Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: civil war on DU [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)138. It's a nice sentiment, but we are far too well played by the right.
2014 will be another 2010.
There's going to be screaming scandal after scandal between then and now so that Democrats don't bother working hard, and Republicans win big.
It's really impressive to watch their plan come together so well.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
218 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No, spying on the American people is not, nor ever was defensible. It is against our laws.
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#51
What the administration is doing is totally defensible. You have never addressed my dissertation on
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#52
What you and I opine isn't at issue. What is at issue is the law and the Constitution. The best
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#104
I answered. My opinion of the warrant is irrelevant. What's at issue is the law and Constitution. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#109
Your opinion of the warrant is relevant if you wish for others to give your opinion
Th1onein
Jun 2013
#130
The fourth amendment does not apply to National Security Surveillances. And I am not asking anyone
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#131
That is not completely correct. If Americans are participating in foreign sponsored acts against
stevenleser
Jul 2013
#208
babble. storing all calls is not an 'exception'. it's storing all calls, all data, *everything*.
HiPointDem
Jun 2013
#140
Please provide the full legal citations for the all case titles you've posted.
Melinda
Jun 2013
#146
Steven, this is about *domestic* surveillance, not foreign espionage
muriel_volestrangler
Jun 2013
#147
Agreed. You can't have a warrant that specifies searching all the houses in Cleveland...
HooptieWagon
Jun 2013
#123
Before FISA, warrantless wiretapping was legal for foreign intelligence purposes. During the cold
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#29
So quick to go ad hominem. Thats the problem with folks on your side of the issue. No, what I want
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#35
You have no facts, you dont understand the issue being discussed, and are making it all about me.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#70
I do understand that the government engaged in the greatest act of surveillance in all of history.
Enthusiast
Jun 2013
#80
You're already wrong. Prior to FISA in 1978, warrantless wiretapping was legal. All the President
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#81
No one on DU has ever provided any, despite my transcript being out for three weeks.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#83
You can't crush an argument if you provide no facts. Insulting me doesnt crush my arguments.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#86
No, they're not. I'm supported by relevant federal appeals court decisions and the facts and history
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#95
And another comment with an ad-hominem at the close. You really can't help yourself, can you?
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#107
Here is the cross post of the transcript in GD. You can see the responses for yourself. No one
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#89
IF you are conceding that there are no facts you can bring to bear to refute me, I accept. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#112
With that kind of logic you should apply for a job helping Rush Limbaugh. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#113
Which post, the one where the person had a paragraph long rant at Obama that was all one sided
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#125
I think you have a very liberal definition of the word "oversight" that I do not agree with.
MNBrewer
Jul 2013
#218
And thankfully that omission was fixed after it was abused. Then it was unfixed to protect
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#55
You've managed to straw man all of DU with that comment. Quite an accomplishment.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#24
If I'm right that no one here wants right of Clinton, then that poster did post a straw man. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#68
After watching Bill Clinton take our party to the right I find it impossible to accept...
L0oniX
Jun 2013
#6
No, they're laughing because after years of accusing the Right of being fact-free
railsback
Jun 2013
#114
I'm surprised I can see your post. I've trashed NSA, Snowden and Greenwald. I've done that because
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#13
Too many people have too much invested in what others on THIS BOARD do or think
alcibiades_mystery
Jun 2013
#14
Nothing that happens on DU has any bearing outside of DU. Some may think it does, but no.
cherokeeprogressive
Jun 2013
#15
You're right, of course. It's amazing to see the number of posts where some think this matters.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2013
#58
This is nothing new. The right vs left fight has been going on since the founding of the party.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2013
#17
Since most likely Hillary will run in 2016 and be the nominee, I wonder about the "won't tolerate
still_one
Jun 2013
#27
Yes, you are demonstrating so much non-hate with that post. Please, let no one ever "not-hate" me
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#32
I'm trying to think of a way your two posts to me so far could be worth less. I can't. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#37
It's not the truth, like most negative comments you see about Obama here. It's biased B.S. nt
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#40
I would say that LGBT folks would be right to say that, but not so much on the NSA issue, etc.
stevenleser
Jun 2013
#65
Good luck with this, though I think your OP is a little one-sided, but well-intentioned.
Denzil_DC
Jun 2013
#63
The GOP did plan it that way. They've bought out both sides of media. And they're ratfucking us.
freshwest
Jun 2013
#91
I think ratfucking is always a possibility in political activity, especially online,
Denzil_DC
Jun 2013
#108
Hate to burst your bubble, but the party leadership, including anyone that will be
Egalitarian Thug
Jun 2013
#67
Any plausible Democratic candidate is just the better wing of the same oligarchy.
leveymg
Jun 2013
#76
We Need To Be Clear That The Democratic Party Is Run By The 1% - Accept That Or Demand Change
cantbeserious
Jun 2013
#77
Thanks for providing an excellent example of what we've been talking about above. n/t
Denzil_DC
Jun 2013
#155
A Civil War... On DU.... And neither side has selected me as their ruler yet? Fools...
Ohio Joe
Jun 2013
#115
What principles do we stand for, together, regardless of whomever is president?
Fire Walk With Me
Jun 2013
#136