HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » sibelian » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 26 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Sep 4, 2007, 07:36 AM
Number of posts: 5,908

Journal Archives

"OK, you hang up..." "No, you hang up..."

A Shout Out to the Sarcasm Tag!!


So we/they are constructing a dystopia.

What the hell FOR?

Don't these bozos/we bozos read? Don't they/we want NICE things? Why not make something nice? Why make a shlubby fucked up mess that makes everything horrible?


Blah Blah Blah are doing X TO DIVIDE US....


So, we're to ditch our opinions because, gasp, their not being the same as yours means we're ...... DIVIDED?

And a creepy weirdo is MAKING our opinions different from yours somehow? Not so clear on that one.

So, just to sum up, Assange is a rapist, Snowden's a narcissist and nut job, Greenwald's a pervert,

and a liar AND a sociopath AND a pretentious little drama queen http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=3256762 , Carter is past his time, Gore is irrelevant, the three NSA whistleblowers who tried to do it by the book and got nowhere are.... something we don't know yet because no-one's said anything about them EDIT: ATTENTION SEEKERS (see below), EDIT: Cindy Sheehan is a Drama Queen, EDIT: ACLU are crackpots, EDIT: Scott Ritter is ANOTHER pervert, including (see below) some kind of as yet unexplained but dirty dirty dirty exhibitionism, EDIT: Alan Grayson is a drunk, EDIT: Medea Benjamin is an attention hog, EDIT: Daniel Ellsberg is demented AND a career activist desperately trying to stay relevant http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3219756, EDIT: MLK was an adulterer, Bayard Rustin was a "homo", Jean Seberg's baby wasn't her husband's, EDIT: Jeremy Scahill is racist, EDIT: Occupy are a bunch of smelly, unshaven hippy hipster types and RAPISTS, EDIT: Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Bill Clinton and Eliot Spitzer were philanderers, EDIT: Public School teachers are greedy, EDIT: Bradley Manning is confused about being gay and also a coward, EDIT: the Guardian is a right wing rag EDIT: Amnesty International is a Republican propaganda mill, EDIT: Amy Goodman is a 'rat-fucker', EDIT: Dennis Kucinich is a Ron Paul supporter,EDIT: Bernie Sanders has anger management issues, EDIT: Michael Moore is RICH, yes you heard me, RICH, the dirty dirty dirty capitalist swine AND ALSO FAT, EDIT: Vegetarians are ....elitists.... , EDIT:Whistleblowers are spying for foreign powers, EDIT: the Professional Left (....uh... isn't the "professional left" a right wing idea?) have a blind hatred for Obama http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023181358 the Europeans are hypocrites, Morales is a grandstanding opportunist, EDIT: and a parasite, all sorts of OTHER racists, Rand Paul supporters ABOUND...

EDIT: ....AND.

"Latin America is but a cyst on the anus of the world."

...apparently: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023172626#post29

pant, pant, pant.

WHAT a LOT of personality flaws.

Have I missed anyone or anything out? I'm sure I have.

The White House has nothing to lose from outright denial of influence in the Morales incident if

they are not responsible.

Nothing at all.

If they have noresponsibility for the incident, they also have absolutely nothing to gain from declining to comment, which leaves the question of their influence in uncertainty.

If the Europeans acted on their own initiative, a simple phone call from the White House to the various state departments responsible for the Morales incident would clarify what the position of these state departments is, which the White House, on being questioned, could simply repeat.

There is nothing in it for the White House in allowing easily dispelled rumours to circulate regarding their influence on the incident if they didn't have any.

Official "Morales and His Personal Qualities" thread: Is Evo Morales a narcissist?

Does he have a poledancing girlfriend?

fire away.

One day there's going be another Republican administration. They will have access to PRISM.

Bearing in mind that you voted for Obama on the back of getting rid of the kind of dirty, slithering, clandestine soul-fuckery that Bush and his nest of scorpions put in place... how do you feel about that?

Glenn Greenwald is no good at billiards.

He has a third nipple.

No-one has ever heard him say the word "love".

He smells faintly of dead things.

Meat spoils when you put it near him.

Even when you look straight at him it's like seeing something out of the coroner of your eye.


Oh, wow, deja vu...

Behemothic surveillance is the enemy of freedom.

State apparatus must serve the populace, not the other way round.

The individual cogs in the State machinery, the people who punch in the database queries, collate data, establish profiles, are no different from you or I. They are flawed. They sin.

They are bribable.

The more flexibility and power you give a surveillance system over the populace it is supposed to protect, the more scope for abuse you allow. Any decent law enforcement officer will tell you how easy it is to frame someone if you work in the right positions.

The NSA itself does not need to be "malevolent" (although there is no reason to assume it isn't, or that it's benevolent) for it to become a toxic influence on the public discourse.

It's not at all difficult to place a convenient "witness" near a prominent public figure in a moment of weakness in order to discredit their efforts, in any political field, to provide a useful cover for having found out about that weakness via other means and then conflate the efforts of that prominent public figure with that weakness. Anyone's life looks strange when it's covered with sparkly graphics and put on TV. Rampant speculation about the consequences of such weakness don't hurt either.

Remind you of anything, DU?

All it comes down to is what a focussed, amoral individual, or a group of similar, is/are willing to do to get what they want. Are we going to assume that political figures are universally trustworthy because some, or even most, are?

Why would someone seek a position of power? For worthy purposes?

Why not other purposes?

Who's phoning who?


How can we turn that to our advantage?

What's it worth to YOU, Mr Cog? Don't worry.

No-one will find out.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 26 Next »