So... Agreeing With Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Et. Al. On Edward Snowden Is...

[WillyT]

An American thing, or an Authoritarian Thing ???

I'm thinkin'... Authoritarian.

Sure glad I'M not on that side.

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Nt

[RobertEarl]

2. Ouch, that's gonna hurt

Let's be more loving tho. Most of those telling us that Obama never lies, are already hurting from the truth that Obama is tapping their phones. They are so down, we should not be kicking them.

It's over. Let them be.

[SidDithers]

3. Right. Instead, you agree with Stormfront and Ron Paul on Edward Snowden...

The association game doesn't really work on this one. There are odious characters on both sides.

Sid

[Earth_First]

5. Indeed...

This association game gets ugly.

[PatrynXX]

23. thats why I hate playing it

no lawsuits or class action lawsuits can go forward without including Cheney or Bushie , any that do are frivolous

This reminds me of a time when a guy stopped for a family of raccoons crossing the road on a day it was downpouring. I didn't see them till I hydroplaned into the back of them. well the first guy quickly drove off. Since he was gone nobody was at fault. I did total my car though. Thanks alot dick

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

6. +1

[BumRushDaShow]

7. Ouch, that's gonna hurt

Teabaggers + Firebaggers = strange bedfellows?

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013/06/12/if-edward-snowden-is-a-traitor-then-we-are-already-slaves/

[WillyT]

9. Ah Sid... Your Always Good For A Grand Salute...

Wish you gave a shit about the Constitution.

[Romulus Quirinus]

10. He gives zero shits.

He's Canadian. He's just using DU for entertainment.

[SidDithers]

11. ...

We all use DU for fucking entertainment.

Unless you think posting here is somehow changing the world.

Gimme a fucking break.

Sid

[WillyT]

13. Not Changing The World... But Sometimes Changing Minds... Which BTW Changes The World...

How dare you harsh on DU like that?

[rhett o rick]

21. The usually smug Sid is showing signs of desperation. nm

[SidDithers]

24. ...

Comedy gold.

Sid

[Romulus Quirinus]

25. Like most things in life, talking about politics fits on a spectrum

In this case, one end is pure pleasure, and the other is pure utility.

Talking politics lands somewhere in the middle for most people.

Being an asshole on the internet, I suspect, tends to be close to pure entertainment, so I can see how you might be confused.

[SidDithers]

26. I find both assholes and non-assholes entertaining...

each in their very own special way.

Sid

[KittyWampus]

37. You should go back and read the OP, it's not entertaining or informative. But it casts light on Sid'

Sid's post.

[RB TexLa]

12. When Dubai Ports World got US port operator contracts there were many Stormfront talking points

repeated here.

[bahrbearian]

14. I see what you did there , Hee Hee

[rhett o rick]

22. LOL. I saw what he did also. He must be slipping. nm

[Progressive dog]

17. +1 nt

[rhett o rick]

20. Poor Sid. No it's not the same. LOL. Oh, I like your avatar. nm

[treestar]

31. Exactly what a fallacious argument

We have to agree with OP just because Cheney? LOL. It can be so easily turned, as you did!

[99Forever]

4. Exactly. n/t

[G_j]

8. doesn't matter who agrees

character assassination is ALWAYS the
immediate blitzkrieg following the actions of a whistle blower. I suspect an exception to that rule does not exist.

[Catherina]

16. Do you mean like all those authoritarian states we talk about all the time?

You know, the ones that have millions in prison, monitor their population and deny political freedoms.

I'm on this side. Period.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[Thinkingabout]

27. I must have either missed or forgot what court issued Edward Snowden the warrant for him to

Seize the records of the NSA, remember private information, was there a warrant to do so or not.

[reusrename]

34. Aha, the burning baby question!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023021299

[xiamiam]

18. agreeing with Dick Cheney on a progressive forum? its just weedingout the enablers

I keep hesitating but I think I need to put about ten more people on ignore in order to get away from the gossip aspect of the nsa surveillance as well as executive overreach. Its happened. Its happening. We need to start discussing what we do about it. This place is not a friggin fan club site. Its the gossip part that just sends me over the top and makes me not want to even come here. Yet I have great respect for many of the members and learn so much. Daniel Ellsberg calls this a constitutional coup and I fear he may be right but are there are legal remedies because that's the way its going to need to be fought.

Most of us have known that we are in dangerous territory for a while which is why I was so appreciative that this story came out and that it was Greenwald who broke it. Its all tied together with the entire mess our country is in right now.. we the people, have very little to say about anything and now we are given solid evidence that individual and group patterns are being watched and analyzed. Its the groups, I say, the political dissenters who already have been victims of this... Occupy, for example, in every major city in the country ..and who will continue to be targets And who is Occupy? For a quick minute, all of us and they were speaking for the majority of us. Next time you attend a rally or protest, keep that in mind. I've marched against war over the course of 4 decades.. should I be dissuaded now because before I even step foot outside the door, somebody else knows I'll be there. Not that anyone would care about me going anywhere, but what if they did? Why should they?

[JoeyT]

19. Yeah, b b b but Glenn Beck!

Who also would be totally cool with this if it was a Republican doing it. So he doesn't actually disagree with it, just doesn't mind it when his guy does it. Which sounds familiar.

[backscatter712]

28. Should be a bannable offense here on DU. n/t

[neverforget]

29. And John Yoo, David Addington and the rest of the torture brigade.

For them, Spying on Americans is the American Way!

[treestar]

30. FFs

Making it about people and not the issues. yeah that's helpful.

[Summer Hathaway]

32. I don't think you want to go there.

Obama has been repeatedly characterized on this site as a stupid, in-over-his-head, irresponsible, arrogant, self-serving liar who is determined to destroy democracy as we know it.

And at least 95% of Republicans agree with that assessment.

So if you're going to play the 'company you keep' game, you might want to consider how often DUers agree wholeheartedly with the Republicans on the topic of Obama.

[elias7]

33. Good point. Because we know anyone who supports Obama is delusional and snarkworthy

Such polarity is not a healthy thing. It's either black or white, all or nothing, with us or against us.

One can still support Obama despite feeling let down on certain issues.

One can question Snowden as a source yet still fear and fight against sweeping data collection.

So many of these black and whiters believe that it is the mythical Obama bots that are against Snowden because it makes Obama look bad. I wish the snark would stop.

This website has become like freeperville in its snark, simplicity, and loss of tolerance and open-minded, nuanced discussion

[Summer Hathaway]

38. Do I detect a voice of reason?

You'll excuse my surprise - it's been a while.

Agree totally with what you've said, especially about things being black-or-white, all-or-nothing, etc.

I've watched DU devolve into that kind of mindset over the past few years, but of late it is really over the top. What we've seen in the past week is an example of how quickly lines are drawn and sides taken, and that's noteworthy in and of itself.

Within 48 hours of people having heard Snowden's name for the first time in their lives, he was deified by many without hesitation - based on what is anyone's guess, other than that he was saying what a certain contingent here wanted to hear.

It would seem logical that when a complete unknown makes such serious allegations, their background would become a matter of great interest. But once the hero-worshippers dug in, they refused to even consider that the man's past was germane - especially when his own account of his past was shown to be increasingly questionable.

Any questions raised about him were immediately dismissed as "character assassination" or an attempt to "smear the messenger". Ironically, many of the same people who insisted that Snowden's allegations - despite his not proving them - should be accepted at face value, no questions asked, are the same people who have delved into Zimmerman's past as being a legitimate means of assessing his motives in killing Trayvon Martin. Did he have a history of violence, bigotry, a hair-trigger temper? The questions asked were deemed acceptable - even viewed as the only means by which to get a sense of who Zimmerman is, and what led to his actions.

But when it came to Snowden, delving into this total stranger's past was immediately declared verboten by those who had been so quick to canonize him as a great American hero, and who insist that his statements alone should be considered without the context of who he is, or what his past experience has been.

I recently posted in a reply on another thread that DU has indeed become Freeperville, only with better spelling.

Sad but true.

[elias7]

39. ...only with better spelling. Nice one.

[LanternWaste]

35. I'm clearly on Nixon's side because I agree with the Clean Air & Water Act.

I'm thinking that regardless of whether one's conclusion lies with the left, the right, the up, or the down, it may be, more often than not, merely an argument one has come with on their own. E.g., I'm clearly on Nixon's side because I agree with the Clean Air & Water Act.

Seems to me that, as in mathematics, how one arrives at their conclusion is just as important, if not more so in many cases, than the conclusion itself. And if we look only at the conclusion, we are cheating ourselves out of relevant information.

However, I do realize the convenience engendered in trivializing a person's agreement with the Clean Air and Water Act by implying they are, or petulantly calling them, Nixonian (in the here and now, I believe the new trend is to label everything one doesn't agree with as "authoritarian"-- but it's really just six of one and half a dozen of the other).

[UTUSN]

41. Excellent deflating of a rhetorical gimmick!1

Some of the other gimmicks in play:

* Attacking dissenting (free) thought

* The "authoritarian" smear

* Grouping contrary opinions with detestable figures (CHEENEE)

* Broadbrushing

* Angel vs devil

* Vituperative contempt

* (A significant tendency) Attacking fellow DUers more than Wingnuts

[tritsofme]

36. I can't tell the difference between Alan Grayson's and Sarah Palin's

Over the top ridiculous rhetoric on this issue. Politics truly does make for strange bedfellows.

[leftynyc]

40. And the other side is defended

by Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity - what's your point?