Anti-NSA and -Obama feeling on DU: how much is closeted racism?

[Bolo Boffin]

Do you find this headline offensive? Do you think it trivializes both the NSA issue and racism? It's directly parodied from this GD headline: "Anti-Greenwald and Miranda feeling on DU: how much is closeted homophobia?"

Here's a thought - let's discuss the issues and not the DUers discussing them? Any recommendations of this thread are in support of this paragraph and not the headline.

[Warpy]

1. Little to none

Racists on this board tend to get their pizza served cold but quickly.

Gay baiters might end up with a warm pizza, but they do go eventually.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. The sentiment was not offered in earnest.

Unlike the thread it is parodying.

[Warpy]

32. Well that's a relief

I didn't see the thread you were parodying. Perhaps it should have been cited.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Oh, the link shortened the title I quoted!

I didn't notice that before. Sorry about that.

[Ms. Toad]

50. You may not have been serious,

But that sentiment has been offered in earnest on DU in the not too distant past. So your "parody" kind of fails.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Thank you for your concern. n/t

[joshcryer]

3. 90% of it from right-libertarians.

90% of them are racists. And the other 10% who aren't are following a philosophy that is racist, inherently.

[Demo_Chris]

4. That's quite an offensive accusation. nt

[joshcryer]

6. You support right-libertarian philosphy?

I find that offensive.

[Demo_Chris]

12. Nope, I am a Liberal...

The people criticizing President Obama here are not closet "right wing libertarians" and racists. They are criticizing him for a variety of reasons, and in almost every case (and post) they make their reasons crystal clear. I have never yet seen ANYONE here direct a racist comment at the President, and I imagine if they did they would be banned immediately.

You apparently disagree with their criticisms of this President, but rather than debate these topics rationally with them, you instead toss out vile irrational slurs as a means of discrediting them. You cannot dent the armor of their arguments, so you direct your fire at them instead, and in so doing you show the EXACT same kind of hateful narrow minded ignorance you are accusing them of harboring. If anyone here is "right wing" sir, it's you.

[joshcryer]

13. My post was not conditioned on DUers.

My post was conditioned on right-libertarians.

[Demo_Chris]

30. Perhaps you should read the thread title again. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. right-wing libertarians are banned from DU very quickly. It is possible that a few slip through

-but that would be the exception. Almost all DU members were highly against the ever expanding surveillance state only a few years ago. Opposition to a growing surveillance state is a core value held by all supporters of liberal western democracy. Most are still against it. Some support it if it is under a Democratic Administration.

[joshcryer]

8. No they aren't.

Right-libertarians claim they're against the surveillance state but in reality they support corporate surveillance to a degree never before imagined. There are DUers who refuse, absolutely, to condemn corporate surveillance because it would hurt their non-DUer leaders who do support it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. well you are wrong - they're banned very quickly - I worked on the MIRT team and

right-wing libertarians were zapped immediately upon being exposed. They are not allowed to post on DU. Like I said - it is possible a few slipped through. I don't know anyone on DU who supports corporate surveillance. Opposition to the surveillance state was never under argument here on DU only a few years ago. Everyone was against it until recently. It is a core value of all supporters of liberal western democracy.

[joshcryer]

14. It's easy for a right-libertarian to fall through the cracks.

How we know? Well, there are regularly bigots banned from this site with high post counts. I can name a few of them if you wish. They fall through the cracks until their true colors are shown. They can hide the fact that they have zero sympathy for social welfare simply by focusing on civil rights. They appear as leftists, but they are not. I can spot them and in time MIRT will spot them, too.

There is no pro-surveillance contingency on DU. It's a few posters at most. And they will meet their demise in due course.

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. there will be a few trolls of all sorts here. I'm sure there are a few hardline communist

for that matter. But whether hardline communist or right-libertarians - if they are here to propagate their message - they will inevitably expose themselves. Just last week I saw that Admin banned someone who used the phrase - "The Jew Greenwald" - That poster had at least a few thousand post - but it took a certain situation to reveal that they were a long standing closet anti-Semite. You are right - they will expose themselves sooner or later and then they will get zapped.

[joshcryer]

19. And ever time they do, I rejoice.

It is hilarious to be sure.

[Whisp]

42. no they are not. n/t

[Union Scribe]

15. Look up.

That thing flying over your head? It's the point of the OP.

[joshcryer]

18. What's to see?

I am pointing out the reality of right-libertarianism. I think it is worth discussing. The OP is a distraction.

[cprise]

27. 99% of prominent leftists from Chomsky to Ellsberg

...disagree with you about the significance of the surveillance state and would be highly offended by your paranoid remarks.

Virtually every Liberal blogger, reporter, intellectual, techie, celebrity--you name it--is raising their voice insistently against government policy on this issue.

[joshcryer]

29. BS, Chomsky would recognize the right-libertarian threat.

[cprise]

31. He's not dead, you know...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/19/nsa-surveillance-attack-american-citizens-noam-chomsky

The Guardian (that Libertarian rag, along with AlterNet, RawStory, Salon, CommonDreams, ThinkProgress, etc., etc...) must have sneakily edited-out Chomsky's dire warnings about Civil Liberties being a Libertarian-right threat.

As for what he really thinks about that threat, I doubt you're acquainted enough with his writing to even make an educated guess. Here is mine: Post-Goldwater America has already gone so far down their path that it scarcely matters. You might as well defend Death Valley from drought.

We elected a supposedly Progressive president who let paranoia get the better of him and so handed the Libertarian-right a fat opportunity. It would have been a terrible political loss if Congressional Democrats and Liberals hadn't become so vociferous in denouncing mass surveillance. The upshot is Rand Paul ends up looking inauthentic as a Tea Party leader, and the bulk of TP politicians look like authoritarian hypocrites.

Your problem is that you've become accustomed to fighting political monsters that seem one-dimensional and perfectly evil in every way. You can't deal with the ones that can strike redeeming poses now and then. Worse, they cause you to become a monster yourself in branding your Leftist compatriots as turncoats.

[joshcryer]

41. Chomsky knows full well the threat of right-libertarianism.

Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do
what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is
capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever
implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few
counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that
its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would
quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free
contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke,
perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences
of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with
people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of
issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I
also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do
not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their
profound moral failings.

He, like myself, knows that their rhetoric does not represent the reality. The right-libertarian doctrine is profoundly corrupt, and cannot be reconciled with egalitarianism. I am also in agreement with, say, Ron Paul about his rhetoric of being against war, but I understand the consequences of the doctrine of anti-war that Ron Paul espouses. So it is not in my interest to actually indicate any sort of alignment with Ron Paul's views because they are not the same as my views.

Note: "anarcho"-capitalists and right-libertarians are not the same thing. All anarcho-capitalists are right-libertarians but not all right-libertarians are "anarcho"-capitalists. Some are minarchists, but they are all, fundamentally, capitalists who believe ultimately in "free contract" as the truest form of inter-social behavior.

[cprise]

44. Thanks for the quote

However I'd like to point out that it was from a Zmag interview done 17 years ago. Since then I think Chomsky has been increasingly trying to get across that, mentally, we're already there.

We've experienced the mind-f#ck and at some point we've probably had more than a full decade of all egalitarian themes being systematically deprecated from public discourse. You and I both are affected at a subconscious level, since its far more than just ideas at play.

Now add the insanity of a power elite possessing the keys to understanding all interpersonal relations and their psychology. And not only this--but the conceit that they know us better than we know ourselves.

Extractive world-eating becomes self-eating. After the first bite, every cell should seize the determination to crawl, if it must, away from the thing that it was moments before.

[David Krout]

34. anti NSA threads often become the most recommended

That's a lot of racists.

[The Straight Story]

7. How much does our hatred of religion affect what we post about

Syria crisis: Child refugees reach 'one million'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23803308

1 Thread. 6 Replies.

We can spend all day talking about things here that we all already agree on mostly and ignore the plight of a million children in another country because they are "Fucking idiots who believe in creationism", are mostly Islamic in faith/culture (gotta hate them people who have a religion), Not American enough, Brown.

While we whine over the NSA reading our tweets others are dying left and right. We CAN multi-task, but we don't.

I have spent the last few weeks away from here and talking directly to reporters and people in the Middle East (on Twitter/live chats/etc). We can spend thread after thread outraged over the way people word things and such but when it comes to helping countries that we have had direct involvement in messing up we just slide right by that.

How about the rights of those people?

Let's face it, there is a phobia against people not from the US, religious people, folks who have a culture we denigrate on a whole because of the few, etc.

Folks need to educate themselves (as I have so often heard here) on it all. Spend some time talking to folks like Harry Fear covering Palestine, Sarah Lynch and others in Cairo, and a host of reporters and advocates in the region.

Ever hear of a country called Lesotho? We have some trade agreements with them, and the child labor there is god awful. A land locked country in South Africa - our actions here are directly impacting them. But hey, so what, we don't care about the kids there forced into labor, sexual slavery, terrible conditions in general and they have the 3rd highest rate of HIV in the world. And we have a hand in it. Sure, we can yell about how some personal choices here affects everyone and how terrible it all is - all the while buying up goods and doing things day in and out that practically ensures others suffer not just forced labor but pollution, rape, etc.

We can spend a whole day accusing each other of many phobias and ism's all the while ignoring things we can be educating ourselves about and working for change. Yes, we should call out things here when we see them and work to change things, but we can also do the same for others.

Thing is, we don't have thread after thread about these bigger issues. We don't talk about them or seek out other sources to speak with or other opinions. We just don't care because there is a thread where someone didn't say things the right way and the world will end because of it.

You want oppression? Be a kid in Syria right now fleeing across a border wondering if that next sound you hear coming from above is your last. Again - we can multi-task, but we get so consumed on our issues we sometimes fail to see those of others - and that is the exact thing some threads are saying they are against, that get so many replies, and those same people replying ditch threads when it is others being oppressed or bashed.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. I wish I could push a recommend button for this post. n/t

[cali]

9. here's a thought: your op is hilariously hypocritical.

don't believe is leading by example, do you?

sorry, it's utter bullshit to claim that you're not perpetrating exactly what you're purportedly decrying.

Oh, and for the record, I posted "very little" in the other thread which was also shit.

[joshcryer]

16. Please.

You posted a thread the other day decrying people calling GG a terrorist and it was only a few posters, not meriting discussion. It was a joke and you know it.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Thanks for the sad attempt to mindread me, cali, I guess.

Yes, you can continue to discuss DUers more than the issue. Nothing I can say will ever be able to change that. You're a grown-up and you are fully responsible for the things you say and the offense you intent to convey. I wouldn't ever think to suggest I have any control over that. If you want to completely misconstrue what I'm saying, as you have done, then that's your gig.

But for all your belief and statements to the contrary, I don't actually think racism is at the heart of any DUer's objection to the NSA. Nor do I think homophobia is at the heart of any DUer's objection to Greenwald. And I say that as a out and proud gay man. So maybe if you're honest with yourself, you might want to sit down for a few minutes and reflect on why it's important to you to ascribe those motives to me.

But, again, you're grown. You do what you want.

[quakerboy]

11. Heres the thing

In the Anti NSA Posts, even the ones that take Obama to task, I haven't been seeing Racist language or themes used. Granted, there is a lot I dont read, because each little controversy spawns dozens of parallel threads. But I havn't been seeing it happen. People are anywhere from disturbed to pissed off at the presidents lack of transparency and action on the issue. Some even impute personal corruption. But its generally directly related to perceptions of his actions or inaction, without reference to race. At the more angry end, its the same kinds of things as Du'rs might say about Bush.

In the anti Greenwald posts, While I dont know that the intent is to be homophobic, the language choices have made use of homophobic cultural themes. So while the intent may be to attack greenwald, in the absence of any sort of self imposed standards in the desperate war to attack his credibility in any way possible, with most of it not sticking due to general ridiculousness, one easy cheapshot has been to try and diminish him via homophobic language.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

20. for myself my anti-Greenwald stance is based on his move to Brazil and writing for the UK's Guardian

while seemingly using Snowden politically. His frustration I think stems from being a Libertarian in a time when the Christian activists have taken it over. He's stated he moved to Brazil because he couldn't marry his partner. (I doubt the veracity of that statement). He can't have the right to marry in this country only because Libertarian fundamentalists and Conservative fundamentalists oppose his marrying his partner. That's his dilemma. I think he's taking a lot of it out on the wrong people.

As for the NSA, I think Larry Ellison makes valid points that I agree with.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57598390/tech-tycoon-larry-ellison-on-nsa-surveillance/

[TheKentuckian]

25. Someone needs a nap.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

33. That may be true. But I still agree that we've given up freedom to licenses we never read.

[quakerboy]

38. (dont doubt the Veracity) Just fact check it and see whether it can be true.

Could he marry his partner?

He moved to Rio in 2004, according to this interview.
http://www.out.com/news-commentary/2011/04/18/glenn-greenwald-life-beyond-borders

Then you have this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage

Why speculate or assume when something is relatively easy to check.

Or did you mean you believe he really doesn't care about whether he can marry his partner?

I suppose thats possible, but being able to marry who you want has been a pretty touchy and important subject for a lot of people through history. So, as far as motivation goes, it seems to be a fairly credible one. Especially if it can be documented (ie, tried to rent an apartment with his partner, got rejected because gay people couldn't marry, fought it in court for years, got sick of the lack of progress, and decided to go far away from it all, which is what is set out in the out article)

Edited to get back to the point, away from the side topic.

If you dont trust Greenwald or his motivations, great. More power to you. Make your argument. But lets try and make it about substance, rather than trying sly insinuations about someones lover. I dont really care how Greenwald knows Miranda. Why was Miranda stopped, and was it justified?

[SleeplessinSoCal]

39. I think it is convenient when you plan on outing your govt for NSA surveillance programs

I also believe he is playing with national security to farther his own political agenda (Libertarianism) and dividing the Left successfully. He has many allies on the Left that I admire, so I know I'm somewhat alone in my thinking on this. But I've followed him for years and this has been my growing sense. Nothing I read here has convinced me otherwise.

When we talk political aspirations, the NSA will not be undone by a President Rand Paul. Note this entry by "liberatarian neocon":

http://conservatives4randpaul.blogspot.com/2013/03/glen-greenwald-on-progressive-mind.html

Once in office, that would not be a high priority. One could make laws, but that would make no difference to the NSA, as we see. Even if the budget was cut off completely, it would make no difference, way too many others would pick up the tab and manage to pass the cost to us in the form of higher costs for products. Libertarians' priorities of less international engagement would also go nowhere. Where they will succeed is in getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, public education, public prisons, and throw the environment out the window altogether, freeing up dirty energy industries of the shackles they've had to bare. And in order to accomplish all of this, more reliance on the church to pick up the slack will be necessary. This is what Greenwald unwittingly is promoting. And in order to succeed, he must divide the Left. Which he has so successfully.

Greenwald is accomplishing what he wanted by going after a Liberal issue. But he's also hurting the people he claimed were being unjustly kept from marrying the person they loved by aligning himself with Libertarians like Rand Paul and his allies.

My "vital" issues are domestic concerns. I don't want the Koch Brothers to succeed. And I once again point to the Larry Ellison video I posted above for a look at who is spying on us.

[quakerboy]

45. Your idea of convenient and mine differ quite a lot

Moving to another country in 2004, when Barack Obama was a basically unknown State Senator, and GWB was in the middle of running for a second term, so that he could "play with national security" almost 10 years later seems terribly inconvenient to me.

As to Larry Ellisons piece... The problem is we dont know when and where this program will be/has been used. Much as I take huge issue with some of his actions and inactions, I do not believe that President Obama would use it against political enemies.

But there's no way in hell you can convince me that Mitt Romney or Sara Palin wouldnt, given the least bit of opportunity. I wouldnt be surprised if there are still revelations hiding in the wings about Bush misusing it. For instance, a conspiracy minded person might wonder how they really got started investigating Elliot Spitzer, but couldn't come up with anything legally incriminating in regards to Diaper dave.

That's a big chunk of why this program is dangerous. We are in a money driven system. I hope that democrats will hold the presidency after Obama's 8 years are completed. But even if we get an amazing second 2 termer after him, who comes after that? And after that? There will be a day when it is drastically and purposefully misused.

Its basically, a large, ill controlled tool that does no real good(didn't stop the Boston marathon bombings, didn't stop the shoe bomber, didn't stop the crazy guy from kidnapping that girl and running to northern Idaho. Didn't even stop some guy from getting a safe full of Marijuana) but hangs over our heads like Damocles sword, read to undermine our whole political system.


And that's without getting into the implications for the general populace.If you think major corporations will not try to reap the benefits of getting access to such a system, well, We probably dont have a lot of common ground to discuss on the topic.

It bothers me a lot that there is a system like this.. paid for and approved by the government, but in the hands of private companies. As someone who has seen what can happen when employers decide to snoop on employees, it bothers me a lot. Imagine not being able to complain to your best friend about what a crappy day you had at work, without fear of being fired. Ive seen it happen, when the wrong person overheard a conversation. Then imagine that wrong person being able to access your cellphone calls, your emails, your IM's, and your web searches. Maybe even being able to listen in on any conversation that happens in the room where your cellphone is.

I dont think we are there yet. But the operative plan seems to be to open as many doors as possible that lead down these type of paths, while admitting as little public oversight of the process as possible.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

46. I recall revelations of CIA operaetives in South America in the 80s or Hitchens book

on Kissinger. I don't know if there's a place on the planet that US surveillance is not active. Possibly the North Poll. It has changed nothing. Nothing will change in my estimation, and we will lose everything we've fought for in order to prevent nothing.

[quakerboy]

55. Cant be done, all is lost, why even try

There's a big big difference between CIA operatives, and total access to anything remotely connected to technology. Also, I seriously doubt that the peoples of south and central America would agree that having US government operatives meddling in their countries during the 80's has "changed nothing".

That said, if nothing will change, then what hope have we of changing anything, ever? If we cant change any of it, what difference does it make which windmills we tilt at? You might as well make the same argument regarding who gets elected. The past few rounds, it has basicaly changed nothing other than the speed at which things get worse, and in many peoples estimation, nothing will change, and we are losing everything we've fought for.

Personally, I would argue that if we dont make a push, across the board, its all going down in flames. This isnt an either or situation, and thinking it is is silly. If we get GMO labeling, but lose the ability to prosecute financial crime, that isnt really a win. If we get a few more years of only minor attempts to cut social security, and lose our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, we have not won a big victory. We need all the aspects of freedom, of our rights. Take away one part, and we have lost.

In my estimation, we are in a pickle. And pretending that corruption does not exist and will not effect the course of our countries political future is pure folly.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

57. I have deep concerns about the violent hate websites on the Internet

There are countless sites devoted to neo-nazis, racists, anarchists, extremist evangelicals and more. I hope NSA is spying on them. Apparently Americans don't fear them.

"Why Violent Right-wing Extremism Doesn’t Scare Americans"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/muslim-american-surveillance-new-york

[redgreenandblue]

23. This thread is a copy-cat of a thread that was already a copy-cat. nt

[Pholus]

24. Circular irony.

Now we just have to put that Mobius kink in there and we're good!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

47. I know.

[4bucksagallon]

26. Them that remain are very cautious in their approach...........

I still think there are many here, but they have been here a long enough time to have built up creds with fellow DUer's. They also use hyperbole and have a self righteous attitude about the subject, be it Greenwald, Manning, NSA, IRS, Snowden or whatever. They "act" as in they are only interested in protecting progressives and the Constitution, LOL. Or I love this one, "how dare you question my position when I responded to your post, have a nice day, I think I am done with you now, enjoy your stay", blahhhhh. Yep.... that is my opinion.

[Pholus]

28. Cass Sunstein's paid congitive infiltrators would be cautious as well!

I still think there are many here, but they have been carefully trained to build up creds with fellow DUer's. They also use hyperbole and have a self-righteous attitude about the subject, be it Greenwald, Manning, NSA, IRS, Snowden or whatever. They "act" as *if* they are only interested in protecting "reality," LOL, but we actually know that they are getting their marching orders direct from the image management folks at the DLC and in the MIC. Or, I love this one -- directly from Sunstein's paper, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action." Bllahhhhh sounds like every "you have no proof, this is bullshit, it's just metadata, oops I guess it's more" claim from this summer. Yep.... that is my opinion."

Wanna question someone's commitment to the Democratic Party? Just make sure you are clear that more than one party might be trying to control the message here. After all, Mr. Infiltrate and Control the Message is now on that whitewash NSA panel. Guess the fix is in!

[Whisp]

43. That was very well said:

a self righteous attitude about the subject, be it Greenwald, Manning, NSA, IRS, Snowden or whatever. They "act" as in they are only interested in protecting progressives and the Constitution, LOL.

There are quite a few names that should flash neon...

[Cha]

35. "Anti-Greenwald and Miranda feeling on DU: how much is closeted homophobia?" that OP is

stupid. It totally trivilized.. and had no merit.

And, I don't go around accusing others of bashing Pres Obama b/c he's Black. BFD. I don't think in terms of Color or Sexual preference.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Cha, the term 'sexual preference' is not welcomed by most people for many reasons. I assume your

intentions are good, but that term is, to be kind, extremely dated. Preferences are choice made, a sexual orientation like being gay is not a choice made nor is it about sex exclusively. Really not cool.

[bluestate10]

36. I don't think it is racism of any sort on DU. I do think it is a completely misguided

sense of how to gain progress. Any rational study of when Democrats have made ground breaking progress will show that the approach taken was a moderate one. The hot Left don't seem to want to acknowledge that. The far Left doesn't seem to want to take responsibility for setbacks that their insistence on "purity" deal progress, such as electing Bush in 2000 and 2004 and a republican House and weakening the Democratic hold on the US Senate in 2010. President Obama is just the far Left's piñata, by blaming him for all ills, many of which the far Left induced, the far Left can continue to live in it's self contained bubble of denial.

In one regard I look with envy at the far Left and right, they run hot with passion if not common sense or a clear vision of how to get change done. I would instantly decamp to moderate blog sites if any good ones existed, there are none. The few that do exist bring in too much right views for my Moderate-Progressive political point of view, so I stay away from them.

[Cha]

51. Yeah, it must be nice to sit around

and whine all the time and not contribute to any real progress being made. President Obama's getting it done without the input of rw or lb. Or should I say: "in spite of"?

The pragmatic progressive sites are out there.. thank goodness!

[DiverDave]

40. How about I dislike LIARS?

who cares what color they are.

[Yo_Mama]

48. I don't think any of the NSA worries are

I just can't associate NSA with minority interests in any way, shape or form.

[Phlem]

52. the fact that we're discussing

something else rather than our leader's and his mates performances is more disturbing. I see no race, sexual orientation, or either sex when it comes time to vote.

you can know as much about their (politicians) past as you can, the trick is how are they going to do in the future. You can also tell alliances from there presence. How they carry themselves in front of the camera.

I was glad to vote for Obama but something was not right during his acceptance speech. Then came "bipartisanship", I don't know about you but I've around them too long (within my family) to trust anything they say. Learned it long, long, long, ago and being younger than Obama I thought this was a gimme. I was unsure how this constitutional scholar was going to handle that.

Today. I trust my instincts.

-p

[Just Saying]

53. Thank you!

My thoughts exactly. It's virtually impossible to discuss certain issues around here without being judged and painted as racist, homophobic or authoritarian. I don't know about everyone else, but I seldom fit into stereotypes or pigeon-holes no matter how hard they try!

And I already see on this thread that some don't get what you're doing and are trying to label you! I've told a couple people to give up in the psychic friends network and just debate the facts instead of my character.

I think the people here are very diverse and that's a good thing!

[steve2470]

54. I don't see closeted racism at all, except for the trolls

Anti-NSA categories:
1- *Possibly* RW libertarians in disguise
2- We on the left who value our civil rights
3- Closeted Republicans/right-wingers here to stir up trouble
4- Trolls here to stir up trouble (not Republicans, just idiots)

Anti-Obama:
1- Trolls (not the Republican ones, just idiots)
2- Legitimate critics on the left who are overly harsh (if they speak of PBO, not the policies)
3- Closeted Republicans/right-wingers

Caveat: I'm a middle-aged Caucasian male, so it's very possible I'm missing the obvious. I'm willing to be educated. I think the NSA needs a lot of tweaking, to put it kindly, but I'm certainly not anti-Democratic Party or anti-Obama whatsoever.