Bobbie Jo]

83. Yeah

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=212880&sub=trans

[NYC_SKP]

69. Kick. (nt)

[LWolf]

71. I thought all those rumors

about organized party propagandists on DU were false conspiracy-nut hair-on-fire craziness?

[stevenleser]

78. LOL, that is not the contention. Nice try though. Skinners reply is worth a reread to that as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592697

The contention is/was that there are posters claiming to be ordinary anonymous folks who are in fact paid to post disinformation on DU to further a certain agenda. To which Skinner replied:

This whole who-is-the-paid-shill witch hunt is disruptive nonsense.

It betrays an utter lack of creativity on the part of the people making the accusation. They are so convinced that they are right that they cannot imagine someone else might hold a different point of view in good faith. Either that or they are incapable of advocating for their own point of view on the merits.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=2716

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your implied contention is interesting and suggests you think that any politicians or journalists (since both groups are paid for what they do) posting under their real names should not be allowed to do so, or that their doing so constitutes some sort of conspiracy. I'm certain you haven't thought that through.

[LWolf]

97. Your interpretation of my "contention" is quite wrong.

And that's the first I've seen of the post you refer to.

It doesn't apply.

[davidpdx]

105. This is exactly what should be quoted when a post is flagged

where someone claims another person is a shill. Clearly Skinner is saying doing so IS disruptive behavior. A jury seeing this should hide the post.

[Harmony Blue]

81. Code Pink is awesome

good job!

[stevenleser]

84. I agree, even when they are wrong, like here! nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

87. K&R The comments are pretty revealing as well.

David Hill 03.08.2013 04:52

Steven Leser exhibits the most severe case of cognitive-dissonance that I've ever seen. Such a die-hard statist trying to explain how whistleblowers who expose huge crimes around the globe - crimes against humanity; invading sovereign nations; the illegal mass surveillance of people around the world; torture - are protected by.....the law!

I particularly like Steve's personal guarantee that whistleblowers will not be silenced, fired, or otherwise harmed if they "go through the proper channels".

Another clown for the circus...

[stevenleser]

93. It's interesting that the person arguing with me about that was in Washington DC, perfectly safe and

sound.

I didn't attack him on that directly on TV, mostly because I have a soft spot in my heart for Code Pink and their folks, but its interesting how he suggests that the big bad US government is going to arrest and imprison and do all of these horrible things to people who blow the whistle even using proper channels, and is warning me that the same will happen to me if I help whistleblowers, and there he is in our nations capital saying this and saying he works with whistleblowers and of course, nothing is happening to him.

Cognitive dissonance indeed. Lots of unintended irony there in the commenter and your posting of it.

[dreamnightwind]

94. The cognitive dissonance is yours.

Saying that the fact that the person making that argument still has their freedom even though they support and work with whistleblowers is not evidence that the person is wrong about what happens to whistleblowers, it just illustrates the current degree of the government's anti-whistleblower prosecutions/persecutions. At this point, apparently, the person has not crossed whatever line the government uses when deciding whether or not to take action against them.

Rather than worry about whether or not a whistleblower used "proper channels", how about worrying about what they were blowing the whistle on? Unless you want to make a casee that whistleblowers deserve protection, they are taking great personal risks to give the public access to things done with the public's name and tax revenue but without the public's knowledge or consent. We have no way to learn about much of this except from whistleblowers, and that's the problem.

[stevenleser]

98. It's not, and I will cover that on my show this week and post the transcript here on DU. nt

[dreamnightwind]

100. Sorry, for me you are on the wrong side of this issue - eom

[stevenleser]

101. The facts are clearly with me for anyone who spends the time to look at them.

I've already weighed in on this several times and the facts I provide are not in dispute, just as they aren't here. http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/08/repost-transcript-of-nsa-surveillance.html

Tighe and Peter did a lot of flailing about in this segment, but ultimately, neither of them could overcome the first statement I made regarding blowing the whistle according to the way the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act prescribes. The one example Tighe tried to use, that of Bunny Greenhouse, is a joke. She was demoted and then the federal government recognized it shouldnt have done that and settled with her for $970,000. That's the big retaliation people are supposed to fear if they go to their congressman or senator?

The initial video that Bradley Manning said was the reason he leaked his documents? That turned out to not be what he or Assange initially suggested and Assange was finally forced to admit that. http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/08/politifact-rating-half-true-wikileaks.html

[delrem]

102. pro-torture??? defending the apache helicopter mass killing???

Oh no, when Steve Leser suggests that potential whistle-blowers go through him, because *he* knows how to do it properly to get the best results (and *he* knows what is/isn't torture, etc), he isn't speaking from the POV of someone who wants transparency. He's an apologist who wants desperately to put a lid on it and seal it -- so it can grow like fungus in the dark. And maybe he can profit from it...

[Egnever]

103. Good lord

Hyperbolic much?

[delrem]

104. It's what was very plainly said.

[dreamnightwind]

107. I'm with you

An apologist for sure, NSA spying doesn't seem to bother him, and he want to focus on the whistleblowers rather than on exposing the surveillance. Nothing to see here...

[delrem]

109. "It isn't torture" is Cheney.

[kas125]

108. Thanks for posting this! I know Tighe and I love him. n/t