General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStrange how the same people running around calling everyone Authoritarians
Are the same people who seem to drown out any dissenting voices contrary to their own very specific worldview. If you don't march in lockstep to their worldview you are mocked, shamed, insulted, and called names. It's getting harder and harder to tell who the real authoritarians are. The "anti-authoritarians" seem to exhibit such authoritarian personality traits as mentioned above, while those who are called "authoritarians" by others are the ones who seem to actually exhibit traits of tolerance, open mindedness, rationality, and willingness to listen to factual statements and evidence before jumping to fear-mongered conclusions.
It's amazing how the so called anti authoritarians have no problem worshipping someone to the point of wearing a mask of their hero's face while the so called authoritarians can appreciate having this debate without feeling the need to elevate someone to God-like status.
It's like there is no room for sane rational voices in this debate, it's just battle of the hyperbole's.
Why am I not running around with my hair on fire about this NSA story? One, because its fairly old news, two, besides Bush's warrantless wiretapping, under this administration there are numerous safeguards in place to protect our citizens constitutionally, and three, there is an overwhelming lack of evidence of any nefarious actions taking place. No one is suing the NSA for violations, no stories of innocent people being rounded up into FEMA camps, no unwarranted interrogations of US citizens, and no proof that the Govt is actually even spying on us. Has anyone here had a knock on the door and been interrogated? I certainly haven't. Anyone care to share stories of this occurring?
On the other hand, we can acknowledge how this can be a slippery slope and welcome further reforms and safeguards without believing the Govt is coming to stalk our Facebook pages and read our emails and texts. Personally I welcome the idea of NSA hearings and am interested in hearing both sides argue their positions based on their merits. This is why I also believe Snowden should come back to the US, what better expert witness to take on this issue in a court of law than an actual insider. Yet, running off to another country who would love nothing more than to see our country's demise should also be questioned as suspicious. A country whose president is actually the ex-KGB head, equivalent to making James Clapper or Keith Alexander or Leon Pannetta our president. I mean, damn, if you wanna talk about authoritarians, look no further than Putin and the Russian Federation. Better yet, look no further than the Republican Party.
Like I said above, more oversight is never a bad thing and we all should welcome it, but for the sake of sanity and possibly your own health, lets wait for facts and evidence before thinking the world is in impending doom because our Govt takes counter terrorism possibly a little too seriously. And a little more kindness towards each other couldn't hurt either.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rex
(65,616 posts)They see Agent Mike in every post.
Agent Mike's on vacation, Agent Ben's taking his place.
And the Service isn't sexist. 1/3 of the shifts are taken by Agent Taija.
Rex
(65,616 posts)well two more jobs...can't say there aren't any 'job creators' around here! 
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)they're getting furloughed a few times a month.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Like you! 
I'm with ya! Keep challenging the ridiculous and alerting those who can't be adults. I really believe there are more of us here but they either don't want to deal with the junior high tactics or don't see real debate as possible.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)n
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)On all counts.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)as always
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)drop the "safeguards" and "old news" talking points because if you haven't noticed those have been crumbling to dust around you.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I get blamed for the republicans winning elections. I get called a Paulbot. I get called all kinds of things. Luckily that is what the ignore button is for.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Somehow I missed that although I read a lot of threads here everyday. 
LWolf
(46,179 posts)because I can usually find 2 or 3 examples on the front page every time I log in.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)I regularly read the home page, greatest and latest and it would be a odd that I missed all these "attacks" on the Pro-Snowden posters. I reviewed the home page and see quite the opposite is true actually just as the OP says.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)First of all, I shouldn't have to give you a link, since you are already here. If you are really that interested, why not spend the time or effort to look for them yourself? It's not hard. It doesn't take long, for someone who really wants to find them. Here's a small sampling. There's more where that came from. If you need to be told this, there has been a contingent on the board who have been trying to marginalize the left since Obama first threw us under the bus. We've been called all kinds of things. Snowden/Greenwald is simply the latest volley. Not so coincidentally, the harder it gets to rebut criticism of Obama, the louder and more frequent they get. You should know that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023485714
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023466122
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023474407
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100244504
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)First of all, I have no responsibility to search the site to prove your point. I'm fully capable of it but it's absurd to expect that I would.
Second, I see plenty of attacks and marginalizing here but I agree with the OP, the majority are coming from those who don't like the President. One need only read the exchange between you and I to see who is trying to be civil and who is not.
Since you took the time to back up your opinion, I will read them later after my kids are in bed and respond.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)You have no responsibility to search. Of course, you didn't really want proof, did you? It was just a one-liner thrown out to suggest that it wasn't true. After all, you were already at the site, and on the page. Yet you admit you've seen the attacks. Of course, unless somebody is sorting through posts by pov, you can't say which "side" has more. You could say that you tend to notice those that are attacking your own pov more.
If you are really looking at both sides, you might notice that one side is about defending the president NO MATTER WHAT. The other side is about issues, and is criticizing because the current POTUS is failing on those issues. One is about partisanship and personalities. One is about issues.
I'll suggest that, without issues as a foundation, partisanship is irrelevant.
I'll also point out that the vast majority of those who "don't like the President" are those who enthusiastically supported and voted for him...twice. It's not a matter of "don't like." It's a deeply embedded sense of betrayal by the "New Democrats" who have thrown us "old" Democrats under the bus. And along with that sense of betrayal is a growing anger. It's not about "liking." It's about the disappointment, the loss of hope, the feeling of betrayal, and the anger every time the POTUS does something that is unfriendly to long-held Democratic principles, unfriendly to large segments of the traditional Democratic base.
Why would you expect anyone to stay quiet about that?
Response to JaneyVee (Original post)
PowerToThePeople This message was self-deleted by its author.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)Because up to that point your argument was no more than "some people say . . ."
And while the NSA program is extremely disquieting under the administration of a sane person like Obama, in the hands of a Jeb Bush, or Rick Santorum, or a Newt Gingrich (not to mention Rand Paul), the prospect turns to absolute terror.
I favor every imaginable response to the NSA story, from flaming hair to reasoned investigation, and anything in between.
Why? Because if we are not actually in desperate risk of our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor today, we sure as hell will be tomorrow if this program isn't significantly wound back and made visible.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Is working to shut down all others. And that is the problem.
Personally, I've never thought outrage and panic are effective ways to deal with a problem.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)during the Bush administration, maybe we would not still have the excesses in the program.
I think that the DLC wing of the Democratic Party very much wants us to just relax and trust that they are doing the right thing.
If the NSA program were the only problem right now, many of us would be less upset about it. But the fact is that the excessive surveillance and the objectionable collection and retention of metadata by the NSA under the Obama administration are just one more in a series of blows.
Think about some of the others.
the attacks on public employees in Wisconsin and elsewhere,
state adoptions of Stand Your Ground Laws that permit people like Zimmerman to shoot and kill kids like Trayvon Martin
Republican attacks on the ACA
Obama's proposal to cut Social Security
the sequester (the fault of the Republicans but still very disturbing)
the trade agreement that is reported to be likely to permit an international court of judges selected by we do not know who to declare laws our state legislators and maybe even federal legislators pass, laws that protect our food, our environment, our jobs and our wages to violate the agreement -- thereby destroying our local democratic governance or at least challenging it.
The list goes on and is maybe topped off by the cost of student loans and college tuition and public money going to private charter schools.
We have a Democrat in the White House, but he is barely and maybe not at all protecting the middle class and working people. He talks a lot about the middle class but from education to retirement, does he so much as defend what we have traditionally had?
Add the failure to prosecute most of the criminal bankers and Wall Street crooks.
The surveillance which is aimed at who knows who, maybe activists, maybe not, who knows, is just a last straw for many of us.
I was born in WWII. Americans did not fight that war only to have their government institute a surveillance program worse than anything the NAZIs managed to do (mostly because of our greater technological capacity).
When I worked for and voted for Obama, I did not work and vote for the kind of detrimental change that Obama is bringing us in many areas.
I am very disappointed.
Conservative and DLC Democrats can try to shame me as much as they wish, but I want to see some change that is positive.
I'm not asking for a pony, not for anything impossible right now. I just want Obama to protect us in the middle class the way he protected his friends on Wall Street and in the banks, and I want him to stop placing Americans under surveillance.
Obama may not be abusing this program nearly as much as he could (who knows since the program is secret), but what happens if the next president is a Republican?
Does Obama really decide that much about this program? Is he really in charge, or is he a mouthpiece like some of the other presidents in recent years?
Are the parameters of the program established by entrenched members of the military and the intelligence community? Or by our Congress? And who is enforcing compliance with the FISA statutes and regulations? The court according to news stories is not able to do that, and Feinstein and Congress aren't. Who is in charge here?
I am very disappointed. And I think for good reason. I also think a lot of DUers are as disappointed as I am.
Has Obama done some good things? Yes. So far, I support the ACA. But the disappointments at this point outnumber the positive achievements.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)But IRL it does absolutely nothing. In fact, the behavior here is probably turning off more posters than it's pulling in and instead of debating the issue and looking for solutions we have name-calling and blanket attacks on anyone not in the little clique. It's beyond old.
You mention a lot of issues I'm very concerned about, but even those have effectively been shut down by posters so upset by the NSA that they feel its their mission to take over every thread to bring it up and attack President Obama and anyone they've decided is "third way."
You don't have to support PO or his programs but the juvenile games aren't debate and aren't helping solve any of the problems Democrats are concerned about.
We will all vote as we choose and some people are adiment that they will vote their conscience. So will I and mine tells me that a Republican in the WH is the worst possible thing that could happen in '16. I will work to get the best Democrat nominated but whoever it is will get my vote for President because the reality is one of 2 candidates will have that job and I'm not willing to vote 3rd party and watch my principals get someone like Rand Paul, Cruz or Christie into office.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Where is the "panic"?
As far as your characterization of Honest Anger at the betrayal of American and Democratic Party principles,
I think it is merited,
and a powerful energizing element.
I usually get angry when somebody betrays MY trust and lies to me.
Someone who is NOT angry at these revelations has a problem.
MLK was an ANGRY man,
and he used that anger in an healthy way to bring "change".
I'll keep my anger,
and channel my energies for "change".
Of course, you are free to support the Status Quo with Like it or lump it cause if you don't you get Rand Paul illogic.
I choose NEITHER Rand Paul nor the Status Quo in your False Dichotomy Logical Fallacy.
[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center]
[/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Yes panic and outrage because that's what makes some people oblivious to the fact that people can agree with them and still not feel exactly the same way about an issue. Frankly there's a whole group here who is just looking for targets to attack irrationally. So have at it, but don't ask me to take you seriously.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Go ahead an use your nuance to support governmental overreach and secret laws.
You will have a lot of company.
Historically, many cultures and government have agreed with you.
Historically, they ALL ended badly.
[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)You fucking rock! They couldn't take you if they tried! I have a house full of 7th grade girls enjoying a B-day party and holy shit they are making more sense than this thread.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The "stuff" is flying thick and heavy today.
DU has a fairly intelligent majority
that are capable of sifting the wheat from the chaff,
but lately, some are doing their best making that task more difficult.
QED: this thread.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)They try really hard, but they just make a mess of things. Kind of like a new puppy, just not nearly as cute.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Maybe you want a private room?
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Sorry darlin' barking up the wrong tree.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Oh well.
That is what happens when mothers take the Training Wheels Off too soon.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)First rule of the clique is there is no clique.
And here is yet another member to throw out insults and make assumptions. Lets start with the first thing you're wrong about-not a him.
Care to debate an issue? I'm guessing no. Please see small minds quote below.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Oh noes, someone got someone's gender wrong on the internet! It seems to me that the ones who are defending the authoritarian position are doing their damnedest to avoid any debate.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)That hurts!
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)You might want to rethink all your time on DU bvar, because SHE says you post nothing of substance. This is goofy and quite sad.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)accuse others of having a clique?
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)In a forum devoid of hate for a President I volunteered for and voted for twice when the GD is full of crap like this? Nope, sorry.
I'm also in feminist groups and one for my state. Want to make assumptions about that too?
It's intersting you don't see an entire conversation to bad mouth me as a clique or just generally bad form. Better still is you continue to prove my points. 
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Since you really do have one.
Doesn't it seem just a little bit silly now to start making accusations that can so easily be turned back on you?
Even sillier is how you, and other members of your well documented clique, have been trying to bully and harass posters who don't agree with you in a thread about how you're all being picked on.
Simple truth is that tempers have gotten too heated and both sides are guilty of writing mean spirited comments. I wish it were different but there it is.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)And will say with certainty that I was neither mean spirited nor throwing out insults but I can count 10 posts to me that were full of nasty personal attacks when I was simply asking for reasoned debate on the issues. No, it's not both sides here.
I'm not going to justify where I post to you. See, you can say whatever you like, but people can see the truth.
If you wish it was different here, then be the change. Your posts to me don't reflect that.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)If you really believe that then there isn't much to talk about. Maybe your clique will be more sympathetic, in fact I know they will.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Have a nice night.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)n/t
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Old Elm Tree.
Sid
Puglover
(16,380 posts)DemocratsforProgress run by yet another tombstoned troll.
vaht? the treebaggers.. are tough.. as nails...
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)You don't know me pal or what I believe. But hey enjoy your little clique on DU. I'll keep in mind what happens when we assume.
Personally I'm gearing up to work on campaigns and make things happen IRL.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)It appears he has been here a long time, and a quick search tells me that he is someone to read and take seriously. Frankly, you should use commas.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)All I've ever seen you post is nasty comments. I've read a number of both of your posts and can't say I feel as you do. To each their own.
Oh and again frankly, correcting grammar is the last bastion of those with no argument.
Have, a, nice, day,,,,,,
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)I mean you joined in 2009 and yet almost all of your posts are in the past 90 days. BTW correcting grammar is what smart people do!
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)And I see it continues with this post.
Actually, I don't remember my original start date here, but in '09 I asked to change my name and was told I'd have to start a new account. Not that it matters, but I lost interest hanging out here after the election and was busy with my work. I recently returned because I'm effectively laid off until September and to discuss all the scandals but haven't had much luck as the site seems to have been overrun by bullies who just want to attack people. I wish they'd go over to Yahoo and this place could get back to the interesting, knowledgable debates I remember but alas, I can't control that.
Interesting you'd question my posts when again, I have yet to see you say anything about a topic. Every time I see you it is to attack a poster. I think that speaks volumes.
“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
Now back to regularly scheduled programming ,,,,,,,,
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Bye.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)I so enjoyed your thought provoking and on-topic posts here.
Response to Just Saying (Reply #111)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But far, far to reasonable these days.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Well Done!
Please post this as an OP.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Your many questions did not ring of authoritarianism. Any outrage was measured and well deserved.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I mean, that is what this NSA business is, by definition. If one supports that, then it follows that one's political philosophy is authoritarian.
If that is who you are, then own it. Don't go around whining that somebody just calls it like it is. If one thinks authoritarian policies are right for this nation, then rather than attacking those who note the illegality and unconstitutionality of those policies, simply make the case for those authoritarian policies.
It isn't complicated.
I have yet to hear a single one of the authoritarians on this this site actually argue the validity of their philosophy. all they want to do is do ad hominem attacks on Greenwald, Snoden, Manning, and Assange. Leave the personalities. Make your case on its own merits.
We're listening. Please explain why all this illegal spying is the right course for America.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)of the excesses and lack of civilian non-intelligence sector control of the NSA surveillance program?
Personally, I feel very helpless. I have studied enough history and know our Constitution well enough to see the dangers clearly (many DUers are just blissfully lacking sufficient knowledge to put the program into perspective), but I don't know what to do about it.
If we don't express our disapproval of the program loudly and clearly, I'm afraid nothing will be done to seriously investigate, much less abolish or drastically reform it.
What do you suggest?
What do we do if Republicans win the next presidential election and we are stuck with this out-of-control, potentially very dangerous program?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)next election. It seems many people who are willing to turn a blind eye to this stuff are doing so in the name of some sort of political expediency. I understand the impulse to minimize the impacts and to shift blame of the inexcusable bits to the previous administration, but I have to stand by my principles and not my politics.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...this issue is bigger than millions of people trying to get affordable health care or losing their rights to vote? This issue is SO important you're willing to stay home in '14 and '16 (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't vote for a rushpublican) to "punish" Democrats? Sure sounds like you're gonna be more a part of the problem than the solution...especially for those who can't afford phones and barely keep themselves fed. Yep, a President Paul is sure to fix the NSA... 
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)care of itself. Period.
If we gain the presidency at the expense of our principles we end up with what we have. A new "republican lite" which is really is a whole lot like Reagan republicanism (since progressivism is demonized by all republicans and half of democrats... and at the same time the right's hard right (tea-billies and all) shift their party completely out of the realm of compassionate conservatism and into the realm of Randites and Fascists. The center shifts further right because we play not to lose and we end up inch by inch validating republican insanity.
I would not stay home. I will vote the most progressive candidate in primaries and ultimately the democratic candidate. But because I'm a democrat who believes in progressive ideals of social justice, I will fight and snarl and claw against any politician calling themselves a democrat while leading us toward the right. President Obama has, with a few exceptions, pushed our party toward the right. All he really needed to do was govern as a progressive embracing left wing policy and he would have insured democrats had it in the bag in '14 and '16. Sadly for me, that didn't happen on many fronts including the NSA, Guantanamo, cannabis policy, the Affordable Care act (which I guess was a good first step but really was a republican idea that keeps the ghoulish insurance industry involved and in control and reaping profit at patient expense, etc. etc. etc. (man the list could go on for a while)
He has been fantastic for basic human social rights for homosexuals. Much credit here. He surely came around on that one with the help of VP Biden. Much appreciated.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...and that's the point! A President is elected to represent 100% of the American people. The checks and balances of the system are designed to force opposing political views and parties to work together and enact legislation that, in theory, represents the overall benefits of all people regardless of party affiliation. The rushpublicans definitely forgot that when they were in control of the legislative and executive and passed through all sorts of draconian legislation...the unitary executive...that many now blame on this President (either he uses it too much or not enough). It's the legislative that funds legislation, has the power of oversight and the representative of the people.
Congresscritters are more likely to be ideologues and corrupted by money...since they need so much to maintain their jobs. Democrats seem to be expecting the President to "stick to a Progressive platform" with few real Progressives in the legislative to back him up. IF there were 50 more Progressive Democrats in the House, it would definitely affect that body similar to how the teabaggers have made an impact on the rushpublicans. So, if you want that more progressive platform, you need more foot soldiers in pushing that agenda through the legislative and use that platform to put pressure on the executive. Thus sitting home in 2014 when there is no Presidential election, but where there's an opportunity to support, work for and elect more Progressives to the House and Senate. We have a system that's designed from the bottom up...it's time some of those critical of the President and the Democratic party realize that and work in getting more Progressives elected on the state and local level...build up a "bullpen" of candidates that can be the future leaders.
Cheers...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Note that I have a signature line indicating who I plan to vote for in 2016. Nobody is staying home. Please note that I am asking questions about the program.
It is the people who are afraid to criticize the program that link it almost exclusively to Obama. We all know that Obama inherited this albatross from Bush. It's time to severely reign in the surveillance and put someone in charge who is truly independent from whoever runs the current administration, whether a Republican or Democrat, someone devoted to voting rights (because if this program continues, it could be used to interfere with the outcomes of elections), someone devoted to all our rights and not part of our government.
It is shortsighted to think that those of us attacking the surveillance are attacking Obama. From his statements, I think he does not even understand the program well. This is a program by of and for the military-industrial complex. We need to curtail it, severely curtail it or become a nation under their steel-soled toes.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)Help me with that one? Somehow our elections will be hacked IF we don't put "someone in charge who is truly independent of whomever runs the current administration"? So does that disqualify anyone currently serving in this administration? Does that extend to those currently serving in the House and Senate as well? Honestly, I'm trying to figure out what you're getting at here.
Your sig line is for a fantasy candidate...not one whose even mentioned any intentions of running. Whatif she decides not only to stay in the Senate and support a Hillary Clinton bid (who according to your criteria would be insufficient) then what if? (I can play this game as well).
Again...I welcome a full investigation of the NSA...and would welcome a massive revision or outright repeal of the "Patriot" act...but they have and always have been in the purview of the legislative...the dysfunctional House and Senate. They passed these draconian laws and only they can repeal them.
I'm very open to learn of candidates who are "devoted to our rights and not part of our government"...but then what happens when they become part of that government? Do you suggest we totally scrap the system we have...and then what do we replace it with? Again...lots of paranoia and little substance here. I appreciate what COULD be...but I prefer to live in a world of WHAT IS.
Cheers...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This NSA extremism has been going on for a long time -- since 1947, to be precise. Duers should understand that in the change Obama promised, he needs to include big, big change at the NSA.
I do hope you will watch this video.
I lived through this stuff, but a lot of people don't know about it.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)Yes...Harry Truman set up the NSA. I was also very much aware and very against the revisions of the FISA laws in 2007 that opened the door to a lot of the alleged abuses. Let's first document those abuses rather than assume...get specifics and find out if there has been calls listened to or emails read without a warrant and indict those responsible for such abuses. I want real sunlight...just like we had with the Church Commission in the 70s. With those abuses then we, the people, can and must put pressure on our elected representatives to clean things up. Our democracy is supposed to work from the bottom up...here's a great example.
I've been a long time viewer of Bill Moyers...and again...I'm not disputing any abuses by the NSA...but I want specifics, not speculation. If there have been warrants issued, to what extend have they been executed and for what purpose. These are questions that the President doesn't answer...this is the responsibility of the Congress. They're the ones who authorized these programs and they are the ones who revoke it. The President is obligated to oversee what the Congress passes or refuses to do so...it's the prime reason he's been unable to close Gitmo...and you have a dysfunctional House that be'd more than happy to launch an impeachment the moment this President tries to act unilaterally...not to mention a not-very-friendly SCOTUS.
Back on point...I want to see facts of NSA abuses, and I would imagine many others do as well. I'd also like to put lots of light on the corporate invasion of our privacy...the ability of credit agencies to destroy your life with one wrong keystroke and then profit from it. Those are real violations of people's rights not hypotheticals...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and actions are secret. We can only get the facts if they are made public by someone at the NSA, the FISA court or the administration or maybe Congress. Snowden set off the process of making facts, documents heretofore classified, public.
Obama's statement that he welcomes this discussion will be believable precisely when he gives us the facts.
Wyden tried to warn us about the unconstitutional programs and the excesses of the NSA. He was barred from giving details by the secrecy laws.
Snowden produced documents. It's a beginning. Those to my knowledge contain all the facts that have been made available to us thus far. I don't believe that Obama has produced any documents proving that his statements are true. If he has, I haven't heard of it.
We have seen documents that prove the fact that the NSA has violated the Constitution by gathering strictly American communications in its collection.
Judging from the infamous history of the NSA (Klaus Barbie? Good Heavens!), the coming months will either produce a lot of the facts that the NSA defenders are requesting or we really will see the worst fears of the NSA detractors come true.
Hopefully, our worst fears won't come true, but we have to agree that they are quite possible if the NSA continues to operate as it has in the past. The video shows the role of the NSA and the CIA in the history of Iran. It's really worth watching.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...and little fact. That's the problem with those who want to believe the worst and will find excuses rather than demand accountability from those who have the information or can get it. Senator Wyden and other members of Congress hold the power to expose abuses...they also have the credibility. Snowden serves zero purpose as he sits thousands of miles away and I have yet to see any of his charges substantiated...such as the NSA is listening and recording EVERY phone call and watching every keystroke. Let's prove it...bring it forward...not try to sell books and newpaper and website hits with it. Let's get it all in the open. Not speculation...not what if...let's get fact and then demand accountability. I don't think that's too hard to do.
While it's a great dream to think we can destroy the MIC...close the CIA and NSA...that's not going to happen. What can happen is to keep them in check and demand the passage of laws to do so. There had been laws in place that were wiped away with the revisions of FISA in 2007...those "revelations" from Mr. Snowden were far from new to those of us who were trying to fight its passage. Now its time to get evidence...not conjecture...put it out for all to see and demand those who set up these secret courts to open them up and to define where our privacy rights exist.
I've lived my entire adult life always with the understanding that anything that goes on outside my four walls is or can be monitored. Be it a security camera to having my purchases tracked to having the phone company compile metadata on my calls. The issue is how much privacy can we expect in a world where so much of our information is harvested by third parties...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to expose abuses...they also have the credibility.?"
Anyone who goes public with this information, even so much as the information that Snowden has revealed, gets in big trouble.
That is what the supporters of the NSA secrecy and excesses do not want to admit. The law that protects the NSA has huge penalties for revealing the secrets that the law hides from us. Secrecy is incompatible with democracy.
That video explains what has happened. We have to stop the secrecy. We are paying too high a price for it, and instead of making us more secure, which is its supposed purpose, it is making us less secure. The secrecy engenders so much suspicion, so much doubt, so much fear that it harms our country more than just about anything else other than climate change.
As long as we have an elite in our intelligence and certain of our police services that know and legally withhold major secrets from the rest of us, not secrets of great military value, but secrets about other aspects of our security, Americans will become more and more suspicious of government. Our country cannot be strong if Americans are as suspicious of government as they are now -- on all sides. The NSA is not entirely to blame for the suspicion, but the laws creating the NSA and protecting the excessive secrecy of the NSA are among the factors setting off the suspicion.
The Patriot Act does not clearly define terrorist or terrorism on top of everything else. In fact, it may be that term, terrorism, cannot be defined. Maybe we should be using different, clearer terminology.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)...NO ONE in this thread, nor in any other that I have recently seen, has REMOTELY suggested that anyone stay away from the polls in 2014 or 2016.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"It COULD happen is much more threatening than what IS happening ... especially, for those that what IS happening, isn't happening to them."
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)This scandal is being churned up in the press and certainly here on DU. I'm also concerned about this issue but have seen no evidence that it reaches the levels some people are freaking out about. The idea that it may or could or whatever just doesn't do it for me. We need to deal with what is and figure out what can be done about what is actually happening.
Second, messages boards are fun and all but don't actually do anything. Put your thoughts in order and write letters to your local paper and your Congressmen. Attend a townhall and tell them your concerns. I would avoid name-calling and the use of hyperbolic terms like "Stasi" and "Authoritarian" if you'd like to be taken seriously by a larger audience.
Third, understand that change in our country tends to take time. I hate the Patriot Act but I think it's unrealistic to believe it will just be repealed. There's a lot involved there and I doubt Republicans in Congress will be open to much change let alone trashing the whole thing. We won't always get what we want regardless of who is in the WH and add in a completely obstructionist Congress and we're bound to be frustrated. Terrorism continues to be a concern also so the idea that PO will just dismantle the intelligence agencies is ridiculous.
randome
(34,845 posts)Look how Occupy fucked that up. And now we have endless attention and hyperbole paid to the NSA because it's the lowest hanging fruit on the tree.
People are lazy today. They don't want to tackle the harder issues because they require long-term planning and actively engaging people instead of name-calling and chants of "Down with the USA!" and "You lie!" directed to the President.
But, as you say, this is just a message board. Maybe it's time to let the haters stew in their own echo chamber for a while.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)It's frustrating here when we can't even debate important issues because the little clique shows up to make assumptions, toss out insults and scream hyperbole.
Screaming about a problem and attacking people who mostly agree with you just because they won't mirror their freak out is hardly productive. Find the problem, fix the problem. It's not that simple of course but sitting around ringing your hands and attacking your own party is not just useless, it's counter-productive.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)On all three points.
Re: Point 1: It seems that what COULD happen is of paramount importance. When it crosses a certain line, there is a clinical term for what we are experiencing.
Re: Point 2: But you are talking about actually DOING something to effect change.
Re: Point 3: But I want it and I want it HOW!
I apologize for the snark; but, this place is unhinged these days as folks seem quite comfortable in denying their everyday real life experiences.
Great Post.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Yes, and also I think there are certainly those who don't want these intelligence agencies to exist at all. This just reiterates what they already believe.
If people feel so strongly then I'd like to see them move beyond simply posting their outrage. I have a problem IRL with people who want to complain endlessly but refuse to acknowledge and attempt to solve their own problems. It's not simple and we sometimes don't get what we want but that's life.
I have children so I understand that one well enough!
Snark is fine with me and far better than most responses I get. 
I appreciate the thoughtful response.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)They want the intelligence agencies gone ... until the lack of intelligence touches their life ...
They feel so strongly; but the interwebz has them convinced that posting their outrage to an anonymous message board, is actually doing something about it ...
I have a child as well ... she grew out of it before high school.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)On the other hand there are regular photo spreads on DU of another person who is undeniably popular with a group here.
Not to mention that Guy Fawkes was hardly a hero, he was a religiously motivated terrorist.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)omg, somebody better DO something. Quick, talk to Skinner to change the name from democratic underground to libertarian underground.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)In fact I've never mentioned them before.
But I thought the whole "worship Guy Fawkes" thing was a bit hyperbolic.
It's a bit odd to start off a plea for calm and reasonableness with baseless attacks like the OP did.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)The "group" oh noooo's the BOgers!
"On the other hand there are regular photo spreads on DU of another person who is undeniably popular with a group here."
Like this~ Do they mean this~
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110213571
Yup. Undeniably popular on Democratic Underground
I am shocked, shocked I say! How dare we support This President!
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)most of still do like the president, which is why it hurts so much when we keep getting more of the same.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)regarding whether the government is spying or not. And the Washington post just did a blockbuster front page story today that all those precious “safeguards" have been ignored and violated by the NSA countless times.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Most media did.
So you believe them now? You don't think there could also be an agenda for them with these stories?
When do you know if they are right and they are wrong?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Clapper?
Remember that he's a creature of Smirk and Sneer, appointed in 2007.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)maybe some hard asses like Clapper are needed in that job.
and maybe most of us just can't handle the truth of cyber warfare.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I know the difference between a hardass and an asshole, Clapper is one of the latter.
There's very little of this crap the intelligence services of other nations don't already know, the ones who are being deliberately kept in the dark are Joseph and Janine Sixpack right here in the home of the brave.
Marr
(20,317 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts) Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)my Goddam pony went!
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...but you are certainly not speaking for me.
In fact, if you really believe you can't handle the truth, then why are you prattling on about it? Clearly you have no interest in knowing what really goes on, and in fact you deem yourself unable to do so. So maybe you need to find another subject to talk about and leave this topic to those who *can* handle the truth.
Just a suggestion.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)You do some pretty good prattle yourself there, friend. And don't tell me what my interests are or are not or what subjects I should talk about.
And I'm called stasi-bot authoritarian because I don't believe the Scammy Glenny and you can sit on your spinny chair and try to tell me what to think and say on what subject. lol. rich.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)"and maybe most of us just can't handle the truth of cyber warfare."
The term "most of us" is inclusive, implying that most of us here at DU can't handle the truth of cyber warfare, according to you.
I most emphatically do not consider myself to be part of that group that you are speaking for, and I am certainly free to say so.
I'm not telling you what to do; I even said it was just a suggestion. However, if you will insist on weighing in on a topic where you yourself say you "can't handle the truth" on that topic, well then it is reasonable to assume that someone, somewhere will notice the disconnect and comment on it, which I did.
Finally, I never called you any names, nor have I ever called anyone a stasi-bot or an authoritarian, nor did I tell you what to think or say on the subject. I merely noted the disconnect between saying you can't handle the truth of the matter, while commenting on it anyway.
Sorry if that riled you. Well, not really.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)the general tone here is if you don't believe SnowGlenn then you are an authoritarian stasi-bot. I don't know who you are or what you post, it was a generic comment. If it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you, right?
Really.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...then why use it when replying to me?
Really.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)I have a daughter in the 7th grade and the mean girls talk like this. Adorable!
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)Do you believe all that he say's at the Guardian?
Is he telling the whole truth, nothing but the the truth, so help me....?
Leaking...............!
quinnox
(20,600 posts)And also the Guardian newspaper.
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)According to the article, there are regular audits, the FISA court overruled the agency (which according to DU could never happen) and the NSA is making genuine efforts to comply with the law. The article said most of the transgressions were accidental and some were unavoidable.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)I wouldn't trust a Republican. Still, facts are facts and there are some positives in the latest NSA news, no matter who is in office.
Skraxx
(2,970 posts)I would want oversight under any administration.
My problem with Bush was his establishment of these programs and their lack of oversight.
My problem with future GOP is that they would almost certainly attempt to dismantle the oversight and expand the programs.
Under the current admin, we've at least established some oversight and can have a debate about necessity.
These are the judgement calls we make when we engage in the political system. And unless you're calling for revolution, If you believe in the rule of law, you work within the system u have.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Rational has left this building.
ecstatic
(32,685 posts)The firebagger/tea-libertarian left have been behaving like bullies, IMO. Anyone who isn't at level 10 or higher in outrage based on thin facts presented to us by "former" right wing republicans or KKK defending douchebags is mocked and silenced.
The sad part is--I think most of us are on the same side and I doubt anyone here welcomes spying, etc...
Their approach boils down to: "Let's give the tea party more power Vote Third Party!!!"
Sorry, NSA's activities don't trump everything else in my life. Not when there are concrete atrocities to worry about, such as people being gunned down/tased to death in the streets at the hands of police officers and civilians.
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)Both of you Pentagon trolls can fuck off as far as I am concerned.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Posts like this make DU suck! 
Cha
(297,154 posts)making the OP's point with your nasty personal insults.
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)nebenaube
(3,496 posts)I really don't care.
Cha
(297,154 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)a brawl.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)Take your own advice, nebenaube.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)IMO, you should still take your own advice.
Number23
(24,544 posts)alerted because there is no way that a jury would have allowed that to stand.
And yet... 
Every time I go into ATA there is a veritable deluge of comments from people saying that the jury system isn't working. And every time the admins respond with "well, we think it is."
I have seen blatant, openly hostile, not even TRYING to be sly personal attacks get left. Such as this one up thread. And yet, someone else gets a post hidden for calling someone "Snowdenbots" and my latest hidden post for telling someone following me around this web site like a deranged puppy that I wasn't interested. And yet, when people go to the admins they'll get told ONCE AGAIN that "the jury system is working."
Damn, how long does crap have to be broken before the handyman comes in and fixes it?
Marr
(20,317 posts)they were responding to. Or is it just that those kinds of insults are ok?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)without criticism from their own. The double standard is blatant. The hypocrisy is spotlighted each time.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I wish I could claim that I have never engaged in name calling or behaved boorishly on this topic, but I can't.
Still, I do think there's a difference in tone between the two "sides" on this topic. I've noticed logical fallacies and sophistry seem to be the order of the day on one side. Lots of misdirection, lots of demonization, and-- before it became so laughable-- lots of mockery of the other side as simple paranoids.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Your comment is uncalled for. No matter what happens, we all need to have an adult discussion about surveillance.
Good For You.
Managed to slip one by the jury. You must be so proud.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I will not vote for democrats who support the NSA surveillance or drone wars or Race to the Top or corporations giving money to politicians or a host of other things. If you want to vote democrat I would never belittle you for doing so. But I get told plenty if I don't vote democrat I am helping the republicans win. I would never be so rude or disrespectful as to say the same about someone who votes for any democrat. I will not be bullied into voting for a democrat and I will never bully someone into not voting for a democrat. That just isn't my style.
tblue
(16,350 posts)
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...of namecalling and worse:
If you don't march in lockstep to their worldview you are mocked, shamed, insulted, and called names. It's getting harder and harder to tell who the real authoritarians are. The "anti-authoritarians" seem to exhibit such authoritarian personality traits as mentioned above, while those who are called "authoritarians" by others are the ones who seem to actually exhibit traits of tolerance, open mindedness, rationality, and willingness to listen to factual statements and evidence before jumping to fear-mongered conclusions.
And you post in support of their position, starting out with:
The firebagger/tea-libertarian left have been behaving like bullies, IMO. Anyone who isn't at level 10 or higher in outrage based on thin facts presented to us by "former" right wing republicans or KKK defending douchebags is mocked and silenced.
Apparently neither of you see the irony in claiming the traits of "tolerance, open mindedness, rationality" etc.
Way to elevate the discussion there, e.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Also intentionally divisive in your view, or no?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Or are you only asking if I think so? Apologist is hardly name calling such as "firebagger".
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Hoisted by his own petard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
cui bono
(19,926 posts)towards what they are doing, then you are not concerned about our democracy and constitution. Do you not see the correlation between that and "people being gunned down/tased to death in the streets at the hands of police officers and civilians"? Why do you think that is happening?
Using "firebagger" just shows how closed minded and judgmental you and anyone else who uses that term are. That's the real problem on DU. The people you are name calling are the ones who are defending your privacy and liberty, but then you've already stated that the principles this country are founded upon are not important to you. I guess you just want people on the internet to be nice to you even if you live without any privacy or freedom.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)Advocating kicking the Koch-DLC-Globalists (the "Rand" Koch) out of the Democratic Party - i.e. actually having a "worker's party" that opposes Wars for Corporate Profit - is quite different than pushing a 3rd Party route in under the current electoral framework.
I'm with you 100% on the OTHER 'local' aspects of the Police State (but trace their funding, armored personnel carriers, and militant-training back to the feds) - but it is not one or the other. The "find and disappear" lists and systems used in other nations were written by the same folks who are running the MIC and "Intelligence" systems we have - which are now turning their eye to Americans.
It is now the "law of the land" that you can be held *forever* without charge. Dem-Senator Levin says the order to include Americans in that category was a WH directive - not that it would be 'OK' for any "non-American" human being, but their needs seem to be "Off the Table," along with Bush II's Well Deserved Impeachment for Torture / Crimes Against Humanity.
The sad thing is we didn't care enough to put those "Intelligence Operative" war-criminals and torturers on trial for what they did for decades overseas on behalf of their Kleptocrat Transnational-Corporate masters (granted, ignorance, thanks to MSM-ownership, was a factor). If we had, we would not be having this conversation today, as the chickens come home to roost.
But then, if Nixon had gone to jail (thanks, Ford) ... if Bush Jr had gone to jail (thanks, Pelosi and Obama) ... if the American People had said No Way to electing the former head of the KGB - er, I mean CIA - to the presidency (Bush I - OP seems to have forgotten that) ... if, if, if.
All we can do NOW is educate people on Real History, so we can go forward from here armed with the knowledge of what past-actions - and inactions - brought into being.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."you are mocked, shamed, insulted, and called names."
Do you really want to go there? Are you contending that those on your side of the issue don't mock, shame and call people names? Really???
Please proceed, JV.
Furthermore, you then resort to the usual nonsense that anyone who believes Snowden's revelations were useful, must be "worshipping someone" and must feel "the need to elevate someone to God-like status". Is this supposed to represent your side's "tolerance, open mindedness, rationality"? Really???
So after your little screed, you proceed into a discussion of the issues and trot out a veritable hailstorm of old and worn talking points:
- "fairly old news"... right, and that's why the government has their hair on fire to get this guy, and that's why people are in an uproar over all of this: because we've heard it all before.
- "numerous safeguards"... yet the FISA court says it has no ability to oversee the NSA, the Congress critters claim they never saw any of this stuff, and the President claims the NSA never abuses its power.
- "overwhelming lack of evidence"... rather the reverse, I'd say.
- "no proof that the Govt is actually even spying on us"... er, you did read the stories about information being passed on to the DEA, and the DEA officers being instructed to create a "parallel construction" in order to cover up where the information originated. Right?
- "no one is suing the NSA for violations"... good grief, you really aren't paying attention, are you? First of all, many have tried, but were rebuffed because they had no standing because they couldn't prove the NSA was spying on them. Do you see the circularity there? In any case, now that we know more, there are indeed suits in progress. Here's one:
http://mashable.com/2013/07/17/eff-sues-nsa/
Electronic Frontier Foundation Files Lawsuit Against NSA
(the article says this suit is being pursued by a coalition of 19 groups) More from the article:
This newest suit is one of several legal challenges to NSA surveillance. Another, by Amnesty International, which challenged the Bush-era warrantless wiretapping programs, went all the way to the Supreme Court. But the justices struck it down, ruling that the plaintiffs (who were journalists and human rights activists) didn't have legal standing, since they couldn't directly prove they were targets of the surveillance.
The EFF believes that, thanks to Snowden and the leaked Verizon FISA Court order, that argument won't work this time. The 19 groups have standing because the current surveillance program targets all Americans, they argue.
"It's now clear that virtually everyone's phone call records can be gathered in this metadata collection program, so I believe they do have standing," University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone told the Associated Press.
You may want to consider some new talking points.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)the NSA over the spying. As a quick google search shows when you type in "aclu suing nsa" http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)The irony runs deep, but you run a HUGE risk if pointing it out: you're subject to derisive and dismissive responses, and rather sanctimonious murmurs of agreement about your 'anti-Obama' stance. It's all too surreal.
Oakenshield
(614 posts)eom
mick063
(2,424 posts)As the world turns to shit around us.
Sorry, if people have their hair on fire.
Perhaps if our political leaders would put away the blowtorch, it would help.
Understand this:
The sane, rational shit had it's day in the sun and it gave us the "grand bargain", the TPP, and Larry Summers.
People are pissed.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)it's the full-throated, maxed-out hysteria that repeats every one of Cheney and Rumsfeld's snarling points, completely unaware of the heffalump-sized irony
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)Thanks JV!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)We question authority and know there are times when there are factions within the government that rise to power like the Neocons did. One of those factions that has been around since the Cold War operates on the theory that everyone is guilty until proven innocent and demands full disclosure from all citizens while demanding total secrecy for itself.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)and people like Abbie Hoffman or the Chicago Seven or what anti-establishment even means.
Do they know over 58,000 people died when a President lied the United States into a war? or do they believe W was the first President ever to do that?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Let's not forget them.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I was far too young to understand at the time, but my family was directly affected, and one of my heroes (my Mother's Brother) just passed this last Christmas.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Not old enough and not well versed in history. Probably a high-school cheerleader.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Also, beware of those wearing sheep's clothing claiming to be what they are not.
Again I'll say vote to those - vote your conscience because I will - Democratic.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)We're also not "sane" or "rational" because you said so. Even though we've been proved right EVERY SINGLE TIME you act as though we're just paranoid. Certainly the president would never let anything bad happen or lie to us! Except he did let bad things happen to us and he is lying to us. It's been proved.
I can't help that the facts don't agree with your post and I can assure you that I didn't donate to, work for, and vote for this president in the hopes that he would turn into a repub, but he did. You can either accept that and work to minimize his damage to this country or you can keep posting silly OPs trying to change the subject.
But you cannot change the facts. We've been right EVERY SINGLE TIME while all you "sane" and "rational" folk have been astoundingly wrong.
tjwash
(8,219 posts)
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I'm going to guess not. Strange how that works.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Mockery and scorn are all they have.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)she doesn't mind it at all when her little friends are the ones doing it.
That says all I need to know about her.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)
Cronus Protagonist
(15,574 posts)What's cookin'?
pnwmom
(108,976 posts) 
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Spy on me when I wake up. Spy on me when I fuck. Spy on me when I shit. Spy, Spy, Spy.
Only the fuckwad government can keep my safe from the chickens when they come home to roost
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)to call for hearings & such.
Also I don't think that saying Snowden is a legitimate whistleblower is necessarily
"elevating him to god-like status". <-- this is a tad hyperbolic.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)I can literally wipe my ass with it
that's what its worth
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)With greenwald and assange as their leaders in charge of propaganda.. you really can't expect much.
Sounds like Asshat gave them their marching orders on "authoritarian"? The libertarian on the lam in his hidey hole in London's Ecuadorian Embassy.
"So Wikileaks actually attacked Obama for using a teleprompter?"
WikiLeaks @wikileaks 5h
"Obama's mask continues to slip in this affair. Under all the acting, and reading of teleprompters, a vindictive, petty, authoritarian."
https://twitter.com/wikileaks
Hypocrisy much, you petty vindictive asswipe.
h/t Cali http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023234734
Who's also saying "only rand paul can save America".. uh hmmm, and IF paul wins in 2016 possibly letting Asshat off the hook so he can finally go to Sweden and answer those "rape charges" because he won't have to worry about the USA? Yeah, that will "save America" .. more like assange's butt. self centered paul roach.
Clue: If you're not running around with your hair on .. you're an "authoritarian".
Another one: You can be called an "authoritarian" but you cannot refer to "anti-authoritarians" as It's not fair.. or something like that.
Response to JaneyVee (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)It's about intimidation. Which is fear. Which is tyranny.
(Jesus, I sound like am radio. Do you see how bad this is!!)
---
Is one way to reply to this statment. The other being a question.
---
Why and how would their be any stories about it?
I'd have even less faith in our safety if while the men in black helicopters were doing their men-in-black-helicopter-thing while ACTION NEWS COPTER 5 was capturing the whole thing for the 11:00 broadcast.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The U.S. has more people in prison per capita than any other nation, including China, Russia, Cuba, Iran...
The only country that might beat the U.S. is North Korea, but there's not enough data available to get an accurate number for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)people should live in constant fear of everything that isn't captured on the 11 o'clock broadcast - which would be anything their paranoid imaginations can come up with.
There MUST have been black helicopters spying on my house all day! How do I know? It WASN'T on the news!"
Why and how would there be any stories about it?
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Look how little we know. That's my point
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)But if you do so, AND call yourself a Democrat, you will get derisive laughter from me.
The Democratic Party I signed up for and joined brooks no tolerance for that shit. Why would I allow my values and my party's core values to be undermined by neoliberals?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)as the Republicans. It doesn't matter which letter (D or R) is after someone's name when they are arguing in favor of police and surveillance state tactics.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)how can there be any meaningful oversight?
Doesn't seem possible.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)In the meantime? Give up a little here, a little there... What's the big deal? There's oversight. There're layers of protection. It's only metadata after all, right?
So then in ten years, you call a butcher to buy some lamb chops and you don't even know what the fuck "halal" even means, but that butcher sells meat to someone whose maid has a brother in Pakistan whose friend set off an IED in Lahore and now the FBI kicks down your door at 0300 on a Wednesday morning. You spend the next 72 hours explaining you don't know ANYONE in Pakistan... and the next 8 months awaiting trial on charges that you aided terrorists because your credit card number shows up on a charge in the Philippines for C4.
Got news for you, friend: The Democrats aren't going to win EVERY election from here on out. The powers you grant the government NOW, are the powers the party in power THEN will build on and use against you.
You "welcome the idea of NSA hearings"? AS IF you're going to be privy to their content... How could you be so naïve?
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)So then in ten years, you call a butcher to buy some lamb chops and you don't even know what the fuck "halal" even means, but that butcher sells meat to someone whose maid has a brother in Pakistan whose friend set off an IED in Lahore and now the FBI kicks down your door at 0300 on a Wednesday morning. You spend the next 72 hours explaining you don't know ANYONE in Pakistan... and the next 8 months awaiting trial on charges that you aided terrorists because your credit card number shows up on a charge in the Philippines for C4.
The ironic thing is that the NSA's "terrible" surveillance that you hate immediately proves that you are innocent. In fact, the FBI doesn't even knock down your door, since after the warrant is issued and your correspondence with the butcher is examined, it is shown that the only thing you've done wrong is not use buttermilk in your Shawarma recipe.
However, without the surveillance in place (since it was all outlawed by President Chomsky), all that the FBI agents staking out the butcher shop know is that you entered alone in dark glasses and a hat, and exited with a wrapped package that looks suspiciously like a bomb. So that is what brought about the 3AM raid, plus a hail of bullets when your dog started barking (by agents in terror of being blown up by your mutton-chop), which got you killed.
Poor fellow. As you can see, I can write paranoid fantasies just as well as you can.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Get that, reality based asshole?
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)As it is an abuse of the system. A way to bash people they disagree with, and applied in an obviously biased manner.
Let me be very clear, however. When someone turns to screaming insults rather than discussing facts, that means they have lost the argument. And it really doesn't matter how many people you can get to agree with you in a non-representative echo chamber that has been taken over by a fringe of people who clearly hate the very party the website is supposed to represent.
I'm not going to convince someone like you that you're wrong, clearly. Like a teabagger who would rather see this country burn than see a black man succeed as President of the United States, you obviously would rather die in a terrorist attack than have any kind of watch on the people who are associated with car-bombings. Even your own invented scenario shows that you have a paranoia and hatred of the government worthy of Ron and Rand Paul. However, just as a piece of advice, if you ever actually intend to persuade someone who doesn't already agree with you 100%, let me suggest that you try to find a single actionable grievance that you can identify when discussing how bad a policy is - rather than relying on made-up fantasy.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)What do you want, a thank you for not alerting on my post? Fuck that. Allow me to introduce myself: My name is Chris. Feel free to think of me as that guy who doesn't care whether or not you alert on his posts. You don't alert "as it is an abuse of the system"? What next? You don't use onramps because they're an abuse of the Interstate System?
Call me a bigot if you think I'm a bigot. Grow up. I voted for Barack Obama the Candidate, and I voted for President Barack Obama's reelection. Go back to election night and search for my posts. I refer to him as either Barack Obama or President Obama, but you simply refer to him as "a black man", then imply that I'm a bigot? A bigot I'm not, nor am I a teabagger. I don't vote for republicans because of my dislike for bigotry.
Now for the really funny part of your post. You say I'm paranoid. Paranoid for mentioning the authorities pounding on doors in the middle of the night, all because of criss-crossed telephone records the federal government is constitutionally barred from collecting (I'll come back to the constitutional part). Now, what do you bring to the table to bolster your argument that I'm paranoid? CAR-BOMBINGS. Do you see anything wrong with this picture? I'm paranoid for not wanting law enforcement at my door and you use warm and fuzzy car bombings to bolster your argument. Just what "reality based community" do you live in? I'm as likely to be killed in a car-bombing as I am by falling sausage. How many car bombings have there been in the US since 1996? And you think there have been NONE because of the NSA? How often though, does one state authority or another beat down someone's door in the middle of the night? Or beat down the wrong door, and kill someone? How about every fucking week?
As for my problem with the data collection, which you see as a reason to lump me in with the paulites...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You know as well as I do that the Bill of Rights doesn't actually confer rights on citizens, but rather limits what the federal government can do to citizens. Now, I don't see anything in the text of the Fourth Amendment (that's it in the paragraph above, in case you didn't recognize it) saying "since car bombs are bad, and bad guys sometimes use phones, the government is authorized to collect data pertaining to all phone calls, cross-referencing all data in an effort to separate good guys from bad guys and starting from the assumption that all persons are bad". Do you see anything in the paragraph above saying that? Because I don't.
Wanting to see the country burn rather than see "a black man" succeed as President. Wanting to die in a terrorist attack rather than watch people associated with car bombings. Yeah, you have me pegged alright. You are one serious piece o' work. From a "reality based community" no less.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)it's spying on Americans and a police state.
I hate spying and won't apologize for vehemently opposing dangerous, unconstitutional practices. I have absolutely no kindness for those people that go along with it. To me, they are contemptible, worthy only of disdain and pity. Those people are selfish to the core. They are not only giving up rights for themselves, they are robbing the rights of future generations that past generations earned with appalling bloodshed. There are mountains of dead men and women who died to defend this constitution, and anyone who gives it up so freely for themselves and their descendants is shitting on that sacrifice.
Sorry, that's the way I feel.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Your post is very well-spoken.
And thank you for reminding us of the price that has been paid for our liberty, over and over and over again.
tblue
(16,350 posts)How much time you got? Let's not be naive.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)They believe in the wisdom of the state. Your entire OP is a plea to believe in the benevolence of an authoritarian state.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)It is definitely not those who are against the NSA spying and on the side of the ACLU, that's for sure.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)And that core value was burned into our beings every time TPTB lied to us, or sold us out, or killed us, or locked us up, or stole our votes, or assassinated our leaders, or sent our sons-brothers-fathers off to war for empire.
It is who we are.
Question authority.
It is all we know how to be.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)been to their benefit to teach me otherwise. My parents.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)But any pleas for sane discussion on this board these days - well, that ain't gonna happen.
But it is an extremely well-thought out piece, nonetheless.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Well thought out, my ass.
By sane, you mean, agree with you. Maybe you're just a little to comfortable.
I see a lot of people here at DU that seem a little to comfortable with the status quo.
I see a lot more that are getting painfully bit. You don't seem too willing to share that pain.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)I am not the least bit interested in your opinion - nor am I interested in whatever it is you are attempting to say.
BTW, it's 'too' not 'to'.
It seems odd that you are allegedly old enough to be a grandfather, and yet you communicate (poorly) in language reminiscent of junior high.
"My grandson would rip this OP to pieces."
I'm guessing you told a lot of teachers back in the day that the dog ate your homework - and never suspected that you weren't the originator of that line.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)on those who are defending those things? There are facts out there and they're not pretty. How about you get upset about that instead of people who want our country to function as intended.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I don't know how oversight fixes what is unconstitutional. Moreover it's unconstitutional for a REASON, because it takes too much power for the government.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Oh, you mean what specifically do they want stopped?
All of IT!!
muriel_volestrangler
(101,307 posts)Filed in 2008, Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.
It also includes declarations from three NSA whistleblowers along with a mountain of other evidence, including secret government documents recently published in the Guardian and Washington Post that confirm our allegations. Two of the most critical documents directly reference the “upstream” collection of communications from fiber optic cables and the domestic telephone records collection program, which was subsequently confirmed by the government in June, 2013.
In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic dragnet, Jewel v. NSA also targets the individuals responsible for creating authorizing and implementing the illegal program including DNI Keith Alexander and former Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney’s former chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance.
https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel
Amnesty International tried to sue, but the Supreme Court (5-4, the 5 being Kennedy, Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas) said they had no standing.
...
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., who wrote the majority opinion, concluded that the challengers’ lawsuit was based upon a “chain of contingencies” that would have to fall into place before their communications might be at risk of eavesdropping. They had not shown, the opinion concluded, that harms to them were “certainly impending” – a rigorous standard for testing the right to sue.
The decision fit into two ongoing patterns established by the modern Court: a narrowing of the scope of the right to sue in federal court as a general proposition, and a stream of decisions insulating highly secret government war programs from judicial review in the regular federal court system.
The Alito opinion expressed a high degree of confidence that a special court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, will guard against abuses of the new surveillance program that was freed of a number of restraints that existed under a law first passed in 1978. That surveillance court operates in total secrecy, within the Justice Department building in downtown Washington, and almost never has turned down completely government requests for “foreign intelligence” surveillance. It has sometimes modified those requests, however.
http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=160071
We can now see it's extremely likely that Amnesty International contacts with people outside the USA are extensively monitored, so it's ridiculous to claim they don't have standing. But what do you expect from those 5 SC justices?
Anyway, we can see that your assertion "No one is suing the NSA for violations" is false.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)anti government extremism is confined to right wingers,but it's not. Conspiratorial people tend to congregate at the extremes of both sides and DU lately has seen plenty of examples of that.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)/əˌTHôriˈte(ə
rēən/
Adjective
Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
Noun
An authoritarian person.
Synonyms
authoritative - magisterial
If it walks like a duck...
Don't like being called an authoritarian? Quit thinking and acting like one.
Reasonable that.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)It's either a duck or some other closely related waterfowl.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Those names? There is plenty of name calling going on from both sides.
Now about the authoritarian label: if you are defending an authoritarian state you are an authoritarian. On the other hand opposing an authoritarian state does not make one a racist, a randroid, or an Obama hater. It does make one an anti-authoritarian. I would be pleased to be called ant-authoritarian any time you wish to do so.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)fine. You have a special forum to show your support.
Those of us who have grave concerns will talk among ourselves. imho
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)If people do not have sufficiently "grave concerns", then they must be "happy with" the NSA and the administration.
No middle ground, no room for degrees of concern. Us vs Them. Not productive or conducive to civility.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts) 
malaise
(268,946 posts)Rec
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I simply do not care for those who preach, call names, hold up others as flawed while glossing and gassing about their own immutable righteousness. The tent meeting rant and wail thing is, was, and always has been a huge turnoff for me.
The OP can hardly stand that others have different opinions. That often leads to sermons and raving but very rarely to salient and discussable points of fact.
The OP should have just posted 'I'm always right unlike those malicious fucks who don't agree with me!!!!'
I heard enough of this sort of crap back when the 'centrists' were busily defending DOMA and pushing 'civil Unions are just as good, why worry about a word?' memes. Same heinous, self important lecturing against those taking action. 'They have their hair on fire, it is poutrage, they want a pony, it's just one song, just one tiny prayer'.
Yawn.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)
bigtree
(85,987 posts)
BumRushDaShow
(128,871 posts)Right on point!
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Your OP is chock full of it! As if everyone who supports Snowden and Greenwald "runs around calling people authoritarians". As if there aren't reasonable people who are aghast at the overreaches of the NSA.
"A little more kindness toward each other couldn't hurt". Yes, that is a great point, which of course applies to people no matter what their viewpoints are. You seem to be suggesting that DUers who are critical of the NSA are the rudest, which is baloney.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)lives doesn't mean you are an authoritarian, does it?
Seriously, I mean, think about it; how would that make someone an authoritarian. And Snowden must turn himself in to the authorities so he can spend the rest of his life in prison for making the problem of NSA spying widely known to the public.
Gee, that's not authoritarian, is it?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)just hyperbolic characterizations of those who dare disagree with the OP? I mean, is this an actual complaint of substance or just some 'poetic license'? The OP should be very clear about which it is, and prove the case if claiming this is a truthful statement rather than just a frame to put around unnamed sinners and evildoers.
More kindness, you say after posting this sort of insinuating, gossipy sermonizing? Seriously? Irony, hyperbole and so much radical and extreme language it is hard to think this is not meant to be satire.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)So let’s chat about authoritarianism. I recommend the book, “The Authoritarians,” by Bob Altemeyer. I think it important for further discussions re. authoritarianism.
Common definitions of authoritarian include:
Of or relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite.”
When Snowden stepped forward to expose possible violations of law and our Constitution he was greeted by those that immediately wanted him arrested and punished. They made it clear that they supported the “authority” of the NSA. They, at that time, derided those (anti-authoritarians) that cried for investigations and further discussion. They disparaged those calling for open-mindedness and skepticism. They did not want further investigations or oversight. So at that time there were two basic points of view.
One point of view wanted to blindly believe that the “authorities” were not violating the law. In fact some actually came out and said, “The NSA is not violating the law.” This is important because this point of view was convinced that the “authorities” were above the need for review. It characterized those calling for investigations and transparency as having “hair on fire” and were racist among other ridiculous labels, seemingly desperate to stifle discussion. This point of view clearly meets the definition of authoritarianism.
The “anti-authoritarian” point of view (as labeled in the OP) believed that the revelations of Snowden indicated that review and more transparency was needed. This is not blindly following authority; in fact this view was skeptical of authority as open-minded people know that authority can be corrupted, especially if operating in secrecy.
The OP states that the anti-authoritarian point of view tried to stifle honest discussion (looks like projection to me). Well, it’s not too late. I would love to have an honest discussion. I would love to see the arguments of those that don’t agree with the anti-authoritarian point of view. I posted an OP that laid out what I thought was the non-anti-authoritarian’s arguments and the non-anti-authoritarians tried to get it locked. I can see that maybe I didn’t make a good case for the non-anti-authoritarians. So please lay out your arguments.
In a Democracy it is the people’s responsibility to be skeptical of authority. Authoritarianism and democracy don’t mix.
TBF
(32,049 posts)This tells me absolutely everything anyone would need to know about both you and the third way.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Here are your arguments for not getting too excited about the NSA possible violations of law. Please correct me if I mis-characterize your arguments.
1.
However, if you mean the news that Booz-Allen is collecting, compiling, and analyzing data on millions of non-suspect Americans, that’s clearly new news.
2.
I would like to point out that just because there is a safeguard in place doesn’t preclude violations. In fact, from the evidence we’ve seen, including admissions by the NSA, the safeguards are failing.
The FISA courts have admitted that they don’t have the methods or personnel to verify that their warrants are being used as intended.
Sen Wyden has expressed exasperation that his oversight is hamstrung by secrecy.
At the very least we should agree that these “safeguards” need to be reviewed.
3.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Plenty have tried to sue. The evidence to prove their cases is all top secret.
I'll bet there are a few here that have had that knock on the door. We just can't talk about it.
It has nothing to do with FEMA camps. The authoritarians are the only ones who mention that.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)"Sense of Irony".
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Do you have any concept of self reflection?
So funny.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)People with no concept of self reflection usually also lack an irony gene.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)There must be no mirrors in their homes.
QC
(26,371 posts)Yeah, it's about like that.
Another poster, one who has been especially frantic today, actually said, and I quote: "More adhominems ....sounds like a patern with the Paul righties."
War Horse
(931 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)A racist is a racist. The KKK may not like the term, but it fits. A sexist is a sexist. Bob Filner, the Mayor of San Diego may not like the term, and may find it offensive, but it fits.
An authoritarian is authoritarian. The people who voted against the Amash amendment may not like the term, those who supported the actions of voting against the Amash amendment may not like the term. But it does fit.
Further reforms and safeguards on the groups that routinely ignore them? That is like saying that from now on Rape Gangs in India have to wear condoms. Someone is still being raped. The issue isn't the wearing of a raincoat, it's the rape. The issue with the NSA isn't if they are following the far too liberal rules, we know they aren't, and their own IG Reports say they aren't. The issue is the spying on the citizenry in violation of the 4th Amendment. Tightening up those far too liberal rules with other rules that won't be followed isn't going to change the fact, they are spying on us.
Think it through man, and come up with a better argument than objecting to calling something by a term that perfectly describes what it is.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)For the most part anyway.
If you are going to make such sweeping claims as you have, then please, provide us with some actual examples of "anti-authoritarian types who demand lockstep". Otherwise it just looks like you are playing the victim, like when conservatives lament about white christian males being oppressed in the US.
Oh, and if you think the Guy Fawkes masks are about worshiping then you need to inform yourself.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)rather than some people calling everyone authoritarians. Authoritarians are a loud and obnoxious minority. Those objecting to authoritarian defenses of the NSA are part of a majority-- on DU, nationally, and globally.
UTUSN
(70,683 posts)here and now!1 I've said parts of it before but the o.p. has tied all of it together. I would add what EarlG said about "too much time scrapping with your fellow progressives" while the "real right-wing assholes out there who wish for nothing more than to see us all crucified and burned." And I'm saying this in the kindest way possible, but this phenomenon is not new, and not new here at DU, one its previous appearances being in the Hugo CHAVEZ fans, but as I would repeat with them, idealism is one theme all of us Dems/Libs have in common along a spectrum of intensity, and the extra pure at the end of the spectrum tend to lash out at anybody less pure (in their eyes) or more tempered with real possibilities. I love our purists. What's different in this current incarnation is the Libertarianism. I'm TRYING to be KIND!!!!!!!!1
*********QUOTE********
Strange how [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]the same people[/FONT] running around [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]calling everyone Authoritarians[/FONT]
Are the same people who seem to [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]drown out any dissenting voices contrary to their own very specific worldview[/FONT]. If you don't march in lockstep to their worldview you are mocked, shamed, insulted, and called names. It's getting harder and harder to tell who the real authoritarians are. [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]The "anti-authoritarians" seem to exhibit such authoritarian personality traits[/FONT] as mentioned above, while those who are called "authoritarians" by others are the ones who seem to actually exhibit traits of tolerance, open mindedness, rationality, and willingness to listen to factual statements and evidence before jumping to fear-mongered conclusions.
It's amazing how [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]the so called anti authoritarians have no problem worshipping someone[/FONT] to the point of wearing a mask of their hero's face while the so called authoritarians can appreciate having this debate without feeling the need to elevate someone to God-like status.
It's like there is no room for sane rational voices in this debate, it's just battle of the hyperbole's.
Why am I not running around with my hair on fire about this NSA story? One, because its fairly old news, two, besides Bush's warrantless wiretapping, under this administration there are numerous safeguards in place to protect our citizens constitutionally, and three, there is an overwhelming lack of evidence of any nefarious actions taking place. No one is suing the NSA for violations, no stories of innocent people being rounded up into FEMA camps, no unwarranted interrogations of US citizens, and no proof that the Govt is actually even spying on us. Has anyone here had a knock on the door and been interrogated? I certainly haven't. Anyone care to share stories of this occurring?
On the other hand, we can acknowledge how this can be a slippery slope and [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]welcome further reforms and safeguards[/FONT] without believing the Govt is coming to stalk our Facebook pages and read our emails and texts. Personally I welcome the idea of NSA hearings and am interested in hearing both sides argue their positions based on their merits. This is why I also believe Snowden should come back to the US, what better expert witness to take on this issue in a court of law than an actual insider. Yet, [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]running off to another country who would love nothing more than to see our country's demise should also be questioned[/FONT] as suspicious. A country whose president is actually the [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]ex-KGB head[/FONT], equivalent to making James Clapper or Keith Alexander or Leon Pannetta our president. I mean, damn, [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]if you wanna talk about authoritarians, look no further than Putin and the Russian Federation. Better yet[/FONT], look no further than [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]the Republican Party[/FONT].
Like I said above, more oversight is never a bad thing and we all should welcome it, but for the sake of sanity and possibly your own health, lets wait for facts and evidence before thinking the world is in impending doom because our Govt takes counter terrorism possibly a little too seriously. And [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]a little more kindness towards each other couldn't hurt either[/FONT].
*************UNQUOTE*************
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Though some of the responses above do the same:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3479228
Those who don't view the NSA or the government with the same level of mistrust as this individual presumably must be cheerleading 'bots who come out with synchronized talking points.
The binary "thinking" around here is a big part of the problem.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)prove the opposite?
I could come up with plenty, with the OP's or your name attached.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Don't use the passive-aggressive condescending approach if you actually want to influence people. It only works on the choir.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)or the endless revisions from the authoritarians in DC or their sychophants here.
Most of the rancor, etc, was intitiated by those on defense from the beginning with this -- you guys. It was simply inconcievable and certainly intolerable to be having the "good guy" in the WH even tangentially tied to the intitial revelations and all that has followed, even though he is in responsible charge of those indicted by them.
I wish you guys would make up your minds as to whether he's an incompetent nincompoop outta this particular loop, or a liar on the matter, although I won't hold my breath while waiting.
ANd all this stuff about "welcoming further reforms and safeguards" has been the goal (well, demanding it really) of all of us alleged "authoritarians" from the start, so by all means, explain all of the "paulite/bushite/racist/etc" BS that has come from your side.
Oh that's right, you're tripping all over yourselves. The only reason all that stuff came from you authoritarians is because it makes the one in charge look bad, and rightly so. You're trying to have it "both ways", which is just another thing on a long list that dedicated rightwingers don't have a monopoly on. If reforms/safeguards are desirable and determined to be necessary, then that's because what we're currently living under is bad/undesirable, and can't be detached from BHO, because it's his admins interpretations of the governing laws that will figure prominently in them.
Any efforts that result in those reforms/safeguards that correct the likely illegal/unconstitutional nature of the violations are gonna justify/validate the criticisms and complaints from we "authoritarians", and incontrovertibly establish BHO's participation in them.
All you'll then have left when the smoke clears is something akin to Rice's "WHo could have possibly known/predicted they'd fly planes into the towers!" line of BS, because that's what all the protectionism of BHO is in spirit if not substance. If anybody has elevated anybody to "godlike status", it's been those defending BHO in the ways and manner you guys have.
Beyond that, I find this insulting effort both amusing and a classic case of projection. Try starting the "kindness" routine yourself, and spare us the the thinly veiled BS about alleged Snowden/GG/etc worship, "fearmongering" charges (while claiming to want the same thing they're asking for/in pursuit of) and whitewashing/denying all the BS your side on this matter has polluted this board with that has served as provocation.
Gee, if they aren't spying on Americans, where's the DEA getting their tips? http://www.google.com/search?q=NSA+DEA+connection&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7 ANd if that's the case, and judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and their defendents are victimized by ignorance that should be dispelled by discovery, how does that impact your "no victims" claim? Of course victims that don't know they've been victimized aren't stepping forward in droves. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.
That read like an effort to lay claim to the high ground you've never had on this matter, and to ameliorate the ego pain down the road after you've been shown to be disasterously wrong about BHO's role and responsibility is all of this, and that's largely due to a clinging to misplaced trust long after it was unwarranted imo.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)a righteous exposition, stupidicus
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)like many, I grow so weary of...
hueymahl
(2,495 posts)Sometimes there is simply a right side and a wrong side. And when you are on the wrong side, and refuse to acknowledge facts, reason and the constitution, you leave people no choice but to ultimately dismiss your position as being unreasonable and held for bad motives. Hence the name calling. Not pretty, but sometimes it is the only way.
FreeBC
(403 posts)We're authoritarians for calling out authoritarians?
Is that sort of like being bigoted by calling out bigotry?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)term. They are desperate, their denial bubbles are bursting.
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 17, 2013, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)
He asked if I called the police and was looking for another address. During this visit where whoever did call the police probably needed help but this didn't stop him from hanging around making small talk and asking what type of dog I had. Yes, it was weird.
This visit happened about two weeks ago.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
Lisa D
(1,532 posts)
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)didn't think so.
RL
Lisa D
(1,532 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)especially on this subject. It seems either you are one on side or the other, there is no in between. The petty attacks from both sides are sickening and make DU less and less worth reading and/or contributing toward.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)No DU'er has their voice "drowned out". I think the proof of that is quite obvious if you look at the dozens of posts that could be described as "authoritarian" loving or however you want to put it. I also disagree that mocking satire is an invalid form of expression. Some of the posts I have seen deserve to be mocked and I do not apologize for confronting nonsense with humor, satire or sarcasm.
Your post is a study in passive-aggressive.
I will also disagree with your offering that somehow we should stifle our outrage for some undetermined amount of time. That is not the way the politics works nor is it the way change happens.
I am pleased you agree that these revelations are worthy of further discussion and investigation and possibly major reforms. Who could argue with that?
That being said, I agree that sometimes the level of debate gets quite juvenile and people should try to be nice to each other. As hard as that is for me sometimes, I will not argue with it!
Cheers!
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)in hyperbole...what a tired argument you're using...get your new talking points before you post again, please.