Sorry, I've had it with you crazies.

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Thu Sep 19, 2013, 06:49 AM - Edit history (1)

So tonight I was again told that the NSA is a "non-issue" that I'm "fixated" on.

Holy #%^*.

Let's set aside for a moment that the accusation was out of the blue, apropos of nothing in that thread, nor anything I recall writing about in the past week (so who's obsessed?). You folks who claim that secretly spying on everyone, secret laws enforced by secret courts, and secret extrajudicial kill lists are non-issues are just crazy.

Or utterly ignorant.

Wake up! Your deluded beliefs are helping to destroy our country. Our Founders created a country of laws, not of kings. A transparent legal system that applies to all Americans is the foundation of our country. As it dies, we die.

[senseandsensibility]

1. Well, I'll at least kick it since

no one else has. But I'm glad to see you're getting recs. Very sad to be told that it's all good when you try to raise awareness here.

[msongs]

2. it's only bad and a threat when republicans do it, not when a democrat does it nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

35. Who is to say that they are Democrats?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

56. x2

[sabrina 1]

73. If they are, then many of us have been seriously misled regarding what OUR party is all about.

[Ford_Prefect]

105. Unfortunately one of the biggest problems is Democrats who think NSA is beyond questioning.

[lark]

160. Think it's the president that they think is perfect.

Since it's his govermment that's spying on us, then there is obviously no issue with this because President Obama is perfection incarnate. They could care less about the NSA either way, if it was Bush's NSA that was doing this, I guarantee most of these same people would be condeming them strongly.

The Cult of Personality runs strong on this board.

[Ford_Prefect]

161. True Believers come in all styles and standards.

The gospel of fear drives many people to elevate from mortals both gods and devils, to worship them without question, and to tolerate no doubts of the divinity, their holy scriptures, or the hierarchy derived from that belief.

[MNBrewer]

103. This isn't Who-is-to-say-that-they-are-DemocraticsUnderground!

[SammyWinstonJack]

162. Because Obama!

[dkf]

3. You tell em Manny.

[roguevalley]

8. + google

[mick063]

4. I rec your post but.........

This topic is always best concluded with "Tear the Utah facility down".

[Agony]

95. "This topic is always best concluded with "Tear the Utah facility down"."

turn it into a solar farm, i'm sure it already has a heck of a grid connection.

[JackRiddler]

194. Yeah!!!

[defacto7]

5. Due K & R

[ancianita]

6. Totally with you on this.

[madville]

7. Rand Paul is against all that stuff

So we have to be for it right? Add minimum federal prison sentences to the list as of today as well

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I might have to revise my view of Rand

Last edited Thu Sep 19, 2013, 03:46 AM - Edit history (1)

I always thought his dad was a tad more rational. Maybe his son is not completely crazee after all.



His dad 20% right, 80% crazee. I thought his son was actually crazier than that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. you expect to be taken serious after this? in a discussion

About someone not really a democrat? Pffffft!

[beerandjesus]

134. What I find truly baffling....

.....is that the #1 complaint of the "Obama haters" on here is that we feels he gives too much away to the Republicans.

But if one of us has the temerity to make anything resembling common cause with a Republican--no matter how narrowly we define our terms, no matter how often we repeat "this guy is an asshole BUT..."--then suddenly we're not really part of the Democratic coalition.

So how exactly does this work? It's ok to agree with a Republican, but only if Obama does it first?

What if Obama makes a deal with Rand Paul to end a filibuster or something like that, will you no longer take Obama seriously then?

[sabrina 1]

166. Well that is the million dollar questio many of us asked, but never get an answer to.

Obama can appoint as many Republicans to his cabinet as he wants with not a word of disagreement from them, but as you say, if one of us 'plebs' dares to point out that WE have found common ground on an issue with a Republican, the reaction is so predictable by now and all the former 'rationales' for 'bi-partisanship in order to get things done' excuse, fly out the window.

There is point in trying to find any logic to it. There is none.

[RetroLounge]

210. Being taken seriously by you would never happen anyhow

and is not really a requirement, nor a need, of any true progressive.



RL

[VanillaRhapsody]

219. but i call myself a Democrat and post on a supposedly Democratic Underground website not Anarchy und

underground or even Progressive Underground. Those are the standards acceptible to this site i believe. I can be Progressive and not bash Democrats atevery turn without violating that standard.

[RetroLounge]

220. Instead of opining about being a democrat why don't you answer the question above?

or are you still waiting for your talking point?

RL

[VanillaRhapsody]

222. just because

you dont like the answr doesnt mean it wasnt

[RetroLounge]

223. Someday when you can actually spell, get back to me.

RL

[VanillaRhapsody]

224. sent from cellphone.

when you read for comprehension....you let me know

[RetroLounge]

226. Yeah, I'll be sure to get back to you on that.

RL

[awoke_in_2003]

148. Hitler was a vegetarian...

so vegetarians must be bad

[Quasimodem]

207. Or vegetables make one bad! n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. so what are you hiding?

huh

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. If you do not like the OP

You got the tools, trash thread or preferably ignore.

Me, will avail myself of that. I find your behavior utterly insufferable. Good bye

[L0oniX]

39. I wish I could respond to hidden messages. "Gee a BOGista ...whodathunkit?"

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Yup, one I can no longer see

They are getting systematically ignored and I know they don't like it

[L0oniX]

46. The BOGistas are piling up in my ignore dungeon ...and I'm not feeding them anymore. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. I have not for close to a decade in a coupe cases

And they keep at it. Hey, everybody needs a hobby. I prefer reading a good book, or painting my gaming miniatures, or writing some fiction. I find that more fulfilling. Though we just fed them.

[cui bono]

58. Damn you! You're all leaving me alone out here!

I suppose you can only see one side of this magnificent convo:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023687456#post38

You lose out on a lot of entertainment by using ignore. I don't use it because I think it's important to call people on their BS and I don't want to let what they stand unchallenged.

[L0oniX]

59. Nothing is gained by responding to those that are in the cult of personallity.

It's bad enough that they abuse the jury system for petty vengeance.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

66. Perhaps we could call it the CLOG?

[Phlem]

16. Nice pile you left there jazzimov

"You post misrepresentations of honest discourse in order to perpetuate your own misguided positions."

projecting much?



-p

[MannyGoldstein]

19. “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”

- Benjamin Franklin

[TheKentuckian]

38. Fuckin A

[MrMickeysMom]

89. That's a keeper, Manny...

Sometimes, you got to wonder what Ben Franklin would say about his country in the 21st century...

[MannyGoldstein]

96. I think he said it back then:

Second to last paragraph here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023167282

[woo me with science]

133. Perfect. nt

[rhett o rick]

150. I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Franklin. It's easy to remain ignorant, just as it's easy

to blindly follow an assumed savior. It's harder to challenge the status-quo. Harder to challenge the strong authoritarian leader.

[Liberalynn]

183. That is a wonderful quote. Maybe it is one I should start using anytime someone

spouts a Republican talking point at me.

[mick063]

20. I was thinking the complete opposite when I read your post.

With respect to goodbye posts that is.

[L0oniX]

41. You might as well put everyone in the BOG on ignore. It makes this place much nicer...

and more sensible.

[Go Vols]

50. I don't go to the BOG

if I ignore all BOG'ers,will I miss the greatness of a Pro telling me what to think?

[Summer Hathaway]

57. I see that suggestion

and/or solution being bandied about quite a bit here of late.

What's funny is that it is usually suggested by the very people who decry the idea of posting in an echo chamber, where only those who share their political views are ever heard.

[treestar]

93. You've spent a lot of time on this thread

talking about other DUers.

Funny how support of a Democratic office holder bothers you so much.

[MannyGoldstein]

94. *Unquestioning*

*unquestioning* support of an officeholder who identifies with the Democratic Party.

[RetroLounge]

211. A distinction they are not capable of having

RL

[Flatulo]

25. Yikes...

[Marrah_G]

12. The ignore function is good for your soul

and your blood pressure.

[mindwalker_i]

27. I really wish people would apply that to their TVs

How many posts about "Oh my god fox said what?" Not watching it is good for your soul, and also good for their ratings (good from our perspective).

[Liberalynn]

184. I really want to block Fox so I don't even land on it by accident

I keep getting some message though that I must enter the correct password to set up "parental blocks" and I never even remember entering one. I don't have kids I just find Faux Noise offensive.

I guess I am going to have to call TW and ask them how to reset a password so I can block it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. thank Manny and God Bles you and keep up the good fight to save our country.

[mimi85]

181. Manny is on my

ignore list, yet he still pops up. Better ask Skinner what's going on. Damn, he's beyond negative! (Not Skinner, Manny).

[Joe Turner]

15. If the NSA scandal happened 30 years ago there would demonstrations in every city

And resignation demands for any elected officials connected to the spy machine. That this has not happened demonstrates just how successful the incremental moves in usurping our rights over time in the name of security has desensitized the masses into silence. A silent surrender. What's next?

Thanks for keeping this issue alive Manny.

[zeemike]

22. And the really odd thing is.

That Conservatives would be in the streets with us...
I think they put something in the watter.

[Liberalynn]

185. And they put something on the air

Faux Noise

[woo me with science]

202. And "personas"

on the internet.

[woo me with science]

84. +1

[demwing]

113. I keep having to adjust what "30 years ago" means

Because it doesn't mean now what it meant 30 years ago!

30 years ago it was 1983, Reagan was running for his 2nd term, and it was morning in America. The country had a huge mancrush on Grampa Ronny, and if this had come out at that time, the vast majority would have just trusted that Reagan keep us safe.

I think we have a tendency to idealize the past. The sad truth is that we haven't been safe from Big Brother and the MIC since WWII, probably well before that. Hell, Orwell saw this coming in 1948, I'm sure his ideas weren't 100% original.

[struggle4progress]

159. Yeah, I experienced the Reagan era as a vast and lonely political wasteland: people I knew

doing anti-apartheid work got anonymous telephoned death threats, for example. I never got a death threat myself, but rightwingers regularly screamed at me that I was a communist, and on several occasions people threatened (verbally) to punch me in the face. And the climate was the same for a number of other issues, such as opposing Reagan's murderous Central American activities

[G_j]

215. it was a dark time indeed

similar experiences, it wasn't much better during the Gulf War, as far as threats
and violence against activists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. It *is* for your own good.

We need to keep you safe, from yourself.

Agent Mike.

[zeemike]

18. Hear hear...

And I can't believe someone said that to you on a progressive board.
WTF is wrong here?...have some been captured by the Borg?

[woo me with science]

85. In a way, yes.

The propaganda machine is very borglike.

[Rex]

23. That sounds like suspicousspeakedblplusbad.

This will be logged in your temporary file.

Now move along.

[DeSwiss]

24. Holy #%^*, indeed.

- K&R

[liberal_at_heart]

26. The Obama defenders seem to be getting more aggressive lately. I'm going to have to start using

my ignore button again.

[Hobo]

70. please do..start with me ok?

The Obama haters are exactly the same way........

Hobo

[HangOnKids]

74. Ahhh you need more smilies!

Just because!!!

[Dragonfli]

163. If the smilie images were to disappear from this sight overnight, there would be many confused

and nearly silent BOGers struggling to express themselves. Hell, Sid alone would lose three quarters of his vocabulary.

In bog speak, this image encompasses many of their most thoughtful and well argued rebuttals, when combined with a graphic about the joy of colonics and "." as the thread title and you have a brilliant thesis as expressed in their minimalist language by one of their greatest thinkers.

I would never wish to take away their limited ability to communicate, it would be cruel - I wholeheartedly support our smilie options, special posters have special needs after all.

[Kolesar]

179. You need to get out more...eom

[Maedhros]

165. Smilies say so much more than reasoned arguments ever could.

[TorchTheWitch]

81. ok

done

[Tiredofthesame]

116. There is a fundamental difference

between what you call an Obama hater, and yourself.

We tend not to follow in blind faith in spite of facts.

If voting for Obama twice is being a hater, I'm a hater.

If actually thinking any campaign rhetoric from 06-07 was going to happen, and now I'm disappointed, I'm a hater.

I have no time, and there is not enough space for me to keep typing everything that makes me a hater.

I would never put you BOG'ers on ignore. It keeps me sharp to hear your dilusions. It reminds me to keep up my democratic duty of questioning my leaders, especially a corporate democrat who I voted for, who ran against everything he has actually done and is doing.

[LiberalLovinLug]

169. +1

Excellent response!

[sibelian]

157. fair enough.

bye.

[MrMickeysMom]

90. I think I'll just call them out...

You know... make them think...

[treestar]

97. Wow it's that bad to defend Obama?

On a site for Democrats? Really?

[Blanks]

100. Apparently it is ok to support the president...

As long as that support is along very narrowly defined parameters.

A little too much support in the wrong area - they'll be all over you like stink on shit. Of course it's always ok to praise independant senators.

[Maedhros]

168. If you think I should support the President when he pushes for things like the TPP,

Last edited Thu Sep 19, 2013, 06:56 PM - Edit history (1)

military expansion onto the African continent, elective wars in the Mid East, unitary executive authority to execute American citizens, rules of engagement declaring all military-aged males as combatants, criminalization of adversarial journalism, potentially disastrous oil pipelines, immunity for Bush Administration officials from prosecution, indefinite detention of suspects without charges, pervasive data collection from surveillance of American citizens and other non-Democratic policies, then I accept your definition of "very narrowly defined parameters."

I support the President as often as my conscience allows. The "narrowness" of that support is on HIM. If he would stop pushing policies that I find highly objectionable, I would be MORE supportive.

ON EDIT: The news today that Obama is threatening to veto a Republican bill that would slash food stamps. He deserves praise for that action, and encouragement to continue to block Republican attempts to weaken social programs.

[Blanks]

199. There's always going to be issues that politicians take...

That their supporters can't support. There should be a balance between supporting the president himself and still opposing some of his policies. I don't personally believe that your 'list' is accurate, but whatever.

I see a lot of insults flying from the 'disappointed with Obama' crowd toward the 'support Obama's every move' crowd. Perhaps it's just the way I frequent the board, but I don't see the hatred flowing in equal and opposite directions. It looks to me like the haters are out hating the non-haters. My perception has always been the more one hates, the more likely they are to be a conservative - ruled by emotion as they are.

I think the biggest problem that the president has is that he has a republican controlled house and can't forward ANY agenda. I also believe that there are a lot of people here that know (or at least should know) that the president's accomplishments are limited by what comes out of congress.

[Maedhros]

201. I don't "hate" anyone.

I vehemently disagree with policies, though.

[tridim]

104. This is Neo-DU. It has nothing to do with the former site known as DU.

We used to support Democrats and Progressive ideas here.

Sorry Treestar, I'm disappointed too.

[beerandjesus]

132. The day "Democrat" and "Progressive" become synonyms....

...is the day I support all Democrats unequivocally!

[SidDithers]

138. Nailed it...

The Libertarians, Greenwald acolytes and Obama haters have taken over DU3, and this site is now a sad shadow of its former self.

Not much left here but the hair-on-fire brigade, and they're only good for the endless comedy gold that they provide.

Sid

[Efilroft Sul]

188. The site might be a shadow of its former self because…

…many long-time members were purged in the last four years.

[jaysunb]

206. +1 n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. Dubya and Unka Dick was the worse president ever,....

....so it's going to take years to even discover much less reverse the damage they did and we will get ZERO cooperation from the establishment.

Some of it is going to have to be made into campaign issues for the next president.

[MADem]

29. It's only the internet. It's not the "Real World."

Ever think maybe someone just might be jerking your chain, just because you do that kind of thing sometimes?

Looks like whoever said something you didn't like did a grand job of pushing your buttons....

[Bluenorthwest]

108. You got that right. Real life contains none of the cartoonish characters here who

wrap themselves up in some delusion that they are special, elevated 'Obama Supporters' whose support is somehow more valid that the many votes and dollars and hours others devoted to electing him.

[MADem]

111. Or people who come on a Democratic message board with a singular goal of denigrating the POTUS, day

in, day out, world without end, AMEN.

Talk about people with huge delusions ..... of grandeur.

There's a difference between constructive criticism and some of the silly, childish vitriol I've seen on this board. I honestly find those critics more vitriolic and mendacious than the well-meaning cheerleaders who enjoy sharing pictures of the First family or the dogs (but who raise the hackles of the detractors when they do that kind of thing).

Funny how that works.

[Bluenorthwest]

117. Lots of fuzzy verbiage, but you make no point. In American politics nothing is more

a part of things than criticism of elected officials. I'm very used to that. I am not used to the fan club style applied to politics. Applied to Sci Fi classics sure. Just not to politics.
And I most certainly do not agree with you that the 'cheerleaders' (your term) are all that well meaning all the time. It is not any form of 'support for Obama' to spew venom at others, to send ugly PM's demanding others shut up, this is self indulgence played out using Obama as a façade for personal attacks.
For me, many of the folks who fallaciously claim to be 'The Supporters of Obama', the 60 or so folks here who claim to have elected him all on their own, are defined by their years of defending his opposition to marriage equality and their instant shift of gears to 'supporting' equality the moment Obama did so. For years these folks attacked equality supporters as 'wanting a pony for your poutrage' and promoted 'Civil Unions' as 'the only pragmatic solution'. Either civil unions or 'we just have to wait until the old bigots die off, and after the next election, then after the midterms, then after the primaries....'
That random, slippery 'support by command from above' crap is bothersome to me. Also the rude PMs, the exclusionary behavior in politics which is about inclusion and alliances, the name calling, the snark, none of that is my cup of tea.

[MADem]

123. You were the one who was full of fuzzy verbiage in your remarks to me.

Don't get all huffy when you get back a taste of your own bitter medicine, now--it's unbecoming.

Stop playing the victim. No sale, there. If someone is sending you tear-inducing PMs, alert on them and see where that gets you. Don't whine vaguely about them and expect sympathy.

You just may be falsely characterizing the 60 or so folks here who claim to have elected him all on their own because I've never seen these claims and you're going to have to provide links before I buy that load of stinking hyperbole. You're also doing a shitload of "lumping."

And as for your equality complaints, well, I dunno. Which president got rid of DADT, again? Which president unloaded DOMA? Which President supports equality with more than just words, but federal benefits? Which one would that beeeeeeeeeee? If all these terrible people you are pitching a fit about were so opposed to the goal of equality, instead of understanding that sometimes the best path isn't always a straight (pardon the pun) line, they wouldn't change their views on the topic, now, would they? Instead of cheering Obama's ability to move forward on equality, those "cheerleaders" would be calling him a betrayer. But they aren't.

You seem terribly upset by "60 people" you could easily ignore if you really wanted to. You have a choice--you can refuse that "cup of tea" but you don't. That suggests you do like the tea, bitter as you may find it.

You just haven't scored any points with me. Sorry.

[enlightenment]

155. Interesting phrasing you've got there.

I honestly find those critics more vitriolic and mendacious than the well-meaning cheerleaders who enjoy sharing pictures of the First family or the dogs . . .

"more vitriolic and mendacious than the well-meaning cheerleaders"

So . . . you find the "well-meaning cheerleaders" vitriolic and mendacious? I'm sure they'll be delighted to know that you think they are mean-spirited liars; albeit not as horribly so as the "critics" and of course tempered by their "well-meaning" pictures of puppies and children.

[MADem]

164. No--I am using the faux baseline provided to me by the other party.

I don't, in actual fact, find them mendacious or vitriolic at all. I think they're nice folks who commit the "sin" of not hating a Democratic President on a Democratic message board.

I think they get righteously vitriolic when they are beset by a bunch of libertarian Paulbots who are intent on disruption, many of whom fly just under the radar until MIRT or one of the admins lowers the boom.

It's pretty much lather, rinse, repeat, because those same jerks sign up again under another name, hide out in a small group like Education or Sports, or even the "Gun Club," until they amass a sufficiently weighty post count to come out and shit on those folks.

I have never seen so many determined "Anti-Obama Pouters" get so exorcised about a group. These people whine like petulant chidren about the BOG, as if their grousing changes anything. They aren't mad that the BOG exists, they are mad because they CANNOT DISRUPT IT.

With one click, they could soothe their panic, anger and frustration, and make it all go away....yet they don't. Why? Because they don't want it to disappear--they want to be allowed to ruin someone else's fun.

That tells me that they LIKE to goad and bait the membership there, that they LIKE to be rude, nasty and insulting, and they feel constrained, thwarted, when they aren't allowed to fling shit freely.

Poor them.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

189. Reminds me of the pictures of Dubya cheerleading....

The idiot is cheering at his own team instead of the public and believes he should get credit for the win.

[Tiredofthesame]

118. So Obama haters are just the Internet huh.

Wow, tell that to Occupy, or any other groups that take to the streets. That's offensive.

It's the very Internet that you speak of that will one day make the haters the majority, and you the minority of our political system.

And when that day finally comes, than you will see the "change" you never received.

[MADem]

122. No, thanks. I have a life.

And welcome to DU....and enjoy your time here. If you are an "Obama hater" perhaps you've taken a wrong turn.

Is this your first visit, or were you here before?

Your little lecture is amusing, with all the "offensive" drama, but perhaps you should save the fire and brimstone for someone who will react in the way you desire to your surfeit of emotion, why don't you?

[Tiredofthesame]

130. So the implication of people who

participate in activism not having a life really shouldn't be perpetuated in a place like this. Thanks for letting everyone know here where you stand on that.

I didn't take a wrong turn. PBO took a fat RIGHT turn.

I would say thanks for your welcome, but it's an empty welcome, so you can keep it.

My post count has nothing to do with anything, whether you like it or not. What are you implying by asking that question, as if it matters? That I am a RW shill? Free thinkers would disagree with you wholeheartedly and peg you for exactly the behavior your accusing me of.

I perpetuated drama because I said "that's offensive"? It is very offensive to say that people who don't agree with the POTUS, and we have many reasons, are a bunch of Internet babies who don't live in the real world. That is OFFENSIVE.

Your last paragraph says everything we need to know. "Fire and brimstone". Hahaha.

As for looking for a reaction, to be honest, I was hoping you wouldn't react at all.

[MADem]

167. Obviously, if the Democratic Party, of which POTUS is leader, took a "right turn" in your mind, then

this board won't give you much joy.

However, I have a very strong feeling that you already know that, and you don't give much of a hoot about belonging to a board that has, as its stated goal, the election of Democrats to elective office, either.

It does beg the question, why are you here, but I think we know the answer to that as well.

[Tiredofthesame]

170. Not just my mind MAD.

I think that's more than clear.

I would love for you to enlighten me on why you think I am here.

At the same time would you like to speak on how you think us internet babies should get a life and stop organizing as well?

Edited: to add questions that will not be answered.

[MADem]

171. I'd have to care, and I don't.

But here's some light reading for you, assuming you've never seen this before: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

You can "organize" all you want, but if you're organizing AGAINST Democrats, you're in the wrong place.

[Tiredofthesame]

173. Throwing around the TOS like I did anything wrong. Typical

That's hilarious.

Its quite obvious you don't care. If you did you wouldn't remain blind to the facts in front of your face. You wouldn't further an agenda of remaining a "sheeple".

I'm sorry, but I have to question your comprehension skills. Why don't you go ahead and do some light reading, and start above where you took what I said and turned it into me organizing against Democrats. Re-read, Comprehend, put your head down, cry.

YOU implied that taking to the streets, is cause to "get a life". I didn't. I gave you 2 opportunities to answer any questions brought forth to you, and you continue to stumble. You have had an opportunity to explain yourself, and have chosen not to.

I can do this all day, but you're going to need a shovel. Let me know when you're ready to keep digging.

[MADem]

175. Who said you did anything wrong? If you're feeling guilty, that's your own issues at work.

You seem very annoyed at "Democrats" and you really need to know that this IS a board for those people you excoriate so frequently.

And it's not being a "sheeple" to

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

You haven't given me any "opportunities" to do anything. You're simply goading and baiting, (e.g. my "comprehension skills" are just fine, there, Skippy--I can see what you're doing there a mile away) and you're annoyed that I won't take your hook.

As for shovels--I think you just need to stop digging.

[Tiredofthesame]

177. Well it's quite clear you or I will never make any headway

here due to your inability to answer questions.

Here is a FACT for you. I have answered all of the questions put before me by you. You haven't answered one of mine.

Again, thanks for the not-needed, irrelevant, information.

It's quite easy to deflect everything, as you have done, instead of saying anything relevant to the questions you are being asked.

At the end of the day we are both Democrats, as I do not question where you stand, like you do of me. Here's the big fat rub though.

Your Democrats will continue to lie for years on end, push trade agreements with a fast track intended on killing MORE AMERICAN JOBS plus much more, lay chained CPI on the table to be cut, leave the Bush Tax cuts in place, support unauthorized drone killings, support secret kill lists with AMERICANS on them, promise to rewrite NAFTA and leave it alone, further squash your first amendment rights, and your 4th amendment rights, spy on you, support a police state that suppresses your constitutional rights, and cozies up to the one percenters.

My Democrats will question and fight against all of the above.

Have fun in fantasy land, where teddy bears talk and the children run around in parks made of candy, all because the "savior" is the President.

My world is real, and ugly, and OUR president perpetuates it. I choose not to look the other way.

GOODBYE.

[Skittles]

30. put the Rabbit Hole folk on Ignore, Manny

seriously

[Precisely]

31. Maybe it was

the NSA

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Don't click this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

[woo me with science]

86. +1000000

http://nsnbc.me/2013/07/23/how-the-ndaa-allows-us-gov-to-use-propaganda-against-americans/

[Uncle Joe]

32. I don't know if you read it, Manny but this is a great rebuttal against the NSA by John Gilmore.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023692240

After an NSA cryptographer took to ZDNet to defend his organization's lawless surveillance, EFF co-founder John Gilmore posted a long and thoughtful reply to the Cryptography mailing list (an absolute must-read, these days), in which he explains why the idea that spies should be able to spy on everyone, so long as they do so for the right reasons, is a bad idea. It's a high-level version of an argument a lot of us are having these days, so it's worth reading carefully. The tl;dr is "There will always be 'emergencies', always 'crises', always 'evildoers", always 'opportunities', that would be relieved 'if we could just do X that wasn't allowed until now'."


Having watched the Drug War over the last 50 years, NSA for 30 years, and TSA/DHS over the last decade, I have zero faith that NSA can collect intimite data about every person in America and on the planet, and then never use that data for any purpose that is counter to the interest of the people surveilled. There will always be "emergencies", always "crises", always "evildoers", always "opportunities", that would be relieved "if we could just do X that wasn't allowed until now". So what if general warrants are explicitly forbidden? And if searching people without cause is prohibited? We could catch two alleged terrorists -- or a few thousand people with sexual images -- or 750,000 pot smokers -- or 400,000 hard-working Mexican migrants -- every year, if we just use tricky legalisms to ignore those pesky rules. So the government does ignore them. Will you or your loved ones fall into the next witchhunt? Our largest city was just found guilty of forcibly stopping and physically searching hundreds of thousands of black and latino people without cause for a decade -- a racist program defended both before and after the verdict by the Mayor, the Police Commission, the City Council, and state legislators. NSA has secretly been doing warrantless, suspicionless, non-physical searches on every American with a phone for a decade, all using secret gerrymandered catch-22 loopholes in the published constitution and laws, defended before and after by the President, the Congress and all the courts. Make rules for NSA? We already have published rules for NSA and it doesn't follow them today!

There is more on the link.

Thanks for the thread.

T

[MannyGoldstein]

34. Thanks. I agree heartily. nt

[dougolat]

71. And even if official actions were scrupulously "by the book"...

...the private contractors and individual employees are out of control.

Who has blinders big enough to ignore that?

[woo me with science]

87. Thank you for posting this. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

36. As we used to say in the old days,

RIGHT ON, Manny!

[Lonr]

37. K & R

[Cali_Democrat]

40. Why don't you just reply to the person who told you that?

Why create an entire OP?

It's like you're crying out for attention.

[cui bono]

52. There's a lot of OPs you could post this exact same reply in.

But I bet you didn't.

[Cali_Democrat]

54. It's just odd

The OP is mad about a reply he got, so why doesn't he just reply rather than create an entire OP in general discussion? It's like he's crying out for attention. He wants the attention. I've seen other people do that as well. It's silly.

[PoliticAverse]

61. Pot. Kettle. Black. n/t

[JDPriestly]

65. So?? What would be so objectionable about it if he did want attention.

Whether you like Manny's posts depends on whether you agree with him or not.

I happen to agree with him so I like his posts.

So what do you think about being surreptitiously placed under government surveillance, having your metadata collected and analyzed, being sorted and categorized according to whom you communicate with, how often and for how long? Isn't it great to be constantly "watched over" like the song.

Some people want "someone to watch over me."
In fact many of us do.
But in my case, I want to choose the people or person who watches over me, and I don't want it to be my government.

[Fumesucker]

76. It wasn't so much a "reply", as Manny said it was a post out of the blue

A post that didn't have anything to do with the OP, anything in the thread or anything Manny has written for the last week.

[tavalon]

55. He's pissed

This isn't the only person to have raked Manny over the coals for speaking the plain truth. If he posted a rebuttal to each, your accusation might hold water.

[treestar]

98. +1

It's very meta.

[Bobbie Jo]

99. This is an "all hands on deck" post

He's calling up the posse for support and trash talk.

Lather, rinse, repeat....

[MADem]

114. +1,000 ... it's EXACTLY like that. nt

[JoePhilly]

121. Angry OPs are a more effective grease for the DU Outrage Machine.

The machine was sputtering after the predicted war in Syria didn't happen.

Plus, its tough to call out lots of other people in a generic fashion when responding to a single post in some other thread.

Better to start an angry OP and call other aggrieved folks to join the gnashing of teeth.

[SidDithers]

141. Manny? Attention? Pshaw...

Sid

[ElboRuum]

204. It's not like that at all...

...it is EXACTLY that.

[The Straight Story]

42. From gun grabbing to spying some folks want the govt to have more power over us

Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution

Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.

[liberal_at_heart]

43. there are a lot of people dissatisfied with the government. We are going to see more and more

individuals and even maybe small groups who find it justifiable to use those high power firearms against our government. And we and and our children will be caught in the crossfires. Well, we've already accepted that single deaths from firearms is just an acceptable part of living in the US. I guess we must now accept that mass shootings and dozens of men, women, and children dying as innocent bystanders is just part of living in the US too. Maybe when everyone in the US has lost a child to gun violence we will be willing to address sensible gun control measures.

[The Straight Story]

48. There is a difference between accepting

and knee jerk reactions to remove the right of citizens to own guns.

99.2% of gun owners are not the ones using them to harm others. Only 0.02% use them to kill others.

Problem is, no one talks about those who don't do anything wrong with them (otherwise we would have about 50 million posts a day) - when we single out the bad folks only we create hatred/fear/bias - time and time again we have seen how this works out poorly for people and we decry using such bias on just about every other topic.

Some say the shooter was a buddhist - should we start being wary of the many based on the few? Should we single out muslims in airports? Remember when the NYC police did so and people cried fowl?

Unless we start looking at root causes the problem will not go away, but we don't. We want to legislate it away - and we already have laws to punish people who harm others.

Would love to see discussions on the WHY's of what people do, but instead we focus on what a person used -- UNLESS they use poison as a mom did the other day to kill her kids, or knives, drownings, etc - wanna know why? Because we can't see ourselves doing that with knives/water/etc to anyone and we all have those in our house. Which goes back to bias, we believe that people who own guns kill because they own them while the 99 percent who don't do anything are just like us asking why.

The bigotry is working. We are promoting fear, hate, anger, against and entire group based on the few. And that is not a progressive way to act at all.

[liberal_at_heart]

49. Believe me I'm with you, but like many times all through out history things always get worse

before they get better. Income inequality is bigger now than we've seen in recent history. We need to address this. But the truth is it will get worse before it gets better which in turn means the gun violence will get worse too. We have to address this from all angles. Economy, education, wages, mental health care, sensible gun control measures. We cannot solve this issue by concentrating on one issue. All of them have to be addressed.

[The Straight Story]

62. OK

What do you consider sensible gun control measures? Recent shooters have gotten at least one weapon legally and passed a background check. You can buy ten guns tomorrow and 5 years later use one of them.

We keep hearing we need more and more laws when we have over 99 percent who already comply with the laws we have. If the main stretch of violence is by gangs, put more money into prosecuting them. If they are alcohol related (as much violence is) that is another issue.

I have worked a gun show before and the people buying were serious collectors and weekend sport shooters, hunters, and the like (the company I was with didn't sell guns, we sold reloading equipment). The guns I see these days on the streets here locally come from druggies who steal them (as well as tv's, etc) for drug money or others sell/trade them for drugs (and if you think they will run a background check...well, they won't).

The people using the guns won't be obeying any laws anyway, and we have a ton of them on the books already.

Even IF we forced citizens to check with the federal government before selling something to another citizen it still won't reduce those sales as people needing money will just sell them to someone else as a middle man (think drugs here, people buy, sell, smoke pot all the time even though they are breaking the law - you think the avg person is going to really go through the effort? Or are we just making more criminals? What will the punishment be if my dad dies and leaves me his gun and I sell/give it to my brother-in-law who already owns quite a few, which is probably what I do? If I know someone quite well I still have to check with big brother first and pay for a check on them? I don't think most people will.)

[liberal_at_heart]

67. that's what registries are for. If you dad leaves you a gun you would simply inform the

authorities and as long as you passed a background check you would get it granted it wasn't an assault rifle. I think the military are the only ones who need assault rifles. I do not support citizens having assault rifles. There will always be scenarios where background checks don't stop someone, but there will always be those it will and I find it worth it to save that life that time it does work. You sound pretty against any sort of gun control measure so I'm not sure we have much to discuss on this subject. I don't think we will agree on it and we certainly won't change each other's minds.

[dgibby]

129. When other countries start to boycott US tourism

and warn their citizens against traveling to the States, and the tourist dollars dry up, then and only then, will something be done about the gun culture in this country.

[Orrex]

101. Gun grabbers? Who? Name names, please.

Is there some national policy of gun seizure that has somehow slipped in below the radar?

[Warren Stupidity]

136. Nobody is taking your precious. Nt.

[The Straight Story]

139. Don't own one. But there are those, even here, who want to see only govt with them

or, as much as possible, restrict the ability for people to exercise their rights and purchase one.

I went to thomas.loc.gov and typed in abortion, advanced search just from May of this year. 15 items introduced in efforts to do things like protect a woman (by educating her to the risks) to a slew of other things. Guessing no matter how any of those bills and such are worded people would object to them.

How are the two related? Freedom and rights of the people. They are the same at the core, one is even mentioned by name by our founders (the other is merely implied).

Wanna know why people are passionate? Look in the mirror when someone is doing the same thing to other rights we hold, you might be surprised how you react when you care about freedoms of others.

Yes, some people are taking away OUR 'precious' - it is the people who have the 'ring' and want to use it's power for good, but through them it wields evil. Our precious freedoms that we are now wanting to hand over to the few in power.

I try to stand for them all, even the ones I don't use, because that - to me - is part of being a progressive.

[Warren Stupidity]

143. Nobody is taking your precious. nt.

[juajen]

45. Yep, we need transparency. Once we let a small erosion get by, the landslide will begin.

[tavalon]

51. Manny, until about six months ago, I hadn't really noticed you

At first I thought you were crazy. Then I thought you were crazy like a fox. Now, I look for your posts because while you don't always back up your assertions, they are almost always spot on. You show the crazy in the DLC and the whole right, really. I know that's actually two parts of the same nasty hydra, but aside from that, you have become one of my favorite short length posters. Perhaps that's because you can say in two or three short paragraphs what some say in book length commentary.

Alas, because you put your angry truth front and center, the crazies do like to hit at you. I'd take it as a compliment, much like getting excoriated in Freeper land. If they get angry that quickly and massively, I'm pretty sure you are doing something right.

The NSA situation, the whole system of secrecy, drones - they are destroying any illusion that we are anything good, anymore, if we ever were. Lately I have horror fatigue. I can't believe the shit coming out of the American Kremlin.

[MisterP]

60. like any criticism is gratuitous, done out of some perverted need or sheer boredom

Ceaușism didn't last long past Dec. 21, '89...

[whatchamacallit]

63. Word.

[AdHocSolver]

64. Secret spying on Americans and secretly negotiated trade agreements like the TPP...

...are weapons used by the one percent to destroy the middle class and effectively end democracy in America.

In a post in another thread, I urged DUers (and anyone else) to oppose the so-called Trans Pacific Partnership (definition: trade agreement to effectively prevent any opposition to the continued looting of America).

Find and work with others, even when they are of a different political persuasion, and get the public to understand that the TPP is nothing more than NAFTA on steroids.

While two responders to my post essentially agreed with it, one responder claimed I was being irrational citing some irrelevant statistic about U.S. trade as a smaller fraction of GDP compared with other countries.

The point of my post was to get people to stop arguing petty details and start thinking about some action to take to deal with the situation.

Too many threads on serious issues are hijacked by fools or trolls and become mired in petty personal attacks preventing serious discussion for action.

This petty bickering is preventing DU from providing a meaningful response to the war on the middle class by the one percent.

It is past time for debating the details. The details have been thrashed out ad nauseam. It is time to develop a strategy to fight back.

[cantbeserious]

68. Agreed - Democracy Is Dead

eom

[Scurrilous]

69. "I got a lot of problems with you people!"

Someone get the pole out of the crawl space...

[gordianot]

72. You have to remember this is the same country that refuses background check on firearms purchase.

Don't you know they are just concerned about your safety. (yes sarcasm) While you are at it please remember the NSA is at the pinnacle of spying there are also criminals out there who would dig directly in your pocket book every time you use your computer. Also do not forget Mr. Murdoch who likes to mine your cell phone calls for goodies. For every NSA spy there are a plethora of spies willing to exploit the same techniques, trap doors devised and used by the NSA. To me the worst problem is they allowed a government contract worker walk away with their secrets even though he publicized what was occurring. Do not expect in the near future an explanation of the damage done.

[Generic Other]

75. They don't speak for everyone

They are wrong. It is an issue.

[nolabels]

78. Yea, i am sure many there and at simular would like it to be a non-issue...........

Thanks Manny for keeping it on the forefront.


Remember to say hello to Agent Mike also

[Enthusiast]

79. You are so right, Manny.

A transparent legal system is at the very foundation of the nation.

[blkmusclmachine]

80. Sock puppets being sock puppets. Ignore them, Manny!

[Skidmore]

82. What happened to "Third Way Manny"?

Did I miss when this transition to the current persona occurred? Yikes, it is true. Life really does interfere with the world of the intertubes.

[backscatter712]

146. This is First Way Manny in this thread. n/t

[Skidmore]

151. I see.

So Manny experiences dissociative states. Thanks for clarifying. That means no one knows who the core Manny is.

[truth2power]

83. Thanks, Manny, for trying to raise awareness. Don't give up....

I'm sure you know that there are those who have an agenda.

Look for patterns.

[woo me with science]

88. [phone]

[KG]

91. this is a issue for them Because Obama!

every issue is seen through that lens.

[Bobbie Jo]

106. But Obama1!1!!

every issue is seen through *that* lens for the trash and burn brigade.

[Bluenorthwest]

115. You are one of the funniest of your company, it is the deadpan aggression and the

never fail name calling that sets you slightly above the rest of the 'Carry On Politics' cast.

[Bobbie Jo]

128. Apparently

You must have missed the meeting of the Heathers upthread.

Having some familiarity with your "posting style," the above installment is a shoo in for the Unintentional Irony Award of the day.

Nicely done.

[Laelth]

92. Hear, hear! k&r n/t

-Laelth

[GalaxyHunter]

102. Yeah, but what ya gonna do?

[BlueJac]

107. I'm with you completely on this issue....

fed up as well!

[Agschmid]

109. Kick.

[harun]

110. Word

[WillyT]

112. Exactly !!! - K & R !!!

[Rex]

119. K&R for pissing off all the RIGHT people!

[NealK]

191. Lol, so true.

[intaglio]

120. See yah, n/t

[DirkGently]

124. What kills is the apparent thought it's helpful politically.

Helpful to whom? The Democratic "brand" depends on offering something better than the dumb logic of American conservatives and Republicans. If Dems start making excuses for authoritarian or corporatist or war-hungry interests, why would anyone leave there and come here?

Instead of panicking that every conservative-flavored misstep must be excused and rationalized and buried under a mountain of pole-dancing girlfriend ad hominems, smart Dems (and smart Dem leaders) should embrace the opportunity to demonstrate that superior reasoning and sense of fairness we claim and DO SOMETHING BETTER.

Shouting that we're better than Republicans simply because we're better-intentioned just strengthens the view of all those critical "independents" that there is no difference, and both parties are just coupled with all the relevant power structures and their associated ills in slightly different way.

"Yes we can" do much better than this.

[beerandjesus]

172. Couldn't agree more!

Obama spent the first two years of his presidency courting right-wingers.

What did it get him?

A Republican House in 2010.

[Puzzledtraveller]

125. They are star struck Manny, they can't see anything else.

[unhappycamper]

126. Loony toons abound.

As I read thru stuff I some save URLS. Here's what's in my loony tunes for today (so far):

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/18/creationist-nye-wrong-about-moonlight-because-beethoven-said-so/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/18/texas-parents-want-history-book-banned-over-second-amendment-militia-definition/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/18/north-carolina-school-board-bans-ralph-ellisons-invisible-man/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/18/gop-senate-challenger-mass-shootings-linked-to-women-in-workplace/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/18/former-navy-chaplain-obamacare-killed-this-poor-lady-because-it-causes-cancer/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/18/tucker-carlson-calls-to-increase-the-stigma-on-mental-illness-after-navy-yard-shootings/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/18/steve-king-invokes-911-at-immigration-event-three-thousand-times-something-is-the-number-of-deaths-caused-by-illegals/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/18/klayman-to-obama-put-the-quran-down-get-up-off-your-knees-and-come-out-with-your-hands-up/

Teh stupid is strong with these ones.

[stupidicus]

127. I find them all to be rather amusing weaklings

differing from the rightwingnuts ONLY on several socioeconomic issues, but as we know, that's the pile of bones they feed we cur with to maintain the illusion of big diffs and the essential fear of rightwingnuttery that keeps the propaganda machine (the illusion) well oiled. They plead their case using much the same dishonest and easily rebuttable tactics you noted, and to a point where common ground is lost, as well as a sense of being welcomed on that which still exists.

That's why I told all of them that I've interacted with in the last year or more around here, that if anyone is dividing the "party" and endangering election/reelection chances, it is them. Being treated like second class supporters, etc, as they so avidly attempt around here, could be the proverbial last straw for many, given the way it personalizes it. They would make it a "the party booted me out" situation on top of the "the party left me" situation many of us are already struggling with.

Quite frankly what I find most amusing is that many of them don't seem to be aware of the fact that they are in a minority here, and as I've argued it for some time now, in the real world as well.

[marble falls]

131. You aren't fixated, Manny, you're paying attention and clueing us in. Thankyou.

[Zorra]

135. Peasants should not be questioning the actions of our wealthy, wise, and, glorious leaders.

This is not a democracy, ya know.

Just who do you think you are, anyway?

[SidDithers]

137. Which Manny is this?...

Third-way Manny?
Third Party Manny?
One-Way Manny?
Wrong Way Manny?

It's so hard to keep track.

Sid

[Efilroft Sul]

140. I believe it would be American Manny.

[SidDithers]

142. Rand Paul is American too...

Is it Xenophobe Manny?

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

147. Ergo, all Americans are Paulites

Q.E.D, eh?

[SidDithers]

149. No, but neither are all opinions valid, just because they come from Americans...

Obviously, logic isn't your strong suit.

Do you have a strong suit? Comedy, maybe.

Sid

[zappaman]

158. I disagree.

No way is comedy remotely close to being his strong suit.

[Taverner]

144. Yes. Indeed. Agreed

[backscatter712]

145. K&R! Fuck the Stasi apologists! n/t

[ProSense]

152. Yup, those BOGistas, rabbit-hole, sock puppet, amusing weakling, star struck, Stasi apologists

need to STFU and GTFOOH. Let's alert on all of them. Point em out, and I'll help. What this place needs is more unity like this thread demostrates.

I love this thread. It says "progressive" from beginning to end.

[rhett o rick]

153. What I find interesting is that the Group made themselves a safe haven sanctuary where they are

safe from any dissension, safe from tough questions of their dogma. But they venture out into the real world of GD and then complain about the dissension and questions. They try to use the alert system to shut down opposing opinions.

[SidDithers]

154. Did you not notice who is doing the complaining in the OP?...

Sid

[MADem]

176. Irony -- or the bubble -- is lost, I fear! nt

[stonecutter357]

156. more hate

And pro gun nuts all in one place and no way in hell i will vote for rand paul.

[spanone]

174. many forms of crazy

[Eddie Haskell]

178. Taking names and bullying is encouraged here.

But you're not alone ... The rest of us are right behind you.

[Kolesar]

180. Subject-line-teaser & you are not quitting the forum

Maybe you could do some yoga
Eat more fiber

[andtheBeast]

182. Obsession, by Manny Goldstein

[NealK]

195. You're back!

I missed you so much!

[Vanje]

198. Welcome to DU

.....again.

[Fumesucker]

221. Welcome to DU!

[Th1onein]

186. Thank you for posting this, Manny!

Really exceptional post!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

187. Gonna quote "Inherit the Wind" on this

In 1955 the play was produced and 1960 the film:

"Henry Drummond: Progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it.

Henry Drummond: Sometimes I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says, "All right, you can have a telephone but you lose privacy and the charm of distance.

Henry Drummond: Madam, you may vote but at a price. You lose the right to retreat behind the powder puff or your petticoat.

Henry Drummond: Mister, you may conquer the air but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline."

For those who believe that the phone in your home was protected by the right to privacy, you gave it up when the installation guy came. I've evolved on this issue and still go back and forth depending on the specifics of the NSA program. But I don't expect rights of privacy to be the essential argument of the day as it has been with us since the creation of phone companies in the late 19th c.

Furthermore, I'm actually more incensed by telemarketers who gather my information and cause me to screen calls and lean towards not answering rather than argue with a person trying to bilk me from the other end of the phone line.

[woo me with science]

190. 318 recs. Top of the Greatest Page.

Thank you.

[MissDeeds]

192. Great post, Manny

"A transparent legal system that applies to all Americans is the foundation of our country. As it dies, we die." So true.


K&R

[Poll_Blind]

193. +1 nt

PB

[NealK]

197. K&R

Great post, thank you.

[840high]

200. Huge K/R

[JaneyVee]

203. MUST. LINK. TO. THREAD! Was it a crazy or was it crazies?

[MannyGoldstein]

208. I'll PM it to you.

Juries have not been kind to me lately, so I don't want to tempt fate with a call-out.

[bvar22]

205. Just the plain facts

"Let's set aside for a moment that the accusation was out of the blue, apropos of nothing in that thread, nor anything I recall writing about in the past week (so who's obsessed?). You folks who claim that secretly spying on everyone, secret laws enforced by secret courts, and secret extrajudicial kill lists are non-issues are just crazy.

Or utterly ignorant.

Wake up! Your deluded beliefs are helping to destroy our country. Our Founders created a country of laws, not of kings. A transparent legal system that applies to all Americans is the foundation of our country. As it dies, we die."

Nailed It, Manny.
DURec for explaining it all plain English.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[SidDithers]

209. ...

Sid

[Liberal_in_LA]

212. kick. that nsa spying crap is wrong

[RetroLounge]

213. 356 recs

No wonder the BOG is pissed off at you.

The loud dozen of them hate being proved to be the minority here.



RL

[Blue_In_AK]

214. I like this post so much I'm going to kick it again.

[joshcryer]

216. GG's lack of ground breaking reveals is what's disturbing to me.

The fact that the NSA's going to probably be implicitly accepted by the American people as we move forward because of it is even more disturbing to me.

It doesn't matter what forum posters say. Unless we get some really shocking and disturbing stuff then the NSA is going to move forward.

I think there's even a real possibility that the NSA purposefully released the stuff because the blowback has been minimal at best.

If only Obama didn't vote for telecom immunity.

[woo me with science]

217. kick

[woo me with science]

218. 360 Recs.

[okieinpain]

225. lol, they've always collected data on people and they always will.

the reactions to the nsa snooping is the right thing to do. but to me it's like the sun coming up in the morning. they are going to do it.

[Go Vols]

227. Well fuck that

I don't care to be spied upon,and it curtails what I do on the internet.