Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: civil war on DU [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)35. So quick to go ad hominem. Thats the problem with folks on your side of the issue. No, what I want
and am fine with are factually based, non ad-hominem, non-use-of-logical-fallacies, non-emotional-based discussions which it seems you have already demonstrated you cannot handle.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
218 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No, spying on the American people is not, nor ever was defensible. It is against our laws.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#51
What the administration is doing is totally defensible. You have never addressed my dissertation on
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#52
What you and I opine isn't at issue. What is at issue is the law and the Constitution. The best
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#104
I answered. My opinion of the warrant is irrelevant. What's at issue is the law and Constitution. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#109
Your opinion of the warrant is relevant if you wish for others to give your opinion
Th1onein
Jun 2013
#130
The fourth amendment does not apply to National Security Surveillances. And I am not asking anyone
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#131
That is not completely correct. If Americans are participating in foreign sponsored acts against
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#208
babble. storing all calls is not an 'exception'. it's storing all calls, all data, *everything*.
HiPointDem
Jun 2013
#140
Please provide the full legal citations for the all case titles you've posted.
Melinda
Jun 2013
#146
Steven, this is about *domestic* surveillance, not foreign espionage
muriel_volestrangler
Jun 2013
#147
Agreed. You can't have a warrant that specifies searching all the houses in Cleveland...
HooptieWagon
Jun 2013
#123
Before FISA, warrantless wiretapping was legal for foreign intelligence purposes. During the cold
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#29
So quick to go ad hominem. Thats the problem with folks on your side of the issue. No, what I want
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#35
You have no facts, you dont understand the issue being discussed, and are making it all about me.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#70
I do understand that the government engaged in the greatest act of surveillance in all of history.
Enthusiast
Jun 2013
#80
You're already wrong. Prior to FISA in 1978, warrantless wiretapping was legal. All the President
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#81
No one on DU has ever provided any, despite my transcript being out for three weeks.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#83
You can't crush an argument if you provide no facts. Insulting me doesnt crush my arguments.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#86
No, they're not. I'm supported by relevant federal appeals court decisions and the facts and history
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#95
And another comment with an ad-hominem at the close. You really can't help yourself, can you?
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#107
Here is the cross post of the transcript in GD. You can see the responses for yourself. No one
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#89
IF you are conceding that there are no facts you can bring to bear to refute me, I accept. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#112
With that kind of logic you should apply for a job helping Rush Limbaugh. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#113
Which post, the one where the person had a paragraph long rant at Obama that was all one sided
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#125
I think you have a very liberal definition of the word "oversight" that I do not agree with.
MNBrewer
Jul 2013
#218
And thankfully that omission was fixed after it was abused. Then it was unfixed to protect
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#55
You've managed to straw man all of DU with that comment. Quite an accomplishment.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#24
If I'm right that no one here wants right of Clinton, then that poster did post a straw man. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#68
After watching Bill Clinton take our party to the right I find it impossible to accept...
L0oniX
Jun 2013
#6
No, they're laughing because after years of accusing the Right of being fact-free
railsback
Jun 2013
#114
I'm surprised I can see your post. I've trashed NSA, Snowden and Greenwald. I've done that because
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#13
Too many people have too much invested in what others on THIS BOARD do or think
alcibiades_mystery
Jun 2013
#14
Nothing that happens on DU has any bearing outside of DU. Some may think it does, but no.
cherokeeprogressive
Jun 2013
#15
You're right, of course. It's amazing to see the number of posts where some think this matters.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2013
#58
This is nothing new. The right vs left fight has been going on since the founding of the party.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2013
#17
Since most likely Hillary will run in 2016 and be the nominee, I wonder about the "won't tolerate
still_one
Jun 2013
#27
Yes, you are demonstrating so much non-hate with that post. Please, let no one ever "not-hate" me
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#32
I'm trying to think of a way your two posts to me so far could be worth less. I can't. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#37
It's not the truth, like most negative comments you see about Obama here. It's biased B.S. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#40
I would say that LGBT folks would be right to say that, but not so much on the NSA issue, etc.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#65
Good luck with this, though I think your OP is a little one-sided, but well-intentioned.
Denzil_DC
Jun 2013
#63
The GOP did plan it that way. They've bought out both sides of media. And they're ratfucking us.
freshwest
Jun 2013
#91
I think ratfucking is always a possibility in political activity, especially online,
Denzil_DC
Jun 2013
#108
Hate to burst your bubble, but the party leadership, including anyone that will be
Egalitarian Thug
Jun 2013
#67
Any plausible Democratic candidate is just the better wing of the same oligarchy.
leveymg
Jun 2013
#76
We Need To Be Clear That The Democratic Party Is Run By The 1% - Accept That Or Demand Change
cantbeserious
Jun 2013
#77
Thanks for providing an excellent example of what we've been talking about above. n/t
Denzil_DC
Jun 2013
#155
A Civil War... On DU.... And neither side has selected me as their ruler yet? Fools...
Ohio Joe
Jun 2013
#115
What principles do we stand for, together, regardless of whomever is president?
Fire Walk With Me
Jun 2013
#136