Cenk Uygur on Melissa Harris-Perry: Obama Loyalists Attack Snowden... For Not Being MLK?!

[NOVA_Dem]

[backscatter712]

1. What we're seeing is classic Authoritarian Personality Disorder.

The behavior's the same:

1. Authoritarian submission


2. Authoritarian aggression


3. Conventionalism

Source: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

We're not obeying Big Daddy or conforming to their cherished social norms, therefore, they get upset, then they get nasty

In my experience, with these types, the person who is the daddy figure doesn't really matter - it can be Barack Obama, George W. Bush or Mussolini. And if their Big Daddy leaves the leadership position, and someone else comes along with enough charisma, they'll get smitten and start following the new Daddy, start following his new social norms, and start aggressively forcing those norms on everyone else.

It'd be comical if they weren't constantly trying to shove their pathology down everyone else's throats.

[NOVA_Dem]

2. I just don't understand the blatant hypocrisy.

I've been watching MSNBC since Keith steered them Leftward. Do people like MHP, Joy Reid, Mika B., J. Capehart, et al. realize that we remember what they said about GWB?

How is that now "our" guy is the perpetrator of the same (and worse) conservative policies they make excuses and attack the messenger when they celebrated these whistle-blowers during GWB's term.

What are they going to do when it is President Christie and he continues Obama's policies? They won't have anything to talk about or will they pretend to be Progressives again?

[JaneyVee]

5. To be somewhat fair, Bush circumvented the court and had warrantless wiretapping.

Here's an article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/01/why-bush-violated-the-fourth-amendment-and-obama-has-not.html

[NOVA_Dem]

7. So Obama gets a BS warrant that covers everyone and now it's all good? n/t

[JaneyVee]

9. A warrant that covers everyone? You don't need a warrant for metadata, but you do for wiretapping

[SlimJimmy]

10. You *do* need a warrant for metadata. That's why FISA was involved to begin with.

[villager]

76. And we know what a tough check-and-balance those secret FISA "courts" are!

[SlimJimmy]

89. Oh, I absolutely agree with you, and have said so many times in quite a few threads. I was

responding to the post that said warrants aren't needed to gather metadata.

[villager]

90. I know -- but it's sort of "warrant in name only" at this point

There's no "process" involved anymore...

[SlimJimmy]

93. Agreed, but the previous poster said that no warrant was needed at all. Even under

your correct description, it's still technically required.

[villager]

94. right. "technically"

Yet many here think that means that the shadow government is working for them, gonna give 'em their pony -- never mind that vanishing Bill of Rights! -- etc...

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

65. 26 Sens.: NSA is relying on a "secret body of law" to collect massive amounts of data on US citizens

Here's an article: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3142617

[Enrique]

15. there is a demand for that

I can't stand it, but a lot of people like the thing that you and I would call hypocrisy.

I don't 100% NOT understand it. Did that make sense? I mean I understand to some extent the impulse cheer on "our side". I think the Dems vs. Republicans does matter, and I'm glad the Dems have an outlet like MSNBC to get out their message. What I can't stand is how they handle issues outside of the Dems vs. Republicans framework. In those cases, I think they are all in cahoots against us. It's the Democrats, the Republicans, and the corporate media all together against ordinary people.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. For them, it doesn't matter whether the next president is Christie, Jeb Bush, or Clinton.

They will continue with their authoritarian ways.

[aquart]

56. Idiotic (robotic talking point) statement of the decade.

Really. You can't see a difference?

Funny. I can.

I also see the same fucking campaign to get Democrats to stay home on election day. Don't vote. It doesn't matter. They're all the same. So stay home and weep for your helplessness. Don't vote. That'll show 'em.

ANYONE who spouts those talking points is the enemy of democracy. And me.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

58. You like authoritarians who support the super-rich, job outsourcing, endless wars, ...

You're welcome to be one of their followers.

[aquart]

60. Full of unsupported assumptions, I see.

Does thumb sucking help?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

63. Have you ever been unhappy with authoritarians who support the super-rich, job outsourcing, endless

wars, ...?

Even once?

When Bush II was president, did you favor the Iraq War Resolution and those who voted for it?

When the bankruptcy laws were changed for the benefit of the bankers so that student loan debts were no longer dischargeable in bankruptcy, did you favor that and those who voted for it?

How is your support for the continuation of the outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries, and your support for the political celebrities who support that? How's that working out for you?

Unsupported assumptions? Not really. All a person has to do is look at your reactions.

[arely staircase]

28. fuck ron paul

nt

[Life Long Dem]

37. Bush should have been impeached for his illegal wiretapping

[NOVA_Dem]

40. Imagine if Bush claimed the right to execute US citizens without a trial?

All HELL would have broken loose! We would have demanded he be frogmarched out of the White House.

[aquart]

53. Whose? Snowden's?

I am not now and never have been an Obama worshiper...but I am also not a Snowden worshiper. I find him pretty creepy, actually.

Sorry. But I am really unimpressed by this garbage pseudo-psychology you are desperately using to distract from Snowden's general ugliness of spirit..

[SamKnause]

3. Spying

Thanks Cenk.

I find it truly nauseating as well.

Thank goodness for independent media, news outlets from around the globe, and the internet !!!!!!

[randome]

4. But he IS Paul Revere and Daniel Ellsberg rolled into one!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

6. And you demonstrate the OP to be amazingly on point.

Thank you for your service.

[bvar22]

39. They have been reduced to a parody of themselves.

It is amusing to watch,
but I feel a little guilty watching the embarrassing spectacle they have made of themselves.
I feel the same way when I go to the Freak Show at a low budget carnival.

[NOVA_Dem]

8. Snowden is not relevant to me but here's Ellsberg opinion of him:

"There is no American who I believe deserves to be more honored than him at this moment" (Ellsberg speaking of Snowden after he landed in Moscow).

?t

[randome]

12. Sorry, Ellsberg is wrong.

He, at least, had the Pentagon Papers as evidence. Snowden has PowerPoint slides.

No comparison at all. No evidence of anything except that bureaucrats really, really LOVE PowerPoint.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

16. Plus he recorded that a week ago before he no doubt realized

that Snowden is a putz!

[NOVA_Dem]

18. I provided a response to your request in your thread and you ignored it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023142818#post19

You didn't think Ellsberg would support Snowden's flight from US persecution and you were wrong and now you're trying to move the goalposts.

[flamingdem]

19. I viewed what you posted, thanks

but my point here and if I'd remembered to respond there is -- that was a week ago, much has changed as information comes to light.

I can't imagine Ellsberg is supporting him the same way today. The same way that Pres. Correa has changed his mind and now calls Snowden a spy who will not be offered asylum by Ecuador.

[NOVA_Dem]

23. Please find and post a statement from Ellsberg critical of Snowden's asylum requests.

Keep in mind I don't care about Snowden or Greenwald except for the fact that people are attacking them instead of dealing with the unconstitutional programs they revealed.

[flamingdem]

24. I don't think we'll see it for a while

Ellsberg works with Greenwald. For now he'll wait and see.

[Luminous Animal]

83. I talked with Ellsberg on Sunday while marching (well - he rode) together in the Bradley Manning

contingent. His hasn't changed his assessment of Snowden or the impact of the material that he released.


photo by Steve Rhodes

[Mojorabbit]

29. You have no idea what exactly he has. No one seems to know that. nt

[randome]

49. You're right. I don't. I'm only going by what's been released so far.

If he has something that goes beyond a PowerPoint slide and supports his outrageous claims, I have no problem whatsoever with changing my opinion of him.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[morningfog]

41. The docs show the classic fascist marriage of

Corporations and government.

[randome]

51. They do nothing of the sort.

Where in the slurry of documents Snowden & Greenwald have printed does it say anything about corporations?

Snowden was a contractor and he was surprisingly (not) unable to show evidence that he could spy on the President as he claimed.

Or any of his other claims beyond lame PowerPoint slides.

I'm still waiting but it doesn't look good for the man who said he wasn't trying to hide from justice. You have to admit that was a very naive thing to say, right?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[NOVA_Dem]

52. What about the Internet Corporations listed across the top of this document?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/

What about the warrant compelling Verizon to turn over records on its customers?

[randome]

54. Do we need to do this again?

'Foreign targets' is what that article says. But I still refuse to give a PowerPoint slide any credence whatsoever.

None of that indicates that the NSA is 'downloading the Internet' as Snowden claimed -in so many words. The FBI gets data for foreign suspects, I don't know if it's with warrants or what, and the information is transferred to the NSA when needed.

The phone metadata records are, again, not our personal property. They are copied to a 'lock box' system that cannot be accessed except with stringent conditions.

You do realize that if the NSA did not have copies of the metadata, they would need to issue a warrant to every telecom in this country if they wanted to search for something.

No problem here with any of what they're doing so far.

We obviously need more transparency and less secrecy and that is what will be the result of The Snowden Affair.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[NOVA_Dem]

64. If you're remedial then repeat yourself.

Foreign targets' is what that article says. But I still refuse to give a PowerPoint slide any credence whatsoever.

BS, I provide evidence and you stick your fingers in your ears.

None of that indicates that the NSA is 'downloading the Internet' as Snowden claimed -in so many words. The FBI gets data for foreign suspects, I don't know if it's with warrants or what, and the information is transferred to the NSA when needed.

What part of the gov't telling Verizon to provide meta data on ALL of its US customers is about foreign suspects? You don't care if "it's with warrants or what" b/c a Democrat is doing it.

The phone metadata records are, again, not our personal property. They are copied to a 'lock box' system that cannot be accessed except with stringent conditions.

It is unconstitutional for the gov't to monitor who I call and where I go everyday without a warrant obtained with probable cause.
What stringent conditions:
Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-nsa-92760.html#ixzz2Xv5QTblQ

You do realize that if the NSA did not have copies of the metadata, they would need to issue a warrant to every telecom in this country if they wanted to search for something.

So fucking what...that's what they're supposed to do.

No problem here with any of what they're doing so far.

We obviously need more transparency and less secrecy and that is what will be the result of The Snowden Affair.

I'm sure you say the same thing if a repub was in office.

[randome]

68. You're conflating the PowerPoint slide about Internet Providers with the telecom data.

You clearly don't want to be convinced and honestly I'm not trying to convince you. I'm only pointing out what seems to be glaring holes in Snowden's many stories so far.

You're still free to believe what you want. To be honest, I doubt my opinion will affect your life in any way and vice-versa.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

70. lol - twisting in the wind you are... how about 26 senators saying the NSA is SPYING on Americans?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3142617

Will that get you to give up your nonsensical line about no evidence?

[randome]

74. They are demanding answers. A 'demand' is 'evidence'?

Let's see where the evidence leads. I have no problem with that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

75. There is plenty of evidence, you just refuse to see for some reason

probably partisan blindness

[morningfog]

79. I was working under the assumption that you

had looked at what was actually released. Obviously, you haven't.

[randome]

87. Perhaps you could point me to the contention I responded to.

"The docs show the classic fascist marriage of corporations and government."

What I saw on that slide was a list of Internet providers.

Did I miss something?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

67. 26 Sens.: NSA is relying on a "secret body of law" to collect massive amounts of data on US citizens

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3142617


So, can we stop with the nonsense that we have no proof that they are spying on Americans?

Thanks

[randome]

72. Demanding answers is hardly proof of anything.

These are the same senators who have oversight responsibility for the FISA system. They could have demanded more accountability from the very start but they didn't.

I agree the NSA should be more transparent and less secretive. That still doesn't prove any of Snowden's outrageous claims.

And just about any law can be interpreted by law enforcement personnel. I doubt there is any law that doesn't have some wiggle room.

But if it turns out the NSA really is downloading the Internet on a daily basis or is watching our thoughts form as we type, then let's see where the evidence leads.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[woo me with science]

20. Glad to see Ellsberg speaking out so forcefully on this,

and reminding people that we are dealing with nothing less than assaults on our Constitution.

[G_j]

34. He started a petition:

http://org.credoaction.com/petitions/tell-congress-investigate-nsa-abuses-and-protect-our-constitutional-rights/?state=sign.

Tell Congress: Investigate NSA abuses and protect our constitutional rights

In 1975, Senator Frank Church, who led a committee charged with investigating and making public the abuses of American intelligence agencies, spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:

"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America's intelligence-gathering capability – which is today beyond any comparison with what existed in his pre-digital era – "at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left."

That has now happened. And so we need a new congressional committee like the one Senator Church led to investigate the revelations by Edward Snowden. The existing Intelligence Committees in House and Senate, gagged by secrecy and co-opted by the intelligence community they supposedly oversee, have failed to check dangerously excessive surveillance of Americans’ communications.

Please join me in signing a petition to Congress that reads:

We need a new Church Committee that is fully empowered to investigate the abuses of the NSA and make public its findings, and that is charged with recommending new laws to ensure the U.S. government does not violate our constitutional rights.
Pressure by an informed public on Congress to form a select committee to investigate these revelations might lead us to bring the NSA and the rest of the intelligence community under real supervision and restraint and restore the protections of the Bill of Rights.

Please join me in signing this petition.

Daniel Ellsberg

[NOVA_Dem]

38. Many people cite Ellsberg in their criticism of Snowden and don't even know where he stands on him.

[DesMoinesDem]

11. Obama is right. Obama is right. Obama is right. Boring and useless.

She must be a BOGer.

[frylock]

14. she was one of the originators of the "racist" meme

[NOVA_Dem]

17. What drives me crazy is that she KNOWS better just like the posters here. n/t

[The Link]

13. Watching MSNBC during this period is what it must have been like to watch Fox during the Bush years.

There is little to no critical thinking going on.

[Skidmore]

22. Interesting comment.

DUers around then knew what it was like, and still is like, to watch Fox. You don't?

[The Link]

25. Don't watch Fox. Don't have cable. Experience through hearsay, which I trust.

Apologists for Obama abound on MSNBC. I am sure apologists for Bush were/are commonplace on Fox.

[woo me with science]

21. K&R

[Tarheel_Dem]

30. You mean Cenk the "former" Republican doesn't respect MHP? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!

You guys have the namecalling in common, but you have little else. We outnumber you. That's why Cenk is considered altmedia. He's a nutjob, and he looks like he smells bad.

[NOVA_Dem]

32. He's more consistent than the "I'm a Blue Dog" and "Moderate Republican of the 80's" Democrat n/t.

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. I'm not surprised Cenk doesn't care much for MHP or Pres. Obama. It's in his DNA.

"While in college, he wrote a column in The Daily Pennsylvanian criticizing affirmative action recruiting at the university and suggesting that all students should be "judged on their merits rather than their physical characteristics." He supported the pro-life position on the abortion issue, criticized the radical aspects of the feminist movement, .....

He has stated that he worked for a time for Republican former New York Congressman Joe DioGuardi."[

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

Cenk is a fake. My problem with these "liberals come lately" is that they move from one extreme to the other without blinking an eye. Something smells about that, and I think it's Cenk's funky ass. He couldn't earn a living as a rightwing columnist or show host, so you'll forgive me if his conversion doesn't appear authentic to me. He's just like all the other Paulites, but he's suckered enough liberals to give him a platform, dubious though it is.

It's not just Cenk, I have similar issues with Ed Schultz & Arianna Huffington.

[NOVA_Dem]

62. It just so happens that you have problems with people that have been critical of Obama

at one time or another. Got it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. But enough about me. Nothing about Cenk's sudden & inexplicable conversion?

[NOVA_Dem]

69. You reply makes no sense. You can't refute the argument so you attack the messenger.

You're doing it with Cenk, Snowden, Greenwald etc.

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. Moving On!

[NOVA_Dem]

80. Well our President calls himself a moderate republican now. What can we assume about his motives?

What did Cenk say about MHP that was false? You don't have a counter argument so you try to discredit the messenger b/c they used to be a republican.

If you really believed your position you would debate the merits of the argument.

[Tarheel_Dem]

86. What you don't get is that there was never an argument to be had. I know who Cenk is.

"By their works ye shall know them". Based on Cenk's earlier "works", I think I pretty much "know him".

[NOVA_Dem]

88. How about Obama's works?

80% of Bush Tax Cuts now permanent
Romneycare for the Nation
Dragnet Surveillance of the nation without probable cause
Execution of US Citizens without Trials

[KeepItReal]

33. Ad hominem attack much?

You post is disgusting.

Care to edit?

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. Nope. I stand by every word.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

73. boooooring

and on DU, and in the streets, where it counts, we vastly outnumber you and your ilk: the totalitarians.

BET

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. If that's true, then win a fuckin' national election, why doncha? "Authoritarians & Totalitarians"?

You wanna talk boooring? Regurgitating an Occupy handbook every few seconds is REALLLLLLY "boooorrring".

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

81. we all have a role to play, mine is not in comforting them in their wrong-doing

by standing up to their disinfo campaigns, and countering with the other side of the story.

[Tarheel_Dem]

85. Go win an election, then we might have something to talk about. Until then.....

[Bluenorthwest]

91. Well, my Democratic Senators are pressing this Patriot Act

Abuse, voted against it in 2006 when Senator Obama voted to let Bush keep the Patriot Act to hide behind.
Now post some more emoticons, they are very persuasive and give a burnished gravitas to your Centrist Shenanigans!
In 2012, NC went to Mitt Romney, Oregon to Obama. With support like yours, a person would have to find other work. Electoral votes are so much better than emoticons at election time. And you have not elected anyone to the Oval, your State's votes went to Mittens....

[JVS]

31. It's always nice to see MLK and Rosa Parks used to defend the abuses of the powerful.

And of course to mute their critics.

[PDittie]

35. MHP started to lose me when she defended

the drone strikes. Same premise ("I trust Obama", etc.)

As long as Hillary Clinton gets elected and re-elected, and her Latino running mate likewise (so that the GOP doesn't get a sniff at the White House until 2032 at the earliest), then I guess it's all good...

[NOVA_Dem]

42. A lot of people believed that GWB wouldn't win.

You never know what the future may bring that could cause this country to vote repub again.

[PDittie]

50. Yes, Magic 8 Ball say

"cannot predict now". There should have been a snark emoticon there in stead of a shrug.

[truebrit71]

36. Cenk nails it...

...if the program is "legal"....why prosecute him?

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. You defenders conveniently forget the 4 laptops & the little tryst with China & Russia, don't you?

This is much bigger than his "leak" about domestic surveillance. There is nothing in the 4th Amendment that gives a US citizen the right to share government secrets with a foreign entity. Since you're "British", you may not know that. He ain't in Kansas anymore.

[NOVA_Dem]

46. You'd charge Ellsberg for the binders and paperclips he used to collect the Pentagon papers. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

82. Ellsberg didn't run off to China and tell them what we were doing in Vietnam.

That's the difference between him and Snowden.

[truebrit71]

45. Dear Ignored...

...Nothing " " about me being British. I am fully aware of what the 4th amendment covers and what it doesn't, I am just waiting for the Obama administration to provide the warrants that were sworn out with probable cause for all 300+ million US citizens...You know, like the 4th amendment requires..."The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And again, if the spy program is legal, why prosecute him? They admit it exists, so where's the crime?

[Tarheel_Dem]

84. As I expected, you completely evade the issue that's troubling even the most ardent Snowden....

fanatics, his little World Tour where he has arguably shared US intelligence with the world. That's okay, I don't blame you for not wanting to address that little issue. How convenient for you.

[Thinkingabout]

48. I do not always agree with every decision Obama makes or every statement but since he

Stays close the the Democrat values I do not have lots of conflicts. I do not agree with Snowden's decision to work for an agency like NSA, know I have a Code of Ethic, purposely move to another position in order to obtain more information, steal and copy the information to use in any manner he chose to do so. There is no amount of explaining can overcome his actions. The more I hear from Snowden or his spokesmen makes his actions greater. I do not like a thief and the charge of espionage is proper. The collection of phone call records was known some years back and follow up of wiretapping was also known. The question comes up often if this was already known then why charge Snowden with anything. The answer is he has been charge with a crime against our nation, though some believe the program is not to their liking violating the law has consequences.

[lame54]

55. He gave up a pole dancer - what else do they want?

[randome]

57. Funny how neither Edward nor Lindsay seem to be pining for one another.

We never hear one mention the other after the initial 'break-up'. I kind of doubt there was much of a relationship there but that's speculation on my part.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[gholtron]

59. Cenk Uygur is Wrong

Wow people can't have different opinions without being labeled a loyalist or some.other condescending names. Talk about a fascist government.I though in America we are free to disagree. But I guess if you don't agree with Mr. Uygur then you are labeled. I could call Uygur a Ron Paul racist activist but I'm not. Snowden intentionally stole classified information and computers that can still access classified servers and fled to Communist controlled countries. Mr. Uygur. Do you condone that? He didn't stay and fight. He committed espionage and should be prosecuted under the Patriot Act. The justice department under George Bush didn't get warrants should also be prosecuted. What court said the NSA violated the 4th amendment? This should have been challenged in court in 2007 when Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe broke the same story. HeyUygur if you are reading this, tell me what did Ms Harris said is not true?

[NOVA_Dem]

61. You can disagree but how do you disagree with yourself based on who's in office?

[gholtron]

71. How.can I disagree with myself based on who is in office?

I have no clue of what you're asking.

[reorg]

92. well, to be precise, the statements by the two hacks

are not entirely identical. One of them insists that Snowden must "face the consequences" whereas the other says "faith the consequences".

The one who compares Snowden to Mandela is apparently not aware that the South African resistance leader lived in hiding for a very long time, that he never gave himself up and was only arrested after the South African racists were tipped off by the CIA.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/353312