The leak was an attempt to bolster the libertarian brand.

[ProSense]

Just look at all the posturing by and for Rand Paul.

The Rand Paul moment

By: Rich Lowry

<...>

This is the kind of issue Rand Paul was born and (literally) raised to raise holy hell over. And it isn’t just the NSA program lately. The leak about the program came on the heels of revelations that the IRS was singling out tea party groups for extra scrutiny and invasive questions, and on the heels of the AP and James Rosen investigations.

<...>

At least for some stretch of 2015, Rand Paul could well be the Republican front-runner, tapping into grass-roots enthusiasm on the model of Howard Dean in 2003. And it’s not inconceivable that he could go further than that famous representative of “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” although the field will presumably be very crowded on the right.

Paul has a built-in online and grass-roots network of the sort it takes years to build. In fact, it did. His father built it, and now he’s working to expand it in his extensive travels. Over those years, his father welcomed into his fold cranks and haters, and one of Rand Paul’s quiet messages is that he has his father’s core convictions, without the loathsome baggage.

I’m far from a Rand Paul-ite. I don’t think there was ever any threat of Americans being droned sitting at cafes, nor do I think drones are the scariest invention in the history of flight. I’m not where Paul is on foreign or national security policy, and I doubt his libertarianism has as much cross-over appeal in blue states as he hopes. (Blue state moderates like government, alas.)...libertarianism is a significant strand on the right. It should be represented, and represented well. By and large, Rand Paul does that. Anyone underestimating him in 2016 does so at their peril.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/the-rand-paul-moment-93085.html

They are hoping that Paul can ride this wave to 2016.

Rand Paul: ‘I’m Not A Firm Believer In Democracy…It Gave Us Jim Crow’

The New Republic's Julia Ioffe has a big profile with quite the cover photo on 2016 hopeful and Tea Party favorite Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) that went online Monday.

Ioffe reports on a little publicized remark Paul made at Simmons College, a historically black college in Louisville, where Paul sat with students and professors.

"I'm not a firm believer in democracy," he said in April. "It gave us Jim Crow."

Here's the quote in its full context:

And rather than try to prove that the Republican Party had been good to blacks once upon a time, he focused on how the Republican Party could be good to them today. He talked about decriminalizing drug offenses and getting rid of the mandatory sentencing minimums that put so many young black men in jail. He talked about fixing the local school system, about not abolishing Pell grants “as long as it’s in the context of spending what you have.” To approving nods, he talked about how urban renewal had really meant “urban destruction” and about how “they tore down a lot of black businesses so people would go to white stores.” He found that this crowd, if not totally convinced, was receptive. Though he would still not give them a definitive answer on his position on the Civil Rights Act, he did say that he believed federal intervention had been justified. “I’m not a firm believer in democracy,” he explained. “It gave us Jim Crow."

In 2010 Paul controversially said that he oppossed certain aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically the provision that prohibits private businesses from excluding anyone on the basis of race. He has since backed away from this comment.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rand-paul-im-not-firm-believer-in-democracy

FAIL!

[bluedigger]

1. Makes sense to me.

People dismiss the Randians at their own peril. They are organized and determined fanatics. And to the many that post here on DU - Fuck Rand Paul and his dad Ron, too!

[Maedhros]

125. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that Rand Paul is involved in the NSA or any other leaks.

I defy you to prove it.

He's just an opportunist taking advantage after the fact.

[bluedigger]

132. I don't have to prove shit to have an opinion.

But just to be clear,

Fuck Rand Paul!

[Yavin4]

174. I second your emotion.

Fuck Rand Paul and his fucking idiot followers.

[savalez]

180. I third it. n/t

[pnwmom]

227. There's evidence that Snowden is a Libertarian.

And Rand Paul sure jumped in on the opportunity for grandstanding, when Snowden made it available.

[1StrongBlackMan]

229. Exactly ...

he is a opportunist taking advantage ... which is worst than if he was involved in this crap.

[scarletwoman]

2. A new low for you, truly.

Of course, your fans will lap it up, and I'm sure you're having great fun.

Carry on.

[ProSense]

3. WTF?

[scarletwoman]

4. Indeed. (nt)

[ProSense]

6. I'm not sorry if I offend any Rand Paul fans.

I'm not.

[davidn3600]

8. Because we all know anyone who disagrees with Obama must certainly be a Rand Paul fan

[ProSense]

14. Yeah,

"Because we all know anyone who disagrees with Obama must certainly be a Rand Paul fan"

...pointing out that a leak by a Ron Paul supporter that is now being exploited by Rand Paul means that you are "a Rand Paul fan" because you disagree with Obama.

Oh brother.

[davidn3600]

19. The government needs no help from Rand in making an enemy out of themselves

[ProSense]

27. Maybe, but

"The government needs no help from Rand in making an enemy out of themselves"

...I don't have to help push anti-government talking points from the likes of Rand Paul.

[JDPriestly]

117. No, but an honest person would have to criticize a government so

hellbent on alienating its liberal, human rights lovin supporters by conducting massive surveillance on communications.

Since news of the surveillance program came out, Obama has lost support in the polls among young voters. Has his failure to defend civil liberties pushed these young people toward the libertarians? Do the polls indicate that?

If what you wrote in the OP has any truth to it, then you have to ask why do you think that libertarians have so cleverly co-opted human rights issues? Civil rights used to be very clearly a Democratic strong point. I am a Democrat in part because I thought that Democrats stood for free speech and free assembly and all the rights guarantee in the Bill of Rights. I still think that many Democrats are.

[ProSense]

120. Well,

"No, but an honest person would have to criticize a government so hellbent on alienating its liberal, human rights lovin supporters by conducting massive surveillance on communications."

...criticizing Rand Paul doesn't prevent anyone from criticizing the government. Being anti-government is completely separate from holding government accountable.


"Since news of the surveillance program came out, Obama has lost support in the polls among young voters. Has his failure to defend civil liberties pushed these young people toward the libertarians? Do the polls indicate that? "

Pew poll: Obama Job Approval Holds Steady, Economic Views Improve
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023049114

[1StrongBlackMan]

232. This string hurts my head ...

there is clear evidence in the responses that rand paul ... someone MOST Democrats are repulsed by ... is benefiting by this crap; but that's 'Okay' because it exposes problems in government. The fact that it would/can/might hand the seat of power to the libertarianism fantasy, with zero history of actually governing anything is besides the point.

Ouch !

[graham4anything]

178. there is nothing to criticize the government for. These are Paulites 100%.

and the TOS of Democratic Underground is NO PAULITES.

end of story.

Nobody has to defend NOT standing with Rand and his 1859 ideas.
and you are quoting the same poll that says Mitt won an election.
And the odd part is, President Obama is NOT running for anything, but will in 2018 be nominated to the US Supreme Court.

BTW-a gun/bullet take away any free assembly and free speech of anyone who is shot and killed.
Therefore if one truly cares of freedoms, they would instantly want to get the 2nd re-interpreted with a new court

So are you for the reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment to show militia=national guard and not Zimmerman?

[JDPriestly]

191. The surveillance program has been shown to be useless at this point

when it comes to deterring terrorism. Terrorists are not giving themselves away in electronic communications. That should be clear to everyone from the Boston bombing.

The terrorists probably figured out long ago that their electronic communications were not secure. They would have figured it out because of the targeting of the drones and the fact that we could find them as easily as we have.

It's the rest of us who suffer from this surveillance program. A sitting president can eavesdrop on the candidates for office running against his slate of candidates and not only on the candidate but on the candidates' aides and friends and supporters. If the electronic communications of the press, and we are talking just about the metadata, are being watched and correlated, then the press is not fee to investigate stories without betraying their sources. That ends the freedom of the press.

This is an entirely different question than those posed by the Second Amendment although those are difficult enough.

[graham4anything]

196. that meme is a faux straw man. Boston was two thrill killer 15 minute fame seekers AND NOT

international terrorists


therefore, it proves the exact opposite-

they are NOT listening to a national but are looking for a sophisticated group of international like 9-11

Boston thrill killers didn't even know what day.So how would anyone else PLUS

the one who died it is said he committed the triple murder in Waltham making him akin to a serial killer like the person
who killed Versace and the person who killed John Lennon and who knows, perhaps there are other cold cases out there
too.

Your supposition is based on knwoning what didn't happen. How in the world do we know that.
It reminds me of the Nader supporters saying, well, there are THESE Votes.
WHen Nader told people to stay home, how in the world do we know how many thousands, millions stayed home and NEVER voted?

we can't say...

I would be 100 events were stopped because of it.
BUT even if it saved only 3000 lives from another9-11, it is worth it.

How did we know the Gardasal vaccine worked so well, until everyone starting getting it. Now we know it is something that should be taken by every single child (and hopefully will be made mandatory.)

BTW, just read now vaccines will be available for those allergic to eggs, taking away that excuse.

How did we know til we did.

How did the great LBJ know he would get the voting rights acts through, until he did, and he did.

One can't say if 1, 100, 1000, 1 million 10 million 100 million lives have been saved.
WE DO KNOW-there has NOT been another 9-11 with airplanes since. So we know we MUST keep our guard up.

BTW-
someone quits smoking. Their heart attack or cancer is prevented.
We don't see it, but it is a fact.
And they quit for 1 day, it is one day
They quit now for 10 years, that is 3654 days.
They cheat and have one
It is now only 1 day since.

as Franklin said "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". It must continue-

I would think it is a better to worry about doing away with the 2nd, than the musing on the 4th as NOTHING has been lost IMHO
but what do they say, 82 people a day lose all rights when they are shot and killed

[JDPriestly]

197. This program chills speech and makes freedom of the press impossible.

It also chills freedom of association.

It is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

[graham4anything]

199. It is REASONABLE and 100% legal. And LOL we are conversing freely right all over the world

NOT one actual thing has been taken away from 20-30-40-50-60-70-100 years ago

However, a gun and bullet take ALL rights away from 82 people a day every single day of the year in the USA
and other countries have changed the 2nd

If people are so concerned about rights, we all should be in 100% agreement to reinterpret the 2nd and show
militias are the national guard and NOT a zimmy or those minutemen in the south.

They are STATE SANCTIONED and trained law enforcement (like local/state/federal police are)

NOT an individual.

This who thing is, much ado about nothing.

What FDR (who is beloved by everyone and is the meme progressives have used AGAINST this president from day one)
what FDR did, now that was unconcstiuttional

and the person most people think is the greatest, Lincoln, did what he needed to do
(and like now, it was wartime and we are in a war in a new world without borders

Franklin said An ounce of Prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Anything for saving a life is well worth it. IMHO
Otherwise, why not get rid of ALL firemen and say c'est la vie. That would be silly,silly,silly. Don't you think?

And one cannot yell fire in a theatre that is NOT on fire.

[JDPriestly]

200. One can yell fire in a theatre that is NOT on fire.

Actors do it all the time.

How can we claim that we have freedom of the press if the government tracks all the phone calls that reporters call as they investigate stories?

Our government is violating the Constitution with this program. I am sorry if you do not understand our Constitution or how it works.

But this program violates most of our rights, our most fundamental rights. We are not free as long as this surveillance continues.

At this moment, our government is not complying with our Constitution. That means it may not be a legitimate government.

The surveillance program has to stop and we have to return to constitutional government.

Sorry. I suggest that DUers who think I am wrong sign up for a course on constitutional law. This program chills speech, eviscerates the freedom of the press, and those are only two of the ways in which it violates our Constitution. There are more. It's a very serious matter. Please try to understand what I am saying. I am not trying to put you down. I am trying to explain to you the reality of the damage these programs do to the delicate balance of power and authority within our government.

We have a tri-partite system of government. That means that we have three branches as you may know -- the executive, the legislative and the judicial. With this program, the executive branch and track all the phone calls of all people working in or with the legislative branch. That means that legislators have not confidentiality, no privacy in their contacts with their constituents or other legislators or anyone, not even their own family members. The same is true of the judicial branch.

Knowledge, it is said, is power. And the executive has a degree of knowledge about the political and personal lives of members of the other two branches of government that gives the executive ultimate power to embarrass or indict or control members of the other two branches. Obama may or may not be using his ability to have that information. There is no way to know. But, just the fact that it exists hampers the ability of members of the other two branches to carry out their constitutional functions of oversight. It isn't a matter of whether there really is a situation in which a legislator fails to call a resource on an issue, say national defense. It is the fact that this program might cause a legislator to think twice before calling a resource that would tell the legislator the truth about a defense program that the administration does not want the legislator to know.

The only reason people are not very, very upset about it is that those people have not read enough history and/or enough about constitutional law, its origins, the concerns of the founders of our country, their historical perspective, etc. to understand that this program is an attack on the very structure and function and purpose of our Constitution and of our system of government.

[graham4anything]

201. after they took down Dan Rather, there is no press.

Dan Rather had a truthful memo, and it was never proven the memo itself was not the real deal(in fact, who cared if it was a copy,as the info itself was 100% true. Yet former press heroes Mike Wallace and Ed Bradley tossed Rather in the sea
(and Rather was hated by the BUshPaulfamilyinc for decades and they patiently and methodically waited for an opportunity and pounced on it. Martha Mapes IS great Press. ANd her freedom was taken away, as was Dan Rather's who everybody but the Bushfamilyinc and Fox respected. (except when Dan Rather was almost killed, the press vilified Dan and made it seem like he was making the story up...later we found the person who did it was a killer, perhaps a serial killer or worse).

If one doesn't like the Bush's, why in the world would people tear down THIS president and Hillary, just to get
Jeb Bush/Rand Paul?

I just don't get it.

actually, getting rid of guns/bullets is 1zillion times more important than anything else.

and all this distraction does, is make it harder to get immigration (send us your tired, your poor) and getting rid of guns

We all know, what really all of this is about. The Bush/Paulfamilyinc want to stave off the coming mega demographic change
or at least postpone it.

Legally, it is 100% reasonable. and Smith vs. Maryland, and the other one I can't think of at the moment has made
all of this legal.

NO ONE cares what toilet paper I purchase (Charmin with Aloe).

However, I care about Mr. Trayvon Martin's civil rights all ending when he was hunted down and killed in cold blood
and things like that happen 82 times a day.
Priority would seem to be taking care of that issue vs. an intellectual discussion on something that is totally in the day to day world, meaningless.

WOW, James Bond was a spy. What a Revelation that is.
And Drake, the Prisoner #6 was also a cold blooded nasty spy who looked cool in those jackets.
Yeah, like anyone didn't know that. (and Drake was #1 in the Prisoner anyhow, he was planted there to secure information, we already know all that).

Don't like Bush, well, don't elect Jeb or waste a vote on Nader(which legally one was allowed to do) but shouldn't.

I know history and I know EXACTLY what the smear'd'jours have been. Maybe if the first 100 smears didn't happen and all 100 weren't instantly repudiated and shown for what they were, but it's like the boy who cried wolf syndrome.


After the birthers, after Rev. Wright after all the other things, well, I see this for what it is.
Much ado about nothing (and we all know Karl Rove couldn't have played this better, once again taking a strong point of the current person, and then twisting it to make Bush's weakness into someone else.
Sorry, read FRAUD by Paul Waldman and we know what it is. And that is a smear job.

The only ones who want a revolution would be the ones with the guns and bullets.
And then they would use it to make sure we go back to 1859.

Imagine, there are spies in the world. Learn something new every day.

It's as if people think there are no bad people in the world and that the WTC is actually still standing and was just a
Burt Wonderstone magic illusion.

I will take President Obama is the 3rd greatest President of all time after Lincoln and LBJ for $2000 Alex. Thank you very much.
And I have his back and his agenda's back forever.

Why is this happening now?

in just 3 days the single most important special election is occurring and the repubs and the anti-Obamaists would love to steal that seat like Scott Brown stole it a few years back.
And then use it to say blah blah blah after to attempt to steal 2014.

But followers of history see what is going on, and hopefully Ed Markey will win the election, it is a nail biter that's for sure.
(and I don't trust polls as the pollsters say the current president is Mitt Romney)

[MattSh]

154. JFC, there are degrees to being a supporter of anybody.

It's not just black and white.

But according to your world view, if you don't support Obama 100%, you must want Republicans or Libertarians to win. So I guess it's no surprise that, to you, if someone occasionally, like 5% of the time, agree with Ron Paul, then you must really be a 100% supporter and must hate democracy and like to torture animals, and a whole lot more assorted nonsense.

The issue is NOT Ron Paul, though you certainly want it to be.

Sorry, the world is NOT that black and white. Never has been never will be.

[cali]

169. but that is NOT what you said in your op title

now you're claiming that Rand Paul exploited the leak. Your op title reads that it was an "attempt to bolster the libertarian brand". Attempts are deliberate in nature. Snowden was the person who leaked. You are clearly implying that he did so, in part, to bolster the libertarian brand.

looking forward to your assuredly lame and dodgy response

[Bonobo]

12. Holy miss the point, Batman.

Let me try again...

You see politics EVERYWHERE and it means that you can not see that their are actual issues that are important that have nothing to do with which side of the 50 yard line the political football is on.

You are a pawn in a sucker's game.

[zeemike]

122. "pawn in a sucker's game."

Yep, you pegged it.
And they use that bait to troll for other suckers to bite on.

[scarletwoman]

16. I don't know any Rand Paul fans here. Perhaps they exist & I just haven't come across them.

I do know that I'm not a Rand Paul fan - which is why your post offends me. You seem to imply that anyone who is concerned about the Surveillance State must be a Rand Paul fan. As someone who is against the size and scope of the Surveillance State, I find that argument quite disgusting.

I'm guessing that maybe since the "racism" charge hasn't gone over so well, you've decided to try the "Rand Paul fan" charge instead.

[ProSense]

21. "I do know that I'm not a Rand Paul fan"

Well, then the OP shouldn't offend you, but for some reason I misunderstood your initial comment as being upset by the OP.

[scarletwoman]

48. Your OP offends me because it is a dishonest argument.

It's nothing but another round-about attempt to discredit the messenger - Ed Snowden - because he expressed some support for Rand Paul at some point. You hope to discredit the messenger in order to discredit the message - the message being the truly mind-boggling scope of the NSA's surveillance apparatus, and the fact that private contractors constitute the largest part of this apparatus.

What also offends me deeply are the attempts that I see on DU to minimize and excuse the existance of the National Security Military Corporate Intelligence Complex, as though we ought not to be concerned about the growing monster in our midst that is actually anathema to any true democracy.

[ProSense]

51. WTF?

Your OP offends me because it is a dishonest argument.

It's nothing but another round-about attempt to discredit the messenger - Ed Snowden - because he expressed some support for Rand Paul at some point. You hope to discredit the messenger in order to discredit the message - the message being the truly mind-boggling scope of the NSA's surveillance apparatus, and the fact that private contractors constitute the largest part of this apparatus.

You say this like there is universal agreement with Snowden. There are people who believed his argument at first who are questioning him.

The OP is about the leak, and in the context that he is a Ron Paul supporter, but it is primarily about Rand Paul.

You're upset because someone doesn't agree with Snowden? "Dishonest argument"?

I never agreed with him. There is nothing "dishonest" about my argument. You don't have to agree. Is your opinion "dishonest"?

I mean, WTF?

[scarletwoman]

78. "Agreeing" with Snowden is not the point, however much you might like it to be.

The point is, we are living in a time of a runaway Surveillance State, and those DUers who are expressing discomfiture with it are being treated to various attempts to minimize and discredit their dissent - such as accusations of racism, and now your implication that they are Rand Paul fans.

I'm old enough to remember the McCarthy hearings and recognize the tactics. I won't bother asking you, "Have you no decency?", because I already know how skillful you are at deflection and misdirection, and decency will never enter into it.

[ProSense]

82. Oh please,

"Agreeing" with Snowden is not the point, however much you might like it to be.

The point is, we are living in a time of a runaway Surveillance State, and those DUers who are expressing discomfiture with it are being treated to various attempts to minimize and discredit their dissent - such as accusations of racism, and now your implication that they are Rand Paul fans.

...I'm not responsible for your flawed interpretations and conspiracies. The OP is about Rand Paul, and it doesn't accuse anyone of being "Rand Paul fans."

Your defensive response is fairly absurd.

[scarletwoman]

87. If your OP is about Rand Paul, why is "The leak" in your subject line?

The leak was an attempt to bolster the libertarian brand.

Your post #6 brings up "Rand Paul fans": I'm not sorry if I offend any Rand Paul fans.

I'm just following your lead.

[ProSense]

89. Because I put it there?

"Your post #6 brings up 'Rand Paul fans': I'm not sorry if I offend any Rand Paul fans."

Yes, and do you think that was a response to the your initial over-the-top reaction?

[scarletwoman]

94. "Because I put it there?" Well, yeah, obviously. Thing is, I sort of assumed you put it there

for a particular reason. You know, like you were making a connection or something.

But maybe your keyboard has Tourette's Syndrome, and just couldn't help typing "The leak".

Yes, and do you think that was a response to the your initial over-the-top reaction?

You're asking me to explain why you posted what you did? I'm not responsible for how you choose to respond.

[ProSense]

98. Yes, to make a point about Rand Paul

But maybe your keyboard has Tourette's Syndrome, and just couldn't help typing "The leak".


Yes, and do you think that was a response to the your initial over-the-top reaction?


You're asking me to explain why you posted what you did? I'm not responsible for how you choose to respond.

Let me put it this way: The OP is about Rand Paul.

Your initial response (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3065214) was absurd.

Clear?

[scarletwoman]

104. "Let me put it this way: The OP is about Rand Paul."

Yes, really, truly! It's only about Rand Paul! Never mind that your subject line says: The leak was an attempt to bolster the libertarian brand., thereby implying that your OP was about "The leak".

[ProSense]

109. Oh my,

"Yes, really, truly! It's only about Rand Paul! Never mind that your subject line says: The leak was an attempt to bolster the libertarian brand., thereby implying that your OP was about 'The leak'."

...do you know you're supposed to read the whole thing? It was about Rand Paul exploiting the leak and an implied theory that maybe the leaker, a Ron Paul supporter, and his allies were, in a premeditated way, attempting to aid his effort.

Still, what if the OP was about the leak? It's still my friggin opinion. You don't have to agree.

[stevenleser]

113. You're going to get another third grade tactic in response. As if we didnt know that when you said

its about Rand Paul that it was about Rand Paul and the leak and Snowden's possible motivations.

What is surprising is that this person thinks that they are fooling or convincing anyone, as if we would think when you said "It's about Rand Paul" that it was about Paul's dental checkup results.

[scarletwoman]

121. The thing is, I simply don't give a rip if Rand Paul is "exploiting" the leak. It's just so totally

beside the point - in my humble opinion, of course. Our government is spending billions on expanding its surveillance capabilities, which include harvesting data on its own citizens. I have a problem with that, and just because Paulites say that they have a problem with it too, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong to have a problem with it.

It was about Rand Paul exploiting the leak and an implied theory that maybe the leaker, a Ron Paul supporter, and his allies were, in a premeditated way, attempting to aid his effort.

Conspiracy theory! What fun! Yes, lets not bother worrying about the Surveillance State - obviously we'd just be feeding into Rand Paul's presidential ambitions! Bad worriers! Bad!

Still, what if the OP was about the leak? It's still my friggin opinion. You don't have to agree.

Gosh! You're right! I don't have to agree! And this being a discussion board, I might just go ahead and express my disagreement in a reply to your OP! Which I did!

It's all good.

[ProSense]

123. You could have done one of two things

"The thing is, I simply don't give a rip if Rand Paul is "exploiting" the leak. It's just so totally beside the point - in my humble opinion, of course."

...either ignore the thread or respond in the way you just did, but you chose to launch a personal attack and continue it when challenged.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3065214

[zeemike]

133. Oh the games people play

And the above exchange is a classic example of run them around in circles till they stop or drop...

Funny though how your conspiracy theory is acceptable here in GD while other CTs would be alerted on and immediately removed....you know, like if I were to post that Karl Rove was in cahoots with some posters here on DU to disrupt this place...
That would not be permitted would it?

[stevenleser]

135. Conspiracy theory? Snowden donated $500 to Ron Paul's Presidential campaign in 2012 and what

he did would just happen to potentially strengthen the Paul-Libertarian wing of the Republican party.

[zeemike]

137. Well it is not a conspiracy fact is it?

That he did it to strengthening the libertarian party....sounds like a theory to m

e.

[HooptieWagon]

34. Agreed. The racist smear blew up in her face...

...so now she's making a lame attempt at a Rand Paul connection. Epic fail.

[ProSense]

37. Actually,

"Agreed. The racist smear blew up in her face......so now she's making a lame attempt at a Rand Paul connection. Epic fail"

...despite your epic mischaracterization of that OP, I stand 100 percent by my point.

It's hate. Period.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023052983

[HooptieWagon]

41. And Dick Cheney agrees with ProSurveillence 100%.

An intelligent Democrat would re-consider that position.

[ProSense]

46. HootieDragon, you're on the side of Storm Front and the Koch Brothers.

You must be so proud.

Now, why exactly is the OP so upsetting to you? Is calling out Rand Paul off limits?

[HooptieWagon]

52. Koch brothers are oppoing NSA surveillence? Since when?

That sounds like yet more ProSurveillence feces being flung into the fan.
I stand with the ACLU, EFF, Alan Grayson, Al Gore, Noam Chomsky, Bernie Saunders, and more.
You stand with Dick Cheney and Carlyle Group.
Thats all I need to know.

[ProSense]

59. Americans for Limited Government and FreedomWorks

"That sounds like yet more ProSurveillence feces being flung into the fan. "

Don't worry, you're not the only one. There are a lot of people simply engaged in personal attacks without a clue about the facts.

[HooptieWagon]

62. I'll still take ACLU.s side vs. you, Cheney , and Carlyle Group.

I don't recall ACLU ever being wrong. You, on the other hand...

[ProSense]

66. The ACLU

"I'll still take ACLU.s side vs. you, Cheney , and Carlyle Group. I don't recall ACLU ever being wrong. You, on the other hand..."

...supports Citizens United. Criticizing Snowden or Rand Paul doesn't mean I agree with Cheney.

Senator Al Franken on NSA surveillance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022986995

[stevenleser]

95. Appeals to authority, bandwagon and guilt by association are all logical fallacies. This issue is a

good example of why. Stormfront, Ann Coulter, ACLU, Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders are in agreement on one side. Al Franken, Diane Feinstein, and Dick Cheney are in agreement on the other.

[Cha]

176. No, you need to know a hellava lot more than that. First thing you

need to know is this.. Stop it with your stupid personal attacks.. It says everything about you and absolutely nothing about ProSense.

[pnwmom]

102. That's not what I see her as saying. She's pointing out the truth -- that Rand Paul

is using this moment to attract followers.

I'd add that Snowden is a Libertarian and basically handed the Rethugs this issue to club the Dems with -- even though almost all of them voted for the Patriot Act.

[scarletwoman]

111. You have your teams mixed up. It's not Libertarians vs. Dems, it's Surveillance State vs.

We the People.

I don't understand why that is so hard to comprehend. I'm not going to acquiesce to the Surveillance State just because Rand Paul says he doesn't like it, either. That's just stupid.

[ProSense]

115. And

You have your teams mixed up. It's not Libertarians vs. Dems, it's Surveillance State vs.

We the People.

I don't understand why that is so hard to comprehend. I'm not going to acquiesce to the Surveillance State just because Rand Paul says he doesn't like it, either. That's just stupid.

...you have your threads "mixed up." This one is about Rand Paul. If you want to discuss "Surveillance State vs. We the People," start your own thread instead of hijacking this one with your bizarre outrage and flawed interpretations.

[scarletwoman]

126. How did I "hijack" this thread? I wrote a response, you responded to my response, I responded

to your response to my response, etc. You know, like a back and forth discussion. How is that "hijacking"?

[ProSense]

128. Yeah,

"I wrote a response..."

...I know: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3065214

[scarletwoman]

131. Written in a moment of unguarded aghastification (is that a word?).

Yup, that's what I wrote. There it is for all to see.

[sibelian]

167. Well, it's a word now, and I'm going to start using it.

[scarletwoman]

172. A neologism for the Solstice!

My gift to the world.

[sibelian]

168. Yeah, that pisses me off, too.

"I posted this thread and now you're saying things in it I don't want tohear so you've STOLEN it" pffff. what a bunch a cock.

[tkmorris]

149. I think ScarletWoman can post what she wants, where she wants

And you are just gonna have to buck up and deal with it.

[pnwmom]

145. The Libertarians including Rand Paul are not on the side of "we the people."

They're just using this issue to lure followers in, just some of them draw others in with their pro-pot positions.

[scarletwoman]

148. So what? Why aren't Dem politicians "luring" people in with a strong stance on Civil Liberties?

I believe that that the Surveillance State is a mortal danger to democracy. Those who hold positions of power within the governing establishment seem to think it's just fine. I'm 63 years old, I've watched all kinds of shit go down in my lifetime, and I'm not inclined to trust the governing establishment. At all.

[pnwmom]

152. But you think Rand Paul is legit.

Libertarianism is just a front for more corporate stealing and completely eliminating the safety net.

[scarletwoman]

158. I don't think about Rand Paul at all. I think the Repugs aka Libertarians are idiots.

See, this is exactly why I objected to the OP - the implication that if you're concerned about our civil liberties and against being spied upon by our own government then that somehow makes you a supporter of Rand Paul. Frankly, it pisses me off.

[pnwmom]

160. Then the OP has nothing to do with you.

It concerns Ed Snowden, the Libertarian, and his motives for his leak -- not yours for your justified concerns about surveillance.

I do not think Snowden's motives are pure, despite his pretenses. If they were he wouldn't throwing himself on the mercy of China.

[Matariki]

189. It's frustrating

your well argued posts make so much sense and are very clear, but this extremely important issue seems to whoosh right by some folks and get deflected by others.

[scarletwoman]

192. Thank you for your kind words.

It's not so much frustrating as fascinating - as in Spock, "Fascinating."

[Matariki]

194. Indeed :raises eyebrow:

[scarletwoman]

195. LOL!

[Comrade Grumpy]

151. Gawd, this is worse than silly! Who gives a shit about the Libertarians?

It's the national security surveillance state that some people don't like.

It's not even about Obama. The rot goes far deeper than the current occupant of the White House.

And all this crap being flung in misguided efforts to "protect Obama" is just pathetic and depressing.You folks would rather call people racists and rave on about how this helps Rand Paul than address the central issue.

[pnwmom]

153. Too many people are still living in a 1950's fantasy land

where suitcase bombers and easy global transportation didn't exist.

This is about finding a way to retain as much liberty as possible in a world where some people abuse that liberty to kill others. There is no easy solution here.

[Comrade Grumpy]

156. Well, at least you will concede there is an issue here.

And it ain't Rand Paul.

But you wouldn't know it from this OP.

[HardTimes99]

186. Even the Devil can quote Scipture - nt

[stevenleser]

92. You act as if Prosense wrote the article. Lowry wrote it, Prosense is letting us know about it.

Are you afraid of this information that Prosense posted?

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it is useful to know how the situation is being exploited.

[scarletwoman]

96. Prosense wrote her own subject line all by herself.

I couldn't give a shit less about anything Lowry writes.

[stevenleser]

101. Given that Snowden donated $500 to Ron Paul's 2012 Presidential run plus Lowry's article it's not a

stretch.

http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-whistleblower-revealed-edward-snowden-donated-500-ron-pauls-2012-presidential-campaign-does-nsa

And I think Lowry is a credible source for what the Right wing thinks. Whether you care about it or not is irrelevant. The OP is a more than plausible theory.

[muriel_volestrangler]

162. Lowry's article just mentions the NSA as one more thing Paul is using

and spends little time discussing it. "The leak was an attempt to bolster the libertarian brand" is ProSense's own claim, and she doesn't actually try to show it. She just links to a couple of articles that talk about Rand Paul.

It's a red herring, and it's sad to see you fall for it. This is about the documents that were leaked, not the opinions of Snowden. Snowden didn't write them.

[pnwmom]

99. Why the personal attack against a Democrat who is against Rand Paul?

If there is something wrong with what the OP said, why not explain that instead of disparaging Prosense?

[ljm2002]

234. It might have something to do with...

...the fact that this "Democrat who is against Rand Paul" routinely uses twisted and dishonest reasoning to accuse those who disagree with her of being Rand Paul supporters. As in this response upthread: "I'm not sorry if I offend any Rand Paul fans."

Oh, but objecting to such nonsense is "disparaging ProSense".

Pffffffft.

[Octafish]

173. +Democracy

Frank Church warned us about what would happen if NSA turned on American people...

[font color="blue"]"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”[/font color]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3510598

[Aerows]

257. All I can say

Is bless your heart to all of them.

[dawg]

5. Makes them look like they are standing up for freedom, doesn't it?

Wish we had thought about doing that.

[ProSense]

10. You think

"Makes them look like they are standing up for freedom, doesn't it? Wish we had thought about doing that."

...pretending "they are standing up for freedom" is a good thing?

Do you believe Democrats are pretending to stand up for freedom?

Then you're in luck, and you don't have to deal with anyone who says this: ‘I’m Not A Firm Believer In Democracy…It Gave Us Jim Crow’

Score!

[dawg]

13. I'm even handed right now.

I think both sides are pretending to stand up for freedom and democracy. Rand Paul is wrong about almost every concept his mind can grasp, but someone needs to speak out about protecting the privacy of innocent Americans. And if he decides to do so, I will agree with him. On that one issue.

[ProSense]

17. OK,

"I think both sides are pretending to stand up for freedom and democracy. Rand Paul is wrong about almost every concept his mind can grasp, but someone needs to speak out about protecting the privacy of innocent Americans. And if he decides to do so, I will agree with him. On that one issue."

...good luck with that. I'm in the fuck the Pauls group.

Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'

By Steve Benen

In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.

The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.

Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:

"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."

I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.

But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand

Drones to kill people "suspected of robbing a liquor store."

[whatchamacallit]

170. This is how you do your thing

dawg makes it very clear he might agree with RP on one issue, and you attempt to paint him as a Paul supporter. Nasty.

[ljm2002]

235. "Nasty". Yes, what you said. +1000 n/t

[freshwest]

188. Lies, all lies! Heretic! You won't get away with this!

Rand loves freedom and hates teh dronz!

Teh DU is coming for you!

[customerserviceguy]

23. He's the broken clock that's right twice a day

It all depends on what time it is when first the Rethuglicans, then the mushy middle looks at that clock before going into a voting booth.

I figure he's got clear sailing to the GOP nomination. Everybody else who was an also-ran in 2012 looks like a total loser, and I have to believe that Christie, etc. all know not to waste their time and effort if it looks like Hillary's going to win the nomination and the general election. Paul's bet is that some scandal trips her up just before the finish line, and he exploits it to victory.

A narrow hope, but it's the only one he's got.

[JI7]

7. fuck them

[Bonobo]

9. LOL. Really?

LOL

Bringing paranoia, obsession and small-minded thinking to a completely new level!

Bravo!

Yes, it couldn't possibly be a real issue, everything is always about politics.

This was all a conspiracy by Rand to get a guy to abandon his own life and gf and family to score some weak branding points.

For people like you, the political football has become the whole world and actual issues simply do not matter.

[99Forever]

22. It's actually gotten sad.

Extremely so.

[ProSense]

42. Yeah, look at all the personal attacks over an OP calling out Rand Paul.

Really "sad"? Poor Rand.

[bobduca]

50. It's not about Rand Paul

...

/offers mirror

[ProSense]

74. Yes, it is, and

I think the reactions are curious.

[patrice]

223. No? Then it's about the availability of assault weapons in secret markets that supply

the Libertarian colonies who will serve the stateless "Citizens of the Archipelago", e.g. Glenn Greenwald, and possibly, for example, in Ecuador, neighbor to (Bush's et al's post-apocalyptic bunker on top of one of the Earths biggest and LAST fresh water aquifers in) Paraguay. File this hypothesis under: another instance of the 1% trying to have it's cake and eat it too, by sending their happy servants home to their client "communist" utopia next door, sort of like we're getting ready to do with Mexico but under a different label.

[99Forever]

90. If that is what makes you feel better lady...

... believe any ridiculous thing you please. You do it so well too.

[ProSense]

91. You know

"If that is what makes you feel better lady... believe any ridiculous thing you please. You do it so well too."

...what makes me feel better: arguments that go poof!

[99Forever]

163. If you say so.

'Cuz making you feel better is what this place is here for.

[patrice]

224. k, as long as we agree that propaganda is propaganda, no matter what label it's wearing. nt

[ljm2002]

236. The title of your OP makes a claim...

...that you can't back up, and you don't like it when people call you on it.

Quelle surprise.

[L0oniX]

243. +1

[freshwest]

11. 'Anyone underestimating him in 2016 does so at their peril.'

I expect to see Rand in the White House in 2016.

Along with the end of: social security, medicare, medicaid; educational, environmental, food, housing and medical care; the rights of women, gays, emigrants, minorities of any kind and anything that helps the poor, elderly, disabled or unemployed.

Many of us will lose all our rights under the 14th and 19th amendments, while the libertarian and tea party GOP repeal those along with the 16th.

Eventually we will go back to the first 10 amendments or less. Irrelevant in the Ayn Rand paradise.

[customerserviceguy]

26. It could happen

Mind you, it's not likely. But if Hillary sails to the nomination, and her fingerprints are found on something that's right in Paul's wheelhouse, there's a possibility.

[freshwest]

72. I read DU. It's the trend here. Charles Koch is laughing his ass off.

All your government are belong to us...

[Thinkingabout]

64. freshwest all the reasons is reason for Rand Paul not be in office anywhere.

He sings a good song but the music is terrible. NEVER NEVER NEVER Rand Paul as president. For someone who us against guberment he sure wanted a job with the guberment.

[napoleon_in_rags]

157. You're smart, freshwest.

If the Republican strategy is to make Obama look like Drone-lord surveillance king, its the most effective strategy they've deployed to date. We his base are against militarism, we are pro-peace, we are kind and gentle people, who innately stand against this stuff. If he lunges deeply into new foreign conflicts like in Syria, while a Republican voice chastises him from a perspective of commerce and peace, the Republicans - for the first time in a long time - have an argument for moral high ground.

But not too long ago, Obama stood up saying global warming is a major issue of our time. Republicans, ignoring the IPCC 2007 report (increased storms, extreme weather events) said he was a fool. Whatever charm they had was lost, as we watched the floods in India, the tornadoes and all the rest. The libertarian wing of the Republican party is blind to this - they refuse to play a personal moral role in mitigation and preparation, so in this Obama remains strong.

[patrice]

226. I think some of the oldest money is NOT blind & all of this is about preparing their "life" raft,

complete with happy servant colonies of well armed Libertarians posing as "the Left".

[napoleon_in_rags]

249. Maybe we all should be preparing our life rafts.

I just look at the whole political process as this out-of-control machine at this point. The politicians are beholden to the corporations, the CEOs are beholden to their wall street share holders, the wall street share holders are beholden to the short term profit of their customers. The machine is running itself, and when short term profit stands in the way of long term self-preservation, the short term wins out.

That pretty much leaves positive action up to us.

[freshwest]

255. I think that's always been the case. It explains their positions on the environment in all ways.

It sounds crazy, but I think their entire goal is to gut this planet to get off of it. The space exploration corporations are planning things never imagined. Anyone that thinks this is for the benefit of the human race as a whole, ought to check the track record of these folks. It's not about us, it's about the 1%.

Very science fiction, true, but a lot of what was once fiction, is now science fact. The tech for artificial body parts, the decimation of those reduced to selling organs to get by and so many other things, are clues. Very frightening things. So they want to make sure they are on top, like the Sellout guy in They Live, saying they would get the getting while it was good, get rich off selling out humanity and the planet. Sold out to who, we wonder, when I look at the GOP. I doubt the Koch brothers are ET's but they make think they can buy immortality.

I recall Pelosi saying something that the Beltway didn't take the same way I did. She said about the GOP, 'these old guys are so crazy, they think they are going to live forever,' or words to that effect. I think she meant that literally. Look at these old lizards like Cheney, Kissinger, and other infamous people. It would make sense to make provision for oneself if one felt they had the chance to live forever, not accept nature's way, and if so possessed of such a vision, would make every other person and thing a tool and expendable.

Just putting that out there. Yah, it be woo. But I'm never one to stop asking questions as there is so much out there that can be easily proven that turns our belief systems upside down daily. Interesting times...

[Vinnie From Indy]

15. WTF?

What else will you smear Snowden with? You have no shame and no honor!

[ProSense]

18. Jim Crow?

"What else will you smear Snowden with? You have no shame and no honor! "

Faux outrage? Look in the mirro when you talk about having "no shame and no honor"

I mean that.

[dawg]

31. Snowden was wrong to get those Jim Crow laws passed all those years before he was born.

But that has nothing to do with the information that was leaked.

[ProSense]

32. The OP is about Rand Paul and his ambitions.

Read it again.

[Marr]

20. lol... this is becoming comedic.

I give this one a 6/10. The paranoid edge is nice, but the actual details are drab.

See if you can mix the dancer into it and resubmit.

[Marr]

28. Oh my god, exquisitely organized, annotated free association.

I think it might give me an aneurysm.

[ProSense]

30. Hey, stupid name calling makes those doing it look stupid.

[Bonobo]

33. I am entirely comfortable with the idea of comparing who looks more stupid than whom.

As long as it is you I am up against.

[ProSense]

35. The OP really upset you, huh?

Fuck Rand Paul.

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. Now THAT is fucking funny.

They could square off on opposite sides of the same desk, both posting at the same time. One claiming that President Obama is one of the four GREATEST people to ever live; the other simply claiming President Obama has never had an untrue thought.

I picture a dish in their honor: Word Salad with Blue Link dressing.

ETA: I know this is going to get hidden, but that'll only be two in the last 90 days.

[ProSense]

38. .

"I picture a dish in their honor: Word Salad with Blue Link dressing."

Lame, party of one.

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. I don't mind eating alone...

[Aerows]

165. Word Salad with Blue Link dressing

That's priceless.

[allin99]

44. lmao

[neverforget]

24. Rich Lowry? Really? Was Jonah Goldberg not available?

[stevenleser]

97. You dispute that Lowry is a good source for how the right wing thinks on an issue? nt

[neverforget]

100. Sorry, I should have put John Yoo

I apologize.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/350498/nsas-surveillance-no-clear-constitutional-violations-john-yoo

[stevenleser]

105. Which would be relevant to Snowden's motive how? nt

[neverforget]

106. The OP is quoting NRO so I thought I would give you Bush Torture Memo Author and

all around asshole, John Yoo.

Forgot to add he's totally down with the military collecting data on Americans too.

[stevenleser]

108. The OP is quoting NRO on their interpretation of a possible right wing motive of Snowden.

What you are doing is a nonsensical thread-jack

[neverforget]

110. The OP quotes right wingers and I link to a right winger who agrees and I'm threadjacking?

I didn't bring the NRO into this. ProSense did.

[stevenleser]

114. As I said above in the thread with someone else, third grade tactics like these are not convincing

[neverforget]

118. I'll tell you what. Agree that this issue falls across party lines and makes for strange bed fellows

I don't agree with Obama on this and think the military (aka, NSA) should not be gathering information on Americans with a warrant or without. It's none of their business who, when and for how long (the metadata) I talk to someone. (I am a Verizon customer). I find that creepy and UnAmerican. I vehemently disagreed with it under Bush and do so now under Obama.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

29. Yep

That's just what cartma... I mean the authoritarians e.g. Washington would/have say.

Thanks for reminding us

[liberal_at_heart]

40. for the first time ever I actually looked up the Green Party website. I love their platform

on education.

[ProSense]

43. ? n/t

[bobduca]

45. This Post is a Failed Attempt to Repair the

Prosense Brand.

[ProSense]

47. That makes no sense.

[L0oniX]

241. +1

[RetroLounge]

49. When you hit 100,000 posts do they give you a bonus?

RL

[ProSense]

53. Take care of that.

It's affecting your thinking.

[RetroLounge]

57. Thinking

You should try it sometime.



RL

[bobduca]

56. hitting 100k by midnight eastern at this rate

[ProSense]

61. Only about 199 to go.

Are you pissed?

[bobduca]

68. Entertained

Pissed? hell no! you go girl!

[Cha]

175. I haven't gotten that stupid "bonus" you're puking

about.

[RetroLounge]

179. Maybe you have a different employer

RL

[Cha]

182. More than likely you're blowing hot gas outta your

whatever. Having nothing better to do than accuse long standing Members of DU of being on some kind payroll. As if our country isn't worth the time.

[RetroLounge]

183. "As if our country isn't worth the time."

Cha-ching!



RL

[Cha]

184. "Cha-ching" Yuk it up.. that's what you're doing best that and

digging a hole.

[RetroLounge]

210. Keep replying.

Piece work <> Peace work



RL

[Cha]

231. Oh do please Proceed.

[treestar]

54. Yes, it's a libertarian thing

They don't like tax laws or regulations or any type of law - restricts their freedoms to run over everyone else.

[ucrdem]

55. A repuke by any other name. . .

Lowry runs the National Review, the late William Buckley's GOP house organ, and Libertarianism is a GOP think-tank creature to begin with, so the NSA dust-up is looking more like what it looked like two weeks ago, another GOP ratf#ck made fresh and new by the introduction of new character Snowden and an exotic locale, Hong Kong, also the exotic locale used up to sex up the latest 007 sequel, Skyfall.


hmm...


p.s. knr

[wilsonbooks]

58. The spying is an attempt to further the fascist brand.

[ProSense]

60. Well,

"The spying is an attempt to further the fascist brand."

...I don't disagree, and that doesn't change my point.

[Whisp]

63. Fuck Rand Paul

Can I still say that here?

I'm not sure.

[ucrdem]

69. You'll get more recs if you say this:

[freshwest]

75. Which is why I see a Rand victory in 2016. Darling of the left and right.

I'm getting ready.

[ucrdem]

76. I'm not laying in the barf bags just yet.

I don't see Jebster giving up his turn again so easily so Randy could end up #2 and a Jeb-Paul ticket sounds like a sure-fire dud.



But not as terrible as a Palin-Rand ticket which would be beautiful to behold.

[freshwest]

84. Maybe a Rand-Ron ticket. Two civil libertarian zealots for the price of one.

Something for everyone!

I wonder if I can fake that spelling thing just to fit in. Using 'ed-uma-cated' big words got me into a lot of trouble over the years. I had to be put in my place.
Some of us will find it hard to fit into the coming Idiocracy.

[ucrdem]

93. Then we could watch Rand push President Ronny off the cliff

and take over:

[freshwest]

112. Now that's an idea. Another: A PR+RP ticket. Two Pauls in reverse.

PRRP. If only there was PPR for guys like this in real life.

Oh, I got nothing, ucrdem. Getting late for me.

See you around, I think.

[ucrdem]

129. Ryan-Rand, the Dumb and Dumber ticket, groan

So dumb it just might win . . .

But it would be worth it to hear Medea say "Progressives 'Stand with Stupid!'"

[patrice]

222. Just keep asking them how many people should die for what THEY call "Liberty", but which could

be the Oppressor so internalized that they cannot or will not recognize it.

[freshwest]

237. Those on the left libertarian train of thought, think they are oppressed by government.

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 10:32 PM - Edit history (1)

While those on the right libertarian train of thought, think they are oppressed by government as well. Same kettle where dwell those who try to convince us that they are not the same kind of fish.



To all Libertarians, Democrats are their worst enemy and must be converted or destroyed. They are in the way of total 'freedom' to do as they please, or the 'liberty' to have want they think by natural right belongs to them. Government stands in the way of that. They don't acknowledge the rights of others except symbolically. They have no need of it. But we need real rights to survive, though.

Slavery didn't end with the Civil War. The only oppression they suffer is not getting to relegate portions of the population to penury, despair and hopelessness. It is good for business, it always has been, and it is how great fortunes are made. Randians believe this is their right. They make up ways to say they are the slaves now, but their resentment is that what they consider their rights to rob others is being oppressed. Yes, they are being enslaved by democracy, so they want something more.

And they know us, better than we know ourselves at times, and we are being fooled. It was to be expected, as we believe in hearing all voices. We want real world solutions, not magical ones that will never come to pass while we suffer under their delusions again and again when they gain power over us. Cross the line with one of them, and see just how little they believe in your right to disagree with the cult as they spew a cesspool of personal insults designed to degrade and silence you.

Democrats believe in good government and for them democracy is all about equality. They realize government, an organization of mostly the have nots, is needed to fight the other pre-existing forms of government, that have never given up. Such as the rich, the landowners, churches and corporations. The Libertarians have not been oppressed by those groups, or they would welcome the power of government to stand between them and those who are working daily to create a fascist theocracy.

For them, the rights of women, the poor, the disabled, elderly, unemployed, etc. are not relevant. They'll just happen without their help, but those groups learned that their rights are not pie that would fall out of the sky and make their lives better. So they got together and created and are constantly transforming the only entity that they had left, not being the head or corporations or churches or scions of landed gentry and inherited wealth.

Libertarians and those relentlessly on the attack against government and Democrats, have the luxury of indulging themelves in a system of political philosophy that does nothing for the lesser folks. Else they would not empower the heroes promoted by a slick, conservative billionaire owned media machine. Those are the voices of the 1%. All claims that Obama or Democrats are in bed with the plutocrats, fall in disgrace for those of us who have followed what is now, and has always been, class warfare.

The main class warfare the rich and the Libertarians complain about, is taxation. The government that taxes the gains of the wealthy, knows that money is the life blood of equality that was stolen from millions of people. Those people need it in circulation instead of being hoarded and used against the government of the people. And in every other venue, against them and their future. Those who claim it's not worth fighting for are consumers of media, and this is a sick game being played on them.

Other Libertarians spend their time arguing that same government is disinterested in their lives or corrupt, when it is merely starving and being overrun by the private sector, due to their media induced apathy. In the same camp are the CTers, who are also Libertarians. They seek to claim higher ground by saying they are not part of what they call the statist or establishment parties.

Yet they turn a blind eye, in the most cruel and cowardly manner, to what other governing forces in our nation in the shadows are, the churches, landowners and corporations. In every situation, they attack government, as if it was all powerful.

They know full well it isn't, or it wouldn't be forced to give in to the same forces that really affect our lives. It's not at all amusing to see them actually making more powerful the landowners, churches and corporations, who also rail against the government, always, for interfering with their 'liberty' while they steal our 'freedom' with ALEC and regressives in D.C. It's a fine example of reverse psychology.

Many that claim to be on the left, also find reasons to not pay taxes or obey any laws. The reasons are loosely spun from the Nordquists and Koch brothers, but in the end, it's all the same thing, it's starving the government of, by and for the people. It's denying the legitimacy of that government and all those who need it to protect them. They will find any excuse to make the government look bad, but they will never step up to the plate and do the job that the government is doing, both sweet and bitter.

The internalization of oppression by the Libertarian of any type is based on resisting government enforcing equality. Those who have land and means, which may very well come from conquest or theft, don't want to give it up and find reasons to not do so. Their mouths are a sewer of accusations and spite toward those they consider less than them. This is not new.

Gotta go, see you later, patrice. Thanks for caring enough to post on these threads.

[patrice]

240. I care, and always have as far back as I can remember, very passionately about freedom. & In order

to be as free as possible, one NEEDS to be capable of thinking for one's self.

It's pretty obvious, around here, that thinking is kind of limited. There is no self-aware critique, an essential element of true revolution. That's either intentional or relatively valid; I don't know. In either case, authentic lovers of freedom should not be threatened by exploration of our relative truths, because any limitations of others is a form of dependence in one's self, no matter how much any one thinks they are a pure advocate of liberty. (I think Dr. King said that better than I just did.)

...............................

Have been on here for a while today, so I must go fold some laundry and do a couple of other things, but I will come back later and read your piece care -fully and share it with you. Thank you for your own thoughts. That's pretty brave of you under these circumstances. Thanks for not giving up on us.

"See" you later!

[burnodo]

142. And just which "left" is he a darling of?

Nt

[patrice]

225. There is no Left, because there is no Left agenda and the reason there is no Left agenda is

because, if what calls itself "the Left" actually got down to honestly prioritizing their issues, it would disintegrate into disagreement. This is because there is no Left; ONLY what calls itself "the Left" and isn't really and the way that you can recognize them is by their tendency to exclude, by means of divide and conquer, most definitely NOT the trait of authentic Liberals. Another way to recognize them is by their refusal to answer this question: How many dead people is an acceptable price to pay for you, the putative "Left", to be wrong about the NSA?

[Th1onein]

65. REALLY, Prosense? REALLY?

Are you kidding? This is the latest in your attempt to excuse the NSA surveillance of Americans. I think it's a FAIL.

[ProSense]

67. Who are you?

The OP is serious. Your comment...

[patrice]

218. Okay Th1onein, REALLY, why is it that all of the things I/you/we don't know about this don't matter?

Please, I really do need to know, so that's an honest question awaiting an explanation.

[progressoid]

70. Lame.

[ProSense]

71. Maybe, but

look at how many people jumped in to express outrage.

It's part unbelievable and part hilarious that an OP about Rand Paul would garner the reaction it did.

[ljm2002]

239. "The leak was an attempt to bolster the libertarian brand"

Based on that thread title, I'd have to assume this thread is about Edward Snowden. Simple logic:

the leak == Snowden's revelations about NSA surveillance
was an attempt == Snowden was trying to do something by making the leak
to bolster the libertarian brand == your opinion of what he was trying to do

Ergo, the post is primarily about Snowden and his supposed motivation for doing what he did.

[winter is coming]

73. And it's taken them this long to capitalize on the situation.

That's a plan so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel.

[ucrdem]

80. Remeber what happened to Mittler when he laughed too soon?

The rumors went a-flyin' and Mittler lost a rather substantial investment.

[freshwest]

187. Mittler! You're making me LOL again. Needed the laugh.

[stevenleser]

107. Your objection is that the Republicans are too intelligent and swift to be caught flatfooted by what

Snowden did?

Are you sure you don't want to rethink that one?

[Thinkingabout]

77. Libertarian brand with a "cause". The brand would not bring in the type of support needed to win.

We need sensible leaders who wants to govern, Rand Paul is not the leader.

[DesMoinesDem]

79. It only bolsters the libertarian brand of you support the leak.

Maybe the administration thought most people would oppose the leak and it would bolster the Obama/Cheney authoritarian brand. Or maybe it isn't about the leak or any brand, but about the massive spying we are all subject to.

[bowens43]

81. the motivation is irrelevant.......

[Progressive dog]

83. Predator drones, hellfire missiles, NSA spying, and

did I say Fascism yet. Eddie Snowden, Glen Greenwald, the CNET reporter are all libertarians.
But it's probably just coincidence, I don't think they have the smarts to do this.

[Union Scribe]

85. Too bad some Democrats are helping him

by embracing Bush policies. That's what you should be worried about.

[Jarla]

86. Do you think that Snowden may have been working for Rand Paul? nt

[ProSense]

88. No,

"Do you think that Snowden may have been working for Rand Paul?"

...the connection is like-minded. Snowden was in fact a Ron Paul supporter.

Ron Paul immediately lauded Snowden's actions. Rand Paul is exploiting the situation, as he always does.

Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'

By Steve Benen

In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.

The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.

Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:

"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."

I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.

But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand

Drones to kill people "suspected of robbing a liquor store."

[Major Hogwash]

103. Rachel Maddow had an interview with Rand Paul about the exclusion of coloreds from businesses

And Rand nearly swallowed his tongue when he tried to walk back that statement.
They may think that Rand Paul is cool in Kentucky, but he won't be so popular on the national stage.

[delrem]

116. pure quackery.

[whatchamacallit]

124. Delusional

Seriously.

[ProSense]

127. Yes, Rand Paul is delusional. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

130. You destroy the little cred you have with this crazy shit

How many DUers do you expect will change their opposition to their rights being violated on the notion that Rand Paul somehow benefits?

[ProSense]

134. Wait

"How many DUers do you expect will change their opposition to their rights being violated on the notion that Rand Paul somehow benefits?"

...why exactly do you belive the OP is designed to change DUers "opposition to their rights being violated"?

I mean, does that make sense to you? Maybe stop your eyes from spinning long enough to see that claim for what it is: absurd.

[whatchamacallit]

136. Why spam the board with posts discrediting the leak and the leaker?

What do you hope to gain?

[ProSense]

138. The OP

"Why spam the board with posts discrediting the leak and the leaker?"

...is about Rand Paul, but clearly you believe that Snowden shouldn't be criticized. I mean, criticism of Snowden is "spam"?

"What do you hope to gain?"

Isn't that a tad authoritarian? I mean, this is a discussion board. You appear to be afraid of opinions. Why? What are you afraid ot?

[whatchamacallit]

139. Who actually gives a fuck about Rand Paul

except you and Don Quixote?

[ProSense]

140. Why are you in a thread about Rand Paul? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

141. Because the title was desperately lame beyond belief

I had to see if it was for real. Sadly it was.

[ProSense]

143. So

"Because the title was desperately lame beyond belief I had to see if it was for real. Sadly it was"

...the title roped you in and the OP content captured your attention that you had to post a response?

If you read the content and realized it was about Rand Paul, why did you decide to post a series of authoritarian responses?

I mean, after seeing "if it was for real," you could have easily backed out.

[whatchamacallit]

144. You can claim it's about Rand Paul

but nobody buys it. You've already tried everything under the sun to try to discredit the leak, the Paul angle is just the latest subterfuge.

[ProSense]

146. Hey

"You can claim it's about Rand Paul

but nobody buys it. You've already tried everything under the sun to try to discredit the leak, the Paul angle is just the latest subterfuge. "

...see for yourself: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023065177

Does the fact that you don't buy it matter? Even if the post was about Snowden and the leak, is it your opininon that I should only post stuff that you agree with?

[Tarheel_Dem]

147. I'm still wondering why he wasn't laughed off the stage at Simmons College.

Rand is one macadamia that didn't fall far from the crazy tree. Fuck the Pauls, both father & son.

[moondust]

150. Somebody should ask his girlfriend

and others who have known him if he could be described as a libertarian or Paul family activist who was more involved politically than making passive campaign contributions.

[railsback]

159. The less a libertarian contributes

the more libertarian they are. After all, there's no 'we' in libertarianism. Its 'take care of your own shit'.

[patrice]

233. I have very personally known Libertarians who say precisely that. & Another thing they say is:

There are Libertarians who are Libertarians for one reason and one reason only, their supercilious fanaticism for what they call privacy, makes it possible to do any and all of the drugs that they can get their hands on and no one amongst them can even wonder, let alone ask questions about that or any other behavior, such as exploiting the disadvantaged. Things get all fucked up between them so they fight amongst themselves constantly.

YES, there are Libertarians who don't do any drugs, not even cannabis, and they have problems with those who do, but they can't do anything about any of that, because, as you observe, they are Libertarians.

[Egalitarian Thug]

155. I think this actually made those of us that bothered to read it dumber.

You've now exposed people that might have avoided exposure to this level of dumb up until now, and at this level, it is obviously contagious.

[eridani]

161. Because only libertarians object to being spied on

Of course!

[Scurrilous]

164. K & R

[Logical]

166. Then why is Obama all of the sudden willing to discuss 'surveillance transparency'???

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023060484

Prosense, admit that Obama dragged his feet on this issue until Snowden did what he did.

Seems like even you would think this is a great thing.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

171. All aboooOOOOARD -

The other one that used to post was much brighter.

[MjolnirTime]

177. Snowden is a Pauliac all the way. So much so that he would throw his life away for his belief.

[galileoreloaded]

181. We really should stop this fighting, otherwise we'll miss the fireworks! nt

[bobduca]

185. Quite A Stretch

Paulites to left of me, tea baggers to the right, all those who oppose him must be smeared!

[patrice]

221. Yep! & All of those whom he opposes MUST be smeared. Now ... WHY is that? Hmmm????nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

190. a libertarian/Rand Paul insurgency within the GOP will rip the Republican Party completely apart

I am quite certain that John McCain or even Newt Gingrich - would vote Democratic before they would vote to dismantle the American empire.

[graham4anything]

202. actually Rand Paul is part of Jeb Bush's team and a faithful BushPaulfamilyinc member.

the VOTERS in 2016 will give the democratic party a complete landslide victory for Hillary Clinton45.

and the 50-50 will then become the 80-20.

As Newt and McCain are Bushfamilyinc supporters, of course they would vote for Jeb/Rand in an instant.

the folly is beleving or standing with Ron and Rand. Both have (R) after their name
and they are NOT believers in anything but a 1859 philosophy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

203. well that we just don't know. How much of a careerist versus how much of an ideologue is Rand Paul?

If he is a careerist more than an ideologue then he will likely do the Mitt Romney thing of simply walking away from his former positions and his father's legacy. But if he is captive to his roots and his father's legacy - he may not be able to do that if keeping his following requires staying faithful to his father's legacy and his libertarian roots .. None of the mainstream Republicans would support Rand on the ticket if he did stay with his familial libertarian legacy. No one is going to win any election by 80% of the vote at least for decades to come. At least 40% of Americans will never within their lifetime vote for any Democrat under any circumstances at least for the next few decades. It is more likely that Jesus Christ will return in the skies to rule and rein for a thousand years than it is for Hillary or anyone else to win 80% of the vote in 2016.

[graham4anything]

204. His ideology was spelled out in his literature, and he is that. A JBS George Wallace/David Duke

except he is a republican and always was.

He rakes in dollars from his flock by saying he is against regulations for drugs, YET he lives in one of the worst states
that harass everybody(even Willie Nelson), and his son lives in perhaps the single most regressive state in the nation at the moment.

And no one said the election shall be 80-20, but the votes in congress will be 70-30, 80-20, and the 50-50 myth meme will be gone.

Ron Paul/Rand Paul want to cull voters to NOT vote for the democratic party

And if anyone truly looks into who they are, they will know, that they do NOT support one thing a democratic supporter would want,
and Ron did NOT sign Kucinich's impeach Bush act.

And Ron voted for Afghanastan.

Thanks but I do NOT stand for Rand or Ron. In fact, I CANNOT STAND Rand or Ron.

Google Jorg Haider and you will see Rand Paul. Both in looks and viewpoints.

[Douglas Carpenter]

205. if he supports the traditional libertarian isolationism -he will be anathema to the Republican Party

establishment. This type of isolationism is of course not the same as progressive anti-Imperialism. It comes from a totally different almost opposite angle, of course. Progressive Henry Wallace/George McGovern/Dennis Kucinich type anti-imperialism is a kind of compassionate non-military intervention internationalism. Paulite/Buchanite - libertarian or Paleo-Conservative isolationism is xenophobic and racist and usually carries overtones of rather bizarre conspiracy theory - usually with hints of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. But when it comes down to specific policy issues they are sometimes in agreement even if for opposite reasons. Either way - if a movement favoring massive reduction in military spending and interventionism gains traction in the Republican Party - it will rip the Republican Party apart.

The sure population demographics of likely Republican voters versus likely Democratic voters has Democratic voters living primarily in or near major population centers where their vote. Versus Republican strongholds are primarily in rural, small towns and outer-suburban areas. This distribution gives an advantage to the Republicans. The Democrats may carry the cities by 80% of the vote. But as long as the Republicans can carry most of the small towns, rural areas and outer suburbs by 50.1% of the vote or more - they can have a major advantage and make it difficult for Democrats to win majorities in the House. And almost impossible for them to win majorities by significant margins.

[graham4anything]

206. I am a John V. Lindsay LBJ liberal. JVL actually got more votes in the few primaries he ran in, than

McGovern, but we saw how many combined electoral votes McGovern and Kucinich got.

George Wallace is who I meant in case you thought I meant Henry(the 3rd VP for FDR before Truman)

Women will change the world in the decade of the woman. Anne Richards who was a DEMOCRATIC gov. showed Texans will
and can vote for Democratic candidate, and between her and Hutchinson, they will elect a woman.
And it will be Hillary.

It will be the 2016 battle for the very soul of the country Hillary vs. Jeb/Rand
If you don't think Rand would accept, and if you don't think Jeb would offer, IMHO you are mistaken.

And if Jeb don't agree with anything Rand does, should hell happen and they win, Jeb will not listen to anything he says
and do what 41 did to Quayle, make him irrelevant. AND that would probably put a person Jeb could more easily work with in
the senate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

208. John' linday's strongest showing was 5th place in the Florida primary - he never scored above the

low single digits in of any the 1972 primaries - never came close to even a tiny, tiny fraction of the votes McGovern carried in the 1972 primaries. Although Lindsay did finish second in the early Arizona caucus. Hew never came even remotely close to being in any way whatsoever a contender the Democratic nomination of 1972

In a 1972 Gallup poll, 60% of New Yorkers felt Lindsay's administration was working poorly, nine percent rated it "good," and not one person thought its performance excellent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lindsay


Gold denotes a state won by Shirley Chisholm. Purple denotes a state won by Hubert Humphrey Green denotes a state won by Henry M. Jackson. Blue denotes a state won by George McGovern. Orange denotes a state won by Wilbur Mills. Black denotes a state won by Edmund Muskie. Pink denotes a state won by George Wallace. Grey denotes a state that did not hold a primary.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1972

[graham4anything]

209. I didn't say anything of that sort. I said in the FEW primaries he was in, he got more total votes

than eventual winner McG. BETWEEN the two of them, and neither won those primaries when both were in it head to head(I believe JVL had his name on a couple after he left the race as it was too late to change the ballots).

and you are correct. The later spin on him made it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone like him or Jim Florio in NJ to win an election in 2013
therefore, if you wanted someone like that, it is now impossible.

Nobody was more worker friendly and union friendly than JVL. And NO one was a bigger populist.

But if President Obama attempted to do what he did, he never would have won office.
Because they smeared JVL and they smeared Florio (and Grey Davis too for that matter).

But look at the primaries the two were in (and JVL wasn't in many). JVL got more votes at that time than McG. did.

But how many electoral votes did McG get? That proves my point.

and in 1968, had he lived, Bobby would NOT have been the nominee. HHH still would have gotten it.

Shame they sold LBJ down the river.

The important part of JVL was that he was the biggest populist, and he kept the peace when other cities burned, and he was
pro-union, pro-labor, pro-worker, pro-everybody.

No wonder the other side hated him. But then, the same did it to Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Look how many democratic people misguidedly voted for the single worst president of all time- Ronald Reagan.

McGovern was a super nice person, however, he was against only Vietnam, he was not against all wars (and in fact was a war hero).
Most people were not against Vietnam at the start, only later on

Look at Ron Paul. He says he is against wars, but OMG, he voted FOR Afghanastan then later changed his vote.

[Douglas Carpenter]

211. I liked Lindsay too. But there was no way he could have done well against Nixon in 1972.

By that time his popularity had fallen apart in New York City. By that time he was no longer a popular figure nationally. As good of man and a mayor as he was - by 1972 he was portrayed by just about he entire media as an out-of-touch New York City elitist which would been just as much a liability as McGovern's hippie leader image - a World War II hero and a former small town Methodist minister was turned into a counterculture icon. There is no reason to believe Nixon would not have been equally successful against the by then very unpopular Lindsay.

Of course McGovern was not an absolute pacifist - no one running for Commander and Chief is electable if they were. But he did challenge bipartisan Cold War assumptions on matters beyond only Vietnam and he did so more than any other major party post World War II nominee. I don't believe the system is going to support any candidate who challenges bipartisan foreign policy assumptions. If Rand Paul continues to challenge bipartisan foreign policy assumptions - there is no way the Republican establishment will back him - even if he does pull off the nomination - which would be highly unlikely. If Rand Paul stays in that mode and does launch a successful insurgency campaign it will rip apart the Republican Party from inside.

[graham4anything]

212. again, I think Jeb would use him as VP. I didn't say Rand would win the nomination, I think Jeb will

Rand is also not against war, just against certain key wedge points cynically knowing those points get him dollars.

(and if Rand ran 3rd party, well then, Hillary indeed might win 538 to 0 with the other two splitting the vote.

It is similar to how Rand and Mitch are using each other.

the only person who in 1968 would have beaten Nixon was LBJ.
And had LBJ stayed and won, then in 1972 Bobby most likely would have easily become President.
But in 1968, Bobby would not have been the nominee, not with the way the system was working, and remembering McCarthy never dropped out and his suupporters (like Dean's biggest supporters) never forgave Bobby for entering and taking McCarthy's place.
In 1968, the democratic party beat itself, with sabatoge from Nixon, same as Reagan sabatoged, but was helped by infighting in 1980

[freshwest]

245. +1

[freshwest]

258. Photo proof here. Anyone who wants to check his associations and statements with these guys, enjoy:

And the founders of Libertarianism:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023065177#post237

[avaistheone1]

193. Then Snowden must be executed.

[patrice]

228. No! but don't you think we should know everything there is to know about WHO he was trying to warn?

I mean, if it was corporate persons, we need to know that and, though "our" government is owned by corporate persons, if it was government, we need to know everything about that.

It's a mistake to think that corporate persons are 100% monolithic and uniform, especially when it comes to their government chattel.

They. ARE. competitors. for. the. SAME. resources.

......................

. . . and we have reached PEAK Oil.

[Gravitycollapse]

198. You are so transparently a party shill. It boggles the mind.

[ProSense]

216. And you're a obviously a clown.

Welcome. I look forward to more of your act.

[freshwest]

246. Some people's minds are easily boggled. Now I understand your sense of humor. And I'll work on mine.

[Gravitycollapse]

250. So do you get paid by the post? Or by each positive reference to a public official?

[ProSense]

251. I see you joined DU in March 2013.

"So do you get paid by the post? Or by each positive reference to a public official?"

Were you asking stupid questions before then?

Enjoy your stay.

[Gravitycollapse]

253. I can't think of a single other person on this board who is a bigger party shill than you.

I have to compliment you on your diligent work ethic. You certainly are efficient. But you're not really fooling a lot of people.

Every time you post I feel vindicated in my decision to jury blacklist you.

[ProSense]

254. You should have stopped at "I can't think" because you clearly have issues.

[treestar]

242. What is wrong with being a staunch Democrat?

DU is for people who want to elect Democrats to office.

[Gravitycollapse]

244. Nothing. What's right about being a party shill?

[freshwest]

247. Because the Libertarians don't have a website as cool as Skinner's and are trying to steal this one?

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2013, 10:53 PM - Edit history (1)

The meltdown on Libertarian Republican the day after Obama won again, was EPIC.

I saved the content, but the Patriot© owner deleted the page. Full of how he was going to go into stores and yell at cashiers and customers with EBT cards for stealing HIS money. Oh, and exiling all Democrats for their treason in voting in Obama.

And stocking up on ammo. The usual.

Smells the same as it does here with a few roses tossed in to cover the stench.

It was hilarious, against immigration but for learning Spanish to flee to some despotic countries down south. It was ironic:

Democratic secular government = SLAVERY!

Plutocratic religious oligarchy = FREEDOM!

The emigrating to the homelands of the people you can't stand to see here, is a consistent cognitive disconnect these guys have, but not just on that issue.

[treestar]

248. It really does look like that may be the case!

While a Democrat could criticize the Democrats here and there, the constant, comfortable with any exaggerated statement of hatred of Obama or any Dem (see the thread on Pelosi being booed) and glee over bad things happening to democrats is hard to reconcile with Democrats. Democratic party shills! On DemocraticUnderground!

[Zorra]

207. Congratulations. That's lower than the bottom of the pit beneath the DU troll shithouse.

A new low for DU.

A shameless, irrational, Third Way conservative propaganda smear attack on progressives.

[ProSense]

217. That's stupid comment, and your bullshit outrage is irrelevant. n/t

[patrice]

213. That's one of my highest order hypotheses, but there are questions about how stochastic

it was/is.

[patrice]

214. ... because Plausible Deniability is one of the highest marketable commodities there is & evoking it

is really only just a matter of engineering these days, what with data mining resources that have existed ever since the BEGINNING of advertising and mass marketing in this country.

[Harmony Blue]

215. There is no Libertarian brand outside of the United States.

Epic fail.

[ProSense]

219. LOL!

I suppose you thought that made sense?

[patrice]

220. That COULD be merely a matter of labeling. "A 'rose' by any other name would smell as sweet."nt

[patrice]

230. K&R for a useful line of inquiry, ProSense! But then you need to know that it is my opinion that,

all other traits being more or less equal, economic class trumps race.

[Safetykitten]

238. Wow...just freaking wow.

[still_one]

252. If the focus was just the spying on Americans, I would say no, but that it has expanded to involve

Other countries makes it likely that is part of it

The libertarian perspective believes in isolationism, and least the full bore ones do. They do not believe we should have been involved in WWII

Yeah there is definitely an lament of that I believe

[Gravitycollapse]

256. So are you saying say Democrats have to be okay with spying on non-citizens?