You have failed

[whatchamacallit]

I don't hate Glenn Greenwald and I think the US government spying on its own citizens is unacceptable. Sorry.

[maddezmom]

1. Was this meant as a reply?

[ProSense]

4. Don't think it was.

There are some who are highly upset that Snowden and Greenwald are being criticized.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3137715

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3137760

[whatchamacallit]

8. As usual, your evidence

is not.

[Aerows]

11. Word Salad with Blue Link dressing

It's pretty tasty.

[ProSense]

23. Silliness with a touch of irony.

It's pretty hilarious.

I look forward to more.

[Aerows]

30. I prefer Green Goddess dressing

myself.

[ProSense]

32. "Blue link"

Updated: India, Brazil reject Snowden’s asylum request; Snowden withdraws request to Russia
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023147692

[Aerows]

40. But none of that is what the entire campaign against Snowden or Greenwald is what this is about?

Is it?

It is, and always will be because it made President Obama look bad, end of story. You could care less about the issues. It always is centered around the framework of "Obama looks good, good." "Obama looks bad, bad."

When you don't even realize it isn't about the man, or even the office, it is CONGRESS that has the true corruption.

[ProSense]

41. LOL!

"It is, and always will be because it made President Obama look bad, end of story. You could care less about the issues. It always is centered around the framework of "Obama looks good, good." "Obama looks bad, bad."

When you don't even realize it isn't about the man, or even the office, it is CONGRESS that has the true corruption."

What?

[Aerows]

47. Hi

I have some beachfront property to sell you in Kansas if you think anyone is perfect and needs no oversight.

[Skidmore]

78. And who is responsible in our system for oversight?

Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2013, 01:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Congress....fancy that.

[Aerows]

107. Congress

Congress.

[Enthusiast]

102. The President is a special exception.

You need to wake up!






I keed. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[sabrina 1]

43. Not nearly as upset as those who support the policies of Bush. We have the most massive

surveillance program of the American people ever and that is the issue, no matter how you try to make it about individuals.

So, what do you think about the government stalking American citizens' phone calls?

[ProSense]

52. Gee,

"Not nearly as upset as those who support the policies of Bush. We have the most massive surveillance program of the American people ever and that is the issue, no matter how you try to make it about individuals."

...thanks for the straw man

Another misleading media report implies that warrantless wiretapping is legal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

Remember whistleblower Thomas Tamm?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032225

Bush and Cheney were liars, and there is an effort to create the impression Obama is no different
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023043154

[sabrina 1]

60. Once again, just for you:

The FISA Court CANNOT issue warrants on Domestic Spying, Surveillance or even Propaganda aimed at Americans.

Btw, it seems you disagreed with the FISA Bill Amendment like the rest of us back when Congress bailed Bush out by changing the law and weakening it. (see post #6 below quoting you in 2006).

After you read your own words from back then, could you explain when and why you changed your mind to the extent of using an amendment that you so clearly opposed at that time, to justify what is going on now?

You seemed to fully understand what that amendment did at that time.

[ProSense]

65. No

"The FISA Court CANNOT issue warrants on Domestic Spying, Surveillance or even Propaganda aimed at Americans....You seemed to fully understand what that amendment did at that time."

...you seem to want to believe your own characterizations of what you think I don't "understand."

"Btw, it seems you disagreed with the FISA Bill Amendment like the rest of us back when Congress bailed Bush out by changing the law and weakening it. (see post #6 below quoting you in 2006)."

This post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3148412


"That is amazing! I would be ashamed to have changed my mind about something so important to the future of this country without offering a single excuse for it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3148664

I'm not the one who should be "ashamed." Your bias is showing.

[sabrina 1]

94. From post #13:

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

That is the opinion you expressed, which was the opinion all democrats agreed with. And still do. However, my question was, 'why you now support a law you so vehemently opposed' back then?

It's the same law. Now you are using it to justify the massive surveillance of Americans. So I was curious about the change of opinion.

[LondonReign2]

116. Because: Obama!

[laundry_queen]

168. Must be.

Funny, no response.

[LondonReign2]

173. Yes, usually when confronted with her duplicity of opposing it under Bush

and supporting it under Obama she posts that it is different now because-- and then a stream of links. Having actually plowed through the links, they don't support...well, anything. They are just a trail of links intended to send you off on a wild goose chase.

[neverforget]

147. Hmm, you never got an answer.

[TheMadMonk]

97. And there are some who have spent the last fortnight...

...constantly attacking the messenger(s) whilst refusing to discus or even examine the message they carried.

[whatchamacallit]

5. Just a general response to the shrill voices of fascism. n/t

[byeya]

9. open minds are interested in facts; closed minds find it easier to deal in personalities.

I am interested to learn of what are "betters" are doing in our names but without our consent

[MADem]

109. More like a heaping helping of flame bait, if you ask me....

There's a cadre of people who are angry that Saint Eddie of Snowden has turned out to be from Snow Job....he's a bullshitter with delusions of grandiosity, his mask has slipped, he's not the dreamy, angst-filled hero on a big white horse.

When dreams die, wails fly.

[whatchamacallit]

110. "Saint Eddie" is your bullshit illusion

and why you failed.

[MADem]

112. Not mine, oh expert in "Irony."

[sabrina 1]

121. There's an even bigger cadre of people who are concerned about what we have learned about

the most massive domestic surveillance program ever in any democracy. Creepy isn't the word to describe how it feels to know your own government is stalking your phone calls. And who knows what else ...

[MADem]

149. You can be "concerned" about these issues and not be convinced that a bullshitter

with more talk than walk is The Way and The Light.

Your phone calls are not being stalked...unless you're stalking Osama's successor, that is.

[Number23]

137. Nailed it!

[Mojorabbit]

143. It seems to be a very small albeit loud and prolific posting group. nt

[MADem]

150. Yes, it does.

And forgive me if I believe that this isn't their "main" forum for like-minded conversation and bonhomie.

[CakeGrrl]

2. 'salright. No minds are going to be changed here.

I think Snowden belongs in jail for what he's done. And he provided no proof that the US is spying on its own citizens.

Sorry.

[Aerows]

15. Don't be sorry

Get even.

[sabrina 1]

48. I think War Criminals and Wall St criminals should never have been protected the way they were

If they had been properly prosecuted we would never have had any need for all the Whistle Blowers we've seen over the past decade.

I am for the rule of law, especially when elected officials betray their oaths of office. I am also for removing the money from our electoral system so that Wall St criminals do not have the power they have over our government and CAN be prosecuted when they break the laws of this country.

[whatchamacallit]

54. So this ^ n/t

[DeSwiss]

74. Try it without the blinders next time. :-| n/t

[CakeGrrl]

96. And I'm blind to...exactly what?

That's what people cannot answer and back up with the PROOF of what has been released.

[Hydra]

131. Did you happen to read the Warrant from the FISA court that Snowden leaked

It says to Verizon that they are to submit all of their daily traffic, including all domestic traffic to the Gov't.

You can't have probable cause for 30+ Million Americans, which means they are breaking the law and giving it the fig leaf of Judicial oversight. Clapper lied to Congress about it, saying they were collecting no data at all.

I'm sorry if you somehow missed what was actually leaked- after all, we've only been talking about it in specifics for over a week now, so maybe it wasn't entirely clear...

[CakeGrrl]

139. Metadata. Individual call details, including IDENTITIES, still require a warrant to obtain.

Even Greenwald acknowledged that.

If it's illegal, someone would be hauling the NSA or the Obama Administration up on charges fast enough to make a shitload of heads spin. And plenty of people are itching to do that.

That ain't happening, because the din from the MSM would be deafening.

I doubt you're all that sorry about what I missed.

[Hydra]

151. Nuuu...

It's more than metadata, and Senators Udall and Wyden have been trying to get us the info. Even if it was just metadata, that's still illegal for them to collect in bulk without probable cause.

As for it being illegal and someone doing something about it...Bush and Cheney tortured people, admitted it on national television, and the current Admin is allowing them to walk free. The "Doing something about it" people are on the same team.

[Shivering Jemmy]

3. Ok

[markiv]

10. just like Clinton made free trade good

it was bad under bush sr

at least when a republican is president, this party allows you to criticize bad things

sometimes, i think that's the ONLY difference between which party has the presidency

[LondonReign2]

13. They have plenty of experience changing their opinions based on the letter

after the politician's name:

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

[markiv]

20. from wikipedia 'Animal Farm'

The original commandments are:

1.Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2.Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3.No animal shall wear clothes.
4.No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5.No animal shall drink alcohol.
6.No animal shall kill any other animal.
7.All animals are equal.
Later, Napoleon and his pigs secretly revise some commandments to clear themselves of accusations of law-breaking. The changed commandments are as follows, with the changes bolded:

4.No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
5.No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
6.No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.

Eventually, these are replaced with the maxims, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", and "Four legs good, two legs better!" as the pigs become more human. This is an ironic twist to the original purpose of the Seven Commandments, which were supposed to keep order within Animal Farm by uniting the animals together against the humans and preventing animals from following the humans' evil habits. Through the revision of the commandments, Orwell demonstrates how simply political dogma can be turned into malleable propaganda

[markiv]

39. Platform evolution

then

1. No party member shall take an action that hurts US citizen wages, security or working conditions

2. No party member shall infringe on the rights of the citizen

3. Anyone who works for a wage is a friend, those of wealth are to be viewed with caution

and now

1. No party member shall take an action that hurts US citizen wages, security or working conditions unless it promotes free trade

2. No party member shall infringe on the rights of the citizen unless we are looking for terrorists

and future

'wage earner good - BILLIONAIRES BETTER!!!!!!

[whatchamacallit]

51. +1

[sabrina 1]

53. That is amazing! I would be ashamed to have changed my mind about something so important

to the future of this country without offering a single excuse for it.

[carolinayellowdog]

140. you're capable of shame

some evidently are not

[ProSense]

66. I see

"They have plenty of experience changing their opinions based on the letter after the politician's name:"

...you've taken to pushing that failed gotcha attempt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122617

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134799

Desperation must be setting in.

[Bobbie Jo]

70. This thread is

unintentionally hilarious.

[sabrina 1]

142. It most definitely is. To see the evidence of the 'evolution' of some on the 'left' is, maybe

hilarious isn't the right word, revealing fits I suppose, to look back to the old Bush era and see the evolution on the issues, is simply amazing and useful of course!! One thing is for sure, credibility has been eviscerated in this thread and that's probably a good thing.

[Bobbie Jo]

152. What on earth are you babbling about

now?

This may be difficult for you to fathom, but just because you make a declaration in an effort to claim some sort of twisted victory, does not make it fact. Shocking, I know.

So if you think I'm wading through the 3,076th version of the same sanctimonious post, then you're sadly mistaken.

Yes, the unhinged hissy fit on display in this thread is freaking hilarious.

Thanks for your contribution.

[sabrina 1]

153. I was agreeing with you. The hissy fits in this thread are 'freaking hilarious'.

Celebrate the moment, it's a hell freezing over moment.

This thread is hilarious, seeing proof of the total turnaround by some of the most avid defenders of the Surveillance state from their positions when Bush was president? Priceless.

[Bobbie Jo]

154. Complete horseshit.

Keep shoveling.

[sabrina 1]

159. Okay, check out post #13 if you want to know what I mean by hilarious.

Talk about horseshit ...

[Bobbie Jo]

160. See post 66, and read thoroughly

Because you obviously didn't bother.


Done playing obtuse tag here.

[sabrina 1]

161. It's always good to be 'done playing obtuse tag'.

I read enough and so did everyone else. Hilarious doesn't even begin to describe it.

Now I have to go do something less amusing but far more satisfying.

[Bobbie Jo]

162. Yeah, I wouldn't read it either

Because if you had, you wouldn't be prancing around this thread celebrating your Matlock moment.

Like I said, complete horseshit.

Now, we're done.

[sabrina 1]

165. You may be 'done', which is not my problem. I decide when I am done. I read post #66 and I

recognized all the old excuses made back when the man we were supporting for president at the time, who had opposed the FISA Bill Amendment, suddenly ended up voting for it. THAT would have ended the support he had, had there been any other choice at the time.

And then came all the excuses and attempts to justify the sudden change of heart. Read post #66 to find them, again. They didn't work back then, and they are no more acceptable now than they were then.

As post #13 shows, all Democrats opposed that Amendment, understanding what it was for, to save Bush and his criminal cohorts from the consequences of breaking the law. Read post #13 again, I couldn't agree with it more. But I sure won't be found now defending it, which is the 'hilarious' part of all this. The flip flopping we are seeing now.

[Bobbie Jo]

167. Clearly and admittedly

you didn't read beyond the post, now you're back with the sanctimonious declarations hoping no one else read the content either.

Sorry, your gotcha moment failed miserably.

But please do continue until you decide you're done. The unintended hilarity of this thread continues on.

[LondonReign2]

100. I see

you are still trying the same tactics of sending people down the Links to Oblivion.

I've read your links above. They do nothing but show that you are a pure partisan that, when Obama opposed domestic spying you did too, and as soon as he reversed course so did you, unsurprisingly.

Your own words show that it isn't the policy that you suddenly support, its the person. Trying to cover that up with links sending people down unrelated rabbit holes is like a cat trying to clean up the mess it made on the tile floor.

Your credibility:

[ProSense]

103. "Links"

"I see you are still trying the same tactics of sending people down the Links to Oblivion. I've read your links above....Trying to cover that up with links"

"Links" for $500, Alex.

[LondonReign2]

106. Extemely weak, even from you

[ProSense]

108. LOL!

[LondonReign2]

119. Your refutation would be admirable for a 3rd grader

Well, no, really it wouldn't.

By your own words, your credibility:

[whatchamacallit]

105. +Graham's number

[jazzimov]

156. Bush WAS spying on Americans - Illegally.

But that changed. Now, FISA courts issue warrants and the process is monitored by Congress. If the data proves to be an American on American soil, the court requires it to be immediately destroyed UNLESS the NSA Director submits an exception IN WRITING and the data os immediately sent to the FBI who must get a warrant based on probable cause.

Legal, and a BIG difference from what Bush was doing.

[bunnies]

22. 2 posts and already youre an expert on DU.

Subtle. Very subtle.

[whatchamacallit]

35. I'd say he nailed it. n/t

[bunnies]

46. If you say so.

[Bobbie Jo]

49. LOL

Welcome back again!

[bunnies]

61. Looks like the troll will have to try harder next time.

[City Lights]

25. Welcome to DU, GrumpyStoat!

[dionysus]

7. you have failed.

your years long campaign against Democrats here hasn't changed anyone's mind.

works both ways doesn't it?

[Union Scribe]

26. They don't have to change people's minds

The Dems who support Bush policies do that all by themselves.

[sabrina 1]

99. I don't remember the OP EVER supporting Bush Policies. Have you checked out post #13 btw?

Now we have people who used to oppose Bush policies, supporting them. But definitely not the OP or actually a majority of Democrats.

[Number23]

138. NAILED IT

[HappyMe]

12. Meh.

[baldguy]

14. No actual, verifiable facts Greenwald revealed show that the US govt spying on its own citizens.

Though he has made plenty of accusations to the contrary.

I think the term "ratfucking" has been bandied about to describe what Greenwald has done here. I think this is accurate.

[Aerows]

17. Except a lot of people

already know that they are. And attempts to brush it off look stupid.

[baldguy]

27. The OP specifically references Greenwald.

Neither he nor his source have provided any evidence that the US govt is spying on its citizens. The documents provided so far contradict this assertion, in fact.

And yet there are disingenuous people who repeatedly bring this allegation up as if it were an unknown fact somehow "revealed" by Greenwald's efforts. He did nothing of the sort.

[whatchamacallit]

19. Tell it to these 'ratfuckers', bright boy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/28/senators-james-clapper-nsa-data-collection

[Bobbie Jo]

16. and?

[Aerows]

18. It's interesting

that the same people seem to show up whenever there is a discussion about Information Security.

I find that truly fascinating.

I've seen you before. I wonder where that was ...

[Bobbie Jo]

21. and?

[Aerows]

24. You tell me :) n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

31. Tell you what?

Is there a problem? You seem bothered by my presence.

[Aerows]

36. Not at all

I'm glad you are here.

[ProSense]

28. What's interesting

"It's interesting that the same people seem to show up whenever there is a discussion about Information Security."

...is the hypocrisy of those who can't stand that anyone would criticize Snowden and Greenwald.

Pure friggin hypocrisy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023148368#post11

[Aerows]

33. I'll dance with the one that brought me

Proceed.

[ProSense]

38. Snowden?

[Aerows]

44. One thing matters to you

Obama. We all know it. Stick to him, and leave fettering out the bad members of Congress to the rest of us, okay? And leave it to us to discuss matters that affect even you to the rest of us while you are chanting praise in one person. ONE person, that will not be in office in a few years. You are free to fawn over him for the rest of his life and yours, but many of us know there is a 2016.

[ProSense]

55. Apparently,

"One thing matters to you

Obama. We all know it. Stick to him, and leave fettering out the bad members of Congress to the rest of us, okay? And leave it to us to discuss matters that affect even you to the rest of us while you are chanting praise in one person. ONE person, that will not be in office in a few years. You are free to fawn over him for the rest of his life and yours, but many of us know there is a 2016."

...only "one thing matters to you": me.

Snowden, Greenwald, the President, the NSA and more are in the news. I'm not.

I mean, there appears to be an obsession: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3148444

[darkangel218]

57. Oh noes! what have you done??

The blue links are gonna get you!
RUN!!!!

[Aerows]

111. Like a python strangling me

But I shrug off the blue link that tries to coil against me, force me, to forget how to think for myself.

[LondonReign2]

50. No, what's interesting

is your continued attempts to make it about Snowden and Greenwald when numerous other whistleblowers have made the same claims.

[ProSense]

58. No,

"No, what's interesting is your continued attempts to make it about Snowden and Greenwald when numerous other whistleblowers have made the same claims."

...that's only "interesting" to those who are clearly upset that Snowden and Greenwald are being criticized.

This is interesting:

Updated: India, Brazil reject Snowden’s asylum request; Snowden withdraws request to Russia
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023147692

I mean, it was only a few days ago that people were posting with "glee" about Ecuador snubbing the U.S., praising Correa, and hoping that he was going to be given asylum there.

[Aerows]

114. You can't make this argument

even if you stumbled over it, and just about everyone has told you so. Your argument is tied up in "Obama is an angel, a saint and never has done a bad deed".

That's why you have no credibility whatsoever.

[ProSense]

115. LOL!

Don't feel bad, I also think you have "no credibility whatsoever"

[Aerows]

117. Feel free to laugh my friend

but there are some people that just get tuned out ... and it isn't me, since you responded.

[ProSense]

118. OK

"Feel free to laugh my friend"

[Aerows]

120. Glad I made you smile

even though I don't like you very much

[one_voice]

29. Who is you?

Who is this OP addressing? Is this a response to something?

It seems so random.

[Iggo]

37. LOL...it ain't random.

[el_bryanto]

45. I'm so sorry. I'll just have to try harder. nt

[randome]

56. No, I didn't!

[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]

[darkangel218]

59. Yes, it is. nt

[randome]

63. No! Why do you hate America?

[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]

[darkangel218]

71. Lmao!!!

[abelenkpe]

62. Don't like Greenwald and think US gov spying is unacceptable.

[randome]

64. Don't like Greenwald and don't see evidence that the U.S. government is spying on citizens.

[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]

[Mojorabbit]

145. Ingenious answer at best nt

[whatchamacallit]

67. *For the failures*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023148436

[emulatorloo]

68. Biggest DU Fail is ass-uming skepticism about Snowden = Fascism

[whatchamacallit]

69. Skepticism?

[emulatorloo]

73. Uh huh. Like when he claims he can "wiretap Obama"

I think some of you are way too invested in the "Snowden is a Hero" narrative and it drives you to say some pretty stupid shit about fellow DU'ers who don't follow your party line.

I am not big on the "Snowden is a TRAITOR" narrative either.

[whatchamacallit]

76. Maybe you noticed Snowden is not included in the OP

You guys continually project your obsession onto others.

[emulatorloo]

79. Yes I noticed.

You guys continually squirm when you are called on your bullshit.

[whatchamacallit]

81. Provide my "hero worship" posts

or twist on it.

[emulatorloo]

82. I am not your research assistant.

Your OP is enough for me - everybody is a fascist who doesn't tow your version of the party line.

[whatchamacallit]

83. Ah... The new DU etiquette

Make specious claims and hold the target responsible for disproving them.

[emulatorloo]

84. "the shrill voices of fascism"

You wrote it, you fucking own it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3148408

[whatchamacallit]

86. I do own it, what does that statement have to do with 'Snowden worship'?

Oh yeah, nothing. Thanks for playing.

[randome]

80. Where do you get the idea that the government is spying on its own citizens?

From Snowden.

If you believe everything Snowden says, a guy whose resume was a lie, who ran to hide in Hong Kong while saying he wasn't trying to hide from justice, then why won't you believe everything I say?

[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]

[sabrina 1]

101. I think some of you are way too invested in trying to divert attention away from the message. But

that was doomed to failure. People remain focused on the massive surveillance of Americans everywhere I go now. Most of them don't even know who the messengers are nor do they care. But if that's all that's important to you, that's your choice.

[Mojorabbit]

146. Did you see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3142138

[morningfog]

87. I don't equate skepticism of Snowden to fascism.

The docs released do, however, contain evidence of fascism in our government. The marriage of big communication corporations with our spy agencies is such an example. When the corporations are used as an arm of the government, that is classic point of fascist systems.

[emulatorloo]

88. I appreciate your reply

I'll wager most DU'ers are on the same page regarding that marriage.

This is why I am finding OP's like this really tiresome. More energy needs to be spent talking about what the fuck we are going to do to try to turn this around.

[whatchamacallit]

89. So you agree with me, but hate my OP

[emulatorloo]

91. Of course, because your OP is all about being divisive.

And I don't "hate" your OP, just finding this "voices of fascism" bullshit very very very tiresome.

[Buzz Clik]

72. Ok.

And why did we need to know this?

[emulatorloo]

75. Because you are a Nazi.

[randome]

77. No, no, no.

Obama is the Nazi.
Greenwald is Ellsberg.
Snowden is Paul Revere.
The rest of us are sheep.

Keep it straight, please.

[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]

[Buzz Clik]

95. A sheep. Can I be a llama or something more exotic?

[randome]

98. Sheep have more fun than you think!

[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]

85. Hear, hear.

Yes, that's true.

[great white snark]

90. "Failed" because your opinion hasn't changed?

Well no shit-this scandalous story was created for people just like you.

[whatchamacallit]

93. No

You failed to distract us from the profound central issue of secret government abuse, with the shitstorm of character assassination.

[backscatter712]

92. +1! The fifty-centers are gonna have to cook up new talking points! n/t

[Enthusiast]

104. Kicked and Recommended! nt

[SidDithers]

113. Curses!!...

Then it's time for Plan B of Operation "Make whatchamacallit hate Glenn Greenwald and think the US government spying on its own citizens is acceptable."

And we would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids.

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

122. Unless you have a country to put Snowden's ass in, I bet he doesn't really give a shit whether or...

not you "hate Glenn Greenwald". GG is a tool, who used a naieve conspiracy nut to his own ends. Think about it, GeeGee has two countries, and Snowden doesn't have one. I bet that pisses off little Eddie, because GeeGee undoubtedly made promises to him that he has absolutely no power to keep, as evidenced by the growing number of countries rejecting his asylum requests.

He'll turn on GeeGee, and it's not gonna be pretty. Bank on it!

[whatchamacallit]

123. Like I said

Fail

[Tarheel_Dem]

128. Poor kid.

[whatchamacallit]

129. Lol!

[ProSense]

124. Apparently,

"You have failed"

...even you are not convinced: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023149913

I mean, it appears you're trying to convince yourself.

[whatchamacallit]

125. You are aware that posts are better when they make sense

right?

[Union Scribe]

126. At least you've earned High Profile Target status

ProSense spends as much time following you around to post links about you as she spends going after Snowden.

[whatchamacallit]

127. Lucky me

[Waiting For Everyman]

130. The people who spend a lot of time on their backs

remind me of tipped-over turtles.

The propaganda from the Flailing Turtles gets incredibly thick in here sometimes. Wowser. What a time waster... all to keep people from thinking about the issues. Credit to the DUers who can see through that, and stay focused on what matters.

[Hydra]

133. "Where's the beef?!"

The fog they're trying to conjure lacks a certain...substance. They try to obscure the facts while creating new ones that haven't been substantiated yet.

Focus on the solids and the smoke and mirrors stand out clearly.

[nashville_brook]

132. k and r

[warrprayer]

134. k&r

[Egalitarian Thug]

135. At least some of them rose to your challenge. n/t

[ram2008]

136. It's a vocal minority who are defending the NSA and attacking Snowden/Greenwald

Just look at the names, it's the same handful of people doing their best to defend Obama and deflect against any attempts at discussing the issue and our governments role in it. Remember the echo chambers of the right before the election? We've got the same thing going on here at DU. A handful of people spamming the boards with irrelevant posts, deflections, and accusations.

[limpyhobbler]

141. k/r.

Operation Smear the Messenger has ended in a total disaster.

[stevenleser]

144. Nope, you have failed.

http://www.yumasun.com/articles/people-88298-snowden-story.html

[darkangel218]

155. No, you have failed. nt

[stevenleser]

157. Nope, people agree with me, and it is trending that way even more strongly now. nt

[darkangel218]

169. Not everyone agrees with you.

[Zorra]

163. It's kind of like how half the country liked Bush, and half the country hated him.

Who failed?

Hint: The side that had to use constant propaganda and strawmen to support their weak position.

[stevenleser]

164. Its not half and half, its trending strongly against Snowden. I'm not restating anyone else's

position so no straw man there.

[Zorra]

166. From te OP: "I think the US government spying on its own citizens is unacceptable"

• 49 percent say the release of classified information serves rather than harms public interest

• Americans are split down the middle when asked if they approve or disapprove of the programs as part of the effort to fight terrorism.

• Nearly two-thirds – 63 percent – say they would feel their personal privacy would be violated if their information had been collected.

Read more: http://www.yumasun.com/articles/people-88298-snowden-story.html#ixzz2Xx7dfyAS

[jazzimov]

158. Some people never believe facts when presented to them.

And the only data on Americans is collected accidentally and the leaked documents are very clear that they should be destroyed immediately - the exceptions are turned over to the FBI.

[whatchamacallit]

170. Let me check...

... Yep, still a fail.

[whatchamacallit]

171. Kick :)

[whatchamacallit]

172. Does this still kick?