Democrat Cory Booker wants to work with LIBERTARIAN Rand Paul

[Luminous Animal]

Interesting.

Bite on that NSA apologists...

In the special-election race that wrapped up last week, Mr. Booker campaigned on working across the aisle despite the bitter partisan divide in Washington. Drug policy could be one area where he finds some success, according to those who work in the field. He singled out Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a libertarian, as someone who sees eye-to-eye with him on the issue.

"I want to work with him," said Mr. Booker, about Mr. Paul, during an interview Tuesday at his campaign office in the city he led as mayor for seven years. "I take everybody in the Senate as sincere people who want to make a difference."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303902404579151922058208760?mod=WSJ_NY_MIDDLELEADNewsCollection

[msanthrope]

1. Of course he's going to expect the Libertarian to work with him on drug legislation reform.

You know, I wondered why you'd only excerpted 2 paragraphs from this article.....and then I read it and realized that since it was on drug policy, it was best to OBSCURE the issue, and focus on Booker's association with Rand Paul......if you have a certain agenda....

While your selectiveness certainly highlights your agenda, it really, really does a disservice to two deserving groups--

1) DUers. We deserve properly presented articles that accurately present the issues.

2) People in prison/facing trials/sentencing under out current drug laws.

If Corey Booker can coax a reasonable vote out of Rand Paul on drug sentencing issues, I think that will benefit sooooooo many groups in America that have suffered from our draconian drug laws.

Tell me again, what's your objection to that????

Seriously--what is your objection to Cory Booker's quest to reform drug law and therefore, policy?

[joshcryer]

3. Knew there was more to it than met the eye.

Thanks for the post.

[msanthrope]

5. No shit---the two paragraph selective excerpt that didn't mention drugs? Tip off that something was

up.

[joshcryer]

13. Silly NSA apologist!

[msanthrope]

16. I thought I was Stasi? It's tough to keep up. nt

[Luminous Animal]

33. From the OP: "Drug policy could be one area where he finds some success"

Something is up alright and it isn't coming from me.

[msanthrope]

36. Tell us why you have a problem with Booker working on drug policy? "Bite" is not a direction

generally given by an OPer when one approves of the actions described.....

Now, you have deleted the direction for DUers to 'bite' something...which indicates you are cognizant of the hostility in OP.

Tell us--what do you have against Cory Booker?

[Luminous Animal]

59. I've none. Unlike those who have a problem with Democratic and Liberals

working with libertarians in regards to the NSA.

I'm happy that Booker would do this. I am happy he would seek those with common ground to accomplish a shared goal.

Why did you lie about my OP?

[msanthrope]

62. You wrote "Bite on that" to DUers in an OP where you are "happy?" Holy crap-I'd hate to read what

you'd tell us to do with our orifices if you were posting an OP when you were grumpy!!!

This is an Epic Thread.

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

[Luminous Animal]

64. I'm sure you were horrified when you read those words.

And it was keeping in mind your delicate sensibilities that compelled me to edit the post.

I am happy that Booker is reaching out to one of the few people in Congress that might have some influence to curb the racist and cruel "war on drugs".

All those who criticize rank and file liberals for doing similar can bite me.

[msanthrope]

71. I had expected more erudition from someone in your profession, frankly. As an avid Rude Pundit

reader, I really appreciate the well-turned phrase that exhorts Republicans to do something distasteful with their body parts. So my dismay with you is two-fold. 1) You should be more literate in your cursing, and 2) you should curse at Republicans, not at DUers.

Nonetheless, you've now embraced Cory Booker, and given us this delicious thread.

[Luminous Animal]

86. My job as a paid assassin requires little erudition. In fact, I rarely talk at work.

[1000words]

92. Heh ...

[msanthrope]

96. That explains the WSJ subscription. nt

[Luminous Animal]

110. You have a lively imagination.

[msanthrope]

122. Sadly, I cannot return the compliment. nt

[Luminous Animal]

132. Sadly, I cannot turn my comment into one.

[muriel_volestrangler]

245. They said 'bite on that' to 'NSA apologists'

The NSA apologists are the ones who are saying "you can't attack the NSA, because libertarians attack it too, and we can't do anything they do, because it's all a screen for an attack on Obama'.

So, by saying 'bite on that' to NSA apologists, Luminous Animal is clearly saying they are fine with a Democrat working with Paul on one subject, unlike the NSA apologists who say 'never ever work with Paul'.

[joshcryer]

268. I say never ever work with Paul.

Because I know for certain his position on surveillance is only about the NSA it's not about corporate surveillance. Therefore, if we were to have new privacy legislation, I don't see Rand Paul signing off on it. He'd only sign off on something anti-NSA, he'd never sign off on anything pro-privacy.

Fuck Rand Paul. He doesn't care about American privacy.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

7. +1...

It would've been ridiculous for Sen-Elect Booker to say in that interview:

"I will not work with a single damn Republican in that there Senate. Fuck 'em all."

[Luminous Animal]

17. Really. Senators are free to associate and make alliances on specific issues...

but activists are suspect when they do similar?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

20. What do you have against ending the Drug War?

[Luminous Animal]

34. Nothing. An I don't have anything against Democrats working with Libertarians

to curb the surveillance state.

[questionseverything]

331. when someone teamed up with paul

to audit the fed,i thought that was great too...we found out while the usa was getting a less than trillion dollar bail out.....the fed shipped 13.5 trillion around the world to bail others out...almost the exact national debt at the time

even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while

thank you for the thread!

[msanthrope]

23. Senators need 'votes' to further legislation--here's a primer.....

[BluegrassStateBlues]

24. ...

[woo me with science]

38. And citizens need as many voices as possible to exert public pressure to change policies. nt

[msanthrope]

40. I am sure that you support Booker's efforts to change drug policy, right? nt

[woo me with science]

43. Here's my succinct summary of this stale, manipulative corporate spin:

[msanthrope]

47. Indeed--why the OP would post ANYTHING from Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is puzzling.

I would be hard-pressed to find a more stagnant font of "stale, manipulative corporate spin."

[woo me with science]

49. I know! They were the ones who reported today

that Obama knew NOTHING about spying on Merkel!



That last word rule kind of sucks, huh? You end up posting such silly things.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

51. Silly things such as:

Insinuating that the Wall Street Journal is covering for President Barack Obama.

[msanthrope]

52. Oh lordy....losing on this issue, you switch to President Obama? Are Booker and Obama fungible to

you?

[Luminous Animal]

66. So the WSJ is spinning Booker's intent to work with Paul?

[msanthrope]

72. Isn't that a question you should have asked yourself BEFORE you used the Murdoch source? nt

[Luminous Animal]

89. If Booker didn't want it reported, he shouldn't have said it.

[joshcryer]

77. 836 words, 23 paragraphs, drug policy mentioned 3 times.

Yeah, the WSJ is kind of using the drug policy to push the idea that Paul Ryan and Booker are on the same side. Except they aren't. In fact, drug policy and personal body rights (abortion, suicide, drug use) are the only policy positions I can see any reasonable overlap with Democrats / Liberals / leftists and Libertarians / Neo-Liberal / capitalists. Everything else beyond that is a scam.

[dreamnightwind]

131. Ending wars, de-militarization of the U.S. of A., surveillance

We should be able to work together on reducing the size, power, and over-use of our military, and putting the brakes on our rapidly growing state surveillance apparatus. Is that a scam? If so, why? Many libertarians are very sincere about those issues, as are many Dems.

[joshcryer]

136. They are not for ending wars.

They simply believe that wars should be done with private contractor mercenaries. These are the same types of idiots who supported Pinochet.

They are not against surveillance they are against government surveillance. Corporate surveillance they would support 100%.

This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. DUers actually believing that Libertarians are for something that we are for. They aren't except for drug policy and body rights.

[dreamnightwind]

196. You're wrong

when you make a blanket statement such as that. In discussing specific people you can be correct in making such statements, or not, depending on the person.

If you're talking about the Pauls, I honestly don't know where they stand on these issues. I can't stand the Pauls, at all, so I don't pay them a lot of attention.

If you're talking about people who call themselves libertarians, there is a very wide range of belief, though in my experience they generally lean to the right (I lean way left), believe in the market as deity (I see it more as the fallen angel), defunding the military, not being the world's cop (I couldn't agree more), and many of them do believe nobody has a right to spy on them, corporate or government.

To the extent that the above is true, it is wise to form issue-specific coalitions to move policy. I don't care if they go home and sleep with Ayn Rand's descendents, if they're with me on an issue it's common ground that can be useful.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

45. It's so beautiful.

[joshcryer]

27. Activists have an impact electorally, not legislatively, generally.

Once the guy gets elected he can make whatever moves we agree with. Until that happens we eat our own when we bash our own for having policies we might not agree with.

There is of course the event where activists do have an overlap with libertarians when there is an electoral thing in mind, such as when it comes to changing a states constitution or amending something. In Colorado the Libertarians and Democrats worked together to get marijuana legalized. The Democratic Party in fact endorsed marijuana legalization, even though the Democratic Governor was against it (and he signed it into law still being against it). In that event you couldn't see it as though the Libertarian Party was trying to take voters away. Had we bashed the Democratic Governor for not wanting to legalize marijuana he could've lost (and in fact the Republican came very close to beating him). See how it works?

[BootinUp]

41. youre on roll, lol.

keep it up.

[Marr]

267. Are you done deleting posts yet?

I've got to say, that was one of the most cowardly, dishonest things I've ever seen around here.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. +1

[SidDithers]

25. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[msanthrope]

32. You Better Believe It! nt

[Luminous Animal]

29. Drug policy is mentioned in my excerpt.

[joshcryer]

35. It's not bolded.

The intent is to distract from the content of the article.

I didn't catch it at first either. I read msanthrope's comment before I went to the article and read it, then came back to your post and saw you'd quoted the drug policy bit but bolded the less significant part. Your entire OP came off as suggesting Booker was going to work with Rand Paul on any issue, but it's clearly issues that are important to Booker.

[Luminous Animal]

63. Because bold words make the others unreadable. Hahahaha.

And yes. The liberals who showed up at yesterday's NSA protest allied with libertarians on an issue that was important to them.

I think Booker reaching out is a good thing. I think the ACLU and EFF joining forces with libertarian leaning orgs to curtail the surveillance state is a good thing too.

Any criticism of strange anti-NSA bedfellows is going to have this article thrown in their faces.

[joshcryer]

65. I think Booker would be for privacy laws.

Which Libertarians most certainly would not espouse.

So when someone says "Libertarians are against the NSA," it is actually meaningless bullshit, because if there exist no privacy laws with regards to my personal data, then, yaknow, my data is going to be sold and scrutinized by some big entity. NSA spying is just as bad as Google's spying.

So it's a cheeky-roundabout way to get me to "align myself" with someone who I am frankly not aligned with at all.

Booker is a politician, he will align on things that matter. And there will be no allegiance with Rand Paul and Cory Booker on privacy laws limiting corporate ability to collect user data.

[Luminous Animal]

168. What are you blathering on about? I never made the claim that libertarians

are worth allying with in regards to corporate privacy laws.

[joshcryer]

171. Erm, you said "any criticism of anti-NSA bedfellows."

Saying I can't criticize Libertarians if they vote on anti-NSA legislation when in fact I can and will because they aren't against surveillance, they're against government surveillance.

If you call that blathering I suggest you read your own posts.

[Luminous Animal]

186. I can and will make a distinction between government surveillance and corporate surveillance...

I believe that both need to be severely reigned in but each is a separate legislative and judicial fight.

Right now, the focus is on the NSA... government surveillance and big "L" and little "l" organizations are allying themselves with liberal and left organizations to confront government spying.

When the left tackles corporate spying, no doubt the libertarians will abandon the fight.

[joshcryer]

190. No, they are not "separate legislative fights."

They are the same fight and if the Democrats don't fight for it at the same time they will be caving to the right wing corporate lackies.

It is the same fight.

The Right to Privacy is a plank of the Democratic Party Platform. Separating out the issues is a cave and a half.

[Luminous Animal]

198. No Josh, they are not the same. The outcome will be similar but the corporate

spying is going to be much more difficult.

It will be much easier to bring a 4th amendment case against the government than it will against corporations.

I see the corporate spying restrictions bubbling up from city and state legislation, being challenged by the courts for a decade or two before it even reaches the Supreme.

[joshcryer]

201. Corporate data selling is trivial to implement.

It's already been done with personal health information (HIPAA).

The hard part is enforcement. Which is all the more reason to include it in NSA provisions. Because you can support HIPAA enforcement as well as a corporate data selling enforcement with the right kind of watchdog legislation (expand Consumer Protections to have a watchdog that goes around auditing).

[Luminous Animal]

213. We will disagree about this. HIPAA privacy was primarily driven

to allow access to medical information for research purposes. Government is the largest funder of health research so their were real concerns about government matching records to individuals... thus 4th amendment protections.

Private industry gleaning our shopping habits for their private use is not, at this time, considered a 4th amendment violation. Or any kind of violation because, presumably we "agree" by using the service or product.

[joshcryer]

236. ELUA's are unenforcable.

A store can say in some agreement on a card you sign up with them with that you're giving over all rights to privacy and your data will be sold, unless you signed, it's not an agreement.

The internet in particular doesn't have signatures, and people regularly sign up to websites which take their data and use it internally and sell it to other companies.

It's actually probably easier than HIPPA because all you have to do is say "you can't sell user data without their signature." Pow. It just became a whole lot easier to spy on individuals, which the internet has made so easy it's a joke.

[silverweb]

37. Great catch!

[JI7]

2. there would be no point going to the Senate is one isn't willing to try to get votes to pass

things they support.

[msanthrope]

4. I think every single newly elected Democrat should barricade themselves in their office, and

vow to never look at, or speak with the Republicans.

[MADem]

6. On changing VERY specific DRUG laws.

That's the "issue" where he says they have common cause, per the article in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal that is referenced--he's also saying that he is going in there assuming that people are of good will (the guy will learn, soon enough, but whatever):

Drug policy could be one area where he finds some success, according to those who work in the field. He singled out Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a libertarian, as someone who sees eye-to-eye with him on the issue.

"I want to work with him," said Mr. Booker, about Mr. Paul, during an interview Tuesday at his campaign office in the city he led as mayor for seven years. "I take everybody in the Senate as sincere people who want to make a difference."

It's not like they're going to run on a Third Party ticket, or form some other association. They have the same POV re: sentencing for drug crimes. Rand Paul's office came back and said they'd be happy to have his help on changing this particular law.

"Senator Paul would be pleased to work with any member who believes that mandatory minimum sentencing is unnecessary," the spokeswoman said. "He looks forward to Senator Booker's assistance on this important issue."

Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone -- just about any successful Senator-- have found it necessary to form strange alliances on the odd occasion. I'd be wary of reading anything particular or portentous into this statement.

[msanthrope]

14. Booker is "paling around" with Rand Paul. Did you hear? Imagine! A Senator-elect making

noises about bi-partisan legislation that would help his constituents......

[MADem]

26. I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that he'd make good on a campaign promise by joining the

fight for legislative change!

[msanthrope]

54. You should read the attempts to rehabilitate this OP in this thread---apparently, we've

misread the exhortation to "Bite on that."

[MADem]

57. Gee, is that suddenly a "positive" kind of exhortation? Who knew?

No one ever exhorted me to "bite" something in a positive way before! And I've lived a long life and heard the term a time or ten down the years! Not ONCE was it anywhere near "Attaboy!" territory!

[msanthrope]

58. We need a new avatar. "Bite on That!" It's right up there with "Yes, We Can!"

Holy crap----This is an epic fail thread.

And 'newer' posters to this thread apparently didn't get the memo that the course was changed.

Did you ever see this Hall of Fame thread???? Check the recs....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022355307

[Luminous Animal]

70. It's my new sig line.

[msanthrope]

74. Why not include the permalink to this thread? nt

[Luminous Animal]

90. Good idea!

[joshcryer]

93. Thanks for editing the OP back.

Still don't see why you'd think the "NSA apologists" would "bite on that" since we clearly wouldn't throw Cory Booker under the bus for agreeing with a right wing Libertarian on drug policy legislation. I don't think you thought this one through.

[Luminous Animal]

98. Oh I have. DUers who have clearly stated that they are against NSA excesses

but tsk tsk activists for forming alliances with libertarians on that ONE issue.

[joshcryer]

73. Classic MadHound.

Dude really had a way of riling people up in a way that really made people lose it. I think only Better Believe It was better at it. Looks like you were also allowed to say "ratfucking" there, which put it nicely.

[msanthrope]

76. You know, Skinner, in his infinite wisdom, gave posters the option to stop digging with self-delete.

It surprises me how few take that option.

[Fumesucker]

202. Oh, we love our words, our thoughts, they are our mind children

Deleting them is like deleting a little bit of ourselves.

[Rex]

205. STOP IT!

[Luminous Animal]

215. That is lovely.

[JI7]

220. he is a good example of how fucked up some of this is, didn't want to report a pedophile ring

because of all the bizarre conspiracy crap .

or he just lied about it.

both show what a piece of shit jackass he was.

and he was a libertarian gun nut also. compared criticisms of anti gun control people to being racist against them.

[MADem]

276. Well, I'd say "Unbelievable!" but since I see what I see with my own lying eyes, I guess I'd just

Better Believe It...or something!

Maybe we need Cindy Lauper to give us a song, or something, since "Bite Me" is a term that is, suddenly, like True Colors, beautiful like a rainbow....

This is pretty incredible, I must say.

[Luminous Animal]

293. I'd appreciate it if you quote me correctly. It is not "Bite me," but rather

"Bite on that."

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

[MADem]

294. I guess I'll give that admonition all the attention it deserves, eh? nt

[Luminous Animal]

94. But liberal activists are suspect when they form strange alliances on the odd occasion.

[MADem]

287. No, not "the odd occasion." The "odd occasion" wouldn't raise any eyebrows.

But when someone that some poor clueless folks call a "liberal activist" has formed a seven year alliance that includes book deals, speaking deals, research projects, position papers, attendance at fundraising parties, and a listing as a "contributor" with a Koch funded entity, one has to believe the guy isn't a "liberal" activist at all. He's "active" all right, and he is dancing with the one whut brung him.

Gotta look in the boy's bucket, and if he's carrying CATO water up in there, we know for whom he labors.

[Luminous Animal]

290. You've wandered way off the farm.

[MADem]

297. Well, with this thread, I'd say you've purchased the thing!

You're not digging your way out of this hole by continuing to fling those shovels full about with abandon, no matter how much you try to pretend that you meant your "biting" remarks as praise.

Born at night...just not last night.

[Luminous Animal]

308. Not once said, "bite on that NSA apologists,"

Was or is any sort of praise.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. Smart politics

I expected nothing less from him.

[geek tragedy]

10. They could also work together on tax breaks for private equity firms. nt

[Fumesucker]

183. Ouch..

That one left a mark.

[msanthrope]

11. I'm copying this OP.....

Democrat Cory Booker wants to work with LIBERTARIAN Rand Paul [View all]

Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2013, 12:57 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Interesting.


In the special-election race that wrapped up last week, Mr. Booker campaigned on working across the aisle despite the bitter partisan divide in Washington. Drug policy could be one area where he finds some success, according to those who work in the field. He singled out Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a libertarian, as someone who sees eye-to-eye with him on the issue.

"I want to work with him," said Mr. Booker, about Mr. Paul, during an interview Tuesday at his campaign office in the city he led as mayor for seven years. "I take everybody in the Senate as sincere people who want to make a difference."


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303902404579151922058208760?mod=WSJ_NY_MIDDLELEADNewsCollection

[joshcryer]

18. I like the original edit, myself.

"Bite on that NSA apologists..."

[msanthrope]

21. Noted--Here's the original

0.
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 12:57 AM - Original version with no edits. (Hide)

Original version with no edits.


0. Democrat Cory Booker wants to work with LIBERTARIAN Rand Paul


Bite on that NSA apologists...


In the special-election race that wrapped up last week, Mr. Booker campaigned on working across the aisle despite the bitter partisan divide in Washington. Drug policy could be one area where he finds some success, according to those who work in the field. He singled out Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a libertarian, as someone who sees eye-to-eye with him on the issue.

"I want to work with him," said Mr. Booker, about Mr. Paul, during an interview Tuesday at his campaign office in the city he led as mayor for seven years. "I take everybody in the Senate as sincere people who want to make a difference."


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303902404579151922058208760?mod=WSJ_NY_MIDDLELEADNewsCollection

i

[MADem]

31. Not too subtle, is he? But hey, Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is just a nifty source, there,

too!

So many wrong notes in that tune!

[joshcryer]

39. FYI OP is a she.

[MADem]

277. Ah, I stand corrected.

I don't know why I was of the impression she was a he...

[Fumesucker]

218. This is the OP you *should* have copied

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3922984

[muriel_volestrangler]

246. What did it say, as a matter of interest?

The thread quickly sank into a mess of accusations and counter-accusations, and I can't work out what the OP said, even remotely. Was it "let's have a fight about Libertarians?"

[Fumesucker]

248. The thread title was "Don't Ally With Libertarians" and it wasn't snark

I actually thought about copying the OP into the thread but didn't think the author would be quite that chickenshit.

More the fool me, I guess.

[Rex]

304. The very same people high 5ing each other in that thread over

how evil and terrible Libertarians are and how liberals like to work with them and should know better...are in THIS thread saying, 'gee okay no problem working with Libertarians'. THAT is why the thread got self-deleted, out of embarrassment.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. If he wants to work with him on ending the $60 Billion a year drug war, that's great.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

15. If this is supposed to be a smear against Sen-Elect Booker, it is a failure. nt

[msanthrope]

19. Epic fail--which is why I copied the OP into a post as a hedge against self-delete. nt

[BluegrassStateBlues]

22. Good work.

[msanthrope]

28. This is in my Hall of Fame of epic fails---you might find it amusing...Check the recs.

Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2013, 02:09 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022355307

[Oilwellian]

97. This is my Hall of Fame epic fail post by your buddy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3922984

[msanthrope]

197. I think it's a great post. If you can't tell the substantive difference between

a Democratic Caucus member lobbying a Republican Caucus member for a vote on drug policy and a march of idiots carrying a Obama-as-Hitler sign, then I find your reasoning skills lacking.

You should not ally with Libertarians. But you should use the fuck out of them when you can. I hope Cory Booker uses Rand Paul like a rag doll. Don't you?

[Luminous Animal]

217. Yep. Great post that has now been self-deleted and the OP also deleted his/her comments.

Crazy.

You should have copied that.

[Rex]

221. Before I got to bed, thank you for making this thread!

As another poster said...it is very illuminating!

[Luminous Animal]

222. You are welcome! Good night!

[hootinholler]

254. "march of idiots carrying a Obama-as-Hitler sign"

A lie will make it halfway around the world before the truth gets its pant on.

If you bought into the propaganda posted about the Stop Watching Us rally then your reasoning skills are certainly lacking.

[Rex]

211. Yeah it was SO great he self-deleted!

Now what was I reading upthread about self deletes...bahahahahaha!!!!

[Oilwellian]

95. But, what happened to the sentiment you shared just recently in this thread:

Don’t ally with libertarians: Ideologues co-opt an anti-NSA rally

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3922984

Can you say, busted?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

107. And I stand by that thread.

Comparing two Senators in the actual position to reform our nation's drug laws to a bunch of morons looking for an excuse to dress up early for Halloween and flaunt disparaging pictures of the President would be funny if it weren't so damn sad.

[Luminous Animal]

219. You stand by your thread that you deleted. And you deleted your comments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3922984

[Rex]

305. The special few are well...special.

You are only supposed to do what they say, not what they do! Sound familiar?

[Dragonfli]

337. Your funny! You stood by it so much you deleted it

How long have you been doing stand up?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

338. I did delete it.

Enjoy that victory. Because you will never have one in an election.

Not enough people in the asylums will come out to vote for the people you and your posse try to pass off as leaders.

[Dragonfli]

340. What posse would that be junior? You don't like Democrats?

Go find a friendlier place. I know you prefer Reagan "democrats" that are really mostly Republican, but there are still plenty of non Reaganites in the party and many get elected every two years to stand up for things like civil liberties, social programs, human rights and economic justice.

Granted YOUR POSSE has a great deal more money (Peter J Peterson and his friends are loaded) but for some reason people that stand by the limousine neo-liberals tend to have to delete many of the views they "stand by" from sheer embarrassment.

Red suits you

[Luminous Animal]

149. No it isn't. Try again.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. What's wrong with working with Rand Paul on this issue?

The drug war is a joke.

[woo me with science]

42. Excellent. Thank you for highlighting the absurdity of the divide and conquer/

guilt by association nonsense we are continually fed here by the perpetual defenders of the corporate surveillance state.

Hitler liked dogs. You like dogs. Therefore, you like Hitler!

It's absurd, disingenuous garbage, intended to divide and disrupt.

[JI7]

44. Booker isn't getting together with Rand Paul to protest Obama and hold up Obama with hitler

mustache posters .

this is about specific legislation.

[woo me with science]

50. Yes, that's the point.

Uniting to defeat predatory policies, not REFUSING to stand against them on the basis of blind partisanship or personality cults. The divide and conquer corporate crew constantly tells us that we can't protest spying, because we might have to stand next to a Dirty Libertarian.

If Ron or Rand Paul comes out against strangling puppies, well then we good liberals better git ourselves a mess of rope!

[msanthrope]

53. "Bite on that" as an exhortation to DUers was not written by those you call "the corporate crew."

It was written by the OP, and not in a spirit of comity.

Defending bad manners tends to Streisand Effect them.

[Luminous Animal]

69. Restored. Oh captain of comity.

[joshcryer]

60. Bullshit. No one said we can't protest.

That's just a flat out lie. We're talking about people pumping guys like Ron Paul and bashing Democrats over issues that aren't actually happening. I mean, Obama literally attacked Syria if you went on posts here around September. Obama literally gutted Social Security. You yourself wrote asinine OPs talking about how the pick of Paul Ryan would lead the American people to support cuts. Yes, you said that nonsense.

Yet the 2013 end year Democrats are showing some major spine, Syria isn't being attacked, we faced the asshole Republicans with the shutdown and debt ceiling. A debt ceiling supported by dirty Libertarians, mind you. A shutdown supported by dirty Libertarians.

[woo me with science]

85. Nonsense. Of course people were saying that.

The corporate crew was all over the boards with it, and there was even an OP: "We can't ally with these people!" or something like that. Someone at a protest of THOUSANDS shows up with a tasteless sign, and the whole protest is smeared, and we get lecturing idiocy about allying with Libertarians. What manipulative, predictable Third Way garbage.

You know WHY the bombing of Syria was beaten back? Because Americans (and the world) opposed it overwhelmingly, even across party lines. We are waking up. There was not enough circling of wagons this time to defend the indefensible, even though the reliable Third Way crew did their best to accomplish just that. They were the *only* ones making ghoulish arguments that bombing would be "humanitarian."

We're learning more and more about the LIE we are constantly fed by the Third Way: that we must circle the partisan wagons and defend predatory corporate and neocon/neoliberal policies for fear of enabling the Other Party.

No, it turns out that the hectoring for mindless partisanship and wagon circling are tactics used AGAINST us by the corporate One Percent. They are the means by which Americans are kept divided and unable to unite against the predatory corporate agenda.

There is nothing more important right now than uniting as Americans against what the predatory class is doing to us. The incessant garbage propaganda with second grade logic and guilt by association is pathetic and transparent, and simply doesn't work anymore. No, I will not avoid a protest against something I consider fundamentally evil and wrong, just because a Libertarian might show up to protest it, too.

You have fun with that last post rule. I'm done here, as it's bedtime and I'm bored with this nonsense.

[joshcryer]

88. California shows how to govern.

Due to the GOP's failed redistricting tactic (which made districts be compiled in a bipartisan / neutral way), which lead to California's legislature being filled with moderate Democrats.

I only saw maybe 3 people wanting to bomb Syria here. Most were against it and saying it made little sense that Kerry would be behind it, yet Kerry was thrown under the bus here by supposed "progressives." And far be it for Obama to get one iota of credit for it.

The shutdown crisis proved one thing, when DU is actually united, the "ratfuckers" really stay in their holes.

[Fumesucker]

209. Could it be that when DU is actually united it is actually united?

And posters with whom you have disagreements on other issues are "ratfuckers" when those issues are at the fore?

DU is extremely single issue oriented, a serial obsessive collective personality.

[joshcryer]

237. Yeah, absolutely.

But I mean, there was a particular absence of a certain group of posters who just STFU. Obviously because if they stirred crap they'd have gotten heat for it. Now that the love affair is over they're back to their typical stuff.

It was a nice reprieve from them but what can you do. DU is rarely united, hasn't been since 2003 and during general elections and whenever the Dems get a 'win.' (Which admittedly has been few and far between the past 3 years.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

249. The notable attempt at division during the shutdown crisis came from michigandem58

who was notorious for attacking the left of the Democratic party for their concerns over things like the NSA. This attempt to split DU got them banned: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023770634

But the number of people who recced that thread was depressing: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10023770634&info=1#recs

[Fumesucker]

250. Things move so fast here, I'd forgotten that

Good catch..

[joshcryer]

252. That's so true.

I think I maybe rec'd at most 1-2 threads of theirs because the PM'd me with rec begging. Totally lame. If I felt like alerting I would but I've never alerted on a PM...

Thanks for pointing that out, though. I don't think there was any other poster at the time trying to foment division during the shutdown.

And that poster, rightly, got banned for it.

As would have a lot of Obama detractors in the same time frame. If only they were consistent, we would've got a 2 for 1. So many Obama detractors, had they posted their bullshit lies and misinformation during the shutdown would've been obliterated. But they STFU because they knew better.

[Bluenorthwest]

258. 23 DUers rec'd that OP blaming liberals for the shutdown Republicans caused. Many of them

are on this thread nattering away as well. They endorsed that which got the OP banned. The company one keeps, as they say.
Title of that post was:
The Emotarian Left Bears Responsibility for The #GOPshutdown

[joshcryer]

264. And?

Shall I link BBIs last thread?

[Bluenorthwest]

309. Why are you asking me what you should do? I made my point, you pretended not to get it

and now you should do as you wish, most folks in a discussion would make a point of their own but you ask two snarky questions and call that a response. It's rich and thick and creamy stuff!

[joshcryer]

328. What point?

I am on the record that recs mean little to me. In fact I got questioned in PM last night because I rec'd a "libertarian" thread. So the fuck what.

However, there are plenty of Better Believe It threads rec'd by you, the OP, and many others here. So let's not kid ourselves, OK?

Here's one rec'd by me and the OP where you thanked BBI, right wing troll "ratfucker" (he was here only to stir shit up): http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=563256

So what? You're trying to build a list of people you dislike or something? Not falling in line? Reccing threads you don't like? Please. What a joke.

[Chathamization]

316. Thanks; that thread and the recs are pretty telling

"Before everyone unites against the Republicans, let's blame the shutdown on the left!"

[msanthrope]

46. The OP told Duers to "Bite on that" in reference to the comity that Mr. Booker espouses. So I

didn't take from that she approved of Mr. Booker changing drug policy using bipartisan support.

Indeed---I think that using phrases like "Bite on that" toward other posters on this board is "absurd, disingenuous garbage, intended to divide and disrupt."

[BluegrassStateBlues]

48. Yep. And not in the spirit of bipartisanship the article was trying to promote. nt

[msanthrope]

55. Telling DUers to "Bite on that" is so charming, isn't it? nt

[BluegrassStateBlues]

61. Illuminating. nt

[Marr]

105. I was going to say, 'don't worry, they'll forget about this

the next time drone bombings or NSA surveillance comes up', but apparently their powers of doublethink are stronger than I ever suspected. They're actually defending those attacks right here, while praising Booker for not just agreeing with, but pledging to work with, Paul.

It's stunning.

[woo me with science]

339. It's like having discussions in Wonderland,

or Oceania.

[ErikJ]

56. Remember also...his support of Romney and Bain Capital.

Booker generated controversy on May 12, 2012, when he appeared on Meet The Press as a surrogate for the reelection campaign of Barack Obama and made remarks which were critical of that campaign.[82] Booker stated that the attacks on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital were "nauseating to me on both sides. It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity.

[Fumesucker]

67. After reading the entire thread I'm reccing this

The hypocrisy on display in this thread would have boggled my DU mind in 2008, today it's just another yawn.

[joshcryer]

68. What hypocrisy?

If you cannot lay it out I'll have to just assume it doesn't exist, because I frankly don't see it.

[Fumesucker]

75. You're normally smarter than this..

The very same group who utterly despise Glenn Greenwald because he's a "Libertarian" are now jumping for joy that Cory Booker wants to work with Rand Paul.

[ucrdem]

79. Where are you getting "jumping for joy"?

I don't see it.

[Fumesucker]

87. I wouldn't expect you to

[ucrdem]

91. You mean because you made it up?

I see your point.

[Fumesucker]

109. Go ahead, defend Libertarians and working with them all you want

Now imagine the DU uproar if for instance Alan Grayson wanted to "work with" Rand Paul.

[ucrdem]

113. I suppose you made that up too?

Please continue making up my responses as I need to go to bed.

[ZombieHorde]

239. I would have no problems with that duo

if they were working on legislation I liked. I care more about legislation than the labels of the people working on the legislation.

[MADem]

284. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Grayson associates himself with this particular bill to amend drug

sentencing laws.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Senators are invested in changing that law, particularly as marijuana becomes legal in some states and decriminalized in others.

[joshcryer]

82. We are happy that Cory Booker is working with Rand Paul on this.

I am 100% certain we would have been happy whether or not someone tried to make a straw man and tell us to "bite it" while calling us "NSA apologists."

I think the irony is that the OP actually thought, I guess, we'd throw Booker under the bus for working with Rand Paul because we're not Libertarian fans? I mean. Really? On drug policy? We'd agree with Libertarians on drug policy, we'd agree on gay rights, choice, anything related to the body and free will, stuff like that.

I actually disagree with the Libertarian position on the NSA, because they aren't against mass surveillance, they're against government spying. Corporate spying is fine as far as they're concerned and corporations amassing major data sets on their customers and civilians is their right. I would be for a basic privacy law that forbids both corporations and the government from spying on citizens.

[Fumesucker]

99. I think the OP expected exactly the reaction they got

A spirited defense of working with Libertarians.

You also assume that all Libertarians agree with each other on everything, that's far from true in my experience.

Not to mention that Paul isn't a Libertarian, he's a Republican who makes Libertarian farting noises every once in a while.

[joshcryer]

108. There's a difference between "working with" and "aligning with."

We aren't aligned with the Libertarians. The OP doesn't like that we call out activists who are aligned with Libertarians.

[Fumesucker]

116. Of course you're aligned with Libertarians

Practically everyone aligns with practically everyone else on some subset of things political.

By no means do all Democrats align 100% with all other Democrats.

I remember Hillary imagining a world where you had to show proof of insurance at the job interview.

[joshcryer]

128. That's using a more weak version of the word, imo.

Just being aligned on one issue doesn't mean that we're aligned on all issues (or at least, consider them compatriots).

[Fumesucker]

137. Do you know anyone you are aligned with 100% on everything?

Not being snarky at all, I honestly can't think of anyone I agree 100% with.

[joshcryer]

146. Myself.

Put it this way. If Cory Booker worked with Rand Paul to make good drug legislation that gave non-violent people amnesty, that doesn't mean that he should work with Rand Paul on NSA legislation if that legislation doesn't come with general privacy concerns. If it's just "tie the NSA's wrists" then it leaves corporations with the same power the NSA has. Over our data. Rand Paul would never give up corporate rights to shut down the NSA, and if Cory Booker wanted to he could frame it that way, and then Rand Paul's true colors would be shown and those naive thinking he's against mass surveillance would be shown as ignorant.

[Fumesucker]

160. Thankfully that's a situation we'll see right after the devil dons ice skates

Neither Paul nor Booker wish to see surveillance, corporate or otherwise curtailed in any really significant way.

BTW, I could call you a purist for not wanting to restrain the government if you can't also get your way on corporate surveillance.

But that would be childish, wouldn't it?

[joshcryer]

163. That's called compromising.

Booker's President us using the surveillance and defending it in the courts.

Therefore as he is my party head I must "compromise" on some issue. I'll tie the NSA's wrists as long as I can general privacy concerns taken care of, while we're at it.

Or I could "cave" and let Booker have his way but I don't get mine.

Politics is strange that way.

[Marr]

120. I think "agreeing with" would be a more accurate word, don't you?

Who knew that actually working with someone was less potent and meaningful that simply agreeing with them on some point?

For the record, I see no problem at all with Booker working with Paul on this or that issue-- much less agreeing with him. I wish the people who regularly equate criticism of NSA spying with being an 'emotarian Paulbot' would be so consistent.

[msanthrope]

84. You are comparing a pundit with a Democratic Senator? Greenwald colludes with Libertarians to

enrich his pocket. Booker is looking for votes to secure a change in the drug laws. If he has to talk to Rand Paul to do so, he'll hold his nose. No one is jumping for joy--I think it's a fucking shame that so few Republicans can be counted on to do the right thing that Booker needs to make sure he has the support of Rand Paul.

Jeebus Christ--on Democratic Underground, you are comparing a Koch-paid shill with a Democratic Senator.

[ucrdem]

103. Wasn't Greenwald a life-long Republican before he became a Libertarian?

How does turning right from the right make him a leftie? I could never figure that one out.

[msanthrope]

114. Yes. The gullibility of the fringes should surprise no one. I mean, that anyone would think

that a patent lawyer for a Neo-nazi is a 'civil rights attorney' is something I just have to laugh over.

[ucrdem]

121. There is much to savor lately in the comedy department.

Life is good.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

123. Disparage Dems for not being liberal or progressive enough, but embrace far-right loons.

[msanthrope]

139. Far right loons who tell you they are 'liberal' so therefore, they must be. And when you look at

their records, there is no doubt they are far right.

I had one poster on here tell me Mr. Greenwald was a 'civil rights attorney.' When I asked them what civil rights he defended in a patent case for Matt Hale, I got no answer. When I asked what civil right he defended when he defended Matt Hale against a lawsuit filed under the Illinois Hate Crimes Act and the Anti-Klan Act, I got no answer.

Understand....this is a lawyer who defended the contract rights of a white-supremacist in a patent action--shit, you can't get more cravenly corporate than that. And he's a 'Lefty.'

[BluegrassStateBlues]

142. And taped his clients without their permission, but now claims to be a privacy advocate.

[msanthrope]

158. Worse--he taped a witness. But that caused him to lose the case for his client,

so much the better.

[Fumesucker]

194. "Don't ally with Libertarians"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3922984

[Fumesucker]

134. "Don't ally with Libertarians"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3922984

[msanthrope]

154. It's good advice. I hope Cory Booker uses the fuck out of Rand Paul. Think he's not smart

enough to know the difference?

[joshcryer]

157. Would you say you were allied with LaRouchies?

Just because there's one thing they might agree with you on?

Wouldn't you make an effort to distance yourself from them?

What's wrong with wanting to distance ones self from Libertarians?

I consider them in the same camp as LaRouchies.

[Fumesucker]

165. I think reasonable people can differ on a lot of things

While also managing to agree on a lot of others.

A lot of our arguments on the DU are about tactics and strategy vs goals.

[joshcryer]

166. But we wouldn't announce the alliance.

If we thought they were unreasonable, anyway. Which I do of all Libertarians.

[Fumesucker]

176. And they think that of you

It's difficult not to take one's own circumstances as the natural order of things, the way things are.

The libertarians know they haven't a prayer of getting 100% of what they claim to want, but they also know unless they push in their direction no one else will.

[joshcryer]

178. Which is why their narrative is pushed so often.

They have to keep themselves relevant.

[Fumesucker]

188. I wouldn't get any traction if some of it didn't resonate with a larger audience

And some of it does resonate with a lot of people, which is why it's so despised by authoritarians.

Government and corporations both are like fire, useful tools that can also be deadly dangerous.

[MADem]

281. On a single issue--they aren't getting married.

But hey, it's one thing to work with a libertarian group--and take money from them--and have them publish your works, including a book--AND be listed as a contributor to their magazine--AND attend their donor parties as a featured guest--dating all the way back from 2007 (at least), it's another thing to find common cause over a single, solitary specific issue that is drug sentencing.

And who is "jumping for joy?" A newly elected Democratic Senator, and a nutjob asshole with a squirrel on his head, have the same view about a single issue. So what? The OP seems to be jumping for something--not sure if it's joy or a false sense of "Gotcha!" ... or what (but I'm guessing that "Bite Me" remark is a clue...).

That's like saying "Gee, they both like pineapple upside down cake....does this mean they're in cahoots?"



That phrase "You're normally smarter than this" bounces right back on you. You couldn't possibly be more willfully obtuse in those comments of yours if you tried.

[Fumesucker]

295. Perspectives often differ

joshcryer is one of the more thoughtful posters that I find myself often disagreeing with, in fact you are the same, normally pretty thoughtful but I disagree with you quite often.

See, you throw insults while I try to remain positive about my fellow DUers.

[MADem]

298. I haven't insulted anyone. Trying to pretend I did, like you are doing, is BAD FORM.

Unless you think my accurate description of Saint Rand of Paul as a "nutjob with a squirrel on his head" is an "insult?" Near as I can tell, he's not a "fellow DUer" unless he's posting in this thread under an assumed name?

When someone doesn't "get" it, or is pretending to not "get" it (willfully obtuse), it's most certainly not an insult to say so. It's simply an expression of a factual state.

An insult is something like "You're stupid!" or "You're ugly!" or "Your mama wears army boots!"
I don't trade in that sort of silliness, I leave that to others.

[Fumesucker]

299. " You couldn't possibly be more willfully obtuse in those comments of yours if you tried. "

[MADem]

301. Nice try, but no cigar. I was right on point, and your weak effort to flip is a fail.

Imitation, though, IS the sincerest form of flattery.

[Fumesucker]

323. As I said a little while ago, perspectives differ

Why not discuss the issues rather than my perceived personal shortcomings?

[MADem]

325. I am not talking about your "perceived personal shortcomings," but if you want to make

it all about you, why, take the floor and pontificate till the cows come home--you don't need a partner to do that!

[Fumesucker]

326. You couldn't possibly be more willfully obtuse in those comments of yours if you tried.

Evidently you don't think of obtuseness as a shortcoming.

That explains much.

[MADem]

329. What you're doing is called goading and baiting, and you're not a very skilled

fisherman, I'm afraid. I see you coming a mile away.

Obtuseness is a state of being. So's being willfully obtuse. It's not a shortcoming to those who use it to their perceived advantage. It's a tactic.

You have one of those swell evenings, now!

[Fumesucker]

330. I note you're still talking about my personal shortcomings

Bless your heart.

[MADem]

336. Bless your heart right back atcha--and I'll refer you to my last post. nt

[Rex]

182. It is well known now and bookmarked for future mocking.

I agree, today is is just another yawn.

[ucrdem]

78. That's all you have to say about a newly elected Dem senator?

That he said something conciliatory about a RW tea-bagger who supported his opponent, per the WSJ?

[msanthrope]

104. Someone had to take over for HiPointDem--they HATED Cory Booker, but since their shit-

canning, there's been a dearth of "Cory Booker is a cryptofascist" threads. Someone had to pick up the torch.

[Oilwellian]

80. This thread is highlarious

Let me try and get this straight because I find the Third Wayers dizzying...A Third Way Democratic Senator can work with Libertarians in a bipartisan effort to develop new drug policy with gushing support by all . Yet, liberal Democrats can't march alongside Libertarians in protest of NSA spying, and get a hearty fuck you from many of the Third Wayers here. Is anyone else confused by all of the spinning going on around here?

[quinnox]

101. +1000. Dizzying AND hilarious, both at the same time

The cognitive dissonance causing this wild spin is like whiplash in action!

[woo me with science]

111. It's classic.

Doesn't get more illustrative than this.

[Marr]

126. Yep-- that's about it.

I'm continually impressed with the authoritarian capacity for hypocrisy.

[hootinholler]

257. I'm positively dizzy

Since I seem to be the target.

[nadinbrzezinski]

286. That vertigo is not due to a medical condition.

One statement made me laugh in particular.

[Oilwellian]

318. You, you...

emoprog, lily-livered libertarian lover you! By the way, did you see Cory Booker there? LOL...loved your pics.

[hootinholler]

319. No, I didn't.

The spokesperson from the ACLU was good, confirmed that content is being recorded.

Lots of European press.

Thanks, I think I will have to start dressing for protests.

[Harmony Blue]

283. Yes it is truly a double standard

not surprised at all.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

302. Confused? No. They're nothing, if not predictable.

Emotarian libtards LOVE the War on Drugs, cuz, you know, we're racist and have Obama/Hitler posters over our beds!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3934890

I'd swear dear ol' Spandan was back.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

81. The DEA apologists are out in full force.

They can bite on something.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

306. Manipulative bullshit...

that will work on about 20-30 DUers, at most.

Try again. Better yet, ask Obama about being a DEA apologist.

[quinnox]

83. What, Rand Paul, that most evil and vile libertarian?

But apparently now it is A-OK for a Democrat to work with libertarians on issues they are allied with, good to know.

K&R, bookmarking.

[Rex]

100. I didn't really notice that, lol wow yeah I see it now.

I thought even being next to a libertarian was a no no...guess it is all conditional then. Who could have guessed?

[quinnox]

115. Yep. That said, somehow, I don't expect the future "Fuck Rand Paul!" posts to have the addition

in parenthesis or small type -"unless he is working with our Democrats on something" attached to them...

[Rex]

125. Maybe a disclaimer as a sig line?

Otherwise I guess the only conclusion one can come to is that they are nothing but huge hypocrites?

[quinnox]

127. lol, good one, a disclaimer sounds like a good idea henceforth...

that, or a good old fashioned link to this thread.

[Rex]

133. Well you know we cannot work with libertarians, unless certain

people here say we can...but only if they say so! Otherwise it is a no no. Learn something new every day on DU!

[BluegrassStateBlues]

140. Kind of like Obama's political appointments that gets everyone's jimmies rustled.

He should only appoint the purest of liberals to all cabinet posts, by god.

[Rex]

144. Yeah I know it must suck, you can still self delete that thread.

But I really hope you don't!

[BluegrassStateBlues]

148. As I've said twice already, I stand by that thread.

Apples and oranges.

[Rex]

150. Keep pretending that is true.

You are SO busted!

[BluegrassStateBlues]

153. I post nothing on here that I wouldn't defend a week later.

Doing opposition research on a message board. If you put that much energy toward doing something productive in your life, you wouldn't be in the situation that has made you so bitter toward this President and the Democratic Party.

[Rex]

159. Bitter? Oh I get it, you are stuck in a narrative and cannot get out!

I love the fact that you got caught being a two faced hypocrite and when I point it out, you go for the Obama hater canard. Pity that I support the POTUS more than you do and the party! Try again and maybe do some research first on who you are talking to...that is just embarrassing for you to be so ignorant and knee jerk reactive!

Must really rub you raw getting caught in a lie. HAHAHAHA!

[Rex]

214. Really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023922984
Then why did you self delete? I keed...I know why!

[Bluenorthwest]

260. No, you 'self deleted' that OP which is the opposite of standing by it, it is hiding it from view

and shutting down the discussion. To claim you stand by that which you deleted is mendacious in the extreme. It is also hilarious.

[Oilwellian]

102. Remember this recent, epic post by Bluegrass?

Don’t ally with libertarians: Ideologues co-opt an anti-NSA rally
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3922984

I just can't post this link enough in this thread.

[quinnox]

106. Hmm, with the headline -- "Don’t ally with libertarians"

but now that a newly elected Democratic senator did just that, I guess his feelings and opinions about this went right out the window! Talk about whiplash!

[BluegrassStateBlues]

117. Actually, I stand by that thread.

A bunch of useless people dressing up early for Halloween and holding up signs disparaging the President is not the same as a Democratic Senator and a Republican Senator reforming our nation's idiotic drug laws.

[Oilwellian]

138. But those same people holding the disparaging signs...

voted for the "Republican Senator" you're now gushing over. You really are busted on this one. You can't have it both ways.

[Rex]

145. Good call! I cannot believe we were expected to forget something

that was posted so recently!

[Oilwellian]

162. I responded to it, so...

It only took a moment to find. I had forgotten who posted it so when I saw the name, I almost fell off of the couch in laughter. I mean, you just can't make this stuff up.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

170. Thanks for the kick.

[Rex]

174. I will keep it Bookmarked so I can laugh at them from now on

over their obvious two faced stance.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

155. I doubt any of them voted at all.

The type of people rallies like that attract makes it highly unlikely.

[joshcryer]

161. So you'd openly admit your alliance with them?

Like people are trying to force us to do in this thread?

I wouldn't be caught dead with them. The only alliance they can see is Cory Booker's vote on the issue. Other than that they can fuck off.

[Luminous Animal]

195. So you imagine that Cory Booker is only going to vote on a Libertarian generated

legislation. Because that is not what he said. He said he wants to work with Paul and Paul replied in kind. Really. Senator Booker is a very smart man. I'd prefer that he actually have dialogue and input into original legislation and I suspect he does, too.

[joshcryer]

199. Regarding drug policy, I see that as possible.

Though obviously it would be a bipartisan piece of legislation.

The point being that I wouldn't be dancing around championing the right winger working for it. I wouldn't be putting "Libertarian" in all caps and telling others to "bite it" because of some bipartisan piece of legislation.

I'd give Booker all the praise and forget, even, who was with him on it.

The Booker-Paul Drug Amnesty... I'd forget which Paul it was in a heart beat.

I am amused by the love for bipartisanship being displayed in this thread. I defend Obama for being super bipartisan because he said he would be. I dislike the bipartisanship but realize its political expediency.

[Luminous Animal]

207. I make the distinction of championing bi-partisan when doing so advances

liberal issues and bi-partisan for bi-partiansake.

As an activist, I did't work with homophobes for the mere fact of working with homophobes. I worked with homophobes to keep the mothers of welfare families out of jail. When the campaign had run its course, my relationship with the homophobes ended.

I feel that Obama's olive branch has way too many twigs on the right.

[joshcryer]

241. As do I, for the most part.

But, between you and I, I bet you thought Simpsons-Bowles was bipartisan. I didn't because the Democrats always kept a poverty exemption in there as well as closing tax loopholes. Now, it was definitely bipartisan to put Chained-CPI on the table, but from the point of view of the Democrats, that was a sacrifice they'd be willing to make to close corporate tax-loopholes and exempt millions of seniors from poverty. Was it the best thing to do? No, obviously raising the cap was the best thing to do, but that would've become a partisan issue because that's a tax raise on the top 5%.

So the Democrats feigned bi-partisanship all along when they knew that the likelihood of it happening was nil. And Obama gets to say "I came to the table." The reality is that the Democrats are playing with petulant children and they're not ignorant of that as the shutdown showed. Obama is actually accused by the right wing of being a shitty leader because he's too partisan, because the Democrats in Congress keep putting poison pills in legislation that could pass without them (C-CPI would easily pass without a poverty exemption of corporate tax loopholes closed).

Now would they have accepted it? Yes. And that is definitely worrisome. And of course I would've been against them accepting it. As gamemanship, I thought it was a good move, because it pushed the debt ceiling out until now.

Will they suggest the same thing again? Yes. And the result will be the same thing. There's simply no way seniors get exempted from poverty and that the corporate tax loopholes are closed.

Note: they also want to lower the corporate rate to 15% but the effective rate is already 12% because of all the loopholes, so if you think "oh they're lowering taxes" they're not, because closing the loopholes would make the effective rate the real rate! BTW, only big business benefits from the loopholes, not individuals or small companies. It's not worth it for individuals or small companies to hire a lawyer to save them $100 a year or to hire a tax service to go through each of their receipts line by line which itself would probably cost more than $100.

Anyway, my last word, been an entertaining OP. Spent 4 hours here, darn you, I have Walking Dead to watch!

[Luminous Animal]

243. Hey! Just yesterday someone suggested I watch Walking Dead...

Get to it!

[Bluenorthwest]

261. Actually you self deleted that thread and shut down the discussion. Opposite of standing by it.

DUers can read. Running away from and standing by are two different things.

[Marr]

270. You'll probably want to delete this post, too. /nt

[Marr]

130. Now THAT... is hilarious.

[Rex]

172. ...

[gtar100]

112. Yes but the kind of difference some of them want to make essentially destroys lives.

Libertarians have no solutions to get us out of poverty, help us all to get health care, or help our communities in the event of natural disasters. Somehow in their twisted minds they think that utter selfishness is the key to utopia. The problem with reaching across the aisle to these people is that they only reach back to try to pull you to their side. What is Booker thinking? More Democratic delusions of bipartisanship? I'll believe it when I see it and I haven't seen repugs do a damn thing in decades to come together with Democrats. Anything we've gotten from them, we had to force them into. They do not govern the people from a position of honesty, not one bit. Listening to Rand speak doesn't convince me in the least that he cares about anybody outside his own interests. Just another schill for big business.

[Luminous Animal]

119. I have no problem with Booker making an alliance over a specific issue...

And I have no problem with liberals making alliances with conservatives and/or libertarians over a specific issue.

[Oilwellian]

173. Maybe we made some headway tonight

It can't be both ways and they will be called on their hypocrisy.

On that note, I bid all of thee a good night and sweet dreams. This thread made my week!

[Rex]

177. Thanks for pointing out that little gem of knowledge.

I fully expect to wake up and see it self-deleted. To hide the evidence! Nite nite!

[Oilwellian]

300. Well, well, well

You called that right. How utterly delicious. Seeing that post deleted is a great accomplishment.

[Rex]

303. Can you believe it!?

Caught up in his own petard! HAHAHAHAHAHA! The only reason I knew was because this shit is so old and boring from a special few that I laugh and laugh at their continued desperation. They are delusional and think nobody notices their 'tactics'.

[Oilwellian]

310. No, I can't believe it

Deleting it though is an admission of extreme embarrassment. As it should be.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

315. It's so... Spandanesque.

I wonder if this one voted for Obama. Could have been an emotional time, y'know?

[Oilwellian]

118. This one was a real DUzy too! By: You guessed it!

Obama with Hitler mustache at the 'Stop Watching Us' Rally
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023925747

This is just too much fun!

[BluegrassStateBlues]

124. I stand by that thread and still regard anyone in attendance a foolish tool. nt

[Luminous Animal]

129. I've been advised to self-delete. Can't imagine why. (Snort)

I'm not embarrassed by it. Perhaps some others are.

I'm loving this thread. Loving it. Thanks for chiming in!

[Rex]

135. Yeah someone wants you to help them save face now.

I am BM both threads! This is just too funny!

[quinnox]

141. Definitely, you aren't the one who needs to self-delete in this thread. On the other hand, the spin-

wanna-be doctors with their cognitive dissonance influenced spin are the ones who need to self delete.

[Oilwellian]

147. I bet you have

The utter hypocrisy is glowing so much, I feel like I'm on acid. LOL

[Luminous Animal]

156. I'm holding up a mirror and their is zero reflection

I'm happy that Booker is going to work with Paul.

Us peons, apparently, are to be vilified and marginalized for seeking similar coalitions.

[Rex]

164. Yes this is Animal Farm and some of us are more important or our opinions

are more important than others it seems. That is why I am usually LOL at most of the Third Way types. They say the strangest things!

[joshcryer]

152. That thread has a smackdown with Barney Frank:

Good stuff. Thanks for posting.

Barney Frank says, "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."

Classic.

[Chathamization]

320. "Don't ever protest because LaRouche people might show up"

It reminds me of the right-wingers that said Occupy was antisemitic because they saw one nutcase with a sign there (probably a LaRoucher). Hell, it reminds me of the right-wingers that put down the antiwar marches because LaRouche people showed up to them with Bush as Hitler signs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

334. I can attest our local nut was not from the Lyndon LaRouche organization

That said, he *was* a nut. He still shows at city council meetings, due to the Brown Act they can't throw him out, most of the time

[ourfuneral]

143. Uh.....

I don't see that working out well.

[Recursion]

151. New Senators always say stuff like that

Give it a week

[DeSwiss]

167. Work with him?

Oh! He means that superhero stuff Cory's always doing in Newark! Saving residents from fires and getting cats out of trees and whatnot. Well, I know Senator-elect Booker will be ''Public-PrivatePartnershipMan'' in this new Senate League of Justice:



- But I wonder who Rand Paul's hero is and what his persona would be like? Hmmm?????





K&R

[Rex]

169. Horrible, terrible! The experts on DU said Libertarians and Dems should

NEVER EVA even be seen together! I hope they call Mr. Bookers office ASAP to give him an ear full! I mean, they are so smart in the ways of politics...surely they don't want him working with a...bleh...Libertarian!

I am going to call tomorrow and register my complaint!

[joshcryer]

175. The only irony here are those jumping on bipartisanship.

As if the OP's sole intent wasn't to convince us to throw Cory Booker under the bus for being ... bipartisan.

[Rex]

179. Nice try but fail, the point was made to the obvious two faced stance

and you can pretend nobody noticed but it is now bookmarked and ready to use for future mocking of said individuals. Feel free to stay oblivious to what I am talking about. It must really rub raw now!

[joshcryer]

180. Read post #27.

There's no "two faced" nature here.

But your delusional self-congratulatory derision is noted.

[Rex]

184. Don't be mad bro.

So BUSTED!

[joshcryer]

187. Hey, you support Democrats working with the right wing.

Isn't that like the rallying call against the political junkies on this forum when they don't fall into outrage over every little trivial detail of the politics?

"The Democrats work with the right wing too much! We're being further pushed to the right!"

[Rex]

191. Hey I don't really care much if your friends got caught up in a lie.

Not the first time I've seen that on DU! Just one of the funner moments imo. I support Dems working with the RWing? You have an interesting way of trying to put words in my mouth! Desperation?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

181. The narrative change was swift indeed.

I could use a hit off a joint sans jail time right about now. Booker, Paul, and the people outside with the costumes and signs better get to writing that law ASAP.

[Rex]

185. SO you think it is okay to work with Libertarians now?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

189. ...

[Rex]

193. Truth hurts sometimes.

Glad you admit to it in a round about way...me personally I would NOT work with the RWing, but hey I guess I am less tolerant than you are!

[LeftishBrit]

192. From what I gather, many American laws are created and sponsored by people from both parties

E.g. McCain-Feingold on campaign reform.

This doesn't mean that Feingold (presumably) agreed with McCain on anything else.

There is a difference between working together on a specific bill, and forming a broader coalition which requires compromising basic principles - e.g. Clegg bringing the LibDems into coalition with Cameron and the Tories; Blair collaborating with Bush on the Iraq war; or progressives sometimes thinking they can form genuine common ground with right-wing pseudo-populists like the teabaggers.

Opposing the NSA spying doesn't make you a libertarian (as a citizen of one of the allied countries being spied the hell out of - far from it!)

On the other hand, voting for or endorsing Rand Paul, David Davis (a partial equivalent in the UK), or the general principle of 'shrinking the state' (i.e. destroying public services and the social safety net), just because the people and principle might share one's opposition to the surveillance state, is utterly wrong. To seek to destroy the state as a provider of public services, in order to reduce state surveillance, is like seeking to treat someone's headache by chopping off their head!

[quinnox]

200. This thread is a good example of how the "swarm" attacks can sometimes turn into epic fails

The lock-step wing and their swarms are as flimsy as tumbleweeds.

An "Epic Fail" image in honor of our NSA spymasters who are facing the music recently...

[joshcryer]

203. The only fails I see here are supporting bipartisanship...

...and kicking privacy laws down the road a couple of decades. It's actually amazing to see this sort of thing.

[Rex]

204. Guess who is self deleting like a mad man now to save face!?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023922984

[quinnox]

206. LOL

Well, as John Wayne said, ya gotta do what you gotta do, I guess...

[Rex]

208. I was going to bed...will have to wait until the laughing dies down.

Haven't LOL'd like this in at least 2 days!

[quinnox]

210. heh heh, well, I was in bed, and something was calling me back to DU...

A feeling came over me, and now I know what it was, this thread was calling out to me!

I agree, very entertaining thread.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

212. Scrubbing Bubbles does most of the work, anyway. Stay up late and live a little. nt

[Rex]

216. Nah, going to bed. I am sure you were being honest

when you said you will stand by what you post...oh...

NEVERMIND.

[Luminous Animal]

224. +!!!!

[Fumesucker]

223. I haven't read anything as funny as this thread in days, possibly weeks

Well done.

[Luminous Animal]

225. I'll have a smile when I go to sleep...

which should have been 2 hours ago!

[JI7]

226. there is a big difference between trying to get a current Senator's vote and working with Teabaggers

out there who spewing crap. and yes most of them are racist. just as rand paul is. but he happens to be senator so he has a lot of power in what can happen in this country.

just like that piece of shit ted cruz.

but this is why it's important to defeat people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and other piece of shits so one does not have to work with them to pass important legislation.

[JI7]

227. and every fucking libertarian i know of is a racist

[Fumesucker]

228. So you're saying that Corey Booker is working with a racist?

Come again?

[JI7]

230. yes, just like FDR did, just like Obama tries to in order to get shit done

[Fumesucker]

235. So you are saying it's OK to agree with Libertarians sometimes on some issues?

Even work with Libertarians to make policy on some issues?

[JI7]

240. depends, if they are Senator their vote matters in whether something will pass

it's not a matter of agreeing with them but more about trying to get their vote on some specific bill.

for example a Dem Senator may try to get support for food stamps from a racist wingnut by allowing the wingnut's bill to allow funding for some religious shit to come up rather than blocking it. it would be better not to have to do that . but making sure people are fed is what matters more so they do what they need to do in that specific instance.

but it would be better to defeat these assholes and not give them support int he first place so they don't get into these positions of power.

[bullwinkle428]

259. ...

[Luminous Animal]

229. You should call up Booker and let him know...

He's "paling around" with one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023934817#post14

[JI7]

231. he is going to be Senator so he will have to deal with Racists to get things done

just like Obama does and why Obama has such a though time.

[joshcryer]

233. Just like OP dealt with homophobes to get things done.

Politics is a nasty business.

[appleannie1]

232. He will learn the hard way the same as Obama did. Some people can't be worked with.

[JI7]

234. that's why it's important to defeat these assholes during election time

[Blue_In_AK]

238. I say work with whomever you have to

to get the job done. If Booker and Paul can unite on more relaxed drug laws, more power to them. I'm not a fan of bipartisanship if it pulls the country more to the right, but if people of different political persuasions can agree on progressive policies now and then, I think it's fine for them to form alliances in support of those measures.

[Luminous Animal]

242. I agree. And I also agree that it is a good thing for liberals to unite with

libertarians in their efforts to reign in the NSA.

[intaglio]

244. Because politicians in a democracy must not work with other politicians?

They must not even enter the same working space as opposition party members? Or is it your view that minority party members should be taken out and shot?

Perhaps you would be happier if the Democratic Party emulated the Republicans and threw a tantrum every time a piece of legislation with which they did not agree was enacted ...

[beachbum bob]

247. I dislike the crying extremist on both sides

politics is about compromise and it works both ways. Liberals and conservatives alike.....so quite the constant whining when liberal and progressive policies must be reviewed for areas of compromise, same goes with teaparty types. When democrats discuss issues we must be OPEN for all discussions with ALL people or we are not any better then the ones we fighting against. I take my hat off to all democrats who wish to have discussions and work with people...that doesn't equate to capitulation

Grow the f*ck up.

[ucrdem]

251. ^ Thread win.

thanks Bob!

[Fumesucker]

253. Welcome to DU!

The OP was far more subtle than you are giving them credit for, this is a continuation of a longstanding argument here in GD and the OP was largely if not completely tongue in cheek.

You should read the thread and find out who the extremists actually are, who stood by their words and who deleted theirs.

[beachbum bob]

288. ive seen enough of these threads

To understand the intent by all sides.

[Fumesucker]

296. The intent was to smoke out hypocrites

And it worked beautifully.

[Demo_Chris]

255. Rand Paul is NOT Libertarian. nt

[Pholus]

256. Ohhhhhhh myyyyyyy! Nice catch Luminous!

So the disturbance in the force that made me log into DU this morning was apparently gravitational in nature, caused by so many bits suddenly disappearing from posting histories.

Someone here needs to fess up: so who taught Cory the secret "libertarian troll" handshake?

I am looking forward to a bright DU future where agreeing with ONE libertarian position about the NSA is not twisted through "Argument by Generalization" into an endorsement of their entire nutty platform.

Luminous Animal, you rock!

[joshcryer]

266. I expect better of you.

Oh well.

[Autumn]

262. What an enchanting thread. Going to have to rec and bookmark

for the sheer entertainment value.


But on the serious side, this is a good thing. Get what you can out of those asses. for Cory Booker

[Bluenorthwest]

263. Really an amazing thread, it has it all, hypocrisy, a nattering centrist self deleting and yet

claiming to stand by the very posts he deletes....classic and hilarious in a pitiful sort of way.

[joshcryer]

265. Unsupportable.

Must be fun to say crap you will never support with substantiative discussion. And yes, I am absolutely certain you won't support your position here. Absolutely, 100% certain.

[Bluenorthwest]

307. What, josh, you didn't read this thread? Your personal attack aside, I expect you to at least

keep up. Here, served to you carefully by spoon, is a link to the self deleted post the nattering one is claiming he stands by. I am not often asked for proof of that which is clearly posted upthread, but I got out my spoon and all you need to do is click.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023922984

This spouting personal insults at others routine is rude, pointless and it is not persuasive.

[Fumesucker]

324. Performance art is so underappreciated these days n/t

[Marr]

269. +1

Talk about no principles.

[Rex]

272. Oh noes! You is making them madz and sadz!

Gotta love a thread where they get BUSTED for being hypocrites! Knocked the wind right out of them, all they have now are desperation replies!

[Bluenorthwest]

312. They get bitey when the chagrin kicks in.

nt

[BluegrassStateBlues]

311. I commend you on the first reply in which you stay on topic and don't play the victim.

First time for everything.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

313. You've been here 23 days.

Who else's posting history do you think you know? Don't bother with the "I lurked" excuse... it's been done to death.

Bitey, indeed.

On edit: Now BGD is self-deleting in THIS thread. LOL "Catty" was tame BGD... stand by your post! Now this one, this was rude:

BluegrassStateBlues (846 posts)

311. I commend you on the first reply in which you stay on topic and don't play the victim.







First time for everything.

[Blue_Tires]

271. Is this before or after Paul tries to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964??

Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2013, 12:50 PM - Edit history (2)

Remember what I've said in the past about strange bedfellows...

And fwiw, the Paul boys have *always* been long on talk and scant on action when it comes to their opposition to the drug wars (it's one of the gimmicks they use to keep liberal suckers hooked)...

And you do realize behind all the hype and bluster the Paul boys are republicans and not true libertarians, right?

[ProSense]

275. Maybe Rand Paul will work with Booker on this

Senate readies ENDA for floor vote
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023936376

...not likely:

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions passed the bill, 15 to 7. All Democrats supported it, along with three Republicans: Sens. Mark Kirk (Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Orrin Hatch (Utah). The Republicans who voted no included Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Pat Roberts (Kansas) and Tim Scott (S.C.).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/employment-non-discrimination-act_n_3572902.html

[Rex]

273. K&R for pissing off all the Right people!

[ProSense]

274. VA-Gov: Rand Paul (R. KY) Coming To Virginia To Beg Libertarians To Back Ken Cuccinelli (R)

VA-Gov: Rand Paul (R. KY) Coming To Virginia To Beg Libertarians To Back Ken Cuccinelli (R)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023936417

[nadinbrzezinski]

278. Pass the smelling salts

[nadinbrzezinski]

280. Let me add, this is a really ammusing thread

thanks.

I could be really funny, but... I will not do to others what others do here.

[bravenak]

282. This was great! Best hour of my time in a long time, just reading this.

Truly epic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

285. Yup

It should be a duzy thread.

[NuclearDem]

289. I guess Senator Booker likes the Oathkeepers.

I forgot, is working with libertarians alright if a Democratic Senator does it?

Or does Booker hate Obama?

[nadinbrzezinski]

291. Booker must hate blacks, yup, that's it

[gopiscrap]

292. fuck that you can't work with an ass clown like Paul

[DiverDave]

317. "sincere people" yeah right

The only thing the teahadists are sincere about is bringing down the President.
anything else is a side effect of that. Until he realizes that,he is just bailing the ocean with a teaspoon

[alarimer]

321. You, sir, are naive, if you think everyone in the Senate is sincere.

They don't want to make a difference; they want to enrich their friends, who will then give them a fancy job in which they do not have to, you know, WORK, when they're done with politics.

[True Blue Door]

322. Amazingly foolish.

Rand Paul is a deranged extremist and political arsonist, not a statesman to be held up as an example of bipartisan cooperation. The only thing Mr. Booker has demonstrated by citing Paul in such a way is that he doesn't know what's happened in Washington over the past couple of years. Very disappointing.

[Rex]

327. Political arsonist! Yes! Perfect!

He and Ted Cruz! Spot on and welcome to DU!

[AverageJoe90]

332. Somehow, I have a feeling this won't end well.....Paul is NOT to be trusted.....nt

[duffyduff]

333. Cory Booker isn't a real Democrat anyway. nt

[struggle4progress]

335. Good for Booker! His political job requires him to talk to all manner of batshizz crazy asshats,

not just GOPers but even Libertarians

It sounds to me like he's going to try to do what his constituents elected him to do, and I'll have to admire him for it: I know I sure don't have the cast iron stomach required for the job

[HappyMe]

342. Fuck deranged Rand Paul.