Help me understand why so many on DU are willing to throw President Obama "under the bus"

[maxrandb]

for a 29 year old High School drop-out, reporter with an agenda, albino "mystery man" and low level Army Private currently being prosecuted for disclosing classified documents.

On the one hand, you have a twice lawfully elected President of the United States who has busted his ass to keep this country protected, caught the bastard the "strong on National Security" dumbass Repubs couldn't...Finally demonstrated in word and deed that the Republican "scare" tactics about Democrats being "wimps", is bullshit.

He turned this disastrous economy around, saved millions of jobs in the auto industry, created more jobs in 4.5 years than Bush did in 8, restored our faith in the housing market, and doubled the stock market ALL WHILE BATTLING PISSANT REPUBLICANS AND DUMBASS "PROGRESSIVE" DEMOCRATS doing all they could to fucking block him, or slam him at EVERY TURN

and now, some treasonous 29 year old, and Glenn (the lefts less listened to and less followed Glenn Beck) Greenwald, are suddenly the "cocks of the walk" when it comes to integrity, honor and commitment???

Are you fucking kidding me?

Suddenly, these "heroes" to the "hate Obama crowd" are the ones we should honor, trust and deify, while the guy who worked his ass off, and put up with more shit than you and I ever would, we should vilify???

I'm sorry, but that's just "effing" NUTS.

Back when Newt Gingrich used to lob bombs all over the place, we called it what it was..."Extremist Bullshit".

Snowden and Greenwald are nothing but Gingrich "wannabes" lobbing incendiary bullshit designed to smear a good and decent man, and ensure Tea Party success at the ballot box.

[liberal_at_heart]

1. I don't give a damn about Snowden or Greenwald. I do however care about the 4th Amendment, and

will criticize any President or Congressman who defends spying on American citizens without probable cause.

[treestar]

7. spying doesn't require probable cause

because it's not a criminal investigation.

[liberal_at_heart]

15. so you think the governement can just spy on anyone for any reason without probable cause because

it's not a criminal investigation? Wow. Okay. If you are that willing to just give up your freedom that is your choice. I will fight for my freedom.

[treestar]

17. what freedom has been violated

you can say and do what you want and only be hauled into criminal court when there is probable cause.

Have you read the case law on the Fourth Amendment and FISA?

[liberal_at_heart]

23. give me a break. FISA is weak and will approve almost anything.

I'm not going to get in a back and forth with you. I have better things to do. I am about to eat dinner and watch a movie with my family. We will always disagree on this. You will never convince me this is okay and I'm sure I will never convince you it is not. So let's not waste our time, okay?

[Marr]

123. Oh, I wouldn't say that.

Once we've got another Republican president, I expect it will be easy as pie to convince the current defenders of domestic surveillance that it's not ok.

[Art_from_Ark]

218. Yep

The winds of acceptance will quickly make a 180-degree turnaround once there is a

President Jeb
President Ryan
or
President Cruz

[tblue]

289. What does that say about us as a country?

Oh my gosh we are so up a creek.

[Blue_In_AK]

224. It's a very dangerous precedent to be set

by a Democratic president. I had hoped that a Democratic president would roll back some of the War on Terror excesses instead of expanding or "improving" upon them. Just because President Obama doesn't use this power in a despotic manner doesn't mean some whacko won't in the future. And just because a particular government overreach like this one has somehow been made "legal" through the machinations of the system doesn't mean that it's right.

[Iliyah]

64. No freedumb as been violated

But corporate media and its love for the so called 1st amendment suits them well now.

I've noticed the same talking points in defending Snowden in Hong Kong. Freedom, civil liberties, like China's people have th

Talking points from RW.

[kelliekat44]

78. That's my question too. If there had been no Snowden what would be changed about our lives? nt

[DCBob]

258. I doubt anything is going to change anyway.

There are legitimate reasons for doing what they are doing.

[Vattel]

190. The things people will say on DU without any sense of irony.

Thankfully, the courts have long recognized that the fourth amendment's scope is not limited to searches and seizures that are part of a criminal investigation. With few exceptions, the government needs probable cause to search my house. The mere fact that the search is not a part of a criminal investigation is certainly not one of those exceptions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

229. Then why was it a classified secret that the US government was spying?

If you think spying is an everyday activity, then it should be acknowledged as such - and the documents that say so should not be classified, and it shouldn't be a criminal offence to let US citizens see them.

[roguevalley]

144. I think that the mania to have everyone on the same page is too republican

for me. I don't have to vet my opinions and I read and keep up too. I am so sick of people ranting that everyone isn't walking in the same direction that I don't come here very often. Its just too stupid for me. IMO

[Blue_In_AK]

225. Hey, Rogue, how's it going down there?

You guys been hot? Crazy summer, huh?

[roguevalley]

287. Holy crap. We got 85 down here. It was eerie. I was actually afraid. :D :D :D

Hugs at ya, Blue honey.

[Blue_In_AK]

308. It was 87 here.

I was getting scared, too. Never saw anything like that here, especially over several days.

[Demo_Chris]

316. /thread. nt

[WilliamPitt]

2. Integrity.

[20score]

94. Best answer!

[RVN VET]

162. Maybe

But I'm not convinced Obama ever actually promised he would dismantle projects like Prism. Chained CPI is another issue, however, and I'm very unhappy with it. I think i posted here a long while back that if the Prez ever went that route -- backing chained-cpi -- I'd be done with him and his Party. So I think Obama's integrity would be forever tarnished by chained-cpi.

But I overspoke about abandoning the Party. If he actually allows chained-cpi I will be pissed, of course. But I'm still going to do what I can to fight back against the 'baggers. Even if I end up feeling like I'm at the Alamo and Lt. Travis has left the back door ajar when the final assault begins. I think we all -- everyone at DU and elsewhere in the real world -- owe it to the next generation to fight against the bigger danger of ignorance, racism, and plutocratic power. And we can't do that by giving up on the President now.

MHO

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

3. Help me understand why so many in DC are willing to throw Americans

And a few on DU are quickly to support them just because a dem is prez?

[maxrandb]

12. That's a cop-out

and bogus argument.

I listed just a few of the reasons I am a supporter of President Obama, and not one of them was "simply because he's a Democrat"

If anything, it's the folks who are so quick to latch onto Snowden and Greenwald that are "supporting" someone "just because"

and the sad thing is, we all know what the "because" is...it's that their story supports the narrative they already believe.

I'm sorry, but folks like that are no different than Limbaugh listeners. They "glom" onto anything that validates their beliefs...even if it's BS and treasonous.

Sad.

[cali]

4. this is NOT about Obama or Snowden or Greenwald

what's fucking nuts is that people like you are fucking clueless as to what it's about.

[RKP5637]

36. +++ 1,000,000 +++ n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

44. +1

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. x2

[cstanleytech]

95. Unless someone here has been fully briefed on what exactly the NSA was doing

we are all pretty much (to use your words) "fucking clueless" as far as that issue goes.
Whats annoying me atm though most though is the whole "OMG da sky is fallin" that seems to dominate so much here on the DU over this program, yes its worrisome to think about and yes I can understand being upset over it but until more facts are forthcoming acting like its the end of the world creates more problems than it solves.

[mick063]

96. No shit

If they have to be told, they obviously don't read many posts here.


"Too big to Prosecute"
Chained CPI
Billionaires appointed to top positions
Secret trade deals
Federal war on pot in contrast to state laws.
Right wing pandering
Drone strikes based on profiling
Collection and storage of personal data
Pseudo austerity labeled as sequester
Half assed health care bill
Federal coordinated crackdown on Occupy


Not all of them are entirely the President's fault, most of them are, but he seems to be spending a lot of time sharing private dinners with the wealthy elite lately. Rubbing shoulders with the rich and famous instead of championing the progressive cause he sold us on in 2008.

[summer-hazz]

124. ^^^THIS!!!^^^

[GoneFishin]

127. ^^^^^ THIS !! ^^^^^

+1000

[Enthusiast]

147. Extending the Bush tax cuts

when allowing them to expire would have done the nation a world of good.

If we don't extend the Bush tax cuts we don't even have the government credit controversy. Two unnecessary wars and they don't want to pay any taxes to pay for it. Instead they want to "claim" that social security is the cause of the deficit. AND OBAMA PLAYS ALONG!

[HardTimes99]

114. I agree 100%. - nt

[summer-hazz]

118. ^^^ouch!!!

I agree, its not what we are angry about..

.

[SlimJimmy]

138. Some here will *never* get that this has NOTHING to do with President Obama,

and everything to do with spying on the American public (lawful or not). It is a definite violation of our privacy. I guess, to some, the use of drones in the US is also just fine. For me, not so much.

[RKP5637]

235. Yep, that's what bothers me, presidents/politicians will come and go, but this

machinery remains and will probably grow even more powerful. Some will use it wisely, but the potential will exist for severe misuse. It's getting more and more that politicians do what they damn please and "we the people" have little say. And as we talk and type, every individual can/could be classified/categorized into an in depth profile of each respective individual. Yes, meta data, but that can be cross-linked with considerable relational info., etc, etc. ...

[SlimJimmy]

239. Exactly, that's my fear as well.

[Enthusiast]

143. PLUS A BRAZILLION! nt

[zeemike]

177. The ignorance is willful

And we are expected to be ignorant willfully too...or stand accused of racism or aiding the 'republican bad cop.

The attempt at intimidation is obvious...and a tactic usual to right wingers is now on us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Cause it is not about that drop out

Or the current occupant of the White House. It is about the building of a surveillance state that would give the KGB, the Stasi and George Orwell shivers.

And POTUS should understand this from his classes in Constitutional law.

Suffice to say, empires will do what they will do. They have a logic to them.

I guess you either get it, or not.

[RKP5637]

40. Well said! Once the dam breaks, it will flow more and more freely. Damn, doesn't

anyone study history anymore. The road to hell is paved with supposedly good intentions!

[DontTreadOnMe]

54. KGB, Stasi and Orwellian in the same sentence... you forgot Hitler!

step away from the computer... time for you to take a break, your constant references to Stalin and the KGB are ridiculous.

You have posted 1000 posts (has it been more yet?) in the last weeks comparing the United States to the Evil Empire. Give it a break.

Time for you to step outside and gets some sunshine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Actually I have compared it to a dictablanda

But thanks for trying.

How about you stop attacking the messenger, instead of dealing with history. What, you think we are that exceptional? I don't, and I know the history to back it.

Now since you will make it about me, good bye, enjoy life in the party loyalists list

Though I find your handle dripping in irony

[DontTreadOnMe]

120. Yes my handle IS dripping in irony... especially the date I signed up here on DU with that name

not the first person to attack me because of my screen name... it says a lot about where you are coming from.

I am far from being a party loyalist... and consider myself a progressive leftist.

You have gone so far to the left, you should be running into the Teabaggers coming the other way.

When you start sounding like Frank Luntz... it IS time to attack the messenger!

Boo!

[Enthusiast]

154. It's just that your name and your sentiments

tell us that you are Tea Bagger at heart. Not that there's anything wrong with that. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[muriel_volestrangler]

230. The irony of your screen name is your current position is "Please Tread on Me"

You're supporting government surveillance of its own population.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

256. Your favorite word is I

A classic example of narcissism. Hey is the mean federal gu'bmnt watching you through your TV today?

[RetroLounge]

161. THis is your defense of Obama?

RL

[elleng]

6. Dunno, must be, somehow, 'easier'

than thinking about and recognizing the extremely difficult job he's got, due to repuglican 'illness/intransigence.' AND understanding the way the government WORKS.

[cali]

13. the premise of the op is faulty.

most people here who disagree with the President are in no way throwing him under the bus. yes, he has a difficult job but not all of his policy failures are due to repug intransigence. Institutions- and the executive branch is one- have their own effect on people. Corporate pressures are certainly part of the equation. Look at recent EPA decisions on factory farming and fracking. Republican intransigence had nothing to do with those, but corporate influences almost certainly did.



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

[orpupilofnature57]

46. Truth !!!!

[gtar100]

305. I too often make the mistake of thinking what you're saying is obvious on DU.

The criticism I see of Obama here is mostly about getting him on the right bus, not throw him under one. The original op here seems wildly off base but it's certainly an education on the mindset of some people. What I think should be obvious is that we as democrats put our support behind policies, positions, programs, etc., not individual politicians (as much as many of them would like that). This extends even to Obama who did deliberately ride in on promises of hope and change but has been very lukewarm and even hostile towards many traditional Democratic values. Saying that isn't hatred. It's disappointment. He has done many good things and I see few people on DU denying that fact. But the things you point out are indeed not trivial failings from a Democratic president. We desperately need a strong, progressive president and it's sadly become clear that Obama is not that man.

[quinnox]

8. When you find yourself in vigorous agreement with the likes of Dick Cheney and

other former Bush cronies, perhaps some self-reflection is in order. As to why you obviously hate progressives and liberals, ("dumbass progressives&quot that is also a position of many right wingers you seem to have in common.


Cheney calls Snowden a ‘traitor,’ defends NSA phone call, Internet tracking

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305817-cheney-calls-snowden-a-traitor-defends-nsa-surveillance-programs#ixzz2WzrR10es


Snowden: Being Called ‘Traitor’ By Dick Cheney Is ‘Highest Honor’ You Can Receive

http://www.mediaite.com/online/snowden-being-called-traitor-by-dick-cheney-is-highest-honor-you-can-receive/

[Summer Hathaway]

14. You might not want to play

"the company you keep" game.

Many of the anti-Obama sentiments expressed on DU are espoused not just by the likes of Cheney, but by the entire Republican Party.

[quinnox]

24. Nah, I'm going to keep posting these two links together

I think it gives an interesting illustration and contrast of this "hot" topic. I definitely think Snowden nailed it, for example, in his response to Cheney.

[Summer Hathaway]

42. Whether Snowden 'nailed' anything in his response

to Cheney is beside the point.

I've seen a number of posts over the past few weeks chastising DUers for expressing an opinion that "Cheney agrees with", or "Lindsay Graham agrees with", etc.

Just pointing out the obvious: that there are many DUers who post anti-Obama shit on a regular basis, and a lot of it is "agreed with" by the GOP en masse.

So if you're going to play the if a Republican agrees with you, you are obviously wrong game, you might remember that every time a DUer calls Obama spineless, ineffective, in-over-his-head intellectually, arrogant, self-serving, etc., those statements are identical to those made by Republicans on a daily basis.

Does that make those DUers obviously wrong as well?

[quinnox]

58. there are crucial and profound differences between criticism from the left towards Obama, and

criticism from the right. For example, the left is critical of Obama on the environment for not doing enough to protect it, while the right criticizes Obama for not opening just about everything including sacred national forests and parks to oil drilling. These differences between the two sides are mirrored all the way down the line.

[Summer Hathaway]

80. Again besides the point.

I am speaking to a very narrow issue here, the issue being that if DUers are to be castigated for expressing opinions that Cheney, or any other Republican, "agrees with", then the DUers who post that Obama is self-serving, stupid, arrogant, etc., should be reminded that the entire GOP agrees with their sentiments.

If agreement from Republicans is a sign of being on the wrong side of things (which many here seem to believe), then everyone who expresses an anti-Obama opinion is on the wrong side of things as well, simply because the GOP agrees with them, and have expressed many of the same opinions.

[quinnox]

100. I understand what you are saying, I simply disagree with you

You are making a broader argument which is a bit "meta-ish". What I am saying is I think what Cheney (and other famous politicians who are right wingers) has said is particularly relevant to this debate. If it makes some people uncomfortable when I bring this up, I can't worry about that.

[tblue]

290. Right on, quinnox.

I don't want to live in an authoritarian state.

[grasswire]

9. This isn't about Obama.

It's about The Constitution.

Frankly, I think Obama has no control over the Intelligence Empire, and may even not be fully briefed on its machinations.

When we support those who defend us from tyranny, Obama can either get out of the way or be swept up in it all.

But his actions will tell, as this rolls out, what kind of man he is. For tyranny? Or for liberty?

[Yo_Mama]

18. I have wondered myself what Obama really knows about this

This machinery is powerful, and has probably picked up its own inertia.

[RKP5637]

47. Yep, it takes on a life of its own. Presidents come and go, the

machinery remains, perhaps even growing more and more powerful. Often I think many politicians are clueless as to what goes on behind the scenes.

[Control-Z]

20. BS

I think it's just a tad more complicated.

[maxrandb]

22. Bullshit

It's about folks like you believing that "Big Brother" is "out to get you".

I've got news for you...1984 was a work of "fiction", so was the Matrix, A Clockwork Orange, Soylent Green, Total Recall and Independence Day

If you gave a crap about the Constitution, you'd realize that this program in done within the framework of our Constitution, and has been reviewed and upheld by our courts.

I'm sorry, but your Constitutional argument is no different than the anti-choice folks who argue that Roe v Wade is un-Constitutional, or the Glenn Beck wackos that argue the Income Tax in un-Constitutional.

They can gnash their teeth, stomp their feet and hold their breath until they turn blue, but that doesn't make it un-Constitutional.

Where did you learn civics?

[liberal_at_heart]

26. I suppose you think Citizens United was done within the framework of our Constitution as well.

[maxrandb]

88. See, it doesn't matter what you and I "think" is Constitutional

We have a process in this country, and have had for over 200 years, to vet, challenge, uphold, change, affirm, or strike down laws. If you don't agree with the way the founders set up this Constitutional Republic, I'm not sure how I can help you.

What we can do, is elect Presidents that won't appoint judges to the Supreme Court like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito.

That's how we change the Constitution. You and I don't get to decide what passes Constitutional muster...the courts do.

I guess I just would rather support a President who nominates justices like Kagan and Sotomayor.

You know what won't change the Constitution, or help elect a government that reflects your values and beliefs? Slamming President Obama, or doing the dirty-work for the Koch Brothers and their T-bagging nimrods.

It's not about the "lesser of two evils". President Obama and the Democratic Party just happens to better reflect my values and beliefs, and the current Repuke Party isn't even close.

You seem to think you can just wave your hand and declare something un-Constitutional...that's not how this country works...and thank God for that

[muriel_volestrangler]

232. Actually, it hasn't been decided it's constiutional

Attempts to get a Supreme Court decision on matters like this have previously been turned down on the grounds that plaintiffs couldn't show they were the targets of the surveillance programs - eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union_v._National_Security_Agency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapper_v._Amnesty_International
But now that we know that data is gathered on all Americans, that's no longer the case.

And the ongoing Jewel v. NSA case is being defended by the Obama government not on the grounds that the government actions are constitutional, but that "litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged “state secrets” and that it was immune from suit."

So, you see, this has so far been defended on the grounds (a) that the government lied about not collecting data on everyone and (b) that since the USA is a surveillance state, the government can do what it likes without court interference in matters of surveillance. This has not got as far as a consideration of the constitution. In that sense, your post title is right - it doesn't matter what you and I "think" is Constitutional, because the government claims the right to do it without any reference to the constitution.

[Democracyinkind]

318. Oh my...

You wrote:

"You seem to think you can just wave your hand and declare something un-Constitutional...that's not how this country works...and thank God for that"

Would you find it unfair of me to say this to you?:

"You seem to think you can just wave your hand and declare something Constitutional...that's not how this country works...and thank God for that"

But it doesn't matter, as the whole point about institutional constitutionality is moot anyway. What good does this kind of logic serve when the Supreme court takes an average of 50 years to catch up on technological developments? It's as if someone replaced Schrödinger's cat with the constitution.

[MADem]

92. Glenn Greenwald, Snowden's buddy/reporter, supported that ruling using that very justification.

So....there ya go.

[treestar]

261. Yes it was

We don't get to have it all. Some things we don't like will make it through the courts.

[Vinnie From Indy]

79. "...this program in done within the framework of our Constitution"

So was slavery, Jim Crow and denying women the vote.

Cheers!

[maxrandb]

107. What a bullshit post

As far as I can tell, those were all reversed through the Constitutional process, and one, we fought a great Civil War to eradicate, but even Lincoln worked through the normal Constitutional process to pass the 13TH Amendment.

You simply cannot be comparing this rather mundane National Security program with slavery, Jim Crow or Woman's Suffrage? Please tell me you're not serious?

And speaking of Jim Crow, we allowed a Repuke T-bagging takeover in 2010 because people didn't get a pony from this President, and because of that, IT APPEARS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGHT THE JIM CROW LAWS AGAIN in state after state after state!

Fuck around with your ridiculous hyperbole too much, and we'll be fighting the other two battle as well. All because some Glenn Beck wannabe tells you that "1984 is HERE!!!!!! and you're delusional, or self-absorbed enough to buy it.

I'm sorry, but anyone who would compare the properly adjudicated, judicially validated and Congressionally reviewed NSA program with Slavery, Jim Crow and Suffrage, can't be playing with a full deck.

[Vinnie From Indy]

119. Nobody "sold" me shit!

You must not be a student of history if you think these powers will not someday be used to advance the personal and political goals of those that wield them. In addition, throughout our history, courts have routinely blessed crimes of the establishment.

If you have followed this issue you might know that the FISA court and the Congressional review are both being called into question by people with the bona fides to make credible criticisms. Many members of Congress have also remarked that they were stunned to learn of some aspects of these programs in the most recent briefings.

Lastly, your basic point was that these programs are Constitutional and I merely pointed out that throughout our history there have been many despicable activities that were given judicial blessings. In short, simply calling something Constitutional does not make that thing now and forever Constitutional.

Cheers!

[gleannfia]

125. Thank you

For being the minority voice of reason in this forum. I'd say more, but the few times I've posted here I have been summarily dismissed by the "committee", because, among other sins, I apparently don't post enough. Meaning, I have a life off the computer.

Carry on!

[Vinnie From Indy]

128. You seem awful chatty now!

I promise not dismiss you. What about my post do you find objectionable? Let's discuss!

Cheers!

[HangOnKids]

217. We have a "committee?" Holy Shit I Did Not Know

Lots of low post DUers are warmly embraced, maybe the dismissal you feel is because of other factors? So happy you have a life off the computer, please keep on living it! Carry on!

[lumpy]

126. Thank you

Seems like some people don't really have that much faith in the Constitution as well as our system of government.

[blackspade]

192. Not so fast....

If you gave a crap about the Constitution, you'd realize that this program in done within the framework of our Constitution, and has been reviewed and upheld by our courts.

I'm sorry, but your Constitutional argument is no different than the anti-choice folks who argue that Roe v Wade is un-Constitutional, or the Glenn Beck wackos that argue the Income Tax in un-Constitutional.

Please cite the specific Supreme Court cases that have upheld the recently disclosed surveillance programs. You can't because most of the challenges to the constitutionality of these programs has been stalled by spurious claims of 'state secrets' and other such nonsense. The American people have not had their day in court and won't until we as a nation have a legitimate discussion of the merits of these programs.

Your second point is...well to be kind, not well thought out. There is no comparison between Roe V Wade, income tax, and the current spying disclosures. The constitutionality of these programs has not been determined.

[nebenaube]

303. In a place

that considers your opinion to be crap!

[busterbrown]

110. Finally....

Last edited Sat Jun 22, 2013, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)

I have felt all along that Obama has walked into this growing military and Intelligence Empire..... and if in any way he tried to push back on this world and there was a terrorist attack on U.S soil,. You could rest assure that you wouldn’t see another Dem. Pres for at least a decade.. The Congress would also be run by a teabagger/Libertarian majority during this period..

Finally, I doubt Obama is fully and honestly briefed on these matters..I mean if you are apart of this
environment don’t you always feel civilian control over the military is just a long leash and a deterrent to security?

[summer-hazz]

139. Its just that

simple....If PO takes thee security away,
and we get attacked, never again will we see America as we know it.
It can still happen, no doubt. I just rather be safe than sorry on this argument.

I may live to regret this post... I hope not though!

[loyalsister]

231. How long did the weak on National Security stereotype keep Democrats out of the presidency?

Obama managed to capture and maintain it as a strength. I'm sure he takes his responsibility to help be sure we can adopt it as a brand. It will only work if there aren't attacks.

[HardTimes99]

121. You have nailed it and I salute you! - nt

[Enthusiast]

156. Your's is a best case scenario.

At this point that's just the way I feel about it.

[Summer Hathaway]

10. Probably because "so many on DU"

are not Democrats, nor liberals, nor progressives.

By now, it is well known to RWers that all one has to do to be accepted as any of the above on DU is to start posting about how Obama is ruining the party, and the country - whereupon one is immediately embraced by the True Progressives TM as one of their own.

Pretty simple when you think about it.

[SidDithers]

19. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[BumRushDaShow]

32. +infinity

[Whisp]

34. +++

[liberal_at_heart]

43. oh, yes I've been a secret operative for the past 12 years and so have many others that have been on

here for longer than that. There are no true critics because as we all know everybody loves Obama. Obama is perfect and never makes any mistakes.


I am liberal. In fact I'd almost go as far as to say I'm a sociaist. I want liberal politicians who will represent the people, not the corporations. Blue dog dems can call me any name they want. The latest meme seems to be that if you criticize Obama you are a racist. Like I said blue dog dems can call me anything they want. It will not stop me from criticizing a centrist, corporatist President or any other centrist, corportist democrat.

[flamingdem]

49. sure, but on Du those who dish it out can't take it, take my ignore list

from 3 to 28 over the Snowden Greenwald kerfuffle.

How lame is that.

[liberal_at_heart]

51. and I'm sure there are plenty that would agree with you on this issue that have some of us who

disagree with you on this issue on ignore too. Goes both ways.

[flamingdem]

57. 25 new people ignored me in one week because I questioned

the material about Snowden as I did.

That's pathetic.

They can't even stand to listen to a liberal democrat who differs slightly from their views.

Plus, the vitriolic replies and outright paranoia.

I've put none of them on ignore.

[blackspade]

199. I refuse to put people on ignore.

No matter how much I disagree, I'm at least willing to read what folks have to say.

[Summer Hathaway]

63. I can see why you're upset

because, of course, my post was all about YOU.

Better Believe It was only outed as a RW troll after three years here, and over 16,000 posts. Do you honestly think he was the only RWer who was accepted by the True Progressives TM as one of their own?

The RW trolls are here, and here to stay. They build up their post counts in record time, they sit on juries, they post shit-stirring OPs, and they high-five every anti-Obama post they happen upon - whereupon they are embraced by the very people they despise, but delight in screwing with.

[uponit7771]

70. +1

[jaysunb]

141. +1 n/t

[blue neen]

148. Yes, they are here to stay...

Think of this, though...When the rest of DU continues tuning out (like many are already doing), the "Divide and Conquer" crew will just be preaching to the choir.

It will be one big echo chamber of Obama sucks posts, Hillary is the anti-Christ posts, Democrats are spineless rat finks posts, and Ron Paul wants to smoke a joint with you posts.

...and there won't be anyone left to hear them.

[Summer Hathaway]

212. If an OP is posted in an echo chamber

does it actually make a sound?

[Puzzledtraveller]

66. right on liberal_at_heart!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

76. me too.

[Pathwalker]

93. Yet your profile says you've been here FOUR years.

n/t

[flamingdem]

48. + to that

[uponit7771]

71. +1

[Number23]

90. Summer - For The Win

I saw a post from a newbie who was still in college who said that he was going to make it his mission to drive the libertarians out of the Dem party. After the way they've treated this president, I have a feeling that he is going to have aloooooot of people doing everything they can to help him out.

By the way, have you seen this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014514984 there was a meeting of liberal activists lately and every single one of them interviewed were as disgusted and angered by the "purists" as we are here. It's kind of funny that in trying so hard to demonize moderates, the fringe have done nothing but put the bulls eye on their own backs.

[Summer Hathaway]

105. I posted a reply on a thread

on the same topic. I said it was refreshing to see someone attempt to report what is going on in the real world to the DU shut-ins, who (incredibly enough) think that the opinions posted on DU are somehow reflective of reality.

Ever notice how many everyone has had it with Obama OPs get posted when his numbers go UP in national surveys amongst Dems?

[Number23]

115. LOL!! Yep!

Ever notice how many everyone has had it with Obama OPs get posted when his numbers go UP in national surveys amongst Dems?

You mean, that's not been just a stunning coincidence??!

It doesn't matter what I read or where I read it, this place is the ONLY place where the "liberals" howl at the moon and this president. Even in articles CRITICIZING the president in mainstream circles, they talk about his staunch, unwavering, ROCK SOLID support among liberals. Which makes the crying and braying on DU that much more truly hilarious in a "damn, we need a reality check" kind of way. Why do you think some people hated Lozocollo so much? He provided that reality check that they do everything in that power to NOT see every single chance that he got.

The best part of that article was the end:

On balance, many here said they will continue to support Obama. That’s because, in large measure, they mostly agree with the president on the issues, said Rodell Mollineau, a former aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and current president of the Super PAC American Bridge, which supports Democrats.

“When the book is written on Obama,” he said, “I don’t see how liberals aren’t happy.”

To use a really horrible rap from the 90s to make my point -- WHOOP!! THERE IT IS!

How much do you want to bet that 30 years from now, the ones screaming and frothing at this man will be the MAIN ONES trying to pretend how much they loved and supported him when he was president? Can you imagine these people sitting in their nursing homes trying to tell their great-grandkids how they hated this man because he was a "conservative?" I can see the grandkids going "uh huh. Okay, GrandPop." and then asking the orderlies to up their meds on the way out.

[freshwest]

226. Exactly! When the mood gets good here, they must stifle it! No fun allowed, no open discussion!

Anything that seeks solution, must be shit upon to make sure it's discredited. Battering for Bucks, or whatever it is, this technique has been obvious for over a year now.

It's open season at DU. They are hunting the Democrats, just as surely as Rush and the RWNJs. Their language is emotional abuse and they've run off many good folks. I get mails regularly from new and old posters who say they can't stand it here.

They have taken over a site dedicated to getting more Democrats elected, and done all they can to turn it into a toxic waste dump of the mind and heart. Everyone I know who does real action offline thinks this place is sick.

I feel like coming here is some kind of vice, not something about getting good things done or connecting with like minded people. just as intended. It is an attempt to drive Democrats out of the public sphere.

The baggers threaten us at meetings in public venues, and they are here to harrass us and make us give up. It's so relentless and irrational, it's worse than FR, whatever.

The excuse of the Beckers and Dittoheads is mental derangement of the first and a profound spiritual sickness with the second. This is not the behavior of Democrats or liberals or progressives or like minded people.

If you say one thing against the gods of the cult worshippers, who are not Democrats, you will get a whopping serving of personal attacks. Things that would never have been allowed to stand at DU. Why should we come here to be called names and abused?

Yup something rotten in Denmark. Rather DU. Hopefully we will be allowed our freedom of speech without having to fight off the mob throwing feces at us whenever we try to discuss anything. If we don't follow the libertarian, CT, whatever line to the letter we are attacked. I'm not going to stoop to that level, but I'm not going to ignore what's happening.

Meh .

[Summer Hathaway]

284. ...

[zappaman]

98. +100! n/t

[Summer Hathaway]

112. Who told you

you're not a "real Democrat" because you disagree with Obama's policies?

I merely pointed out, in response to the OP, that the reason "so many DUers" are anti-Obama is because a LOT of "DUers" are RW trolls.

I said NOTHING about disagreeing with Obama equating to not being a Democrat.

"It would also seem by your response that you are part of the fascist, apologist, authoritarian, anti-Constitutional wing."

Really? I am all of those things because I pointed out that there are RW trolls on DU?

Is that fact really news to you?

[Vinnie From Indy]

122. I must have been mistaken!

I apologize if I got it wrong!


Cheers!

[FSogol]

152. Exactly correct. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

178. Amen, sister.

[blackspade]

196. Giant fail.

I could say the exact same thing about you and your ilk, but that would not be true any more than your statement is.

So, no, it is not

Pretty simple when you think about it.

[Summer Hathaway]

211. Me and my ilk?

Would that be those of us who have the brass to support a Democratic president on what purports to be a Democratic-supporting website?

Whatever were we thinking?

[JW2020]

244. Underground suggests that it is separate from the party

fail again

[Bobbie Jo]

248. ??

You're new, perhaps you didn't bother to read admin's objectives for this site:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!
After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.

We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!

Fail, yourself.

....and welcome to DU.

[JW2020]

249. Show me

where it states you have to agree with all Democratic party policies. Or that you must march lockstep with Democratic politicians. Show me where it states that this site is an arm of the Democratic Party.

[Bobbie Jo]

255. Reread your post

then reread my response and try again.

If you have an issue with the objectives, take it up with admin.

Again, you're "new," so you may want to consider doing a little more reading before you start telling admin how to define their site:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. 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.

Looks pretty clear to me.

[treestar]

262. Er, no

Democrats are welcome here also.

[Summer Hathaway]

283. According to the TOS ...

"Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office."

If you think Democrats who support the Democratic president shouldn't be posting here, you can take that up with the Admins.

[BlueCaliDem]

207. Spot effing on! This needs to be reiterated again and again.

I've never read so much visceral hatred of this Democratic president as I've been reading here on a Democratic Party supporting site! Not even on that Libertarian/Republican supporting HuffPo.

I know that it's just a tiny but ear drum-shattering Leftist minority and some closeted Libertarians acting like Democrats wailing the loudest around here, which tells me one thing and one thing only: they want a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Congress. Because that will be the end-result.

[JustAnotherGen]

215. +1

[Democracyinkind]

319. As if this wasn't equally true for the other side of the argument.

As someone who takes pride in navigating the middle ground on this issue, I am a bit embarrassed at how many posts I see acting as if only one side of the argument behaves in this way.

Has it ever occurred to you that what you perceive is not some teabagger conspiracy (or on the reverse: some paid Obama shills) but rather just how debating on an internet forum works?

The Snowden affair has me thinking that some people on DU only engage in political discussion on the internet. If not, I would presume that they would have learned that this "them" vs. "us" is a hallmark of almost all political debate and as such has been part of the political experience ever since man became a zoon politikon.

There's a point about ascribing malice instead of stupidity (or differing viewpoints) being made here.

[Summer Hathaway]

324. My post was about RW trolls,

and the ease with which they have gained acceptance on DU, simply by virtue of the fact that they express the same anti-Obama sentiments as the self-proclaimed True Progressives on this site.

I don't know what you mean by this being "equally true for the other side of the argument". Posters who actually ARE Dems, liberals, progressives have always been welcome here. There would be no need for them to represent themselves as something they're not.

I said nothing about the influx of RW trolls as being a "teabagger conspiracy", or a conspiracy of any kind.

It's very simple: Imagine if a RW discussion board announced during the Bush years that any and all criticism of Bush & Co. was acceptable. How many Democrats do you think would have immediately signed-up at that site, posing as Republicans/conservatives who were unhappy with the direction the prez and the party were heading in, in order to stir the shit among the Repubs - or just for the sheer amusement of posting their vitriol about Bush & Co. on a board that allegedly existed as a Republican-supporting site?

The fact that there are RW trolls on DU has nothing to do with Snowden, or any other specific issue. It has to do with DU's "any and all criticism of Obama/Dems" policy, which opened the door to RW trolls. I certainly don't think this was the Admins' intent; but it is a natural consequence of that door being opened.

The fact that there are DUers who are legitimate Dems/liberals/progressives, and who post anti-Obama rhetoric constantly, makes it that much easier for the trolls to "fit in" and be accepted as what they are not.

I have been posting on political discussion boards for well over a decade now - but thanks anyway for the lecture on how they work. My post wasn't about "differing opinions" among Democrats; it's about people posing as Democrats on DU, and their intent in doing so.

[Tx4obama]

11. I don't understand it. I believe that we should be supporting Obama in good times and bad...

... and not desert him when things get a little bit rough. That is not the definition of having someone's back.

We don't know everything that Obama knows, so in my opinion folks shouldn't be so quick to judge him.

I do know that there are some here on DU that don't know much about current 'laws' and have been rattling on about the U.S. Constitution that at times it reminds me of the folks on right-wing TV that are always bring up this and that regarding the constitution. Seems pretty strange to me.

As far as I'm concerned - Snowden committed federal crimes and ran away to Hong Kong/China so he is NOT a hero in my book.

I still support President Obama and I think he is the greatest president of my lifetime.

[truebluegreen]

163. How old did you say you were?

Snark aside, there have been so many middlin' to horrible Presidents in the last 60 years that the bar is very low.

And low expectations aside, President Obama didn't meet them with this program.

Imho.

[Auntie Bush]

166. +100

[Lady Freedom Returns]

187. +1!

I agree!

[freshwest]

227. +1

[Yo_Mama]

16. Criticizing policies that one believes to be unconstitutional

is not throwing ANYONE under the bus. Period.

It's only the Constitution which prevents the powerful in this society from having it ALL their own way. When someone stands up for the rights embodied in the Constitution, that person is DEFENDING all the people in this society, and that includes the president.

[maxrandb]

31. Really, you think that's how this works?

do an experiment for me.

Suppose you think that the 2nd Amendment is un-Constitutional, or is being interpreted incorrectly. Now, go and break the law, oh I don't know, break into your local police office and steal all the weapons, then pile them up in the street, call a foreign news organization to tell them you have a scoop.

See, people have these weapons, but you believe that's un-Constitutional. Now, there may be "dozens" of people across the country that agree with your actions, but I'd be willing to bet you'd end up in jail.

[Yo_Mama]

37. Criticism isn't a crime - yet

I am too tired to find a tactful way of saying that I find your post completely muddled. A better analogy would be someone disagreeing with some local gun law and having meetings about it and talking to the papers. Which the OP apparently would equate with a personal attack on the county executive???

Right now, one is still free to say what you want about the government's doings without fear of being prosecuted - although this administration has tried to suppress freedom of the press.

Now Snowden actually committed a crime (disclosing classified info), but we'll see how that works out over time. The OP was complaining about criticism of Obama, not what Snowden did. Two separate issues.

[Tx4obama]

140. Fegarding Snowden, he actually stole over 1,000 classified government documents...

So, to use and build on the other DUers example...

... break into your local police office (NSA) and steal all the weapons (CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS), then pile them up in the street (GIVE THEM TO A REPORTER/Greenwald), call a foreign news organization (THE GUARDIAN) to tell them you have a scoop.



Btw, complaint filed in Court was also regarding his THEFT.

18 USC 641 Theft of property and records

18 USC 793 Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 USC 798 Disclosure of classified information

[truebluegreen]

169. Who gives a hoot about Snowden?

Or Greenwald? Or Booosh? Or Cheney? Or Obama?

It isn't about them. It's about us! It's about what this program has the (secret!) potential to do and whether we as citizens will demand the truth, and accountability, and effectiveness from our government.

Snowden will be tried and punished for what he did, or he won't. It is immaterial at this point and I for one don't give a damn.

[RobinA]

206. Uhhhh?

What ARE you talking about?

[HangOnKids]

219. He must still be pissed about failing that creative writing class

Shit, I give him props for trying.

[jsr]

21. How did they get up from under the bus

where he threw them?

[BlueStreak]

25. Do ad hominem attacks much?

"a 29 year old High School drop-out, reporter with an agenda, albino "mystery man" and low level Army Private currently being prosecuted for disclosing classified documents."

"some treasonous 29 year old"

You point out that Obama was elected twice. Snowden didn't make any campaign promises. He didn't owe us anything. Some of us think he did America a service. If you don't share that view, that's your own business. But I'll tell you this. Obama ran twice on a certain bill of goods, and now he couldn't be farther from those promises. The NSA is just the thing that reaches the tipping point. It comes at the end of a disastrous implosion of faith, which includes selling out on trade agreements, selling out on Social Security cuts to the most vulnerable, crapping on the IRS rather than taking on the issue of abuse of 501(c)(4) (something that he could fix by Executive Order, by the way), refusal to use any executive authority to reduce the scope of Gitmo, and many other things.

We aren't throwing Obama under the bus. It is just that a number of people have finally awoken to find it is we who are under said bus, at the hand of this President.

He isn't under the bus. He's got his.

[lumpy]

155. Speaking of throwing Obama under the bus ! You have done a great job.

nn

[warrant46]

280. throwing Obama under the bus ----Don't think so

I lurked here for years as an elected official-- I am now retired. There used to be a lot more respect shown in the old days with angels like Kephra and others. We could disagree with out the personal attacks.

It seems to me that once the president was elected everyone had to follow the party line or be attacked. Sad---

That being said I believe that we are really in trouble locally as Democrats. The corporations are really feeding at the trough these days and are not about to back fill in any way.

[99Forever]

27. Threw Obama under the bus?

Cool story, bro.

There's room for him down here anyway, even with all of us he has tossed under the bus, with nary a second thought in the last 5 years.

[Major Nikon]

28. Apparently this is where it all started

[Th1onein]

29. Please don't try to make this about personalities

I am so sick of that. This is NOT Obama VS Snowden, and who do you like best.

Has it occurred to you that WE DON'T LIKE BEING SPIED ON? Has it occurred to you that WE LIKE OUR PRIVACY?

We don't "hate" Obama. We are angry at what he is allowing to be done to us and to our rights. What about that don't you GET?

[BumRushDaShow]

39. So why does Congress get a pass?

They are the ones who wrote the draconian laws.

[riqster]

75. Thank you for posting this

Too many people here act like the Prexy is all-powerful.

[Art_from_Ark]

223. Well bush certainly got nearly everything he wanted

even when there was a nominally Democratic House and/or Senate.

[Th1onein]

91. NONE OF THEM GET A PASS.

NONE OF THEM. But that's NOT the question that was asked, was it?

[truebluegreen]

174. +1000 n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. In a democracy it is the reponsiibility of the people to hold its public servants accountable.

[maxrandb]

111. And in a Democracy

we do that at the ballot box, not through lies and distortions about a national security program.

You actually have people in this thread comparing this NSA program to slavery, Jim Crow and woman's suffrage???

think that may be a little over the top?

[BlueStreak]

129. When politicians lie, we have to use other measures

It is obvious to most people now that Obama is nothing like the person he represented himself to be during the campaigns. He hid it pretty well during the first 4 years, but now he has no reason to be coy about it.

Elections are not the ONLY means of speaking in a democracy, particularly considering how completely corporatized our elections have become.

So we have to apply pressure in other ways.

[Vinnie From Indy]

136. Who is being dishonest and not playing with a full deck now?

You wrote,
" "...this program is done within the framework of our Constitution"

I replied that so was slavery, Jim Crow and denying women the vote. Simply because something is "Constitutional" now does not mean it will be forever and I pointed to examples in our history. I am quite sure that there were people just like you back in the mid-1800's. You would denigrate and attack abolitionists for daring to object to the constitutionally protected practice of slavery.

Get a grip!
Cheers!

[truebluegreen]

181. Yeah, the PTB would just love to only have to answer once

every 2 or 4 years (in bought elections, no less) for all the crap they get up to.

And are you claiming that you know enough about a secret program to know what the lies and distortions are?

What's your security clearance?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

193. Not at all. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, and laws against womens rights were "legal".

And, enforced ruthlessly. As is now the case with whistle blowers who are accused of breaking the "law".

BTW. Obama invited the public to "hold his feet to the fire". He didn't invite them to kiss his feet and remain silent while he enforced laws obviously intended to spy upon them.

[certainot]

188. first you have to "get their backs" - vote, wait, and whine doesn't do it. the fact is the left has

no response to the right's best weapon- RW radio. it kicks their ass an they don't have a clue cause it gives them a headache to listen to it. see post below.

the RW think tanks put carnival barkers on every corner and stump in the country for the last 25 years and they've been screaming liberals are thieves and liars and traitors all day long to 50 mil a week. the fact is, the left has no clue, and just walks on by with their ipods in their ears and then whine they can't get what they want. those carnival barkers dominate politics and the left gives them a free speech free ride.

considering the time lost on global warming ignoring talk radio is the biggest political mistake in history.

[The Link]

33. I've never seen so many so-called progressives use the term "high school dropout"..

to insult someone. "Albino" and "low level Army Private" either.

[HangOnKids]

220. Their Bag Of Derision Is Growing Slim

Where the fuck is bed wetter?

[warrant46]

281. At least they didn't call him a Chimpanzee

[OffWithTheirHeads]

35. O.K. From what I can see so far. Survelliance of EVERY citizen is not to keep us safe.

First, we need to agree on some facts. 1. Our country is owned lock, stock and barrel by the plutocrats. They are the ones who hire all the lobbyists to bribe our reresentatives to arrainge the laws to benifit them. 2. Most of the people who actually run this country belong to the 1%. I have been to Zoe Lofgrens house and I have seen DiFi's palace. Trust me, they do not live in the same reality you and I do.

Several years ago, the powers that be, changed the bankruptcy rules. They knew what was coming, austerity for we the people. It came and "We the people" got fucked! Now, they monitor us. They know that at some point, we the people will have had enough. They strip our food stamps, they strip our healthcare, they strip or privatize EVERYTHING including education so their "friends" can profit from the taxpayer.

Now, If you object to the Keystone Pipline, You are a terroist. If you object to the water quality in Tennesee, You are a terrorist. If you have participated in "Occupy" you are a terroist.

In fact, if you object to ANYTHING that corporate America finds profitable, YOU ARE A TERROIST.
Feel better now?

[snappyturtle]

142. +1 gazillion! nt

[rwsanders]

160. Just wanted to chime in with my agreement with you...

Mostly because it will drive the author of the OP nuts.

[truebluegreen]

183. Ditto on the +a gazillion! nt

[wickerwoman]

38. Because we care about issues and ethics more than personality

Who Snowden is is irrelevant. Who Obama is is irrelevant. It's all just distractions from the actual discussion we need to be having which is: "Do we want the US government to have this level of power? Where are we going to draw the line on personal privacy vs national security?"

Wanting to actually have that discussion, regardless of the fact that there is a Democrat in the Oval Office does not equate to "throwing Obama under the bus" or to "racism" or to any of the other extremely unhelpful accusations being thrown around at anyone who tries to have a rational discussion of the actual issues.

This is an excellent example of why nothing has gotten done in American politics in the last 15 years. A lot of sound and fury about your guy vs my guy and your guy said this dumb thing and my guy didn't really mean to say that dumb thing and who's this guy and is he one of my guys or one of your guys and meanwhile the actual critical decisions of our time: what are we going to do about climate change, peak oil, pollution, overpopulation, privacy, inequality, nationless corporate power, religious extremism, etc. never actually get addressed.

[FredStembottom]

61. Thank you, wickerwoman!

Who cares who these people are!
What are we left with when they are inevitably swept away by time?
What type of regime will my children and grandchildren have to live under? That regime is being set up NOW.
We are required by our American Constitution to have one Hell of a big Say on these decisions that will outlast all of us.

[summer-hazz]

164. Thank you

I worry everyday what will my child be exposed too when I'm
long gone and not here to keep her safe..

[blackspade]

205. Hammer, meet nail.

[Harmony Blue]

259. Perfectly articulated post

this is what us liberals and progressive care about.

[NoOneMan]

41. I don't think this issue is about Obama

No matter what shit sandwich salesman was polishing the spying turd for mass consumption, I'd pretty much be against it. If anyone is sitting around with their feelings hurt over how it reflects on their pretend best-friend, they have more serious issues.

[progressoid]

45. "DUMBASS "PROGRESSIVE" DEMOCRATS"?

Ooookay.

[truebluegreen]

186. Yeah, that was totally not tipping his hand... nt

[maxrandb]

292. It's quite possible for one to be

a "Democrat", a "Progressive" and still be a DUMBASS.

All you need to do is read some of these Snowden threads on DU to see that.

[progressoid]

311. It's quite possible for one to be

a "Democrat", a "Progressive" and still be INTELLIGENT too.

When you put DUMBASS in front of PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS, "DUMBASS" becomes a descriptor of all progressive Democrats.

[sigmasix]

50. thank you for this OP- it was needed

But wait- some DU posters insist that we're all tools of nefarious evil doers that are agents of the NSA and Obama's army of evil. One of these Democratic Underground Obama Derangement Syndrome operatives claims that the POTUS has a secret kill list. All this character assasination of the president by DU "members" is neccessary to maintain freedumb and other right wing distortions of American principles. And we all know who the disguised teabaggers of DU are; ruined fruit from rotten trees.

[Zoeisright]

167. Yep. And plenty of idiots are falling for it.

And it's sickening.

[FredStembottom]

53. Let's set aside that it is every American's solemn duty.....

....to review and criticize the policies enacted in our names by our elected officials.

Instead, let's assume we all abrogate that duty and shut up.
Describe the wonderful benefits that you see occurring the morning after the Great Silencing:

What happens?

What gets better?

Also, is there anything in our constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers about change happening as a result silence and acquiesence?

[MrScorpio]

55. Some people will never be happy...

As if it's supposed to be some kinda virtue or something.

[relayerbob]

56. Democrats have a long history ...

back to Humphrey/Johnson; Kennedy/Carter and so on of eating their own snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Very sad, really. If we had half the discipline of the nut cases on the other side ... well, the other side would have disappeared long ago.

[truebluegreen]

185. We don't have the lock-step discipline of the other side.

That's why we are Democrats. We are not obedient, we are not so easily led and we don't suck up to the leaders of our party.

It is a two-edged sword, but it is ours.

[Autumn]

59. This DUMBASS "PROGRESSIVE" DEMOCRAT didn't like the policy Bush

put in place and I'm disgusted that Obama is continuing it.

[TDale313]

133. + 1

Although personally I prefer Dumbass Liberal Democrat.

[avaistheone1]

216. +100

How much more time before the original OP to start making racist allegations if you don't agree or support Obama on everything?

[Autumn]

285. It's an easy answer to the question.

Obama has thrown many of us who voted for him under the bus.

[treestar]

263. Obama is not continuing it

You do not even have the facts right.

[Autumn]

265. You would be wrong.

NSA spying is continuing under Obamas administration.

[treestar]

275. Obama put it back so it requires warrants

Which Bush ignored.

Do you really think there is any President that will completely halt "NSA spying?" And what would happen if we had no national security apparatus?

[Autumn]

276. So Obama improved it. He is still continuing the policy. n/t

[treestar]

277. What policy would you allow for?

As far as spying and intelligence and national security go?

How much is OK if any?

[Autumn]

279. It doesn't really matter what I would allow.

You are comfortable with it and I'm not. And that's it.

[Skidmore]

320. Talk about sidestepping and doing a soft shoe at the same time.

That was an amazing nonanswer.

[Autumn]

321. I chose not to engage. I'm not changing his mind and he's not changing mine

to continue the conversation is a waste of time.

[SammyWinstonJack]

158. Really? You really went there?

[truebluegreen]

194. He's been going there all week...

and getting pummeled for it.

I hope he enjoys his stay.

[Life Long Dem]

62. Poll

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/19/poll-public-wants-congressional-hearings-on-nsa-surveillance/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/most-back-nsa-surveillance-efforts-but-also-seek-congressional-hearings/

[Puzzledtraveller]

65. albino mystery-man?

that's nice. Not.

[RainDog]

87. racist, I'd say

[DonCoquixote]

68. The problem is

This is something he could have,and should have stopped.

This is not a case of gitmo where a bunch of Blue Dog Bastards did everything they could to kneecap Obama

Nor is it healthcare when Max Baucus did the same as above,

Nor is it foreign policy where Hillary continued to ensure Uncle SAM would be the water-boy for Zionists, with many so called "Liberals" ready to shriek "I knew he was a Muslim" at the top of their lungs the minute Bibi Netanyahu did not get whatever he wanted, however he wanted it, paid for with the blood of American soldiers and Taxpayer dollars.

This was domestic,something he could have shown control over, something that could have made him look good if he refused it.

Now, do I trust Glenn Greenwald any farther than I could shoot him, hell no. He would be happy in a Libertarian world where corporations did all this and worse without any government oversight,or for that matter,any government. Most libertarians would gladly boil babies into soap if it meant they would get rich and get to smoke all the dope they want. That does nto eman 2=2=5 when GG points out a wrong.

Now, do I wish people would remember that Rand Paul is the guy that would let corporations oppress people, fo course, but this was Obama's screw up, and like many screw ups, it comes from the fact that instead of ditching the Clinton playbook, be kept it.

Oh yeah, this is where the Clinton is queen 2016 folks say Hillary would have never done this.

[TransitJohn]

69. He's thrown us under the bus how many times now? What is so hard to figure out?

President Obama isn't a liberal or progressive, and until his election, this place (DU) was.

[dawg]

72. Obama isn't under any bus.

He's still the President. He isn't running again. No one is impeaching him.

But maybe *I* can't ever be President, though. If I ever got close, I might get a phone call. Things that would be embarrassing to my campaign might come to light. Things that could be gleaned from my emails, or from who I called on the phone and how many times I called them. Personal things, but things that could be used against me nonetheless.

Would Obama misuse information like that? Probably not.

Would the next President? Or the next?

Would it never happen? Are all men and women too good to abuse that sort of power to just keep their party in the White House or to keep down those they find too "controversial"? Would no one ever use it to twist an arm in the Senate or House?

You are a child if you believe that will never happen.

So it isn't about Obama at all.

It's about Democracy.

[truebluegreen]

195. Bingo. nt

[20score]

73. Go back and read the arguments we made against Bush when he spied on us. Why should we have to

repeat ourselves?


(They're the same arguments. We haven't changed our moral compass, people like you have.)

[maxrandb]

295. Bullshit

Bush and Cheney were attempting to completely skip the Constitution, or the requirement for a warrant.

President Obama promised that he would take the fight to the terrorist in a smarter way, and ensure that programs like this were within the limits of the law and subject to oversight. He did that.

There is a huge difference between what President Obama's National Security team is doing, and what Bush/Cheney's team was "trying" to do.

That's kind of why we voted for President Obama. Yours, or anyone's attempt to conflate President Obama with Bush/Cheney is only a thinly veiled attempt to ensure Democrats stay home in 2014.

If you honestly think there is "no difference" between Democrats and Republicans, then enjoy the fucking Supreme Court Justices nominated by Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.

[20score]

299. No it's not, but your characterization is.

I'm addressing one aspect of the administrations, not an across the board comparison. What Obama is doing is most definitely against the 4th Amendment.

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

These programs are not what 'we' voted for. When some value a person over ideals, then we all suffer in the long term.

Go ahead and defend authoritarianism until Obama leaves office. (Then you can change sides again.) But I'll continue to fight for what's right, regardless of who is in power temporarily.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

74. to me my right to privacy overrides my loyalty to a politician

any politician

[DirkGently]

77. Criticism of the government isn't "throwing Obama" anywhere.

Who are YOU effing kidding?

That's the big stupid here. We're not on an eight-year hiatus where we all have to pretend nothing could be possibly be wrong because of who's in the White House.

No one thinks that. No one will ever think that. So what's the point of trying to argue such a ridiculous premise?

[Iliyah]

81. Tell me your right to privacy may

cause the death of my child.

As noted here as long as YOU have your right, fuck whomever. Sounds like total Rand.

[dawg]

116. When governments overstep their bounds, it leads to the deaths of thousands of peoples children.

No one is arguing against surveillance against known terror suspects. Maintaining meta data on all Americans goes far beyond that. It is a powerful tool that can potentially be used to devastating political effect.

Already, reporters are having a hard time getting sources to talk to them.

Democracy dies without light and fresh air. And what happens then kills far more children than the terrorists ever could.

[Egalitarian Thug]

82. Your post makes perfectly clear that you do not wish to understand anything.

Please feel free to go on failing to understand.

[JEB]

179. Exactly. I always had thought that wilful ignorance was a GOP trait.

And yet a few even here at DU would sacrifice principle and blindly support bad policy just because a Democrat is president.I prefer to base my politics on policy rather than personality. I believe I have a right to privacy no matter who is president.

[Uncle Joe]

83. Perhaps he's not being thrown under the bus so much as pulled because misery likes company.

Thanks for the thread, maxranb.

[jtuck004]

101. +1 n/t

[graham4anything]

84. actually, it is a very small minority of people(perhaps 17)and a very loud # of different posts

The vast majority of Americans know this is a smear, and know the soundbyte words thrown are not reality
as there is NO right this President is taking away nor will there be

and there is NO spying

the whole thing is a major strawman

And there is a Jeb Bush Rand Paul connection to all of this, and the old same code words used to divide and conquer

like they have done in 1952 1956 1968 1972 1980 1984 1988 2000 and 2004

especially as Tueday is a major special election for Senate, at just the time the repubs trying to steal the senate seat

and at the time of Immigration votes and the NRA guns bullets issue (actually, so much is about the guns)

And its no coincidence the Zimmerman cold blooded murder of Trayvon Martin trial is happening now, as is the ridiculous Paula Deen
incident

But no right has been curtailed

and irony is all the people who are on this yet in America millions are on facebook giving all their personal info away without realizing that it was always collected and culled by the owner

as my grandmother used to say
This too shall pass.

[davidn3600]

85. So when a Democrat is in office, we can't get angry when the government violates the Constitution?

A message to everyone who is supporting the surveillance state...
...I'm telling you right now...you better continue supporting it if a Republican wins in 2016.

This right here is the problem with American politics. Im sick of the two-party bullshit. When you form an opinion on an issue, you need to make that opinion on what YOU think is right. And don't change that opinion just because the party changes theirs.

This kind of stuff was horrible when Bush was in office. He was attacked over and over and over again by the left for doing this...and rightly so. But then Obama gets elected and we are all supposed to change our opinions and accept it??? FUCK THAT SHIT!

If you are going to flip flop like that...it tells me you have no brain of your own. You are a sheep! You are a pawn! You have no principles of your own that you live by. You let other people form your opinions for you. And you deserve the tyranny you end up with.

[Life Long Dem]

106. Bush should have been impeached for his illegal wiretapping

[20score]

86. This new authoritarian streak in some Democrats is just as

disgusting as it was in the Bushies a few years ago.

Makes me ill.

[newmember]

176. Shut up and respect my authority

[WillyT]

89. Because We've Gone From Voting For Him TWICE, To Disappointed, To Frustrated, To PISSED-OFF !!!

[ljm2002]

97. Citation please...

...please provide a link to a post on DU, any post at all, that says we should "honor, trust and deify" either Snowden or Greenwald.

Betcha can't.

Of course it is convenient to build a straw man argument when you are arguing from emotion rather than facts.

And just who are the "hate Obama crowd" anyway? Given that the vast, vast majority of us here at DU voted for the man twice, and many of us have stated we would vote for him again? Am I one of the "hate Obama crowd" because I am against the vast spy network that our government has set up?

Are you fucking kidding me?

[truth2power]

99. Your entire post is about personalities, not about the EVENTS that are occurring. It's these EVENTS

that so many of the American people find unconscionable. Spying on the American people. killing Al Alwaki's son, etc. It's wrong. I wouldn't care if it was Jeebus himself who was doing it. It would still be wrong.

Just as an example, your last sentence, "Snowden and Greenwald are nothing but Gingrich "wannabes" lobbing incendiary bullshit designed to smear a good and decent man, and ensure Tea Party success at the ballot box" is an opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it's not fact.

In that regard, speaking as a mother and a grandmother, killing someone's 16 year old son/grandson with a drone is NOT "incendiary bullshit". It's a crime and a mortal sin according to my moral compass.

And please, stop with the 'high school dropout" talking point. It's an ad hominem attack. It has nothing to do with Edward Snowden's credibility or lack thereof. Many people who have dropped out of high school for one reason or another have gone on to make significant contributions to society.

[LittleBlue]

102. Because he is a terrible president

He will go down as mediocre at best among historians.

No lasting accomplishments outside of an insurance mandate, no bold stances on anything. Another security president. He will be known as the man who made drone murder and unlimited surveillance an accepted reality. Economy poor and unemployment high during his entire presidency, poverty at levels unseen since the 60s, but Wall Street richer than ever. The ultimate friend to the 1% and the 99% can eat cake.

He's worse than I could ever have imagined, and if I could go back in time to 2007, would never have supported him.

[SMC22307]

145. "FUCK YOU, you selfish MFs!"

I thought DU was supposed to be a step up from Yahoo! message boards, but you proved me wrong.

[truebluegreen]

197. Most of us are better than that.

Welcome to DU. Sorry you arrived in the middle of a pie fight.

[SMC22307]

288. Thanks, TBG, good to be here.

I didn't alert on the post, but I see someone did and others didn't like it either. Good.

[ucrdem]

108. Righteous rant.

Very.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Suddenly, these "heroes" to the "hate Obama crowd" are the ones we should honor, trust and deify, while the guy who worked his ass off, and put up with more shit than you and I ever would, we should vilify???

I'm sorry, but that's just "effing" NUTS.

Back when Newt Gingrich used to lob bombs all over the place, we called it what it was..."Extremist Bullshit".

Snowden and Greenwald are nothing but Gingrich "wannabes" lobbing incendiary bullshit designed to smear a good and decent man, and ensure Tea Party success at the ballot box.

QFT to the journal: Effing nuts indeed!

[4bucksagallon]

109. Well said.......... Obama is getting hit by extremists from both sides now.

Whether you like it or not the NSA program would have continued irrespective of who was the President. This whole thing is just overblown hype, as if the NSA is listening to my "happy birthday grandma" greeting, and as if I would care. Wow..... how boring that job would be. I guess, having been in the military and seen what a big brother state does look like, I just can't comprehend the animosity. This is my opinion, you are entitled to your own, but you will not change mine.

[NaturalHigh]

113. Criticism does not equal throwing him under the bus.

In your opinion, is our president supposed to be immune from criticism?

[tularetom]

117. Obama didn't initiate the spying

But he's done nothing to stop it despite campaign speeches to the contrary and he seems quite comfortable defending it.

I expected it from an ignorant tool like bush and that is why I didn't bitch as much about it then. I did not expect it from a constitutional lawyer and scholar like Obama. And I couldn't give a shit what Snowden and Greenwald say. I don't depend on the likes of them to think for me.

I'm not throwing the president under any bus. If/when I do it will most likely be over chained CPI and not police state spying tactics.

[Iliyah]

135. And what is to say he didn't keep his word?

People here always forget there are three branches. House, Senate and President. National Security, NSA, FBI, CIA (justice Department) informs the House and the Senate. The president hears them re: protecting America. But alas. .

[truebluegreen]

309. The people here generally know

that there are three branches: Legislative (Congress, both houses), Judicial, and Executive, which includes the President and all the other agencies you named, some in the Justice Dept and some in Defense.

[OrwellwasRight]

130. It's because we're racist

or didn't you read all the other threads that said we were?

Let's turn the tables -- did YOU support the PATRIOT Act when Bush was President? Did you support his abuses of the Fourth Amendment? Did you cheer his spying programs? Did you applaud the searching of library records with no warrant (that occurred under Sec. 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the same one the President is claiming gives him authority to view the telephone records of every American)? Then why do you support such things now?

Where would you draw the line?

[DeSwiss]

131. If it must be EXPLAINED to you......

...the only CERTAINTY is that you are INCAPABLE of understanding what is important.

- Evolve.

[broadcaster75201]

132. Beause he is a Reagan Conservative who is VERY different than for whom I voted

I will still vote Dem. I voted for Obama for a second term. TeaBagger will kill us all so there is no real choice.

But Obama concedes everything and fights for almost nothing. I have no problem with compromise, but I do with giving it all away.

And then there is that war on marijuana thing.

I can't stand Obama. I am a Liberal. But I would still vote for him.

[RILib]

134. Obama hasn't kept America safe

You've bought into that endless war is necessary and human rights and civil rights are meaningless crap.

The people you disparage as treasonous and engage in personal attacks against are far more heroic than Obama.

I'd list all the promises Obama made that he failed to even try to keep, but there are only so many hours in the night.

[Iliyah]

146. OK?

talking points agains, bore

[NRaleighLiberal]

137. .

[RVN VET]

149. It is, so to speak, what it is

The Prez has ticked me off with his surprise love of chained-cpi; and I have a problem with this Prism thing.

But I've come to understand 2 things: 1. Obama has never been a radical left winger (as am I). He's really after the mold of Ike, Rockie, Javitz, Lindsay -- a moderate Republican. 2. He is better and less threatening and less detrimental to my privacy and freedom than anyone, anyone!, in that low-life shambles of a fascist mob that has taken over the old GOP the way infectious leprosy will soften, sicken, and finally turn a healthy body into a walking, oozing bag of blood and pus.

I think that's only 2 things. But my point is, if Obama were running for Prez a third time, he'd still have my vote. He's disappointed me, but I'd vote for him because i don't want the whole Nation being twisted and squeezed into a corporate colostomy bag, as has happened to Wisconsin, Florida, and other teabagger States.

As it is, I'll probably be voting for Hilary. She's a great lady in some ways, and has been a superb Sec'y of State -- which is why the 'baggers have been unable to mount an attack against her (and don't "Benghazi" me -- that's a pathetic Oakland of a scandal -- "there's no there, there&quot . But she wimped out over Iraq and let the worst President ever take us all into an unwanted, unwarranted war. I, frankly, was and remain enraged at her decision to back Cheney and Bush. But I'll be damned if i would let a 'bagger get my vote. (And the 'baggers get your vote if you vote for the 'baggers or do not vote at all.)

[Freddie]

233. Agree!

Sorry but *no matter what* the President does, short of killing puppies, he is still far better than the unthinkable alternative of having any Repug in the White House. We must keep in mind that THEY are the true evil that is destroying the country and must be stopped--and if that means holding your nose and voting for a candidate less purely progressive than you want, so be it.
The focus here should be on 2014 and taking back Congress and especially the States, where the real damage is being done.

[Union Scribe]

150. Poor Obama!

All these bastard liberals being mean to him

[treestar]

272. Lucky Republicans

[Union Scribe]

312. Yes, lucky so many Dems support their post 9/11 overreach

in the name of Da Wur On Terra. They barely need to try anymore, with an administration making their arguments for them.

[newmember]

151. Because he's a liar and his word means squat

[MannyGoldstein]

153. Self-Defense

I will not go gently under that good bus.

[Douglas Carpenter]

157. Help me understand why so many on DU are willing to throw the Constitution of the United States unde

the bus - over shallow popularity contest politics that has no more depth to it than junior high kids campaigning for prom Queen and King This has nothing to do with Obama or Greenwald or Snowden. It is about whether being willing to disregard fundamental values of a free people and allowing the federal government to set up the instrument of the totalitarian state.

Let's assume that President Obama is every bit as wonderful and principled as his strongest supporters believe in their most starry-eyed moments. Let's assume that President Obama did not act out of anything but the highest of motives and the sincerest of intentions. Let's assume that under President Obama - our beloved President never has and never will abuse this program in the slightest way under any imaginable circumstance. The instruments of the totalitarian state have still been developed and are waiting - just waiting to be held over to whatever future Dick Cheney or John Ashcroft or far worse that is to be in power some day that will doubtlessly come in the future - perhaps in power some day in the aftermath of some future September 11 or God forbid a WMD version of September 11.

One does not have to denounce all affinity and allegiance and loyalty to President Obama - to demand that these dangerous instruments of totalitarianism that - mark my word - mark my word - will be turned on us some day - to demand that this dangerous and threatening program be dismantled.

your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain silent in the face of evil."


--- ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT -

November 06, 2001

[Iliyah]

175. Its so easy to say Constitution huh

1st amendment, your famous 2nd amendment, and now th 4th amendment.

Where the fuck are you in civil rights huh. Womens, minorities, protection for the least of us. Where was the fucking outcry on Citizen's United, and the states being abused by a certain party, i.e. a potential blueprint of how they will control America huh? Don't peach to me about the CONSTITUTION, and at this point in time all you guys care about is yourself.

[Douglas Carpenter]

184. I don't know what you are talking about. I believe in all of those Constitutional issues too and

have vigorously supported those struggles as well. I just don't want the instruments of totalitarianism to be set up for some potential future despot. Even if President Obama does not ever abuse this power. The instruments are there waiting for future abuse. That is why those of us who support the democratic system of government are so against this surveillance program.

[truebluegreen]

200. Who are "you guys"?

And who the F are you?

But I promise not to peach to you.

[Life Long Dem]

198. Remember Bush?

mark my word - mark my word - will be turned on us some day

[treestar]

264. You do not understand the Constitution

You seem to have the most simplistic grasp of it possible.

Learn more and there will be less to panic about.

[Douglas Carpenter]

282. I suppose Al Gore would not have any objections if he understood the Consitution better. I suppose

every human rights organization and every Constitutional rights organization in America if not the world would not be screeching so loud if they only understood the Constitution better. I suppose the entire Western democratic world would not be horrified by this massive expansion of the surveillance state if they understood the whole thing better. You simply do not understand how free people in a democratic society think and how protective they are of their rights. You simply do not understand how dangerous it is to give ANY state the instruments of totalitarianism - knowing that even if the current government never abuses this power - the instruments are there waiting for a future Dick Cheney or John Ashcroft - waiting for some future September 11 - when these instruments of tyranny could be released on a naïve populace who like you do understand how things really work in the real world.

Perhaps John Ashcroft did understand - and I am sure that when his government were in power you did too...

"to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain silent in the face of evil."


--- ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT -

November 06, 2001

[Walk away]

159. Because it's more Underground than Democratic. nt

[cynatnite]

165. In their eyes, he's bush-lite if he doesn't pass their litmus test....

I fully support President Obama. I don't have to like or support the NSA program.

I also don't expect to agree 100% with everything President Obama does or supports.

[newmember]

173. how about just being honest and keeping your word, too much to ask of a president I guess

[blackspade]

168. Talk about poutrage.....

Progressives such as myself do not 'hate' Obama. Saying so, or insinuating it is a bald-faced lie.
I have a variety of disagreements with this president's policies, ranging from oh well, to no fucking way.
But, my disagreements have nothing to do with hate, rather, there are legitimate problems with his policies that have been brought to light over the last several years that are not going away just because you think that rational discussions by

DUMBASS "PROGRESSIVE" DEMOCRATS

about the direction this country is taking are

'effing' nuts.

[frazzled]

170. Because the only fun thing is to be outraged and oppositional

Even if you need to go all drama queen and pretend like you're having the vapors suddenly over the Fourth Amendment ... which you haven't given a shit about for the past seven years, even though you've known these programs have been in place continuously throughout that time.

So now that the surveillance laws have been vastly improved over the Bush years, when no oversight or FISA warrants were required (see Nancy Pelosi's chart, below), it's suddenly "I'm shocked, shocked." Not buying it. It's about finding a reason to act like Obama is Assad or someone, and looking for your next high-school dropout Messiah.

Weird.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148767817/Chart-On-Surveillance-Oversight-Prepared-By-Nancy-Pelosi-For-Democratic-house-Members

[Ellipsis]

171. So maybe... 50 vocal people are a lot? Make me laugh.

[liberal_at_heart]

291. we shall see if it is only 50 vocal people in 2014.

[Ellipsis]

297. Indeed we shall.... Regale me with what you think might happen in 2014.

one of the fifty I assume.

[liberal_at_heart]

304. I think voter turnout is going to be really low. That's what I think.

[Ellipsis]

306. That's it, that all you got?

While I'm not happy with Obama.. all three branches of government put us here and he ain't runnin', so those no real connection to the OP, your posts on this thread and what you just said. It's bullshit not to support you local pols in 2014. If anything people should be more motivated to get those complacent bastards out of office.

[liberal_at_heart]

313. oh, I didn't say I would be staying home. I will vote for someone who represents my values.

If there is a liberal democrat candadite I will vote for them. If there isn't then I will vote for someone who does represent me.

[Ellipsis]

314. As long as you vote.. the rest of it is none of my business... have a good one.

[kitt6]

172. I've been wondering

that very same question? My guess: Where else can they go to vent? You can't comment over at Drudge, Huff Post is all over the place, Daily kos is so, so....

[dkf]

180. This is bigger than Obama or the Democratic Party. It's about what our country stands for.

To think its just about Obama is crazy.

[certainot]

182. the left never got obama's back in the first place - don't even know what the RW's best weapon is,

so it's understandable they'd bail on him.

the collective left still has NO response to the right's best weapon- right wing radio, and blames obama when it kicks their internet ass.

the left collectively cannot say it ever got obama's back- they don't even know what's happening on those 1200 or so radio stations (sequestration, benghazi, IRS are just the latest) - so most of the criticism is stupid cowardly tripe.

the idea that a black man could walk into the white billionaire's house and kick ass is naive.

we've lost 6 years because the left has no fucking clue what's kicking their ass- they give it a free speech free ride because it hurts their head to listen to it- music is much more fun.

and how many of his critics are university students in schools that put their sports logos on radio stations that take free pot shots all day at obama and all the reps and ideals they say they support.

until the left has some response to RW radio they really have little right to whine about how obama let them down.

[duffyduff]

189. Because he has made it possible to throw ALL Democratic Party constituents under the bus

and with it ALL Democratic Party principles in order to help his backers, the Wall Street gangsters and billionaires.

[Logical]

191. By "under the bus" I assume your whining means disagree with him!

If not explain what you mean.

[think]

201. "Your job is to hold my feet to the fire"

Bold added for emphasis.

A Foot in Two Worlds
By Leslie Nguyen-Okwu December 1, 2011

Jeremy Weinstein recounts his work at the White House

~Snip~

Weinstein worked under President Barack Obama, serving as the director for development and democracy on the National Security Council.

In that role, he dealt with several international issues in the interest of the United States, including global development and democracy, anti-corruption and foreign assistance reform.

~Snip~

Through his encounters with the president, Weinstein concluded that advocates outside of government were key to constructing public policy. One particular meeting with the president and a group of human rights activists struck a chord with Weinstein that continues to resonate today.


“The president was very powerful in his response in a number of ways,” Weinstein said. “He said to the groups, ‘Your job is to hold my feet to the fire…so, you need to be out there everyday raising these issues, telling us when we’re doing the right or wrong thing. My role is to be President of the United States, and your role is to be a strong voice for people who aren’t always heard.’ I think that’s a powerful message — what produces good policy is not just the expertise of people inside the government, but the pressure that comes from outside.”

Full article:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/12/01/a-foot-in-two-worlds/

President Obama will be just fine. Republican US Senators love spying more than the Dems for goodness sakes.

It should be ever so apparent that this transcends the traditional political boundaries of Democrat and Republican.

The NSA agency is so wrapped in classified activity and secrecy that even it's crimes as ruled by the FISA court are hidden from the American people. A US Senator needed to get permission just to tell the American people that the NSA violated the law! WTF!

The issue is fairly clear. It is either to keep in place a massive secret spy operation started illegally under the Bush administration and made quasi legal until this current day; or to put an end to the lawlessness and total secrecy that is endemic of NSA activities as witnessed and testified by numerous NSA whistle blowers.

8 senators have already introduced legislation to reign in this era of out of control corporate/govt secrecy. Shouldn't our attention and efforts be on supporting these Senators and their legislation so we can get our govt back in line with the rule of law instead of worrying how this looks for Obama? Seriously!


If we can't speak out about abuses of secret government programs while a Dem is in the White House do you really think there will be a chance in hell it can be discussed if a Republican is in the White House?

Did you try and protest the Iraq war under Bush? Do you remember how free speech zones were used to marginalize free speech and squelch debate? Do you think those that protested weren't spied upon despite all the whistle blower testimonies and factual documentation of such incidences occurring?



So I ask in return. Instead of worrying about how this makes Obama look; why will you not do as Obama has requested and hold his feet to the fire?!

[Skidmore]

252. Remedy will come when we focus on Congress.

That is where the work needs to be done. As for the President, I will not get in line behind those who are so divorced from reality when it comes to accountability that the ascribe him kinglike powers nor will I join in the Greek chorus of those who seek to weaken him should they actually finally chose to step up and build a fire under the Congress. The executive branch is still only one branch of the government. Sure we remember the free-speech zones of the Bush era and that Congress and the courts stood by and allowed that to happen. I would point out the President Obama does not do these things but the potential is there for another president to do so. Congress, however, is still pushing crap out of the legislative mill when they decide that they are willing to crank it.

[HooptieWagon]

202. People voted for change...

not expecting Obama's definition of change was continuing Bush policies, and appointing republicans, ex-Bushies even, to his administration. Peep gave him slack for 4 years. The secret spying program, and lying about it, was just the final straw. Patience works when peep see programs going in the right direction. They are going in the wrong direction. Obama is losing the principled left, moderates, youth. Is the Dem Party going to allow Obama to be a ball and chain dragging them down too, or are they going to have an intervention?

[maxrandb]

296. Right

because I'm sure the troops would be home from Iraq, drastically being drawn down in Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden would be captured if John McCain or Mitt Romney were President.

That "he's just like Bush" crap is nothing but bullshit.

[HooptieWagon]

307. Correct.

McCain and Romney would have kept troops in Afgahnistan and Iraq, just as Obama has. All three continue Bush policy. Got to feed the MIC thats controlling the puppet strings. The difference is, Obama promised CHANGE... hasn't delivered much. Congress has blocked much, but Executive branch still controls a lot. Executive orders could easily pull out troops and end secret surveillence program. No Congressional approval needed.

[Skidmore]

322. Executive orders can be overturned by the next president.

The statute still remains. The laws have to be changed. What about the constitutionally assigned tasks of the branches of government don't you get? The statute needs to be repealed or amended or ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Otherwise, it is till on the books and can be picked up and reinstated at any time a new president.

[MotherPetrie]

203. Just returning the favor.

[MNBrewer]

204. My first and foremost and only reason is that he's black

[Jamastiene]

208. Those of us who are already under here

are having a big party. We just wanted to invite him to come party with us and spend some time with us. There is always room under the bus for at least one more.

[gordianot]

209. Actually as a life long Democrat I am used to the underside of the bus.

I would not know how to act if I got to ride in the bus. My hero's were all shot or died in plane crashe(s). My best friend who was once a progressive has contracted a case of religious dementia over abortion and has gone full into the dark side. The best thing that has happened in this century so far McCain and Romney were not elected President.

[mhatrw]

210. because he's a figurehead for an evil corpocracy? n/t

[Rex]

213. So many = 10.

nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

214. You've seriously missed the death of, under Obama's watch, the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments?

Of over a year of domestic terrorism ("patriot act" and FBI's definitions) against the Occupy Wall Street Movement, with over 7400 of us attacked by militarized riot police and thrown in jail while every single one of the banksters who helped trash the economy in the first place walks free and continue to be bailed out to the tune of billions of our tax dollars while Obama pushes "austerity" upon the rest of us? Section 1021 of the NDAA, which allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens with neither trial nor representation? Of the trillion dollar a year surveillance state budget, which includes militarizing said police? Of the crack-down upon whistle-blowers and journalists? Of spying on Americans without warrants? Of using robot death planes to kill hundreds of children in over five countries with whom we are not at war, but whose citizens are most certainly now anti-American? That Obama appointed a billionaire, Penny Pritzker, to his staff? Monsanto executives to federal office? Has done zip zero zilch to either limit or end the neocon/Bush terror doctrine, much less work to bring those monsters to justice?

Has anything changed here for the better:

[CrispyQ]

246. That video needs to go viral.

[treestar]

273. Exaggeration

exaggerated exaggeration. An exaggeration of an already exaggerated exaggeration.

[HangOnKids]

221. "He turned this disastrous economy around"

I volunteer at the food bank here in very wealthy Sonoma Co. CA, and this turning you speak of confuses me. The rich here are doing GREAT; buying up vineyards, mansions, and Aston Martins, the WORKING poor, they are just growing by leaps and bounds into greater and greater numbers. Could you please come and explain this turning of the economy around to the hungry, dejected, depressed, WORKING people who can't make ends meet? I am really sure they would love to hear some Obama love from you.

These people don't have a bus to throw Obama under, they can't afford the gas or the tires.


Thanks in advance.

[great white snark]

222. As others have correctly stated, DU is chock full of folks who have a vested interest in Dem failure

The douchebaggery and ratfucking is prevalent but thankfully there is just enough legitimate, solution oriented criticism and concern to keep good Democrats here fighting the good fight.

[cali]

228. well,

the douchebaggery and mind boggling stupidity of the bootlicking authoritarian worshiping apologists prevents them from grasping the dangers of the metastasizing security state. their simple bifurcated little brains file everything away under democrat good, republican bad.

[Skidmore]

254. Wow!

That is gourmet word salad. What do you dress that with?

[Scuba]

234. Because those of us he is throwing under the bus like company?

[Uzair]

236. Because people prefer to believe the voices in their heads

Facts scare people around here. Everything's a fucking conspiracy. Also, a lot of racism to go around. PLENTY of that, in fact. Put it all together and Obama is all of a sudden equivalent to the evil motherfuckers who came before him.

[Marrah_G]

237. OFFS

We aren't hypocrites. It's that fucking simple.

[CrazyJudy]

238. disappointment... n/t

[sibelian]

240. Your country is driven by the myth of the Sacrificial King.

...the man who serves his time and is then destroyed.

No United States president serves with his reputation intact. I don't really know why, but that seems to be how it works.

The NSA revelations don't really have anything more to do with Obama than anyone else involved in it's maintenance. It's time for Obama to be thrown under the bus because ALL american presidents get thrown under the bus.

Naturally, the spying must end. That might become the job of the next series of presidents. I think a march to the left is about to begin.

It's a shame for Obama that the end of his story (which was inevitable) has coincided with something that he didn't really start and aguably isn't as responsible for as some would seem to like to suggest. His reputation is getting caught up in a narrative with a much longer range.

But the spying has to go. There's just too much scope for abuse.

I'm sure if we were privy to the machinations going on behind the scene we would feel a lot more sorry for Obama. But we don't get to know. He's the guy who has to fall on his sword. That's the price paid for the power he was given.

If it were up to me, and we wanted his repuation secured on the grounds of the benefits he's brought, I'd suggest a discussion space where he could open up and publically wash his hands of the sick things I'm sure he's had to do to get any good work done. I'm sure he ended up having to do a lot of things he would have prefered to go nowhere near - that's the nature of power. But I don't think that discussion space will ever happen. Revealing how Government actually works would probably result in instant revolution and the collapse of anything resembling a useful centralised force that could stop the country falling slowly to bits.

They're just people.

Caveat - this is all a peculiar sort of speculation, clearly...

[OnionPatch]

241. Seems more to me like

he willingly lay down under it in this instance. He didn't have to continue and grow the spying on Americans. That was NOT the change we voted for and I am certain he knew that.

BTW, because the spying makes me angry doesn't mean I hate Obama or am sorry I voted for him. I had only two choices last election and I'm still satisfied with that choice. Things would NOT be better under a Romney presidency, things would be horrible. Spying would probably be the least of our concerns but I'm betting it would be worse under Romney as well. That doesn't mean I blindly support everything anyone with a D after their name does. The spying shit is wrong whether or not this is a good or bad time to bring it up. Is it not permissible to support some of what a politician does/says but not all? I have to support it ALL or I'm "throwing him under the bus"? That's just lunacy. That kind of attitude is scarier to me than the spying.

[LWolf]

242. Where to start:

1. It's not about Snowden or Greenwald. It's about civil liberties. This has been explained over and over and over and over. What is it about this that you don't, or won't, get?

2. "Under the bus?" FUCK. Obama threw the left under the bus a long time ago. There's no room under here for him.

3. "Hate Obama crowd?" I don't think you know what "hate" means. You seem to equate it with criticism, with dissent. Neither are "hate."

4. People form their pov based on their background: their experiences and knowledge. Those who have been conditioned to team loyalty cling to it with fervor, whether it is their religious team, their political team, their national team, their football team, etc.. When they aren't leaders, they are loyal cheerleaders. Those who have been conditioned to look for "heroes" to "lead" them, don't like their heroes to have feet of clay. They will defend them to the bitter end rather than be "wrong," or face the scary world without them. These people are conditioned to see political skepticism, criticism, or dissent as disloyal, and as frightening, as it threatens the conventional security of the team.

5. Your perception of Barack Obama and his record in office is markedly different from those who put issues before personalities.

If you REALLY want someone to "help you understand," this can help. I have my doubts.

[JoeyT]

243. Aww. Does it make umms sad?

Refusal to prosecute war crimes, refusal to prosecute banksters, refusal to prosecute anyone with any money or power, secret trade agreements, outright lying about both the public option and mandates on the campaign trail, drone strikes, eroding the constitution. Need more? Extending the Bush tax cuts, refusing to support marriage equality until it became apparent that it might cost him an election, Rick Warren. Moar? Medical marijuana, record prosecutions for whistle blowers, constantly nominating Republicans, and being dumb enough to assume the Republicans care about reaching across the isle frequently enough that it's pretty much got to be intentional.

But yeah, killing Osama bin Laden totally balances all that out. I'm glad I'm not terrified of my own shadow enough that I'd support any government that promised to keep me safe from the mean people.

You're mistaking disappointment for hate.

Edited to add: You're also using the phrase "Under the bus" incorrectly. It means to sacrifice someone that doesn't deserve it to save your own ass. You know, like Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod. No one is saving themselves by disagreeing with Obama, nor do they have the power to do any damage to him, so they're not throwing him under the bus.

[CrispyQ]

245. This:

It's not just the prez, it's the whole fucking system. It's corrupt & rotten to the core, including the process to fix the system.

[limpyhobbler]

247. I completely disagree with everything you just said. nt

[kentuck]

250. Can you define what 'throwing under the bus" means?

I don't think I have thrown him under the bus. But, maybe, after clarification, I will be more enlightened?

[Harmony Blue]

251. We didn't throw Obama under the bus

he chose to run us over.

[forestpath]

260. +1000

[BlueCaliDem]

253. I am as astounded as you are.

I'm serious here.

I can't come up with any good reason other than that he beat Hillary in the primaries, and they're still pissed off at that, or that he didn't come into the WH and bust a cap in someone's behind, but governed as a president should. No sane American believes than any person is perfect and does everything perfect all the time - depending on what one's opinion is on what perfection is.

So, I'm baffled. I also know there are a LOT of RW trolls infesting this site, acting like Democrats, and there are too many Libertarians pretending to be Liberals, too. And none of the above have any love for that black man in the White House.

[Skittles]

266. I do not believe you are serious

I don't think anyone could actually be that deluded and there is some other force in play here

[BlueCaliDem]

268. I can't believe you can't believe I'm being serious.

You of all people, card-carrying anti-Obamanite, should know just how serious I am - or you're just pretending you don't just to be clever.

A person has to be as blind as a bat or so full of sore-loserism {or just plain hatred} that their man didn't beat that inadequate black man in our nation's White House despite all the successes he's booked that pushed this country forward.

But then again, isn't it American tradition to expect a black person to work six times harder than a white person to get even the tiniest bit of respect? Good thing I'm not White, so I don't have to hold myself to those standards and am not blinded by them.

[Skittles]

269. LOLOL

"CARD-CARRYING ANTI-OBAMITE" "GOOD THING I AM NOT WHITE" OMG - there is no WAY you are for real

[BlueCaliDem]

270. Yeah, Skittles. I know that for you, the truth doth hurt.

Although you spelled anti-Obamanite wrong. What else are you getting wrong?

[Skittles]

271. sorry, I do not find you credible

you are over-the-top ridiculous

[BlueCaliDem]

294. What a coinky-dinky! That's exactly how I feel about you and your

anti-Obamanite posts. How did Ron Paul work out for ya last time? Bwaaaahaahahahahaha!

[Ellipsis]

315. Oh dude, ZOMBIE TURKEY...

ZOMBIE TURKEY IS GOING TO HAVE TO KICK YOUR ASS NOW!

[Skittles]

323. STOP IT ELLIPSIS

[Hissyspit]

286. Good Grief, Charlie Brown...

[treestar]

257. I know, it does not help 2014 one bit

And with a Dem Congress, the president could do more of what they say they want.

Which is why I think many of them are right wing trolls and/or Libertarians.

[Blasphemer]

267. It's a question of consistency vs. inconsistency

Some people are consistent and some are not. It seems to me that some people (here, in the media, in academic circles, etc.) are consistent in their attitudes towards particular U.S. government policy positions regardless of who is in office (Clinton, Bush, Obama) while others have opinions that are wholly dependent on who is in office. I am 100% certain the debate around here would be VERY different if John McCain was president. I find that very disheartening. Take the name of the President out of the equation, go back and look at some posts from 2001 to 2008 and I think you'll find that the only difference is in how many more are willing to openly defend/tolerate things that in the past were pretty routinely and roundly condemned.

[Corruption Inc]

274. As if you're interested? LMFAO!

The first sentence of your post is wrong as people care about being spied on, not Snowden or throwing Obama under the bus. The 2nd sentence is just reactionary scare tactics. The 3rd sentence is an insult to "progressive democrats" as you lump them together with "pissant republicans". The 4th and 5th sentences are vulgarities. Finally, the last 2 sentences are character assassinations.

Your entire premise is flawed and therefore not even worth discussion.

BYE.

[Corruption Inc]

278. One more thing, please define "Dumbass progressive democrats", OK?

Then read the terms and conditions of this site.

[maxrandb]

300. I explained it up thread, but if you must know

it is quite possible for one to be a "Democrat", a "Progressive", and still be a DUMBASS.

A Dumbass Progressive Democrat would be one who, in the 1940's, would have called FDR "just like Herbert Hoover" because he exempted homecare workers from the Fair Labor Standards Act, or would claim Winston Churchill wasn't "significantly pure" enough, because he appointed Chamberlain as Secretary of War.

A dumbass progressive Democrat would be one who falls all over themselves to makes some kind of hero of a guy who stole Top Secret National Security info, and then fled to Hong Kong and Russia, while at the same time claiming a duly elected President of the United States was "the pawn of some corporate master-mind like Doctor Evil".

A DPD would be one who doesn't realize that "1984" was a work of fiction. A good work of fiction, but fiction none the less.

A DPD would "glom" onto a traitor because his story advances his own pre-conceived narrative.

That's my definition of a DPD

[Aerows]

293. Collecting data

Continues a Bush policy. Shouldn't be too hard to grasp those two, and that's just two he's continued. I'd rant about Gitmo and about the failure to prosecute anyone on Wall Street, but that would just be repeating myself.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

298. Republicans want you to throw him under a bus

Republicans are gleefully jumping up and down.

[OrwellwasRight]

301. No one on DU is throwing Obama under the bus.

How could we possibly? What is the bus to be thrown under? He is not running for re-election ever again. The people being thrown under the bus are America's working class, who are frustrated at every turn: no jobs programs, retirement at risk, minimal mortgage relief, employers freely allowed to violate freedom of association and collective bargaining rights, allowed to treat "employees" like independent contractors, no real relief on health care (because the program gives all the benefits to health insurance companies and has so many loopholes it's like a sieve), no increase in minimum wage, no prosecutions on Wall Street to deter repeat rip-off behavior, etc.

Really, Obama is the one being thrown under the bus? Really?

How are WE blocking him? Congress is blocking him (and thank god they are blocking his proposal to cut Social Security), not us. We are doing what he told us to do: "MAKE HIM" be better. You can't have it both ways.

[nebenaube]

302. because..

He has not thrown out Bush era changes... He's a hypocrite on pot. I have shaken his hand, he's actually a total fraud. He's scared to death and he perpetuates the 1% who, by the way, actually have no right to exist in this country as a 'distinct' class. This is not a class based society, it never was. The middle class as we knew it was a compromise to allow the existence of the of the 1%. It was 'all men are created equal'; not a fucking plutocracy that we must accommodate or they'll take their ball home and not play. Fuck that. There is little chance to move forward in this county. It is finished.

I'm just damn gland I won't live long enough to watch it fall completely.

[ecstatic]

310. Several reasons: Trolls, different priorities, failure to remember history

(regarding RW takeovers), and some racism (both conscious and subconscious).

My top issues are control over my own body and equal opportunity. As a city gal, privacy and small government has never been a top concern and I have no desire to run a democratic president out of town to make room for the next Reagan.

There are some here who claim to be progressive, but they do everything in their power to tip the balance back over to republicans who wish to turn back the clock on women, opportunities, the middle class, and civil rights. If you claim to care about those things, then get it together and keep things in perspective!

[Scurrilous]

317. K & R