It's really embarrassing to see a liberal US Congressman made fun of to his face when he posts here

[DisgustipatedinCA]

Sure, everyone has their right to free speech and yes, to get into heated discussions--god knows I do enough of that for 3 people. But Congressman Grayson has always fought a good liberal fight for us. And his exemplary conduct in office deserves just a little more decorum than this. He posted here about the NSA spying scandal, asking the hypothetical, would you want Nixon to have these spying powers? In response, there are multiple people openly making fun of him, with another individual telling him he was acting like a Teabagger. This is low-brow behavior, but more than that, it highlights a rabid mentality that will brook no discussion of the President being culpable for a spy program. We have problems, both in the country and in the Party.

[Tx4obama]

1. The NSA is not a 'spy program'. It's a legal program voted on and passed by the US Congress.

Just because NSA stored meta-data doesn't mean that 'everyone' is being 'spied' on.


And apparently 3rd party records are not protected by the 4th amendment.

More info here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101665881


p.s. I think Grayson shouldn't be bashed here, BUT also Senator Franken shouldn't be either, and neither should President Obama.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. What makes the politicans do anything? Public pressure.

I've heard you say before that you welcome a discussion on the Patriot Act. Well let's have it. Let's tell our president and our Congress we want them to repeal it. If we are willing to put pressure on them when it comes to Social Security and women's health why are we not willing to put pressure on them to change this? Just because it is legal does not mean it should be continued. If we want it stopped we have to demand they stop.

[GoneFishin]

123. Also, being "legal" is somewhat of a mockery when those who break the law can lobby

to have the law changed, as happened with the retroactive immunity of the telecoms.

The attacks on Congressman Grayson show a desperation to cling to a world view that is crumbling. And a knee-jerk impulse to attack anyone who challenges it.

[WovenGems]

129. Babies and bath water

Not all of Patriot act was wrong and the same goes for the healthcare act. Both need to be tuned and not trashed.

[nebenaube]

159. I disagree

They never needed it. They had the tools.

[SammyWinstonJack]

303. ...

[sabrina 1]

389. It was never necessary at all. Of course they had to include some reasonable stuff otherwise the

goal would have been too obvious.

[90-percent]

277. Public Pressure

Perhaps 90% of Americans polled were in favor of background checks before buying a gun. That recent bill failed miserably. If 90% won't get something passed, how much public pressure do we need to get our elected reps to represent us?

-90% Jimmy

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

300. A majority polled were in favor of single payer health care as well.

[CanonRay]

317. It's only "legal" if you're willing to ignore the 4th Amendment

But apparently unlimited detention without trial, and summary execution of citizens without trial are also "legal". You can get a lawyer to say anything is legal if you pay him/her enough.

[Vattel]

374. well-said

[liberal_at_heart]

396. +1

[dkf]

6. As John Oliver says...the surprising thing is he didn't need to break the law.

[sabrina 1]

22. The NSA has become a spy program. I have been spied on according to what the president

said yesterday by my phone company. The president also said that in order for us to be 100% safe we have to give up some rights'. Wtf?? What happened to this president, the one who spoke so eloquently about our Constitutional rights, about restoring them etc???

Now we find out that yet another Republican placed in yet another powerful position, Clapper, is a former employee of Booz Allen, a 'Private Security Corp' with not a very steller reputation, populated by BUSH people!! THEY have OUR rights in their hands. Do you trust Bush and his old friends with your Constitutional Rights? Apparently our president does.

We voted for Democrats. We did NOT vote to put Republicans back in power.

How is it that YOU will jump all over anyone who mentions Ron Paul eg, but have nothing to say about a Democratic President doing far, far worse than just mentioning Republicans, he's putting them in positions of power??? What do you think of Republicans being appointed to these powerful positions?

Unbelievable what is going on after all the work we did to rid this country of Bush and his vile policies! Infuriating to see Ari Fleischer congratulating the President WE elected on 'keeping Bush policies'.

[TakeALeftTurn]

86. Well said

.

[historylovr]

143. +1. nt

[90-percent]

172. WTF squared

sabrina's post above:

"The president also said that in order for us to be 100% safe we have to give up some rights'. Wtf?? "

Well, if job one is to keep us 100% safe, our protective government missed their goal by about 99.9999% in the last decade.

We've lost 3,000 on 9-11 and perhaps 50 more to the present time. 3050.

In that same time periods, approximately 10-11 years since 9-11, we ALSO LOST about 20,000,000 (thats TWENTY MILLION) to preventable causes of death.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

Here's a link to another post that substantiates the above death numbers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=123706

so our government is stripping our Constitutional Rights to make us "100% safe from terrorism", but finds the 20,000,000 dead since 9-11 to be something they don't seem interested in fixing?

And if the are so concerned with keeping us 100% safe, how come our government sent an additional 5,000 young Americas to die in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9-11? The families of our patriotic dead that made the ultimate sacrifice realize that their loved ones were not keep 100% safe by our government.

If our government is hell bent on keep us all 100% safe, how come there's no angry mob torches and pitch forks about the ABYSMAL JOB our government did keeping those 20,000,000 dead Americans 100% safe?

As Thom Hartmann pointed out, we loose more people every year in bathroom accidents than we lost in 9-11. In terms of the magnitude of human loss, the bathroom deathtrap problem is much more severe than preventing another 9-11! Our government should take their TRILLION DOLLAR TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS PROGRAMS and funnel that money into SAFER BATHROOM TECHNOLOGY!

-90% Jimmy

[blackspade]

257. spot on

this country will spend billions on spy and MIC shit while people starve and die.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

299. Alzheimer's is preventable? You have a cure?!?

By all means, you should share it! In a refereed Medical journal. You'll win the Nobel Prize for sure!
Same thing with most of the other "preventable" causes of deaths you mentioned.

While Hartmann's point has some merit, the strategy of deliberate attacking civilians in an attempt to change their behavior through fear makes huge impositions on our (and other) societies freedoms. And worse, it will cause us to eventually react in less than intelligent ways.

In other words, terrorist attacks prod us into wars. Bathroom accidents don't.

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

[SammyWinstonJack]

304. Greed prods us into wars.

If this government would cease from occupying countries in order to steal their resources, kill their citizens and in general, stop pissing them off, maybe terrorist attacks would cease as well.

[mbperrin]

327. Hmmm. Quit killing foreign kids for money,

and maybe foreigners won't be as pissed off at us?


Sketchy. But I'm willing to give it a try!

[90-percent]

344. Preventable

Yeah, it's not possible to bring any of the categories mentioned down to zero deaths. BUT, in the case of all things mentioned, governmental efforts can bring all those numbers dramatically lower. If you lower all categories by 10% across the board over the same time period, that would be 2 million (2,000,000) lives saved. I think it's fair to postulate that if the government had poured the same resources into preventable deaths that they did in building the current NATIONAL SECURITY STATE, a ten percent reduction is a reasonable assumption in the same time period since 9-11.

"terrorist attacks prod us into wars." Define "us", Kimosabe? The run up to the Iraq Invasion sparked the largest turn out in world wide anti-war protests in the history of the universe. We the people sure as hell didn't want to invade Iraq! It was our neocon GWB White House that wanted to invade Iraq. We as a country were terrified, but I think there was a decent consensus we at least wanted to bring the 9-11 plotters to JUSTICE, which is a hell of a lot different than invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 what so ever. I think we were all supportive for invading Afghanistan after 9-11. That was where most of the plotters could be located, based on info of that time.

Terrorist Attacks prodded OUR GOVERNMENT into starting a war. With our MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-CONGRESSIONAL-SECURITY-Complexes ever growing lust for profit making wars and conflicts, the USA, especially under GWB, would go to war if another punk ass country without nukes even looks at us funny.

The invasion of Iraq was an act of treason by the GWB White House. The fecklessness and waste of how the war was conducted was also treason. Incompetence so tremendous, it bore the weight of full blown treason.

The invasion of Iraq was another artifact that proves our democracy is being stolen. The first proof of democracy demolition was of course the 2000 Bush v. Gore Supreme Court Decision. The magnitude of just how much our Democracy is being murdered by design has become in your face clear with these recent FISA/NSA revelations.

The list of freedoms and rights lost, surveillance mechanisms built and practicing the governance of middle ages monarchs are pointing in the direction of a national police state governmental infrastructure. I think we are perhaps only two or three election cycles to reach this tipping point as described by Frank Zappa.

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

America is a police state, although we are only at the stage where the tiny beak is starting to break through the eggshell.

Thanks for your comments. Insightful and thought provoking. It sparked me to try to further refine what exactly is pissing me the hell off about our It's alive, IT'S ALIVE!!!! Police State.

-90% Jimmy

[ConservativeDemocrat]

397. I agree in part, disagree in part

There is no evidence that research on basic things like heart attacks and cancer are in any way underfunded. The basic problem is this: people die. We have only a limited lifespan, so as soon as you get rid of one thing as a major cause of death, another pops up.

Insofar as your assertion that America is a Police State, I'm also sorry, but that is overwrought. There is no evidence that US leadership is pursuing actions vastly out of sync with the majority of Americans want. In particular with this NSA flap, about 2/3rds of Americans don't particularly care about secret snooping to ferret out terrorism - so long as the people who are doing it are sworn to keep what they find out secret. I imagine if the NSA started mailing employers about people's pot-bust back when they were a college student, that would change in a hurry. But they're not. It's actually Facebook and other private companies who misuse such information.

Still, I do agree with you that Iraq was a terrible misservice to the country. Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in history. The Gore Supreme Court decision is a terrible stain on the Supreme Court as well. Again, however, I refuse to let Americans off the hook for their willing following and support of Bush, shifting the blame entirely to him.

This is important to remember, because while Bush is gone, those who supported him are still around. They all watch FOX.

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

[leftstreet]

206. +1

[snagglepuss]

251. Hear Hear

[Enthusiast]

306. Right as always, Sabrina.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

24. Thanks for your post

It is a spy program, most assuredly.

If you found someone digging in your garbage to find your phone bill, you'd maybe get a better sense that yeah, it really is spying.

[Tx4obama]

25. Trash

-snip-

Trash. The things you leave outside your home at the edge of your property are unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. For example, once you carry your trash out of your house or office and put it on the curb or in the dumpster for collection, you have given up any expectation of privacy in the contents of that trash. You should always keep this in mind when you are disposing of sensitive documents or anything else that you want to keep private. You may want to shred all paper documents and destroy all electronic media. You could also try to put the trash out (or unlock your trashcan) right before it’s picked up, rather than leaving it out overnight without a lock.

-snip-

Full page here: https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy

[DisgustipatedinCA]

32. Kitchen garbage can. It's a more apt analogy w/what NSA does anyway.

[Bradical79]

176. You don't understand what spying is. Legality is a separate issue.

It's pretty clear from this post and the one you made at the top of the thread that you are pretty clueless as to what is going on. If the constitution was amended to make it perfectly legal for me to secretly put a camera in my neighbors bathroom to watch them shower, it would still be spying regardless of the legality.

[pscot]

203. Your faith in Court rulings is touching

Judges are fallible and they have always upheld the rights of property above those of the People.

[Caretha]

339. I don't recall

throwing my cell phone in the garbage pail outside my house.

[Tx4obama]

348. The NSA is not accessing 'your phone' they are accessing the tele-coms records/database

... and backing up the telecoms' data - a 'third party'.

More info here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101665881

[Caretha]

368. really

[JDPriestly]

61. I spend hours shredding old documents that I was supposed to

keep confidential, and now I discover that this program destroys confidentiality. A lot of DUers don't understand how this program will work in their lives and what it means for privacy.

A surprising amount of the most essential metadata can be reconstructed from just the list of your phone calls or information about your GPS location as relayed back if desired by the spies.

The people hired to do this work are probably vetted for the ability to think logically and to compartmentalize what they do.

[msanthrope]

282. Indeed. The ability to extrapolate is a skill set in demand. nt

[JDPriestly]

301. People with a conscience and a dedication to democracy need not apply.

[HiPointDem]

27. "Just because NSA stored meta-data doesn't mean that 'everyone' is being 'spied' on."

yes, it does.

just the same as if someone followed you around & recorded every address you visited.

[MADem]

62. If you're carrying your cellphone with you, someone--and not Uncle Sam--

is doing just that.

If you drive a modern, GPS equipped car, "someone" is recording your destinations, speeds and braking habits in a black box.

Every time you use your ATM, debit/credit cards, you are being "followed" and your habits aggregated.

Have a highway EZ Pass? You can be found in a New York (or NJ Turnpike) minute.

You probably pass by hundreds of security cameras each day, and your image is recorded, unless you're an odd one out who lives in the countryside.

You are being "followed around," you have been for years, and corporate America doesn't have rules to discard "non - actionable" material, either. In fact, it's more likely they'll sell that stuff for a handsome price to interested parties. Go visit an orthopedic surgeon specializing in back surgery, the next thing you know you'll have ads for Scooters, wheelchairs and walkers pouring through your mail slot. Pay a big bill at the car repair shop, and next thing you know, you're being dogged with glossy booklets advertising new cars. Head for the supermarket, buy a bunch of crap, and the receipt you get will be accompanied by coupons for all sorts of related foodstuffs and personal hygiene products.

You are a money tree, and corporate America wants to pick your fruit. They'll come after you relentlessly and try to appeal to the consumer in you. And they'll write down everything you do, everything you buy, and everywhere you go, too. Why not? They've been doing it for decades.

[HiPointDem]

77. i don't have a cell phone, i don't use atms, i don't have an ez pass, i don't use credit cards, i

drive a used car.

these choices are partly my personality (tightwad) & partly political.

try again.

i fail to see the relevance of your 'revelations' to the question at hand, which is 'following around' by government.

[MADem]

85. I don't have to "try again." See, you are a distinct minority. You are such

a minority, that you are an outlier. You'll be put in the group that includes people in comas, and even they have a HIPPA record of their medical interactions. And even though you insist you don't interact in this world of decreased privacy, you do--unless you grow your own food, never go to a store, never go to a city, never go to a doctor, and fail to pay income and property taxes, register your car, have a driver's license (never mind a passport), or vote. If you have a landline phone, you're listed in the phone book, unless you pay extra to be kept out. And there's a record of THAT, too.

They'll take your picture and record your license plate even when you pay cash going through that toll, even without that EZ Pass--if you watch those Dateline and 20/20 shows, they often catch the bad guy or show us the last photo of the murder victim with one of those pictures.

If you have a job, your employer pays you, most likely by direct deposit. You have to bank, unless you keep your money in your mattress and operate on the barter system with like minded folks in the deep dark woods. You pay taxes, you're on the computer (quite obviously), you--like it or not, deny it all you want--are leaving a massive electronic footprint all over hell and the virtual and real world. You're doing it right now, conversing with me here on a private website with a TOS, but one that is publicly accessible and viewable by the entire world.

All of these 'things that you fail to see' are part and parcel of what the courts will regard as a diminished expectation of privacy. And even though you're a "low end" interactor with these privacy-encroaching systems, you're still part of the fabric, like it or not.

This 'diminished expectation' will factor into their decision-making process. They will consider it.

No shooting the messenger--this is reality in this century.

[HiPointDem]

87. You appear to be saying that because people leave 'electronic footprints' in their commercial life,

they have thereby given up their constitutional protections against being spied on by their government.

This is not a legitimate argument.

It also elides the plain facts: 1) the systems of commercial spying were *imposed* on them, without real knowledge of what was happening & the ramifications, and 2) it is difficult to refuse to participate without condemning yourself to live outside society.

So if you want to say that commercial spying systems are also tyrannical & unconstitutional, I will sign on to that interpretation.

I also note that you acknowledge there is massive spying going on & little of it protects anyone but the 1%.

[MADem]

99. What I am saying is that, by leaving evidence of their activities hither and yon, that their

EXPECTATION OF--not their "right to"--privacy is, yes, indeed, DIMINISHED.

It's a societal thing. A "community standard"--to quote a DU-ism. And it is a legitimate argument. CCTV in stores didn't happen last week--it's been going on for DECADES. And ATMs taking pictures of customers? Not news. Before that, back in the day, when you cashed a check at a grocery store, a clerk physically took your picture with a small camera mounted by the counter. In some urban environments, you can't cash a check at a grocery store without a thumbprint to go with that photo and two forms of ID. Since more gas stations started staying open late, again, decades ago, cameras at the pumps and by the cashiers are par for the course.

And certainly, the courts, while deciding this issue, will very likely consider if the commercial tracking systems are, if not unconstitutional, unreasonably intrusive or not reflective of a commonly accepted public standard. I suspect they won't rule against them; they're too ubiquitous. The time to get that ruling was a third of a century ago.

All that said, tossing "the one percent" into the argument is apropos of absolutely nothing. Their "protections" are more in the sense that they can hire people to go to the Rite Aid and pick up their hemorrhoid cream and xanax, so they aren't recorded going in and out of a store. They have servants to run their errands, fuel their cars, buy and cook their food. But they use the internet, play about on facebook, buy stuff online, email friends, and if they're routinely talking to some putz in Tora Bora or Abbotabad or Esfahan, they just might find themselves being listened in on, too, if other factors combine to create a picture suggestive of a national security issue. Of course, if all they talk about is flower arranging and how's grandma, the listeners will ring off and trash the data. OTOH, if they're talking about doing harm, there will be notice paid and steps taken.

Again, if needs must, this should go to the courts. Resolve it once and for all, so everyone knows what page we're all on. I think a ruling on this question is the way go, and no doubt all the wrangling that's happening in the media and elsewhere will contribute to the briefs presented by both sides on this question.

I do think that the notion of what constitutes "privacy" has undergone a change. I crabbed about this years ago, but I just never saw any one get as annoyed as I was, and I've become inured to the reality of it over the years. The horse has left the barn.

I know how to avoid the intrusiveness in many cases, and even when I can't avoid them, I can figure out who's zooming me just by changing a letter in my name or using my middle name instead of my first name. Or, I can get supermarket cards in my cat's name (and be sent credit card applications for the cat, as well). I keep the dead alive by getting loyalty cards in their names, too. It's petty obfuscation, but it helps me cut off telemarketers in a snap who call from outside the US and are avoiding US law re: the Do Not Call list.

[HiPointDem]

100. ridiculous. that's like saying because you have to go outside to get to someone else's house,

you give up your expectation that you won't be tailed by the stasi.

[MADem]

102. No, that's not what it says at all, and it's not "ridiculous."

You are being dismissive because it's easier for you to converse in that fashion than actually discuss the issue and the concept of diminished expectations of privacy. This is not the best wikipedia article, but it raises the basic issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

I've said my bit, you plainly don't agree, no need for you to start calling me names.

The courts will have the question eventually.

Time and the judicial system will sort this out, and unless either one of us is named to the Supreme Court, we won't be in on the ruling.

[HiPointDem]

106. i didn't call you any names. i said your claim was ridiculous. which it is.

[MADem]

109. Well, it's not, just because you say so. Your pronouncement lacks weight.

You have a good day.

[HiPointDem]

110. ah, yes, 'weight'. the thing one gains by membership in the security apparatus. kind of a catch-22.

[MADem]

111. We're done. Have the last word if you must. nt

[LanternWaste]

273. Also by using rational arguments,

"the thing one gains by membership in..."

Also gained by using rational arguments, points and counter-points rather than biased melodramatics (e.g., "stasi&quot .

In that regard, not a catch-22 at all.

(Quickly now! Enjoin how my "authoritarian"and "totalitarian overlords" are watching the "sheeple"... to better gain membership yourself)

[HiPointDem]

291. you must have missed the rest of the thread.

[thucythucy]

361. Thanks MADem for posting

in such a thoughtful manner.

[sabrina 1]

285. I get mail delivered to my mail box. So that diminshes my expectation that my neighbors will not

peek in to see who I am writing to (the mailman picks up mail also) who is writing to me, when I write letters, when people write back to me.

My car has a license plate. That means I should expect, in this democracy we live in, that my expectation of privacy is diminished too. Anyone can run a license plate.

It's funny, I know people who have lived in countries, one in particular, where they did not have expectations of privacy. They knew they were most likely under surveillance.

I used to tell them that here in the US we have guarantees by law that we are safe from spying by anyone. .We didn't have to worry about our phones being tapped unless we were criminals.

Until Bush/Cheney were discovered spying on the American people.

I did not lose the expectation of rights we were guaranteed. I joined millions of other Americans and demanded accountability for those criminal acts.

We live in a Democracy and despite the fact that so far, we have not seen any consequences for those violations of our rights, I still, even more now, have expectations of NOT having my rights diminished.

As soon as we begin to accept these violations, our rights will diminish even further.

Criminals will commit crimes and we all understand it could happen to us, but that in no way means our expectations to be safe from criminals have diminished one iota. We expect that the law will deal with them and for the most part it does.

[MADem]

305. You've been under surveillance for decades, if you define it by license plates.

You cannot guarantee that your car will never match the description of some criminal's, and your plate will be run for that reason, and you can't guarantee that you won't be stopped for a law violation--unless you don't join the "Driver's Club" and forswear the car and license. You also need to stay off highways with tolls, because they'll take your picture and the picture of your car, in case you try to bolt and not pay the toll. Stay away from the Beltway, it's full of cameras, as are most highways.

Biometric identifications ARE coming--like it or not. They're already part and parcel of most passports, some countries are using them as part of their national IDs, and it's likely their use will become more, not less, prevalent. It's a side-effect of living in a technological era.

No one needed a "license" to operate a horse or a hand cart a couple of hundred years ago. We couldn't get from city to city easily, though. No one had a SSAN, either--but no one got a social security check when they got older. It's a trade-off.

If you go to a doctor, your records are converted electronically, so that any doctor treating you can access them and provide continuity of care. You give up "privacy" in that regard, certainly, but the benefit is that a doctor is less likely to prescribe a medication that is contraindicated and will kill you. Again, a trade-off.

These things are continually "negotiated" with an evolving "community standard." The courts will decide where the "settling point" is with regard to privacy issues; my sense is that the ground is going to shift slightly, and some people won't be happy.

[alfredo]

295. Roe Vs Wade affirms our right to privacy.

[TalkingDog]

182. He's not so much of an outlier. I know quite a few people like him. Mostly rural, mostly poor.

I don't even think we have any toll roads in my state.

Don't make the the all to common mistake of assuming the world lives they way you live or wants to.

[MADem]

380. Even people without toll roads in their state get drivers licenses, register their cars,

register to vote, pay taxes, and go to the doctor. And even the country bumpkin gas station in the middle of nowhere has a camera in it.

Toll roads serve as a good example because they tend to place them where the BULK of the population lives. When people live where the population is sparse, they are outliers simply because you don't find as many of them as you do in urban areas.

You won't make much money from a toll road in the middle of nowhere, but you'll make a fortune in and around a population center, which captures a large chunk of the population.

If the rural poor lived in a compressed population center, they'd be the URBAN poor.

At some point, even the outliers have to deal with the government, unless they're living in mountain cabins writing manifestos.

[treestar]

126. It's all about you

You are unusual. But we find out your concern has nothing to do with the good of all.

[HiPointDem]

225. we find out you haven't read the subthread thoroughly

[totodeinhere]

382. But obviously you use a computer or other Internet device.

So you also are a target.

[HiPointDem]

388. & i recognize that. potentially. but i'll add: that vulnerability has nothing to do with my

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 02:48 AM - Edit history (1)

commercial transactions, it has to do with the gov't's self-assumed power to store all internet data. i don't assume what i say at DU is private.

[joeglow3]

141. And I agree to that with those vendors when I enter into a contract

to drive their car, use their bank, etc. This certainly doesn't give the power to the government to monitor all this.

[A Simple Game]

208. I too noticed that it was an apples and oranges argument. n/t

[thucythucy]

367. Generally speaking, there usually is a clause

in all these agreements saying that the vendor will provide information to the government if requested through a warrant. It's pretty standard boilerplate. Doesn't mean I like it, but whenever I take the time to read through all that crap, I generally find such a clause, usually in very small print and buried in ten pages of other legal bullshit. Which means at that point I can either sign on to this, or fore go whatever service or product it is I'm hoping to buy.

So yes, when you enter into these agreements, you are indeed very often giving the government precisely the power to "monitor all this" if they can get a warrant to do so.

Not that this makes me any more comfortable with how all this is evolving, but to deny it's happening--and that our convenience driven culture is contributing to the problem--is to deny reality.

[Anymouse]

313. What Metadata is (courtesy of EFF)

Courtesy of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation.
What they are trying to say is that disclosure of metadata—the details about phone calls, without the actual voice—isn't a big deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government knows. Let's take a closer look at what they are saying:
• They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.
• They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.
• They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed.
• They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.
• They know you called a gynaecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.

[HiPointDem]

331. "What they are trying to say is that disclosure of metadata isn't a big deal" = bullshit.

Electronic Freedom Foundation: Why Metadata Matters

In response to the recent news reports about the National Security Agency's surveillance program, President Barack Obama said today, "When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls." Instead, the government was just "sifting through this so-called metadata." The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made a similar comment last night: "The program does not allow the Government to listen in on anyone’s phone calls. The information acquired does not include the content of any communications or the identity of any subscriber."

What they are trying to say is that disclosure of metadata—the details about phone calls, without the actual voice—isn't a big deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government knows...

(Then comes the little piece you excerpted...)

Then comes this judgement:

Sorry, your phone records—oops, "so-called metadata"—can reveal a lot more about the content of your calls than the government is implying. Metadata provides enough context to know some of the most intimate details of your lives. And the government has given no assurances that this data will never be correlated with other easily obtained data. They may start out with just a phone number, but a reverse telephone directory is not hard to find. Given the public positions the government has taken on location information, it would be no surprise if they include location information demands in Section 215 orders for metadata.

If the President's administration really welcomes a robust debate on the government's surveillance power, it needs to start being honest about the invasiveness of collecting your metadata.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters

That you would post the excerpt, unlinked, in a misleading way so as to imply it meant the opposite of what it meant, says a great deal about you & the defenders of spying.

[Anymouse]

400. Make sure you don't use certain words . . .

. . . like Koran, or bomb (as in "she's da bomb&quot or wedding (NSA claimed once that word was used to advance a plot) or revolution, or . . .

This is what meta data collects.

[JDPriestly]

55. The NSA stores data about our associations.

That is a violation of our freedom of association and freedom of speech and virtually every freedom that the Constitution promises to us. Let's face it. We no longer have constitutional government at all. It amazes me that people have so little understanding of our Constitution. This should be evident to everyone.

[Tx4obama]

70. The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that phone records are not protected by the 4th amendment

Of course they don't always rule they why we'd like, but I think they know about bit about the U.S. Constitution.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. The pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company's central offices. In the Majority opinion, Justice Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen registry constitutes a violation of the "legitimate expectation of privacy" since the numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

Background
In Katz v. United States (1967), the United States Supreme Court established its "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. It overturned Olmstead v. United States and held that wiretaps were unconstitutional searches, because there was a reasonable expectation that the communication would be private. The government was then required to get a warrant to execute a wiretap.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

The Smith decision left pen registers completely outside constitutional protection. If there was to be any privacy protection, it would have to be enacted by Congress as statutory privacy law.

-snip-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

[JDPriestly]

78. At that time, the issue was quite different than it is today.

The government was not collecting vast amounts of this kind of data (pen registers) on everyone indiscriminately. So a decision applied to today's technology might be very different.

These decisions are fact-dependent usually. It might take a very long time and many lawsuits focusing on different situations, facts and technology, but I suspect that sooner or later this will be overturned.

Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and the Texas case about homosexuality are examples of landmark cases in which barriers were broken and what was formerly considered "legal" and constitutional was deemed "illegal" and unconstitutional.

I strongly believe that this program because of its scope and inclusiveness chills the exercise of many of our rights. And that could cause it to be deemed unconstitutional.

[thucythucy]

363. I'm hoping you're right about this.

An unequivocal USSC decision that this sort of data sifting by the government is unconstitutional might be one of the best possible outcomes of all this. It will of course take some very good legal minds, a lot of case-building, and years to work its way through the federal and appellate courts, but once the decision is there it will be an enormous aid in dismantling the national security state now in place.

Truly, a "fact dependent" decision is what's needed.

[DallasNE]

84. Here They Are Establishing That Metadata Is Not Protected

It only takes a warrant to purview content. Congress subsequently added some privacy protection by requiring a FISA Court to approve acquiring this metadata. There is no legal argument that can be made against what the government is doing by collecting this metadata. That doesn't mean it is right but it surely is not a scandal.

The other program is far more problematic and foreign governments are now expressing strong displeasure with that program because it captures content on non-Americans/businesses (with some Americans pulled in for good measure). This, frankly, is where I think we need to place nearly all of our focus. The 51% rule, for instance, is on shaky ground because of how many Americans get dragged in. Then there is the diplomatic side that also needs a lot more consideration. I don't think this part is done by a long shot.

[bowens43]

104. So? That makes it ok in your opinion?

pathetic and it's pathetic to see people who call themselves Democrats or liberals defend this bullshit. You are showing the less hypocritical among us that there really is very little difference between democratic and republican true believers....

[cheapdate]

169. What's really pathetic

is how you and many others like you reach the immediate and unjustified conclusion that because someone presents a statement or an argument that you don't want to hear that they're "defending this bullshit". This kind of emotional, insulting, raving makes reasonable, insightful discussion impossible.

[AgingAmerican]

214. They are defending it

The poster is merely pointing out the obvious. There is no insight within a cult of personality.

[cheapdate]

269. You're wrong.

The post in question in this little sub-thread was from DallasNE :

"Here They Are Establishing That Metadata Is Not Protected

It only takes a warrant to purview content. Congress subsequently added some privacy protection by requiring a FISA Court to approve acquiring this metadata. There is no legal argument that can be made against what the government is doing by collecting this metadata. That doesn't mean it is right but it surely is not a scandal.

The other program is far more problematic and foreign governments are now expressing strong displeasure with that program because it captures content on non-Americans/businesses (with some Americans pulled in for good measure). This, frankly, is where I think we need to place nearly all of our focus. The 51% rule, for instance, is on shaky ground because of how many Americans get dragged in. Then there is the diplomatic side that also needs a lot more consideration. I don't think this part is done by a long shot."

You and your ilk can use hysterics to avoid honest, reasonable, and intelligent discussion of this important question. You can avoid making serious rebuttals by using insults, such as by suggesting that your opponent lacks independence or thinking ability -- is part of a "cult of personality".

I'm utterly unimpressed.

[AgingAmerican]

310. Your attempts at insults aside, they are defending it

If it walks and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

[cheapdate]

316. Claiming your opponent is a mindless member of a "cult of personality"

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)

is nothing but a cheap and pernicious tactic for insulting and discrediting the person. It has no place in a reasonable discussion.

Bowens's unnecessarily insulting and hostile rant which began this sub-thread gave no meaningful argument or rebuttal to anything put forward in the preceding post.

You're free to call what DallasNE had to say about the legal and other aspects of the NSA surveillance program "defending" program if you want, you can claim he is a mindless member of a "cult of personality", or, like bowens43 you can respond by calling him "pathetic".

Maybe you're not familiar with how reasonable, intelligent, discussion works, or maybe you're not able to formulate a coherent argument. Beats me.

[Number23]

323. Great post!

[AgingAmerican]

329. Your words, not mine

Quack! Quack!

[thucythucy]

365. Thank you cheapdate.

The amount of abuse being hurled around on DU these last few days is simply staggering.

Thank you for standing up for a civil discussion.

[7962]

372. And you havent seen this on this site for years?

Good lord, almost every thread has some sort of whining, cursing, bickering and name calling of some sort. Not to mention the condescension. I joined a few yrs ago but dont post much. Thats one reason.

[cheapdate]

394. Informed arguments are what drew me to DU.

I think most people understand that you learn to how to sharpen your arguments by defending them against counter arguments. The essence of critical thinking demands serious consideration of all possible attacks against your own argument.

I may step in and remind people of that from time to time.

[Caretha]

341. Just because

someone calls themselves something, doesn't mean they are.

I had this neighbor once who thought he was Jesus - he liked to be called JC (shrug)

[treestar]

131. Thank you !

Wow some actual history and facts. The discussion should have started here days ago!

[DallasNE]

88. Actually, It Doesn't

It stores the metadata. To convert that into data such as associations requires a FISA Court order where they have a foreign phone number to track down. Unless you have an association with a foreign national your phone records and associations will never show up. What I am not sure of is what audit procedures are in place to assure some rogue individual is not making illegal inquiries that could, if you are a person of interest, compromise your associations. In other words, all access should trace back to a specific FISA Court order, including the ID and date/time of the person submitting the request. This should all be stored in a secure Audit database.

[sigmasix]

64. thank you Tx4obama excellent post NT

[bowens43]

103. Wow. I so amazed to see people here defending this gross violation of the Constitution.

It absolutely is spying on everyone who makes or receives a phone call in this country.

[Maedhros]

236. I'm stunned

that theoretically liberal posters on a theoretically liberal forum are arguing, angrily, for the narrowing of 4th Amendment protections.

[harun]

247. I'm not amazed anymore

[intheflow]

122. The difference is that Grayson is a DUer and Franklin isn't.

When people bash him in the threads he posts, they are actually talking to Grayson. It's not someone using his name as their screen name.

[morningfog]

139. It is a spy program.

[Maedhros]

241. The National Security Agency

does little else other than spying.

[sulphurdunn]

157. So, what is the purpose of this legal

program, voted on and passes by the US Congress? Is the Patriot Act legal? How about the Military Commissions Act? Both were voted on and passed by the US Congress. The question you might want to ask yourself is how legal a law passed by Congress is that circumvents the Constitution and whether it is an impeachable offense for a President to enforce such a law. That is and has been the question for a long time.

[leveymg]

178. Every single thing you just said is inaccurate, except that Grayson, Franken and Obama shouldn't be

"bashed" here - if by bashing you don't include reasonably civil criticism of policy, which is always acceptable at DU, whether you agree with the criticism or not.

Only some of the aspects of NSA programS - there are a number of them - were legalized by the 2008 FISA Amendment Act. There are a number of aspects of them, such as universal collection by non-individualized warrants and universal predictive profiling, warrantless collection and analysis of email and private transactions and financial records, that are most definitely not within the scope of Sec. 702, as amended.

Please read the ACLU complaint, here: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-nsas-patriot-act-phone

[L0oniX]

212. What a stinking cesspool of shit. Legal does not make it right.

[Swede Atlanta]

221. I must respectfully disagree......

The fact that Congress passed a law and the executive signed it does not make it legal if the Supreme Court has ruled on its legality. Any 1st year law student knows that under the concept of "judicial review", the Supreme Court determines if a law (and its implementation) satisfy constitutional requirements.

Unfortunately for us the "Supremes" have largely deflected cases under which it would be required to rule on this matter.

As for 3rd parties, I see nothing in the text of the 4th Amendment that says that the federal government can compel a private citizen (or company) to provide information that does not otherwise satisfy the "probable clause" requirement.

We can dance around this all day. The bottom line is our government is collecting massive amounts of data (meta-data at the outset and then all the details if they choose to dig deeper) on American citizens and citizens of other countries. The collection is not done with respect to "probable cause". It is done under the guise of "well, maybe sometime in the future I may want to see who so and so called and what they talked about". That is NOT probable cause.

This opens the door to tyranny where the government knows everything about who you talk to, what sites you surf, etc. That can be used not only for political purposes but also for fascist purposes where corporations are allowed to mine this data to sell you crap.

I am not opposed to reasonable surveillance, subject to the 4th Amendment. At the same time I want there to be MEANINGFUL oversight of the NSA. It appears the NSA chief appears before Congress and says...oh no, Mr. Senator person, we are just protecting the murkan peeps...hee-hee... without there being any oversight of how they restrict access to specific information and how they manage the same with the outsourcing of intelligence. No one is watching. There is zero oversight despite what the Congress zombies tell you. The NSA is doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

I am certain that this post will cause an analyst to put a tick by my name so when they can initiate project "kill Americans" I will be on their list.

[Ash_F]

223. It is a spy program. Lots of terrible things were 'legal'.

That is irrelevant to the discussion. If 'legal' is your best excuse then we might as well pack up congress and never pass or repeal anything ever again.

[Apophis]

238. Keep telling yourself that.

Stupid response.

[movonne]

261. I think that Obama had to keep up the bush

and Chaney's policies because if he didn't and we had another 911 type attact...we liberals would be called dirty rotten hippie wimps...and do not deserve to run this country...you know the soft on terror...

[MNBrewer]

270. What makes you think it's not a "spy program"

spying: present participle of SPY (Verb)

1. Work for an organization by secretly collecting information about enemies or competitors.
2. Observe (someone) furtively.

[rhett o rick]

298. Having trouble swallowing the word "spy"?? THe NSA does surveillance. You act like you

are fully aware of what they are doing. Funny thing that a lot of people are so confident that their govment aint spying on them (sorry I mean surveilling them) until a whistle-blower lets the cat out of the bad. Then the discussion shifts that ok we know they are spying but it's legal spying. How do we know that, because they tell us that and they wouldnt lie. At least not again.

You have no idea what kind of data the NSA and their hired contractors are getting unless you are in the program.

This fight is coming down to who do you follow, the President or the Constitution.

The Patriot Act and domestic spying are not allowed by the Constitution.

I stand with Rep Grayson and the Constitution.

[quakerboy]

319. How does that stop it from being a spy program?

[mbperrin]

326. Are you saying that spying is illegal by nature?

That if it's voted in, it's no longer spying?

[Roland99]

342. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed by Congress and is "legal", too

Does that means it's Constitutional??


kthxbye

[VA_Jill]

369. Just because

it was a program passed by Congress and is "legal" (supposedly, anyway....constitutional? maybe not) does not make it any less a spy program.

[Ter]

402. Oh, give it up already

You, ProSense, and OneHandle are the only ones on here who defend Obama on every single issue. You both NEVER have anything negative to say about him. Why?

[KittyWampus]

2. I highly doubt Grayson posted that crap. Maybe one of his staffers. The hyperbole deserved ridicule.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

3. Why wouldn't he? He posts here off and on, and has done so for quite awhile.

Edited to ask: do you really believe what you've said...that he deserved being accused of being drunk, acting like a Teabagger, and so on? This is what he deserves for posting his anti-surveillance opinion here?

[bike man]

336. The posts here are of the same kind of boilerplate stuff I get from my senator and

congressman - and there are never any subsequent entries in the thread after the OP.

It's more like a continuation of a mass email, perhaps to several/many of this type of forum that he or his staffers have found favorable.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

338. Yes, but...he posts here. Personally. Non-boilerplate stuff.

[bike man]

340. Or, a staff member does. Checked several journal entries at random, and

they were similar - boilerplate type emailings that go to constituents.

Personally? Maybe, but I doubt it. And no, I'm not going to call the office. It's really not that important. If people want to believe it is really the Congressman making these OPs specifically for DU (and then abandoning the thread), it is their choice.

[Maedhros]

244. It's very telling

that defenders of NSA surveillance resort to ridicule in their rebuttals.

If Grayson is wrong, specify how and make a point-by-point rebuttal supported by links to evidence. Then we can discuss the relative merits of both arguments.

Simply throwing out snark and insults weakens one's position.

[brentspeak]

325. Who let you out of Free Republic?

As well as out of the rubber room?

[Bonobo]

4. Absolutely no class. nt

[Luminous Animal]

7. I think he can take it. It's not as though anything intellegent was thrown at him.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

14. I know Alan Grayson can take it

I'm not sure if the Democratic Party can, if the DU microcosm is any predictor. There are people espousing views that are completely incompatible with my values, and the way that the Congressman was torn into doesn't make me think these people are very keen about coming to terms with our spying apparatus and accompanying downhill slide. All that aside, it really astonished me that these people were acting like a pack of wild dogs...and I've already been surprised by the same set of people. But this thread went to a level I really would not have suspected.

[Art_from_Ark]

29. This ^^^

[Summer Hathaway]

35. "I'm not sure if the Democratic Party can ...

... if the DU microcosm is any predictor."

Fear not. I assure you that DU is not a predictor of anything. And those of us who live in the real world know that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

45. Thanks so much

I'm happy to have the long perspective of your 22 years on the planet. One day I, too, can get out in the real world. Pray for me

[Summer Hathaway]

50. Ah, to be twenty-two again ...

... the days when I would have been young and naive enough to believe that a website (if we'd had such things back then) was actually reflective of real life.

But that's not to say this place doesn't serve its purpose. Where else would little trolls go to wreak their mayhem, if not for a place like DU?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. Happy 23'rd, and make it a super day!

[Summer Hathaway]

59. Well, congrats!!!

You've proven yourself to be as well-informed as the average DUer!

[leftynyc]

93. Well, I'm 52 and the poster

is correct. This board is far to the left of the mainstream Democratic party. Many posters think they're the base but I can assure you, they are wrong. To understand this, just look at how may people in Congress are true liberals - I'm sure you'd agree they're pretty rare yet these are the people the base Democrats vote for and they're actually pretty good but you'd never know that here because so many are still waiting for their pony or for Pres Obama to not be the moderate many told you he was.

[Number23]

48. Oh my God. I have just about died reading this OP

If hypocrisy was cauliflower, s/he'd have enough to feed the WHOLE DAMN WORLD.

This thread is nothing short of ASTOUNDING.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

49. Thanks for reading, #.

[Number23]

52. It's my pleasure. One usually has to deal with winos on street corners to get this level of

surreal-ness.

[Summer Hathaway]

58. Nothing short of.

Again, I just have to remind myself (to great relief) that the DU bubble has nothing to do with real life.

Do ya think any of them ever venture out of this place to see that?

[4bucksagallon]

150. Judging by the voluminous number of some of their posts I would say not.

In some cases they think because they have thousands of posts here, they are the enlightened ones and you better mind your manners in their house. Pfffffffft. Some of us are out fighting in the real world, and they can talk down to others all they want, I am too old and too stubborn to change. If DisgustipatedinCA could comprehend then she/he might not have started this thread with all the faux outrage. I challenged him/her to show me where I said and I quote "with another individual telling him he was acting like a Teabagger" . Well he/she couldn't of course because I never said that, but did that stop Disgusted one from posting the fabricated lie?????? Of course not.

[reusrename]

224. link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022996354#post71

[DisgustipatedinCA]

274. I believe I already mentioned to you this is more about embarrassment at your actions than about

..."faux outrage". I'm not happy with any of this, but I'm not telling you that your outrage is false. I'm not telling you you've "fabricated a lie" (is there another sort of lie other than the fabricated kind?). But the English major in me does get a kick out of your attempt to distance yourself from the bagger comment. You kind of own that one.

[Whisp]

65. Worthy of being bronzed, isn't it? n/t

[Number23]

98. Well, I'm still trying to figure out how your post saying Aretha Franklin's sister was Urethra

got hidden.

That is some head-scratching isht, right there.

[SidDithers]

121. Yeah, it's pretty rich, isn't it...

There was a similar, now locked, post earlier in the night too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022996639

"Astounding" covers it pretty nicely.

Sid

[Number23]

322. I'm surprised that obvious call out was locked considering how reluctant some are to lock others

[Zorra]

115. Sorry, but the Third Way sock puppet Borg Collective is not the real world.

[Oilwellian]

145. LOL Zorra

I love you.

[Zorra]

171. right backatcha, darlin'

[Summer Hathaway]

391. Well, according to some here

the 'real world' consists of a photoshopped graphic, which is often utilized on discussion boards when the poster displaying it has nothing of value to say.

[frylock]

189. *real world reference*

everyone finish your drink!

[Summer Hathaway]

392. I should have posted the "spoiler warning"

for those who live in the DU bubble, and have never experienced the real world:

Some viewers may find the content of the real world disturbing. The real world may include graphic depictions of actual reality, and will undoubtedly contain independent thought that some may find offensive. Viewer discretion is advised.

[frylock]

393. drink up!

i'm grounded like a penguin. it's the BOG that lives in a fantasy land where Obama is the savior of all and is completely infallible. you'll all be staring slack jawed and drooling when president jeb holds the power, wondering wtf happened. there's your fucking reality.

[sibelian]

91. There are views being expressed on this subject

That make me wonder what site I've been visiting.

Threads on Snowden's "character". Being told the "calm down".

I am extremely disappointed.

[treestar]

133. Leave Alan alone!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

137. If that's your summarization of the OP

I'd ask you to read it again, if you're possessed of an honest desire to understand what was being said. Your 3-word sentence doesn't do a good job of encapsulating what's been said.

[NealK]

359. Ironic.

Coming from someone who's part of the "Leave Obama alone!" crowd.

[kentuck]

8. I usually don't post in these types of threads but...

Representative Grayson is on our side. I wish there were an Internet etiquette but there isn't. Perhaps someone will write a book about it?

[Romulus Quirinus]

154. Eternal September, am I right? nt

[kentuck]

185. I wish I knew what you were talking about??

I hope it is good?

[Romulus Quirinus]

195. Eternal September (also September that never ended)[1] began September 1993,

a date which the existing members of Usenet believe that an endless influx of new users (newbies) from AOL degraded standards of discourse and behavior on Usenet and the wider Internet.

The term eternal September is a Usenet slang expression, and was coined by Dave Fischer. The term is so well entrenched that one news server calls itself Eternal September, and gives the date as a running tally of days since September of 1993 (e.g., Jun 04, 2013 is "September 7217, 1993, the September that never ends.&quot .[3] This server was formerly named Motzarella.org.[4]

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

[kentuck]

240. Thanks!

I did not know that.

[Romulus Quirinus]

242. It is good to remember the old lore! :) nt

[OnyxCollie]

9. They behave like frightened children,

attacking anyone who says President Daddy doesn't love us all.

Wait 'til they find out there's no God.

[Skidmore]

231. Wow, that was mature.

[OnyxCollie]

237. Now, now.

President Daddy loves you lots. Here's your blankie. Go out and play.

[JI7]

10. i think threads like this are more embarrassing

[DisgustipatedinCA]

51. What in particular embarrasses you about it?

[SidDithers]

117. +1...nt

Sid

[Whisp]

11. how classy is it to call the democratic President all the names he has been called here for years?

so please, don't make me laugh more because my belly is aching from today's comedy and silliness displayed here by the regular members that stick it to Obama whichever way they can, whenever they can. The tone has been set on how we treat our own, and now you don't like it?

[RobertEarl]

15. Apples and Oranges

Grayson never sent a drone.
Grayson never signed a bill giving tax breaks to billionaires.

I could go on, but what is the use?

You complain about how some act and then you act even worse? WTF!

You are like a school child. Grow up, Whisp.

[Whisp]

18. You take care of your own apples and oranges

and separate them how you like. I'll take care of mine.

It's obvious what you are doing, so while you are arranging your apples and oranges I suggest you adjust your blinders a bit. They are blocking Everything out, even your fruits.

[RobertEarl]

23. Grayson is a congressman

Obama is a president. Them's your apples and oranges.

And you are so blind you can't even see that?

The way you are acting is the way a little kid acts.

"They did it first"....

Obama would be ashamed of you.

[Whisp]

26. your baiting is not working.

You are the one that sounds childish and brattish.

and no, Obama would not be ashamed of me. You know how I know? Because you know piss all about the man except what you are told about him by Fox and Co.

[RobertEarl]

34. I only go by your words here

You are right to try and dodge the fact that you are doing exactly what you are complaining others are doing.

Hypocrisy is the word which best describes your words here.

Attacking Grayson like you have done is shameful. When you grow up, you will realize that.

[Whisp]

39. whatsamatta, somebody steal your sweet roll?

[RobertEarl]

43. Claiming you lost?

You can't even debate? You don't have any ground to stand on so you just throw out some idiotic line?

My freedom is at stake here. I don't want the government spying on me.

You seem to be saying that you want government to spy on me.

You know where you can stick that, right?

[davidpdx]

387. I tend to agree it is over the top

So I challenge you to delete the post in the spirit of the rules of DU.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

47. You're a little out of control

I know the signs--I've done it a couple of times today. But not to the extent of openly mocking and attacking a Congressman who has done more for liberal causes than most will do in a lifetime. And in this thread, the "piss all" and accusing this other poster of getting all of his information about Obama from Fox News makes it sound like you're about to blow a vein. And I'm not trying to be cruel by saying that. Go to a 3rd party you trust, show them both threads, and see if they don't advise you that you're acting over-the-top.

[Whisp]

53. lol?

This one deserves a screenie.

[Mojorabbit]

113. He speaks the truth. Sometimes it is good to step back and look at

the things one posts from a bit of distance. It helps gain some perspective.
i hope you have a lovely day.
Peace, Mojo

[truebrit71]

202. Obama and his actions dictate how folks react to him here..

..when you talk about peace and increase up drone strikes, when you talk about saving the environment and then okay more drilling, when you talk about privacy and then okay wholesale collection of sensitive data, when you talk about the Constitution and then okay unilateral death sentences you get called out on it...that's how it SHOULD be...I don't care if you are a Democrat, a republican, a Green, an Independent or an Anarchist. If you're a hypocrite expect to get called PLENTY of names... At the very least Rep. Grayson walks the walk...something Dear Leader could learn from..

[reusrename]

226. Well, just as soon as the president joins the board he can be treated like a member.

Idiot.

[Triana]

12. WTF?

Grayson is one of the best if not the best progressive congresscritters we have. I understand the differences of opinion re NSA and PRISM but damn - can we show some respect to him, at least?

[Whisp]

19. show some respect?

you guys are really something.

[Triana]

28. Your bullying in this thread is noted.

Yes, I said R E S P E C T.

[GReedDiamond]

66. What a fucking disgusting comment...

...your racist troll comment is duly noted.

Alert away, racist trolls!

[Whisp]

68. how in hell is that racist?

I think you win the cupie doll prize for that brain fart.

[Whisp]

72. don't pop a blood vessel, bro.

it's only the internet.

and same to you, sweetie.

[Whisp]

76. do you have anger issues at home and at work as well?

I would take something for that if I were you.

If a stranger with a keyboard can get you so wound up, you need some sort of assistance for the ailment.

I'd recommend a long walk on a short pier to clear your head.

[morningfog]

155. Wow, 9 hidden posts in past 90 days for you.

[HangOnKids]

204. Maybe someone took her sweet roll?

And the anger issue comments, gee I don't know what to say. Well maybe the pot calling the kettle black.

[reusrename]

229. You don't think other members here deserve any respect?

That does explain a lot.

Idiot.

Idiotic.

on edit> fixed to conform to board rules

[Skittles]

13. it's the swooners

they're not credible enough to take seriously

[DisgustipatedinCA]

30. I'd ask you to schedule one of your famous ass-kickings

But you're right about how they shouldn't be taken seriously. I need to find a way to internalize that lesson and not get as personally angry at some people as I have. Thanks, Skittles.

[HooptieWagon]

16. I think Rep Grayson is right.

Even if DNI Clapper isn't lying to coverup a vast overreach of power, the mechanism is there for it to happen. Congress is too dysfunctional to maintain oversight (they're too busy having 38 votes to repeal Obamacare), and the FISA Court appears to be a rubber-stamp for whatever the NSA wants. An Imperial Executive is a bad idea, whether a D or R after the name.

[Laelth]

105. An Imperial Executive is a bad idea, whether a D or R after the name.

Agreed.

-Laelth

[Marr]

17. We have our right wing here as well, and they're every bit as moronic, juvenile, and rude as

those that buzz around the Republican Party.

[kentuck]

20. Appears to be the case...

What can you do??

[Art_from_Ark]

33. The right-wingers used to get tombstoned

[OnyxCollie]

41. Now they've reached middle management.

[Summer Hathaway]

46. And now they are welcomed

with open arms, embraced as True Progressives TM - and all they have to do is stir the anti-Obama/anti-Dem shit-pot to be accepted as one of the clan.

[Corruption Inc]

71. "The right-wingers used to get tombstoned", I raised that question a while back

as it clearly states in the terms of service that right-wingers are not tolerated. A poster who had posted the TOS then insulted me after I pointed that out!

It's clear there are a large number of republicans regularly disrupting this site, I assume that's why the ignore feature is available. I've already noticed 100s of disrupters who's only concern is bashing people and hijacking threads.

I suggest using the ignore feature as the disrupters have nothing to add to anything.

[Phillip McCleod]

379. agreed. i've had a couple posts hidden because some obvious troll..

..pushed the right button.

i'm not one of those people who stands stoically during the 'two-for-flinching' game. it never gets that far, so the site rules of less-than-no-holds-bar is not my internet style, in general.

took some getting used to.. still you gotta wonder when some obvious RW trolliolios and Barely Blue Dogs.. BBDs for short.. manage to rack up 10s of 1000s of posts without any real consequence, while the altruistically progressive and perhaps overly emotive or unfamiliar drop like flies when they take the wrong bait.

just an observation from a relative noob around hyar.

[totodeinhere]

383. You're probably right. But also there are plenty of good caring Democrats who

feel passionately about this issue one way or the other. Sometimes such passion can be misinterpreted as trolling.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. EMBARRASSING!! For a Congressman to go against his own party based on high principles takes guts

[tritsofme]

31. The congressman's campaign staffer made a foolish post that deserves ridicule.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. It's actually posted under his login

He does post here. He may have given a staffer his password to post this. He may have done it himself--neither method would be surprising. It's his post, though, on his account. Im used to Alan Grayson posting here--hes been a member for a good while now. If you have reson to believe that a staffer wrote these words and posted them without the consent of the Congressman, you'll need to post what you're referring to. You can't really attempt to mitigate bullying behavior by making claims that have no basis.

[tritsofme]

158. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't personally post this nonsense

I thought I was being kind.

[truebrit71]

211. No, just condescending and childish...

...like the rest of the responses from the True Believers in that thread..

[Maedhros]

254. There is a cadre of posters whose pattern

is to smear any post opposing NSA surveillance as "nonsense", usually accompanied by a ROFL emoticon.

It's not terribly convincing.

[marmar]

370. Yep, it's like they're using a playbook........

....... a really shitty one.

[Caretha]

375. Kind....No

A condescending asshole with no credentials....Yes.

[SamKnause]

36. Grayson

Anyone have a link to the post, or directions on how to find the name Grayson posts under ?

I would like to read his posts.

Thanks in advance.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

40. Under his own name

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022996354

[SamKnause]

42. Grayson 2

Thank you.

I have always admired Mr. Grayson.

I was so glad that he was reelected.

[Divine Discontent]

67. that was truly a great night for the progressives across this country, getting him back in DC! n/t

[ReRe]

83. Yipee, youbetcha! ;-) n/t

[reusrename]

248. Hooray!!!!

[villager]

44. Keeping "Underground" in this site's name is now, sadly, an outright farce

When so many rush to defend, uncritically, and with a blank political check, the machinations of the MIC.

[Whisp]

57. and others run bliindly to believe a fricken Fibber McGee liar in Glen Greenwad. n/t

[villager]

60. You go on believing who the NSA tells you to believe, O "Underground" one

n/t

[Maedhros]

256. You slander Glenn Greenwald

yet fail to provide any evidence to support your claim. What, specifically, has he "lied" about? Provide quotes and links, please, as well as supporting evidence that shows he was untruthful.

[totodeinhere]

385. Was he also a fricken Fibber McGee liar when he was excoriating GWB on any number

of issues? Or did he have a magical transformation when there was a change in administrations?

[Divine Discontent]

56. It's embarrassing for those who choose to say such things against a great American hero

Congressman Grayson has guts.

He went against the B*sh cabal and took on the world's biggest corrupt contractors and WON!

Anyone doubting his intellect and sincerity is really putting their own self up for ridicule.

He is spot on - do you want right wing SOB's to have the powers to do what has been going on since Der Fuhrer Lil Boots Shrubya - I surely don't!

[darkangel218]

82. +1000

[Divine Discontent]

347. TY!

[Zorra]

149. +1. Our house is divided because it has been invaded by conservative corporatists who have more in

common with the GOP than they do with the traditional Democratic Party.

They hate traditional progressive Democrats like Alan Grayson, because he stands with the people, the traditional Democrats who are desperately fighting against control of our government and lives by wealthy private interests.

[HooptieWagon]

199. True that.

It's the main reason the Fl Dem Party is so badly dysfunctional...Nelson, Wasserman-Schultz, and the other DLCers are more concerned with keeping progressives out of office than republicans. Or you can take Rahm Emmanual's word for it when he essentially told progressives to go fuck themselves.

[truebrit71]

213. BINGO!!!!

[Divine Discontent]

345. GP, Zorra! n/t

[snagglepuss]

252. +1000

[Divine Discontent]

346. TY!

[railsback]

63. I think everyone here is just paranoid that their porn surfing is being monitored.

[4bucksagallon]

73. Since you are getting all these recs for your fake outrage.........

It was my post that you alluded to that said I called him a T'Bagger. Here is my post show me where I said that please.
"This whole debate has devolved into a hate Obama hate the government hate, hate hate.
Sounds more like a T'Bagger site than DU. I don't see any future here on this site I keep hoping for better but daily I am disappointed."
Talk about low brow!!!! You are not to be believed obviously.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

80. Embarrassment more than outrage

He was the OP. you responded to him and let him know you thought he sounded like a Teabagger. You own your words, Bucko.

[4bucksagallon]

81. Again show me where I said that I think you have reading comprehension....

problem, big time.

[railsback]

90. Do not dispair

You're not the only who questions the teabaggery similarities.

[HangOnKids]

200. Dispair?

Really? What does that mean?

[railsback]

267. Dispair - Band - Armageddon - don't nuke yourself

Of course you knew this, just testing the level of intellect. NP

Go A's

[HangOnKids]

276. Maybe you should get a dictionary

Spelling is important.

[railsback]

279. Your powers of assumption are amazing

Dispair is an Armageddon band

[HangOnKids]

283. Maybe you should get a dictionary

Here is their facebook page, and it is spelled DESPAIR not dispair

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Despair-band/104085229628652

Your powers are not amazing.

[railsback]

286. Oh, I get it. A Snowden defender

http://dispair.bandcamp.com

Is there some China love in there, too?

[HangOnKids]

288. Looks Like You Better Keep Right With The Slower Traffic

Welcome to ignore.

[railsback]

289. LoL, you got faced

Ignore away in the name of Freedom!

[SidDithers]

292. Well done...

Sid

[HangOnKids]

278. There is a problem

And it has nothing to do with disgustipated or his OP. Glad to see you come back after such a long hibernation.

[4bucksagallon]

333. Sorry that I don't live in a dream world like some of you seem to.

Some of us are actually out on opposition message boards getting slammed daily for trying to get the truth out. If you think staying here preaching to the choir is helping............ Whew, do you have to gain some real life experience. Go to other boards and post. Take some of the abuse there and see if your fake outrage wins you a cu pie doll. Surprise you just might find that staying here is not going to help correct the falsehoods coming out of the RW echo chamber. I come here more for the news than to read who's dog died or who is getting treatment for cancer. Do I care, sure but I am not and will never consider myself part of a "family" on a message board. Believe me I have more than enough family with more than enough problems of their own. So if you have a problem with me hit ignore, I won't miss you. So buy buy.

[carolinayellowdog]

107. hate, hate, and more hate

This whole debate has devolved into a hate Obama hate the government hate, hate hate.
Sounds more like a T'Bagger site than DU. I don't see any future here on this site I keep hoping for better but daily I am disappointed."

That is what has been delivered here FROM the authoritarian "centrists" TO the rest of us for years now, and daily it gets more over the top and disgusting. The word "hate" is used almost constantly, and almost entirely by one side projecting on the other.

[reusrename]

245. Explain it to me like I'm a ten-year-old.

If you weren't calling Grayson out for sounding like a bagger, what exactly were you saying?

There is obviously some other interpretation here that many of us are missing.

What is that other interpretation?

[freshwest]

75. I rec'd his thread and the other one about him and support him fully.

So I don't know who is carrying on and don't care. I support Alan and the POTUS and he supports limits even if the job title is most definitely not Prince of Peace.

[ReRe]

89. It is truly annoying...

What this all boils down to is the fact that one group marches in lock step behind PO, like the Republicans did behind GWB. "My-way-or-the-highway," style.

I'm sure Representative Alan Grayson would be unaffected by the immature behavior if he sees it, so don't worry about it. It's glaringly clear what is going on. Use your ignore icon.

[graham4anything]

92. ah, it's the old double standard with the cult of personality.

I am accused of supporting the President and being a paid flunkie

but heaven help we say something against the congressman who is part of the 1% as he is super rich, ran a major
corporation and voted WITH Ron Paul and FOR Austerity at least two major times, and we are called out?

We being posters.
I do not believe I was on that thread, but if so, what?

Are those threads not suppose to be answered on???


and the comparison to Nixon is so way over the top it lost my respect.
Nixon caused the Vietnam war to go on for 6 years after sabatoging the peace talks and LBJ in 1968.

imho

[Bonobo]

94. You don't see the difference.

Example 1: (To friend) "That boy in math class has a big nose."

Example 2: (To boy in math class) "You have a big nose!"

The Congressman is visiting here. Do you act like an asshole when people visit your home? Errr, actually I withdraw the question...

[graham4anything]

95. Actually, the man in the gaberdine suit is a spy. She said be careful, his bowtie is really a camera

pass me a cigarette, I think there's one in my trenchcoat

ah, we smoked the last one an hour ago

and we gazed at the scenery and all come to look for America

(c) Paul Simon
(though some of the lyrics might be off)

my answer can be found in my bowtie.
I always liked Paul Simon's bowtie.

and It just dawned on me it was no coincidence, but then it never is.

[Bonobo]

96. It's "raincoat"

not "trenchcoat"

[graham4anything]

97. be back later, gotta go to my wellness program

trenchcoat sounds better now that I think of it.

but I do think I hit upon something impressive, back later.

[stevenleser]

183. Yep, it's the hypocrisy, stupid! nt

[reusrename]

253. When Obama joins the board it will be hypocritical.

Until then, not so much.

[stevenleser]

263. That was not Congressman Grayson. It was a staffer. Hypocrisy stands. nt

[reusrename]

266. Are you arguing that Grayson is NOT a member of this board?

That is some serious denial you got brewing there. You might want to get that checked.

[stevenleser]

271. Are you arguing that the congressman himself is taking time out of his day to post here?

That is some serious denial you got brewing there. You might want to get that checked.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

272. Is this the standard for accuracy you use to vet material for your radio program?

Good to know. I've seen Alan Grayson post here and answer questions. I know he posts here. Your declarative sounds all confident, but you're not basing it on anything you're able to back up.

[stevenleser]

275. I'll do you one better. I will call his office and find out for sure. I've wanted to have him on my

show anyway to talk about the NSA Surveillance. I will find out firsthand.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

281. Great. While you're on the phone, would you also ask

...if he or the staffer was drunk when one or the other of them posted? Will you also ask if Congressman Grayson stands behind the words you believe a staffer wrote? Will you please post some proof? As I mentioned, you're making declaratives you can't back up. Forgive me for asking that you document this, but that is my request.

[stevenleser]

284. Again I will do you one better. I will ask him the "Do you personally post.." question on the air

I will not insult him by asking if he posts drunk. I never made that accusation.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

287. fair enough, r.e. drunk. That was SidDithers in a fit of pique.

I can already tell you that he personally posts, but of course I've set a higher standard of proof for you, and I don't expect you to take my word for it. Or the word of any of the many people here who have conversed with the Congressman on DU. Thank you.

[SidDithers]

293. I love that my comment has got you so incensed...

Comedy gold.



Sid

[Owl]

354. What have you learned?

[stevenleser]

366. As soon as I find out I will let you all know. Nt

[stevenleser]

398. Update: the congressman and I will talk on Monday. It will air next weekend. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

399. Thanks. Let me know.

[Union Scribe]

384. Don't you support Democrats?*

Are you some third party supporter trying to undermine a sitting Democrat? Isn't that what you always ask people when they criticize Obama?

(*well and sometimes right wingers like Bloomberg)

[DLevine]

101. It was disgusting.

People can disagree, but to taunt & ridicule a good Democrat like Congressman Grayson, wtf? Childish, petulant behavior. Not DU's finest moment.

[rucky]

108. I'm not sure why anybody would want to lead us progressives

and we certainly need more leaders.

[Douglas Carpenter]

112. as they say; consider the source, consider the source

poor pathetic brainwashed fools.

[Soundman]

118. Right on! Unfortunately that thread

Lived up to my D.U. expectations. There are ways to disagree, remain civil, and make your point. Ah never mind I'm going back to heading cats, it is a lot less frustrating.

[Bobbie Jo]

114. What?

Expressing criticism is a problem now?

[SidDithers]

116. It was a dumbass post, and deserved to be mocked...

Seriously. "Are we going to ban forks and knives? And if so, then how will we eat spaghetti? "

WTF?

"This is not North Korea. This is not Maoist China. This is not East Germany. This is the United States of America. If we put the word "Freedom" on our stamps, then we should put it in our lives, too.

For God's sake, we are not cattle. We Are Human Beings!"

Dumbass hyperbole. I would hope the good Congressperson didn't write that nonsense, that some junior staffer put it together.

But apparently, Grayson is above criticism. If any other DUer posted that crap, they'd get the same reaction that Grayson's post did. Grayson needs special protection, given that this is the second thread expressing shock that there was a less-than-worshipful reaction to something "he" posted here.

Sid

[think]

119. I save all my hero worship for you Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

124. Your entire excuse for your personal attack on a liberal US Congressman is to say

"Dumbass hyperbole". That's your justification for acting the way you have; that constitutes your entire "argument". You should be ashamed. You're not, but you should be.

[SidDithers]

160. I didn't attack Grayson, I attacked his post...

Which sounds like it was written by some high-school volunteer, instead of a respected Congressperson.

Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

161. You said it sounded like he was drunk

Actually, you said it sounds like one of his staffers was drinking. That's a case of attacking the messenger, not the message. It's also a case of getting what's in front of your face completely wrong. Alan Grayson posts here. Alan Grayson posted yesterday evening. If he had a staffer do it for him, he gave that staffer the password, since it's his to give should he so choose. You wrongly identified and attacked the messenger, not the message. This is animal behavior, with my apologies to animals for the smear.

[SidDithers]

174. You can edit your title to accurately reflect what you said in your post...

Alan Grayson also has congressional staffers, volunteers, interns. If you think that everything posted here under the Alan Grayson account name is actually posted by Grayson himself, you're more naive than I thought.

That poorly written, dumbass, hyperbolic post sounds like it was written by a junior staffer, maybe an unpaid intern. If Rep. Grayson actually wrote that wharglebargle, then he's not the enlightened saviour that you're holding him up to be.

Sid

[JoePhilly]

166. Sid, you are upsetting the sycophants!

[SidDithers]

175. Then today is a good day...

Sid

[Octafish]

192. No wonder those advancing the agenda of the national security apparatus never get banned.

In siddither's world: Secret Government is good and Liberals like Grayson who stand for Open Government are to be mocked.

[reusrename]

258. I don't think it is an oversight, either.

AIPAC is the other shibboleth.

[JoePhilly]

260. You just don't seem to get the Irony.

Here on DU, you can call the Democratic President anything you want.

And you can call the supporters of said President anything else you want. And you won't get banned. You might even get cheered.

But if one dares mock the over the top hyperbole of a "pure" liberal Democrat ... well, then clearly you are advancing the scary police state, and you should be banned.

The irony is so very thick.

[SidDithers]

262. Pretty rich, eh?...

Sid

[mbperrin]

343. Why is a Canuck even posting here?

I used to not think about Canucks much, but shipping their godawful filthy artificial crude oil down here pisses me off.

Reminder to self: Rent Canadian Bacon again.

[YoungDemCA]

234. "But apparently, Grayson is above criticism."

Oh the irony....

[cherokeeprogressive]

120. It was ecactly who one would expect.

I was surprised I didn't read Rep. Grayson never really loved Barack Obama in the first place.

[treestar]

125. And some criticize us for supporting

President Obama ! Saying we hero worship him and never think he is wrong. Not liking his being mad fun of or blamed for just about everything makes us Kool aid drinkers

The irony.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

130. Are you justifying the behavior displayed in that other thread?

Are you really not able to see the difference?

"Congressman Grayson, I disagree with you and I have some questions..."
That's how one can disagree with the Congressman without acting like a pack of wild dogs. And if the President, with whom I completely disagree and with whom I'm very angry happened to show up in these pages, my message to him would start along the same lines: "Mr President, thank you for taking the time to visit our site. I have grave disagreements with you about the NSA program, and I'd like to ask you some questions..." It's called decorum, and it has a place. Everyone participating in that pile-on should be ashamed.

[treestar]

228. Really?

Wouldn't that be a bit sycophantic, when it's someone you consider to be doing something you find so evil? You would be polite to him just because of his powerful position? When he's spying on you for no good reason?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

235. I would treat the President with deference, yes

I would also tell him just how strongly I disagree with him, but I'd do that with deference. Anyone who wouldn't an animal.

[think]

132. If Obama or one of his appointed surrogates posted here directly

hopefully members who disagreed would use a bit of decorum.

Perhaps those that disagree could respond on a factual basis to support their opinion too. And maybe corroborate those facts with sources they have vetted to make sure they have made a solid case for their dissenting opinion of the president's policy.

But that's just a hope.

And yes, I understand that street runs both ways.....

[treestar]

233. It's hard to believe that

Considering they are always ready to find him in the wrong, never listen to what he said on a subject or label it a lie automatically, and, in spite of knowing him over 8 or more years, are ready to believe everything said by Eddie whom they have known for five minutes. They were declaring him a hero as soon as his name came out.

It's hard to believe they would suddenly start a civil discussion.

[think]

243. Other NSA whistle blowers are corroborating Snowden's statements.

Not sure what else to tell you in that regard.

As to Obama and the NSA debacle I have stated that I don't put the entire weight of this controversy on
Obama's shoulders. In fact I believe to a great extent his hands have been tied in part due to the extreme secrecy surrounding the NSA and the Fisa court and it's rulings.

We'll see how it all plays out but I think many on both sides will be surprised in the end. JMO...

[reusrename]

264. I know this is a difficult concept, but you don't need to be rude to criticize policy.

The rudeness is a tactic, not an argument.

The OP is taking exception to the rude behavior.

Key word here, behavior. Nothing at all to do with anyone's opinion.

If Obama were to join this board, I would definitely support banning anyone who was rude to him, or his surrogates.

This is about behavior. Not opinion. See the difference?

[Triana]

127. Meanwhile, is support for his bill lost here?

He's at least trying to stop or stem the snooping. Hella lot more than the rest are doing. While we sit here and argue semantics he used in his presentation asking for support, has anyone signed on to support his bill?

[Buzz Clik]

128. Imagine how Jeebus feels when he tries to discuss issues in the Religion forum.

I truly hope our representatives in Congress have better things to do than to spend time in this cesspool.

[bobduca]

196. says one of the main contributors to the pool

[Buzz Clik]

201. boduca pulls from his great wealth of experience to make this claim. All 201 posts.

Throwing down the gauntlet? I'm always game.

[bobduca]

205. Gauntlet thrown, cesspool-contributor.

[Buzz Clik]

249. That's it? That was your best shot?

I guess all that bluster goes away when the crowd is elsewhere.

[bobduca]

350. Ahhh the sound of contributions

hitting the cesspool!

[reusrename]

296. Here's the appropriate quote from 1988 film "Off Limits"...

Dix: You're floatin' in a big sea of shit and instead of just stayin' in the boat, no, you reach out and you pick up this one little turd and you say "This turd, well THIS turd pisses me off. I'm gonna do somethin' about THIS turd!"

[Buzz Clik]

134. Has anyone bothered to Google the canned lecture we received from "Alan Grayson"?

It's all over the internet. Maybe Grayson wrote it, but be assured he didn't post it here.

"Never smarten up a chump."

[DisgustipatedinCA]

135. It's been brought up several times

Some of the attackers are saying it was an aide. Maybe, maybe not, but Alan Grayson posts here under his own name, and he has for quite awhile. Thats established. to my knowlegde, its never been established that he has an aide posting on his behalf. If an aide posted it, it's because Grayson gave the aide his password and asked him to. This is absolutely no excuse for several people acting like jackals at a carcass.

[Buzz Clik]

147. Let's assume you're correct (I have no reason to feel otherwise):

Mr. Grayson, welcome to DU. Everybody gets treated like this. We are Democrats, after all.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

148. I disagree, for reasons stated in the OP

And I don't have his profile handy, but he isn't new here...he's been around awhile.

[MineralMan]

136. Well, I didn't post in that thread at all.

As it happens, I was introduced to Richard Nixon while working in the NSA building as an E-4 in the USAF, shortly after he took office. Oddly enough, he cut the budget for the NSA sharply later, for reasons I don't know. Nixon was a great user of intelligence against US citizens. The NSA didn't, at the time, engage in such intelligence gathering about US Citizens living in the US. That I remember from briefings. Nixon may have wanted them to, and that may well have been the reason for his problem with the agency. I don't know, though.

Congressman Grayson has concerns about the current intelligence revelations. So do I. He can think of it however he likes, and comment on his concerns. I saw nothing in the post worthy of ridicule, and I would not ridicule Mr. Grayson, in any case. He said that he was a child during the Nixon presidency. I was an adult, and opposed his actions often.

At the time, though, there was no email being used widely, and passwords were something unknown to most people. It was a different time, with different issues.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

140. Thanks

As much as I disagree with you on most issues, I honestly would have been flabbergasted to see you participating in those attacks. You do maintain a presence of etiquette and decorum about yourself.

[magellan]

138. Thank you. The responses to Rep Grayson were disgusting

It's a sad, sad day when those who dare to call themselves Democrats can't agree that our civil liberties are more important than their fucking party. Never thought I'd see it here.

[Sunlei]

142. I know what you mean. I wish other Democratic leaders would post in a lot of the topics here.

But it doesn't seem like they will.

Are others (Democratic Leaders) even registered to post? That would show us if they even read here. It would be wonderfull if several of the Democratic leaders, even the President started a topic or two and wasn't run off by the media blitzers.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

146. I don't know of other elected officials who post here

There may be some, but I'm only aware of Congressman Grayson.

[Le Taz Hot]

356. All kinds of people post on DU

including Senators, Congresscritters (usually their aids), actors, comedians, journalists, truck drivers, accountants, homemakers, artists, IT gurus, ad infinitum, you get the picture. Also, there are certain phrases that show up on DU and before you know it, the phrase has gone mainstream. It's interesting to watch.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

144. I've heard about BOG a lot here. I never looked at their forum until now.

The forum hosts are the self-same people conducting this attack...yes, there are hosts who didn't participate in that mess, and there were others who did participate who do not appear to be BOG hosts. But the balance of this behavior was instigated by the hosts of this forum. BOG hosts, I get that you like Barack Obama--believe me or don't, but I still personally like the man despite being angrier at him than I've ever been. But you don't have any call to act like this, and you're making a poor showing of yourselves.

[Sunlei]

151. sorry for the question, what is BOG? :)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

152. It's ok...I had the same question when I started seeing the acronym

It's the Barack Obama Group.

[Sunlei]

163. ahhh, lol thanks. so many groups here, if the President posts in his 'BOG' that would be cool.

[Marr]

165. Yep. I've come to consider that forum little more than the Asshole Club House.

Watch threads in General Discussion and notice how those names suddenly pop up en masse in threads that criticize the president, with posters offering nothing but one personal attack after another. When you see that, you can typically go to the BOG forum and find the rallying post easily enough.

[carolinayellowdog]

190. what is intended to defend the president actually disgraces him

by association with relentless authoritarian harassment

[RainDog]

250. ^^this^^ n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

290. I think that is the objective, the pretense of being 'supporters' is belied by the actions

which are the antithesis of Obama's methods. He reaches out to Republicans, they snap at Democrats. How is that support?

[BrotherIvan]

255. They are the BOrG and it is a cesspool

Look at the regulars of that group and you will find a complete list of the worshipers and disruptors who are arguing against Democratic principles in every thread. They lockstep into agreement about how every little thing PBO does is magic, then they come onto threads and pile on, arguing against any person who puts principle above party. They claim to be Democrats, but I have no idea where that comes from or why because they take the far right of every issue. They are the authoritarians, the scolders, the shamers. Their high post count just equals thousands of put-downs because they never add anything to a discussion other than to hurl insults and then act like victims and alert on posts.

They use the word "liberal" and "professional left" as smears. They try to derail every discussion, so all the energy is spent arguing with them. Some people think they must be paid operators, but they are so willfully blind and so intensely contradictory, I cannot believe anyone would pay for that. They are the self-appointed hall monitors of this board and it's shameful.

The Grayson thread was absolutely despicable. Here are a group of posters who whenever the president is questioned scream "it's Congress' fault!" "Elect more and better Democrats and then Obama will act like one!" So here is a newly re-elected Democratic Congressperson, doing his damn job and proposing a bill for the good of the people and what do the courtiers do? Scream at him. Mock him. Make this board like a fucking insane asylum. Completely unhinged.

They should not be listened to. They are the 27%ers and have no grasp on reality, which has been shown by their mad rantings and spiral logic. Be wary of such keywords as "reality" "facts" "haters" "racists" "ponies & unicorns" "not a dictator" "not a superhero," etc. If you feel like you might be crazy when you read a post, that's the BOrG signature. Step away. Do not engage. If they are shunned and ignored, they might go away. Corralling them in their own little group like the gunners might be the only way for sanity to return. Discussion with them is futile.

[Marr]

360. That's an excellent point.

These are indeed the exact same people who excuse every corporate or right-wing Obama position by saying there aren't enough liberals in Congress, then throw an apoplectic fit, all but hurling excrement at every liberal Congressperson who comes into view.

It's pretty telling.

[BrotherIvan]

371. They also claim the President is powerless to do anything

Congress must pass the laws! So here is a Congressman, proposing a bill to change this breach of our Constitutional Rights and they throw every insult possible at him. It's disgusting on a very deep level.

[akbacchus_BC]

386. It is not easy for the President to enact laws by a signing order. You are really

being unfair to the DUers in the BOG! Some of us really like President Obama, not because he is handsome, we rally towards him because of all the shit being thrown towards him from the day he got elected and let me add, he has done a lot for Americans since he took office, much more than any President I know of.

This spying thing was going on since Reagan or before was President!

Just my humble opinion!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

153. Agreed!

"First they laugh at you ..."

[haikugal]

156. I'm really sorry to hear this...

Grayson is a warrior and deserving of high regard but I've come to expect this kind of thing here. How sad.

[Progressive dog]

162. It's Okay to attack a Democratic president, but not a Congressman who piles on

Is that in the TOS or a new DU rule in your head?
The self selected high brows "This is low-brow behavior," are in a different party. Democrats believe in a society with equal rights.
Personally, I like Grayson, but I do not like him piling on the President because of stale news leaked by a kid who fled to an authoritarian country.
Get over it, it's a message board.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

164. read the OP again.

Your objection was addressed there.

[Progressive dog]

170. You read it again,

You claiming that you addressed my objection doesn't make it so.

[galileoreloaded]

167. to be clear, my alerted and deleted post was clear sarcasm

in fact i consider myself one of but a few actual liberal and anti-authoritarian posters on DU, and have a ton of respect for the man and his ability to stand up for himself (something very few can do, well, without the safety of the herd).

i should have used the sarcasm tab, but apparently calling Greyson an anti-obama republican hack seemed close enough to be plausible for DU instead of the satire it was intended to be? errrr...mea culpa.

[stupidicus]

168. can we get a link to that?

some of us missed it

[Electric Monk]

312. Sure. Link here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2996354

[stupidicus]

349. thanks dude

I found it. I didn't realize it was still on the front page.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

173. I think Mr. Grayson's skin is sufficiently thick for him to survive a bit of teasing.

[mntleo2]

177. Greyson RAWKS! Anybody who dissed him is *no* Dem! n/t

[WillyT]

179. K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[stevenleser]

180. If we search through your posts, how many criticisms of Obama supporters will we see where you

criticize Obama supporters for complaining about attacks on him? Do we need to go through the exercise?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

181. Ssshhh. Don't disturb them. They're looking to see if Grayson has a girlfriend in Hawaii.

[Dash87]

184. I agree with him, but he doesn't need his ass kissed here.

He deserves as much or as little scrutiny as the next poster. That's what he got.

I would even say the same thing about Obama. Why is anyone high and mighty here when we're discussing ideas?

[BobTheSubgenius]

186. So this means there are literally no acceptable elected representatives any more?

If the liberal credentials - based on performance, and not just feel-good words - of Alan Grayson don't make the grade, what's left? Not even enough to treat with civility?

Good to know.

[frylock]

187. it's fucking pathetic and every one of them will yelp like dogs when president jeb has these powers

[Poll_Blind]

188. To the contrary, I think some of them will drift back to the shadows, smiling, if that happens. nt

PB

[Octafish]

194. Have you ever noticed how the conservatives seem to get the best jobs, contracts, etc?

When he was all rightwinger, Snowden got a gig making 130k as a high school drop-out.

Last year, a liberal friend with a PhD lost his job and his home.

Anecdotal, but representative of the nation I've witnessed change from what it was like before Reagan.

[hamster]

191. I think it's better to

make fun of a person to their face than behind their back. At least Senator Grayson knows that we're honorable people here. That being said, the people that made fun of Mr. Grayson to his face deserve a little bit of our respect for showing that we are in fact honorable people.

[Eddie Haskell]

193. Rude behavior is now the norm.

[truebrit71]

197. Indeed.

It was disgraceful and highly dis-respectful..

[Arkana]

198. I'd be very surprised if it was actually Congressman Grayson and not an aide.

[valerief]

207. Those ninnies are names to put on your Ignore List. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

209. Sooooooo meta. Threads on DU about DU are super awesome, yo!

[L0oniX]

210. The worshipers have really lowered the bar here. You can't talk to blind obedience.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

216. ...

[ctsnowman]

217. X 1000

Seems like some people just come here to argue. If I read a post from a fellow Democrat that I don't agree with I just pass on... some seem to automatically PILE on.

[zeeland]

218. There has been a change @ DU

in the last several months dating back to just before the election.
On par with Joe Wilson yelling "you lie." or TX. Rep Randy Neugebauer
yelling "go back to Kenya" both at State of The Union Addresses.

I refuse to believe a true Democrat would sink to the same level
by openly making fun of Congressman Grayson even if on a mere
message board.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

297. That's funny, I see it completely differently

I see a horde of people who despise this president, and who have despised him from the beginning, for no other reason than he doesn't fulfill every utopian fantasy they have or may have had.

But hey I guess it's all subjective.

[zeeland]

314. The hordes that despised Obama

from the very beginning do not fit my definition of a true Democrat.
I did witness the hordes after eight years of cheney//bush hell in
near nirvana.

What's funny, well not really, is Obama is incapable of singularly
fullfilling any fantasy. Like the guy with his finger in the dike. Did
anyone really believe after eight years, actually 30 if you go back to
Reagan, that one man was going to fix everything? Now that is funny.

[Freddie Stubbs]

219. Over-the-top fundraising appeals can be pretty can be pretty humorous

[karynnj]

220. So you complain because some will not brook a discussion of the President being wrong -- ironic that

you include that while you complain that some will not genuflect when a first term Congressman gives his opinion.

In fact, neither deserve lock step support.

I do think that more respect for any serious poster - including the Congressman would be nice - and I have seen that extended for the most part when Congressmen and Senators post on Daily Kos and a few other places. Note that people WILL disagree with them and a small minority may be obnoxious, most are polite. I know people were mostly respectful when Elizabeth Edwards posted here.

[Bluenorthwest]

222. The frothing death kicks of the 'moderate centrist' Blue Baggers and Tea Dogs

They hate liberal Democrats because they know their day in the Party has been squandered on bipartisan rhetoric and ego.

[YoungDemCA]

227. It's pathetic, isn't it?

But at least in the short term, I disagree: they have successfully purged much of the Democratic Party of its left-liberal elements.

[noiretextatique]

302. +1

conise and accurate

[bike man]

230. Is it really the Congressman making the posts, or is it a staff member or volunteer making

posts under his name on various favorable (to him) forums?

[HangOnKids]

239. Gee Why Don't You Call Him?

I did and found out what I wanted to know. Do you have a phone?

[bike man]

268. Gee, with all the conjecture rampant on various forums, what is one more

among the many?

And yes, I have a phone. Thank you for your interest.

[HangOnKids]

280. Good give him a call

The office staff is quite pleasant.

[bike man]

318. No need for me to. There's a poster upthread who said he/she is going to.

Meanwhile, I think I'll simply read the responses, some of which ask a similar question.

This really has your hackles up, doesn't it.

[HangOnKids]

321. My Hackles Up?

Bye now .

[YoungDemCA]

232. Grayson was willing to call the Republicans on their self-serving horseshit...

...at a time when most other leading Democrats were all too willing to "negotiate" with the GOP.

And he has supported much of President Obama's agenda, for the record, and has pressured both the administration and his colleagues in Congress to do more for the middle class and the poor.

I don't worship Grayson, and I seriously doubt others here do. We just know a fighter who's clearly on our side when we see one.

[Moonwalk]

246. I'm confused. I see people accusing those who defend the president as...

...zombie cheerleaders; many insist that he doesn't deserve eternal respect and should always be questioned, even mocked (and certainly that those who defend him should be mocked) on various things no matter that he may have fought the good fight for us in many instances. And there are certain other congress members that I'm told also should be questioned and even made fun of if they support the president on certain things, even if they've fought the good fight for us in many instances.

Yet now you tell me that those who question and or make fun of this particular congressman who has fought the good fight for us in many instances are an embarrassment. It doesn't matter whether the point they have against him has any validity or not, they should always respect him for his past deeds. Especially if he's here on the DU (does that go the same for the president or any other member of congress should they be here on the DU?).

Can someone clarify for me who is off limits to our disrespect and who isn't? Which members of government can I respect and not be called a zombie cheerleader? Which members am I allowed to not only question, but mock? And does they're being here on the DU make a difference? Is there a rule book? Because I can't figure out who I'm supposed to be respecting no matter what, and who I'm allowed to ridicule when they foul up.

[blackspade]

259. +1000

[LanternWaste]

265. We often unknowingly illustrate our own characters when attending to minimizing others.

We often unknowingly illustrate our own characters when attending to minimizing others. And a lot if posters illustrated their characters quite dramatically.

[HiPointDem]

294. ironic

[LanternWaste]

334. Accuracy often is.

Accuracy often is.

[HiPointDem]

335. yes, but not in the way you think

[Doctor_J]

307. It's embarrassing for a liberal Congressman to have to battle a Dem president on so

many issues. The Everything Obama Does Is Great club is getting teabaggier every day

[LaydeeBug]

308. Oh please. Politics and "getting made fun of to your face" have been going hand in hand for decades

now. I don't know to whom you're referring, but it doesn't matter. Any politician worth his salt can stand a little rabble rousing.

[guyfromla]

309. REALLY???

Really? You are ashamed? Do you want to be monitored by Nixon? As a progressive, I do not give government Ca rte Blanche authority on anything. There has to be oversight, and there is NONE!! All 1749 requests to FISA court were approved...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

315. You must have read the OP too quickly. I think you'll see upon re-reading that I agree with

the statement you've made here.

[Anymouse]

311. The solution is a gun-phone . . .

Since the II Amendment trumps all others (since it is armed), the solution to NSA (and other organisations) conducting domestic dragnets of all citizens, as pointed out on the Daily Show, is a gun-phone.

Since the Government is prohibited in registering or tracking guns, that should do it. Just make sure the safety is on when you pull the trigger to talk into the barrel.

[LittleBlue]

320. Grayson is on DU?

Holy crap! I didn't know that.

If you're reading, Mr Grayson, I think you're swell.

[cstanleytech]

324. I am not sure I get the connection to be honest.

After all the current program has the consent of the FISA courts which were formed to prevent another Nixon type incident from happening.

[Wednesdays]

328. Rep. Grayson, attacked on D. U.?

News to me. Are you sure they aren't just a bunch of trolls?

I've had nothing but great respect for him, and have read nothing but raves about him here.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

357. They're some of DU's nastiest posters...

and I don't believe the majority of them are Democrats. They're quick to point out DU "isn't the real world" and "DU doesn't matter," but many rack up 30+ posts a day. Why bother for something they consider so insignificant? And lately some of them have been taking swipes at Earl -- as in Earl, co-owner of this site. Rude. But not in the good Rude Pundit way.

Someone posted a hilarious hierarchy of the True Believers -- perhaps woo? To whomever posted that, please share again!

[Baitball Blogger]

330. I wish him well, but,

He lives not too far from me and with his lawyer connections he has to know about the major clusterpuck in my county. I tried contacting his office for help once, but no avail. He would have a wonderful opportunity to take a swing at the anti-government nuts who control the county. But no signs of interest. I can only imagine it's because lawyers watch each other's back.

I wish him well, but...

[Curmudgeoness]

332. I am so saddened by this too.

Thanks for saying how embarrassing this is.

[DonRedwood]

337. Good manners are never a bad choice.

Is what my grandmother would say about all this.

[KauaiK]

351. One of the biggest issues in this country is the loss of civility and common courtesy...

Everyone - repeat - EVERY SINGLE ONE - deserves dignity, courtesy and respect. I personally blame Newt Gingrich for the onset of coarse, rude behavior.

[cartach]

352. And in DU. EOM

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

353. The authoritarians can not help themselves

[freemay20]

355. Imagine that, low-brow behavior here.

It has gone on for a while and continues to go on. It seems these people with the huge amount of posts feel they can do whatever they want to. If they disagree with you, and then you make a valid point they can not dispute (a fact), then you are of course a piece of crap. I have also seen this many times when asked to serve on jury. These huge post number people simply report any post they can not turn into what they want. The policies work well here as I have not seen the jury side with these arrogant jawflappers.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

358. I concur

[4 t 4]

362. aaa aw, it's working like a charm...

you're all fighting really bad. It's working : Entice fighting among-st the ranks! Hitler ?

[99Forever]

364. Some people have no class.

Neither do they have any shame. Nor principles. Nor ethics.

[Hulk]

373. I think Representative Grayson can handle it...

I'm on the other end of the land surface from this man; but all I've seen I've been IMPRESSED WITH. He knows how to take rude and divisive insults. I'm sorry folks, but it comes with the territory! RepuKKKes are awful, but progressives are a close second. I'm one. I should know!

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Representative Grayson knows how to decipher this BS. There are always two sides to a coin, and a million sides to a political issue. You're going to piss off somebody for agreeing with them. Get over it.

This is a dirty game we play...politics. Rep. Grayson knows that well.

I respect the man more than just about any other politician in my bag. Rep. Wilson, Sen. Sanders...and the list gets thin after that. But he's in the top three! Keep doing the good work Representative. I'm with you 100% of the time...even when you insult me to my face.

Get over it wimps. There is NOTHING "teabaggish" about this man...and he and I know it!

[Phillip McCleod]

376. + 2.73 Gazillion!!! \n

[Agnosticsherbet]

377. If the Grayson that posted here can't take a little criticism...

Then he is not the one that I've read about and followed.

And if he is going to post here, he deserves to be treated like anyone else here at DU.

[DesertFlower]

378. anyone have a link? i didn't see grayson's post.

[totodeinhere]

381. Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022996354

[DesertFlower]

390. thank you. nt

[Baitball Blogger]

395. All politics is local.

Grayson lives in an area that is steep with cloak and dagger methods that skirt the Constitution. And that's just from the public attorneys! The Republicans who are applying the political pressure are much, much worse.

The fact that Grayson won't step into the fight and expose the chicanery isn't going to win him support from locals who understand what's going on here.

[Smarmie Doofus]

401. My favorite US REP is up for it, believe me.

Besides DU has rules against over the top ad hominism.

Believe me... Alan's from the Bronx. He can contend w. a few DU 'mini-me's w/o breaking a sweat.

[boilerbabe]

403. Oh i am sure our fine congressperson from FLorida is used to right wing ASSHOLES in his own party.

I, for one, appreciate him and always have. He should wear their derision as a badge of honor!