Civil liberties disappear in the 2012 Democratic platform.

[MadHound]

"What a difference four years makes.

In 2008, Democrats were eager to draw a contrast with what they then portrayed as Republican excesses in the fight against Al Qaeda. Since then, the Obama administration has in many cases continued the national security policies of its predecessor—and the Democratic Party's 2012 platform highlights this reversal, abandoning much of the substance and all of the bombast of the 2008 platform. Here are a few places where the differences are most glaring:"
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/democrats-retreat-civil-liberties-2012-platform

I guess it just became too tempting for the Obama administration to give up all those extra-judicial procedures bequeathed to him by the Bush administration.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. Civil liberties are soooo --

2007.

[woo me with science]

150. New platform also supports death penalty, lower corporate taxes; withdraws 2008 support for unions;

and fails to rule out cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

We have a serious, malignant problem with corporate money in politics, and it's time to stop denying that it's changing the Democratic Party, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1273844

[Proles]

2. I can't imagine anyone willingly giving up power... even myself.

Not that I don't trust Obama with that extra power per se, but what if we get a republican neo-con in office again?

It'd be nice of Obama could competently tackle these issues in his second term, but I honestly think national security issues have become too fully entrenched at this point.

[DerekG]

36. I don't trust Obama with that power--or anyone for that matter

n/t

[1monster]

64. Amen!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

202. Obama I can trust but even the best case scenario

says he's only president until January 20, 2017. After that it's all a guessing game. He has to give that power up or else it will be so entrenched in the office of the presidency we will never be rid of it. He has to be a leader on this and set the example.

[Robb]

3. True. Except for the part where the platform reaffirms our COMMITMENT TO CIVIL LIBERTIES.

For crying out loud. Do you think no one here can read?

Advancing Universal Values

America's leadership extends beyond our economic prosperity and military might—it is also rooted in our enduring commitment to advancing a core set of universal values. These include an individual's freedom to speak their mind, assemble without fear, have access to information, worship as they please, and choose their own leaders. They also include dignity, tolerance, and equality among all people, and the fair and equitable administration of justice. The United States was founded upon a belief in these values, and people of every race, region, and religion around the globe have claimed these principles as their own. The President and the Democratic Party believe that nations that embrace these values for their citizens are ultimately more prosperous, peaceful, and friendly to the United States than those that do not.

Staying True to Our Values at Home. We must always seek to uphold these values at home, not just when it is easy, but, more importantly, when it is hard. Advancing our interests may involve new actions and policies to confront threats like terrorism, but the President and the Democratic Party believe these practices must always be in line with our Constitution, preserve our people's privacy and civil liberties, and withstand the checks and balances that have served us so well. That is why the President banned torture without exception in his first week in office. That is why we are reforming military commissions to bring them in line with the rule of law. That is why we are substantially reducing the population at Guantánamo Bay without adding to it. And we remain committed to working with all branches of government to close the prison altogether because it is inconsistent with our national security interests and our values.

Standing With Those Demanding Greater Freedom. As we continue to perfect our union here at home, setting an example for others to follow, we will also continue to champion universal rights abroad. We recognize that different cultures and traditions give life to these values in distinct ways, and each country will inevitably chart its own course. America will not impose any system of government on another country. But we also know that the sovereignty of nations cannot strangle the liberty of individuals. So as people around the world yearn for greater freedom, we will continue to support progress toward more accountable, democratic governance and the exercise of universal rights. We will do so through a variety of means: by speaking out for universal rights, bolstering fragile democracies and civil society, and supporting the dignity that comes with development.

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

[scheming daemons]

4. The poster does this all the time... takes Obama out of context, lies about Democrats, etc.

This is just another example. He didn't read the platform... he just took on faith some article he read on some firedoglake-type site.

[girl gone mad]

20. Vacuous ad hominem. n/t

[emulatorloo]

38. No, it is the truth

Poster has a "fantasy Obama" act that's worse than Eastwood's.

[rhett o rick]

140. Did the OP take Obama out of context, or lie in the OP? If not, then

it isnt the truth. The issue is important. Why would you try to stymie discussion by attacks? Do you think the Democratic platform is perfect and needs no discussion?

[emulatorloo]

159. Poster has advocated "Letting the Republicans Win in 2012"

Poster has an agenda. To defeat Democrats.

As to discussion, I have found discussing issues with people who don't give a shit about truth or facts to be pointless.

[MadHound]

176. Really? I've advocated that? Please, provide a link, or admit you're making shit up.

This I've got to see.

[emulatorloo]

177. Here's your post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002226531#post6

[emulatorloo]

195. Bullshit - the words are there in black and white

It would be "better" to let the Republicans win.

Spin all you want - you wrote that, and you own it.

[dreamnightwind]

233. No they are not

from the referenced post:

"Instead we are simply presented with the choice of dying slowly or dying quickly as a country. Frankly I think that dying quickly might not be such a bad thing. Get it done, get it over with quickly so we can start on rebuilding. "

MH is saying we need to grow a pair and stand up for what we believe in. If that leads to things collapsing quickly rather than slowly, at least we have our principles in tact so we can use them to rebuild on. That's not at all the same as advocating for letting Republicans win. It's jut a statement that we need to be an alternative to evil, not a lessor evil, no matter what.

MH is right on, I absolutely agree, and the attempt to twist that post into someone who suppports Republicans is shameful. In fact, reality is the opposite of that. MH is refusing to support Republican policies no matter who is supporting them. That should be respected on this site, or we truly stand for nothing but a meaningless quest for power.

[MadHound]

100. Firedoglake type site?

Let's see, Mother Jones, a thirty six year old prize winning liberal magazine, riiiiiight. Has Pulitzer Prize winning writers, and here you are trying to denigrate it because *gasp* it writes about things you don't want to hear about

[Marr]

147. Remember when Bushbots eventually had to throw even the National Review under the bus?

It's kind of like that. For party loyalists, saying something that goes against party orthodoxy makes any outlet "extremist" or "out to get us", by definition. It doesn't matter what their history is, what the facts are, etc. There is orthodoxy and there is heresy.

[MadHound]

149. Oh this isn't the first time that a well respected publication or writer

Has been thrown under the bus, it won't be the last either. Sad, the amount of hypocrisy that is on display.

[Puregonzo1188]

101. Mother Jones?

[MadHound]

8. Apparently you can't,

So where are the platform provisions condemning warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention, torture, and racial profiling? They were present in the '08 platform, in addition to the standard boilerplate you copy and pasted. Yet they're not present in the 2012 platform. Why?

[Robb]

133. Why is there nothing on fatherhood?

You're arguing several different things; let me help you focus a little.

I posted this without comment as an OP, and it sank like a stone, but perhaps you will find this helpful; it's the civil liberties language in the last four platforms; let me know how you think it's getting somehow worse:

2000:

While fighting terrorism, we will protect the civil liberties of all Americans. Our justice system must guarantee fairness with procedures that protect the rights of the accused, even under the unusual circumstances of the investigation of threats to our national security. We must avoid stereotyping, for it defeats the highest purposes of our country if citizens feel automatically suspect by virtue of their ethnic origin. The purpose of terrorism is not only to intimidate, but also to divide and fracture, and we cannot permit that to happen.

2004

We must always remember that terrorists do not just target our lives; they target our way of life. And so we must be on constant guard not to sacrifice the freedom we are fighting to protect. We will strengthen some provisions of the Patriot Act, like the restrictions on money laundering. And we will change the portions of the Patriot Act that threaten individual rights, such as the library provisions, while still allowing government to take all needed steps to fight terror. Our government should never round up innocent people only because of their religion or ethnicity, and we should never stifle free expression. We believe in an America where freedom is what we fight for – not what we give up.

2008

We will pursue policies to undermine extremism, recognizing that this contest is also between two competing ideas and visions of the future. A crucial debate is occurring within Islam. The vast majority of Muslims believe in a future of peace, tolerance, development, and democratization. A small minority embrace a rigid and violent intolerance of personal liberty and the world at large. To empower forces of moderation, America must live up to our values, respect civil liberties, reject torture, and lead by example. We will make every effort to export hope and opportunity–access to education, that opens minds to tolerance, not extremism; secure food and water supplies; and health care, trade, capital, and investment. We will provide steady support for political reformers, democratic institutions, and civil society that is necessary to uphold human rights and build respect for the rule of law.

2012

We must always seek to uphold these values at home, not just when it is easy, but, more importantly, when it is hard. Advancing our interests may involve new actions and policies to confront threats like terrorism, but the President and the Democratic Party believe these practices must always be in line with our Constitution, preserve our people’s privacy and civil liberties, and withstand the checks and balances that have served us so well. That is why the President banned torture without exception in his first week in office. That is why we are reforming military commissions to bring them in line with the rule of law. That is why we are substantially reducing the population at Guantánamo Bay without adding to it. And we remain committed to working with all branches of government to close the prison altogether because it is inconsistent with our national security interests and our values.

[MadHound]

135. Because you are cherry picking what you're posting,

Disingenuous at best, deliberate distortion and lies at worst.

[Robb]

136. That's a lie, MadHound.

I'm posting the paragraphs where civil liberties are discussed in each platform.

The same paragraph, essentially, reworded for each campaign. You call that cherrypicking?

[MadHound]

138. No, it isn't,

You are posting standard boilerplate, not the specifics that the platform generally goes into. The article from Mother Jones points out that that specific language regarding civil liberties, present in the '08 platform, is entirely missing from the '12 platform. Now then, either put up or shut up, link to that specific language that addresses the Patriot Act, etc. in the '12 platform or admit that you're being disingenuous.

[Robb]

145. "Boilerplate"? What are you talking about?

Have you read any of these platforms??

[MadHound]

146. Yes, have you?

What do you think of that language that is missing from the '12 platform? Why do you think it is missing?

[emulatorloo]

161. Stop Lying. We are on to you. You advocated letting the Republicans win in 2012

That is your agenda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002226531#post6

[MadHound]

178. Again with that shit, put up or shut up.

Provide a link where I specifically said that we should let the Republicans win in 2012, or admit that you're lying.

[emulatorloo]

194. I provided a link - your own words

They are there in black and white.

[MadHound]

189. So again, we see you are a liar,

Sad, pathetic really, that you have to lie in order to try and make a point.

[emulatorloo]

193. What you wrote is there in black and white. You said it would be "better" if the Republicans win.

[MadHound]

196. No, this is what I said

"We've been presented with the choices between greater and lesser evils for decades now, yet never in all that time have we ever been presented with a good(in all senses of that term) choice.

Instead we are simply presented with the choice of dying slowly or dying quickly as a country. Frankly I think that dying quickly might not be such a bad thing. Get it done, get it over with quickly so we can start on rebuilding. "

Nowhere in that post did I advocate Republicans winning in 2012. Stop lying.

[emulatorloo]

203. Can the BS. In your construct, "Dying Quickly" = Republicans winning.

Everyone reading that post knows it.

[derby378]

235. Sez you...

You are not the final arbitrator for all things DU. While I do not wish to see our country dying at all, leng tche is a more more painful and lingering death than a bullet to the brain.

You can go on misrepresenting what MH said, or you can drop it and start helping Democrats build a stronger party.

[Odin2005]

117. Be careful the Obama-bashers will call you a dingbat.

[Summer Hathaway]

5. I guess it was too tempting

for you not to post some anti-Dem OP as our Convention gets underway.

Some trains are never late.

[scheming daemons]

6. Not only that... he lies as much as Paul Ryan does.... the Platform REAFFIRMS the commitment to

civil rights.

[MadHound]

10. Acutally, read the article,

The '08 platform provisions condemning torture, the Patriot Act, wireless surveillance, etc. are gone from the 2012 platform. Why, that's the question.

[SOS]

94. The '08 platform did not condemn the Patriot Act

The platform states they will "revisit" the Patriot Act.

The 08 platform also does not condemn warrantless wiretaps, but rather
says they will "review" them.

Obama's executive order 13491 of January 22, 2009 revokes Bush's 2007
executive order 13440 on torture.

The 08 platform was no heroic manifesto in defense of individual liberty and privacy.
It contained a couple of lines promising to review stuff.

[MadHound]

102. Let's see here,

The '08 platform on the Patriot Act:
"We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. We will review the current Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live. We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war…We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years."
Certainly quite a bit stronger than a "review", "We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live." Sounds like a condemnation to me.

Oh, and we're not talking executive orders here, we're talking party platforms, please do try to keep up.

[SOS]

251. "review" and "revisit" mean nothing

It may sound like condemnation, but it's not.

Even "reject" is blather as nothing was rejected by the 111th Congress.

An executive order supersedes anything in a non-binding platform.
It's like adding a plank stating "the Democratic Party rejects auto theft".

I think I've kept up pretty well.

[Summer Hathaway]

13. I learned to take anything the OP says

with a large tractor-trailer full of salt a long time ago.

For the past week, DU Dems here have been pretty well united in their support for the Party, the Prez, and in their disdain for our common enemies in the GOP.

However, there is that contingent (small but vocal) that just seethe when they see unity, and have to do their best to be divisive.

Like fuckin' clockwork.

[MadHound]

104. I've learned that you're long on insults,

And rather short on actual fact based rebuttals. You always make some excuse as to why you can't refute my positions. Hmmm.

[Summer Hathaway]

116. I have rarely interacted with you

so I'm not sure where the "always make some excuse" comes from, or what excuses you believe I have made.

However, I'm happy to clarify my position.

I don't waste my time rebutting arguments that I find to be lacking in substance, often grounded in opinionated rhetoric rather than fact, and delivered by someone who has an agenda I find to be as transparent as it is incredibly immature.

Although I rarely weigh-in on your threads, avoiding seeing them is almost impossible, given their sheer quantity.

What I have noticed is an obvious pattern on your part, when there is any semblance of unity or common purpose apparent among DUers - a situation which seems to be contrary to your own purposes - to quickly attempt to counter said unity by posting something divisive at the first opportunity to do so.

I came to this website in order to communicate with others of my party. If I wanted divisiveness and a constant barrage of anti-Democratic/anti-Obama rhetoric, I wouldn't be wasting my time with amateurs - I'd go directly to the professionals on Republican boards.

And before you start sputtering your usual tiresome patter about honest dissent, holding our representatives' feet to the fire, etc., let me tell you that there is a difference between honest disagreement and dishonest BS. And I have no doubt that you have the intelligence to know the difference between them - which makes the dishonest BS all the more deplorable.

[MadHound]

129. Thank you for demonstrating my point so succinctly,

Long on insults and ad hominems, short on facts and substantial rebuttals.

I post on many, many issues besides what this administration is or is not doing. Yet you only interact with me on the political posts, and when you do, it is to insult and demean, just as you are doing here.

It is obvious to me that you are a party first person, to the point where you are hypocritical. Many liberals and Democrats protested the shredding of the Constitution and our civil liberties under Bush, that is easy. But when a Democratic administration continues to shred our civil liberties, people like you come into any thread discussing these issues and attack. Hypocrisy much? Because frankly, it doesn't matter the letter behind the name, whether it is a D or an R, it simply matters what that administration is doing.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Would you sit back complacently if the Obama administration was attacking a woman's right to choose simply because he is a Democrat? No, I doubt that you would. Well our civil liberties, the ongoing wars, and other issues I am equally as passionate about, and I don't care who is putting these issues under attack, I will criticize them anyway. To give an administration a pass simply because it is Democratic is the height of hypocrisy. This isn't "dishonest BS", this is being morally consistent, something that you and others seem to have trouble with.

You seem to view this moral consistency as some sort of threat, why? Because it could hurt the party somehow? Well, frankly, if our only hope is a party that is becoming ever more authoritarian, then that party isn't worth saving. Parties, people need to stand for something, to have some moral guidance. If not, then they aren't worth bothering with. I believe in moral consistency, what do you believe in?

[Howler]

171. Applause!

[emulatorloo]

175. Sorry, will not forget that you advocate for letting the Republican win in 2012

Not going to let you forget it either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002226531#post6

[SidDithers]

186. Wow...

Sid

[MadHound]

190. Yes, amazing isn't it that people will stoop to lying on this site,

In order to cover up the truth.

[SidDithers]

199. They're your words and they're pretty clear...

And that is the entire problem encapsulated,

We've been presented with the choices between greater and lesser evils for decades now, yet never in all that time have we ever been presented with a good(in all senses of that term) choice.

Instead we are simply presented with the choice of dying slowly or dying quickly as a country. Frankly I think that dying quickly might not be such a bad thing. Get it done, get it over with quickly so we can start on rebuilding.

I'm glad to see so many other also DUers getting tired of your "lesser of two evils" schtick.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

224. Excellent post. And just a reminder, during the Bush administration the shredding of the

Constitution by Bush was of primary importance to Democrats. Sen. Leahy eg, angered Cheney to the point of being told to 'go Fuck himself' by the SC Appointed VP because he had headed a Committee looking into these matters.

Democrats are the only hope we have of ending the dangerous policies put in place by that Bush administration.

And since it is OUR party, I noticed the poster you responded to called it 'MY party', since it is OUR party we have an obligation to remind them of their duty to restore the rule of law which was trashed by the Bush gang.

Seems to me there are those who perfectly fine with Republican policies so long as they have a 'D' slapped on them. Which is all the more reason for Democrats to continue to remind OUR party that most of us do not like Republican policies and expect them to replace them with Democratic policies.

[Summer Hathaway]

234. Of course I have not

offered any facts or rebuttals. That is because, as I pointed out, I do not wish to engage in discussion with you. I think I made myself quite clear.

"It is obvious to me that you are a party first person, to the point where you are hypocritical."

You don't know me from Adam, nor do you know my political opinions in any detail. Given that fact, your opinion of whether I am a 'party first' person, or whether I have been hypocritical about anything, is pure conjecture on your part.

"You seem to view this moral consistency as some sort of threat." Again, pure fabrication on your part. I have not made any statements that would lead one to believe I am 'threatened' by anything.

Believe me, MadHound, the last thing I would accuse you of is inconsistency. Your OPs have been completely consistent - which is why I don't wish to engage in any discussion with you.

[FSogol]

143. Well said. n/t

[MadHound]

9. Do you have any rebuttal to the subject of the OP?

Or are you content to let our civil liberties slide because the people making them disappear have a D behind their name?

[Zalatix]

42. No response to that one, eh? +1,000 for the killshot argument!

[woo me with science]

80. Of course not.

This right wing garbage is wholly predictable.

[girl gone mad]

23. Vacuous ad hominem. n/t

[Summer Hathaway]

89. Vacuous reply

and one that doesn't gain any substance by being reposted over and over.

[SidDithers]

28. Nailed it...

Sid

[emulatorloo]

39. Thank you. This shit is getting old.

And more and more desperate.

[rhett o rick]

46. The bullies are active, trying to silence dissent. How not-Democratic.

Blind allegiance must be a principle of the "New Democrats".

Discussing what should or should not be in the platform is what a healthy party does.

Do you want a loyalty oath taken by DU members? "Thou shall not question anything done by a Democrat."

[Summer Hathaway]

56. Knew it wouldn't be too long

before the ol' Label-Maker got dragged out.

New Democrats, Conservadems, Third Wayers, etc.

Do you want a loyalty oath taken by DU members who have the unmitigated gall to support their Party and their President on an (allegedly) Democratic website, a solemn oath to stand with the self-appointed 'true progressives' or be labelled as "New Dems" or some-such pointless name, as a result of not lock-stepping along with those who they disagree with - or, more to the point, those they see right through?

"Thou shalt not question anything said or done by anyone who declares themselves to be a true progressive on a political message board."

As I've said before, those who have appointed themselves the arbiters of who is progressive, who is a liberal, who is a true Democrat are not now, and have never been, in a position to do so. And their arrogance in pretending they are in such a position is tiresome at best, boring in the extreme, and is blatantly divisive in its intent.

Now while you get back to your Label-Maker, I am going to get back to watching my party and my president win this election.

[rhett o rick]

60. Are you trying to eliminate dissent by name-calling? nm

[Summer Hathaway]

69. No.

But you are trying to eliminate dissent among those who don't agree with you by labeling them with terms like New Democrats, Third Wayers, Conservadems, Corporatists, etc.

Look through your own posts, and those of your cohorts. The Label-Maker comes out the second anyone disagrees with your views.

The Democratic Party is a big tent - always has been, and hopefully always will be. The minute you start labeling those who disagree with you with some made-up term you have conjured up and consider to be negative, you are standing outside that tent and mocking those who dare to stand together.

The irony is not lost on me - or others here. Those who consistently whine about being told to shut up couldn't possibly hear any such admonition - because they're too damned busy telling everyone else to shut up.

Name-calling? I've never called anyone who disagrees with my political views a Third Wayer, a conservadem, a DINO, a corporatist, or any of the other names you and your colleagues are so fond of using. You do so on a regular basis.

So don't talk to me about name-calling, Mr. Pot - Mr. Kettle is already on to you.

[woo me with science]

82. ROFL!

A "big tent,"... for those who value civil liberties, and those who don't.

[Summer Hathaway]

86. If you believe that people here

don't value civil liberties, there are other websites where you might feel more among your element.

[rhett o rick]

109. The OP stated an opinion about the platform. Did you debate his opinion? Or did you

and your swarm just start calling him names? Instead of providing a discussion you tried to bully him with insults and your swarm.

We should be able to discuss policy w/o worrying whether we are going to get swarmed by whatever you want to call yourselves.

In my book Democrats argue over policy. You just want to eliminate all discussions unless they include Yeah Obama.

[Summer Hathaway]

121. If you honestly believe

that those of us who support this President and this Party are mindless cheerleaders who "want to eliminate all discussion that doesn't include 'Yay Obama!'", you have missed the point of the majority of threads/posts on DU.

"Swarm", "bullies", yadda-yadda. Again the persecution complex in full display.

And again you accuse others of "name calling" - hey, at least I didn't call the OP a Third Way, corporatist, New Dem, conservadem because I don't agree with his opinion. That's your bailiwick - you've got the Label-Maker.

[rhett o rick]

131. Your response to the OP was, "I guess it was too tempting for you not to post some

anti-Dem OP as our Convention gets underway. Some trains are never late." Which was closely followed by, "Not only that... he lies as much as Paul Ryan does", followed by other attacks.

This wasnt an anti-Obama OP and he didnt lie. The issue is extremely important TO SOME OF US. But some here try to stifle debate by attack, claiming it will harm the Party. Well I believe stifling debate harms the Party more.

If someone attacks Pres Barack Obama, I will go after them.

[Summer Hathaway]

242. Yes, that was my response to the OP

I was commenting on his posting pattern - which, by the way, is not exactly a secret.

The post about "he lies as much as Ryan does" was not mine; it was a response to me.

"This wasnt an anti-Obama OP and he didnt lie."

I never said it was anti-Obama, nor did I say he was a liar.

You say "The issue is extremely important TO SOME OF US" implying that there are those here who it is not important to. I don't think you'll find anyone on DU who doesn't think their civil liberties are important. Maybe you know something I don't know.

"To everything, there is a season, and a time to every purpose ..."

My problem with the OP is the fact that he always seems to choose a time of unity on DU (which can sometimes be a fleeting thing) to post something that he knows will be divisive, and is bound to cause discord.

[rhett o rick]

246. The issue he brought up is important as you agreed. But you didn’t address the issue.

You chose to “comment on his posting pattern”. Your “commenting" and the comments of your friends, look more like attacks aimed at discrediting the poster and trying to get him to stop posting or change his “posting pattern”.

I am not familiar with this poster but he brought up a very good point that isn’t a lie and isn’t an attack on the president. And his point is timely as this is a great time to discuss the platform. The specific items he mentioned are extremely important to many of us.

One of the things that distinguishes our Party from the other party, is we debate issues. We may even fight like hell, but we are always Democrats. Why would you try to stymie that debate by trying to shout down a poster? Calling him a liar or insinuating he has ulterior motives? If he is presenting a case you dont agree with, provide a counter-argument.

And there is never a bad time to debate issues.

[Robb]

70. Like calling good DUers who disagree with you "bullies"?

You're like a satire act, right?

[blue neen]

74. Please define a "good Duer" versus a "bad Duer".

Just curious. Thanks.

[Robb]

75. How about "everyone who doesn't call people who disagree bullies"?

Too complicated?

[woo me with science]

84. Psst, Robb!

The bullies are the ones who TAKE AWAY CIVIL LIBERTIES.

Worth rereading: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240137891#post86

[Robb]

88. Oh, good. The Green Swarm.

[Warren DeMontague]

213. So-- when "Mother Jones" was carrying water for the pro-censorship Christian Right and boosting

the blather of Bush and Reagan-era Republican Administration Justice officials over Obama's DOJ.... would you call that "bullying"?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/federal-porn-regulation-shelley-lubben

[woo me with science]

215. Oh my WORD.

An attempt *not only* to change the subject, but to suggest that "MotherJones" is an untrustworthy conservative Christian mouthpiece?



Care to discuss the removal of the civil rights language from the Democratic platform?

[Warren DeMontague]

216. I'm saying they lost a lot of credibility on complaining about Obama not distancing himself enough

from right wing Bush-era justice policies, if they're going to promote claptrap that says "HEY! Obama has distanced himself too much from right wing, Bush-era Justice Policies!"

As for the so-called "removal", it's bullshit, yet another lame attempt to manufacture outrage where there is no cause for it.

[woo me with science]

220. That response is dismissive of reality.

If smearing Mother Jones for conservative leanings is the best you can do, you are really struggling here.

And what nonsense to say the removal is "bullshit." The very specific civil rights language was there in 2008. It is gone in 2012. Why on earth would the Democratic Party choose to remove it?

The disappearance of this language is disturbing in the context of a great deal of recent news coming out of our government, all your protestations notwithstanding. We have seen this administration back indefinite detention, "kill lists" and targeted assassinations. They have chosen not to "fix" the Patriot Act as promised, or to close Guantanamo. The Obama administration went all the way to the Supreme Court to argue FOR warrantless GPS surveillance and FOR strip searches for any arrestee. They are expanding budget funding for our prison system and cracking down on low level offenses including medical marijuana instead of imprisoning torturers or banksters. Our President joked publicly about and defends TSA groping, and TSA has expanded their reach under his term. His administration has provided grants for the provision of military drones to police departments across the country and approved the proliferation of military and nonmilitary drones in American skies. President Obama has been silent on the increased militarization of police departments across the country, and silent on brutal attacks on peaceful OWS protesters and targeting, surveillance, and entrapment of OWS members by police departments. The administration is quietly developing plans for an internet ID, and Obama has signed and supported legislation, including ACTA and Lieberman's bill (yes, even *before* minimal privacy protections were added to it...) for greater internet control by government and corporations. And Obama is devastatingly silent on the new, massive NSA spy center that will allow the government and some corporations access to all American's emails and phone calls.

The civil rights language was removed between 2008 and 2012. Why on earth would the Democratic Party remove this language?

[Warren DeMontague]

221. I agree that the crackdown on med. marijuana is reprehensible, and needs to end.

I think in a 2nd Obama term we'll see some more sanity on that kind of thing. The party has gotten a clue on marriage equality, next I expect some progress on ending the drug war and legalizing ALL marijuana. I hope so.


As for Mother Jones, I'm not "smearing" them by pointing out what they, themselves did and wrote. If they want to apologize, disavow the likes of Gail Dines and Ed Meese and Pat Trueman (of the Reagan, GHWB Administrations) then I will gladly accept that apology and drop the issue. As it is, I think promoting a Christian Right, Pro-Internet Censorship Agenda is reprehensible and flies in the face of any and all pretensions to give a shit about "civil liberties".

[blue neen]

96. No, not "too complicated", but definitely too condescending...

...which in it's own way is just a different form of bullying.

[Luminous Animal]

83. I would characterize as bullies those who resort to personal attacks rather than address the

point of the OP.

The reason why indefinite detention, surveillance abuses, etc. were included in the 2008 platform was because the Bush admin abused the Constitution and rank & file Dems and Independents were angry enough that the Dem leadership recognized that taking a strong stance against them would help bring Dem voters to the polls.

Well, these civil rights abuses are ongoing. Little has changed from the Republican Admin to the Democratic Admin. The Republicans are happy as clams that the authoritarian state apparatus that they successfully advances trundles on. Democrats keep their fingers crossed we will admister a kinder gentler authoritarian state and keep their fingers crossed that kinder gentler Democrats will be elected for the next 100 years (or until they are dead and they don't have to tax their beautiful minds on such conundrums any more). Civil rights orgs and their supporters recognize that a benevolent surveillance state is little less a violation of civil rights than a malevolent one.

[woo me with science]

90. Thank you. nt

[Robb]

92. As I said below, that position relies on such an obtuse reading of the platform

...that it's either intentionally so, or so idiotic as to be scarcely worth polite debate.

Either way, pull the other one.

[Luminous Animal]

98. Actually, the article specifically spells out what is missing from this platform that

was included in 2008.

Indefinite Detention - gone.

Warrantless Surveillance/PATRIOT Act - gone

Gitmo - gone

Racial Profiling in Fighting Terrorism - gone

Torture - gone

[Robb]

99. Granny Smiths -- gone!

Please.

[Luminous Animal]

103. You are off message. You are supposed to use the OTFLMAO smilie. Please report back to

headquarters for re-education on the proper use of one-liners accompanied by the appropriate smilie.

[Robb]

105. I'll settle for you getting a new shtick.

Seriously. Accusing me of being a Democratic Party apparatchik, or whatever? On DU, the night of the convention, no less?

[RobinA]

209. I'm Still Waiting

for a response to the OP myself. This issue is the very reason I may not be at the polls this November, and that was a decision that was made before the platform even came out. The quoted article only adds to my extreme unease at what this party is becoming.

When, party and president supporters, is it OK to to take back this issue? Only when it is the Repubs to be opposed? I don't care who is surveilling citizens and running Guantanamo, I just want it stopped. Yes, Obama has done some good that would not otherwise have been done (health care, et al). But it seems we are asked to pay for our better health care with our civil liberties (I'm referring to existing Bush law unchanged by Obama, not the platform), and I'm not sure that's a wise move in the long run.

[rhett o rick]

113. The OP made a point. It was clearly not anti-Obama. Instead of debating the point

a swarm of "good DU'ers" came out of the woodwork to shout him down. They didnt discuss or argue, they just tried to use name calling and numbers to disparage him. That's bullying.

[emulatorloo]

180. The OP continued his disinformation campaign

Ultimate goal?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002226531#post6

[MadHound]

184. Lying some more. n/t

[rhett o rick]

232. You forgot to show what was "disinformation". You are clearly only interested in smearing him

not debating the issue. This is an important issue. But you wont discuss issues only attack. That's not very Democratic.

[woo me with science]

78. Well said.

Only they aren't Democrats. They are Republicans in Democrat suits.

[woo me with science]

93. Very well said. nt

[LanternWaste]

142. I do so enjoy the carefully constructed cross many people carry with them

I do so enjoy the carefully constructed cross many people carry with them, ready to martyr themselves on in a moment's notice for the sake of well-lit melodrama complete with posturing and the Evil Villain....

[Skip Intro]

158. +100 nt

[woo me with science]

77. What the fuck is fundamentally wrong with people

to whom civil liberties mean nothing?

I think that is the more relevant question.

[Summer Hathaway]

85. What the fuck is fundamentally wrong

with people who assume that civil liberties mean nothing to anyone other than themselves?

[rhett o rick]

114. I think that you let your blind allegiance get in the way of your

ability to discuss any issue that might potentially shine negatively on the president.

In 2008 i cried when Obama was sworn in. Now we can turn back the damage Bush did to our civil liberties.

And now not only am i disappointed, you want me to "sit down and shut up" about it.

I will strongly support the reelection of Pres Barack Obama but I will fight to be able to express my feelings about policies. And I will not look kindly on those that would shut me up.

[Summer Hathaway]

119. Same old/same old

You're the one labeling anyone who disagrees with your views as being Third Way, Conservadems, New Dems, and whatever else the label-de-jour is among you and your buddies.

And no one is telling you to sit down and shut up. Like the boy who cried wolf, trotting out the persecution complex has become over-used to the point of no one being able to take it seriously.

The next time you think about 'blind allegiance', you might consider your own blind allegiance to your Label-Maker, and how often you use it.

[Whisp]

7. someone should tell Skinner to come on back.

the convention is a bust. Mr. Mad says so.

[MadHound]

12. Do you have any substantial rebutall against the charges laid forth in the article?

No, just hot air. Disappearing civil liberties are fine with you, just so long as it is somebody with a D behind their name who is doing the disappearing.

You know, I don't want to see you saying a single word about civil liberties disappearing under a Republican administration, for I will call you on your hypocrisy every time you do so.

[scheming daemons]

14. Do you ever post anything that doesn't have the intent of helping the GOP?

I've yet to see it...

[MadHound]

24. Ah, so advocating the concept of hanging onto our civil liberties helps the 'Pugs,

You are deep, deep into hypocrisy.

Oh, for your information, of my last twenty five OP's, including this one, four of them were critical of Democrats or the Obama administration. Apparently you have a very selective reading of my posting.

[Summer Hathaway]

19. Life is too short

to argue with those who have an obvious agenda that simply stinks.

[MadHound]

27. So in other words, you don't have a rebutal,

Just insults and hypocrisy.

[Vattel]

71. Well, I'm up to post 27 and no serious rebuttal yet. Lots of ad hominem though.

[Summer Hathaway]

15. That made me LOL!

[trof]

11. Aw man? Give it a rest.

Just for 3 days?
jeez

[MadHound]

16. Aw man, ignore the disappearance of our civil liberties,

At least until it is a Republican administration doing the disappearing.

[OnyxCollie]

123. Remember Senator Leahy?

Remember that guy? Remember when he would stand up and argue against Bush's domestic surveillance program? Remember?

He even got that cameo in the Batman movie.

Whatever happened to that guy? Is he still around, or did he die or something?

[scheming daemons]

17. He can't. His goal is to depress Democratic enthusiasm.

[progressivebydesign]

21. and apparently he believes that by trashing the Democrats so the republicans win, it will help.

Never really understood that. But some people are so locked in their own personal narrative, that they can't see beyond their computer that there are REAL people out there struggling who will go down if the republicans get back to power.

It's like trying to save a house from burning down, and having someone SCREAMING that the firefighters are ruining the lawn.

[klook]

228. GREAT analogy.

I will remember (and borrow) this one.

It's like trying to save a house from burning down, and having someone SCREAMING that the firefighters are ruining the lawn.

[Summer Hathaway]

22. And it really gets his back up

when he realizes that in certain circumstances, he can't.

[girl gone mad]

25. Vacuous ad hominem. n/t

[emulatorloo]

41. No, it is the truth.

[SidDithers]

31. Nailed it...

Sid

[sabrina 1]

43. Do you know why the platform changed?

[rhett o rick]

50. They dont care if the platform changes. They dont care what it says. They

are blindly loyal. It's a lot easier that way. You dont have to think. They like the lock-step mentality.

[sabrina 1]

53. Well, they are very much in the minority if that is the case. A vast majority of Americans

care about their Civil Liberties.

[rhett o rick]

59. I must disagree. When Bush was president and proceeded to eliminate

many of our civil liberties, hardly any outcry from Americans. When Pres Obama was elected I was excited to think that we could reestablish these civil liberties. But nothing changed and no outcry. Even Democrats, as shown in this thread, seem to be ok with the loss of these liberties.

[Luminous Animal]

87. Actually, the reason why those issues were included in the 2008 Democratic platform was because

they were important to Dems and left leaning (and likely libertarian) independent voters. They were included to GET people to the polls.

[rhett o rick]

108. Kind of a bait and switch. nm

[sabrina 1]

223. The Left was very vocal about their opposition to Bush's shredding of the Constitution.

There were committees in Congress headed by Dems like Sen. Leahy eg, looking into the reestablishment of Habeas Corpus. Congress was looking into Rove's possible participation in the firing of US Attorneys eg. Rove thumbed his nose at the subpoenas he received from Congress to appear before them. There was great excitement on the Left about the possibility of Congress sending out Federal Marshals to bring him in.

There was a lot more attention being paid to these violations of civil liberties by the left back then.

[rhett o rick]

231. I agree that the left was very vocial, but most Americans could care less.

Even a good share of Dems are ok with it. Just look at the Conserva-Dems.

[Vattel]

73. This thread sure supports that picture.

[MadHound]

148. Well, considering that the current administration

Has allowed torture to continue, warrantless wiretapping to continue, the Patriot Act to continue, along with the NDAA and drawing up his own personal kill list each week, it probably would look rather hypocritical to condemn such actions in the party platform.

[Bobbie Jo]

58. +1

They're stirring it with a big ole spoon tonight.

Timing is everything.....

[limpyhobbler]

65. Some of these planks in the platform are kind of depressing people's enthusiams.

Or, ya know what I mean, the absence of these civil liberties paragraphs. It's kind of depressing.

[progressivebydesign]

18. I'm sorry that you didn't get your pony.

The rest of us are just trying to keep the republicans from wiping the middle class off the face of the FUCKING EARTH.

Read the whole platform.

[girl gone mad]

26. Vacuous ad hominem. n/t

[fascisthunter]

29. I'm starting to wonder if all the "Vacuous ad hominem" are from sock puppets

[sabrina 1]

44. Civil Liberties are ponies. You need to remember that!

[woo me with science]

211. Amendments, schmamendments.

There are so many. Anyone who gets all hissy about one or two of them is just a BABY.

[blue neen]

72. .

[jberryhill]

81. Ominous Vacuum Ad

[Luminous Animal]

91. I haven't seen it often but I think girl gone mad has the right idea. I am going to follow her lead

[RobinA]

212. You Don't Get

how the trampling of civil liberties and wiping the middle class off the face of the FUCKING EARTH are related? Hint - start with the concept of "power."

[frylock]

226. but apparently you DID get your pony, so fuck everyone else?

am i right?

[derby378]

236. That's gonna leave a mark

Guess who else says "I got mine, so fuck all you people?" That's riiiiiight...

[KoKo]

30. I't the "Run to the Right" by our Party...STRONG on WAR/MILITARY...

They want to distance themselves from the "60's Generation" who tried to stop Vietnam.

Obama seems to be "Cool" with this...neither he or his Parents or Grandparents were threatened by Vietnam WAR....so it doesn't matter to him because to him this is the "NEW GEOGRAPHIC" POLITICS.

WAR IS PEACE! GOOD IS EVIL!

[SidDithers]

32. I miss Unrec...

Threads like this literally scream out to be unrecc'd.

Sid

[liberalmuse]

35. Me too.

This kind of thing is why Democrats have to inch forward. The "All or Nothing" mentality is killing us! Let's make sure President Obama is re-elected, THEN hold his feet to the fire. If civil liberties are an issue, then I think we know who the clear choice is in this election. Christ Almighty.

[Jamaal510]

55. Agreed.

"This kind of thing is why Democrats have to inch forward. The "All or Nothing" mentality is killing us! Let's make sure President Obama is re-elected, THEN hold his feet to the fire."

[JoeyT]

112. Yeah, about that.

When we tried to hold his feet to the fire we were screamed down by the usual suspects. Generally using insults they'd stolen from Republicans. Obama derangement syndrome comments were common on any post that implied He was less than perfect.

Of course out in the real world attempting to hold his feet to the fire got us insults from the actual administration.

I support him and I hope he gets reelected, but "Just wait until he's elected and hold his feet to the fire!" is utter nonsense.

[sabrina 1]

45. Civil Liberties should be unrec'd!

[Bobbie Jo]

222. Yeah, why does he hate Amurika!!11!

Do you see how ridiculous this simplistic nonsense really looks?

On the other hand, perhaps you don't.

[sabrina 1]

225. Of course, I think a vast majority of DUers do.

Do you see how ridiculous this simplistic nonsense really looks?

[Bobbie Jo]

229. Of course...

But in case you missed the analogy, I'll leave this here for reference:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1268427

[sabrina 1]

239. I didn't miss a thing!

[rhett o rick]

51. You would like it much better if you personally could TS anyone

that wasnt a lock-step Democrat. Anyone that dared speak up. In fact you have TS'ed a lot havent you? A badge I imagine you wear proudly. Funny how un-Democratic it is trying to silence dissent.

[pscot]

61. It's agreat American tradition

Adams started it. Jefferson raised it to an art form.

[SidDithers]

63. You forget this is a partisan website...

If you want to unlimited whining about how bad Obama is, and how much the Democrats suck, I'm sure there are plenty of other boards you might enjoy more than this one.

You do remember agreeing to this part of the TOS, don't you?

Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Sid

[rhett o rick]

107. But Sid, the OP didnt "trash Obama". He simply wanted to discuss the platform.

And all hell broke loose as the neighborhood watch was called out. Not to disagree, not to offer alternate opinions, but to name call. To try to eliminate discussion by bullying. "How dare you say anything that might remotely be seen as disagreement with Pres Obama?"

We can be in support of the reelection of the president AND STILL WANT TO HAVE DECENT DISCUSSIONS regarding policy.

[sabrina 1]

218. And being that it is a Partisan board and we are all Democrats, well most of us that is,

this is OUR party. We don't waste time trying to keep the other party on track do we?

But it is our obligation to make sure OUR Party, being that we are Partisans here, does not start going in the direction of the other party. We have two parties here, and we have no intention of allowing the only one WE have to be infiltrated by right wingers dragging it to the right

We abhor Right Wing policies. Even a hint that any of them are even being considered for OUR PARTY, makes it an obligation for Democrats to ensure that this does not happen.

How about you? How do YOU feel about Republican policies?

[SidDithers]

227. ...

Sid

[sabrina 1]

240. ...

[graywarrior]

95. .

[liberalmuse]

33. We really don't need this right now.

Unless you are clamoring for a Rmoney presidency.

[villager]

34. As they pretty much have under this administration. Both parties are united in their contempt....

...of the 4th Amendment.

[progressoid]

37. I know we're supposed to be all Kumbaya and stuff but I'll give this a rec.

Regardless of the poster, this really is an important issue.

[leftstreet]

40. +1

[woo me with science]

120. Thank you. It is a critical issue,

and one being met with absolute silence by our faux media.

[Kurovski]

243. Yep

and despite claims to the contrary, no one will be dissuaded from voting because people are asking for a higher standard for the party to adhere to. Most will pay no fucking mind what so ever. Fans of a team are fans of a team, all they want is to watch the game. The dress, the quips and zingers, the sentiment and the tears.

So many of the same "STFU" folks we see ALL year round are in play, not just around elections. You'll be asked to shut it no matter what the season. it's gross and obvious. And so workman-like.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. They're just removing the false advertising in the '08 commercial..er..platform.

[sakabatou]

48. O RLY?

[sabrina 1]

49. Being that I am a Progressive Democrat advocating for Civil Liberties always gets a rec

from me. People have died in this country throughout our short history, like MLK eg, fighting for them. The least I can do is to recommend anyone still willing to do the same thing, to take a stand when they see them disappearing.

[orpupilofnature57]

52. I voted to abolish Shrub not fortify him, it's an implement of Totalitarianism....

and is against what a democratic society is built on, Liberty.

[rhett o rick]

54. I am currently and will continue to work for the reelection of Pres Barack Obama

But I resent it when so-called Democrats will not discuss policy. When some among us try to silence dissent because they are so afraid that any debate will weaken the president's chances. How moranic. These are Democrats that do not believe in Democratic principles.

If you are looking for blind allegiance with no discussion allowed, maybe you're in the wrong party.

[druidity33]

57. K&R, nt.

[OnyxCollie]

62. Some people prefer to die

the death of a frog in a pot of water, slowly brought to a boil, over the death of a lobster dropped into scalding water.

I prefer to die the death of an improperly prepared pufferfish entree.

[Kurovski]

245. That's

the driest DUzy yet.

[limpyhobbler]

66. Truly sad.

[Politicub]

67. This is a lie. Read the platform.

I read it last night, and the civil liberties plank was clear and concise.

It's heartening to see so many DUers truth telling on this thread.

[rhett o rick]

111. Why has it changed since 2008? Tell the truth now. nm

[ecstatic]

68. Paul Ryan is hiring nt

[sabrina 1]

238. I hear he is only interested in people who never question, who just march in lockstep

and keep their mouths shut no matter what.

Hopefully, this would be the last place he would find what he is looking for.

[Vattel]

76. Wow, what a pathetic response to your post.

Just one argument in favor of the Patriot Act, or warrantless surveillance of Americans, or one of the other abuses of civil liberties the Democratic Party is no longer against, would be nice. But I guess that's too much to expect during an election season.

[Robb]

79. What a deliberately obtuse reading of the platform.

"We're against all apples."

"Look! Last year they specifically mentioned Granny Smiths!! This year they must LOVE those kinds of apples!!! I'm voting 3rd party!!11"

Silly stuff, Vattel. Silly stuff.

[Vattel]

106. You don't think the differences are significant?

2008: "We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. We will review the current Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live. We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war…We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years."

2012: The platform is silent on this issue. This isn't surprising since, at the urging of the Obama administration, congressional Democrats passed up the opportunity to reform the PATRIOT Act when they had a majority in both houses of Congress.

I am totally open to hearing a reasoned argument that some of what is absent from the platform does not reflect badly on the party's commitment to civil liberties. Platforms aside, it is much clearer now than in 2008 that we can't expect too much from the Democratic Party when it comes to protecting civil liberties and human rights. Not that there hasn't been very significant positive movement under Obama, but so much more was attainable.

[woo me with science]

208. Excellent post. Thank you.

[RobinA]

214. Your Argument

might be more effective if they hadn't spent the past four years gobbling up Granny Smiths.

[woo me with science]

97. K&R This is an important post.

Thank you.

This article at CommonDreams.org also details some of the good and the bad of the Democratic platform. As expected, another severe problem is the alarming failure by DEMOCRATS to rule out cuts to fundamental social safety net programs including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/04-11

[rhett o rick]

110. This is an important issue. But look at all the bullies that want to

stymie the discussion. Not one has provided an argument. Name calling is all they got. DINO's the lot.

[SidDithers]

115. "Name calling is all they got. DINO's the lot"...

Sid

[Summer Hathaway]

122. I know, I know

Isn't it amusing the way they don't even see the irony?

I'm just curious as to how they decide which label to apply to the "name callers", e.g. Third Wayer, New Dem, DINO, Conservadem, Corporatist - so many labels to choose from.

How DO they make the ultimate decision as to what name to affix to those they've labeled as "name callers"?

[rhett o rick]

139. I notice that you dont want to discuss the OP. I wonder why? nm

[woo me with science]

137. It's a tactic. Pollute the thread with garbage and misdirection,

so the critical information gets lost.

Meanwhile, the neoDemocratic Party platform not only omits these critical civil rights.....while our President pursues/defends but remains publicly silent on targeted assassinations, strip searches, internet ID plans, indefinite detention, drone surveillance, and the new spy center in Utah for warrantless access to all our emails and phone calls...

....The new platform also

*defends the death penalty,
*commits to lowering the corporate tax rate,
*withdraws previous support for card-check to make it easier to form unions
*misleads on housing,
*signals support for the Keystone pipeline,
*and specifically fails to include language opposing cuts to Medicare and Social Security:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/04-11

[Odin2005]

118. This nonsense does not justify a rebuttal.

[AtomicKitten]

125. +

[MadHound]

141. Nice to see that you're so willing to toss somebody's civil liberties out of window,

All in the cause of electing somebody with a D behind their name.

The party platform is supposed to reflect the ideals of the members of the party. I guess this means that Democrats no longer give a damn about civil liberties. I guess you no longer give a damn either, at least as long as the person violating them has a D behind their name. Hypocrisy much?

[dogknob]

124. Whichever party takes control will need all those powers. They will be needed. It's that bad.

I'd rather the Dems have them.

[sabrina 1]

241. Wow! n/t

[FedUpWithIt All]

126. I absolutely loved the speeches tonight but i did turn to my husband

more than once and say how i am really struggling with this very thing.

Things like the following rarely leave me...

Meanwhile, the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, now houses 169 prisoners. About half have been cleared for release, yet have little prospect of ever obtaining their freedom. American authorities have revealed that, in order to obtain confessions, some of the few being tried (only in military courts) have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers. Astoundingly, these facts cannot be used as a defense by the accused, because the government claims they occurred under the cover of “national security.” Most of the other prisoners have no prospect of ever being charged or tried either.

By Jimmy Carter

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/opinion/americas-shameful-human-rights-record.html?_r=1

But i do know that the power structure of the Romney's party is behind the the massive deconstruction that happened under bush so i genuinely fear a return to that party.

This all causes a massive internal struggle for me, personally.

[Le Taz Hot]

127. Excellent Mother Jones article, MH

and thanks for posting it. Sorry you're receiving such shit from the blind partisans but some of us ARE able to go beyond cheerleading hyperbole.

Rec.

[woo me with science]

134. We all know the drill.

When the topic is this important and incriminating re: the purchase of our Democracy, the propagandists will be there...right on schedule

[emulatorloo]

157. Propagandists? You are projecting. All your OP's are conspiracy theories that excuse Republicans

[woo me with science]

167. Care to address the specific omission of that civil rights language?

Or do you just want to insult and distract?

[msanthrope]

128. Cool story, bro. nt

[raouldukelives]

130. I'm glad to see people feel passionately about this at least.

Even got some to contribute a tad more than which is an accomplishment in itself.
The lip service can now commence again. Thanks for the brief reminder of reality MH.

[woo me with science]

132. Kick. This is far more important

than most of the blather we are hearing during this election season.

[woo me with science]

144. More important information about the platform

Thank you for this important OP. The neoDemocrats' contributions to the new party platform are clearly reflected in the omission of these critical civil rights.....while our President pursues/defends but remains publicly silent on targeted assassinations, strip searches, internet ID plans, indefinite detention, drone surveillance, and the new spy center in Utah for warrantless access to all our emails and phone calls...

These are not the only disturbing changes reflecting right-wing views of the Third Way and the corporate one percent. The new platform also:

*defends the death penalty,
*commits to lowering the corporate tax rate,
*withdraws previous support for card-check to make it easier to form unions
*misleads on housing,
*signals support for the Keystone pipeline,
*and specifically fails to include language opposing cuts to Medicare and Social Security:

Here is a good article detailing the bad AND good aspects of the platform: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/04-11


The importance of your OP is made clear by the level of desperation we are seeing in attempts by the serial defenders of the corporate one percent to obscure, mischaracterize, and misdirect, as well as pollute the threads with vapid insults and filler. Thank you for your persistence, because it is important that Americans see what is really being done to our party and our country as a result of corporate money in our electoral system....now in the Democratic Party, too.

[emulatorloo]

154. What's desperate is your attempt persuade DU'ers of how evil Democrats are

While giving Republicans a free pass.

You are a conspiracy theorist. It is all about "Obama's super secret plans", and you thrive on word parsing and tea leaf reading articles.

So I lump your posts in with

= Obama is sending us to FEMA camps to brainwash us
= Obama is banning sport fishing
= Obama has approved death panels
= Obamacare requires mandatory sex-change operations
= Obama is coming for your guns

and every bullshit wingnut conspiracy theory out there on the internet.

[woo me with science]

163. Care to address the actual changes to the platform? nt

[emulatorloo]

166. Uh huh

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021273522

Now take your bullshit disinformation campaign and shove it.

[woo me with science]

170. That doesn't answer the question at all.

The specific language Madhound's post referenced disappeared between 2008 and 2012. Now why was that language removed?

[woo me with science]

179. Saying that it is a lie is a blatant lie.

You suggest here that good language about closing loopholes negates the clear language in the platform:

“We are also committed to reforming the corporate tax code to lower tax rates for companies in the United States.”

[woo me with science]

205. Why advocate lower corporate tax rates in the platform?

No, you are the one attempting to deny, distract from, and obfuscate language that is now clearly there in the platform. That there are good points in the platform does not eliminate this absolutely stunning, clearly stated goal.

Why does the *Democratic Party* now advocate lower corporate tax rates?

[bobduca]

183. desperation

When you use phrases like "every" and "lumping" I must find your judgement and conclusions suspect.
You are more focused on street-level tactics to weakly characterize all dissent as conspiratorial.

What do you think about the missing platform planks? What do you think of extra-judicial killing? indefinite detention? Do you support those policies? Nobody is going to switch their vote to Romney if you admit some unease over this policy. Nobody is putting forward that falsehood that the parties are equivalent. Nobody reading this discussion is on the fence. Your posts do not change one vote. Honesty however might go a long way to increase understanding.

Can someone support Obama while being conscious of the fact that he is committing extra-legal wars with drone strikes? I do. I realize that the alternative would be unmitigated disaster, instead of a kinder, gentler empire.

Self-selected party-loyalists will never provide meaningful discourse on actual policy issues, but lists like yours show how your efforts are focused on ad hominem, mislabeling and lying about dissenters. None of which sheds any light on the making of the political sausage that we must all eat.

This is why this site attracts people who enjoy to browbeat and ostracize. This anti-social, anti-intellectual behavior is not punished here, but rather encouraged.

[emulatorloo]

191. Sorry, Woo is a liar. Plenty of examples in this thread.

MadHound has advocated that we let Republicans win in 2012, despite the costs to those who will suffer and die if the Republicans win.

[emulatorloo]

198. Stop spinning. You wrote what you wrote. It would be "better" if Republican won

That's what you said. Now OWN IT.

[MadHound]

200. No, this is what I said

"We've been presented with the choices between greater and lesser evils for decades now, yet never in all that time have we ever been presented with a good(in all senses of that term) choice.

Instead we are simply presented with the choice of dying slowly or dying quickly as a country. Frankly I think that dying quickly might not be such a bad thing. Get it done, get it over with quickly so we can start on rebuilding. "

Nowhere did I advocate that Republicans should win this fall. Stop lying.

[emulatorloo]

206. Your construct is: "dying quickly" = Republicans

"Frankly I think that dying quickly might not be such a bad thing. Get it done, get it over with quickly so we can start on rebuilding. "

Spin as much as you want.

[bobduca]

204. I guess thats why you have accepted the role of 'Archivist'

the Archivist, ( http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/archivist.htm ) keeping tabs on the Lies of the Agents of (R) conspiracy!

I guess someone's gotta do it.. also it looks so fun, based soley on the amount of laughing/smiling emoticons you all seem to use.

[fascisthunter]

247. I'm really tired of reading such simplistic bald-faced lies from you

and other who do everything in their power to demonize dissenters. You do NOT help the party this way at all.

[woo me with science]

151. kick

[ProSense]

152. No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under [Obama's] administration.

No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under (Obama's) administration.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021273667

Kick!

[emulatorloo]

155. Woo has a "fantasy Obama" act too. Appearing daily on DU with his empty chair.

[woo me with science]

162. Typical smear with no content.

Why was the specific civil rights language taken out of the platform?

[emulatorloo]

169. You want content re your trollish conspiracy theories? Check your OP's.

As to the platform, I know facts don't matter to you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021273522

[woo me with science]

160. Kill lists, indefinite detention, and why is Obama silent

Last edited Wed Sep 5, 2012, 07:44 PM - Edit history (3)

on the massive new NSA spy center in Utah to provide access to Americans' phone calls and emails?

Why did the Obama administration go all the way to the Supreme Court to argue FOR warrantless GPS surveillance and FOR strip searches for any arrestee? Why is it silently making plans for an internet ID?

Why was the specific language on civil liberties that Madhound's post referenced omitted from the new Democratic platform?

And why does the new Democratic platform defend the death penalty?

Why does the new Democratic platform advocate lower corporate tax rates?

Why does the new Democratic platform omit its previous support for Card-Check, to make it easier for unions to organize? Why would the new Democratic Party abandon support for unions?

And why won't the president or the platform rule out a chained CPI or cuts to Social Security and Medicare, including increases for ages of eligibility?

[ProSense]

165. Blah! n/t

[GoneOffShore]

153. And the actual platforms from 2004, 2008, 2012? Well, let's just ignore that shall we?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021273522

[emulatorloo]

156. Facts don't matter to the Anti-Democrat Trolls

[woo me with science]

164. Care to address the actual changes to the platform?

Why was that specific civil rights language removed?

[ProSense]

168. Here

A tale of two party platforms—a choice of the future or the past
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021273923

Clearly Democrats are evil! Oops, my bad, the "lesser" of two evils!

[woo me with science]

174. Care to address the language that was removed?

The neoDemocrats' contributions to the new party platform are clearly reflected in the omission of this critical civil rights language....while our President pursues/defends but remains publicly silent on targeted assassinations, strip searches, internet ID plans, indefinite detention, drone surveillance, and the new spy center in Utah for warrantless access to all our emails and phone calls...

These are not the only disturbing changes reflecting right-wing views of the Third Way and the corporate one percent. The new platform also:

*defends the death penalty,
*commits to lowering the corporate tax rate,
*withdraws previous support for card-check to make it easier to form unions
*misleads on housing,
*hints strongly at support for the Keystone pipeline,
*and specifically fails to include language opposing cuts to Medicare and Social Security:

Here is a good article detailing the bad AND good aspects of the platform: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/04-11


The level of desperation we are seeing to obscure, obfuscate, and distract from these important changes, as well as to pollute the threads with vapid insults and filler...shows how important these changes really are...and how important misdirection from them is considered to be.

We have a deadly serious, malignant problem with corporate money in our electoral process. It is well past time to acknowledge that it is infecting and changing the Democratic Party, too...

[ProSense]

188. No, but maybe

"Care to address the language that was removed?"

...you can explain why I should take someone who writes this serioulsy:

Doesn’t pledge not to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As noted earlier, the platform does not say that the safety net should be part of deficit reduction. That’s good. But nowhere does it affirm support for protecting those programs from cuts or pernicious changes like raising the retirement or eligibility age—things that, in the past, Democrats were prepared to do. Sure, Democrats will “block Republican efforts to subject Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market through privatization,” and “adamantly oppose any efforts to privatize or voucherize Medicare,” but that’s a low bar and wouldn’t preclude cuts or eligibility changes. The platform says “We reject approaches that that cutting benefits is the only answer.” To me, the operative word there is “only.”

An opinion piece loaded with straw men may excite you, but it's patently absurd.

Game Changer: Biden Guarantees No Changes in Social Security
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021226318

[woo me with science]

197. More deliberate obfuscation. Of course you refuse to address the changes

in civil rights language...and now you obfuscate about benefit cuts.

Obama and Biden have not ruled out either a chained CPI or changes to eligibility ages to Medicare. This language about not changing the Social Security program is often used by defenders of the chained CPI to give the false impression that they do not wish to attack benefits, even though they support doing so *indirectly*...not through changes to the program itself, but through changes to the formula used to calculate benefits.

Obama and Biden need to specifically rule out a chained CPI and changes in eligibility ages, because these are the specific changes they supported as recently as last year.


A chained CPI does not directly change the Social Security PROGRAM. However, it is an indirect method of lowering projected benefits, and it does so even more viciously over time.

Democrats need to demand clarity. The administration proposed a chained CPI last April. Advocates of the chained CPI have often used a word game...denying that the chained CPI is a cut to SS....in order to defend this indirect assault on SS benefits.

Democrats, and all Americans, need assurances that a chained CPI and any other direct OR indirect assault on SS benefits is OFF THE TABLE.


___________________________________________________

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Playing inflation games with Grandma: The Washington Consensus and the Chained CPI
http://my.firedoglake.com/deanbaker/2012/04/05/playing-inflation-games-with-grandma-the-washington-consensus-and-the-chained-cpi/

The chained CPI is not just a cut. It is also a regressive tax increase.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1445127

The chained CPI....Assumes switching from hamburger to catfood
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=612538&mesg_id=612538

Chained CPI would hurt middle class families and veterans as well as seniors.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/28/1000043/-Chained-CPI-will-hurt-middle-class-families-as-well-as-seniors-veterans

[ProSense]

201. WTF is that?

It's like Social Security swiftboating!

OMG!

[emulatorloo]

172. I am tired of arguing with liars.

Because when you present arguments to liars, they just make up another lie.

I have already given you one link.

Others are giving you other links.

You don't care about that, you just want to promote your anti-democratic party conspiracy theories.

[SidDithers]

182. Exactly...

I moved onto the "point and laugh at them" stage a long time ago.



Sid

[woo me with science]

207. Typical insult, no ability to refute. nt

[SidDithers]

217. ...

Sid

[sabrina 1]

219. ...

[Green_Lantern]

210. the 2012 platform even brags about the supposed disruption of Al Qaeda....

Without ever discussing drone attacks, targetted killings, etc.

[Howler]

230. Very clear and lucid OP MadHound!

Thank you.

[RiffRandell]

237. SO DON'T FUCKING VOTE FOR HIM!!!!!!!

I know of 2 posters in this thread that posted on a now defunct "left" site that critized the shit out of Obama and would post they weren't going to vote for him.

They don't have the fucking balls to state it here as they know they would be banned, but post here to shit all over him.

How ironic. And totally fucking wimpy.

Obama 2012, and anyone that votes against him can go fuck themselves.

[fascisthunter]

248. a tough pill to swallow for sure

we need to keep asking these questions and hold our reps feet to the fire.

[warrprayer]

249. Remember this guy?

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them. "
Paul Wellstone

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/paul_wellstone.html#GByl27LvhSAXjbJ3.99

"I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party."
Paul Wellstone

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/paul_wellstone.html#GByl27LvhSAXjbJ3.99

[woo me with science]

250. I miss him.