An alternative view from a “lackey butt-kissing shit”

[grantcart]

DU is, obviously, in one of its high octane civil discussions and you can tell how heated it has become by how uncivil the discussion has become. If you are surprised by any of this then you haven’t been here very long or haven’t been paying attention.

There are dozens of threads bashing the President and his supporters here but this one is my favorite: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023030629
and it launched a vigorous discussion among GD hosts because I was fairly certain that it was whining about DU but a few said that as the particular “lackey butt-kissing shit” wasn’t identified it couldn’t be classified as whining about DU.


Now I found that to be rather tendentious sophistry because I think it was quite clear who the OP was referring to, they were referring to me.



It seems obvious that they are referring to DU supporters of the President, that on DU the most ardent supporters of the President visit the BOG. As the longest serving host at BOG if you were compiling a list of “lackey butt-kissing shit” you would have to put my name at the top of the list.

I don’t complain about being on that list, I embrace it. But alas, I am not whining about it I embrace it. And while I prefer Solidarity Democrats I will take cheerleader, kool aid drinker, fan boi, or lackey butt-kissing shit, with a smile as long as it is clear that I still support the President 100%.

Please refer to me as LBKS #1.

Its not the first nor I am sure the last time I am at the end of a vulgar epitaph. In the past when I was on the receiving end of such vulgar histrionics I turned the absurdity of it to expose the weakness of the attack. My favorites were being called a communist when I publicly denounced Agnew’s upcoming visit in 1972 in a meeting before WA Governor Dan Evans (he laughed) and called a Nazi by an Auschwitz survivor whose department in the IOM I was charged with evaluating and reforming.

While DU remains a unique place for a great deal of insightful discussion (see the well informed threads by some DUers who are following the Martin murder trial) sometimes elements of the discussion become so white hot that positions harden and little actual discussion results and there is no persuasion.

No one is going to be persuaded by this thread.

If you are reading it then there is a 99% likelihood that your mind has not simply been made up but set in concrete on the NSA related warrants. It happens on DU. I post this because I continue to hold DU in deep affection and want some people who are President Obama supporters to understand that you can continue to participate here without succumbing to the bashing and without returning the vitriol.

So I have been giving a pass to most of the NSA related threads but have now noticed a number of threads now have commented that the absence of threads supporting the administration is evidence that there is no argument and that the only possible position for a DU member is to consider the Obama administration as a major violator of the 4th Amendment and that it is one of the following: authoritarian, totalitarian, surveillance state, Stalinist, and a whole list of other completely absurd adjectives.

Before getting into the details lets establish that:

1) The government has for decades established various data bases for investigative purposes, some more benign than others. Voicing concern about those data bases doesn’t make you anti-Obama, paranoid, or ‘hair on fire’.

2) On January 20th 2017 President Obama will no longer be President and so even if you are a 100% supporter of the President, which I am, then it is still reasonable to be concerned about how those data bases are used and oversight maintained.

Now for the points that I consider relevant:

A) The Fourth Amendment and government data bases.


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.

The government has, for some time, accumulated or has access to various elements of meta data that is used for law enforcement. Some are more benign than others.

If you make a cash transfer of even $ 100 through a bank it is now recorded and added to a financial data base. If you drive within 100 miles of the Southern US border you will pass through check points and your cars details will enter a data base. If you cross a US border your movements are added to a data base, and so on.

The government doesn’t use these data bases for surveillance, and they are not opening up a personal file on you. If they find a person of interest in a money laundering investigations they go through the data base and see if there is evidence that can add to the investigation and develop other leads.

Driving along the Southern Border you will approach various Border Patrol Checkpoints. Prior to reaching the checkpoints you will pass a set of cameras that are obvious and not hidden:



There is nothing secret about these operations and you can ask the Border Patrol Agent about them. They are creating a data base and use it as an investigative tool, which is different than surveillance or spying. For example if they receive a report of a vehicle that was involved in drug activity in Ohio they might, for example, go back and find that particular vehicle crossed the border and moved north of Laredo on 14 occasions and on each of those occasions there were two other vehicles that passed the same check point within 20 minutes of each other. That would provide a lead that could result in probable cause to search those other vehicles.

If you find the meta data base that the NSA is building to be intrusive and a violation of privacy then I wonder what you are thinking about the other data bases that the government is building without warrants or Congressional scrutiny on a daily basis. Last month my daughter sent me $ 100 cash gift by Western Union and because I passed a BP checkpoint I entered two data bases on the same trip. One of them had my license plate and kept track of my physical travel and the other had my social security number and kept track of my cash movements.

B) The government and the telephone.

As soon as the phone was invented wiretapping soon followed. You can find a time line of legal cases regarding wiretapping here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5061834
There is nothing illegal about a government agent listening to a public conversation in a restaurant, but listening in on that conversation through a wiretap without a warrant would be illegal. The phone has always triggered special concerns.

And here is the irony of the whole situation:

Wiretapping or listening to conversations per se must have become mostly useless for the government, for the simple reason that throw away phones are, as Tony Sopranao showed all of us a decade ago, ubiquitous.

A couple of years ago a business acquaintance came to me telling me about his new business and tried to recruit me. I told him that I considered the financial instruments highly unethical and almost certainly illegal and tried to persuade him not to proceed. He ignored my advice and I tried to avoid him as much as possible. Last year he called me and told me he had been arrested and wanted my advice on his legal strategy. I told him to end the call and met him for lunch and gave him a number to one of my ‘throwaway’ phones that I use because I do business in a number of area codes and have found it easier to contact clients when they see that it is the same area code. I told him that if he wanted to talk to me about legal issues as his case progressed he should buy a throw away phone and call me on one of mine. (He did later call me and was frustrated with his counsel who wanted an additional $ 50,000 but told him that not only was he going to walk but that the government was going to have to refund all of his legal fees. Based on what he had told me I told him that my advice was to do the right thing and tell his attorney to strike a deal with the prosecutor so that he could avoid prison and also help some of the victims recover some of their lost assets, which he eventually did. It was revealed that he did have a wire tap on his regular phone but none on his throw away)

My point is that anyone who knows that the government is actively after them should at this point in time have the common sense not to use their regular phone but one that is untraceable, and the same is true with throw away email accounts.

Obviously anyone connected to Al Queda has been trained not to have any substantial conversations on a phone line that they could be identified with.

So on a practical level what is the NSA doing?

Here is the case against the Administration:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/white-house-spying-on-us-citizens-critical-tool-for-fighting-terror/#p3
We learned yesterday that the National Security Agency (NSA) obtained a top-secret court order that forces Verizon to hand telephone records of millions of US customers over to the government. Today, the Obama administration is defending the practice as a critical tool for preventing terrorist attacks.

The Guardian, which uncovered and published the secret court order, today detailed the White House's response.

The Guardian wrote:

The White House has sought to justify its surveillance of millions of Americans' phone records as anger grows over revelations that a secret court order gives the National Security Agency blanket authority to collect call data from a major phone carrier.
Politicians and civil liberties campaigners described the disclosures, revealed by the Guardian on Wednesday, as the most sweeping intrusion into private data they had ever seen by the US government.

But the Obama administration, while declining to comment on the specific order, said the practice was "a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States."

The phone record collection doesn't target only suspected terrorists. The court order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court forces Verizon to give the NSA "all call detail records or 'telephony' meta data created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls." The order, which covers a three-month period ending July 19, means the government is receiving data such as "phone numbers of both parties, the duration of the conversation, the time of the conversation, location data, telephone calling card numbers, and unique identifiers pertaining to the phones," as we noted yesterday.

Such call detail collection also occurred during the Bush administration. US officials say it is allowed under the Patriot Act passed in 2001.

An unnamed Obama administration official quoted by the Associated Press said that "[o]n its face, the order reprinted in the article does not allow the government to listen in on anyone's telephone calls." Call meta data can help the government identify the people making the phone calls, however.

"It allows counter-terrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States," the administration official quoted by The Guardian said.

So what is the value of these meta data records?

I believe that it is pretty similar to my example of the use of car movement data bases by the Border Patrol described above. Once they capture or identify a throwaway phone they want to be able to reverse the network and unravel all of the other throw away phones that were ever used and in doing so identify other people connected.

One of my problems with those that are raising concerns (and some of the concerns are, as noted, valid) is the outrageous hyperbole involved.

“the most sweeping intrusion into private data they had ever seen by the US government”

Really?

This isn’t even the most intrusive action they have into my private data in the last week.

Here would be my ranking:

1) Keeping track of my financial transactions.
2) Keeping track of my car movements
3) Keeping track of the same information that is on my phone bill.

C) Government abuses of the constitution including the 4th and 14th Amendments.

The strongest case for those that are concerned about the NSA data bases is to point to how this has been abused in the past.
It has been abused in the past. When the government abuses its authority it eventually leads to a ‘knock on the door’ and either your liberty or your property is taken or the government is used for corruption or to hide illegal deeds.

We have seen this time and again in Republican administrations. Under Nixon the government was caught out in a massive campaign of bugging and intimidation. Under Bush the administration was caught red handed trying to influence federal prosecutors and there were millions who lived in fear of the ‘knock on the door’ when the Bush administration had ICE go into Hispanic neighborhoods and arrest and deport thousands of law abiding undocumented workers.

As the soon to be Father-in-law of an undocumented worker we celebrate that these abuses have ended, even for undocumented workers. My future son-in-law was able to report to the government and the Obama administration provided a card authorizing him to work legally in the US even though the President cannot unilaterally regularize his immigration status. We not only don’t worry about the ‘knock on the door’ we can proceed through a Border Patrol check point without worry because we know that this administration will not abuse the law and the Constitution.

D) Authoritarian, Totalitarianism etc etc

The hyperbole referred to above has found a welcoming home at DU where a legitimate discussion of government data bases, oversight and efficacy has given way to an unbridled assault on language and history. We have all seen the comparisons to Stalinism, Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism and so on.

As pointed out when a government abuses its power there is a ‘knock on the door’.

I know. I have seen it. The federal government once ‘knocked on my door’. I was traveling back and forth between Thailand and the US in the ‘80s and when I was boarding a flight back to Thailand federal officers pulled me aside and asked where and why I was going. They were obviously profiling drug smugglers from travel data and being in my ‘20s fit a profile. I didn't consider it much of an
attack on my civil liberties because I was working with hundreds of thousands of people who were fleeing real totalitarian states and real attacks on civil liberties.

I also lived in countries where there were degrees of Authoritarian governments and you could get a ‘knock on the door’. All of them with less safe guards than we have:

Indonesia – too many ways to describe here but to suffice it to say that being labeled a communist after the attempted coup would get you in trouble.

Singapore – nothing really sinister but if you made comments about the Prime Minister that were not 100% based on fact then you would be buried in lawsuits and ruined.

Malaysia – Not a great deal but they famously ruined one Islamic reformer by arresting him on a trumped up Sodomy charges.

Thailand – Generally a more relaxed place except for Lesse Majeste charges. (By the way in Thailand the police are forbidden from executing search warrants except when there is sunlight.

I also visited Totalitarian countries like the People’s Republic of Vietnam where there was really no effort to conceal their action and when tens of thousands were forced from their homes to live in ‘new economic zones’.

China does a very effective job of intimidating its population by landing hard on a few high profile cases.

Russia, well Putin’s opponents and media critics just have a nasty habit of being murdered, rather like KGB opponents suffered when Putin was in the KGB.

So again while it might be useful to have a constructive discussion about limits and oversight it becomes more difficult when the terminology has reached such epic heights where this President is labeled with histrionic associations that aren’t even within the same universe.

I am still waiting for the first evidence of Obama’s government misusing the Constitution to ‘knock on the door’ and take someone’s liberty or property.

E) The embarrassing double standard at DU.

Some have taken to criticizing ‘cheerleaders’. ‘kool aid drinkers’, ‘fanbois’, or the above cited “lackey butt-kissing shit” based on the premise that we have one standard for Bush and another for Obama. These equivalencies remain way off base up until the moment that Obama is found to actually order agents to round up people accused of no crime or using federal agencies for political prosecutions.

There does exist a rather embarrassing double standard at DU however. This President is judged against a set of criteria that is not applied to others, especially when it comes to issues regarding respecting the constitution.

It is not uncommon, for example to see a poster proclaim,

“I am an FDR Democrat”

And then in the next phrase talk of

“Obama’s war on Civil Rights”

(Disclaimer on my support of FDR: He wasn’t simply the best President ever elected he was the best politician ever elected anywhere. He didn’t simply restore our government but he had to restore an entire economic system. In doing so he made a turn in shared benefit that Marx never predicted. If this were not enough he was a great Commander in Chief and he was right about Normandy when Churchill, who gets more press on military issues was 100% wrong.)

Now while I agree that Roosevelt was the best, there is no metric where you can embrace FDR and lambaste Obama on civil rights.

The reason is that under FDR there were ‘knocks on the door’. More than 140,000 legally established citizens and residents were taken from their homes and lost all of their property when FDR signed and executed Executive Order 9066.

These are not theoretical ‘invasions of privacy’ but real loss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

One of the ladies at my high school study hall, Mrs. Saki, went into one of these camps. It wasn’t just confinement they lost their farms, businesses and property.

It wasn’t simply a complete trashing of the Constitution, it was a particularly stupid one. The place where it was known to have a Japanese Spy ring (Hawaii) was not touched while those living in Washington, Oregon, California and Arizona. If you were living in Yakima Washington you were picked up, if you lived in Spokane you were safe.

This isn’t meant to disparage FDR (see disclaimer above) but simply to state an obvious fact; If your praising FDR as the greatest and have unbridled vitriol for Obama and give any weight to civil liberties then its pretty obvious that you are using two different standards.

So what accounts for the level of unrestrained vitriol against President Obama when it is such an obvious double standard? I do not think that any long term DUers would have such a double standard based on racial bias of any kind. That kind of bias would have seeped out long ago. I think that some DUers have an image of a combative partisan FDR based on a few partisan speeches and find President Obama’s patient persistent approach infuriating. The irony is that FDR also was a seducer. He wanted to start immediately with arming the allies, especially Great Britain. But he was patient and instead started with Lend/Lease rather than make waves. On almost all contentious issues he patiently waited until he was 100% sure he would be successful.

And then there is the rather banal “I must be a racist . . . “ construct (“I must be a racist because I care for the Constitution” etc).

This construct is a Republican/Reactionary construct that I have been hearing for decades “I must be a sexist if I believe that women make better mothers””I must be a racist because I don’t want to go to an Affirmative Action Doctor”. It is meant to mock serious charges of racism, sexism, homophobia and so on. Since when did it become acceptable to mock racism to make your case on DU?

Let’s just hope that never reoccurs.

F) Proudly continuing to support the President.

Rather than reproduce a familiar list of achievements I prefer to see his impact in the broad issues.

For the first time in modern history we have a President who campaigned as a candidate on raising taxes and increasing revenues to the Federal Government. Most of the expansion of the Federal Government in US history has occurred during or immediately after large military actions (Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam). During these times it was possible to expand the functions of government at the same time there was popular support for military action. This President has successfully achieved an expansion when winding down military action. He established, after 80 years, a federal mandate for the Federal Government to control the health care system AND got it passed by the court.

It is clear that some support the President but have serious concerns about the NSA warrants, which of course is a completely natural and common situation among progressives. It is also clear that for some there is an unbridled vitriol against this President and his supporters and the NSA issue has simply given license to express it, frequently in hyperbole and sometimes in crude vulgarities.

No President has delivered more real life benefit to my family. In fact this President has delivered more than all of the Presidents combined, here are some:

1) My cousins in the reserves are no longer facing deployments.
2) My friends and family that have an undocumented status no longer face a “knock on the door”.
3) People, like me, who have pre-existing conditions (diabetes) will soon be able to buy health insurance.
4) And many other smaller improvements like the savings of several hundreds of dollars a month because the banks can no longer charge bogus fees.

On the other side we have a party that is determined to:

1) Keep health care a privilege for the healthy and wealthy.
2) Try to prevent my AA relatives from voting.
3) Undermine my daughters reproductive rights and access to planned parenthood.

At the same time there are much more serious issues, in fact I would argue there are much more important privacy issues. I am much more concerned about how creepy the internet is (Google something and watch the ads follow you for months) becoming and how private companies with no oversight are accumulating info not into a meta data base but into a personal file.

But frankly there are 50 issues that I would put above that. There are the economic issues that millions of people who are struggling with and there are environmental issues that the whole world is facing. Many of these issues are discussed with passion and intelligence at DU, but there are dozens of others that never reach here: the millions in refugee camps, the increasing threat of Asian Brown Cloud which now covers vast areas of Asia, millions who die needlessly from Malaria. These are real people facing real loss of life and quality of life.

Where is the list of real people who have gotten a knock on the door as a result of use of the telephone meta data? None exist. It is a discussion about a hypothetical future abuse and future knock on the door. Fine. It is a legitimate discussion to have and the President has said so and he has invited a broader review as well

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/18/obama_on_nsa_spying_ive_set_up_a_privacy_and_civil_liberties_oversight_board.html

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Number two. I've stood [sic] up a privacy and civil liberties oversight board, made up of independent citizens including some fierce civil libertarians. I'll be meeting with them. And what I want to do is to set up and structure a national conversation, not only about these two programs, but also the general problem of data, big data sets, because this is not going to be restricted to government entities. (Charlie Rose Show, June 17, 2013)

So pick your vulgarity, and epitaph I continue to support, with pride the President. Call me a cheerleader, fanboi, kool aid drinker or a lackey butt-kissing shit just as long as everyone understands that means I support the President.

Put me at the head of the list. Just you don't dare call me a God Damned Flemish

Right under me please put people like Sen Al Franken

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/al-franken-nsa_n_3423413.html

Liberal Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) emerged as a vocal defender of the National Security Agency on Tuesday, telling Minneapolis-based CBS affiliate WCCO that he was convinced the agency's actions did not constitute spying.
Last week, The Guardian published a bombshell report detailing how the U.S. government has been secretly collecting phone and Internet data. Edward Snowden, who came out as the NSA whistleblower responsible for the explosive leaks, is currently in hiding.
"I can assure you that this isn't about spying on the American people," said Franken, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I have a high level of confidence that this is used ... to protect us, and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism."

G) DU’s 'Renaissance'

Some people have argued that this division has led to a “Renaissance at DU”. I disagree. I think it has lead to more hardened positions and less collegial discussion and Sunday’s proxy war in the form of a “shout out” competition was to me a nadir rather than a pinnacle of quality DU discussion.

The trend line at Alexa doesn’t support the Renaissance theory as generally the number of people visiting appears to be lower. For me I have never believed in addition by subtraction. I think you add to your numbers by actually adding to your numbers:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/democraticunderground.com

The fact remains that if we were at a cocktail party long enough the people who post at this site from both sides would end up in the corner and be in about 95% agreement. Even in the issue of the role of the NSA there is likely wide agreement that we need better oversight, there are probable issues of efficacy, questions of budget and waste the need for transparency. The only way that the reactionary forces win is if we are divided.

And the final bottom line that every DUer agrees on is that if you want the President to sign more liberal friendly legislation there is only one way to get that done:

Elect a more liberal legislature.

If you think that opposition to the President is an open and shut case for liberals/Democrats that position isn't consistent with Gallup showing very little movement with 72% of those identifying themselves as Liberals supporting the President and 82% of Democrats doing the same.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

If you believe it to be an issue that needs to be engaged in then I will make a suggestion:

Perhaps a less vitriolic and more substantive line of argument would be more effective.

[NoOneMan]

1. Seriously?

I'd be surprised if anyone invested their waking hours into reading that. I would be disturbed if anyone wasted their waking hours writing all that.

Post like this highlight the value of Twitter's 140 character limit

[sinkingfeeling]

4. And yours highlights the lost art of reading and comprehension.

[xiamiam]

7. lol..nt

[NoOneMan]

8. That would require I valued wading past the first few paragraphs

I didn't value that

[JaneyVee]

56. Allergic to complexity and nuance?

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. IOW ...

La La La La La ... I can't hear youuuuu!

[pocoloco]

172. “lackey butt-kissing shit”

from word salad men.

That place where the sun don't shine is filling up!

[marble falls]

89. I ws prepared for a rant and then for a looooooong rant. Well done and worth the read. I think.....

Sen Franken might be really wrong this time.

Those 100's of cameras bothered me on my last trip to Phoenix from Texas.

[xiamiam]

5. + a million or 2..nt

[cyberswede]

6. What?

A DUer taking time to illustrate their thoughts and views isn't a waste of time.

[NoOneMan]

10. "Had I but more time, I would have written less."

I think Thomas Jefferson said that

"I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours"

I didn't say that

[snooper2]

11. Post like this remind me

that there are a lot of people like this in the World

[Mopar151]

13. Look - not all of us are "Hooked on Phonics" survivors

Some of us have little trouble reading a page of text, and think that the "140 carachter limit" precludes any sort of serious discussion of a VERY complex subject.

[NoOneMan]

18. Its a bit sarcastic...

I abhor twitter...though by contrast it looks better now

[HappyMe]

15. Quite the opposite.

Reading a well thought out post is always a pleasure. Kind of highlights the lack of thought and command of the English language that is the derp-filled drivel known as Twitter.

[phleshdef]

17. I read it and it took about 10 minutes.

I guess some of us have better attention spans than others.

[NoOneMan]

26. Haha

That's one approach.

[zeemike]

60. With the right hand or the left?

It does make a diference...and don't tell us you switch off...that is not acceptable on DU.

[phleshdef]

62. Mounted Fleshlight FTW.

Look Ma! No hands!

[zeemike]

67. So you can't really commit to one or the other.

Well that is what we are here for...to get you to commit, and to stop the abuse of inanimate objects.

[phleshdef]

69. The inanimate object was asking for it. You could tell by the way it looked at me.

[zeemike]

74. Well that would make a diference...

No one deserves a fleshy look.

[The Magistrate]

28. Masturbate, Rub Face In Filth --- Interesting Set Of Options You Favor, Fella....

"If your sexual fantasies were of interest to others, they would not be fantasies."

[Sheepshank]

50. speaking for everyone?

silly little attention deficit person.

And yet nothing on the content? pathetic.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

72. I had the opposite reaction. Why attack someone

For putting together a comprehensive defense of their position on issues of the day at DU? In the old days, such an effort would have been universally lauded.

I'm sure you love Time magazine's "fact boxes" much more than a long form piece of journalism on The New Yorker, Salon, or Rolling Stone. More's the pity.

[Cha]

129. Seriously? You think there aren't those still on DU who would

find it illuminating?

Consider yourself surprised.

[MADem]

154. Reading is fundamental. That was a great read.

If you can't struggle through it, you're missing a lot.

[Tarheel_Dem]

203. +1. I thoroughly enjoyed it. nt

[Bonobo]

2. Rec because it is a GREAT post. nt

[Kolesar]

51. Indeed...eom

[Blanks]

177. I agree.

[The Magistrate]

3. Well Done, Sir

Very well put, and necessary, unfortunately, in the present circumstances.

[GeorgeGist]

9. You lost me here:

If you are reading it then there is a 99% likelihood that your mind has not simply been made up but set in concrete on the NSA related warrants.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. That's a shame ...

I hope you powered through your initial "lost" and read the entire piece.

[SidDithers]

12. Good post...nt

Sid

[hobbit709]

14. The opposite is also true here.

If you are not an overly enthusiastic pom-pom waving cheerleader, then you are a "hater"

[grantcart]

21. If there are people who state that then it is wrong and counter productive, but

in all seriousness I haven't seen anything that approaches the vitriol and hatred.

The adjectives like

fascist
turn coat
traitor
dictator
sell out

that have appeared in dozens of threads have not been matched in kind or quantity by the President's suporters.

But even if they aren't the same level they should not be used.

Thank you for your comment.

[Pholus]

135. Here is the counter list:

Corporate Fascist
Right Winger
Paulbot
Libertarian
Hater
*Racist*

These have certainly been matched in kind and in quantity.

You had a thoughtful post overall. And it occurs among the beginnings of an admission that things can be better on the part of the administration. It's just too bad that it took a "traitor" to have the discussion.

[MADem]

155. Don't forget "authoritarian" and "jack booted thug"...

My view is this--the stronger the insults, the weaker the argument.

[Moonwalk]

35. Two wrongs don't make a right--and ironically, you complain about their name calling you ("hater)--

--by name-calling them ("pom-pom cheerleaders&quot . Did you mean that ironically? Because the name you give them, "pom-pom cheerleaders," dismisses their support as much as "hater" dismisses your objections. Which proves the above point that such name calling is divisive and undermines serious discussion.

Ultimately, you can't excuse one side's sins by pointing out that the other side does the same. Both are wrong when they do such a thing and both need to stop.

[hobbit709]

39. Phony enthusiasm is like high school pep rallies.

I have no use for fanatic ideologues of any stripe.

[Moonwalk]

128. Once again, you prove the point, by trying to excuse YOUR condemnation....

...of them as if their condemnation of you was "phony" but yours is not. The point, however, is not which side is genuine in their enthusiasm or what you do or don't have a use for. The point is that your dismissive view of them does not further any kind of conversation or understanding. Nor does it help to keep them from dismissing you and your point of view as easily as you seem to be dismissing theirs.

This is more of two wrongs make a right. You want to keep insulting and dismissing them, while decrying their insults of you.

[hobbit709]

130. A swing and a miss

goodbye.

[Moonwalk]

132. No miss at all if others get the message. Thank you for being such a good example.

Bye-bye.

[patrice]

96. That's a natural and very old cognitive habit that is used by either/any side to OPPRESS.

[IrishAyes]

195. There's an old saying

When you're right, pound the facts. When you're wrong, pound the table.

[great white snark]

16. This should resonate more than it will.

Great effin' post.

[phleshdef]

19. I WILL FITE YOU for "lackey butt-kissing shit" #1 position.

Great post. Completely recommended.

[Cha]

131. Yeah, I'd be no where in the

running..

[dawg]

22. It's a shame that the President has put his most ardent supporters into a position where ...

they feel like they have to defend, or make excuses for: NSA surveillance, detention without due process, humiliation of a foreign head of state, a chained CPI for Social Security, drone warfare, and many other policies that we would have screamed bloody murder about under a Republican administration.

[L0oniX]

24. ^^^^this^^^^

[xiamiam]

34. some of which are war crimes, un constitutional and crimes against humanity..very sad indeed..nt

[BrotherIvan]

36. ^^This!^^

[uponit7771]

40. ^^^THIS^^^ = strawman...noted along with Paulian memes.

[dawg]

42. That's all you've got?

[uponit7771]

65. Is more needed?

[dawg]

70. I honestly don't think you even understand ...

the concept of a straw man argument.

[bvar22]

185. Unfortunately, many of our conservative defenders of an authoritarian government ...

... regularly confuse Desperately Grasping at Straws
with finding an actual Strawman Logical Fallacy.


That doesn't do anybody any good,
but the PIG likes it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

120. That's all any of them have.

Defending the indefensible while trying to not completely ridiculous is really hard and most people are not up to it.

Just ask Bachman, I'm just guessing here, but I don't think it's likely that she actually drools while concentrating on forming the next syllable, but watching her, one might reasonably conclude otherwise.

[bullwinkle428]

76. That was not pitchy at all, dawg!!

Great post.

[Skittles]

143. that's not support, it is OBSESSION

[Enthusiast]

149. Zactly.......nt

[East Coast Pirate]

162. Yep.

And only one paragraph.

[leftstreet]

181. +1

[L0oniX]

23. Overload ...got a life ...I reserve book time for late night.

[grantcart]

30. lol did someone force you by gun point to read the OP?

Once you saw the length why did you not simply pass it by.

Your complete lack of any substantive point is noted.

Your time couldn't be that valuable because you wasted it in replying to the thread with absolutely nothing to add.

[Sheepshank]

52. bwahh haa haa haaa *gasp for air* haaahhaaa

well said.

And in brevity too

[MADem]

156. I thank people like that for the kick....

I'm sure a few of them bounced your post back to the top of the heap so I could enjoy it, and for that, I'm grateful! It was a fine read.

[IrishAyes]

196. I appreciate the friend who sent me a link to your OP

because otherwise I would've missed it. I try to scan the home page for things to bookmark and read later, but the content is so large and moves so fast that I'm bound to miss some gems.

Your OP is one I'm glad our mutual friend told me about. I like well written, thoughtful pieces of substance. In other words, remind me of Bill Moyers in the least and you have my ear.

[bemildred]

27. Well done.

1.) I have no problem with you or your views, though we do not always agree. I agree with much of what you said there.

2.) The government would be in a much better position to argue hyperbole in it's critics if it was not so fond of that itself.

[rhett o rick]

29. Sorry but your OP is way too long to address each point. I do find it interesting

that you complain about DU not hiding a thread you feel is complaining about DU. Do you no see the irony?

Regarding Sen Frankin, he has, since your article, signed on with 25 other senators accusing the government of using 'secret law' to collect Americans' data. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/28/senators-james-clapper-nsa-data-collection

Tell me if I am wrong but it seems to me you are saying that we are being surveilled in many ways therefore it's ok.

Also, you mention that under Bush the intelligence agencies broke the law and illegally spied on Americans. Since the laws, programs, and personnel are the same under Pres Obama, why should we think things will be different? Why didnt Pres Obama appoint a Democrat. Why wont he appoint a Democrat to head the FBI? You must see reason for skepticism when this President appoints the same people we were not happy with under Bush.

I do agree with this statement: "Perhaps a less vitriolic and more substantive line of argument would be more effective." but am disappointed that you only aimed it at those critical of the President.

I believe that without strong oversight, agencies like the NSA (Booz-Allen-Hamilton) will step on our Constitutional rights.

Do you support the repeal of the Patriot Act?

[grantcart]

33. I didn't complain about DU not hiding a thread

I complained about the sophistry that was used to justify it.

For the most part I have been voting to leave most of the threads that discusses Meta issues in a polite way and I even established the principle with a question to Skinner in ATA.

I welcome threads that discuss DU in a civil way and I challenge you to find anything I have said to be an attack on a DUer or filled with vitriol.

Re the letter I don't find that to be in contrast to what Frankin said about spying.

He doesn't think it was spying, he does think it should be more transparent

In addition to raising concerns about the law's scope, the senators noted that keeping the official interpretation of the law secret and the instances of misleading public statements from executive branch officials prevented the American people from having an informed public debate about national security and domestic surveillance.

The senators said they were seeking public answers to the following questions in order to give the American people the information they need to conduct an informed public debate. The specific questions include:

• How long has the NSA used Patriot Act authorities to engage in bulk collection of Americans' records? Was this collection underway when the law was reauthorized in 2006?

• Has the NSA used USA Patriot Act authorities to conduct bulk collection of any other types of records pertaining to Americans, beyond phone records?

• Has the NSA collected or made any plans to collect Americans' cell-site location data in bulk?

• Have there been any violations of the court orders permitting this bulk collection, or of the rules governing access to these records? If so, please describe these violations.

I would like to see answers to these questions as well.


I also have questions about the efficacy of the program and the cost.


My point about the various ways meta data is being gathered is that I don't find the NSA meta data base to be as intrusive as others, and the others have NO repeat NO oversight. Beyond that there is the question of non government data gathering, which is much closer to actual spying, by commercial companies.

That is why I find this statement by the President particularly on point:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Number two. I've stood up a privacy and civil liberties oversight board, made up of independent citizens including some fierce civil libertarians. I'll be meeting with them. And what I want to do is to set up and structure a national conversation, not only about these two programs, but also the general problem of data, big data sets, because this is not going to be restricted to government entities. (Charlie Rose Show, June 17, 2013)

If you are concerned about privacy then this is the most far reaching statement of interest by any President at any time.

Re: the FBI Director

This is a non partisan position and Muller has no public affiliation with any party. I remind you that at Gitmo when the FBI interrogators were presented with evidence of waterboarding that they packed up their bags and left because they considered it illegal.

People can be as skeptical as they feel they need to be. My point is that if you are embracing yourself as an FDR Democrat on one hand (when over 100,000 people were illegally put into concentration camps) and vilifying Obama the next then it is obvious that you have a rather obvious double standard. I support FDR but consider that he made a few big mistakes. I have yet to see anyone get a knock on the door under Obama and note that even undocumented workers have a significant increase in civil liberties under this administration.

It isn't going into a data base that worries me it is how it is used coming out.

I think we agree that there should be more transparency and accountability. I believe that the President also agrees.

Glad that we could agree on a return to civility.

[rhett o rick]

81. We must fight apathy and complacency and be vigilant. It's not paranoia to recognize

that tyrants are ever trying to enslave us. We must feel free to speak out and question our representatives and our government. Please read my signature.

I support civility but wont claim I dont overreact on occasion especially when fighting attempts at dominating authoritarianism.

[Pirate Smile]

31. Kick & Recommend

[polichick]

32. What does it mean to be a "100% supporter of the President" ???

Someone could take it to mean that whatever he does is good, or at least excusable, to you.

Or it could mean that no matter what bad stuff he does, you still like/love him - sort of like parents and kids still love their errant kids/parents.

It could mean lots of things.


I've been away for several months and recently returned to see what DU thinks about the NSA story. imo the question of whether posters here "support the president" is mostly a matter of semantics.

I always support the president against attacks by the sociopaths on the other side, but find him pretty disappointing when it comes to his leadership, or lack thereof, on a number of issues.

Does that mean I'm not a 100% supporter of the President?

Semantics.


(A more liberal legislature won't help unless the President wants one, which is questionable when you consider how the WH went after liberals who wanted to fight for the public option.)

[grantcart]

41. I consider myself to be a FDR Democrat.

I support his Presidency as an outstanding example of leadership.

He also fucked up a couple of times and its unfortunate that some things that were done were not challenged.

In the same way I support the President. The 100% simply means that nothing he has done as President has led me to question or lessen my enthusiasm for his election.

I think it is safe to say that looking backward even the President (and I think he has even said this) doesn't agree with everything he has done and would have made some changes.

But this isn't about semantics.

It is about the unbridled vitriol that is hurled against the President.

At various points in the OP I have clearly stated that there were perfectly reasonable issues to bring up.

If you are very disappointed with the President then I am left wondering how disappointed were you with

Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066
Kennedy's private invasion of Cuba
RFK's authorization of wiretaps against Rev King
Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin

and so on.

My point is that there appears to be one metric for other Democratic Presidents and one for Obama and his supporters. This is underscored by the vitriol that is used to disparage the President.

I don't care if you are a 51% supporter of the President.

I am only interested in building a stronger Party and defeating every Republican running for Congress.

I refuse to attack any Democrats except in exceptional cases because like you I find the other side to be run by sociopaths.

[polichick]

73. I must've missed "the vitriol that is used to disparage the President"...

and that's probably a good thing.

As far as being a FDR Dem, imo this party is far too corporate for a return to policies that are so much about the people. Even marijuana remains illegal because so many people would choose it over the pain and sleep meds that this president's beloved pharmaceutical companies rely on for obscene profits. Hell, we can't even get the discounts other countries provide their people with regard to pharmaceuticals - and this is just one issue where the president and the party puts corporations over the people.

After decades of working for the Dem Party, I'm keeping an eye out for a true people's movement.

[Mojorabbit]

88. Great post. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. It's pretty obvious that 'shit' refers to behaviour, not a person

As in "don't give me that shit", "I'm getting too old for this shit", and so on. It's in the singular; if you think it refers to a person, then it refers to only one person ("the shit&quot , and there's no reason whatsoever to think it refers to you. Personally, I was completely unaware you're a BOG host, and I have not noticed you as the most prominent defender of the president either - before or after the NSA scandal. Sorry if you think you're the most important one.

If it referred to one person, then that one person would have had to have left DU for the post to make any sense. Clearly you haven't; I don't know of any notable Pres. Obama defenders who had left shortly before that post. So it referred to the general DU behaviour; the poster thought that we had been, collectively, kissing butt. Obviously what's happened recently is not a change in everyone's attitude, but the poster likes that some are not. It's a point of view (I wouldn't say it's automatically a good thing, but in this case I do like to see some DUers opposing the line of the top Dems).

On your points about surveillance:

If you make a cash transfer of even $ 100 through a bank it is now recorded and added to a financial data base. If you drive within 100 miles of the Southern US border you will pass through check points and your cars details will enter a data base. If you cross a US border your movements are added to a data base, and so on.

The government doesn’t use these data bases for surveillance, and they are not opening up a personal file on you.

Are you sure? They have all your phone records, after all. There's good reason to think that international transactions are all tracked (there's no physical audit trail, and the auditors are the government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, for whom the DNI used to work, and who get their money from the government). Given that so much that has been going on has been in secret, I think it's premature to say the government isn't doing something, until we have independent evidence (remember, James Clapper, that DNI who is an ex-BAH VP, lied to Congress about what the government collects - we can't take their word for it any more).

And this is, I think, the fundamental problem: Obama has a Director of National Intelligence who lies to Congress, has been shown to lie to Congress, and Obama has done nothing at all about removing him. He seems happy to leave untrustworthy people in charge of a huge surveillance program, and just say "we need a conversation about this", while moving heaven and earth to catch the man who revealed the document that proved Clapper is a lying piece of shit. This means you can no longer trust the word of anyone in the government, even when they're appearing in front of Congress. How many more Clappers are still in the government?

[grantcart]

49. Obviously you find vitriol against the President and his supporters to be

perfectly fine and that no double standard exists in judging the President and this unfortunately doesn't leave us enough common ground to continue with a discussion.

Let me just make one point on the word use level

They have all your phone records does not mean that it is used for surveillance. It means that it is used to identify different actors.

If the data base (whether it is money transfer, driving or telephoning) connects enough dots then that person would become a candidate for further investigation which would include physical surveillance, phone wiretaps and so on. In some cases it is in public and doesn't require a warrant and others it would.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. If they're fishing through everyone's records for patterns, then everyone's under surveillance

And the people in charge of it - whether currently working for contractors, people who used to work for the contractors, or even people who have only done it for the government, are not trustworthy. Obama needs to clean the Augean stables to get back some trust. Instead, he's attacking the messenger.

[bigtree]

58. missed his point, I think

. . . poster believes the crack was directed at ALL Obama supporters. He's making a stand as ONE of those supporters that Willy denigrated in his comment.

I think anyone who makes that sort of generalized insult is inflating their own self-importance above the folks here they disagree with.

There's quite a simple solution. Don't characterize others motives for posting. Don't make assumptions about what posters believe or represent; ask them what they believe or represent.

Of course, such characterizations are nothing more that veiled attempts to define those they disagree with in a decidedly condescending and presumptuous manner. The op makes clear where he stands. I'd expect that to do, but, it's a cinch that someone here will try and tell him what he really means . . .

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. "ask them what they believe or represent" - so why didn't he ask WillyT, instead of posting the OP?

As I said, the use of the singular 'shit' makes it impossible to read it as a reference to a group of people. And it makes no sense for it to refer to a single person, let alone a group of people, who are still on DU. I'll stick with standard grammar and English comprehension, rather than twisting English into knots to arrive at the conclusion the OP did.

But if you feel the need to paint your group as martyrs, carry on.

[bigtree]

78. good example

Nothing I wrote said anything about believing I'm a martyr. Still, you're content and determined on characterizing me as seeking sympathy or attention.

Nothing I wrote said a thing about belonging to some 'group.' Still, you're content and determined on characterizing me as a member.

It's not grammar that you're having difficulty with; it's reading comprehension.

[Cha]

136. Thank you!

[Cha]

137. Lame attempt. No one.. much less bigtree is

painting anyone as a "martyr" in our "group".

That would be supporters of President Obama.. of which I am one.

[IrishAyes]

197. Hey, count me in too!

[FSogol]

38. K&R. Well said. Bottom line: GOTV 2014.

We need more Democrats in the House and Senate.

[flamingdem]

44. Second that motion nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. Absolutely n/t

[sheshe2]

43. An excellent OP, grant!

This needs to be read and kicked to the top of the greatest page.

I wish I had time to say more, but I will return after work.

As a member of the BOG, I thank you for taking the time and patience to address the issues.

sheshe~

[sheshe2]

45. Kick!

and Highly Recommend!

[Jessy169]

46. I'm seeing this issue in pretty much the same way as grantcart

From my point of view, there has been massive over-reaction and vindictiveness toward Obama in regards to "the Snowden debacle".

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. He is not a "hero" -- not in my book.

Given all the extreme dangers that we are exposed to, it makes sense to me that responsible leaders would want to be in a position to monitor the roads, pathways and electronic signals that the would-be mass-murderers are most likely to use in their nefarious plots.

The data collected by NSA may at some point be used to target law-abiding or politically "incorrect" groups. That is a valid concern, and a distinct possibility IMO. But that distinct possibility does not override the legitimate need to make sure we don't get hit with another 9/11, or worse.

Obama has little to no control over the NSA program. No president does. There are much greater forces at work than any one man sitting in the oval office.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

47. thank you! bookmarking to read later

Looks worthwhile. I've avoided all the NSA threads.

And also:

I gotta love anyone who uses the phrase "tendentious sophistry" correctly!

[IrishAyes]

198. Yes. Long time since I heard that one.

[bigtree]

48. nice thread, as usual

. . . I liked the wave of shout-outs. It was a silly release of emotion and on ground where most of our posters live and breathe.

[NuclearDem]

53. Well, first of all, let me say this is very well put-together OP

However, I've got issues with the content.

A) There are no clear parameters established for the NSA spying database, and it was erected in secret with very little oversight. I don't take issues with border checkpoints or monitoring financial transactions because they have very clearly-defined purposes and goals: the former to monitor and control immigration and drug trafficking, the latter to monitor illegal financial activity.

Those Border Patrol roadblocks are very fundamentally restricted by City of Indianapolis v. Edmond: such checkpoints have to serve a specific purpose. They cannot fall under "general law enforcement", a standard which should apply to all specialized law enforcement measures.

As you pointed out yourself, the Border Patrol checkpoints aren't shrouded in secrecy; it didn't take a whistleblower to reveal how the checkpoints work, or the fact they exist. The absolute opposite was true of PRISM and most other elements of the surveillance state. Border control policies also face open debate in the state and federal legislatures when it comes time to reform policy and make changes; surveillance programs do not.

B) This is a case where if it's worth monitoring or collecting data, it's convincing enough to a judge to get a warrant. The only other places where calls are monitored and recorded without prior approval are in prisons and classified lines on military installations. They have compelling needs to monitor phone calls: the former to monitor gang activity, the latter to control sensitive information.

Any sane judge would look at the broad scale of the NSA programs and other warrantless surveillance state apparati and deny requests based almost solely on overreaching and no clearly defined purpose.

D) This is the part I found the most egregious. It's eerily reminiscent of the "Americans don't know what poverty is, because people in Nigeria don't enough have cell phones" and "we'll allow them to build mosques here when we can build synagogues in Saudi Arabia" arguments we hear coming from the Right and Fox News. It's holding ourselves to abysmally-low standards to make our problems seem not as bad.

I'll grant you the United States doesn't necessarily have tanks rolling up and down the street to suppress protests (though if you were at Occupy Oakland or NATO Chicago, you wouldn't know it), and we don't have a secret police force knocking down our doors to drag us away and murder our family members (unless you live in one of the neighbors the DEA has a hate-on for). Our methods of controlling our citizens and suppressing dissent are more subtle, which makes them even more sinister.

But since we are bringing up foreign abuses, let's take a look:

Indonesia – too many ways to describe here but to suffice it to say that being labeled a communist after the attempted coup would get you in trouble.

Just like being labeled a communist at any time between 1917 and 1991 in the United States. Communists were jailed for protesting American involvement in WWI, were a popular target for Hoover's corrupt FBI, and were blacklisted in just about every profession. Again, it's more subtle and sinister because the government and media twisted the culture to view communists as the enemy, and it became acceptable at a personal level to distrust or outright hate someone who identified with a far-left ideology.

Malaysia – Not a great deal but they famously ruined one Islamic reformer by arresting him on a trumped up Sodomy charges.

Talk to any Occupy activist who has been held in legal limbo for months after arrest (often on trumped up charges) and subsequently terrified from returning to the streets to protest.

F) For the bajillionth time, just because I vehemently disagree with the President on the surveillance state, chained CPI, and other failures, doesn't mean I don't acknowledge and even praise what he's done right. I do generally support the actual liberal policies he pursues, but I do take just about anything that comes from an elected official with a grain of salt. Past history justifies this.

[zeemike]

54. Wow...a complete list of excuses and rationalizations all in one place

Very handy and we can now refer to them with numbers and letters...makes things so much easer...

Well it is because of F 7....and G 3...

[MoreGOPoop]

55. K & R

Yup!

[xtraxritical]

57. Do you expect me to read books about your hurt feelings?

[11 Bravo]

79. Based on your nuanced and insightful response, no one expects you to read any books at all. Ever.

[Bluenorthwest]

169. The lexicon and manners of those who wear Obama's name like a shield speak volumes

about the politics that informs them.

[stevenleser]

194. I can't imagine someone who objects to this OP being too long reading Dostoevsky or Tolstoy

two of my favorite authors.

That's for sure.

[NRaleighLiberal]

59. Your incredible effort on the OP is appreciated - well done, and thought-provoking.

It is such a complex issue being discussed by a broad, diverse and complex membership whose views have been formed over different generations, living in different areas - so anything that adds to the discourse and aids understanding is important.

Speaking for myself, it is kind of like peeling an onion - I am very pro-Democratic/liberal principles, and in a perfect world, they would be aggressively and uniformly pursued by all elected Democrats. Of course, we know that isn't possible - Democrats in different areas of the country have different flavors. FDR is my ideal as well; I am actually so far left that I've finally come to realize no Democratic presidential candidate could ever possibly fully represent all of my ideals - oh well!

I guess for me I've become disillusioned - I am too idealistic, and the Bush years and post-911 reaction, as well as the growing power of money, turns my affection for any politician lukewarm at best - it is about having distressingly low expectations, because, to me, the money aspect can't be overcome. Maybe it is Bernie Sanders that I feel has it the most right, yet he himself is a politician, so in many respects his hands will be tied as well.

Call me skeptical or cynical - it's where my mindset is, currently. And so, where I come down to on issues - of course, it is all about ensuring Democrats are in office (because the opposite is clearly, truly terrifying) - but as a person who tends not to put anyone on a pedestal or find anyone beyond constructive critique, that's as good as it gets. I admire and respect our president, am overjoyed he was elected. The cards are stacked against him - they were from the start. He has accomplished much - and I hope for more.

But on the Snowden situation, it isn't about what's legal, about Snowden, or about our president, to me. It is about what should be, what is wrong with how things now are - and all colored by our inappropriate reaction to 911 and what we ended up giving up - we certainly don't act like a bold, brave country, in my view. And then I realize how much it is all about money. And it makes me disillusioned, and sad.

As for DU - the website I've spent perhaps the most time on for 9 years now - for me it is never about taking sides or joining any group - it is about learning from so many smart people, overlooking the inevitable times when things get kind of crazy (like now) - but appreciating that it is here for us.

[malokvale77]

125. I couldn't have said it better.

Luv those 'maters.

[IrishAyes]

199. If you can't catch a rodent any other way,

they love tomato skins. Not that it pertains to any political statements in this thread, but I had nothing deeper to add, so ....

[Sheepshank]

63. Well done and worth the read

I personally prefer reading these thoughts over "sicking my hand in gross XXXXX" or whatever it was that some upthread poster stated.

Fine points made clear with examples. Thanks.

When the substance of the attacks is based on the length of the disclosure, rather than the content of the idea, that silly battle had already been lost....in Palinesque style non the less. Perhpas never ending "Hey, squirrel" is as deep as some would find necessary for a discussion board.

[JaneyVee]

64. K & R! Quite possibly the most sane and rational OP I've ever read on DU.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

66. This is the longest post at DU I have read all the way

Through in quite a few years. I know putting this wide ranging set of thoughts in a meaningful and readable way took a fair amount of time and effort.

Thank you!

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. Great OP ...

Well reasoned piece ... that will be half read (if that) and promptly ignored.

[IrishAyes]

200. Not entirely.

I might re-read it even. After all I'm reading the responses. But then I like reading more than a lot of people. If I told you more, it would sound as if I'm trying to make this about me, which I'm not and it isn't. Just saying, people can surprise you at times.

Although yes, it was silly for the poster to carp about Grant's exceeding Twitter limits. How do you manage in court with so little attention span in the general public? Or does it hold true in court? I can't help wondering, and I have to ask because I avoid courtrooms like the plague unless it's on Boston Legal. It's sort of like surgical hospitals; I'm glad they're there, but I'd still rather be somewhere else. Say, the library, which I always found a rather holy place.

[Wait Wut]

75. I want to start...

...a 'Shout Out to Grantcart' thread...but, I'm not the type.



Thank you for a little bit of healing.

[Savannahmann]

77. A rather long thread to get the point across.

You got your initial point out right away. You were upset that the moderators (Doesn't that make this whining about DU) failed to defend the perceived wrong.

Now I found that to be rather tendentious sophistry because I think it was quite clear who the OP was referring to, they were referring to me.

You felt personally wronged, and went to a lot of trouble to wrap that wrong in a larger argument about responsibility and loyalty to the Democratic Party.

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. Maybe you should have ...

completed the read. There's still time to correct your completely erroneous take away.

[Savannahmann]

95. I did read it.

The poutrage extends from the first point.

[1StrongBlackMan]

99. Okay ...

most of us reading the OP saw that first point as but a minor point in a very long piece.

[Savannahmann]

107. The other points were burrs on bushes that scratch your leg.

Annoying, but hardly significant. Most of us have suffered a scratch or two, and ignored them as insignificant.

The burr under the saddle so to speak was that she felt personally insulted, and it was allowed to continue instead of being shut down. That was the reason the other scratches became intolerable.

We can argue the fallicy that Obama is powerless to do anything to stop this crap from the GOP. But that denies the truth, that of all the Representatives, and the Senators, only one of those being discussed can stop all the others with a single word. Only President Obama has the Veto, and no one can stop him. Congress would have to act in a large unified body to override that veto. Yet, even that could be undermined with one speech from our President outlining why he opposed this legislation. One man has the worlds press in a single room less than one hundred yards away. One man has the ability to shape the debate, and discuss the real issues.

That one man hasn't taken possession of the bully pulpit. Ignore what the GOP douchebags will say. They would condemn President Obama if he held a huge ceremony to honor the memory of, and announce a gigantic statue to Ronald Reagan. The Republicans would oppose that. One man has the opportunity to shape the debate. Remember the damage that Reagan did, getting Congress flooded with calls in support of his horrific tax cuts on the wealthy? Good Democrats were cowed into inaction, or outright support by this astro turf display of the bully pulpit.

President Obama can deliver a speech better than Reagan can, and he doesn't. He doesn't come out in favor of principles, and he doesn't come out in favor of liberal agenda items unless the polls make it look like he could win. Before you accuse me of it, I am not under any definition calling President Obama a coward. I'm saying he's playing it safe politically, unwilling to expend political capital on issues if there is a fair chance he could lose. Yet, we are all suffering because of that unwillingness to take risks, and we are all looking at the Republicans running the table, because President Obama doesn't want to take a stand for the right things.

One man, bully pulpit, unfettered access to the press of the world. Congressional Republicans, many voices, many voices disagreeing with each other, competing against each other, and our side, for access to less press than President Obama has a minutes slow walk away.

Do we support President Obama? Obviously. Do we support Democrats over Republicans? Is night dark and day light? Is water wet? Do I really need to respond to the rest of the crap?

The blind supporters line up to congratulate President Obama for a vague reference to an issue. They talk about his strength, and conviction. But when he doesn't show that strength, that conviction, then he's powerless before the forces arrayed before him.

President Obama could have told HHS to leave the Employer mandates on and told the business leaders to shut the fuck up. Instead he went along, citing vague problems defining some of the minor points. The minor points? Millions of workers are being shafted, and we're worried about if Company A might not maintain his profit margin? Every year hundreds of thousands will go bankrupt or nearly so, or die, because of lack of insurance. Our answer, punish the poor for not cutting out those luxuries like heat in the winter to help them afford insurance. But no, we're not going to make the corner burger joint pay for that insurance, it wouldn't be fair to the CEO's of the various corporations.

So yes, I saw her post. It was a long litany of how disloyal we all are for not understanding the limits of, and blindly supporting President Obama. Yes, I saw the OP, and it was all a long list of scratches, while the burr under the saddle, the main pain inducing items, was that she felt singled out, and nobody stood up and stopped it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

110. Okay ...

I'm gonna do what you have done with the OP ...

The other points were burrs on bushes that scratch your leg. Annoying, but hardly significant. Most of us have suffered a scratch or two, and ignored them as insignificant.[

He wrote exactly what his issues are and stated them clearly; but you presume to knew the OP's mind better then the OP himself, as to the ranking of the issues ... "the other of your points are burrs on brushes that scratch your leg ..."

I hope you recognize how arrogant your post is and that it is EXACTLY what the OP addressed first in the piece.

[IrishAyes]

201. Touche.

[GeorgeGist]

167. Thanks for the authoritarian view.

Some people see the introduction the rightful place to justify the reason for an OP.

[cali]

80. A couple of points and a question.

First of all, I've been called Madame Obama hater, an Obama hating troll, have had a suggested that I wanted Mitt Romney to win, been told that I never supported President Obama and more- just about everyday. I'm hardly alone. So, let's be clear: It flows both ways.

Secondly, you align yourself with Senator Franken. That's fine. I don't. I align myself with Senators Leahy, Wyden, Udall and Sanders who part company from Senator Franken. Leahy is far, far more knowledgeable about these issues than the much junior Senator Franken.

You don't consider the ever encroaching and exponentially growing National Security State to be a big deal. I do and I think you're being sadly shortsighted to dismiss it as you do. That's essentially what you're doing.

The question:

Do you consider this thread to be bashing? Just trying to establish what your baseline is for "bashing".


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023199894

[1StrongBlackMan]

94. Well ...

First of all, I've been called Madame Obama hater, an Obama hating troll, have had a suggested that I wanted Mitt Romney to win, been told that I never supported President Obama and more- just about everyday. I'm hardly alone. So, let's be clear: It flows both ways.

This point was addressed and condemned by the OP.

You don't consider the ever encroaching and exponentially growing National Security State to be a big deal. I do and I think you're being sadly shortsighted to dismiss it as you do. That's essentially what you're doing.

That's not what the OP has written, essentially or otherwise.

Might want to re-read the OP.

[BumRushDaShow]

98. I doubt cali read the whole thing the first time. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. I doubt more than a few ...

of those that are critical of the OP has read more than the first couple of line before they started "skimming for argument."

[sigmasix]

83. well written and seriously needed

The level of vitriol towards the president on DU is the result of willfull ignorance combined with conspracy theory mongering. The president is not above the law or critisism but most of the critisisms that I have read have nothing to do with what the president is able to do. And it always seems that the complaints about spying on every American all the time comes from the same dishonest or willfully ignorant reading of the evidence. Thank you for this OP- I hope many more are on the way!

[cliffordu]

86. Enthusiastic K&R!!!!!

yer BACK!!!!!

Throwing heat and light all at the same time

[BumRushDaShow]

87. Sanity has returned to DU with your post

Thank you (and yes I read the whole thing).

[patrice]

91. Fascist propaganda against those with whom they disagree is prejudiced & over-simplified. You can

see this in characterizations of Obama supporters as all being 100% mindless robots and then when an Obama supporter tries to communicate anything but the accepted memes about the issues, they are attacked with insults about one's ability to think.

I don't like DU anymore. It has become a hangout for elitist fascists who punish those who disagree with them or who ask difficult questions.

[Jamaal510]

157. These same people

call us "sheepish" or "authoritarian" just for mentioning facts contrary to their positions. It's basically to Hell with getting the full story; it's much more fun to jump on the President without getting the full 101 about Snowden's motives or how the NSA really works, or how Congress has handily approved the Patriot Act more than once since before Obama was first inaugurated. Most of these supposed critics of his come off as self-righteous shit-disturbers IMO. It makes one wonder if they were even Democrats to begin with; the type of talking points coming from them against the President are typically what libertarians and wingnuts use.

[IrishAyes]

202. And we are known by our fruits.

[patrice]

93. There is no such thing as an absolute right. Rights are relative; that's what makes them rights.

There is no absolute right to privacy in any group. (Rhetorical) Your right to privacy ends where you hurt others. Claims of an absolute right are lies, what is actually being claimed is PRIVILEGE to do as one wants even if it hurts others.

If you want absolute privacy LEAVE the group.

[CakeGrrl]

97. K/R

Great perspective and spot-on about the loss of civility here.

[Rex]

101. If you want to think of yourself as a lackey etc etc

because you support the POTUS 100%, then who am I to stop you? Despite the exaggerations, very well written OP that deserves a K&R for solid writing.

[Ilsa]

102. You said, "No one is going to be persuaded by this thread."

You never know. Don't Liberals tend to be more open to reason? I haven't read your entire post yet, and I'll finish later, but I'm willing to listen to your reasonable arguments.

As for Snowden and the NSA, I think this might be the first or third post I've made in the many threads about the whole situation. I'm taking my time working it through.

[grantcart]

105. Its just on this issue that for the most part opinions have crystallilzed

very quickly and issues like the difference between being passively listed in a meta data base versus an object of surveillance is a nuance that some are going to see as rationalizations. There are some issues at DU where this type of thing happens and when it does very little actual discussion takes place.

[BornLooser]

103. Yes, a ton of assumption, conclusion jumping (me too), and petty personal attacks here

I believe all Pols should be judged by their actions. Both sides say just about anything to mark up the polls, and the votes. Based on what I have seen with my own eyes, I have doubts. Among those doubts, is that a 100% belief in anyone, or anything, is inherently foolish in these times. Doubt. I have it, about Potus, Scotus, and damned near every one of the 535. You gotta show me, Sir. I support my President, my Party, but not to the detriment of principle.

To digress, I thought the piece was enlightening. Thank You.

[NuclearDem]

109. I wish I could rec a reply.

Very well put.

[BornLooser]

114. Thanks

[VOX]

104. Thank you, grantcart -- you're my kind of "lackey butt-kissing shit"!

Seriously! Thanks for **thinking** things through...a rare quality these days.

[zappaman]

106. Excellent post!

I wish I had socks so I could rec it more than once!

[treestar]

108. Reminded me of the requirement to report payments over $10,000

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/FAQs-Regarding-Reporting-Cash-Payments-of-Over-$10,000-(Form-8300)

When I thought of it, I realized the HOF Brigade should be far more outraged about this. It specifically creates a database of people who are to be suspected/searched for wrongdoing, just because they did a thing legal in itself (made a large deposit of cash).

Telephony metadata pales in comparison. And who knows what else the government collects already. And we want them to register who has what guns, another piece of personal data that would be specifically known.

[msanthrope]

111. An excellent post. Kick. nt

[patrice]

112. Why are we assuming that everyone on either/any side of this is exactly what they

claim to be. Trolling isn't rocket science, so it wouldn't be hard to give the other side a bad name with particularly egregious remarks, especially with a little assistance from collaborators.

Statements about ALL of those (pro or con Obama) others seem to me to be so fundamentally and OBVIOUSLY non-rational that a person just has to wonder what the hell is going on. Why don't we see questions or observations about this particular trait of the discourse here more?

[felix_numinous]

113. Thank you Grantcart

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

for posting to arbitrate the divide here. All of the name calling and flame baiting only serves to widen the rift. In my posts I have tried to be the most respectful. I have a couple more points in response to this discussion.

First, humans rights issues, which range from health education, welfare and privacy, to the corporate/ military control of the government and citizenry, are NOT partisan issues. They are being MADE into partisan issues by the people who wish to divide and control, not only the country at large, but within the Democratic Party.

The politically correct way to criticize these issues is to blame the crazy RW, who actually exist and are a domestic threat. But while this is true, it is ALSO true that corporations have a revolving door in high places with a Democratic leadership, using the 'mad GOP' as the 'bad cop' against criticising or calling attention to this.

In a democracy, you cannot fit a whole population as diverse as ours onto one party. I am all for 'turning the country blue', but while it is good for elections, it is not good for reaching a consensus on a national level.

Many of us are old enough to remember a sane Republican Party. They were environmentalists, not as racist or fundamentalist, were fiscal conservatives, and were rational. Many of them were for choice and were not xenophobic. Many of us here recognize what happened to that party was not a normal drift to the right. It was taken over by likely international entities who are in the business of dividing whole populations. Wherever they go, civil wars and violence is left in their wake, because they wish to clean up amidst the chaos they create.

What is happening here, IMHO, is that we are being given the BURDEN of consensus at our level, instead of people in two or more parties being able to petition our concerns more directly to representatives. Actually I have come to see this as a major obstacle in reaching consensus on many issues.

I can actually see evidence of real bonified moderates, all the way through the spectrum to far left here.

We CAN reach consensus, but I think it helps not to demonize people for their worldview in a diverse group, but to be mindful that we have been manipulated as a giant population, into an unbalanced party system. In my opinion, as we address the problem of big money eclipsing the voice of the people, the parties can then be free to return to (at least) two distinct, and dignified groups once again.

The issue of surveillance is more upsetting to some --because these people are the ones being marginalized!! Peace activists, union organizers, environmentalists, women of choice, minorities--not that this does not affect everyone, but we FEEL this marginalization more acutely and immediately.

I think other people are more 'meh' because they are comfortable and trust the political process to come around to solving the surveillance issue through the regular channels and chain of command. They find the far left as too volatile and too much of a threat to party unity.

It is BEST in a diverse group, to practice the best respect, and in many cases agree to disagree and strive to find common ground. It is what we expect of our representatives, if the two parties were more balanced and rational.

[bvar22]

115. An interesting manifesto.

There are a few gaping holes in your logic,
and some rather bold omissions.

1)You open with the government Surveillance Cameras not only along the border,
some over 100 miles from the border itself,
and then rationalize that this is not an infringement of our Civil Rights because they aren't "hidden".
That is arguable,
but what is NOT arguable is that you OMITTED any mention of the
Security Check Points up to 100 miles into the interior of border states where vehicles are STOPPED, HELD, and Searched without any probable cause what-so-ever.
I would like to see you make your case that these are not a usurpation of our 4th Amendment rights.


2)Your attack on FDR over the Internment needs a lot more depth to be understood in context in which it occurred. The Japanese Internment has been cited as the Lowest Point of the FDR Administration, and everyone today acknowledges that it was a serious mistake and an abridgment of Constitutional Rights.
How then can you use The Internment to justify the current usurpation of our Civil Liberties when EVERYBODY admits that it was wrong?
Id that was WRONG for FDR, isn't it also WRONG for Obama today?

Are you trying to say that since FDR made a mistake,
we should avert our eyes and say NOTHING if President Obama is making the same mistake today?

Being thrown into a "declared" World War in Two Hemispheres
immediately after the Pacific Fleet had been sunk,
and the continent of Europe conquered by an unstoppable ARMY
is profoundly different than being in an undeclared War on a Word against a handful of international criminals who, even IF they had a suitcase bomb,
pose very little threat to the existence of our country.
To attempt to use these two very different circumstances to EXCUSE Constitutional Excesses that are occurring today is simple NOT justified.


I could keep going,
but I'm going to stop here and offer these rebuttals to your FIRST TWO items
as evidence of WHY I labeled your post a "Manifesto".
It is NOT a clinical attempt to describe our current situation,
but a lengthy slanted attempt to rationalize your position and discount those who don't agree with you.

Good Day.

[grantcart]

118. Thanks for your reply

Re Border Patrol Checkpoints

There have been various detailed Supreme Court rulings that have looked at the issue in depth. Within 100 miles of the border the Border Patrol is allowed to stop and ask you questions but you are not required to answer. To conduct further investigation and searches they would have to have probable cause.

http://www.texasobserver.org/border-patrol-takes-no-for-an-answer-at-internal-checkpoints/

By email later, a Border Patrol spokesman gave me the answer I was looking for: “Although motorists are not legally required to answer the questions ‘are you a U.S. citizen and where are you headed,’ they will not be allowed to proceed until the inspecting agent is satisfied that the occupants of vehicles traveling through the checkpoint are legally present in the U.S.”

Border Patrol agents are granted authority to question the occupants of vehicles traveling through an established checkpoint based on U.S. vs. Martinez-Fuerte. That was a 1976 Supreme Court decision that said permanent or fixed checkpoints set up by the U.S. Border patrol on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

You completely missed the point re FDR. The point is that there is a double standard by many DUers when it comes to critiquing Presidents. Some DUers will praise FDR in one breath and condemn "Obama's assault on the 4th amendment" in the next. There is no metric that can be applied that would put FDR ahead of Obama in terms of protecting the 4th Amendment. Over 100,000 legal residents and citizens were rounded up put in camps and their property taken. Under Obama that number is exactly 0,

Under Bush ICE conducted random neighborhood searches looking for undocumented workers and deported them by the thousands. Under Obama that practice was halted (in the San Diego Sector one ICE Agent deported a single undocumented worker and was reprimanded). I travel with my undocumented future son in law through Border Patrol Check Points and show them the card allowing for temporary permission even though he has no visa and we travel along with no fear of a knock on the door.

FDR's use of Executive Order defied rational explanation of any kind because it didn't effect Japanese living in Hawaii where there was an active spy ring but did in Arizona where there was none. Moreover we had already broken the code and were reading the cable traffic at will so the whole thing had absolutely zero strategic or tactical sense.

The point again is that among many at DU there is one standard that applies to Obama that is not applied to other Democratic Presidents. If you want to have further insight into this phenomena I invite you to the African American Group and they will fill you in.

[bvar22]

126. Nobody here praises FDR for the Japanese Internment.

It IS soundly condemned as an excess of his Presidency.
I STILL can NOT understand HOW you are insisting this is a Double Standard
UNLESS you maintain that since FDR did it,
we should be OK if Obama exceeds his presidential authority also without ANY condemnation or complaint.
THAT would be a REAL "Double Standard".

Do YOU believe that FDR exceeded HIS Presidential Authority with the Japanese Internment?
It seems as if you are saying "YES, He DID" since you are basing your entire apology on this fact.
If so,
AND you grasp at this detail of WW2 to NOW justify the excesses of the Obama Administration,
THEN, you MUST also believe that Obama is INDEED exceeding HIS Presidential Authority,
and in a FAR less threatening situation that the one that FDR faced in 1941.

Basic Logic.

So, which is it?

[grantcart]

165. The double standard that is being used to judge President Obama is so

obvious that it is painful to have to describe it further detail:

FDR

Action: Executive order 9066

Actual victims: 100,000 who lost their property and freedom

(Also proposed 'packing of the court', a second attempt to undermine the Constitution but was not successful).

JFK and RFK

Action: Authorized the wiretapping of Dr. Martin Luther King

Actual victim: Dr. King's loss of privacy and the circulation of transcripts of private conversations.

President Obama

No unauthorized wiretapping.

Not a single US citizen has been identified who has been the subject of a search or arrest as a result of the NSA using meta data bases.


The fact that the President's record on civil rights is frequently compared to Bush's by people afflicted by the Obama Derangement Syndrome further shows this amazing double standard.

Unlike other Presidents this President has dramatically expanded coverage of civil rights to people residing in the US.

Prior to President Obama's administration ICE was used to conduct sweeps of undocumented workers who live here but violate no other laws and are simply hard working laborers.

Here is one example

http://revcom.us/a/104/ice-raids-en.html

In total 1,200 people have been detained in these massive raids, and at least 600 of those arrested have already been deported. ICE boasts that this is the largest operation they have conducted in the U.S. so far. Most of the arrests took place in Los Angeles—with many people also being picked up in Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura County.

As word spread, shopping centers and neighborhoods that are usually full of life and activity became still. Teachers at ESL schools reported dramatically low attendance. A 19-year-old student from Guatemala told Revolution, “I spent six months in jail in San Antonio because I didn’t have papers when I was 16 years old. They deported me, but I risked it again and came back. Imagine what it feels like to know that you could be grabbed at any moment—I just want to send money to my family. I’m no criminal!”

People in the targeted neighborhoods said that many of the arrests have been made at dawn while people are getting ready to go to work or families are still asleep. Now, people don’t open the door to anyone or talk about the whereabouts of their neighbors to anyone they don’t know.

Maria, one of those targeted by ICE as a “fugitive alien,” came to the U.S. when she was 11 years old. She attended college for a while until she couldn’t afford it any more. She married a U.S. citizen and has an infant child. When ICE went into her home, she told them that she was still breastfeeding her baby. Maria told La Opinion, “They arrested me, they handcuffed me in front of my family as if I were a criminal.” In an unusual turn of events, the ICE did not take her into custody then but gave her a court date. Maria is now trying to get legal representation to change her legal status.

The interesting thing about these raids is that the uproar in blogosphere against these actual assault of liberties never reached the same level of outrage that simply entering a data base did.

Here is an accurate description of how those rights were abused before President Obama

http://www.ilrc.org/for-immigrants-para-inmigrantes/know-your-rights

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a part of the United States Department of Homeland Security, and runs a nationwide enforcement initiative to identify, arrest and remove undocumented immigrants with a prior order of removal, deportation or exclusion. During the course of their raids, ICE teams often encounter people without prior deportation orders and without criminal records. ICE has maintained its right to arrest and deport these people as well. But ICE agents are not just sweeping up noncitizens they encounter in the process of seeking “fugitive aliens.”

Furthermore, through tactics of intimidation, coercion, threats, and sometimes even force, ICE agents have violated people’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and the rights of their families. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that it protects all people, which includes immigrants, from unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment) and self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment).

In some of the more egregious cases, ICE officers have entered homes without warrants, even when warrants were requested; U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents have been held in custody; people have been threatened and coerced into signing away their rights and been immediately deported from the United States, leaving their families, including young children, behind; and detainees have not been provided with basic information regarding their rights or have had their very basic rights violated. As a result of these illegal practices, hardworking immigrants have been forced to depart from the United States, often leaving their U.S. citizen children behind.

Now ICE is used to track down actual criminals who are here illegally and we now see stories like this:

http://www.sbsun.com/traffic/ci_13979882

Camacho-Madrigal was found in San Bernardino County just seven months after he had been deported, according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court. He had been convicted in Los Angeles County in December 1992 for the sex offense, and was sentenced to three years in prison.

The three-day immigration bust, which concluded late Thursday, targeted illegal aliens with criminal records and was the largest ever carried out by ICE.

ICE officials said more than 80 percent of the people arrested had prior convictions for serious or violent crimes, including rape, armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. Thirty are convicted sex offenders. At least 100 have already been removed from the country.

Last December I travelled with my soon to be son in law who is an undocumented refugee from El Salvador. We went through 3 border patrol checkpoints. He presented them with his temporary authorization card that the President has issued to hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers in the US and the Border Patrol Agent said "technically you are still here illegally and before you would have been picked up and sent back but under this administration you are protected" and waived us through.

But you talk of "excesses of the Obama administration".

Really?

Name one actual victim of the NSA mega data base who has

1) had his property seized
2) been detained
3) had his records, including phone conversations seized without a warrant.

The fact that the President has extended protection to millions that didn't get it before doesn't register on your meter at all.

Why is that?

Is it because those victims are brown and you are completely unaware of the realities of their life?

[bvar22]

187. Let me make it real simple for you.

Your argument is logically invalid.

You have detailed what you consider Constitutional Excesses of the FDR Administration,
but use them to conclude that since FDR did it,
we should not hold Obama accountable for HIS Constitutional Excesses.

The very fact that you spend so much effort to detail the problems with the FDR Administration
is an acknowledgement that the Obama Administration is EXCEEDING its Presidential Authority also.

Degree doesn't affect the invalidity of your position.

[IrishAyes]

205. You'd make a great spin doctor.

[bvar22]

206. My argument (that YOU avoid adressing in your Ad Hominen attack) is Basic Logic

[div class="excerpt" Your argument is logically invalid.

You have detailed what you consider Constitutional Excesses of the FDR Administration,
but use them to conclude that since FDR did it,
we should not hold Obama accountable for HIS Constitutional Excesses.

The very fact that you spend so much effort to detailing the UNIVERSALLY CONDEMNED problems with the FDR Administration
is an acknowledgement that the Obama Administration is EXCEEDING its Presidential Authority also.

Degree doesn't affect the invalidity of your position.

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

[font size=3]If Constitutional Excesses are WRONG & CONDEMNED for FDR,
why are they NOW OK for Obama ?

[/font]


When looking for "Spin", look for people avoiding answering the simple questions like the one I asked by posting lengthy Gish Gallops like the OP.
THAT is where you will find "Spin".

[IrishAyes]

207. Some people mistake a string of hot words as wisdom

When they're really nothing more than a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Declining to address your every word with the deep awe you might wish does not necessarily make me intellectually amiss.

In case you didn't quite catch that, it means I'm not impressed enough to hang on your every word. In fact, I'm quite through listening now. Please make a note of it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

192. No ... No ... No ...

bvar22, let me try and explain how praising/proclaiming "I'm a FDR Democrat", while condemning President Obama as a/an {fill in the blank} is applying a double standard ...

You don't get to pick the part(s) of a President's legacy (e.g., FDR's economic plan ... which we all loved) AND ignore/just not talk about the other part(s) of that President's legacy (e.g., FDR's ACTUAL violation of Japanese-Americans' Civil Rights, which we all think sucked) ... AND (largely) ignore/not talk about another President's positive efforts, WHILE focusing on that President's hypothetical/Big Picture/Maybe if we look at it from this angle, violation of American's Civil Rights.

That is ... well ... a double standard.

No one is saying that they one bad action justifies/excuses another bad action. The double standard is trumpets the virtue of one while ignoring a bad action AND ignoring the good while trumpeting a bad action.

[Pholus]

161. An excellent example of MISSION CREEP

Yes, the Border Patrol was allowed to set up checkpoints deeper into the country than they are nominally allowed TO FIND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. I love people with theoretical understanding of this law talking about it. Look, just try to "not answer" at one of those checkpoints sometime and see how you're treated. Your friends might start telling you that you sound like a libertarian afterwards!

And pray tell, why then do they get to jump a drug dog up onto my truck bed to sniff around when I pass through their checkpoint? It isn't with my permission certainly. It has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. So much for the Supreme Court ruling that "A search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing (Indianapolis v. Edmond)." It's MISSION CREEP -- they got you standing there for one thing so they might as well check for another.

And I am supposed to be okay with massive dragnet surveillance because they will stop at "National Security?"

Not like they've had a great track record keeping to their mandate.

[bvar22]

186. Not too many years ago, I could drive Coast to Coast WITHOUT...

...being forced to the side of the road and questioned.
These "stops" are VERY intimidating.

The entire premise of this manifesto
is that if these Constitutional Excesses are done incrementally,
then Whats the BIG problem?
The Frog in the slowly heating water isn't complaining,
so WHY should YOU?

[HiPointDem]

164. which court? oh, the roberts court.

[Enthusiast]

150. PLUS ONE! nt

[reusrename]

116. I think you completely miss the point of the surveillance state.

Let me start by saying that I believe it's a miracle Obama was elected twice, and also that he has been able to prevent a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran. Ten years ago I believed it was inevitable. There is no doubt at all that his presidency was the people, not only in this country, but worldwide. It's a remarkable story, really.

When criticizing this administration, most thoughtful people are aware that there is a shadow government that has been firmly in place for decades, going all the way back to before Iran/Contra to at least the October Surprise. Probably goes all the way back to before the Kennedy assassination. These are people who get caught, convicted, pardoned, and then promoted to positions where they have an even stronger grip on the levers of power. There is only so much any president can do. We must face the fact that we are only two heartbeats away from a John Boehner presidency.

Our surveillance state will survive any changes in administrations. It's firmly ensconced. But for what purpose? It exists to fight "terrorism." That is if "terrorism" is just a euphemism for political opposition.

What we should really be talking about here is not the 4th Amendment aspects of the spying program, but the 1st Amendment issue. We need to recognize it's our freedom to peaceably assemble that is being challenged, and that this is the more egregious assault on liberty.

Apples and oranges.

[dougolat]

189. Yes!

Taking comfort from the flimsy figleaf of propriety in the official security functions is woefully naive.

[JoePhilly]

117. Simply Outstanding.

[galileoreloaded]

119. Truly, some people are comfortable with their chains and the callouses they have grown

Congrats?!

[Californeeway]

191. are you comfortable in your chains?

why are his set of chains any less desirable than yours?

so you threw off the set of chains holding him, only to embrace a new set of chains?

you see, when someone sits down and writes a lengthy argument filled with nuance and powerful logical conclusions and all you have in return is a childish poke about being in chains or some other painfully typical vapid college kid hyperbole....it's pretty clear who is THINKING about the issue, and who is having knee-jerk fest just for kicks.

[byronius]

121. Concise and informative post from a long-timer. Spot-on analysis, sir.

I just learned a buttload of fact, to use the technical verbiage. Thanks.

[Scurrilous]

122. Great post grantcart!

I noted DU's 'Renaissance' a while back on a similar thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3085231

[Throd]

123. Screw that noise! I don't even trust myself 100%

A more "compassionate" surveillance state is not something to celebrate.

[stevenleser]

124. K&R!!!!!! Bravo and thank you!

[Bobbie Jo]

127. Excellent post, grantcart.

K&R

[WillyT]

133. Man... Must Have Hit A Nerve... Thanks GrantCart !!!

[Cha]

134. Of course, it was obvious who the OP was refering to..

he's always starting that shit just to let everyone know that he's only "butt licking" Greenwald and Snowden.. and bad bad bad ol Pres Obama supporters. He has had threads hidden for starting divisive shit.. just not this one.

G) DU’s 'Renaissance'
Some people have argued that this division has led to a “Renaissance at DU”. I disagree. I think it has lead to more hardened positions and less collegial discussion and Sunday’s proxy war in the form of a “shout out” competition was to me a nadir rather than a pinnacle of quality DU discussion.

Exactly. Some "Renaissance"... only if bullshit counts.

I trust President Obama and I trust Senator Al Franken.. they are serious about this. Not grandstanding to get more money in their coffers like.. I won't mention his disingenuous grandstanding, name.. there would just be a bunch of "butt lickers" of his whining their heads off.

Mahalo grantcart

[Skittles]

138. anyone who supports a politician 100% lacks credibility

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

[grantcart]

142. Agreeing with and supporting are two different things.

I consider FDR the greatest President in the country's history but obviously don't agree 100% with his actions. Obviously if this President ranks somewhere under FDR overall it would also indicate that while I support him 100% I am not in 100% agreement. In this case it was meant to indicate that my support has not diminished. It could have been stated better.

[bluestate10]

139. Good that you aren't announcing that you're leaving. I would have given you my normal salute

to that disclosure. But as things are, great post, sort of long, but well thought out.

[jazzimov]

140. WOW! A long but GREAT post!

I especially loved your summary of FDR - a great leader and politician, but imperfect.

I also support Obama - but I'll be the first to admit he is not "perfect", either. In fact, I do have criticisms that I would like to air about Obama but I am afraid to because of the atmosphere here at DU. He's not perfect, but he's the best we have had in a long, long time.

We REALLY need to have a SERIOUS discussion about Federal spying - both the necessities and the Right to privacy. For decades, I have been warned that anything you email or post on the web "never disappears" and is available to anyone.

I do training with POS (Point Of Sale) equipment and am more than familiar with PCI compliance wherein the Credit Card companies are trying to limit the access to Bank info - and I also know that most of their rules are merely for PR purposes and no relation to "reality" and are just efforts to make it look like "they're trying". PR, plain and simply.

BTW, triple - DES encryption was hacked before it even became a compliance law. Luckily, most of the guys who hacked it are now "good guys" working for private security services. In this instance, Free Market Forces actually paid off! The defining statement being "in this instance".... I support a blend of Capitalist/Socialist economics, each brings their own special qualities and problems. Neither is the "answer".

Regardless, I think we need a serious discussion about Threats and Privacy. Without the childish name-calling.

[Major Hogwash]

141. I can't believe that I missed you the first time.

You must have jumped out of the way of the bus!!

[Politicub]

144. Wow - amazing post!

LBKS politicub reporting for duty!

We can take back some state houses that have turned red, but only if we mobilize and focus.

I hadn't seen the quote from Franken. Glad I saw it in your thread.

[Cronus Protagonist]

145. I'M A HUGE FAN!!!!!

[Kurovski]

146. Flemish?

[grantcart]

166. You didn't hit the link

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/54

[cliffordu]

147. Kick for the night crowd

And the lazy, who didn't finish this when he posted it

[pa28]

148. Well, it's settled then. n/t

[Number23]

151. This forum is totally unworthy of such an intelligent FACTUAL post

But I'm still damn glad that you made it. Maybe some will heed the message but judging by the downward spiral this forum has taken in membership, quality and prestige (which you alluded to in your reference to Alexa rankings), I doubt that they will.

Every single word TRUTH. Particularly about the double standards, the misuse of words like "authoritarian" and the fact that the people who scream the loudest about how "Obama is a corporatist conservative" are as far beyond the realm of rank and file Democrats (not to mention the most common of common sense) on this as the Tea Partiers are who scream that he's a socialist.

K&R

[joshcryer]

152. grantcart dropping a reasonable and clear headed post, as usual.

Looking forward to your 2014 commentary.

[MADem]

153. That was a lovely romp! Not only do I agree with your comments, I've said most of them as well,

only not all at once!

[SunSeeker]

158. K & R

[Jamaal510]

159. We desperately need more threads like these in GD.

This is by far the best thread I've come across in weeks.

[MADem]

204. Beats the vitriolic ones for sure...and the ones that have One Cryptic Sentence as the subject line!

I hate those; they say something stupid like "The Campaign to Oust the Vigilant Has Begun In Earnest" and they don't explain what the hell they are talking about. Twenty people ask "Huh?" "What are you talking about?" "What is this in reference to?" and then finally the OP comes back--or someone else who knows what is going on pipes up--and says, "Oh, it's about (insert some piddly incident that isn't on most people's radar) and you should be outraged!!!!" To which people reply with unflattering representations about the OP's attention seeking conduct!

This is actually quite a substantive conversation--wish we had more of them here!

[lamp_shade]

160. Great post. Bravo to my favorite LBKS.

And yes... I read every word of your OP.

[East Coast Pirate]

163. Whining about DU.

[grantcart]

168. If you think this is whining about DU then first please hit the alert button

and then sign up for some remedial reading classes.

[East Coast Pirate]

183. tldr

[bobduca]

170. sis boom bah

[Zorra]

171. It is impossible to have substantive discussions with those who cannot grasp,

or refuse to acknowledge, the reality of the fact that our system is broken beyond repair, because it is indisputably controlled by wealthy private interests.

It is difficult to effectively communicate with people who believe that terminal cancer can be cured with band aids. They have such a frail grasp on the big picture that it for us it is like debating with woodchucks. I'm sorry, but it's true.

Many of us would love to get more liberal legislators elected, but it it is virtually impossible do so within the framework of the system.

Seriously, I believe 1/4 of DU, supposedly a progressive Democratic website, was ecstatic when Dennis Kucinich was redistrected out of office. When Alan Grayson posts here, he sometimes gets attacked and insulted.

With all due respect, and I do realize how condescending this all sounds, but fixing the system from outside the system is the only way the system can be fixed, and until someone realizes this, it is a waste of time discussing the issue with them. Yes, we should always vote for the most liberal Democratic candidate, but with the understanding that it is to do as much good as possible, but cannot possibly fix what is broken.

"Frail Grasp On The Big Picture"
lyrics by Don Henley

Well, ain't it a shame
That our short little memories
Never seem to learn
The message of history
We keep makin' the same mistakes
Over and over and over and over again
And then we wonder why
We're in the shape we're in

Good ol' boys down at the bar
Peanuts and politics
They think they know it all
They don't know much of nothing
Even if one of them was to read the newspaper
Cover-to-cover
That ain't what's going on
Journalism's dead and gone

Frail grasp on the big picture
Light fading and the fog is getting thicker
It's a frail grasp on the big picture
Dark ages

You my love-drunk friend
All that red wine and candlelight
Soulful conversations
That go on until the dawn
How many times can you tell your story?
How many hangovers can you endure
Just to get some snuggling done?
You're living in a hollow dream
You don't have the slightest notion
What long-term love is all about
All your romantic liasons
Don't deal with eternal questions like
Who left the cap off the freaking toothpaste?
Whose turn to take the garbage out?

Frail grasp on the big picture
You keep on rubbin' that, you're gonna get a blister
It's a frail grasp on the big picture
I've seen it all before

And we pray to our Lord
Who we know is American
He reigns from on high
He speaks to us through many men
And he shepherds his flock
We sing out and we praise His name
He supports us in war
He presides over football games
And the right will prevail
All our troubles shall be resolved
We have faith above all
Unless there's money or sex involved

Frail grasp on the big picture
Nobody's calling them for roughing up the kicker
It's a frail grasp on the big picture
Heaven help us

Frail grasp on the big picture
All waiting for that miracle elixir
Frail grasp on the big picture
I don't wonder anymore

Frail grasp on the big picture
Somebody says, "You brought her here so go ahead and kiss her
Frail grasp on the big picture

Frail grasp on the big picture
Light fading and the fog is getting thicker
It's a frail grasp on the big picture

Frail grasp on the big picture
Frail grasp on the big picture

[grantcart]

173. I found your reply hilarious and I don't apologize if you think it is condescending

Before President Obama members of my family who are undocumented workers lived in fear and today they are protected by the constitution. Members of my family served in multiple deployments, now they do not. So there are real world benefits to elections.

But here is where your comment is comical

With all due respect, and I do realize how condescending this all sounds, but fixing the system from outside the system is the only way the system can be fixed.

So why is someone who is completely nihilistic about effecting change through electoral politics wasting time at a discussion forum whose entire purpose is dedicated to effecting change through electoral politics?

Here is the statement of purpose for DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.

Having established that your viewpoint is 100% counter to our viewpoint we should listen to you why?

Good luck with that whole "going to change the world by posting copies of lyrics" thing.

[bobduca]

175. "Good luck with that whole "going to change the world by posting copies of lyrics" thing."

There's some of that civility returning to DU!

[grantcart]

178. I would be happy if that became the new standard for civility.

Are you really trying to equivocate that with a phrase like "lackey butt-kissing shit?"


But more to the point the point of the reply was

With all due respect, and I do realize how condescending this all sounds, but fixing the system from outside the system is the only way the system can be fixed.

while the purpose of DU is exactly the opposite

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.

So the poster's intent is not to persuade DU members to a particular strategy but to abandon the one thing that does unite us. I admit I have no patience and limited civility to political nihilists.

[Zorra]

182. I'm sorry, but I believe you must have missed this part of my post:

Me:

"Yes, we should always vote for the most liberal Democratic candidate, but with the understanding that it is to do as much good as possible, but cannot possibly fix what is broken. "

You:

"So why is someone who is completely nihilistic about effecting change through electoral politics wasting time at a discussion forum whose entire purpose is dedicated to effecting change through electoral politics?"

Me:

I'm sorry, but I cannot waste my time trying to have substantive, productive discourse with you if you insist on denying reality, and/or are disingenuous.

Best of luck to you.

[Number23]

190. !

Good luck with that whole "going to change the world by posting copies of lyrics" thing.

[ColesCountyDem]

174. Great post. Thank you!

[toby jo]

176. Thanks, grant. I've dropped out of the NSA threads - too high strung, reactionary,

unreasonable.

Posts like this can swing things back to a working format.

[Lifelong Protester]

179. I did read all of your post, and I am impressed

when folks put that much time into writing for a forum like this (or any online forum, I guess.)

One question, I hope nobody is writing or proclaiming an 'epitaph' yet for you. Did you mean 'epithet'? I believe you did, and I hate to see good writing spoiled by the wrong word. Sorry if this is too nit-picky.

[grantcart]

180. Lol excellent point. I don't think anyone was rising to the level of an epitaph.

[Lifelong Protester]

184. Good, I would hate to see you go away!

For any reason!

[Autumn]

188. Here's a very public thank you.

[stevenleser]

193. Kick nt

[ucrdem]

208. K'n'R

p.s. where have you gone, Joe Dimaggio?