paulbots. racists. Obama haters. oh my.

[cali]

why is it so difficult to believe that the majority of people expressing concern about the exponentially growing national security state, are just that: concerned about the exponentially growing national security state.

Why is it so important to label them as anything else?

[MotherPetrie]

1. They must be demonized so Obama continues to appear spotless.

[Deep13]

21. too late. nt

[bvar22]

22. That is the most irrational and bizarre aspect of the whole mess.

How does ANYONE believe that attacking, discounting, insulting, and demonizing a large population of loyal, dedicated Democratic Party members in ANY way [font size=3]HELPS the Obama Administration?[/font]

Those dots do NOT connect.
Will someone please explain that to me?

[awoke_in_2003]

31. Because they know that, no matter what...

we will not vote for the other party, so they don't mind pissing on us.

[patrice]

105. They who? Do you believe everything you see on the internet? nt

[roguevalley]

141. I don't give a damn who started it or reported it. I care that its happening and

a DEMOCRATIC president is doing it. Blind loyalty even to a good person who is WRONG is insanity and sycophantic. Blaming people who feel SPYING on OUR OWN PEOPLE is WRONG when BUSH/CHENEY does it are actually being CONSISTENT when they decry it in Obama. Shoot me. I guess I'm a fucking commie.

[bvar22]

145. Thank You!

I stand with you.




[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[roguevalley]

150. back at you, darling. Your avatar says it all :D

[Iggo]

155. .

[sabrina 1]

138. No, they don't know that anymore. See the big coalition of Unions and Liberal groups that formed

before the last election, who were voting Democratic for that election, but wanted to be prepared this time, for any betrayals of their principles. They collected millions of dollars for the purpose of dealing with the issue of what to do next if these betrayals continue. It is the beginning of an awakening, hopefully for the Dem Party because a whole lot of people are sick to death of being loyal to this party only to be spat on by so-called 'democrats' when they dare to express an opinion that hasn't been approved by the leadership. Well too bad, I haven't noticed anyon stopping and these attacks are only likely to drive people away from the party.

Mmm, just though of something. Maybe the goal IS to drive people out of the Party?

[awoke_in_2003]

146. Hope you're right, Sabrina. nt

[Blanks]

151. It makes sense for some to drive people away from the party...

It also makes sense to hold our elected officials feet to the fire. I think it's more difficult to make the democratic leadership responsive to complaints, but I don't think complaining all the time has really accomplished anything (except make people more miserable).

I'd rather see a plan to make our elected officials more accountable. I don't believe that complaining more is going to accomplish that.

Complaining that 'both parties are the same' is not accurate. Even if both parties are ineffective at scaling back the growth (or reducing the growth) of the shadow government, the republicans are a lot worse when it comes to working class Americans.

I don't care what anyone says - we're better off with Obama than we would have been with his opponents. While we're coming up with a plan to make the government more responsive to our issues - we might try to keep in mind the other guy was going to stimulate the economy by gutting environmental and banking regulations.

Things could be better, but they could be worse too. Sure we all want less of the bad stuff, but we can't even all agree what 'bad stuff' we would do away with first.

Myself personally, I'd do away with the republican controlled house first. I think that's what we should be working toward, they seem to be helping - after 37 votes to repeal Obamacare - when they know it won't go anywhere in the senate.

There's a lot of work to be done, and complaining really isn't 'work'.

[patrice]

104. Who says all of them are Democrats out to help Democrats? I bet you don't believe everything you see

on the internet.

[n2doc]

26. +1

It all makes sense when one considers Obama as a cult/religion, not a person.

[Arctic Dave]

77. That is exactly it.

His more concerned about his image then ronnie raygun.

He entire presidency has been nothing but one huge public image management exercise to cover for his lack of action.

[patrice]

106. They must also be canonized so that Obama continues to appear corrupt. nt

[MotherPetrie]

116. Nobody has to be canonized for that.

[xtraxritical]

159. Maybe with a howitzer?

[KittyWampus]

2. "the majority of people"? See, a lot of us have expressed concern about the NSA without trashing

Obama (calling his term "tainted), without lauding Snowden (a traitor) etc.

It's hilarious you then ask why it is so important to label them….

Should I provide a link to a thread YOU started trashing other DU'ers?

[cali]

7. bwahahahaha. YOU? bull. and how about responding to this post, dear?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3129397

[KittyWampus]

9. I know you are, but what am I. Meanwhile I'm going back to cocktail hour.

[cali]

16. will you ever respond? No, you'll never respond.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3129397

run, run, run, run away.

[Galraedia]

19. Run away? You mean like Snowden?

[KittyWampus]

46. WOW!

[cali]

59. care to respond to my proof that your bullshit accusations in the other

thread, were just that- bullshit?

Accusing me of not having posted issue oriented threads, not to mention that you're so ill informed and confused you actually thought that Feinstein, who is a huge NSA booster, introduced legislation to limit the power of the NSA?

Here you go. Now hows about that response?

do you mean Leahy's legislation? Because Feinstein hasn't introduced any legislation

re snooping. she's like you, rah rah for the NSA. And I have posted several threads on Leahy's legislation and numerous threads about the issues pursuant to the ever encroaching national security state. It says a whole hell of a lot that you haven't even bothered to keep up with the actual issues because you're busy with the Snowden threads.

I've been as proactive as anyone here. Your apology will be accepted anytime.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023085838
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023085106
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023109129
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023081233
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023059534
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022962947
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023059511
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022989983
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022969761
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023007320
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022994705

I could keep going and going and going and going. Kinda strange you haven't noticed any of the dozens and dozens of issue threads I've posted on this.

[longship]

29. How about disagreeing respectfully?

Why don't we all start there?

To me, that seems like a fucking good idea.

I am not happy that people who I have come to respect over the years are at each others throats, calling names, and other what may be termed ill behavior by any standard of discourse.

Please, all of you. Stop this.

[Skidmore]

68. This...

there is no need for ugliness or name calling. I think some of the labelling and assumptions about who may are may not be posting is off base too.

[longship]

70. Thank you. I appreciate your response. nt

[11 Bravo]

32. Sometimes I agree with you, and sometimes I don't. But every time I see you address someone ...

as "dear", or any one of the other faux endearments you favor, it sets my teeth on edge. (And I already know that you don't give a rat's ass, but this one finally put me on tilt, so I decided to chime in.)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

114. Agreed. It's very condescending. There's a way to disagree without disrespect or condescension.

[markpkessinger]

49. Ah, yes -- your posts are the very quintessence of objectivity . . .

. . .If we ignore your "traitor" remark, that is.

[Azathoth]

3. Because it's easier to dismiss legitimate arguments by associating them with bad people n/t

[cheapdate]

33. There's your answer. Next question, please.

[patrice]

113. BOTH sides are doing that. nt

[sibelian]

142. ...

...which bad people are the anti-surveillance crowd associating the arguments of the "protect Obama" crowd with?

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Meta Queen

Go outside.

It's summer.

[cali]

8. went to the lake for an hour this morning

and alas, I can't do much more than that with my disability.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Awesome

About the lake, that is.

But seriously, 8 or 10 posts a day, not about an issue, but about the goings on on this board, or your version of them. You're better than that.

[The Link]

5. Because to do otherwise is to unravel their entire belief system.

Its like convincing a religious person that their god does not exist.

[KittyWampus]

6. "I know you are, but what am I".

[cali]

13. lol. nothing like a little CogDis.

So go object to all the posts calling folks racists, paulbots, etc. You might have a little credibility then.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. My Ex-Wife used to use those exact words in disgreements. Those EXACT words.

It's one of the reasons she's my Ex-Wife.

She just recently told me (when I called to wish her Happy Birthday) that she can't believe she acted so childish.

[KittyWampus]

126. LOL! There's a REASON I wrote that childish crap… it's entirely appropriate with Cali's jibberjabber

[Fuddnik]

30. Drink faster.

You're still barely coherent.

[Whisp]

10. why is it so difficult to just add to the already 23 existing posts you made on this particular subj

instead of making yet another?

[uponit7771]

12. Because this isn't being treated like something ELSE we have to fix. The second this shit came

... came out it was about Obama and another "scandal". We already had 134 124;n234 scandals the GOP put on...

I think Obama can be worked with and worked to better 4th amendment rights...to focus on him and not the congress which is the hard part seemed FUDr from the beggining...

[treestar]

14. Both sides call names

Why is it so hard to believe that the majority of people who think the national security system is not the end of the world as we know it and might function to our benefit so hard to understand?

[msongs]

15. u criticizing moderate republican policies again lol nt

[Zorra]

17. I believe a few of the Third Wayers here signed up in Paulbotville so they could make a post

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

there that they could bring back here and use it to smear us Democrats.

The post is totally childishly transparent, so it is pretty obvious to me that they did this. It's actually pretty funny.

But how very republican-like the tactic is! Sneaky, duplicitous, something they felt they had to do because they have no ideas.

Totally a republican-like epic fail:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023129752

[sheshe2]

18. well at least you are consistent. nt

[SidDithers]

20. They're here, pretending to be uber liberals...nt

Sid

[flamingdem]

24. Indeed

[Whisp]

37. hee hee

We all know that's true too. But blame it on the new guy.

[whatchamacallit]

50. Pretending like Greenwald right Sid?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3128604

[SidDithers]

58. Greenwald's a DUer?...

Who knew?

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

65. Possibly, but my point is

you seem to have no problem tossing unfounded accusations about.

[patrice]

56. True Liberals wouldn't betray the poor the way this bunch is getting ready to in the name of some

"principle" that what calls itself "the Left", but isn't, most likely doesn't even agree about itself.

The poor are economic fodder to Libertarians. This is why all of the propaganda against Socialism. They don't want the government protecting the poor from their corporate masters.

[DevonRex]

25. OMFG this is hilarious after what people who say anything good

About Obama or against "heros" Snowden or Greenwald are called regularly and HAVE been since 2008.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

117. Obamabots, Obama Worshippers, irrational/illogical, or what Jane Hampser calls

"Dumb Motherfuckers".

Yeah, the name-calling has been on one side, according to them. The victimhood they exhibit when called out on it amazes me.

[DevonRex]

120. Look down thread. My post about GROUPIES has a nice

example. Nice as in not nice at all. ETA post #112

[backscatter712]

27. The most insane was when they called Catherina racist.

Which would be truly bizarre, because she's black.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Why is it so difficult to

get your post on DU's front page?

K&R

[obxhead]

34. It doesn't toe the party line.

I stand for policy and principals, not a party.

Call me what you will. I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I want it all known.

[Just Saying]

35. I believe that

Just as I believe people who aren't as concerned as you aren't Obama apologists, paid posters, Authoritarians, puppets etc.

This bullshit is why most NSA threads are in my trashcan.

[question everything]

36. Why is it so difficult to believe that many consider Snowden at least

a coward, for escaping to China and Russia - two bastions of democracy (not)?

And, instead of debating the merit, just hurl idiotic offenses at the the ones holding this idea?

(and then complain and get the response removed by a "jury"..)

[LWolf]

38. It's not.

Difficult to believe.

What's difficult to believe is that this situation would be, for anyone, about a personality rather than about the issue. That anyone would rather argue about Snowden than the issue of privacy.

[Whisp]

40. GhostNet

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/meet-the-canadians-who-busted-ghostnet/article1214210/?page=all


Hactivism
Meet the Canadians who busted GhostNet
OMAR EL AKKAD
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Mar. 30 2009, 12:00 AM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Aug. 23 2012, 10:50 AM EDT

Against the backdrop of humming computers in the underground lab in Toronto's Munk Centre for International Studies, a screen flickered, and the most politically explosive cyber-spy network in the world began to reveal itself.

It was March 6, 12:33 p.m., and Nart Villeneuve was getting frustrated. The 34-year-old international relations student and part-time tech geek had tried everything to track down a piece of malicious software that had infected computers around the world, including those in the offices of the Dalai Lama.

Finally, he turned to the ultimate hacker's tool: He entered some of the code from those infected computers into Google. Just like that, he found one of the cyber-spy network's control servers, then another, and another. From that Eureka moment came a flood of information, almost all of it suggesting the ring originated in China.

The revelation left government bodies around the world scrambling to determine what sensitive files may have been compromised by the cyber-spy network, which even now continues to spread and infect, its authors apparently undaunted by all the extra attention.

==

Indeed, it's hard to believe that what has now been revealed as a massive cyber breach began just a few months ago in a room at the foothills of the Himalayas, with a Canadian researcher watching a 'ghost' steal a file from the Dalai Lama.

According to Eddie Baby, China just should be left alone (Leave China Alone!!!) because they are Innocent!
This is why I think Edward Snowden is either a big gulp sized fool or is working for someone.

[patrice]

71. I wish I had timed how quickly absolutely sickenly sweet hero/saint/martyr pieces started showing

up on FaceBook right after the Snowden story broke.

Even if you were a supporter or neutral toward Snowden, the FB pieces were nauseatingly saccharine, barely readable.

I know I'll get in trouble for saying it, but the style was most similar to what is written about Bradley Manning. If I were into cyber sleuthing, I'd look at those connections.

[cali]

41. I have no difficulty believing that. And that's fine. But it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned

from the minute that this story broke, I've focused on the story. I've said repeatedly that I don't give a shit if Snowden is a hero or the devil's spawn. I damned well have argued on the merit in post after fucking after motherfucking post.

and I'm not the one hurling the idiotic offenses, hon.

and I have no fucking idea what you're talking about with your claim that I complained and got the response removed by a jury.

[Marr]

44. That's not hard to believe-- it's just completely beside the point.

And considering the fact that just about every person who ever leaked information that made the government uncomfortable has been subjected to intense, extended, public smear campaigns, I would think that most Democrats would be inclined to put those things aside when assessing leaked information.

Instead we basically have two sides here: one that says broadbrush domestic surveillance is unacceptable and unconstitutional... and another that says Edward Snowden is an asshole.

It seems like one side is simply trying to avoid the topic.

[patrice]

87. Regarding smear campaigns: Do you think some leakers could have an interest in leaking in order to

either block or trigger other leakers, especially relative to any already blown whistles that are currently in legal process?

It appears to me that there'd be all kinds of different motives to engage smear campaigns and also supporting propaganda from all kinds of different directions, not just government.

If it's important stuff, what would be a good way to bring some order to the processes, and by whom, so as to avoid potential false flags and to avoid shooting ourselves in the foot legally on issues that authentically do need reform?

[truebluegreen]

109. Very well put. Thank you.

[obxhead]

61. Question Everything

Would you stroll right into "the system" after revealing something like Snowden did?

I seriously doubt it.

[HooptieWagon]

127. Because a coward would have kept his mouth shut and continued to collect a fat paycheck.

Going public with what he believed the public should know, and giving up a well paid job, and taking on the US government...well, that takes some balls.

[Marr]

39. Oh, don't worry-- in a few years we'll all just be misogynists.

Unless the Republican wins, of course. Then we'll all be one of mind on the subject of domestic surveillance once again.

[patrice]

42. Because there is no coherent strategic issue agenda that makes it possible for all of the DU-ers who

are "concerned about the exponentially growing national security state" to trust one another's support on other issues.

I could support the concerns of the anti-exponentially-growing-national-security-state cohort and they could be politically successful enough on that issue that other priorities, protecting Social Security from things like CCPI, or a veto of KXL, or the success of the ACA in reducing health care costs, or universal Pre-K, or . . . any and all could be bargained down to meaninglessness or to 0, and it appears those kinds of consequences mean nothing to those of the Civil Liberties cohort who are in the rabid range of that spectrum, because social and economic justice issues, as a function of GOVERNMENT, fall in the category of that there blood that is supposed to water the "tree of 'Liberty'", but doesn't, actually, ... something that Greenwald et al are neglecting to mention, ... doesn't, because failure on those social and economic justice issues IS oppression. None of which matters to those who are more interested in their own ambitions, demonstrating political power through the buzziest propaganda possible, than they are in delivering on the most social and economic justice issues possible for the most people.

As I have said elsewhere, this is about base-building, NOT the issues, except for Libertarian/Civil Liberties issues, because if those involved did try to strategize on anything else and prioritize on the issues, they'd discover their incompatibility, ir-reconcilable differences, and the movement would then dis-integrate, which it is probably going to do anyway, so they're trying to do as much damage to government as possible before it does . . .

or something like that.

[jazzimov]

43. Because there is NO SUCH THING

as as "exponentially growing national security state".

Because the majority of people expressing concerns are spouting lies and propaganda which the leaks themselves contradict.

These people are either very naive, or they have an underlying purpose. Or, they are naive BECAUSE of some underlying purpose or prejudice (which is NOT to say that they are racist - prejudice can cover a lot of different areas).

[patrice]

48. +++1 and if you and I are wrong and there actually is, it's PRIVATE EXPONENTIALLY GROWING

CORPORATE SECURITY PERSONHOOD.

and Libertarians love them some corporate persons.

[raindaddy]

45. Who would've thought?

Obama spent his first term compromising away traditional Dem party values in the name of unity and by the first year of his second term his own party is more divided than I've ever seen it.

[patrice]

52. And in light of a Derivative Crash to the tune of something between $100-$700 trillion US dollars +

the European LIBOR banking fraud scandal and all of our corporations with foreign bank accounts . . .

Q. What would President Obama have needed, in order to do something different from what you say he did?
A. INFORMATION, a.k.a. Intelligence

and THAT'S what all of the squalling by what calls itself "the Left" (but ISN'T) is about.

[raindaddy]

67. No doubt he was handed the aftermath of a failed Bush presidency.

Logic tells me it that instead of stacking his administration with Bush retreads, corporate toadies and Wall Street groupies he would've used the opportunity to introduce the bank crooks to the same type of justice the rest of of are subject to. Stop the Reagan hero worshiping and familiarize himself with the Democratic presidents who preceded him and the tradition of protecting the public safety net.
Maybe actually govern from the perspective of an open government which means you're more interested in protecting the middle class and poor than secretly negotiating trade agreements that continue to allow corporations to escape oversight.

And maybe being legitimately embarrassed enough to change priorities after having former president Jimmy Carter essentially admonish him over our basic civil liberties.

What the left doesn't equate itself with, is a 12 year old girl with a crush on Justin Beiber.

[patrice]

73. You appear to be pretty naive about the whole context of political and economic details, most of

which are private and also inter-related, affecting one another AND THE WHOLE, so that even if he had done what you sketch above, it most VERY LIKELY would have failed AND DONE MORE DAMAGE IN THE PROCESS.

I am a Socialist and, if it had been me sworn in in January 2009, I would have kept most of those people too, because asking them questions as part of my administration has a completely different legal environment than asking them questions as part of the private sector. I think this last fact that I just stated is why what calls itself "the Left" was suckered into supporting the outrage of the Right who most definitely HATES having some of their most sensitive employees encumbered with the legal responsibilities of being part of a government that they absolutely hate.

[raindaddy]

80. Translation..

All of the economic intricacies are too complex for the average American to understand. So we need to trust that our leaders have our interests at heart.

Of course instead of taking corruption and human rights abuses to task and asking questions in in the form of an investigation, promote them so you can debate failed policies casually over drinks. Sounds like the old Soviet brand of socialism.

Actually you won't hear much complaining from the right when it comes to cutting the public safety net and human rights abuses.

For the record Im a a Democrat that hasn't forgotten what the party once represented.

[patrice]

90. I don't accept it as the either : or proposition that you sketch. More than 2 things are possible,

but we never get to that other stuff, before power alignments neuter us once again, partly from our own inability to stick together FOR ONE ANOTHER long enough to change something fundamental.

[raindaddy]

95. We'll never change anything without first being honest with ourselves.

Nothing personal my friend, we probably have more in common than we'll ever know but the hope and change thing isn't happening.

[patrice]

97. Part of that honesty will consist of how the situation HAS prevented that and also how we have

prevented it ourselves too and the situation and us are not new. This is very old stuff, traits that we've had almost from the start of this nation.

That's not the whole story, but those are significant elements nonetheless.

Individuals should try to think in terms of their parts in processes and commit to what's next and then what's next after that and then the next next thing . . . valuing little stuff, growing from the bottom up, then leadership will come from us, instead of from the top.

[Enthusiast]

147. I'm with you, raindaddy.

Yes, we have whole bunch of misplaced trust going on.

[kitt6]

47. This is it.

We need to start thinking ahead. I'm not one to keep doing the same things; over and over again and end up with results.

[Progressive dog]

51. Because of stuff like this

Your post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&info=1&address=10023077592|

Obama Haters Oh My, read your own posts, you chose to make it about Obama

In the above link, you couldn't stay on your own Snowden OP, you gratuitously went after the president on a totally different subject.

. Sure, and now he's giving a big speech on his plan
to combat climate change, on Tuesday. Cynically, the first thing I wonder, is how soon after that will he announce approval for the xl pipeline.

[patrice]

53. Right on! & why, Why WHY do so few people understand that when you remove your support from a

political figure, they move in the direction of where their remaining support is. That naivete, or ignorance, or outright bad intent causes me to say this isn't the authentic Left. They're pushing PO to the Right and then they'll use Democratic failures on Liberal issues as justification for their own partisanship, which could cover the rest of the political spectrum. It's another iteration of the same OLD shit.

[KoKo]

148. Patrice...what do you think about Penny Pritzger?

Why would he choose to appoint the one who was so responsible for his Presidency to head Commerce Department?

I'm sure you know who she is and her background.

This is the "choice" Obama made on his own...just as he chose to keep the Banksters (like Penny) whole and solvent with no prosecutions and no change of guard when people like Volker, Krugman, Dean Baker, Robert Reich and many prominent others warned him.

Pritzger will be helping push through the TPP and that's why she's there. He owed her big time. She got her pay off.

[patrice]

149. I will read up and speak up here and elsewhere. Thanks for the catch, KoKo. & One thing I have

been inferring almost from the start is that he seems to be buying forebearance for something else that isn't quite on the table yet, a kind of "If I give you this, I want that" situation.

I think his speech this morning in South Africa reveals some of what he has been trying to do. Note how little that speech is being covered by the internet. Try googling it; it's nowhere.

[AAO]

54. I'll proudly express concern about the exponentially growing national security state. Sticks/Stones.

[patrice]

60. What other issues are you willing to sacrifice, & in what order, for success against the EGNSS?

[AAO]

107. snark

[patrice]

134. You know, it really is interesting that you seem to think that's a non-serious question. It would

help you case well if you could demonstrate that you are not willing to damage other social and economic justice issues in order to have your way.

[AAO]

160. Your question was silly.

Implying that I must sacrifice all other issues so I can express concern about the exponentially growing national security state.

That is silly talk.

[patrice]

75. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Working on that list, are yuh? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ I'll check back later. nt

[AAO]

108. snark

[patrice]

111. Answer?

[railsback]

55. I'm going to go pick up my laptop at the mall shortly

so they can violate my 4th Amendment rights by monitoring my every movement within the mall, outside the mall, etc, without my permission, but I'm not going to complain because I know its really the NSA violating my rights

[flamingdem]

57. Because I don't log out of gmail I just got an ad served to me on DU

for Rand Paul!

[CakeGrrl]

62. Are you similarly concerned over "Obamabot" or "Worshipper" or "Apologist" labels?

Or is it just taking offense on behalf the position you happen to support so strongly?

[flamingdem]

63. + authoritarian

that's the trendy one this week!

[patrice]

66. What do you want to bet that "reactionary" NEVER trends? nt

[flamingdem]

69. Maybe "left reactionary" lol nt

[KittyWampus]

129. I prefer reactionary screamers. It's not a slur. It's literally what they're doing.

[SidDithers]

72. Yeah, seeing the usual suspects using that on a lot lately...nt

Sid

[patrice]

74. What? Surely you jest! Propaganda ONLY comes from Big Brother, not from the Right wing! nt

[flamingdem]

84. It always seems to simple to say when Left goes far enough it connects to the Right

but if the shoe fits..

[patrice]

93. I think the domain where they meet is Abstraction. I have hopes these days based upon the

right to organize around concrete empirical aspects of people's lives, but the right to organize may be an issue we never get to if we don't tear ourselves away from buzzy addictive abstractions.

Don't get me wrong, principles are good for guidance, but their relationships to the real world often take disastrous forms which further enslave us. We're going at this stuff with "meat cleavers" when we need much finer tools.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

119. Sho' nuff! I've always said that I see little difference between the purists on the Left

and the Teabaggers. Both groups reject nuance or pragmatism to the point of irrationality.

I'm a proud liberal, but I know and accept that the world doesn't think as I do. God, I wish it did, but it simply doesn't.

[flamingdem]

83. Authoritarian = opposite of Libertarian

that explains it

[patrice]

100. That's the theory anyway. It's not the way that things actually work out between them though.

I know several and have known some lifelong Libertarians. Many admit this themselves and don't have that much to do with one another, because there's a tendency to get fucked. The idea that they need no regulation and everything should be "free market" results in a heavy skew toward eternal power-struggles over absolutely everything. Their de facto authority is chaos, because everyone is their own SOLE authoritarian.

[flamingdem]

102. Well maybe sometimes it's straight forward

Their house catches on fire and it burns down! No big govt. to bother with, no muss no fuss.

[FSogol]

143. Yup, "authoritarian" has replaced the term "third way" as the insult du jour

[morningfog]

81. Apologist is fair, the other are not.

There are posters absolutely practicing apologia and jumping to defend every act. Actually, they usually try to deflect attention to something, anything, other than the Administration's policies.

[flamingdem]

85. You are one who dogs people implying they are evil apologists

What's up with that? You know that it looks like troll behavior, even though I am not saying it is.. the effect is discomforting

[morningfog]

86. I find the disingenuousness of posters defending

abhorrent policies worth calling out and debating.

[flamingdem]

88. That's an over the top attitude for a discussion forum

If you start with that it's downhill from there.

[morningfog]

91. Lol. I should have checked with you on the bounds.

Give me a break.

[Number23]

82. I'm not even sure why anyone is even entertaining this OP

She did the same thing a week ago. Hurled not even subtle insults at Obama supporters and then ended the OP with "WHY can't we all just get along??!!"

It was pointlessly stupid then. And it's equally so now.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

121. She's not nearly the only one. There are others. Then they play the victim when called out...

...suggesting that we "apologists" are attempting to stifle debate.

[Number23]

124. I know. But DU is the only place these people feel they have some power

so it's sort of understandable. Sad, pitiful and endlessly telling about where they dwell on the immense spectrum of American politics, but sort of understandable nonetheless.

I just love how now that even Jimmy Carter has said he wants Snowden prosecuted, that suddenly all of the talk goes to "my GOD! What's with all of the NAME-CALLING??!1one!" after some of these people have spent more than five years calling our president and his supporters every stupid assed, third grade name they can think of and shitting on a man that many, many people all over the world respect and admire.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

128. And while I invite criticism that is expressed through sound, reasonable arguments,

I respect that. Let's have that debate. Even President Obama has said that he invites the debate. But what I don't respect is the over-the-top, "Obama is evil," "Obama is like Bush," and if/when you attempt to provide a counter argument, you're an "apologist," a "worshipper," an "Obamabot," who tolerates an authoritarian government. That's what I can't get down with. It's one thing to criticize the man's policies and then want to have a good, spirited, respectful debate. It's altogether something else to shut down arguments by name calling, spewing condescending nonsense, or being a self-righteous "purist" who gets to decide who is a "true" Democrat and who isn't.

[CakeGrrl]

122. That answers MY question

though you're correct. I pretty much knew the answer. The sandbox is losing its civility.

[DevonRex]

112. Don't forget 'GROUPIES!' They love that one.

because of all the implications, despite the oh so ridiculous denials.


Dragonfli (5,347 posts)
54. I thought it was slang for "blind obedient groupies". Don't they like follow the bus around

campaign tours in the hopes of getting back stage at various campaign events?

&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Then I thought, "That can't be right as the election tours are over and the groupies surely must have all gone home as well."


I suppose it could be slang for very trusting people as you claim, I guess you won me over!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023087733#post54

[Spitfire of ATJ]

64. Why does MSNBC give us a weekend of jail?

[stevenleser]

76. Well, for starters, since most posts criticizing Obama on the NSA issue are irrational, I guess most

folks who disagree with that criticism are looking for reasons why people would irrationally attack the President.

[cali]

78. you mean, in your ever so exhalted opinion?

you want to see it as an assault on the President. Largely, it's been an assault on the exponentially expanding security state. but whatever.

[stevenleser]

79. You've already read my dissertation on this and couldn't refute any of it. I guess that is why you

call it exalted? http://www.democraticunderground.com/110210510

I appreciate the comment. If you think so highly of it, perhaps you would announce to DU that you have changed your mind?

[Major Hogwash]

89. You should run for office, Steve.

You would make one hellova Congressman.

I'd even vote for you.

[longship]

92. Well, I think name calling here of any kind is NG.

No matter what your Democratic Party position.

If a DU member disagrees with another, it is childish and immature to call names. Disagreements should be handled by rational and respectful discussion, not by childish and churlish behavior.

I have never been more ashamed of many DUers who I have long respected the past few weeks. Their behavior has been inexcusable and reprehensible. Name calling, thread stalking, troll threads, and other school yard behavior.

I find in this thread a classic example of how a community forum can go all wrong. If one disagrees with another there are ways to argue ones position without bringing personal attacks into it.

I am ashamed of the recent behavior on DU. And if you are paying attention, so should you all.

Stop it, please.

[patrice]

96. Am I mistaken? I thought this thread was a little better than so many others . . .

[longship]

98. Do you mean other than the fact that the OP was a name calling call out?

QED.

[patrice]

99. I took OP as REFERRING to name calling. I like the fact that we are talking about how we talk about

this stuff.

[longship]

101. Sorry. But there's a lot of surly call outs through out the thread.

People are acting poorly.

You always say...

No! You are always saying...

It's school yard rubbish.

There's always been some of this, but I have never seen it so bad here.

And the name calling posts should be killed. Period.

I alerted on one the other day, but because the thread was so crazy with them it was "0-6" and I lost my alerting rights for 24 hours. Unacceptable.

[patrice]

110. I'm generally for having it all out in the open (with the exception of references to violence). What

we need is more people to "peace check" both sides (though there are probably more than just 2 sides).

Also asking questions to get some "drill down" in the information helps too, because a lot of us, myself included, don't think about the questions, what we don't know, or what we don't understand. Asking questions, even if they aren't answered, which they usually aren't, reveals things about an issue.

[longship]

118. I agree, mostly.

But only if it is done respectfully, which I am not seeing a lot these days here.

It makes DU suck a bit sometimes.

Disagree, but don't make it personal. Argue against a position, not the person. Dare I say, that's how a adult handles it. The other is how a teenager doesn't handle it and escalates it.

[patrice]

131. I think it's unfortunate that there are many DU-ers who wouldn't be as far in whatever

direction they are in, if it weren't for the extremity of the opposing side. They are reacting to each other, rather than to how political issues actually work. I feel that push too and it works against the issue.

As politicians lose support, they move in the direction of their remaining support. If it is what calls itself "the Left" that is subtracting from the President's base on this and other issues, that pushes the President to the Right, NOT to the Left. There's no percentage on any of the remaining issues to do anything for the issues of those who will not support you. The only criticism that matters is that which comes from your support.

[longship]

132. BINGO!

Disagree, but with respect.

And it doesn't cost a fucking penny to be polite.

I am awfully pissed off at the behavior here recently.

[Number23]

115. What do you think about the juries? Do you think they're helping or hurting the current climate?

[longship]

123. Okay, with some reservations.

People have forgotten the TOS.

I alerted a name calling call out the other day -- I don't alert very often. But there was so much of it in the thread that the jury voted 0-6, not one of jury system's best days. The thread was a vile chain of personal attacks. I stumbled into it because it looked interesting.

My bad. Lost my alert privileges for 24 hours. Should have known better. That's why I rarely alert.

Admins need to remind DU once in a while to read the freaking TOS. And to keep the discourse civil.

Rare these days for some reason. Too fucking bad.

[Number23]

125. Well said. I personally believe that the jury system is a colossal failure.

Being gamed by trolls and juveniles alike who are all too cool with some of the nastiest comments being hurled at certain people, "because no one likes them."

[longship]

130. Worse, some DUers are doing what can only be called stalking.

They go into a thread specifically to make personal attacks against the poster, not contributing one wit to the discussion. It's disgusting.

Still, I do my part as a juror and I may be alerting more if things don't settle down.

[Number23]

137. I've seen that exact same behavior as the stalking you mentioned

But the swarms are my favorite. Someone posts something, in many cases a totally innocuous comment, and they get really nasty, absurd replies from I've seen as many as 16 different posters. And what's funny is that often times, the main participants in the swarms are the main ones claiming that other people are "bullies" who are "trying to silence people!"

This type of behavior would be embarrassing if a group of 9th grade girls was doing it, let alone a bunch of grown assed people, many of whom openly admit to having been alive in the 1960s so they've left the high school stage behind long ago. Or should have, anyway.

[On the Road]

94. Of Course, We Should Not be Impugning Each Others' Motives

or accusing other posters of being shills for various causes. That is against DU rules.

However, to answer your question, the reason that I wonder about whether the concern over the national security state is genuine is that the supporters of that position seem more concerned about generalizations and accusations that the details of what is actually known to have happened. When specific facts or arguments are brought up about which calls are being monitored, in what form, with or without warrants, domestically or internationally, they are almost universally ignored in favor of more broad-brush emtional responses. The obfuscation is so remarkable that it is difficult to believe that the posters know very much about the subject matter or care enough to learn the issue in detail.

[flamingdem]

103. Well said. It's not just DU people, I heard a civil rights lawyer speak on this

and he was very emotional rather than factual. Then he tied it all up with an attack on Obama for being a consitutional rights lawyer and blah blah drones blah without much timeline to explain how things unfolded

[treestar]

158. +1 great post

[rhett o rick]

133. The authoritarian apologists have nothing. They resort to attempts at bullying by name calling.

Hate to tell them that open-minded people are beyond being intimidated by name-calling.

Those that want to use bully tactics to shut down discussion about illegal behavior of our government are conservatives and have no business in our party.

[Bobbie Jo]

135. LOL

Name calling....

Like "authoritarian apologists?"

Like that?

Unbelievable.

[ProSense]

136. .

[HiPointDem]

139. Because if they couldn't go to the ad hom, they'd have to argue the policy, and the policy

is shit.

[Douglas Carpenter]

140. thank you ,,, slightly off subject but --

thanks to

usGovOwesUs3Trillion for posting this photo


Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming

[flamingdem]

157. Paul Revere heads off to Hong Kong

I lifted that from another thread but it deserves a repeat

[boilerbabe]

144. because we are supposed to be cheerleading for "the team" no matter what they do

or don't do. it's a fucking CREEPY mentally, imo. it's like it doesn't matter what actually happens just stfu and support the team no mattter what! RAH RAH RAH

[QC]

154. Don't let the team down!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

156. To give the Republicans comfort in seeing us squabble.