Oath Keepers Heart Edward Snowden!

[ProSense]

Oath Keepers Heart Edward Snowden!

—By Stephanie Mencimer

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has earned quite a following, sometimes in unlikely quarters. The latest evidence comes in the form of this billboard recently installed inside the subway station that serves the Pentagon in Arlington, Va. The billboard was paid for by the Oath Keepers, a "patriot" group founded in 2009 not long after President Obama took office. The controversial organization, founded by a former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) staffer and associated with former militia leaders, encourages members of the military and law enforcement to swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, and not necessarily to the Commander in Chief. The Oath Keepers pledge to essentially turn on the US government if they think they're being ordered to do things that they think are unconstitutional, such as, for instance, taking people's guns away.

They arrived on the scene with much fanfare and were often staples at tea party and Second Amendment rallies organized around opposition to the tyrannical Obama administration. Their ranks are filled with Birthers, Truthers, and others who see black helicopters lurking at every turn. Their highest profile associates have been people like Mike Vanderboegh, the former Alabama militia leader who urged followers to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices to protest the passage of healthcare reform. (Some actually did.) But the Oath Keepers have since dropped out of the limelight, the dictatorship they were preparing for never quite materializing.

But the group has reemerged with a new project, which involves billboards like the Snowden one at the Pentagon Metro station. The Oath Keepers initially set out to put up billboards around military bases to "Educate Troops About Their Oath Bound Duty to Refuse Unconstitutional Orders," and to "counter the propaganda of the domestic enemies of the Constitution," according to their website. So far this year, they've installed one near the Twenty Nine Palms Marine base in California, with plans to target Ft. Hood, in Texas, and Ft. Rucker in Alabama.

The first billboard went up last year across from Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, in response to a retired Army colonel who enraged tea partiers and gun activists with a paper he wrote describing a hypothetical scenario in which the military might have to intervene on US soil. The hypothetical involves an "extremist militia motivated by the goals of the “tea party” movement" that takes over a town in South Carolina and starts an insurrection. The "tea party insurrectionists" in the paper sound a lot like the Oath Keepers, who took great offense to the paper and responded with a billboard screaming, "Colonel 'Red Coat' Benson, The Tea Party is Not the Enemy. Soldiers! Honor Your Oath. Refuse To Fire On Americans."

- more -

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/07/oath-keepers-heart-snowden

Join the revolution!!!

[polichick]

1. It's true that many different kinds of Americans care about civil liberties.

[SomethingFishy]

5. And as evidenced, it's also true that many don't.

And the ones that don't seem to want to play 6 Degrees of Separation to connect anyone, who doesn't agree with them that we should blindly trust the government implicitly, to people they deem to be the "enemy".


Rush Limbaugh said we should stop watching Fox News. I guess that means I should start watching it as Rush is the enemy and everything he says I have to be on the opposite side of...

[polichick]

21. Just make sure you have a barf bag handy...

when you listen to Rush!

(Know what ya mean.)

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. "They arrived on the scene with much fanfare and were often staples at tea party and Second....

....Amendment rallies organized around opposition to the tyrannical Obama administration. Their ranks are filled with Birthers, Truthers, and others who see black helicopters lurking at every turn. Their highest profile associates have been people like Mike Vanderboegh, the former Alabama militia leader who urged followers to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices to protest the passage of healthcare reform. (Some actually did.) But the Oath Keepers have since dropped out of the limelight, the dictatorship they were preparing for never quite materializing."

Something about the company you keep? One has to acknowledge that some "progressives" have gone so far round the bend they are indistinguishable from the folks named in the article, and if that's not frightening enough, we've got "so-called" liberals celebrating Vladimir Putin & rightwing nuts like Gordon Stump. You guys don't seem to be able to acknowledge that while Snowden's disclosure about domestic surveillance might have been a good thing, but the things he's done since, maybe not so much?

Exhibit A:

[tazkcmo]

195. I know very little about Snowden.

And don't care much to dig into his past or present. I'm more interested in this whole secretive "anti-terrorism" tool we have no right to question, examine or even challenge in a court of law.

Whether Snowden is a creep, hero, left handed or red headed is no concern of mine. What concerns me is the accusations he makes have a reasonable chance of being true given our governments track record and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we find out it's worse.



edited for punctuation

[Tarheel_Dem]

207. Who said you can't question? And yes, his motivation is of paramount importance to many of us.

Especially given his past statements about "Leakers". I'm sure you're familiar with those, right?

[tazkcmo]

208. That's fair

But I don't care about his motivation. I don't care anything about Snowden. I care about what's going on at the NSA. Other folks can care about Snowden, that's fine.

NSA Phone Snooping Cannot Be Challenged in Court, Feds Say
2:06 PM - Wired.com says we can't.

[Tarheel_Dem]

209. Well that's it then. Call your Reps in Congress. It's the only way to address it now. nt

[Mojorabbit]

196. Yes, all across the political spectrum. nt

[MineralMan]

2. Strange bedfellows.

It's interesting, at least.

[ProSense]

3. Not so "strange"

Last month, Oath Keepers founder Stuart Rhodes explained to Reason why the group might be so sympathetic to Snowden (who, like Rhodes, was a Paulite):

[MineralMan]

9. Well, strange only in the sense that political goals and

beliefs are so different between the Oath Keepers and most people who are Democrats. There is the libertarian link, however, at both ends of the political spectrum, as we're all learning.

That said, I am opposed to unfettered government access to personal information or data. That situation does not currently maintain, though, and I'm also a believer in knowing what it going on, even if I am not in a position to change it.

Sometimes, people misunderstand me.

[freshwest]

216. Oh, FFS! I am officially creeped out now!

The Paulites didn't go anywhere, still just as fanatical as always. The ones I've run into still have that look as if possessed.

And they do hate, god how they hate. They still have their Obama the witch doctor in white face with the bloody mouth posters up and a lot of attitude.

Some are all out nationalists of either the Christian persuasion, armed and ready to shoot some liberals. Bad company to keep.

[sabrina 1]

22. The polls show overwhelming support for Snowden as a whistle blower

across all democragphics in the US now.

Is there something odd about Americans agreeing on something every once in a while when the issue is as important as this?



I think it's wonderful to see this kind of unity across all lines on an issue that has long been mostly a Liberal issue, at least publicly.

We are gaining support for ending Bush policies, and anyone who agrees that they are bad for this country is needed to finally do what we Democrats set out to do more than a decade ago now.

This is exciting news, unless of course you supported Bush policies, which I know for a fact no one on this forum did since I've been here.

I think it's odd to presume that a person of different views on religion or politics is some kind of criminal and try to attach some kind of negative feeling towards them when they agree with Liberals on a very important issue. Very odd in fact.

[leftynyc]

81. Don't know what polls you're looking at

but here's the latest one I could find which is completely the opposite of what you're claiming:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/05/edward-snowden-poll_n_3542931.html

More Americans now think Edward Snowden did the wrong thing in releasing classified documents about U.S. surveillance programs, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.

According to the new poll, 38 percent of Americans think that Snowden, a former contractor for the National Security Agency, did the wrong thing, while 33 percent said he did the right thing. Still, 29 percent of Americans remain unsure about Snowden's actions.

Another HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted just after Snowden revealed his identity publicly found that 38 percent said Snowden did the right thing and only 35 percent said he did the wrong thing.

[sabrina 1]

118. That is not the latest poll. That is from July 5th, before the public fully understood

what the leaks revealed. The two latest polls from this week show a complete reversal of that poll. 55% of Americans now believe that Snowden is a Whistle Blower, NOT a traitor. Only 34% disagree. And the respondents are from almost all demographics, crossing political lines.

I guess Americans do take their 4th Amendment rights pretty seriously once they understand what is going on.

[arely staircase]

143. link please to the polls that show americans approve of snowden nt

[sabrina 1]

154. Sure, see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023230749

[arely staircase]

158. well it sounds like he will have a good chance with a jury then nt

[sabrina 1]

163. No, he won't. He would be kept in solitary, probably tortured (for his own good) like Manning

and unlike the old days when we still resembled a democracy when Ellsberg was out on bail and capable of speaking to the public himself, Snowden, like Manning, will be silenced, while the smear machine, already apparent even here on this site, will go into action while he is unable to speak.

From now on, because of the treatment of Whistle Blowers here, future Whistle Blowers will do what they have always done when their countries do not provide a safe environment for a fair trial, they will seek asylum elsewhere.

After Manning's treatment it would be foolish for any whistle blower to trust this government to provide a fair trial. They have too much to hide.

[leftynyc]

193. Thanks for the link

Interesting poll and I disagree that Snowden will be treated like Manning but only in that Manning is getting a military trial - all the rules are different. According to that poll, how could the government think they could get away with what you're suggesting? I'm pretty sure people know who Snowden is but if I stopped 10 NYers and asked them who Bradly Manning was, maybe 1 would know.

[OilemFirchen]

152. A link to the poll would have been interesting.

Since omitting it was an obvious oversight on your part, I'll help out:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1919

Here is the question to which you alluded:

Do you regard Edward Snowden, the national security consultant who released information to the media about the phone scanning program, as more of a traitor, or more of a whistle-blower?

It's been mentioned that the question is lacking for two reasons:

1) The government hasn't charged Snowden with treason, so suggesting that he's a "traitor" is a non-sequitor.
2) A different option - say, "did he engage in espionage" - might well have led to a different result.

However, the remainder of the poll is interesting, especially since, as we all are painfully aware, it isn't about Snowden:

While voters support the phone-scanning program 51 - 45 percent and say 54 - 40 percent that it "is necessary to keep Americans safe," they also say 53 - 44 percent that the program "is too much intrusion into Americans' personal privacy."

BTW, if you look at who believes the program "is too much intrusion into Americans' personal privacy", you'll note that it's not Democrats (40% Yes / 56% No). Reps and Indies seem particularly put out by this horrible invasion of their privacy - along with the emoprogs on DU. Make of it what you will.

[sabrina 1]

160. Well, excuse me for taking more than a few minutes to get back to a request on the internet. Sorry

for having a life.

I don't care who now agrees with Liberals who have consistently opposed these programs since the Bush era. I am happy to see that even Republicans are finally acknowledging that we Liberals were right all along. We usually are.

That is one of the recent polls, see my response which apparently wasn't fast enough for you, to find the other.

Or let me provide it here since you appear to be in a very big hurry:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023230749

These recent polls are almost a complete reversal of those from just a few weeks ago before the public had more information on just how far this has gone.

And as more is revealed, those numbers are likely to go even higher. And that is here in the US where the Corporate Media's coverage of this story has been biased against the leaks.

[OilemFirchen]

189. Why so testy?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, explicitly stating that "omitting it was an obvious oversight on your part".

So now you've cited the same poll I cited. There was no rush, I just happened to be first in the queue, I guess.

This is curious, though:

I am happy to see that even Republicans are finally acknowledging that we Liberals were right all along.

Except, of course, that the poll states just the opposite, presuming, as I do, that "liberals" are mostly associated with "Democrats". While Republicans are in a snit about their privacy, Democrats apparently aren't. So it follows that Republicans are diverging from liberals. Is that incorrect?

[kelliekat44]

133. Not strange. Just opposition to the black President under the cloak of supporting the Constitution.

These same people allowed and cheered when Bush administration ran roughshod over the Constitution and still cheer on those who would suppress the vote.

[Marr]

4. You side with John Bolton on drone strikes, and Dick Cheney on domestic surveillance.

You sure you want to use this angle?

[ProSense]

6. Who

"You side with John Bolton on drone strikes, and Dick Cheney on domestic surveillance. You sure you want to use this angle?"

...do you "side with"? I think John Bolton is a cretin and Dick Cheney is an evil fuck. The Pauls, well, they're fucking racists who don't give a shit about civil liberties.

Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'

By Steve Benen

In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.

The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.

Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:

"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."

I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.

But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand

Drones to kill people "suspected of robbing a liquor store."

This is who Rand Paul is: he hires white supremacists to advise him
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023209575

Rand Paul, Supposed Defender Of Civil Liberties, Calls For Jailing People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/

Sen. Rand Paul: Civil Rights Act Was Overreach Because "I Can't Have A Cigar Bar Anymore"
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201201090003

[Marr]

12. Nice collection of unrelated links. You still agree with John Bolton and Dick Cheney. /nt

[ProSense]

13. And you agree with Storm Front...so there!

Silliness.

[Marr]

17. This is one of the reasons no one takes you seriously anymore. /nt

[ProSense]

23. Unlike you, I can speak for myself, and I don't take you seriously. n/t

[Mojorabbit]

198. +100 nt

[sabrina 1]

24. How silly. The fact is that Marr is correct, so it is not a good idea to try to smear someone

with THAT particular tactic. Considering that Cheney, Fleischer, Bush, Boehner, King, and Faux and Limbaugh et al hate Snowden and are in agreement with you, I think Marr was trying to be helpful.

[ProSense]

26. Yeah, like I'm "correct" that you agree with Storm Front.

Your post is preposterous.

[sabrina 1]

37. You started a preposterous game. Now that we all decided to play, you don't like the game.

When you start a preposterous game surely you know what to expect?

If you don't want to play anymore, then don't. But if you believe that Snowden is a terrorist or a traitor because the Oath Keepers are supportive of Whistle Blowers, then the preposterous notion of that claim will be exposed.

What was your point with this preposterous OP btw? It was to attack those, a majority of Americans now, who oppose Bush policies. Then when others do the same thing, you are OUTRAGED. Why?

[ProSense]

38. No, I posted an article and

"You started a preposterous game. Now that we all decided to play, you don't like the game. When you start a preposterous game surely you know what to expect? "

...and the defensiveness kicked into gear: You agree with Cheney!!!!

[sabrina 1]

55. The OP is so defensive that the only way to deal with it was to have some fun with it.

Don't be so upset, it's not often that Right Wing groups admit that Liberals are correct. I take their concession to Progressive Dems on this most important issue as a victory.

[ProSense]

61. Really? What makes it "defensive" in your mind? n/t

[polichick]

35. Only if the boss does. ;)

[RobertEarl]

7. Divide and conquer

Just what the powers that be love to see.

The devotion from the Pros is remarkable. Unflinching devotion to keeping the established order. Republicans must love it.

[ProSense]

11. WTF? There are Oath Keeper supporters here?

"Divide and conquer"

Who the hell am I dividing by posting this?

[RobertEarl]

14. You object to being divisive?

You are quite the con artist.

[ProSense]

15. "You are quite the con artist."

Says the clown.

[sabrina 1]

25. I would'nt worry, it's not working anymore. We have all had an awakening over the past

decade and merely view these old tactics, which are so familiar, although not here particularly, with amusement at the obvious desperation they portray. The public is joining forces now across all lines as the recent polls demonstrate.

That is what the PTBs fear the most. I'll take the support of any non-criminal American citizen who has a voice to end Bush policies and be grateful for it.

[ProSense]

27. Yet here you are all over this thread.

Telling.

[sabrina 1]

39. I thought you wanted to play a preposterous game. I love these games, always have. If you

don't me to play, just say so, but why would that be? I'm not angry or upset, just playing as you invited us to do.

[ProSense]

56. You "thought" wrong, and screaming that I agree with Cheney is pure silliness. n/t

[truedelphi]

186. Actually Ed Snowden supporters reach across all the Parties.

Supposedly even Jimmy Carter is an Ed Snowden supporter. (Hard to say for sure - only DerSpiegel would cover Carter's recent remarks. American press is voluntarily in lock down mode.)

That being said, there are an awful lot of libertarians, Republicans, and sadly Democrats who don't care about our liberties, and want the total Surveillance State to continue. The legacy these decades of surveillance will leave the grandkids is a society, like that of East Germany, where neighbors spy on neighbors, and the money goes to Surveillance, and so our grandkids crossing any bridges safely, or dealing with any infra structure, will be a strange notion, one they encounter mainly in history books.

[polichick]

8. :)

[Puzzledtraveller]

18. zing!

[MADem]

10. Founded by Ron Paul's little buddy...surprise, surprise!

I'm shocked, I tell you....shocked...! What a load of flakes--and the name "Oath Keepers?" What a joke--they are telling people to disregard a key portion of their oath, to pick and choose.

And this isn't a wingnut mag reporting this...it's the vaunted Mother Jones...!

At least now I know that the folks who fling around that "Stasi" horseshit are getting it from this nutcase....it always helps to know where silly folks get their half-baked ideas: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/07/oath-keepers-heart-snowden

...Last month, Oath Keepers founder Stuart Rhodes explained to Reason why the group might be so sympathetic to Snowden (who, like Rhodes, was a Paulite):

He is an example of what needs to be done by anyone who has knowledge of such gross violations of our rights. We need more to stand up, because this is surely the mere tip of the iceberg of the infrastructure for a police state that is being built over us.

This is about far more than supposed attempts to ferry out al Qaeda operatives. This is part of a growing Stasi and Checka style surveillance police state which tags, tracks, and prepares plans to detain dissidents with the "Main Core" database of millions of Americans who the regime considers a "threat."...

Unless we the people purge out these oath breakers from BOTH parties, we will find ourselves in a nightmare dictatorship and we will have to fight to throw it off. Sweat now or bleed later. Purge them all.

These folks CRAYYYY-ZEEEE.....

[Mojorabbit]

199. Ron Paul mention for the thread fail. nt

[MADem]

200. It's only not salient if ya don't read the link, I guess... nt

[freshwest]

218. Oh, my god. There it is. Not very original, though...

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. Oh well then, I guess I will change my opinion of Snowden now, thank you.

[ProSense]

20. Cool, but what do you make of the Oath Keepers' actions and mission? n/t

[sabrina 1]

29. What do you make of Cheney's and Bush's and King's and Fleischer's and Ledeen's

and Boehner's actions and mission, not to mention war crimes? They agree with YOU on Snowden so what should we think of that??

Who's worse, War and Wall St. Criminals or the Oath Keepers who I know pretty much nothing about so I'll leave it to you to let me know whose actions are worse??

[ProSense]

30. They want to repeal the individual mandate. What you make of that? n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

46. ACA was poorly conceived as we will all find out.

Medicaid worker.

[ProSense]

51. So you agree with Cheney and Boehner? n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

67. Is everything really black or white to you?

That there isn't a spectrum in which opinions, ideas, beliefs do not cross and mingle? I neither agree or disagree with Boner and Cheeney, I have my own feelings, thoughts and opinions on a great many things.

[ProSense]

111. Is screaming "you agree with Cheney" rational?

"I neither agree or disagree with Boner and Cheeney, I have my own feelings, thoughts and opinions on a great many things. "

Really? You mean it's possible to hold an opinion regardless of what Cheney believes?

Who knew?

[Puzzledtraveller]

113. Show me where I accused you of that.

[ProSense]

121. Did I say you did?

Your comment was in response to my response to the person who did.

I'm making the point that it's a silly claim.

[NuclearDem]

202. Is screaming "Oath Keepers agree with Snowden" rational?

You know, criticizing the ACA from the left means we reached our own conclusions about how it was poorly designed and implemented. Criticism from the right is just a knee-jerk, stupid response based on Cold War communism paranoia and partisan bullshit.

Supporting drone strikes from the right comes from support of the military-industrial complex and war-mongering. Supporting drone strikes from the left is just a knee-jerk, stupid response based on misplaced paranoia about racism and partisan bullshit.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

19. Of course they do. His fan club is a wide array of kooks and... well,

that's all I can think of right now. Maybe not such a wide array after all.

[great white snark]

31. .

[sabrina 1]

32. His non-fan club include Cheney, Bush, Fleischer, Limbaugh, Faux and 'we count the votes' Peter

King among other far right loons and war criminals.

That's quite an array of criminals and bigots and morons from the right to have on your side. Thankfully I am on the 'fan club' side. That list is enough to scare anyone into supporting Snowden without even knowing much about him.

[avaistheone1]

42. I'm with you.

[neverforget]

156. Don't forget John "enemy combatant" Yoo.

[The Straight Story]

28. And bush feels the same way about him as you do (nt)

[L0oniX]

47. +1 ^^^this^^^

[cali]

33. Pathetic. I've always thought that this is one of the worst arguments ever

[ProSense]

36. I really am loving the reation to

"Pathetic. I've always thought that this is one of the worst arguments ever"

...this moronic group's (Oath Keepers) action. I mean, the defensiveness and screaming "Cheney." WTF?

[sabrina 1]

43. I think everyone is enjoying this thread immensely. So see what you did, you united everyone

with a single purpose and we're all having fun.

That's nice for a change instead of everyone fighting and arguing all the time. You surely weren't serious were you?

[cali]

62. I'm sorry, pro dear, but would you like to link to my screaming Cheney?

the screaming is all yours all the time.

har har insert meaningless and defensive as shit smiley here:

[Matariki]

34. Ah, I see it's time for our daily Two Minutes Of Hate

carry on.

[reformist2]

40. This is exactly what it is. I hope he/she is getting paid for this.

[ProSense]

41. Nice deflection. I'm not, but why are you so defensive about this article? n/t

[Matariki]

45. It's a distraction from the actual issue, that's for sure.

[ProSense]

50. Tell it to Mother Jones. n/t

[polichick]

44. ProSense Hearts Obama - no matter what policies he adopts.

[L0oniX]

52. +1 ^^^this^^^

[ProSense]

53. polichick voted for Obama - I blame you. n/t

[polichick]

64. Sure - and he said to "hold my feet to the fire"...

My job is to do that for the good of the country - your job is to protect his reputation.

[ProSense]

85. No

"My job is to do that for the good of the country - your job is to protect his reputation."

..."my job" is to define what that means - "your job" is apparently is to define what that means for everyone else.

Evidently, in your mind, criticizing Snowden or Oath Keepers (the subject of the OP) is not "good" for the country.

[polichick]

89. Nice try, but it's clear to most posters here what it is y'all are doing...

I don't hold it against you - just can't resist poking every once in a while.

[reformist2]

48. One thing I've learned - it's not worth arguing with people with six-figure post counts.

[Matariki]

54. That would make a GREAT signature line!

[ProSense]

58. You're smart, and I own everyone of my posts.

Looking forward to many more.

[grasswire]

177. I'm begging DU to charge fee for excessive bandwidth use. nt

[Scurrilous]

79. This place is hilarious.

"Who pays you to post here??"

"Blue links? Ack!"

"Your threads are too long!"

"You post too many threads!!"

And now...

"Your post count is too high!!1!"

I can't wait to see what's next...

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

84. "You've only been here a week."

Is used against me quite often.

[Scurrilous]

176. Alluding to someone's post count (whether high, low, whatever) was taboo on the old DU2.

Now with DU3's revolutionary new jury system they've become endemic.

Up the revolution!!1!

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

49. This is what we have to look forward to in 2014 and 2016 if the left doesn't come to its senses

and stops getting derailed by this libertarian kookfest and allying with their groups.



That's Gov. Rick Perry signing one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

Keep up the pissing and moaning and give us a repeat of 2010 and you'll see Perry and others like him on television every week signing away everything. And on a NATIONAL level.

[L0oniX]

59. FFS epic reframe fail.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

66. I'm a heterosexual, 25-year-old caucasian male studying in a field that has a 4% unemployment rate.

I can survive GOP rule.

But I don't want that for all the minorities in this country that have worked decades for their achievements.

I'll continue voting 'D' for all the downtrodden in this country, despite the largely successful "both parties are the same" smear campaign.

And I won't lose a wink of sleep voting for candidates that I only agree with on 60% of the issues.

[L0oniX]

73. Your failure is in thinking that critisism of a Dem means a no vote for the Dem.

Go ahead and act like you see lots of DU members saying they will not vote Dem ....it's bullshit ...in fact if they did they would soon get banned. Enjoy your stay.

[Puzzledtraveller]

77. LMAO

[99th_Monkey]

57. The Revolution will NOT be about the "Left v. Right", or Dem v. Rep. ~nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

82. Very true

because that is the desired state of tptb. That is why they can't have another Snowden, or Manning.

[Scurrilous]

60. I was wondering when the birthers would show up...

All the other nut jobs are glomming on to this poor schlemiel, why not them.

[progressoid]

63. Snowden OP #749

[SomethingFishy]

65. So it's not enough just to disagree with people..

You have to continually equate them with groups or people you hate, hoping to what? Change their minds? Ostracize them? What?

You are a real boon to the Democrats I must say. By the time you are done weeding out all the "enemies" there will be 10 of you left in the whole fucking party.

[Katashi_itto]

72. +1000 Everytime I think about voting I just think of the OP and go "why"?

[Mnemosyne]

86. +1001 nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. So does the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Daniel Ellsberg.

To name but a few.

[ProSense]

71. Yeah,

"So does the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Daniel Ellsberg."

...I know because you posted that before and I responded: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023288332#post97

Still, that has nothing to do with the OP.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. You are citing one group's opinion. I'm saying that there are groups that share that opinion.

In fact, there is what could be called a group that supports Snowden's efforts right here on DU.

[ProSense]

88. Fine, but the OP is about the group mentioned. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

168. And, Snowden?

[NuclearDem]

184. You know, there's something in legal doctrine called "opening the door"

When you start discussing groups and their association with Snowden, you can't act all shocked when other people start talking about groups and their associations with Snowden.

[Katashi_itto]

69. Ahhh the Hourly update of the OPer...

Whats it this time?

Snowden linked to Mormons... is Snowden Responsible for the sudden lack of Magical Underwear among Mormons...that evil bastard

Maybe...Evil World conquering Knights of Columbus?

[darkangel218]

103. Lmao!!!

[flamingdem]

70. K & arrg

[Apophis]

75. Another Two Minute Hate thread and another trashed thread.

[quinnox]

76. So do liberals and progressives. Edward Snowden is an American hero, riding to warn us of danger

and potential tyranny to the nation.

[Scurrilous]

83. You've posted this so many times that I'm starting to think you're just goofing on us...

Right?

[quinnox]

91. nope. I have grown fond of posting this in these type threads

And since there seems to be one or two of these type threads, if not more, posted every day, its become habit forming.

But I will probably start using different pics of Paul Revere, for variety. (but this one really rocks though)

[Laelth]

136. I, for one, hope you keep it up.

It's a great picture, and its sentiments are honorable and patriotic.

-Laelth

[hlthe2b]

78. I'm not Snowden defender, but how simillar to the "Obama palling around with terrorists" attempt

vis-a-vis Ayers and Reverend Wright smear campaigns....

The more the Snowden-Glenwald detractors adopt this approach, the more I really have to wonder... and the less willing I am to believe there is no "there there" with respect to NSA wrong-doing and continued obfuscations/lies?

[ProSense]

87. What the hell are you talking about? n/t

[hlthe2b]

93. Apparently some believe one can judge veracity and integrity by the most extreme of your supporters

Ugly tactic and not worthy....

[ProSense]

95. Oh please,

"Apparently some believe one can judge veracity and integrity by the most extreme of your supporters

Ugly tactic and not worthy...."

...the piece is about Ron Paul supporters' activities. They have aligned themselves with Snowden, also a Paul supporter.

That's a fact.

[hlthe2b]

96. Your intent in posting this is very clear to most on this thread, PRO.... Big fail.

and I am one who you might convince on the wider issues.... but NOT with this tactic.

[ProSense]

99. Bullshit. The article is what it is. Projecting "intent" is purely a cheap deflection tactic.

I mean, it's like: how dare you post this?

If you can't deal with the content of the piece, and it makes you squirm, that's your problem, not mine.

[hlthe2b]

101. It is all our problem when one of our supposed "own" uses these kind of tactics

to smear those with whom we disagree or the administration disagrees or otherwise is deemed a "threat"...

Counter what they (Snowden/Greenwald) are saying re: NSA... These McCarthy-type tactics are beneath all of us--or at least hey should be.

[ProSense]

102. Again, bullshit on the lame deflection. n/t

[hlthe2b]

105. Pro--these character assasination by association tactics are the ultimate deflection...

And very ugly tactics indeed. I would never justify the RW using them against us and I will NOT defend you when you do so.

[ProSense]

107. Please,

"Pro--these character assasination by association tactics are the ultimate deflection..."

...spare me the nonsense. You have clearly latched onto a meme and cannot shake it. Your claims have nothing to do with the OP, and the number of times post like these:

So... Agreeing With Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Et. Al. On Edward Snowden Is...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023029984

...have surfaced here, makes the outrage laughable.

[hlthe2b]

108. Ugly ugly failing strategy, ProSense... I understand you have a stake in defending administration

SO DO SO..... But don't resort to this.

Your attempt to deflect the criticism by this kind of character assassination is an ugly, failing RW tactic.

[ProSense]

112. Keep repeating that. The OP is a report. You don't have to like it. n/t

[hlthe2b]

114. Not just me that sees this as very wrong. You are better than this, ProSense...

As I said earlier, you have long had an ability to present the administration's POV in a way that can convince wavering supporters... But, this is not the way.

[ProSense]

116. Spare me the self-righteous act. n/t

[hlthe2b]

117. Obviously, I've hit a nerve. GOOD!

[ProSense]

119. No,

"Obviously, I've hit a nerve. GOOD!"

...but you do self-righteous good.

I'll keep calling out the kooks as I see them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023219799

If you don't mind?

[hlthe2b]

122. Hey, go for it... Klayman and the group in your OP are kooks... That's not the point..

[ProSense]

124. No, that is the friggin point, not the one you made up. n/t

[hlthe2b]

132. Right... I and four dozen others on the thread just "made up a point".... How, convenient when your

thread has not gone as you'd predicted.

[ProSense]

115. Oh, and feel free to address the report,

if you can break away from your "Ugly ugly failing" attempt at "character assassination."

[hlthe2b]

120. Even the most extremist RW groups in our society may express a real concern, even if their reasoning

is based on disgusting motivations.

It would not be the first time that progressive concerns loosely aligned to one degree or another with a group that is otherwise abhorrent and generally in opposition to everything our own side believes.

[ProSense]

123. So

"Even the most extremist RW groups in our society may express a real concern, even if their reasoning is based on disgusting motivations.

It would not be the first time that progressive concerns loosely aligned to one degree or another with a group that is otherwise abhorrent and generally in opposition to everything our own side believes. "

...what's your point? I post a report calling out kooks, and you launch into a deflective and repetitive attempt to mischaracterize it.

[hlthe2b]

126. I and about four dozens other here have made it very clear what this issue is. Feign confusion

if you wish... But, I hope you will take the message to heart. Debate the issues. Stop trying to defend the administration against Snowden/Greenwald's charges by this "guilt by association" strategy.

[ProSense]

129. So now you're back to being self-righteous? Couldn't accept the point? n/t

[hlthe2b]

130. Back at ya, ProSense... You don't win debates merely by being tedious...

but I'm sure we'd all give you credit for trying.

[ProSense]

137. WTH? I'm wasn't trying to "win debates."

I was posting an article about kooks. Not my fault that you're offended by that.

[hlthe2b]

142. Nor do you win debates by deflecting with straw men.... but you certainly are trying

No one here has expressed support of the group in your OP--nor have they expressed offense that you don't like them. They are expressing outrage that you are using their support of Snowden/Greenwald to smear them, RATHER than to debate their issues with NSA surveillance directly.

[ProSense]

146. Of course not

No one here has expressed support of the group in your OP--nor have they expressed offense that you don't like them. They are expressing outrage that you are using their support of Snowden/Greenwald to smear them, RATHER than to debate their issues with NSA surveillance directly.

...the deflective defensive posturing started almost immediatly after the piece was posted. I mean, when that's the goal, why would anyone address the topic?

Like I said, spare me because between the screams of "you agree with Cheney" and the constant use of the tactic you're projection onto this OP, it's apparent that you are having trouble dealing with the content.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023296926#post10

So... Agreeing With Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Et. Al. On Edward Snowden Is...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023029984

[hlthe2b]

149. Accusing ME of something I have never ever posted, uttered, or thought-- NICE and very dishonest, PR

I have never said (as you have just accused me in your post reply to me): "Like I said, spare me because between the screams of "you agree with Cheney" and the constant use of the tactic you're projection onto this OP, it's apparent that you are having trouble dealing with the content"

I hope everyone here sees this ^^^^^^^^^ and realizes that you are sinking to this very dishonest behavior. I now regret having tried to defend you, as I often have in the past. This behavior is beyond the pale.

[ProSense]

151. You mean

"I hope everyone here sees this ^^^^^^^^^ and realizes that you are sinking to this very dishonest behavior. I now regret having tried to defend you, as I often have in the past. This behavior is beyond the pale. "

...like the "dishonest behavior" that characterized all your bogus accusations?

[hlthe2b]

153. You lied about me in your last post... attributing comments to me I NEVER said/posted.

That goes WAAAY beyond mere use of strawmen into extremely inappropriate territory.

Very clearly you have lost perspective. And, yes, I do hope others see what you tactics you now employ.

[ProSense]

155. No, I didn't. You (and others) are having trouble dealing with the content of the OP. n/t

[hlthe2b]

157. YOU MOST certainly attributed a comment I never made to me... THAT is the definition of lying.

How stark faced, boldly and unrepentant you do that. Once again, I hope others see this subthread, track what I am saying, verify that I never said anything of what you just accused me and make their judgements accordingly.

I once supported you on more occasions then not. From your behavior here, I now realize I have been duped into believe what you state to be true--even if we should be on the same side on most things.

[ProSense]

161. No, I didn't, but this is just another deflective attempt on your part. n/t

[hlthe2b]

164. THe direct evidence of your lie (post 146 ). Anyone here can verify I NEVER SAID THAT

Denying you said it when it is in your post suggests another ugly tactic you' apparently learned from the other side... Deflect, deny, deny, deflect, deny... even in the face of the evidence.

Like I said, spare me because between the screams of "you agree with Cheney" and the constant use of the tactic you're projection onto this OP, it's apparent that you are having trouble dealing with the content.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023296926#post10

So... Agreeing With Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Et. Al. On Edward Snowden Is...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023029984

[ProSense]

165. You was generic. Not everyone is doing all those things. You (and other) are having trouble

You included.

Keep attempting to deflect.

[hlthe2b]

166. "You" was addressed to "me"... Is this your attempt to apologize?

You certainly should because anyone reading that would not believe a generic interpretation of that direct accusation. As the post stands it is an absolute and DEMONSTRABLE LIE.

[ProSense]

170. It was generic, and your attempt to deflect is a fail. n/t

[hlthe2b]

171. I deflect NOTHING... Your accusation/comment you attributed to me was a DEMONSTRABLE LIE...

Direct enough for you?

And feel free to alert... Any jury worth their salt with any integrity whatsoever will search the thread or any other posts I have EVER made and realize that the comment you attributed to me was an absolute LIE.

[ProSense]

172. I don't give a shit if you want to believe that

"Direct enough for you? "

[hlthe2b]

173. ^^^^ Everything you need to know (perhaps already suspected) about this poster^^^

Gets caught in an outright and absolute lie and rather than apologize, this is their response.


Everything you ever needed to know (and perhaps already suspected) about this poster.

[ProSense]

175. Everything I need to know about you: You can't accept facts, and love to deflect.

You jumped into the thread with your bogus accusations, and now, despite clarifying that the "you" was generic, you want to play the victim.

Spare me.

[hlthe2b]

178. You lied (demonstrably and irrefutably). No, you don't get to play the vicitm.

[ProSense]

181. Deflection, it's about you covering an embarrassing episode of false accusations. n/t

[hlthe2b]

182. Covering YOUR embarrassment, perhaps... YOU SHOULD BE embarrassed & ashamed at your lie.

[hlthe2b]

187. You lied, PROSENSE (demonstrably and irrefutably). No, you don't get to play the vicitm.

[Union Scribe]

128. Uh oh. Sassy weekend ProSense has arrived. nt

[Puglover]

135. Whether true or not.

THAT is funny.

[Scurrilous]

183. Gossipy crapola has arrived also.

Huzzah!!1!

[RC]

159. What you are telling everyone is that right and wrong do not figure in your opinions.

But basically if they agree with you, and not necessarily you with them, then that just reenforces that you must be correct and everyone else is wrong, correct?

Your sometimes convoluted "logic", a bit too often approaches word salad level. It is sometimes hard to tell what you are responding to, except for the information in the upper right hand corner of your response.

1. Is our government spying on us citizens? (Yes/No)
...a. If so, is it Constitutional? (Yes/No)
...b, If it is Constitutional, what is the big deal about Snowden then? He has nothing ________________________
...c. If it is not Constitutional, why is what Snowden did exposing the extent of the spying so bad? _____________

2. If our government is not spying on us, what is all this world wide brouhaha all about? ______________________
...a. What are those "splitter rooms" and five big data storage centers for? _________________________________

[ProSense]

162. Please stop projecting silliness. Don't want to read the OP report. Don't. n/t

[RC]

201. Our government wholesale spying on us is not silliness.

Why are you against exposing the extent of that spying?

[ProSense]

204. No, silliness is attempting to derail this thread via deflection. n/t

[RC]

214. No, silliness is avoiding a simple question.

Why do you support the views of Liz and Dick Cheney on the NSA spying. Why was bringing it to the public's attention so bad, on the part of Snowden? Don't you think we deserve to know what our government is doing in our name? Don't you think Congress should have oversight and approval?

[Waiting For Everyman]

90. Guilt by association, the Joe McCarthy technique.

Really? You think DUers aren't smart enough to see through that? You're insulting our intelligence, and so is the author of the piece.

on both of you.

[ProSense]

97. You mean like screaming "you agree with Cheney and Bolton"? n/t

[rdharma]

92. Is this one of those "Hitler liked dogs.......and I like dogs too" moments?

Because I generally agree with the Oath Keepers on the privacy/unconstitutional spying on citizens issues. But after that.....those psycho/racist RW nut jobs (with their Alex Jones conspiracy theories), lose me completely!

[ram2008]

94. Guilty by association? Really? OK Sarah Palin

You know you have a losing argument when you resort to Palinesque tactics. Anything to deflect from the real issue.

[ProSense]

106. The best things about this thread

"Guilty by association? Really? OK Sarah Palin

You know you have a losing argument when you resort to Palinesque tactics. Anything to deflect from the real issue."

...defensive deflection, faux outrage and projecting.

So... Agreeing With Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Et. Al. On Edward Snowden Is...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023029984

[ram2008]

167. Two wrongs don't make a right, guilt by association= fail

Two groups of people can agree with each other on an issue even if they disagree on every single other one. "Even a broken clock is right twice a day"

[LondonReign2]

98. #threadfail

Unluss of course your objective was to be mocked for transparently poor attempts at McCarthyism.

In that case #welldone

[ProSense]

100. Thread is an apparent success.

"Unluss of course your objective was to be mocked for transparently poor attempts at McCarthyism. "

Look at all the silly accusations and defensive deflections.

[ucrdem]

109. I'd say so. nt

[Demit]

110. No! Look at how many responses the OP gets! A sure sign of success!!

In some people's minds, that is. It's sort of like the "Made you look!" game we played as children. In fact, didn't I see a "So there!" reply upthread? I think we are giving joy to a childlike personality, with all this attention.

[ucrdem]

104. " founded by a former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) staffer"

Gee, who would have thought?

p.s. PlanetPaul featuring Alex "Ron Paul" Jones is also pushing Snowball in a big way. In fact yesterday I saw a conspicuous www.infowars.com sticker on the back of a freeway sign with the slogan "save our Constitution." Barfalicious summer fun.

[arely staircase]

125. unlikely quarters?

oath keepers support right wing ron paul loving loon? where is the surprise?

[NCTraveler]

127. I have a very conservative Christian family member.

He thinks Fred Phelps is a hate filled scumbag. I think Fred Phelps is a hate filled scumbag. Therefore I must be a very conservative Christian.

For the life of me I can't figure out why I have been acting like and agnostic progressive. You teach me something new about myself every day.

OP = Simpleton.

[ucrdem]

131. OP is timely and well-informed on a topic of great interest to many here.

see for example:



I think you owe OP an apology.

[ProSense]

134. Do you support the Oath Keepers?

I have a very conservative Christian family member.

He thinks Fred Phelps is a hate filled scumbag. I think Fred Phelps is a hate filled scumbag. Therefore I must be a very conservative Christian.

For the life of me I can't figure out why I have been acting like and agnostic progressive. You teach me something new about myself every day.

OP = Simpleton.

The report is about kooks. I posted the report because I don't like kooks. You don't like kooks.

Does that make you a "Simpleton"?

I guess I could have ignored the fact that these kooks are doing this promotion, but then again, I didn't.

[Matariki]

138. Hitler liked jam. You like jam.

Why do you support Hitler?

[ProSense]

139. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023296926#post10

Faux outrage.

[burnodo]

140. ANOTHER Snowden thread

What is that....450? 460?

[ProSense]

141. No,

"What is that....450? 460?"

...I think someone counted a brazillian.

[burnodo]

144. I think it's very likely to be in the 400's

You've been terribly obsessed

[ProSense]

148. Go count them and let me know.

You're obviously bored.

[burnodo]

150. Drunk, actually

You know you'd be a hot liberal chick if you weren't so obsessed

[burnodo]

213. aHA! A post you didn't respond to!

[LondonReign2]

215. Because the Borg do not qualify

[whatchamacallit]

145. My god I'm sick of this shit...

[ProSense]

147. LOL!

Don't like the Oath Keepers? Don't blame you, they're kooks.

[rug]

169. At least they're not continuing his policies.

[NuclearDem]

174. Christ, Hitler built the predecessor to the Interstate Highway. I like the Interstate Highway.

Does that mean I like Hitler?

Yesterday was "Snowden is an arrogant stupid poopyhead" day, now it's guilt-by-association day.

Let's play! Obama launches drone strikes against Pakistani and Yemeni children. ProSense supports Obama. Therefore, ProSense likes killing Pakistani and Yemeni children!

[ProSense]

179. Well

"Let's play! Obama launches drone strikes against Pakistani and Yemeni children." NuclearDem voted for "Obama. Therefore," NuclearDem likes killing Pakistani and Yemeni children!"

...wheeee!

Now, what about the OP article?

[NuclearDem]

188. Wow, awesome rewording! Considering I didn't even vote in 2008 or 2012, it's even more awesome!

[ProSense]

190. Well, that's good to know

I guess that gives you every right to complain.

[NuclearDem]

191. So I didn't participate in the consistently-rigged system that would have had me holding my nose

no matter who I voted for.

So, yeah, actually, it does.

[Scootaloo]

180. I think you need a better hobby, ProSense n/t

[ProSense]

185. Why?

What's wrong with calling out kooks?

[Scootaloo]

192. Well, 'cause you rather come off as an unhinged crusader, and are relying on guilt by association

it's not a good look for you, and I think maybe you could stand to come up for air.

[ProSense]

194. No, that's your take, but then again anyone who supports Snowden would make that claim.

I mean, posting an article critical of Snowden or indirectly related to Snowden invites some really vicious attacks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023296379

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023296127

Oh well.

[Scootaloo]

197. Yes, that is my take, even though I couldn't give a shit about Snowden

Which is probably why it's my take 'cause I see you leaping around screaming about the guy with every post you make. In fact i think you post more about Snowden than his supporters combined.

If you were using sound logic, that'd be one thing, but "SNOWDEN IS A BAD GUY BECAUSE THE OATH KEEPERS GIVE HIM A THUMBS-UP!" just isn't a logical argument.

[ProSense]

203. Frankly

"Yes, that is my take, even though I couldn't give a shit about Snowden

Which is probably why it's my take 'cause I see you leaping around screaming about the guy with every post you make. In fact i think you post more about Snowden than his supporters combined. "

...that's bullshit.

And you apparently didn't have any problem with Snowden support here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10023207679&info=1#recs

I mean, I understand that the people who swarm my threads have that as a goal, and they make the same nonsensical arguments, but the fact is that they don't care about the volume of Snowden threads: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023288332#post237

My other posts don't draw the same level of attention.

Krugman: Obamacare Is the Right’s Worst Nightmare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023284000

Finally, Bank Regulators Have Had Enough
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023287019

Jobless claims show sharp improvement, reach three-month low
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023287067

Regulators Fine Barclays $453 Million Over U.S. Energy Price Rigging
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023279856

Anonymous claims hack of US's Fema in retaliation for 'implied threats'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023295511

(Peter Welch, D-Vt.) co-founds 'Problem Solvers Coalition' to break gridlock in Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023295373

Report: Michigan Judge Orders Detroit Bankruptcy Filing Withdrawn
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023297417

[Scootaloo]

205. I have no problem with Snowden support, either

As I've explained, I don't see the dude as hero or villain. I recced that thread - among a few others - because it talks about the needs of the elite to preserve secrecy in order to preserve control. I didn't say the story doesn't interest me, just that I don't give a flying fuck about Edward Snowden.

Perhaps your other threads don't draw the same level of attention because they're not irritating clutter that rely on faulty logic and character assassination in order to convey your personal opinion about one fucking guy? This is still the internet, you know, bothersome nonsense will inevitably draw more attention than information does.

[ProSense]

206. No,

"Perhaps your other threads don't draw the same level of attention because they're not irritating clutter that rely on faulty logic and character assassination in order to convey your personal opinion about one fucking guy? This is still the internet, you know, bothersome nonsense will inevitably draw more attention than information does."

...that's not it. You're still projecting bullshit. I mean, someone actually alerted on this thread:

NYT editor's blog: Snowden’s Questionable New Turn
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023034825

Yes, it's "one fucking guy," and he's not above criticism. I'm sure those who praise him constantly would rather not deal with it.

[Scootaloo]

210. Just because you use a word doesn't mean it's applicable; in this case, "projecting"

Nope, he's not above criticism. But there is such a thing as illegitimate criticism, just as there is legitimate criticism. There's also a difference between "following a story" and "being obsessive."

The post you started this thread with talks about the Oath Keepers giving some support to Snowden. Okay, and? This doesn't characterize Snowden at all. It certainly doesn't characterize other groups or people who might offer support to the guy. Maybe if offered without commentary it would just be a piece of news tied to the overall story, but you really seem insistent on making a point with the piece.

And someone alerted on your thread? So what? Are you above criticism?

[ProSense]

211. Yes,

Just because you use a word doesn't mean it's applicable; in this case, "projecting"

Nope, he's not above criticism. But there is such a thing as illegitimate criticism, just as there is legitimate criticism. There's also a difference between "following a story" and "being obsessive."

...and you've demonstrated "illegitimate criticism," and you are projecting intent.

"The post you started this thread with talks about the Oath Keepers giving some support to Snowden. Okay, and?"

"And"? And it's about the Oath Keepers.

"This doesn't characterize Snowden at all. It certainly doesn't characterize other groups or people who might offer support to the guy."

Gee, you think?

"Maybe if offered without commentary it would just be a piece of news tied to the overall story, but you really seem insistent on making a point with the piece."

WTF? The only "commentary" in the OP is "Join the revolution," which is directly about the group's goals.

Your comment just proved that the point being thrown around in this thread to deflect attention from the article is completely and utterly silly.

[Scootaloo]

212. Fair enough, I get what you were meaning now regarding projecting n/t

[Union Scribe]

217. Odd, usually shipwrecks sink

But this one keeps floating up. I guess the better analogy then...