No, one is not a racist merely for opposing this administration on surveillance policy

[cali]

That's the latest tactic on DU. Object to the massive surveillance, and one is doing so for racist purposes.

I supported President Obama quite early and quite vocally here. One of the reasons I did so was his position on surveillance. He was deeply critical of the FISA Amendment ACT. Now he defends it. The media, for all its many flaws, didn't just start criticizing him on this, nor did the ACLU or some in Congress like my delegation.

Here is an article from 2011. There are thousands of critical articles about this administration and President Obama re national security surveillance that are pre Snowden.

Court allows constitutional challenge to new FISA law

In October, 2007, candidate Barack Obama — in response to the Bush administration’s demand for a new FISA law — emphatically vowed that he would filibuster any such bill that contained retroactive amnesty for telecoms which participated in Bush’s illegal spying program. At the time, that vow was politically beneficial to Obama because he was seeking the Democratic nomination and wanted to show how resolute he was about standing up against Bush’s expansions of surveillance powers and in defense of the rule of law. But in a move that shocked many people at the time — though which turned out to be completely consistent with his character — Obama, once he had the nomination secured in July, 2008, turned around and did exactly that which he swore he would not do: he not only voted against the filibuster of the bill containing telecom amnesty, but also voted in favor of enactment of the underlying bill. That bill, known as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, was then signed into law by George W. Bush at a giddy bipartisan signing ceremony in the Rose Garden, which — by immunizing telecoms and legalizing most of the Bush program — put a harmless, harmonious end to what had been the NSA scandal.

Beyond telecom amnesty, the FISA Amendments Act also wildly expanded the Government’s power to conduct warrantless surveillance of telephone calls and emails. In large part, the bill was intended to legalize the illegal Bush NSA program that had caused so much faux controversy among Democrats. As Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin put it: ”Through the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Congress has legitimated many of the same things people are now complaining about”; separately, Balkin contended that Obama voted for the bill because, as President, he himself would want the same powers Bush had to intercept people’s communications without bothering with court approval.

When trying to placate his numerous supporters furious over his reversal, Obama insisted he voted for the bill with “the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as president — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future” (that promise caused his then-large band of faithful followers to evangelize that Obama only voted for the bill to make sure he won the election, so that he could then use his majestic power to fix civil liberties abuses of the type he had just voted for; that was when people were still willing with a straight face to invoke the 11-dimensional chess justification for everything he did). Needless to say, it would have been unhealthy in the extreme holding one’s breath for that “we’ll-fix-it-when-I’m-President” promise to be fulfilled, as — more than 2 years into his presidency — nothing like it has remotely happened.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/21/aclu_10/

So just because those of you backing the President on this aren't fucking informed as to the history of the issues, doesn't mean others of us are equally ill informed.

Contemptible.

[Harmony Blue]

1. Lets have the debate

if corporate dems want to cry about it so be it. But lets have the discussion before the party heads into the abyss.

[leveymg]

38. I still have a couple benefits of the doubt left. I think Obama also welcomes this opportunity

to finally cut the thing down to size. Let's see if he earns that benefit.

[Coccydynia]

77. Oh, please.

[tavalon]

181. Wow, I'm not able to see it that way

I hope you are right.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

212. I'm sorry, but when you start screaming NAZI...

...you prove you're not interested in debate. Just more Democratic party bashing.

And by the way, we who think this is no big deal aren't the ones who "cry about it". Only about one third the public wants to go further than Obama did in reducing surveillance from Bush's overreach. And outside the D.U. and a handful of sites like Reddit, there is really no support for changing the FISA court system.

When you've lost Jimmy Carter (who put in the FISA system), President Obama, Bill Clinton, Al Franken, Bill Maher, and other Democratic party and liberal luminaries, you've lost.

When nothing changes (because you are in the democratic minority of opinion on this) what are you going to do? Vote Republican?
Actually, I wouldn't put that past most of you.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[H2O Man]

2. Right.

I saw a "is it because he's black?" OP. A pathetic attempt to discredit thinking people. A tactic that has no place on DU.

Recommended.

[monmouth3]

5. That meme is getting old and tired. Thanks Cali, great post..n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

90. Thank you, H2O Man.

I bitterly resent being labelled a racist because I oppose unbridled surveillance of Americans. Or of anyone else without some semblance of probable cause, for that matter.

The history of the growth of surveillance is fairly long. I opposed it when J Edgar was doing it, I opposed it when Nixon was doing it, I opposed it when RayGun was doing it, I opposed it under both Bushes and Clinton. and I oppose it today. Unfortunately, it has continued its unholy metastasization under the current regime. Now I am suddenly a racist for opposing it because the current Guy in Charge and First Proponent is black.

Fuck that.

[tblue]

109. I'm as black as Obama and I hate this

policy. They gonna call me a racist too?

[sabrina 1]

137. Yes, they will, they will do anything, no matter how little sense it makes, if you dare to criticize

this President. Although in some cases I don't think it is the President they care about, there is something else going on wrt to the support for Bush's policies.

it's a despicable thing to do aside from how false it is, as it diminishes something as evil as racism when it is cavalierly and obviously diminished by using it as a political tool.

[tavalon]

182. You're clearly not black enough to understand

that this is just a modest encroachment upon your rights.

[sabrina 1]

133. A despicable tactic, and one which diminishes the tragedy and evil of actual racism, to use it as

nothing more than a mere political tool in such a cavalier way, to try to score some points on a relatively obscure political forum.

Sickening actually. No wonder we have few minority members here. This is the kind of thing that drives people away from DU.

[tavalon]

183. Yup

[SlimJimmy]

3. +1 exactly.

[premium]

4. That thread floored me,

but then I realized who the OP was and shook my head, thinking, typical.

[dkf]

31. I can guess.

[premium]

35. And you'd probably be right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023042330

[tblue]

113. DUMBEST. OP. EVER.

I could throw up. I really could. I'm half black, just like Obama, and I hate what he's doing. In fact, I have cut him a fair amount of slack because I'd really like to see a brotha succeed. But I have to be honest with myself and look beyond skin color. What sucks sucks no matter who does it. And right now, it's President Obama. IMHO.

[Raster]

219. Thank you! This is NOT ABOUT RACE...

...this is about right and wrong.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. The same lot cast the same accusation at LGBT people for opposing bigotry toward

us. For not agreeing with Obama and McClurkin that we should have no equality, we were called racists.

[demmiblue]

8. GDP on DU2 was horrible toward our LGBT community (not LGBT myself, but ally).

Shoot, several weeks ago we had a handful of Farrakhan apologists here. And I am not talking about newcomers.

[xchrom]

16. +2

[Jamastiene]

65. + a zillion

[Maven]

205. YUP

They are trolls and have been trolling with impunity for years on this board.

[LittleBlue]

7. Only a fool or transparent liar would suggest otherwise

It's offensive to even suggest such a thing.

[pintobean]

9. Or, a transparent fool

trying to be offensive with lies.

K&R

[Savannahmann]

10. I could not agree more.

It is physically impossible to agree with what you've said more than I do. Rec absolutely.

[Whisp]

11. It definitely is

for some on the 'right' side. Racism is not dead and I also can't say that no democrat is ever a racist either.

but I don't think that's the reason so many smear the President. It's mostly because he is Not like a Bush nor like Clinton and is getting some stuff done, against all odds. He is not playing their way.

Does it make any sense at all that Obama is supposed to be some corporate stooge wall street loving Koch enabler back stabbing asshole 'worse than Bush' and he has such opposition from all sides?

Either he fighting them or he's on their team. Can't have both.

The orchestration is playing loud and clear for some of us who have heard this symphony how many times over these years. Scandal and scandal after smear after smear, he is still standing and standing proud.

[Bjorn Against]

21. The US government has been filled with corruption for years, this is not about Obama

Many of us have been opposing government surveillance for years, it has been going on long before Obama or even Bush. The FBI tapped the phones of Martin Luther King, government surveillance is not a new thing but it is as dangerous as ever before. Those on both sides of the issue who are pretending this is about Obama are wrong, this is about a government sold out to corporate interests that has been infringing on its citizen's basic rights for years. The only thing this has to do with racism is the fact that the programs are still run by the same sorts of racist assholes who tapped Martin Luther King's phones.

[sabrina 1]

141. Thank you, one of the most despicable uses of an issue that has caused so much suffering for

so many human beings, diminishing it to merely a tool to be used for political purposes. Makes you wonder why any 'democrat' would try such a tactic?

[DevonRex]

48. But I must say my tea party relatives all think NSA and IRS will target them.

And it's no coincidence about the IRS thing happening first. That was a huge dog whistle. And republicans like sensenbrenner and Cruz are whipping them up about NSA, too. This is coordinated. Boehner will be toast. So will Graham. This is not just racism against African Americans. Include Hispanics. They want McCain's little group out. They want a very few Cuban Americans IN. Note how Rubio is killing immigration reform by excluding LGBTs. It's deliberate. Trying to act inclusive by being exclusive. You see, Cubans are OK but nobody else. Especially not LGBTs.

Democrats can't stand for that and I hope to god they won't.

[Bluenorthwest]

172. I don't think centrists have any standing to exploit LGBT rights please note that

Lahey removed the protections for us by request from DiFi and Durbin AND that centrists on DU instantly defended that and demanded that those being treated to injustice cheer for that injustice.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014489410

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein cited Graham’s comments, then, saying of Leahy’s amendment, “I think this sounds like the fairest approach, but here’s the problem … we know this is going to blow the agreement apart. I don’t want to blow this bill apart.”

She cited the fact that the Supreme Court could strike down the Defense of Marriage Act provision that prevents same-sex couples from having equal immigration rights in coming months. She also noted the a bill she is sponsoring to repeal DOMA is holding in the Senate, concluding, “I would just implore to hold up on this amendment at this time.”

Sen. Jeff Flake, another Republican in the Gang of Eight, said, “It certainly would mean this bill would not move forward.”

Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democratic member of the Gang of Eight, then spoke up, praising Leahy’s leadership, but concluding, “I believe that this is the wrong moment, this is the wrong bill.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer went last of the four members of the Gang of Eight on the committee, saying, “This is one of the most excruciating decisions I have had to make in my [time] in Congress. … Not to do this is rank discrimination.”

He then said, however, of opponents of inclusion, “They’ve made it perfectly clear that if this provision is included … they will abandon [the bill.] … If we make the effort to add it to this bill, they will walk away. … The result: no equality, no immigration bill, everyone loses. … Much as it pains me, I cannot support this amendment if it will bring down the bill.’
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/leahy-withdraws-amendment-to-include-gay-couples-in-immigrat


As usual, Democrats did the deed while blaming Republicans for their own votes. Schumer, his words so horrifically hollow and vicious, a sack of hate, as is DiFi who should be ashamed of her entire fucking life after this action. May Harvey haunt her mercilessly.

[DevonRex]

204. And i disagree with them completely. Telling LGBTs they have to wait

has to stop now. Enough is enough. Discrimination is discrimination. The Latino community supports civil rights. We, meaning plain old straight white Democrats, have got to stop allowing Republicans to chop up our coalition into Black, Latino, LGBT, Native American, Asian and vote on the issue of immigration reform, applying the basic principle of equality.

[cascadiance]

213. There's even more crap than LGBT rights in immigration bill. H-1B visas are killer for me...

As a tech worker who just became unemployed again at the beginning of this month, I'm continually offended by Schumer's constant "service" to his corporate cronies in helping expand H-1B Visa programs in every bill he seems to be able to do so, against the interest of American tech workers.

Make no mistake about it, the H-1B Visa program hurts everyone (both American workers and the H-1B Visa workers ultimately) to help corporate America continue to expand their boundaries in their race to the bottom in terms of getting cheap labor. H-1B has nothing to do with "immigration" and everything to do with exploitation of a cheap and temporary labor supply that is built upon modern day indentured servants.

Now, kind of like the OP, someone might call people like me xenophobic, etc. when nothing could be further from the truth. I LIKE working in a diverse work force, and moved to the west coast to be in one that was more diverse. I lived half of my younger life overseas. I also hate that many here that WANT to become citizens have to through so many hoops to do so and it often takes over 10 years now to get their citizenship. Not a coincidence in my book, as those in power would rather have temporary workers from abroad than have them become citizens, which is OPPOSITE the tradition of our American dream of people moving here to become a part of the American dream and be citizens. My best friend from college is still in a position I helped him get when he still only had a student visa many years ago, and now is the director of technical operations there and married to a woman he met on the job and a happy citizen. THAT is the kind of immigration that I want to see being encouraged. Not this crap of H-1B Visa that create so many artificial "rules" that they continually work around in their race to the bottom.

And Schumer's a big part of that problem year after year when this topic comes up. So quite frankly, even though a real and CLEAN immigration bill is long overdue and needs to be passed to help those that are undocumented fix their situation, I won't be crying if this very corrupt bill in its present form dies at this time. Maybe later if we can recapture the House in 2014, we can get a good bill that all of us can support.

[PSPS]

12. LOL. I haven't heard that one yet, thus it isn't on my top ten list of worshipers' excuses.

Maybe it's because I usually skip GD.

[Skittles]

72. here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3042330

[leftstreet]

13. DURec

[rhett o rick]

14. There is the possibility that when Obama got into office he was told that we

have some security programs that may be pushing the line on the law. But if he "fixes" these programs and there is a terrorist strike he will be subject to strong scrutiny. So let's just keep the programs and we need Clapper and Mueller to run them and everything will be fine.

[Enthusiast]

148. I think that would be putting the

best possible face on it. Not to say that it couldn't be true.

[tavalon]

185. There is also the possibility, posited by the late Bill Hicks

that any new President (black, white or green) is given an orientation in which the Zapruder film is played over and over. Following that, the new President is asked, "Any questions?"

[WillyT]

15. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

17. Some will say anything to avoid the issue

Fortunately we have DU to set the record straight.

[backscatter712]

18. I must have the OP of that thread on ignore...

Because it looks like I missed it.

[Autumn]

19. Thanks cali. The racist card is really a pathetic thing

to use on Democrats, when they have to pull that one out you know they have nothing. It's the fucking continuation of Bush' policies that some of us oppose, not his skin color.

Rec

[Puzzledtraveller]

164. It's a pathetic delfection 99% of the time

[yardwork]

20. Every administration comes up with strategies to keep the base in line. This one was obvious.

What, you think that the Obama administration is going to tolerate dissension in the ranks? No way, man. And the most obvious and convenient smokescreen is to accuse detractors of being racist. The fact that the president is constantly vilified by actual racists makes the strategy even more effective. The minute one begins to criticize the president, here comes somebody comparing one to Rush Limbaugh. That tends to shut people up. Mission accomplished.

I've just begun doggedly pointing out the campaign contributions from Wall Street, the insurance industry, and now we know IT security contractors to Obama. Pretty damning evidence that he is in bed with Big Money and Big Private Surveillance. And yes, I'd be just as upset about this if he were 100% Anglo instead of 50% Anglo.

[L0oniX]

196. What did he expect would be the result when he threw the professional left under the bus.

Now journalist are being attacked.

[yardwork]

198. He doesn't care.

He finishes out his term and then serves on corporate boards and gives highly paid speeches for the rest of his life.

[Maedhros]

22. If you tally all the posts made by the pro-surveillance group

there is almost no substance, only sneering and personal attacks:

"Libertarian trolls are infesting DU"

"Yeah, sorry, but I don't go for propaganda by a Libertarian, Bush-luvin, Ron Paul supportin', KKK defendin', closeted Republican who's parked his ass in Brazil behind security gates where he writes shit about the black man in the White House who he abhors."

"Greenwald is coming unhinged."

They are just not very convincing.

[MjolnirTime]

23. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[The Link]

24. What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

The OP is a thoughtful progressive voice on this forum.

[MjolnirTime]

25. about as Progressive as Ralph Nader.

[cali]

27. sorry, I'm not a Nader fan and my politics don't align with his on most issues

Now c'mon, have some guts. Are you calling me a racist, dear?

[MjolnirTime]

30. I have no idea if you're a racist. But you're definitely not a Democrat.

[cali]

41. then why insinuate that I am a racist? If you don't know that I am and

have no evidence that I am, insinuating that (more than insinuating actually) is a deplorable thing to do.

and yes, I am a Democrat and have been one all my voting life.

WTF is wrong with you?

[cali]

52. fail. gad. I post facts and evidence and you pull 1984 crap

as for your amateur psychologist bit, it's pathetic as are all your posts and guess what? most duers see right through the likes of YOU.

[MjolnirTime]

55. You mean most Old Elmers. Most DUers actually support our Party and President.

You guys can scream really loud.
But that doesn't make you the majority.

[cali]

59. first of all you're the one doing the screaming.

Secondly, do look at the number of recs this post has as compared to the horseshit one about how opposition to the surveillance policies of this President are based on his skin color.

Guess who DU is supporting? NOT your lame pov.

[MjolnirTime]

63. It's the same recs from the same people who always rec up your posts.

Do you think that isn't crystal clear after years of observation?

Teamwork should not always be rewarded.

[cali]

66. oh dear. now I see. you dwell in lala land and just make shit up.

[MjolnirTime]

68. I don't think you would care what I say if you believed that.

You feel compelled to respond because you are afraid I am making a point. Which you must then counteract.

[cali]

76. lol. you're in bizzarro land.

you do realize I could say precisely the same about your responses to me, right?

no, you probably don't.

but this has reached the stage of being funny.

[Logical]

92. LOL, you sound jealous. Funny. n-t

[theHandpuppet]

160. Well here's a rec you won't recognize

There are times when Cali's threads make me want to pull out my hair but this is one I'm giving a rec.

[Enthusiast]

149. Excellent, undeniably true point.

It's in the numbers.

[premium]

58. Well lookee here,

another internet psychic.



Fact is that you have no idea why cali posted this thread, my own opinion is that cali was just as outraged about that despicable thread as most of here are.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

51. Jury results

3-3, and the accusation of you not being a Democrat, and the implication of you being racist get to stay. And of course, the other thread that accuses everyone who likes the 4th Amendment of being racist gets to stand. Icing on the cake: one of the jurors thinks maybe you should "go the fuck away".

And yes, I'm the alerter.
---

I have no idea if you're a racist. But you're definitely not a Democrat.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3043063

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Implying other poster is a racist. Outright accusing poster of not being a Democrat.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Jun 18, 2013, 04:44 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Racist is a very over used term. Accusing someone of racism is pretty strong, and since the poster can't prove it, the accusation is out of line.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm seeing more and more cali related alerts. Maybe it's time for cali to go the fuck away.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Alerter is correct. Post is accusatory and inflammatory.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

[cali]

54. thank you. I didn't alert. I don't often.

and juror number 4, sweetie? take your own suggestion to me a step further. I'm sure you can figure out what that means.

[MjolnirTime]

60. nowadays, it's not so easy for a small clique to run roughshod over the rest of us by alerting

in concert.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

62. alerting in concert, huh?

I alerted on you all by myself, because you were saying contemptible things. Then I posted it publicly, here, right above you. Does it look like I'm colluding with someone in private, Dr. Einstein?

[Bobbie Jo]

108. You called it.

You have been officially shut down.

The AUTHORITARIANS have spoken.

[cali]

110. not even close to being accurate.

utter and complete bullshit.

[Bobbie Jo]

112. Yeah

This is decidedly different.

[tavalon]

189. I alert maybe once or twice a year

I don't alert in concert with anyone but you have behave despicably on this thread. Shame on you.

[michigandem58]

153. The post didn't say anyone was racist

and lol at juror 4. Lame alert.

[tavalon]

188. I alerted on the post too

Too bad I didn't make it on the jury.

[leveymg]

45. You have no idea what a Democrat is.

This debate goes back to 1947 when the Cold Warriors forced the Progressives out or into a defensive silence for about three decades.

Welcome to what the Democratic Party today is all about. Diversity. DU reflects that. If you don't like that, you are welcome to leave.

[backscatter712]

84. MjolnirTime, this exchange shows you're not the kind of person I'd defile myself by associating with

Another piece of fungus for the Ignore list.

*PLONK*

[Hissyspit]

150. Sorry you lost the argument and had to resort to ridiculousness.

Your post should've been hidden and it most certainly would have been on DU2.

[xchrom]

42. I don't often agree w/ Cali - but that's a lie

& a ridiculous smear.

[Raster]

218. we're all coming out of the closet on this one. DITTO!

And I am sick and tired of the "you're not a real Democrat" bullshit.

[tavalon]

187. Fuck, isn't there a Godwin for this sort of flame baiting?

Nader was 13 years ago. Get the fuck over it already. And by the way, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Epic fail.

[Egalitarian Thug]

140. That (s)he read someone else quote Shakespeare and thought it made them sound intellectual.

[cali]

26. really? are you calling me a racist? answer yes or no.

of course if you answer yes, your post will be hidden and if you answer no, you'll be lying.

which is why you won't respond.

and of course you didn't respond to the actual facts I posted.

[MjolnirTime]

28. you built the straw man. now you can dance with him.

[Demit]

33. No, you made the accusation. Now you can back it up.

Why isn't cali a Democrat?

[cali]

36. oh no I didn't. YOU absolutely insinuated that I was a racist. It's vile and totally contemptible

but it ain't a strawman.

The quotation "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." comes from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, scene II, where it is spoken by Queen Gertrude, Hamlet's mother. The phrase has come to mean that one can "insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying."[1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man&quot , and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

I post facts and evidence. You post baseless slurs and slimily insinuate false accusations.

[MjolnirTime]

50. you insinuated that all those who defend the President are calling the rest of you racists

You made the blanket implication. And wait for the reaction.

Just like a drama queen does.

[cali]

57. uh, grab a clue, little pumpkin.

there's a thread up that says quite clearly that dems who criticize the President over surveillance are doing so because he's black.

your critical thinking skills- such as they are- need a great deal of work.

you also should do something about your unpleasant little habit of prevaricating. I

[sabrina 1]

134. Consider me a drama queen also. I have not read that thread, I read the headline which was enough.

I wondered why it was not alerted on and hidden. Although better to leave it for all to see, to see how low people will go to try to defend the indefensible..

It is shameful to diminish an issue as serious as racism by stooping so low as to grab it as a tool to use for political purposes. I've seen some low tactics here over the years, that is one of the lowest and a down right insult to those who have suffered as a result of the evils of racism for so very long.

It's enough to make people leave this forum. As far as accusing other DUers, that was what I assumed from the headline. To even suggest that sincere people truly concerned about their country are really just upset because 'he's Black' is one of the lowest things i've seen on this forum since 2004.

[H2O Man]

71. Don't waste any

more time. The "problem" (and its "team work&quot have been exposed.-

[cali]

78. you are so right.

at least I went from being pissed to cracking up.

[premium]

75. You can't even answer cali's question honestly,

what's that make you?

[Union Scribe]

127. Have the guts to just say what you mean. nt

[Logical]

93. LOL, "10 posts hidden in 90 days", you seems to have an anger problem! n-t

[premium]

97. Wow.

Surprised that they're still around.

[Logical]

99. Me too. I thought 5 was the breaking point. n-t

[MNBrewer]

118. 5.03% of posts hidden? That's 1 in 20! Holy MOLY!

[L0oniX]

197. Plus 2 more just from this thread ...not yet added.

[rhett o rick]

214. How did he get two posts hidden in the same thread? nm

[L0oniX]

221. He's a quick one ain't he.

[treestar]

156. It's very right wing to refuse to discuss it

And pretend to be a victim. Oh you called me a racist! Oh noes! That's what they do. They won't even consider it and pretend being asked to consider it is way worse than being the victim of actual racism.

[cali]

168. that's ridiculous. I'm more than willing to discuss racism

I've certainly done so here on numerous occasions. I am not willing to countenance broad smears and clear statements to ALL opposition of the President's policies, is rooted in racism



your post make wholly unsubstantiated claims. nice smears.

[treestar]

176. Some of it may be

The expectations of many seem so high that it's probably a set up so the black man must fail, in their minds. The disdain is just over the top at times. I have to wonder if it's black executive syndrome. The black man must do five times as much to get a fifth the credit.

[tavalon]

186. The MjolnirTime doth think too little, methinks.

[iamthebandfanman]

203. Nobody cares what you think

you've only been here since 2011.

Ohhh yeah. Screw racism .. im brining in the new hip thing to be ...

joinagist

suck it!

[sibelian]

210. No, Mjolnir.

Please don't be an attention sink.

[arcane1]

29. Correct. The corollary: one is not an apologist for feeling skeptical about Snowden's claims

I'm still not backing anyone until I feel I have a solid grasp of WTF is going on, complete with evidence

[dkf]

34. The point is you are not supposed to have evidence...it's secret.

If you support not knowing anything which to judge the program then you can side with the admin.

You need blind trust and suspension of disbelief or you are a racist.

[arcane1]

117. " You need blind trust and suspension of disbelief or you are a racist."

That's it, right there.

[cali]

39. I'll buy that.

[kiva]

32. It doesn't matter what you say,

because if one stops believing that everyone who criticizes the president's policies is racist, or republican, or a moran...then, damn, maybe, just maybe, one has to consider that the critics are right...which would cause much cognitive dissonance and a burning of swimsuit pictures.

[TomClash]

37. Good post

For a racist!

[blkmusclmachine]

40. Identity Politics, a favorite trope for the sock puppets, apologists, and cheerleaders.

Attack the messenger, to shut down discussion of this bad law. That's why they're here.

[Thinkingabout]

43. Maybe Obama is working with eyes wide open, has listened when the surveillance program was explained

and understands the program is not the same program which resides in some post here. I also had problems with the original program working without oversight, this has changed. Along with this change those objections I had is now solved. A briefing was held last week and 47 Senators attended, there are some facts which may not be appropriate for all ears and eyes.

[Earth_First]

44. I suspect my response on that thread will not jury as well as the OP did...

Oh well.

[cali]

46. yeah? well I understand just how you feel. I have nothing but contempt

for those using that slimy tactic. And that is all they deserve.

[Earth_First]

49. It's really gotten out of hand...

Entirely out of hand.

Next to the discussion that Alan Grayson had on the NSA leak and the DU'ers who took to complete disrespect, now this.

The last *week* has had probably two of the lowest points in the history of the website.

[Little Star]

56. +1

[backscatter712]

89. If it's hidden, wear it on your Transparency page with pride!

There is no shame in calling out these sons-of-bitches and telling them what you really think.

They don't deserve civility. They're fucking scum.

[KittyWampus]

53. New tactic? I see ONE opening post alleging it's because Obama is black. One.

[cali]

61. Nope it's that op and the accusation has been made within other threads

more than a few times over the past few days. Not to mention that there are plenty of people within that thread endorsing what the op wrote.

[Skittles]

74. look how many DUers agreed

[AnotherMcIntosh]

120. x2

[DonCoquixote]

67. This latino agress with you

Look, even as Obama's legacy fades by the day, I still wept with tears when he became president. I am STILL angry at the way Hillary and her Hubby made a play for the older white guy vote, trashing us in the bargain "I got mugged" Bill, really?. Hell, if it was not for the fact I know the GOP is horrible, I would sit home in 2016, let Hillary fade out..I won;t, but I will not deny that part of me wants to.

That being said, this is a crime against everything we voted for. We did not vote for a continuation of either Bill Clinton or W's slide to the right!

[Skittles]

69. I'm absolutely SICK of them

they're making a mockery of this board

[alp227]

70. Oh my, did a right wing straw man come true?

Right wingers keep claiming the left characterizes any criticism of Obama as racially motivated. Well, some here just LOVE feeding the trolls, I suppose. I haven't seen such parts because I haven't had time to debate the authoritarians or read their pathetic non arguments.

(on edit) WOW http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023042330

[nradisic]

73. damn right...

Obama is not a Progressive. Many of us voted for him, twice and shit like this NSA spying crap is beyond enraging and disappointing to many of us Progressives. If that upsets anyone, too fucking bad.

[Puglover]

79. You know why I like you Cali?

Because I can't predict you. I agree with this OP 1000 percent. This race baiting bullshite has no place on DU. A few try it whenever they get a chance. And it's disgusting every time it's deployed.

[cali]

80. thanks. that made me laugh

I do try and take each issue as a discrete one while at the same time fitting it into a context and relating it to history and my base of knowledge. I guess that does make me unpredictable at times.

[L0oniX]

231. Because Cali tends to piss off asscarrots?

[cali]

82. honestly? I don't think we're much better when we use that kind of language.

I've called people apologists too, and I don't think it's helpful. I think calling people mold and talk of fungicide is even worse.

[backscatter712]

86. Fair enough, but I'm sick of this fascist crap.

I'm sick of the constant drumbeat for a surveillance state, and I'm thoroughly disgusted by the witch-hunting and shit-smearing and character-assassination by these fuckers that started the instant the Snowden story broke.

If I had admin privileges here, I'd ban every one of them for spewing right-wing and authoritarian views. It's not a violation of their First Amendment rights to tell them to take their shit elsewhere, like the Cave.

I'll say it again. They do not belong here.

I have no illusions about being able to persuade them or have a civil discussion with them - most of them are paid propagandists or Conservative Cave griefers, who are unpersuadable. I'm just for calling them what they are, and campaigning for a purge.

[reusrename]

111. I think it's easy to bring them to Snowden's side.

Just explain to them that he's secretly working with Obama to save the unicorns, 11-dimensional chess and all that.

[H2O Man]

87. "They're somewhat like

the lowest of forms of plant and animal life. Even at their highest point of vitality there is not much life in them; on the other hand, they don't die."
-- Senator Eugene McCarthy on republicans

[liberal_at_heart]

85. I didn't give a crap when the republicans called me anti-American or communist. Why would I care

if democrats call me racist? I don't give a shit what people think about me. I will always question the government when they do not represent the people.

[Babel_17]

88. The administration inherited an apparatus and a state of war

It's not fair in some sense that President Obama is taking the heat for them but the buck does stop with him.

I have compassion for him as I can imagine the shitstorm that would be unleashed were the big rock they've been existing under get nudged aside.

But he did vigorously pursue the position of President.

And we Democrats will be Democrats. And that's not racist.

[JaneyVee]

91. Obama switched his position on FISA in July 2008 while still Senator and explained why.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?_r=0

[cali]

94. No he doesn't. Not one quote. not one word. that article is about the disappointment

and backlash from supporters over his switch. Neither Obama or any spokesman gives any reason whatsoever in that article for why he did so.

[JaneyVee]

96. Oh, didn't mean in that article he explains, he explained his switch around July 2008 and

recently on Charlie Rose. The article was just a point of reference, a date for the OP who stated their reason for voting for him was because he was against this. He switched positions quite publicly 4 months before the election.

[stupidicus]

95. that "thought" is by far the most stupid thing I've read here on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3042330

and it reminds me of the line some/many rightwingnuts have been using every since Jimmy Carter pointed out that the worst of the animus coming from the right is based in racism. Those I've dealt with have since been claiming that ALL oppositition to BHO is based on racism, "according to the dems".

[La Lioness Priyanka]

98. race is one of the main reasons I am against it

this sort of surveillance does not work out well for brown people.

jon olivers monologue on this on the daily show was pretty spot on.

[ProSense]

100. Frankly,

"So just because those of you backing the President on this aren't fucking informed as to the history of the issues, doesn't mean others of us are equally ill informed. "

...anyone who takes the claim that the FISA amendments legalized Bush's illegal spying doesn't know what they're talking about.

There were three programs under Bush: 1) Illegal eavesdropping 2) Illegal metadata collection and 3) the 2007 program launched after he got caught, which is the one that increased oversight and led to the FISA fix. The media (and some of the writeups about the programs) have been conflating all these. The follwoing is reposted from here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

Secret to Prism program: Even bigger data seizure
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/secret-prism-success-even-bigger-data-seizure

The entire article is framed to create the impression that warrantless wiretapping is legal, and that Obama approves of it.

The article mentions the Protect America Act, quotes Obama opposing it, and then creates the impression he embraced it when he became President.

From the article:

The Bush administration shut down its warrantless wiretapping program in 2007 but endorsed a new law, the Protect America Act, which allowed the wiretapping to continue with changes: The NSA generally would have to explain its techniques and targets to a secret court in Washington, but individual warrants would not be required.

Congress approved it, with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in the midst of a campaign for president, voting against it.

"This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide," Obama said in a speech two days before that vote. "I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom."

<...>

Years after decrying Bush for it, Obama said Americans did have to make tough choices in the name of safety.

There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the PAA with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.

While the article mentions that Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), there is no mention of the fact that the Act expired in early 2008.

Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 60–28 (record vote number 309).[12] On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836).[12] On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history

The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.”[38] The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Protect_America_Act_of_2007

Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html

It's illegal to collect this information on Americans.

Here is information on the FISA law including the 2008 amendments.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008

Specifically, the Act:[19]

• Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.
  
  
• Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records (it requires them to keep the records for a period of 10 years).
  
  
• Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists". Immunity is given by a certification process, which can be overturned by a court on specific grounds.[20]
  
  
• Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance if the target is reasonably believed to be outside the country.[20]
  
  
• Increased the time for warrantless surveillance from 48 hours to 7 days, if the FISA court is notified and receives an application, specific officials sign the emergency notification, and relates to an American located outside of the United States with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power. After 7 days, if the court denies or does not review the application, the information obtained cannot be offered as evidence. If the United States Attorney General believes the information shows threat of death or bodily harm, they can try to offer the information as evidence in future proceedings.[21]
  
  
• Permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to jointly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance, for one-year periods, targeted at a foreigner who is abroad. This provision will sunset on December 31, 2012.
  
  
• Requires FISA court permission to target wiretaps at Americans who are overseas.
  
  
• Requires government agencies to cease warranted surveillance of a targeted American who is abroad if said person enters the United States. (However, said surveillance may resume if it is reasonably believed that the person has left the States.)
  
  
• Prohibits targeting a foreigner to eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval. [22]
  
  
• Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
  
  
• Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
  
  
• Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.
  
  
• Requires the Inspectors General of all intelligence agencies involved in the President's Surveillance Program to "complete a comprehensive review" and report within one year

Effects

• The provisions of the Act granting immunity to the complicit telecoms create a roadblock for a number of lawsuits intended to expose and thwart the alleged abuses of power and illegal activities of the federal government since and before the September 11 attacks.[citation needed]
  
  
• Allows the government to conduct surveillance of "a U.S. person located outside of the U.S. with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power" for up to one week (168 hours) without a warrant, increased from the previous 48 hours, as long as the FISA court is notified at the time such surveillance begins, and an application as usually required for surveillance authorization is submitted by the government to FISA within those 168 hours[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008#Provisions

[humbled_opinion]

107. I folllow everything you stated....

However, he is President now, has been President for 4 years and these are his programs in place now, they may fit the definition of legal when measured against what Bush did but are you actually in support of the current programs? Do you believe that they are transparent? (would we even be aware if it wasn't for Edward Snowden)? Do you believe the oversight is enough? In other words do you trust a future President Sarah Palin to manage the very same programs even though you will personally feel that she would abuse the data collected.....

The reason I want to hold the President accountable is for that very purpose....Never let a future republican be able to claim that the abuse of liberty is thanks to Democratic enacted and managed programs..

Many smarter than me have reviewed these programs in their existing form and think they are unconstitutional, lack the correct oversight, are not transparent and frankly are dangerous to Democracy and Liberty.

[Vanje]

209. /\ I'd like to see DU's NSA Fanclub answer these points. /\

[MotherPetrie]

101. K&R

[Demo_Chris]

102. rec. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. knr

[JustAnotherGen]

104. No it's not because he is black

But it is an alignment (point of agreement?) with those on the right.

The folks on the Right? The IndieTeaPublicans DO have rage that he is black and for them - it's an element.

You can't tell me from their Birther bullshit to Michelle is an Angry Black Woman meme that 98% of the bullshit they have spewed since he earned the nomination is not based on race when it comes from an IndieTeaPublican Asshole.

So I would say the average DUer it's not race based - although we do have some extremely bigoted folks here. Let's not gild that lily.

It's not race based from the Left. It's just more of the same from the right.

And yes - its possible to be against Keystone and the smothering of SS but still be snot about blacks, Asians, etc etc. If PMs amongs black DUer's could talk. . .

[cali]

106. I think that's an accurate take. of course there's a lot of evidence that opposition to Obama

from the right has an enormous component of racism.

I have not seen any evidence that that holds true of democrats- which is not to say that some democrats and some duers aren't racist.

[JustAnotherGen]

115. From that great sage prolific show I love

The Boondocks:

GIN RUMMY: I always say the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

RILEY FREEMAN: What?

GIN RUMMY: Simply because you don't have evidence that something does exist does not mean you have evidence of something that doesn't exist.

It was a play on things Bush and Rumsfeld said. Get it? "Rummy". And his buddy Wuncler the third is a parody of Bush. Right Down to his grandfather (voiced by Ed Asner) saying- in 30 years he'll be the President and he will still be a f*cking idiot.

And that's another thing in the mix.

I'm not saying those on the left did NOT care when Bush/Cheney/Rummy did it . . .because they did! But it's almost like we don't know what to believe anymore. When Charlie Murphy voicing the Bush Parody and Samuel Jackson voicing Rummy were "telling the joke" nine years ago. . .

God damn it cali - we've had enough! The joke is over now. It's not funny anymore. And now we have a President who isn't an effing idiot. That might actually be a good thing . . .

[graham4anything]

145. I remember the primaries and the 2008 whisper hush hush campaign a certain 3rd person running

in the democratic primary, and thank God that person is forever now repudiated and will never grace the
national stage again.

The one who used a very vocal and loud whisper campaign of being the last
great white male hope in the democratic party in desperation when it was evident that the only winners in 2008 and 2012 and 2016 and 2020 would be Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Let's not rewrite history and say there is no evidence of that.

Especially in that the democratic party also is the party of George Wallace and David Duke, the
same type people that Rand and Ron Paul are, with the same end goals

and there are indeed some here who have continued to extall the virtues of the Rand/RonPaulfamily inc. even though it
is a known fact that Ron Paul's literature then and their mindset always is what it is, and always was and will be.

The John Birch Society.

Remember, not all republicans are racists, same is true the opposite way.

While 100% of every single teapartyrepublican in office has views akin to racists, that does not mean all republican people

The hyperbole sometimes is not the reality.

Without the other side, the 3 greatest presidents prior to President Obama all would not have passed major legislation
(Lincoln, LBJ and FDR).


6 days til the most important political event in May-June 2013 takes place. Markey must beat Gomez.
I am sure there is not one person on DU that wishes otherwise.
United we stand, divided we fall.

[JustAnotherGen]

171. I think there is a difference

Between racism and bigotry.


There is a component of bigotry amongst SOME democrats where I've finally come to understand what my Caucasian mother means when she says, "Lily White Liberal". Yet another lily that we don't want to gild.


I'm going to start an OP in the African American forum because I don't want to hijack your thread - but I DO think there is a little bit of 'smug' in my attitude on this issue. Kind of like - oh wait - we've been voting while black in this country for 50 years, driving, while black, shopping while black, walking while black - and getting rolled by the flick while black in America - and now that is EVERYONE being guilty until proven innocent - NOW it's a big deal.

[Number23]

119. "If PMs amongs black DUer's could talk..." Girrrrl,

Speaking of which...

[DeSwiss]

105. ''No, one is not a racist merely for opposing this administration on surveillance policy.''

Exactly.


DeSwiss

K&R

[scarletwoman]

114. Thank you, Cali. Your OP is right on.

I know we haven't always been sympatico on some issues, but over the years I've come to appreciate you more and more, and will always respect you.

[treestar]

116. No one deserves to be called "apologist" for merely

pointing to the fact the law is as it is.

You can dish it out but not take it, eh?

[Hydra]

123. And you keep pretending the law is being followed and is actually legitimate

The leaked FISA Warrant covers ALL daily data from the US to foreign locations AND all domestic to domestic calls. They DID not and CANNOT show probable cause for everyone in the US, which means it violates the 4th Amendment.

These programs are covered in more than one level of secrecy. If they were legal and proper, they'd be in the open and used casually, like tapping a criminal's phone line when the DA presents the Judge with probable cause. Why aren't they doing it here? And don't use the excuse that it's because the terrorists would have an easier time evading it. They already know they're being hunted by us.

[treestar]

152. You keep pretending there are no courts

If you think a law is not legitimate it can be challenged in court or there can be a move to repeal it.

[cali]

155. It is being challenged. And for the hundredth time, just because something is legal doesn't

mean it's not abhorrent.

[treestar]

158. For the hundredth time

If you personally think something abhorrent that does not mean it is unconstitutional. The courts are the branch that balances out Congress and Presidents who might pass something unconstitutional.

When people here argue that it is for now legal, they are responding to some idiotic rant about how evil the government is for using or following the law as it is today. They are simply pointing out it was a duly passed law and that the courts or repeal are the remedy. Ranter usually ignores that and goes back into victim mode.

[Bluenorthwest]

170. Context for readers! A post by treestar from her rant 'gays have plenty of rights'

treestar (40,648 posts)
457. There is nothing bigoted about the fact

There there is only one right you do not have. And people who give no credit to Obama for what he did already while making as if it is the only issue that matters are just wrong. There's always going to be some new demand. I am a woman and we don't have all our rights all the time, or some are threatened, but this is the US where we can talk about it, protest and I don't go around saying I have no rights. Not when looking at women in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for instance.

If I am a bigot for caring about other issues, then fine. I don't think gay marriage is the only civil rights issue there is. Or the only issue that matters. And there is free speech. And the rest of the bill of rights. You should be ashamed for not caring about anyone or anything else.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2952192

A pack of lies and bigotry, spewed with impunity because other straight folk and other 'moderates' and other 'Obama ardents' all that sort of bullshit to continue in their name and in the name of the President.

[treestar]

175. This thread is not about gay rights

So why are you bringing it up?

You ought to delete that.

[tavalon]

193. It's abhorent and unconstitutional

Demoralizing to the max as well. I don't give a flying fuck what color Obama is. I care that he is a Constitutional Scholar and is still able to show his face and attempt to justify this.

[westerebus]

165. That was already tried.

The court threw it out because the program was classified as secret and the defendant was denied access to information on the grounds that's it's a classified program.

Why not try to find out who sits on the FISA court under the FOIA? You can't because it's classified.

Try to FOIA your email records from the NSA? You can't because it's classified.

Request a FOIA from DHS on what records they have of your cell phone carrier, not the calls just the name of your carrier? You can't because it's classified.

There are courts that will take your case and upon the hearing, you will be told you have no standing because you can't prove harm was done to you personally because the information you need is classified. Case dismissed.

When the government does not trust its Citizens, the Citizens should not trust the government.

[treestar]

174. Appeal that to the courts

Via the FOIA.

[Hydra]

201. It couldn't be done until Snowden leaked the program

That's the whole problem here- every time someone tries to challenge what the NSA is doing, Obama and Holder invoke various national security/state secrets protections and the people suing are told they are out of luck, they have no standing if they can't prove the program exists and has damaged them.

You keep saying this is legal, but they are fighting tooth and nail to keep this out of the courts. What does that tell you?

[westerebus]

229. Well that makes two of us who've tried.

There is a point where when the facts are reasonably explained and the opinion does not change, all that's left to do is to wish them well in their future endeavors.

[Hydra]

232. I know a lot of people have posted resonable points to this poster's points

For years, in fact. I post facts to counter the way they muddy the waters so that less informed people aren't swayed towards things that are dangerous to our democracy.

While the truth really needs no advocate, the people who don't know these things DO, and they are worth the trouble.

[westerebus]

235. Around here the truth * requires * an advocate.

That's just my cynical nature.

[Union Scribe]

128. Do you honestly think the words "apologist" and "racist"

are equal in impact? Apologist is simply a defender of something. It is not even an insult.

[treestar]

154. Oh please it is meant as an insult here

It is meant to say defending the indefensible. And merely questioning the assertions of some people makes you an "apologist." I haven't even gotten around to "defending" this law. Merely questioning some people causes them to go nuclear and accuse you of everything under the sun, usually being "for" some straw man that is the worst thing they can imagine.

Over and over again I have pointed out that the courts will decide if a law is unconstitutional, only to be called apologist and subject to ranting that about amounts to demands that we live in heaven and everything be perfect from the start. That there be no unconstitutional laws passed ("unconstitutional" being defined solely by the demander) and if they are the solution is to have the President just not pay attention to them, leaving them on the books forever for some Republican President to enforce. For this I am apparently an "apologist" for a Kremlin like police state that exists only in their imaginations.

[Hissyspit]

151. Um...

"It" not the same.

[suffragette]

121. K&R

[ReRe]

124. K&R

I just ran into the race card on another thread and could not believe my eyes. I cannot believe these are actually Democrats using the race card here on DU. I have never been so disgusted since I joined up or in the 10 years before when I lurked and read. I am not going to allow them to steal my time anymore.

I have never used the Ignore button before, but I feel I have no alternative after this asinine allegation. Thanks, Cali for your quick OP to nip this CRAP in the bud. Out of here...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

125. It's a rather pathetic attempt to silence criticism of Obama's policies.

[Scootaloo]

126. So why was it not a huge scandal under Bush?

Yes, I know those of us on the left (or what passes for "the left" on DU these days, I guess) were pretty upset by it... But why wasn't it on the news? Why were there no congressional hearings? Why did the nation not go into total apoplexy over it then?

Then you've got to ask, would the same media have thrown a snitfit if Kerry had walked into the oval office with this program hanging overhead (as he should have done, but I digress)? That's where it gets murky. The media is clearly holding a double standard here, but whether it's a race double standard or a politics double standard is hard to suss out.

[BlueCheese]

130. I remember it was a big deal.

Big enough that Congress felt they had to act-- by making the whole program legal and giving the telecoms retroactive immunity.

[Scootaloo]

131. That sounds more like "endorsement" than "scandal"

I remember the media being full of "if you have nothing to hide, why worry?"

[BlueCheese]

132. I suppose Congress endorsed it.

But it was a big deal in the news, enough that Congress decided it couldn't ignore it.

Then again, Congress isn't likely to do anything this time, either. Boehner and McConnell support these kinds of policies, as do Feinstein and Rogers, the chairs of the Intelligence Committees. Pelosi and Reid are too partisan to oppose a Democratic president. So there will be a few hearings, but very little will happen barring some major new discovery or unprecedented public reaction.

[tavalon]

194. Yeah, that one hurt

[cali]

146. It was a huge scandal under bush. for fuck's sake, just google it.

[treestar]

177. This ^^^^^^

And would the leaks have been done? Eddie said he was "disappointed" in the President. Who would have been "disappointed" in Kerry, having expected so much from him? People expect Obama to be the Messiah, and then when we defend him as not having those powers, they sneer about how the President has so much power, Congress or previous Presidents are all swept away.

[Maven]

208. It WAS

As cali said, google "bush fisa violations scandal" or similar. People have such short memories.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

129. Thank you for speaking up so clearly and forcefully.

[CokeMachine]

135. Thank you!! +1000 nt

[felix_numinous]

136. President Obama asked us

to hold his feet over the fire--which is what people are doing. There is plenty of real racism going on, and know President Obama can distinguish between it and a debate about policy.

[sabrina 1]

138. You are correct, thanks for posting this, I thought about doing so, then considered the sources

and chose to ignore them. All this is is a distraction, but what a despicable way to try to do it.

And just so we don't get completely distracted, I oppose strenuously this massive surveillance program.

[HooptieWagon]

139. Race didn't stop majority of voters from electing Obama twice.

So now that he's taking heat for establishing a surveillence state, its patently ridiculous to claim racism is the reason people are opposed to being spied on. I guess its proof the apologists are scraping the bottom of the barrell in trying to justify mass surveillence.

[nikto]

142. Someday, we will have a RW GOP Prez with these powers that Obama has maintained so rigorously...

And you are going to hate it.

[Uncle Joe]

143. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[Generic Other]

144. I have had many disagreements with you over the years, Cali

This is not one of those times.

Reading through this thread and the other one by Uzair, I am even more disgusted than ever.

Bush lied to us for 8 years. We hated it. Most of us didn't think Obama planned to do the same. I voted for him once and felt inspired by his speeches. I didn't realize then that they were just words uttered without conviction. I believed he might turn things around. I voted for him again last November. Only this time, I had to set the bar so low with the "he couldn't be as bad as Romney" argument that I was forced to do the limbo to get in the voting booth.

My anger has been at a slow steady simmer for some time.

Why?

1) Because Obama cared more about B of A and Goldman Sachs than he did about ordinary Americans; 2) Because he would not lift a finger to fight for real health reform, instead actually making things worse, halting real meaningful progress on this issue in our lifetimes; 3) Because we are still at war and still keeping people without trial in Guantanamo; 4) Because his fracking record on the environment sucks. 5) And most important to me his willingness to back the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, TSA scanners, total surveillance of citizens and the brutalizing of peaceful protestors which occurred in this country without a word in defense of their rights from our president although he was quick to condemn the Egyptians for teargassing their protesters.

So clearly, I have been steaming mad for some time. Often, I typed out posts and deleted them rather than state my opinion and be pounced on by the DU-UDAC (DU-UnDemocratic Activities Committee). For four years the McCarthyites on DU acted like the rest of us were more evil than Cheney's pig heart shouting at us how we needed to give Obama a chance to do something right. Or worse we just didn't get the three-dimensional chess moves he was making. Well the clock is running down. And nothing has changed.

Yet no matter how often we tell them that some things do matter, that we fear Obama is just another cynical politician willing to say anything to win election, they rush to defend him by forming a mob to attack us. 5 years. The pattern is clear.

Obama is a premature lame duck having shot himself in the foot so many times over the last few years as to constitute a threat to the continued survival of our party after he leaves office. Hopefully, most voters won't have noticed. Because I don't see things getting better in the next few years. Just more disappointment. And more blame thrown my way. I am starting to feel like an abused spouse.

And now there are those who want to crawl out from behind some dumpster to call me a racist to shut me up? Good luck with that.

Thank you, Cali for posting a rebuttal to that crap. And for those who high fived and danced a jig with Uzair, enjoy your ugly smears on the rest of us. Because Obama probably could have changed my opinion of him if it hadn't been for your efforts to "help" him.

[suffragette]

190. GO, you've eloquently described the situation and I feel the same way

I would add his agreement with Austerity and 'restructuring' policies to the list.
Wish I could recommend a post becaus I would definitely recommend this one!

[steve2470]

147. Completely agree with you, Cali

As I mentioned elsewhere earlier, you CAN be a loyal Democrat and oppose overly broad surveillance, which is exactly what is happening right now. The racism claim, as you demolished, is simply absurd.

[dsc]

157. this is what happens when you let one group have this done to them

as it was to gays. This should have been stopped right at the first instance of this non sense.

[Bluenorthwest]

166. You are correct.

nt

[sibelian]

207. I entirely agree. nt

[cantbeserious]

159. Agree With The OP - The 11-Dimensional Chess Defense Has Grown Tiresome At Best

eom

[Nanjing to Seoul]

161. Cali, sweetie. . .let me explain it simply. Bush did the same thing and he's a Republican, so it's

bad.

Obama is now doing it, but he's a Democrat, so it's good and acceptable. Racism isn't it. Political opportunism is. The 4th amendment is quaint, but we've pretty much allowed the PTB to destroy it in the name of law enforcement, safety, security and whatever else we can think of.

The drug war started the destruction, the terror war will put the 4th amendment in an unmarked grave. It's done.

So it isn't racism if you disagree. . .it's party disloyalty. Obama can do no wrong because he is a Democrat. We would be up in arms if the Republicans did this, which they did and which we did.

Besides, if Bat shit Bachmann, Darth Cheney and Dipshit Graham are your supporters (like they are of this policy), you don't belong on DU. IF you support what those people support, Free Republic shithole is that way. ------------------>.

Cali, I agree with you completely. You is a collective you, not you personally.

[demmiblue]

162. Two of them are by the same poster, Uzair:

Is it because he's black?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3042330


I trust President Obama
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023021711

[Puzzledtraveller]

163. k&r

[SkyDaddy7]

167. BULLSH*T!

Just sayin...Trying to play the VICTIM CARD is just as bad...You sound like a Christian Republican talking about the dangers of the Gay Agenda!!

[cali]

169. that's such a ridiculous charge that I can't even feel irritated about it.

this has nothing to do with your silly accusation that I'm playing the victim card. And you sound totally irrational and none too swift making such accusations.

[tavalon]

195. Pull that one out of your ass, did you?

That was so bizarre as to be funny. Not Duzy funny. Pathetically funny in a painful way. I think you might be a gallstone.

[SkyDaddy7]

211. Kidney Stone of TRUTH!

Yes, it is true...The TRUTH hurts!

[sibelian]

206. Goodness me. Disturbing, is it?

It's certainly always going to be difficult to hear that you sound like someone else, I suppose.

[jsr]

173. Well, we know only racists would be against putting Obama on Mt Rushmore

[sibelian]

178. I am totally disgusted.

Naked, manipulative nonsense.

[Bobbie Jo]

179. Well, here is an example of the mindset

that contributes to the belief racism exists below the surface:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3044605

Now I ask, just what kind of expectations did people have of "a black president?" Point being....he is most MOST CERTAINLY held to a different set of standards than any of his white Democratic predecessors.

Those who refuse to acknowledge this phenomena are either in denial or just flat out disingenuous.

This line from the OP stood out to me:

"Because I can't get over the fact that this man has had to overcome his skin color now for the umpteenth time. The man has to be PERFECT. And still he gets shat upon."

You all can tell me to get fucked all you want, but refusing to even entertain the thought is about as closed minded as it gets.

[tavalon]

180. That one has been used up, as far as I'm concerned

Frankly, with as angry as I was with the last administration, I must have racism against rich, old white men who avoided military service but were willing to place others in harm's way.

I am so tired of this old canard. Maybe over on FR, they are racist, here, we are informed and pissed off about what we've become aware of. It's really unfortunate that it came out in this administration, but then again, maybe the rich, old, white men are done with Obama now. I don't know. He certainly has been their corporate go to guy, so I don't see why they would throw him to the wolves now.

I now believe that anyone who rises to the level of President must be the consummate politician and that includes some really slick, um, obfuscation and dissembling. Oh, hell, let's just call it what it is, lying.

[Vincardog]

184. Don't post this in the B. Obama group, or they will ban you too.

[L0oniX]

199. "too"???

[Vincardog]

200. As they did me, for having the gall to state that there was no evidence of the unconstitutional NSA

spying having foiled any terror attacks because they had not.

I also opined that the information storage was only to keep us in line, and was another step into the FASCIST state.

[frylock]

215. yes, they have a beautiful walled garden over there..

where any statement, regardless of how innocuous it may be, will get you summarily banned because it isn't couched in 100% fealty. I used to laugh at the people accusing dems of making Obama into some type of messianic character, but there are people here that certainly do engage in that type of idol worship.

[Vincardog]

237. They are as welcome to their echo chamber as the fools at Faux.

[onyourleft]

191. Thank you...

...cali.

[Butterbean]

192. My very first rec. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

202. All liberals who question our president are racists...

at least so says Melissa Harris-Perry :p

don't think the health care went far enough?? nobody cares, youre a racist.

still against the wars even though ya were before the president was elected? youre a racist.


http://www.thenation.com/article/163544/black-president-double-standard-why-white-liberals-are-abandoning-obama#axzz2Wg8DaIkL

[Zoeisright]

216. Wah wah wah.

Call the WAAAAAMMMMBBBUUUULLLAAANNNCCEEEEE!

Contemptible right back atcha.

[cali]

217. I do so love such a brilliant response.

because, of course, my op is not whinging. It gives actual evidence of what I claim: to wit, that opposition on the part of liberals against surveillance began long before snowden and before the President took office.

Your retort was just so pithy and insightful. I can't thank you enough for your stellar contribution, hon.

[Logical]

236. +1000

[heaven05]

220. I agree

with your position, Yet if anyone is opposing, anyone, for racist reasons. Shame be on you like crazy glue. Cali you started something by all of the responses. A POTUS is a POTUS, beholden to a myriad of interests, both FINANCIAL and political. Color doesn't enter the picture.

[DirkGently]

222. It mainly communicates "We have no argument."

[DirkGently]

223. Just strolling around, the "NSA critics are racists" theme is sprouting up all over.

It's always the last resort, so there's that.

[cali]

224. I think it's meant to silence and discredit critics. pathetic, creepy shit.

[DirkGently]

225. Mostly it just outs those without an argument (or scruples).

[Skip Intro]

228. +1

[Skip Intro]

226. A call has gone out. They want to drown everyone else out.

Change the subject. Piss us off. Attack us personally. Flood the board with the "if you don't like Obama you're a racist" bullshit.

They got nothing real, though, and it'll run out of steam quick, I think.

[DirkGently]

227. It's a shame, because the topic IS worthy of contentious debate.

It would be far more interesting to see people who have differing opinions on this topic thrash it out a bit, but for the handful who will not consider any issue beyond its possible political impact for the President, and then are willing to say literally anything to try to shout anything rational down.

Too bad.

On the bright side, I guess, it's a loser's losing argument, so it kind of heralds the death throes of that flavor of bad-faith take on things for every topic around here. They must be very frightened.

[L0oniX]

230. The usual gang of asscarrots.

[Logical]

234. Typical. n-t

[Logical]

233. Needs to stay bumped! n-t