General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 Democratic Platforms on Civil Liberties
2000:
2004
2008
2012
GoneOffShore
(17,341 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)Propagandists hate when things aren't going their way, and retreat to safe enclaves well-populated with their group-thinking fellow propagandists.
Then, Rove-like, they accuse others of mistepresenting facts. It's as pathetic as it is predictable.
GoneOffShore
(17,341 posts)Maybe the puppy is still sleeping.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Tell me, where is language, comparable to this language from the '08 platform, in the '12 platform?
"We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans. We will review the current Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. We reject illegal wiretapping of American citizens, wherever they live. We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war
We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years."
Where is that plank in the '12 platform? That's right, it simply isn't there. You're trying to flood the boards with bullshit in order to make this go away, but we see through that disingenuous BS for what you're really doing.
Oh, here's the link to the article you can't refute, just hope it goes away.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/democrats-retreat-civil-liberties-2012-platform
Robb
(39,665 posts)You know they never even uttered the phrase "civil liberties" in 2004? Does that mean we abandoned civil liberties in 2004?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Language, and sentiments that are vital in today's world.
At least you're finally accepting the fact that they eliminated that language.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Again, did we (Democrats, I mean) stand against civil liberties in 2004 because we talked about them with different words?
Because that's the logic you're using.
Robb
(39,665 posts)"The party platform is supposed to reflect the ideals of the members of the party. I guess this means that Democrats no longer give a damn about civil liberties. I guess you no longer give a damn either, at least as long as the person violating them has a D behind their name. Hypocrisy much?"
So I ask again: did Democrats "no longer give a damn about civil liberties" in 2004 when the phrase wasn't even used in the platform?
Or, is your argument idiotic? Take your time.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)So are you ready to admit now you're being deliberately inconsistent and obtuse, to the intentional detriment of Democrats?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"Civil liberties disappear in the 2012 Democratic platform."
I thought it had to be the truth to be posted on the internet.
GoneOffShore
(17,341 posts)But some think it will.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Sound familiar?
Edited to add: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021273786
GoneOffShore
(17,341 posts)But because you're posting actual excerpts, no one is coming back with any rebuttals except lame ones.
emulatorloo
(44,187 posts)that agenda.
They know that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true. Wonder where they learned that?
politicasista
(14,128 posts)SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)Green_Lantern
(2,423 posts)Issues such as should the President have the authority to use drones to kill American citizens.
Robb
(39,665 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...each of the ways the president isn't allowed to kill us, it's going to make for a looooooong platform.
"Number 5,765, the president shall not be allowed to hunt people for sport with any implement at any time. Number 5,766....."
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Oh there is truth to the statement, particularly the last points but give me a fucking break about preserving civil liberties and privacy but I guess mileage, expectations, and interpretation varies.
On a near side line, I'd love to drill down on the bit about reducing the population at Gitmo and get into the mechanics of how (and how much) these reductions happen within the framework of the restrictions passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
I also heard right hear on DU that the platform doesn't matter and hasn't for decades but that was over a lil fecal matter in the punch bowl.
derby378
(30,252 posts)Torture: Technically still legal, albeit "banned."
Military Commissions: Still preserved.
Habeas Corpus: Omitted entirely.
Illegal Wiretapping: Not even mentioned.
It doesn't do much good for GLBT Americans to legally marry if all of their other rights are put at risk.