Extreme ODS:

[ProSense]

Conservative Attorney Larry Klayman Sets Date For Coup Against Obama

The conservative attorney and birther who called for a coup against President Barack Obama earlier this month has scheduled what he's describing as a "day of reckoning."

Larry Klayman wrote Monday in Renew America that he's established Nov. 19 as the date that Obama will be forced to answer for his "criminality" and "Muslim, socialist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-white, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-radical gay and lesbian agenda."

Klayman said he hopes his supporters will "descend on Washington, D.C., en masse, and demand that [Obama] leave town and resign from office if he does not want to face prison time."

As he did earlier this month when he first floated his coup proposal, Klayman invoked the example of Egyptians toppling President Mohammed Morsi.

We must act now. Our Founding Fathers pledged their sacred honor, fortunes, and lives to form a new nation under God. They knew that the odds of defeating the British were not great, save for His Divine grace and intervention. Now, 237 years after they signed the Declaration of Independence in my native city of Philadelphia, the nation has come full circle to the tyranny that has been imposed by a new despot, one far more evil than King George III. King George III may have been a greedy "control freak," but at least he was a Christian. The United States is being run by a Muslim bent on furthering an Islamic caliphate who seeks to destroy our spirituality and the body politic of our Judeo-Christian roots.

Life is not easy. It requires risk and sacrifice. If as a nation we want to restore our freedom, and we are on the verge of being enslaved under Obama's socialist Muslim inclinations, we must take our fight to a new level. Tea partiers, bikers, construction workers, police officers, school teachers, farmers, truckers, clergy, housewives, husbands, students, doctors, lawyers and all elements of our society who see our nation slipping away into the abyss, must now stand tall and descend on the capital, much like the Egyptians recently did in ousting another radical Muslim, their then president Mohammed Morsi. If the Egyptians can seek to rid their country of the poison of the Muslim Brotherhood without any real history of democracy, then we Americans, who know what democracy is and have practiced it prior to the ascension of the great usurper, can and must succeed.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/conservative-attorney-larry-klayman-sets-date-for-coup-against-obama

[SidDithers]

1. One-Way Larry...nt

Sid

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

2. But ODS doesn't exist

Larry Klayman is just a reasonable man who disagrees with us on the issues. We need to respect that.

Do I need to add the smilie???

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. Racsim exists, as well as bat-shit crazy fekking republicans.

Larry Klayman wrote Monday in Renew America that he's established Nov. 19 as the date that Obama will be forced to answer for his "criminality" and "Muslim, socialist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-white, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-radical gay and lesbian agenda."

The United States is being run by a Muslim bent on furthering an Islamic caliphate who seeks to destroy our spirituality and the body politic of our Judeo-Christian roots.

It requires risk and sacrifice. If as a nation we want to restore our freedom, and we are on the verge of being enslaved under Obama's socialist Muslim inclinations...

[ProSense]

7. How many people

do you think know that or care: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014506430

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. I'm sure more people care about the NSA spying on them right now.

But then again I also have to wonder about those individuals who would call this ODS in order to further their agenda and paint progressives with that brush later.

[ProSense]

11. Sure, but Larry Klayman?

Have you changed your opinion of him since your last post?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. My last post was not as much about Klayman as it was about the NSA.

I also mentioned ODS (a rather curious and sophomoric epithet used by conservative Dems to try and shut down debate) and those who would try and use it later to pin progressives to Larry.

"See, they have ODS just like I said Larry Klayman has!"


Perhaps it would be better to portray Klayman as an idiot racist and not try to lump him in with progressives.

I'm pretty sure that is your motive albeit through a circuitous route.

[ProSense]

19. Maybe, I

"My last post was not as much about Klayman as it was about the NSA."

...should have said your previous post, which had nothing to do with the NSA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023722819#post5


"Perhaps it would be better to portray Klayman as an idiot racist and not try to lump him in with progressives. "

Who the hell is trying to do that?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

22. "Who the hell is trying to do that?"

Those who will benefit from lumping Klayman in with progressives (aka critics of conservative Democrats) by using the boorish ODS label.

[ProSense]

25. So

"Those who will benefit from lumping Klayman in with progressives (aka critics of conservative Democrats) by using the boorish ODS label."

...accusing Klayman of having extreme ODS is "lumping" him "with progressives" in your opinion?

What causes such defensiveness?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

26. What causes you to use the term ODS on conservatives when others DUers use it against progressives

that are critical of PBO polices?

[ProSense]

31. What?

"What causes you to use the term ODS on conservatives when others DUers use it against progressives that are critical of PBO polices?"

That makes no sense. You seem to be implying that I can't use the term because some other people use it.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

42. "You seem to be implying that I can't use the term because some other people use it."

ODS is a useful term when purists wants to paint both the left and the right with the same brush.

Some other people (DU party faithful) have used it, and in most cases they're using it against those who dare to criticize.


Have you ever used ODS to define the progressive left: critical of the policies of PBO?

[ProSense]

46. No

"ODS is a useful term when purists wants to paint both the left and the right with the same brush."

...that's not the point of ODS, not my definition.

"Have you ever used ODS to define the progressive left: critical of the policies of PBO?"

ODS applies to anyone, RW, Moderates, Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, independents, etc.

It has nothing to do with ideology or where one falls on the political spectrum.

That's why it's ODS.

Why do you think you're the "progressive left"? That anyone who uses the term isn't a member of the "progressive left"? Is that the reason for your defensiveness?

[ancianita]

59. I like this. One is only the name one answers to, maybe. Why the divide and conquer lingo, anyway.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

69. "ODS applies to anyone, RW, Moderates, Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, independents, etc. "

Ah, so I see that you would use the broad brush term if it were to fit your narrative.

ODS is a BS term. The right are fucking hateful of Democrats in general, and their racism is worn on their sleeves.

It has nothing to do with ideology or where one falls on the political spectrum.

You are either willfully blind or lying while you type that, and I don't believe that you are willfully blind.

Why do you think you're the "progressive left"? That anyone who uses the term isn't a member of the "progressive left"? Is that the reason for your defensiveness?

Anybody that would use that term and call themselves part of the progressive left are liars. It is an epithet directed at the progressive left, by the personality cult, to shut down debate. I doubt many BOGgers are throwing that term around at each other.

You really are a piece of work, and not in a good way.

Somebody brought this same topic to you down thread and you called them a victim.

[ProSense]

73. No,

ODS is a BS term. The right are fucking hateful of Democrats in general, and their racism is worn on their sleeves.

It has nothing to do with ideology or where one falls on the political spectrum.

You are either willfully blind or lying while you type that, and I don't believe that you are willfully blind.

...I'm not "willfully blind or lying" because you don't like the fucking term.

It's applicable in exactly the way I stated, and if you don't like it, that's your problem.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

74. "It's applicable in exactly the way I stated, and if you don't like it, that's your problem."

That's your opinion...and what really is the problem.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

71. I use the term "Obama Derangement Syndrome" to watch....

....right-wingers heads explode. It's fun. Right-wingers like Larry Klayman. I'm not a conservative Democrat either.

I love the term. Nothing better than chucking it out there when some conservative jackass is railing about death panels and "THIS ALL OBAMA'S FAULT!!!" when some mighty corporation has screwed them over once again, but the book of St. Ronnie tells them you should never be mad at big business, only the regulation of it that forces them to do bad things. Conservatives hate it....HATE IT....when you tell them the "Kenyan Mooslim Marxist (insert racial shit here)" is making them bonkers because he fucking won the White House and it shoving it up their asses daily. I use the term, because other than insulting them, I have no reason to discuss anything with them. They are right wing pieces of shit, and therefore automatically unworthy of my time.

They don't what DU is, and I don't care. They are too busy watching the ODS News channel and listening to known sufferers like Sean Hannitty and Ann Coulter.

[dennis4868]

51. Yes, Obama has my metadata

let's have a coup...hehe!

[freshwest]

70. Won't do any good. Gotta grasp that mindset. Stay open minded and kind, because:

Just be grateful it isn't you.

[ProSense]

3. Kick! n/t

[FSogol]

4. What is Larry's DU name?

[leftstreet]

6. I'm so confused. Do I have this 'ODS' thing or not?

I thought DUers who represent majority public opinion have have been deemed to suffer from 'ODS':

No war
Single payer non-profit healthcare
Jobs
Good wages





But now you're saying this rightwing loon who wants a coup because he believes Obama is a Socialist and Muslim suffers from the same disorder?

[ProSense]

8. Allegedly, there are no Republicans that suffer from ODS.

No, ODS has nothing to do with supporting an issue.

Hope that helps.

[mindwalker_i]

10. It's a one-size-fits-all kind of thing

The Republicans have ODS (I kind of agree with this one, although it leaves out the more important DDS)
People who don't like the deals with the banks have ODS
People who don't like the whole spying thing have ODS
People who don't like Larry Summers have ODS

Actually there is a common, unifying principle apparent: people who disagree with Obama on something have ODS.

[ProSense]

12. Sounds like victimhood

That's not ODS.

[mindwalker_i]

21. Nope, just pointing out your noise again

Specifically, anyone who has an issue with anything Obama does has ODS, and if they disagree with you, they have PDS.

[ProSense]

23. No, you're inventing stuff again.

Everything you stated is in your opinion, not my reality.

[mindwalker_i]

27. That was a very good bit of deflection there

For people who disagree with you, they have PDS, or in this case it's "victimhood." But the facts remain the same: you deflect all criticism of Obama, no matter what the issue. Spying? Anyone who doesn't like that is just am Obama Hater (TM). And anyone who points out what you do is just "silly" or not living in "reality."

This makes your opinions worthless. They only support the person, regardless of the issue. In essense, your opinion on any issue is already known, so stating it adds no information to the discussion.

[JaneyVee]

33. It's OK to admit when you're wrong.

[mindwalker_i]

36. I am happy to do so when I am wrong

This is not one of those times. If you think that I am wrong, please feel free to include an actual reason for claiming it.

[ProSense]

40. "This is not one of those times."

Of course not. You're preaching the gospel from the book of you!

[mindwalker_i]

45. And true to form

If anyone disagrees with you, you attack them rather than reply to their criticisms. This is because you have no arument to make, no reasons for what you claim: just support Obama no matter what. That kind of blind support isn't indicative of a good, well thought-out position.

[ProSense]

49. Apparently,

"If anyone disagrees with you, you attack them rather than reply to their criticisms. This is because you have no arument to make, no reasons for what you claim: just support Obama no matter what. That kind of blind support isn't indicative of a good, well thought-out position. "

...you're in a world where only you get to criticize people and if they respond, you call it an "attack."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023722819#post10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023722819#post21
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023722819#post27
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023722819#post37

[ProSense]

35. Everything

"This makes your opinions worthless. They only support the person, regardless of the issue. In essense, your opinion on any issue is already known, so stating it adds no information to the discussion."

...you posted in this thread is a "worthless" red herring or straw man. You seem so hung up on pushing your bogus invented theories that you're losing persepective.

[mindwalker_i]

37. We've accused Republicans of advocating one course of action

regardless of the situation or issue. The most obvious example is that, when economic times are good, they say we need to lower taxes. Then when economic times are bad, we need to lower taxes.

What you do is support Obama regardless of the issue. The best example is the domestic spying. Any arguments that people put forth, you said they were just silly, or "it's just metadata," or whatever. If your opinions aren't changed by the facts, what use are they? In any issue, no matter what it is, you are going to support Obama. What value do you opinions have then? Listening to you is as useful as listening to a Republican: we're going to ge the same answer.

"worthless," "red herring," "straw man," "bogus", "invented", "losing" - that's quite a list of term you've got there, kind of like a massive arctic methane release.

[ProSense]

39. "What you do is support Obama regardless of the issue."

And your assessment pisses you off so much that you've decided to dedicate your energy to focusing on your marvelous theories?

"worthless," "red herring," "straw man," "bogus", "invented", "losing" - that's quite a list of term you've got there, kind of like a massive arctic methane release.

What does that mean? Let me into your world for a bit.

[mindwalker_i]

47. "And your assessment pisses you off"

Weren't you just accusing me of putting words into your mouth the other day? Again, true to form you attack anyone who disagrees with you, rather than address their criticisms. it's like when someone disagrees with a Republican saying that taxes will fix whatever the issue is, and they reply with "Why do you hate America?" You have no basis for your arguments, so you just attack the other person.

And that really brings into question anything else you say. It's intellectually dishonest, and one then has to question whether you were dishonest about other issues. Is it communication or just flatulation?

[ProSense]

50. Wait

"Weren't you just accusing me of putting words into your mouth the other day? Again, true to form you attack anyone who disagrees with you, rather than address their criticisms. it's like when someone disagrees with a Republican saying that taxes will fix whatever the issue is, and they reply with "Why do you hate America?" You have no basis for your arguments, so you just attack the other person."

...what the hell are you talking about? Again, you're apparently in a world where only you get to criticize people and if they respond, you call it an "attack."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023722819#post10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023722819#post21
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023722819#post27
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023722819#post37

"And that really brings into question anything else you say. It's intellectually dishonest, and one then has to question whether you were dishonest about other issues. Is it communication or just flatulation? "

OK, now you're being transparently hilarious.

[mindwalker_i]

54. In writing, there's a concept of "show, don't tell"

It applies here in that you're saying "OK, now you're being transparently hilarious." Can you explain that, or are you just throwing out an accusation and hoping it will stick? It seems to be a common tactic that you use to deflect blame from yourself, to say someone else's opinion is just silly or something like that, without indicating why. Like a post or two ago you said my argument was a strawman (along with including a bunch of other terms), without substantiating any such claim. Here's a challenge for you, actually explain why you make that claim, rather than just claiming it louder.

That's kind of my key point: you claim a lot of stuff, attack people who disagree with you, but don't provide any reasoning for what you say. Granted, you include a lot of links, but they often don't seem to be relevant to the argument, or they present a very one-sided view. So explain something rather than just attacking whoever disagrees with you.

[ProSense]

55. Preach it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023722819#post50

[mindwalker_i]

56. Uhm, so your reply is "see previous"?

Instead of an actual explaination, you like to a previous post that also didn't provide an explaination.

[ProSense]

57. .

"Instead of an actual explaination, you like to a previous post that also didn't provide an explaination."

[mindwalker_i]

65. Same thing

Rather than defend anything you say, you are just linking to a previous post where you also said, essentially, nothing.

I kind of see DU as a place where people discuss ideas, debate them, and in general try to work towards solutions. Being "Democratic Underground," the direction is in favor of democracy, or democratic ideals. So when someone, even a democrat (D) like Obama, does something highly un-democratic, like keeping the massive surveilance in place - and that is damaging to democracy - people tend to not like that.

Then you come in and deflect blame away from the democrat (D) in any way possible. "It's just metadata" is the best, most recent example I've come across. Whatever the issue, you excuse it. And when people point out what you're doing, you attack the person - without providing any explaination as to why you support the person (under all circumstances) , rather than any reason as to why that person is doing the right thing. That's why you "arguments" or, more likely, posts full of links to selective data (if not to your own posts, also containing no useful reasoning or analysis) and just noise. Like Republicans' one-size-fits-all "solution" of cutting taxes for the rich, all you do is derail the debate and hinder people from reaching a good solution.

But just post a link and the laughing dude smiley, and you will have refuted my arguments completely.

[ProSense]

67. Here:

That enough room for the next installment of your conversation with yourself?

Preach it!

[mindwalker_i]

68. That's actually your best argument

The laughing-dude smiley has more information, or at least less disinformation, than most of your posts.

[treestar]

29. Straw man Alert

No it is not disagreeing with him on one thing. ODS is where you disagree with him, his actions, or his positions on everything. ODS is where he can do nothing right. Where you predict he will always do the worst thing.

ODS is haranguing after perfection and looking for appointees to office and their histories to "prove" Obama is "one of them." And the slightest resume experience with any institution like a "bank" is enough to black mark someone.

The right wing ODS is even more ridiculous.

[JoePhilly]

14. Na, but those who were absolutely sure that Obama was

going to invade Syria ... claimed he was hell bent on it ... claimed he was really just following MIC orders to do it ... claimed he secretly supported the PNAC model ... on and on and on ... those folks were displaying full blown ODS.

Them ... and also those who screamed "Thank's Putin for saving us from the evil Obama!!" ... they also suffer from the ODS affliction.

[polichick]

13. What a delusional dumbshit. The Secret Service must be incredibly busy.

[Archae]

16. The only thing Obama will be "forced to do" on November 19th...

Keep from:

[dawg]

18. ODS is a real thing.

I don't understand why they can't just disagree with him and argue against his policies. (That's what I do )

Why does he have to be a Muslim? Or born in Kenya? Or gay? Or a socialist? (Not that there's anything wrong with any of those things; they just don't happen to pertain to President Obama.)

There are truly some crazy Republican voters where I live.

And the funny part is, they would probably all vote for a candidate with positions slightly to the left of Obama's, if only he were a tall, handsome, married white man with an (R) beside his name.

[ancianita]

60. It's NOT a real thing. It's an interpretation. You can't operate like this.

[Scurrilous]

20. We need to find a cure!

[MoonRiver]

24. I hope he's on the FBI's radar screen.

If not he should be.

[intaglio]

28. Who's running the sweep?

Last edited Tue Sep 24, 2013, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)

I'll go with 27 people excluding reporters, cameramen and police.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. Kentuck already posted this. As I commented there,

This is no idle threat.

All three of Klayman's disciples are dangerous people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3723734

[JaneyVee]

32. YES, ODS EXISTS!!!

[Comrade Grumpy]

34. Klayman's supporters will "descend on Washington, DC, en masse."

Both of 'em.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. You can attach the term ODS to Klayman. Or you can attach it to progressives on DU.

If you try to do both at the same time, however, that's not going to work. When you stand in the center of a thing, and you point to the right and to the left, proclaiming that both groups are the same, you're both wrong and you look like an idiot who doesn't understand basic logic. What do you mean to say, ProSense? Have the courage to answer honestly and fully, or don't bother.

[DFab420]

41. What???? Your statement literally, and I do mean literally, makes no sense...

You can certainly stand in the middle and look at two groups of people and say they are both wrong. It's not like there are two sides to everything and thats that...

Both members of this board as well as members of the conservative establishment suffer from an inability to stop the mouth foaming obtuse over the top hyperbolic reactions to all things President Obama.

And since you want to discuss basic logic as an argumentative form:

People suffer from ODS:

People can be progressive or conservative

Not all who suffer from ODS are Progressive:

Not all who suffer from ODS are Conservative:


A suffers from B

A can be C or D

Not all C's suffer B

Not all D's suffer B

That is a pretty logically sound argument.


Also since we are talking logical argument techniques.

Ad hominem agruments tend to make people look petty, and their arguments tend to be invalid. Therefore, implying Prosense ia an idiot, and saying they lack courage only further takes the validity of your statement away

[DFab420]

52. Right, ok lets try this again. Since you seem fixated on one word..

Just because both groups suffer from the same thing does not make them that same.....

Again

People suffer from ODS:

People can be progressive or conservative

Not all who suffer from ODS are Progressive:

Not all who suffer from ODS are Conservative:


A suffers from B

A can be C or D

Not all C's suffer B

Not all D's suffer B

At no point is it said they ARE the SAME. Just they both suffer from the SAME THING.

get it?

Also thanks again for being snarky and insulting. Must make you feel good to insult someone based on their age? Rude.

Again an ad hominem. But you knew that didn't you....

So you are right, you said ProSense was saying two groups were the SAME, not WRONG. But you are still incorrect in your assertion that two groups of people can't possess similar qualities whilst still being more or less different in every other way..

I'm assuming since you already pointed out how much older and smarter then me you are that you know what a venn diagram is? Should I draw one out for you to help?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. Venn diagrams can't save you now.

The overlap would be the selfsame centerist place you're posting from. See the problem there?

The age was an educated guess.

thank you

[DFab420]

58. ...Not sure if being obtuse or you really don't get it....

[IMG]?1[/IMG]


I figured you looked through my old posts to find my age. Not that my age matters, and not that I'm 22 anymore either. But you go right ahead being rude if you'd like.

[Grateful for Hope]

61. Not to worry

He can't respond now because one of his posts was hidden.

I applaud what you are trying to say, and I tend to agree.

Don't let any member of DU try to minimize your contributions because of your age.

[DFab420]

63. Thank you very much. You don't even know how much your post means.

Being young in politics is always frustrating, and having someone rub your face in it as a way to deter discussion is very upsetting.

thanks.

[Grateful for Hope]

66. No need to thank me

The post that was hidden was adjudicated by 6 random jurors. Many DU members think like me.

[Rex]

62. Oh brother.

I was wrong.

[Jack Rabbit]

43. Now, that's Obama derangement syndrome . . .

[Vanje]

44. That guy was loon-ass crazy before Obama

He doesnt have ODS.
He is just old time DERANGED!

[LostOne4Ever]

64. Doesn't calling for the violent overthrow of a democratically elected President

Count as trying to incite treason?

Why hasn't he been arrested yet?

[gopiscrap]

72. lock him up!