Our freedoms, our Constitutional rights, are under attack by

[Skip Intro]

Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2013, 06:13 PM - Edit history (1)

the very people who are sworn to uphold and protect them. That is the sad truth.

The revelations that come out now and then are certainty tips of a larger iceberg.

The same federal government that secretly kept tabs on media phone lines, and used the IRS to harass and intimidate political dissenters, and did indeed try to "come for your guns," are also bugging your phone calls and texts. You KNOW the same is true with email and probably any electronic communication. DHS just announced that a "hunch" is enough justification to physically search your laptop or cell phone.

And that's just some of what we know about.

I've always had a libertarian bent (who the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot say or do, you know?), and the cries from that group that the federal government is too big, too powerful, and too intrusive are making a lot of sense today.

We need some Democrats to stand up as protectors of our Constitution and the rights described within and say enough.

My $.02.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. .

[Laelth]

2. Here's the rub.

Democratic politicians are very concerned about what people will say about them or what the electorate will do to them. They're thinking, "Well, what if there's another massive terrorist attack, and it is shown that the attack could have been prevented if we had done X, Y, and Z (all of which are legally authorized by the Patriot Act and other recent laws)? What then? We'll be crucified in the media! Republicans will say bad things about us! We will lose elections! Therefore, we must do X, Y, and Z, so that we don't get blamed for not preventing a terrorist attack."

That's the mindset that those of us who value our civil liberties are up against. I have no solution, but I fully understand why the same, authoritarian, police-state policies are pursued by both parties.

-Laelth

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. I feel rather sick about this whole thing.

I defended quite a bit based on nothing more than personal trust. We were better than our bogeymen, I thought. We were different. It was OK if the machinery of power was all-encompassing because we were smart enough and noble enough. Anybody who said otherwise would have been dismissed as overly-suspicious or worse.

And you know what's really galling about all of this?

Having to admit my husband may well have been right. NO WOMAN should ever have to be put in that position!

Humor aside, I feel like the wheels are coming off.

[geek tragedy]

4. Wayne LaPierre could have writtent his post.

The same federal government that secretly kept tabs on thousands of media phone lines, and used the IRS to harass and intimidate political dissenters, and did indeed try to "come for your guns," are also bugging your phone calls and texts.

1. It was 20 lines at the AP, not thousands.

2. "used the IRS to harass and intimidate political dissenters" is beyond what Darrel Issa says

3. "did indeed try to "come for your guns,"--NRA propaganda

4. "bugging your phone calls and texts"--no evidence of that (metadata is not content)

I've always had a libertarian bent (who the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot say or do, you know?), and the cries from that group that the federal government is too big, too powerful, and too intrusive are making a lot of sense today.

Let's see--NRA propaganda and Tea party ideology.

Yeah,

[Skip Intro]

5. Personal attacks are no substitute for substance.

Assuming you mean to post something of substance.

Yes, the AP had "more than 20 lines" secretly monitored by the federal government, which spanned "thousands" of calls. I misstated that, and will correct. I'm guessing the federal government secretly monitoring thousands of calls on "more than 20" media phone lines is ok with you? I'm also guessing it wouldn't be ok with you if it had been a repug admin doing it. Am I correct with those guesses?

But the federal government is monitoring millions of calls private citizens, secretly, on a daily basis. So there's some numbers for you to consider as you craft your next batch personal attacks.

The IRS was clearly used to single out political opponents of the Obama admin, and liberals, and hold up their applications, asking questions as outrageous as what the content of prayers were. The targeting of groups critical of the Obama admin was admitted to and apologized for in an orchestrated bit of theater - they outed themselves. Self-denial and spin won't change it.

Yeah, they did try to come for guns, ask DF.

Again, read the news today on the phone calls - ALL calls of ALL Verizon customers turned over the the federal government on a daily basis. You're defending that? That's ok with you? It's right wing to be outraged by that?

You can type until your fingers fall off, calling me names the whole time, but it won't change the anti-freedom, clearly unconstitutional realities that are staring us all right in the face.

Sorry to rain a bit of reality on your parade of blind faith and obedience to the ptb.

[geek tragedy]

6. "The IRS was clearly used to single out political opponents of the Obama admin"

If these organizations were political opponents of anyone, they weren't entitled to tax-free charity status.

The DiFi AWB grandfathered in all weapons currently owned at the time of enactment, so fail on that count.

Thanks for playing.

[Skip Intro]

8. Wow, that's it?

Well, you don't have much to work with - that's a given.

Yeah, DiFi failed, but they did try.

Tell me, what did the IRS apologize for again?

[geek tragedy]

12. You claimed the IRS was clamping down on political dissent.

Your choice to use the Tea Party's misleading rhetoric on this.

For your education (since you apparently get your news from Fox News) they used search terms like "tea party" in picking out groups for scrutiny). And, yeah, the story on "what prayer did you use" was also one heavily trafficked on wingnut circles.

And, the DiFI measure specifically said it was not coming for anyone's guns, it was only applicable to FUTURE purchases.

So, you kinda lied your ass off on that one when you said they were "coming for your guns" when the legislation specifically said they weren't coming for anyone's guns.

[Skip Intro]

9. No, Cali_Democrat, I'm not.

What is well known by many DUers is that you routinely attack posters personally rather than discuss the given topic at hand.

[geek tragedy]

13. You endorsed the Ron Paul theory of DHS hoarding gun ammo in the Gungeon.

Pretty clear that given your "government is too big" ideology, you're not one of us.

[90-percent]

10. I concur with a lot of your points

America is creeping, actually accelerating, into a totalitarian fascist police state. We are hearing of NSA monitoring and the continuous loss of privacy rights (like the Supreme Court ruling on the governments right to take DNA from arrestees that were formally presumed innocent.) at the rate of at least a few times per month since 9-11. And the war on whistle blowers and journalists.

And this TPP is beyond the merger of corporation and state. It's actually the take over of sovereign governments by private corporations.

WHAT I DON'T GET IS:

".....did indeed try to "come for your guns,""

When did they try to do that? I missed that one completely.

-90% Jimmy

And what the fuck good is all this "total information awareness", anyway? IF IT'S SO FUCKING GOOD THEN WHY WEREN'T THE BOSTON BOMBERS STOPPED?

[Skip Intro]

16. Thanks.

I concur with your post as well.

Many saw DiFi's bill as a "coming for your guns" effort, and I saw it that way too.

Your last question is a very good one.

[DanTex]

14. Once you start with the NRA talking points, your credibility disappears...

Next time, skip the "coming for your guns" part, and maybe then you can engage in a serious discussion about civil liberties.

[Skip Intro]

15. Well...

I know it isn't popular here, but the 2nd Amendment is as much a part of the Constitution as the First and Fourth, and the others.

I believe that most on DU, however, are adult enough to discuss in a civil manner the larger issue even if they disagree with one statement.