The Black Helicopter Left and Its Disconnect from the Constitution

[michigandem58]

Not long ago, people who imagined black helicopters lowering themselves in American cities and towns were considered tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorists who couldn't be taken seriously. Now, their leaders are some of the most prominent media (and elected) figures in American politics - on both the Left and the Right. The collusion of the tinfoil-hat crowd has taken the form of people on the supposed Left having ideological orgasms about #standwithrand, wondering if Obama could order a drone strike on your favorite coffee shop in Anytown, USA, and people from "tech journalists" to shills declaring Edward Snowden a hero.

We have gotten to a place where conspiracy theories and downright counterfactual assertions are taken as the truth when it comes to the government's legal, legitimate power to conduct surveillance in the interest of national security. Any assurances given by the law and by process to protect privacy and liberty is tossed aside as insufficient when it isn't derides as a lie. Yet, it is the libertarian side of the argument that fails to make a factual case: thus far any and all the programs unearthed by Snowden's defection have proven to be legal, Constitutional, and Congress and court-supervised, and no abuse, illegality, negligence or fraud...

So here's my challenge to the Black Helicopter Left: take off your tinfoil hats. Join the real world. Join the real conversation about liberty and security, and focus on what is actually being done. If you are concerned about potential abuses, discuss the ways of preventing those abuses through checks and balances, not through handicapping law enforcement - and actually try to find out what checks and balances are currently available. Passion is a good thing, especially in defense of liberty. But we must be as passionate about discovering the facts and telling the whole truth as we are about our liberties, for the truth, too, is something worth being passionate about.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/08/the-black-helicopter-left-and-its.html

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Ah so now we are racist randroid obama hating Black Helicopter Leftists.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

[HangOnKids]

37. Perfect!

The Black Helicopter thing is kind of sexy though.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

38. It has become increasingly comical how far the Regan Democrats will go

to convince all that will listen that liberals and progressives are just *crazy and in collusion with those on the right.

*If you cannot silence a group in opposition to tyranny then label them as crazies and affix all sorts of maladies to their political condition. This is something that I expect from team GOP and not Democrats or DUers.

[Puzzledtraveller]

56. It's really just the corporatists against everyone else

they've kept us occupied with wedge issues for a long time but now we are getting restless and they are getting nervous.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

69. 82% of REAL Liberal Democrats approve of President Obama's job as president; therefore

you are one of the fringe types who want to drag down this president as "the man" which is actually in service of the right wing aims to install a repressive fully corporate compliant president in the mold of Bush.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

73. Is that the poll from Get-it-wrong-Gallup?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

80. ok. let's bias it downward and say only 72% of liberal Democrats agree. Even accounting for error

that is an overwhelming majority. deal. with. it.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

82. Why not just show me where you got the poll numbers?

If you have to bias it down to 51% to make it a claim of majority do you still believe that the Government spying on its citizens is a just thing?

[Tarheel_Dem]

102. Here ya go!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023463537

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3467256

You're welcome.

[Jakes Progress]

107. You're kidding. Right?

You shouldn't quote polls that you don't know about. Try checking out their questions and limitations. Anyone can poll anything. Gallup had Romney winning at a walk. That's who you trust?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

110. Like I mentioned upthread. "Get-it-wrong-Gallup."

[Tarheel_Dem]

132. And the Washington Post? Are they in collusion with Gallup?

[Jakes Progress]

135. Read the poll data.

I know it is easier to just look at what someone else tells you, but look at the definitions for their labeling. Look at the questions.

If you ask me if I approve of Obama over w.bush, I would say yes. Ask me if I approve of a Democrat over a republican, I would say yes. Ask me if I approve of how he handled the banks, of his education program, of his NSA stance. Then you get another answer.

Do you approve of his work with the banks and wall street? Do you approve of his push for privatizing schools and cutting teacher unions? Do you approve of he actions of the NSA and how those actions were represented by the administration? Those answer yes to any of these three, I do not consider to be a liberal Democrat. They might vote Democratic. They might call themselves a Democrat. But they don't fall into the category of liberal Democrat. Not by the definition of liberal Democrat that other liberal Democrats like myself have been using for the last 40 years.

[Tarheel_Dem]

136. 80% is 80% no matter how you slice & dice.

[Jakes Progress]

140. Only if you don't have any math skills.

80 percent of all Democrats is not the same as 80% of a liberal Democrats. We have a whole new branch of conservative Democrats. They support policies to the right of eisenhower and nixon. They champion goals such as the eradication of unions, privatization of schools, military expansion, warrantless surveillance of the public, the limiting of Social Security, and the free-flowing mixture of corporate with government interests.

I noticed you didn't want to weigh in on where you think you fall on the scale of liberal to third-way Democrat.

[Jakes Progress]

106. Okay. Let's just make up some numbers and then move them around.

That method has such validity. How about 115%? or let's just change that to 112%. You pick.

[HangOnKids]

115. Bazinga!

Making up shit is right in the wheel house.

[Jakes Progress]

124. Of course.

If you don't give a shit about people or policy and only about personalities and corporations, why would you bother with things like the truth or principle. Easier just make shit up and say it over and over. The RW has been doing it for years. The New Democratic Party (also known as 1980's republicans) is just using their playbook.

[G_j]

96. yes, but we are "professional"

I read that here too!

[Marr]

2. A quick glance over that site's front page makes it clear who is the agenda-driven nut. /nt

[PoliticAverse]

3. "not through handicapping law enforcement" - "a policeman's job is only easy in a police state." n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. Exactly what I have been thinking as I read these threads

[HangOnKids]

14. That explains a lot!

Thanks for clarifying!

[whatchamacallit]

5. Haha, asshole blogging from mom's basement represents "the people's view"

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Why link to a hypocritical piece-of-shit MIC supporting website?

It's a waste of space. "The People's View", my arse.

[PowerToThePeople]

7. FAILPOST. n/t

[HardTimes99]

8. Do note that the OP has cut and run, not even sticking around to

defend his or her own OP, much less provide any editorial commentary on the excerpt he or she quoted.

What drivel.

[hobbit709]

11. Not the first time either.

[Berlum]

31. Alas, Chickenhawkery is a republican tradition

in all spheres of existence, military, digital - whatever. A sad case.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. So, if all of what Snowden revealed is "..legal, Constitutional,.." etc, why is he being pursued?

Looks to me that the regime is far more paranoid than the "Black Helicopter Left".

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. Sad, isn't it? I voted for this "regime", and all I got

was a lousy NSA email scan.

[grasswire]

10. propaganda

and ugly stuff

[arely staircase]

12. Jury Results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Thu Aug 15, 2013, 10:26 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

The Black Helicopter Left and Its Disconnect from the Constitution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023466122

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

a name calling op. nice!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 15, 2013, 10:32 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: That was a very well written piece by michigandem58. Vey thoughtful.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Don't be thin skinned. Discuss the actual content in the OP.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Aerows]

18. What the hell is up with juror number 5 again?

Did they hit the wrong button? They seemed to agree with not alerting...

NOTE: I don't agree, but they really seemed to hit the wrong button. LOL.

[arely staircase]

19. I noticed that. nt

[Aerows]

21. Strange n/t

[Dash87]

24. There's a glitch where you can accidentally vote the other way.

It's happened to me before. I'm not sure how to reproduce it.

[Aerows]

25. You have to click on it twice though

that's odd.

[Dash87]

30. When it happened to me, it said "Leave it"on both steps,

but voted to hide. I think it happened bc I did some weird browser ninja-fu (back button or something) and then changed my vote. I've never had it happen again.

[BumRushDaShow]

50. That happened to me too a couple weeks ago

on something to leave and I even wrote narrative that said to leave it, but it hid it. Hiccups I suppose.

[michigandem58]

22. That ought to tell you something

Looks like Juror 5 may have made an error, judging from the comment - this is a 5-1 or 6-0 vote.

[Union Scribe]

94. Not really.

I would have voted to leave this too. That doesn't mean it's smart or has a point whatsoever, just that it isn't against CS per se.

[ronnie624]

130. It's funny

that so many think there is a political agenda behind every action. Doing what is right, seems like the best course.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

13. Is this your uncle's blog or something?

You seem to quote this idiot every other day or so.

[HangOnKids]

17. Falcon Air!!!!!!

I will never get tired of that reference. Love you!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

109. FalconAir...a blast from the past (approximately 19 Friedman Units ago)

I think FA at least came from a place of sincerity--warmongering and wrongheaded sincerity, but I think she actually meant it. By contrast, some of the newer and more vacuous bots such as the one at the top of the page seem to be in it to play a game. I'd bet good money that the OP cares much more about stroking his own ego and poking sticks at other people than he does about the causes he espouses. It's a theory anyway.

[djean111]

15. Name-calling drivel.

Not surprised, yesterday I was told that us professional lefties dreamed up the faux scandals.
I thought this website was supposed to be helping elect Democrats, not venerate them once they are elected.

[Xipe Totec]

16. If I see any Black Helicopter Lefties, I'll make sure to let them know. nt

[Pholus]

20. If only those "conspiracy theories" were not constantly being confirmed.

Most of the time before you guys can even finish calling it a "tinfoil hat" theory.

Frankly, you got nothing else and your desperation is palpable here.

Shall we recap the "conspiracy theories" you guys advanced in the last three months that we don't need to discuss anymore, cause they are ESTABLISHED FACTS now?

1) American data is NOT being collected. (It is, from metadata to "the 1.6%&quot
2) Minimization processes make sure no Americans are targeted. (Remember what John Oliver said about being 51% sure?)
3) There is no evidence of wrongdoing, you can't prove anything. (That's just what Snowden did in the end, give evidence).
4) It is only metadata. (It wasn't -- XKeyscore)
5) It is only used for terrorism. (It isn't, the data is being shared WELL outside that scope as the NY Times showed)
6) It is only saved for a limited amount of time due to volume (What about after Utah comes online? Evasions).

You can namecall all you want -- it just demonstrates the frustration you feel being on the "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" side.

[michigandem58]

23. Pragmatic progressives have been right on Manning and Snowden n/t

[Pholus]

27. "Pragmatic" is a good term for you to hang on yourself, given its archaic definition... nt

[HangOnKids]

28. Pragmatic Progressives Is An Oxymoron

Please tell me what you think a pragmatic progressive is? I'm curious.

[NuclearDem]

57. It's the "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"

Thing is though, they wouldn't have a "perfect" to to go by if it weren't for the so-called "Black Helicopter Left" (or "Far Left", "Purity Patrol" or whatever the slant du jour is for the party's actual leftists)

[HangOnKids]

60. Got It

The EmoProgs just fucked things up. Are they riding in Black Helicopters or Purity Planes?

[winter is coming]

89. You know, I've only ever seen the "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" argument

used when someone was trying to sell something that isn't good.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

61. Pragmatic progressives? Is that anything like Reagan Democrats?

[robertpaulsen]

83. Instead of "pragmatic", just substitute "sensible".

See what I mean?

?1370984195

[sabrina 1]

26. That is an extremist website, filled with posters who have been banned from other legitimate

Democratic forums. But if you want to know where the latest attacks on the 'commie, racist, black helicopter, paul-botor whatever the latest inane labels to be assigned to Democrats is, emanate from that cesspool is the place to go.

I have no idea why it is being linked to here, but it's always good to track where the latest propaganda comes from.

[HangOnKids]

29. I found that link odd as well n/t

[Rex]

35. Like I said, the OP would feel right at home on Free Republic.

These posters that just sign up to bash the Left are the most pathetic lot I've ever seen. Even more pathetic then Freepers imo.

[HangOnKids]

40. I Don't See A Difference

Cuz bashin is bashin my friend.

[Rex]

41. Good point.

nt.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

32. "Join the real conversation about liberty and security..."

Alright.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Some long-haired Leftist Reactionary

[randome]

39. Who owned slaves, by the way.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

43. Which changes nothing from the original statement, unless

you perhaps are happy with the idea that we can all be slaves of the state?

In addition, Franklin also became an abolitionist and freed his slaves so I'm not entirely sure you have thought through what you really wanted to accomplish.

[randome]

44. I would think that statement would have had more significance to Franklin's slaves.

If they were allowed to hear it, that is.

I'm just pointing out that Franklin was a hypocrite in some ways. It was the 'fashion' of the day to own slaves so maybe he wasn't as 'leftist' or 'progressive' as you say.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

46. He freed his slaves and became an abolitionist.

Being an abolitionist in that day and age was if anything an act of the far left.

[randome]

47. He did that toward the end of his life.

I'm sure his slaves appreciated it, nonetheless.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

59. And yet he still did it. Still spoke up about it. Joined other abolitionists.

Which, again is still pretty damn Liberal for the time. He at least changed for the better (which is a progressive trait), and I guess that has some people's undergarments in a twist since his true character, and words, speaks for itself.

It must be difficult for some to try and assassinate the character of an imperfect Liberal from the 1700s in order to support the actions of a police state in the present. They have paid very dear for their dog whistle.

[Rex]

51. Wasting your time, history doesn't matter to some here.

Just their Left bashing agenda matters. Bashing Old Ben Franklin...now I've seen everything!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

55. This really is a hoot. You're right.

Franklin didn't have the six pack that some need for their hero worship.

[Rex]

65. LOL!

A six pack! I LOVE IT!

[sabrina 1]

72. Are you opposed to Constiutional Rights for the American people?? That appears to be what

you are saying. Please clarify.

[sabrina 1]

70. Which has nothing to do with the centuries old laws and social philosophy which is what

influenced the writers and signatories of the Constitution, many of whom, btw, not only did not own slaves, but considered the ownership of slaves to be 'a great evil'.

This is a right wing meme, just so you know. When defending Bush's anti-Constitutional policies, an anti-Constitutional 'movement' using slavery, something I find to be despicable, did then and still do, by people who could care less about the issue, in order to try to shut down the legitimate opposition by Democrats mostly, to Bush's anti-Constitutional policies.

I would like to know why we are seeing this here on DU when Democrats exposed that particular tactic, tracked down, at the time, the Republicans who were using it as a political weapon, only to see it resurrected here on DU??

This brings back bad memories of the good old Bush era.

And if you hate the Constitution then do something to get it rescinded. For now it is the law of the land, the one thing all of our elected officials and military personnel are required to defend and protect.

So, as I once asked those who tried to use this before, 'what are you trying to say'? It sounds to me that you are opposed to Constitutional Protections for the American people. Is that what you are saying or am I wrong? I would appreciate a clarification as you drag this up every time there is a discussion of the violation of the Constitutional Rights of the American people.

[LostOne4Ever]

141. Some history on that quote for those who are interested

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Very few people who quote these words, however, have any idea where they come from or what Franklin was really saying when he wrote them. That’s not altogether surprising, since they are far more often quoted than explained, and the context in which they arose was a political battle of limited resonance to modern readers. Many of Franklin’s biographers don’t quote them at all, and no text I have found attempts seriously to explain them in context. The result is to get to the bottom of what they meant to Franklin, one has to dig into sources from the 1750s, with the secondary biographical literature giving only a framework guide to the dispute. I’m still nailing down the details, but I can say with certainty at this stage that Franklin was not saying anything like what we quote his words to suggest.

The words appear originally in a 1755 letter that Franklin is presumed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War. The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the Assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the Assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family, which ruled Pennsylvania from afar, to raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the Assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him. So to start matters, Franklin was writing not as a subject being asked to cede his liberty to government, but in his capacity as a legislator being asked to renounce his power to tax lands notionally under his jurisdiction. In other words, the “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security.

What’s more the “purchase [of] a little temporary safety” of which Franklin complains was not the ceding of power to a government Leviathan in exchange for some promise of protection from external threat; for in Franklin’s letter, the word “purchase” does not appear to have been a metaphor. The governor was accusing the Assembly of stalling on appropriating money for frontier defense by insisting on including the Penn lands in its taxes–and thus triggering his intervention. And the Penn family later offered cash to fund defense of the frontier–as long as the Assembly would acknowledge that it lacked the power to tax the family’s lands. Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance–and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.

In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade. Notwithstanding the way the quotation has come down to us, Franklin saw the liberty and security interests of Pennsylvanians as aligned.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

143. I love verbage that comes from blog posts.

The words appear originally in a 1755 letter that Franklin is presumed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War.

In addition: An earlier variant appears in Poor Richard's Almanack in 1738.

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

[NoOneMan]

33. The government has a "legitimate power" to spy on its citizens?

[Rex]

34. Another crap piece to bash the Left.

This OP would be right at home on Free Republic.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

48. And the party faithful come out to cheer it on as gosple.

[Rex]

49. YEP.

Give it time, there will be about 10 more to come along and 'atta boy' the OP.

[Bradical79]

36. Troll post?

Nothing in there except more false comparisons and outright lies that have been shown to be bullshit time and time again. It reeks of desperation from a party loyalist whose worldview has been called into question. Every post like this just makes it easier for people to point out the lack of differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.

[Octafish]

42. Like the time George W Bush let New Orleans drown?

Like taht?

[HangOnKids]

62. Shit Howdy The Prez Was Strumming While Folks Was Dying

Catchy?

[Octafish]

79. Veddy. Veddy.

Seems like a lot of catching stuff going around these years, like 1936.

[Puzzledtraveller]

52. The BHL!!

Do they have a t-shirt, a logo?

[JHB]

53. Same guy, 2011: "Joining the ideologue spheres' pure, fanatic, indomitable hysteria, Krugman... "

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2013, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Paul Krugman is a Political Rookie. Or How Barack Obama Left John Boehner Holding the Teabag, Again.
Monday, August 01, 2011

Paul Krugman is a political rookie. At least he is when compared to President Obama. That's why he unleashed a screed as soon as word came about the debt ceiling compromise between President Obama and Congressional leaders - to, you know, avert an economic 9/11. Joining the ideologue spheres' pure, fanatic, indomitable hysteria, Krugman declares the deal a disaster - both political and economic - of course providing no evidence for the latter, which I find curious for this Nobel winning economist. He rides the coattails of the simplistic argument that spending cuts - any spending cuts - are bad for a fragile economy, ignoring wholeheartedly his own previous cheerleading for cutting, say, defense spending. But that was back in the day - all the way back in April of this year.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/paul-krugman-is-political-rookie-or-how.html

The "screed" was Krugman's column about the debt ceiling dealing, pointing out that slashing spending was bad news in a depressed economy. According to "The People's View", that amounted to "pure, fanatic, indomitable hysteria".

But hey, lest Spandan C be accused of being an "Obot", let's recall this 2007 gem:

Obama Lost My Vote - General Election, Too

You say that while you disagree with McClurkin's position, you would not exclude him because many African Americans believe the same as he does. Well, isn't your job as a leader to lead for justice and against those bigotries? That is a pathetic excuse, Senator, and you know it. You are trying to claim that a big tent has to include bigotry, and that is preposterous. And so, I have come to a decision. And that decision is that I cannot vote for you, and not just in the Democratic primary. I cannot vote for you in the general election either - even if you become the Democratic nominee for President. I cannot - I will not - support a candidate who knowingly promotes a homophobic religious figure on his campaign platform.

Lest you think this is because I was personally offended as a gay man, you are right. But it wasn't only because of that that I made this decision. I draw the line in the sand when politicians pander to any group and sacrifice their stated goals of equal dignity under law and associate themselves, willingly, with known bigots of any kind, be they racists, sexists or homophobes. This is such a line. Obama has crossed it. Good riddance, Barack Obama.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2007/10/obama-lost-my-vote-general-election-too.html?m=0


Let's just say that IMO this guy might as well send in his application to replace Chris Matthews once Tweety goes into semi-retirement. Can be fun, but there ain't a whole lot of substance on display (though he's got a better imitation of it than Tweety).

[WorseBeforeBetter]

112. Spandan C: "Good riddance, Barack Obama."

Spandan broke up with Howard Dean, too, but I guess Obama sweet-talked him back into a relationship.

Damn, only 33 posts in 2008, and a wild jump to 392 in 2010, 576 in 2011, 423 in 2012, and only 166 so far this year. I would love to know who, exactly, is funding this hack.

[AZ Progressive]

54. Yeah Michigandem58, damn those "pesky liberals", the third way is the best way!

After all, look at how much prosperity has happened with adopting Republican economic policies.

[villager]

58. The one-man blog just drifts more and more rightward. And it's the U.S. Government's disconnect

...from the Constitution that is far more troubling, and worrisome.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

63. + 1 Brazilian

[HangOnKids]

64. Not Going The Way You Wanted?

Ahhhh I haz a sad for you.

[michigandem58]

66. Manning has apologized and is pleading with the court

I suspect the same will come of Snowden.

[HangOnKids]

67. Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah

Thanks for replying, but where is the explanation of pragmatic progressives?

[Rex]

71. You should go look at the shithole blog he sourced from.

The creator of the site is a fucking idiot. I would be embarrassed to link to such a site, but then again I do have some standards.

[HangOnKids]

76. I Looked That Is Why I Want His Explanation

It is a shit hole site.

[sabrina 1]

78. The creator of the site and many of its members gained the reputation of 'troll' over their years

of posting on Democratic site. They've gone to hide in their little corner of the internet and have basically been left to their own devices there for a long time. Some of them caused nothing but mayhem on Dem sites which is what trolls do. Too bad they get dragged over here every once in a while for some reason. Guess you get tired of talking to yourself after a while.

[Rex]

81. I thought that particular stench smelt familiar.

The more I looked over the blog, the more I got that certain smell in my nose. Reminds me of some recently banned trolls now that you mentioned it.

Banned at Kos comes to mind. They are the stench that tries to create false premises - like the one about the Left and the Right working together (notice that new meme?) to bash on Obama 24/7.

They get easier to spot, since they have no real new material.

[michigandem58]

85. It's in alignment with the 80% of liberal Democrats who support President Obama

Clearly progressive.

[Rex]

86. Not at all, nice try.

It is a blog by an idiot that likes to stir shit up just like sabrina1 said.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

88. I thought it was 82%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3466775

Or was it 72%?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3466862

[JHB]

90. How much of that number is "rally 'round our team" effect, anyway?

(or "those numbers", as the case may be)

Back in 1990, during the build-up to Desert Storm, polls asking people what people thought was the best course of action routinely had a minority of people agreeing with Bush41. But when asked "do you support the president?" he scored very highly (80s and 90s).

There are plenty of people right here on DU that disagree with the president strongly on a number of issues, and yet if left with a narrow question whether they support the president would answer "yes" because a "no" would be used as a sign of support for Republican wingnuts.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

91. I've seen this poll number nonesense used by the diehards to blindly justify anything that

this administration or the previous one has done.

Usually the poll number varies a little, signifying bullshit on the part of the poster, or it is left out altogether because to post a link to a dubious pollster would mean instant, and well deserved, ridicule.

I could care less about the rally effect, and would rather see an electorate that holds all of our elected officials collective feet to the fire.

To answer you query as best I can I would say that there are a narrow band of third wayers that enjoy muddying the waters of dialog enough to disrupt and deceive.

Valid criticism of a party, leader or their policies does not necessarily mean endorsement of the other side, and it shouldn't. Again that is the refuge of the third wayers: fly paper posts and purity tests.

[Union Scribe]

95. Your extrapolating skills need some polishing.

Unless you have data that those 80% would also approve of the raving attacks in your spam source, there is absolutely no basis for citing that number to support that shit.

[Hissyspit]

116. And that has what to do with whether he did the right thing?

[99th_Monkey]

68. "the government's legal, legitimate power to conduct surveillance" <-- NOT! ~eom

[PorridgeGun]

74. The writer of this article is blind to how things really work in 21st Century America

Which is a shame, because its really quite simple. The system of checks, balances, careful and cautious discussion and the democratic process are for you.

The real system, that of drone strikes, extra-judicial killings, militarised police depts. filled with pudgy seal-6 wannabes, uncounted civilian casualties, of family dog shootings and a general "we'll do whatever we feel like until the outrage becomes so great we're forced to pacify the unwashed masses with a few token promises of reform," is for them.

The systems collide when the outrage from the former prompts smarmy, condescending assurances from the latter that everything will be fine if you'll just work within the system - the same system that has failed so spectacularly in preventing the abuses in the first place.

Phrases like "joining the conversation" are meaningless drivel in light of the general failure of the democratic process over the last decade and a half, and clearly another tactic is needed. Congress could be forced for fear of their jobs to start holding feet to the fire, but I'm afraid that would take a great deal more grass roots electioneering and pressure than most people are capable of.

It would also involve the deposing of a few prominent D's who appear to have been turned into something approximating Tolkienesque wringwraiths by the intoxicating exercise of power.

[Puzzledtraveller]

84. doubleplusone!!!

[KG]

75. Spandan LOL n/t

[HangOnKids]

77. I still lurve you

[Rex]

87. Is that like Spandex?

[JoeyT]

92. If "Black helicopter left" is acceptable,

I wonder if "bootlicking centrists" is.

The fact that someone thinks not handicapping law enforcement is the absolute most important part of the issue tells me absolutely everything I need to know about them.

[Union Scribe]

93. Mm mmm. Blogspam attacks by proxy.

So brave.

[burnodo]

97. HAHAHA! "Black Helicopter Left" akin to "Far Left" cuz there just isnt enough "OOMPH!" in "Far Left"

It's like the Puglicans calling Obama a socialist...words just don't have much meaning anymore

[michigandem58]

98. Appropriate, actually

There was that type of hysteria from some.

[burnodo]

99. Yes, I'm sure you think so

[CJCRANE]

100. Black Helicopters are a bit old hat. That's an Alex Jones meme from the 90s

that's got nothing to do with the left then or now.

[louis-t]

101. Typical "we have our crazies but the other side does it, too"

By the end of the article, the reader is supposed to think that only the left believes this, and that only repugs are reality and fact-based. Where's that headsmack thing.... oh

[Cali_Democrat]

105. Oh no kidding.

Have you seen the theories on Michael Hastings' death?

Tinfoil abounds.

[burnodo]

108. why did you delete your previous post?

Can't you stand behind what you say?

[Cali_Democrat]

111. LOL

What do you think I said?

[HangOnKids]

114. Hey When I Delete A Post I Realize It Is Because I Said Something Shitty

You can't own up to saying something shitty? Really? I am not surprised.

[Number23]

119. Why are you hounding everyone in this thread?

And I see more deleted posts from you than anyone. You even have a deleted post in this thread.

You seem like someone absolutely ITCHING for a fight. About nothing.

[Cali_Democrat]

127. Who are you?

[HangOnKids]

128. Who are you?

Gee that was fun!

[Cali_Democrat]

129. The other poster above noted that you're hounding other folks in this thread

I can see that now. The OP stuck a nerve? I suppose that's why you're not replying to number23.

I just find it interesting how you're weighing in on such an inane issue of a deleted post....acting as if you know me so well, but I'm not even sure if I've ever even had an interaction with you before. I know who they are, but who the heck are you?

[HangOnKids]

131. Have A Great Day!

[SidDithers]

145. Now, that's an interesting question...

With an even more interesting answer.



Sid

[AgingAmerican]

113. Thepeoplesview website, and it's disconnect from reality

nt

[bemildred]

117. That is a weird site. Like a museum of oxymorons. nt

[AgingAmerican]

118. Yeah it is

I read a couple things there. It's like some weird Republican wet dream in the form of Democratic sock puppets.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. "handicapping law enforcement"? You mean, like not letting the DEA lie in court about NSA evidence?

The 4th Amendment? The right to a fair trial?

That sort of handicapping?

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/

[Fumesucker]

121. You're posting a by piece somone who didn't even vote for Obama in the first place?

This guy sounds like a Firebagging Hamsherite pony pouting purist to me. I draw a line in the sand indeed.



http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2007/10/obama-lost-my-vote-general-election-too.html?m=0

Obama Lost My Vote - General Election, Too

Lest you think this is because I was personally offended as a gay man, you are right. But it wasn't only because of that that I made this decision. I draw the line in the sand when politicians pander to any group and sacrifice their stated goals of equal dignity under law and associate themselves, willingly, with known bigots of any kind, be they racists, sexists or homophobes. This is such a line. Obama has crossed it. Good riddance, Barack Obama.

[Octafish]

125. Reccing one's own post is nice...

...shows one really believes in what one's doing, a service like.

[Rex]

137. O noes! Did he get caught up in his own petard?

BAWHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[B Calm]

122. chop chop chop chop

[mick063]

123. The fact that this thread is not locked is very revealing to me.

n/t.

[bowens43]

126. 'Black Helicopter Left'

any credibility you may have once has no longer exists. Really no reason to read past the title.

[michigandem58]

134. Check out the article

Makes some sense.

[Bake]

133. What's HAPPENING is that we are being lied to. And spied on. And lied to again.

On this count, Obama's no better than Dubya.

Bake

[Quantess]

138. What a bunch of insulting, namecalling, tripe.

Bilgewater swill of an OP.

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. Legal, Constitutional, and Congress and court-supervised, no abuse, illegality, negligence or fraud?

House panel withheld document on NSA surveillance program from members

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds

Court: Ability to police U.S. spying program limited


Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance

The blog is an uninformed load of crap. It's lying to any fool who reads it.

[LostOne4Ever]

142. The author of this article could care less about have a frank conversation

I am a pretty big Obama supporter and realize there are political realities he has to deal with, so I generally excuse his stance on these things because I KNOW that republicans would be far worse.

However, that does not mean that I find the government encroachment on our privacy rights to be acceptable. Its not. Further, I find this article to be nothing more than a cynical attempt at name calling and division.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/08/the-black-helicopter-left-and-its.html [div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Join the real conversation about liberty and security, and focus on what is actually being done. If you are concerned about potential abuses, discuss the ways of preventing those abuses through checks and balances, not through handicapping law enforcement - and actually try to find out what checks and balances are currently available.

Okay, if the author really wanted to have a conversation he would't do it through name calling, declaring all their position legitimate (when they are not) and by trying to force us to concede half our arguments before we even get started talking. All he cares about is dividing us.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]
We continue to hear counterfactual arguments made as fact: that the government could abuse its broad surveillance powers to, for example, track down bloggers in their PJs and reveal their porn browsing history in the press or blackmail people in some modern version of McCarthyism.

And here again we come to another example of the author not really caring about our concerns. Much less that the author is not coming close to using the words counter factual or conspiracy theory correctly. How does raising a very real concern go against facts? Showing how something could be abused is in what way equivalent to alleging that something that has already occurred is the result of a grand conspiracy? Lets not ignore that a great many of the concerns that have been raised have been confirmed.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]This isn't to say that we need no debates about civil liberties, national security, and the balance between them. But that debate must be informed by facts, not based on conspiracy theories.

Which I would agree with. The problem is, again, the author does not understand what the word conspiracy theory means and is creating a fake definition to include every argument he/she does not agree with while asserting that his/her views are legitimate whether they have been tested or not. Want to talk? Talk. But you won't get any discussion going when you refuse to even consider the other sides positions and want to declare all your own positions as settled and beyond reproach.


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]And so, when the government exercises its powers, our focus should be on the proper exercise of that power and the process of balancing executive authority with the checks of Congressional and judicial oversight. The focus should be on putting in place the checks and balances to ensure that the powers aren't abused. Our focus should not be on denying the essential powers altogether. .


And when the government exceeds those checks and balances we have a duty to call attention to those abuses and curtail them.

[SidDithers]

144. DU rec...

Love The People's View.

Black helicopter left is perfectly descriptive, if only for the predictable reaction it gets from the loons.

Sid