This message was self-deleted by its author

[BluegrassStateBlues]

This message was self-deleted by its author (BluegrassStateBlues) on Mon Oct 28, 2013, 04:03 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Scootaloo]

1. And the side with momey will always win these tug-of-wars n/t

[RobertEarl]

2. There are no atheists in the foxholes

Even if someone is opposed to you on some ideas, does not mean they should be runoff if they still support your rights found in the constitution.

The constitution is a document describing what the government can and can't do. It is bigger than any individual be they the president or dog catcher. Allies supporting your rights should always be welcome to be heard.

[Scootaloo]

3. Except libertarians don't support your rights

In fact in every case, they want to usurp your rights, turn them into pay-per-use privileges, with themselves as the bill collector. Someone who is using us in an effort to later abuse you is not an ally.

[RobertEarl]

5. I had a girlfriend like that

Someone who was using me in an effort to later abuse me.

I think you have used a rather broad brush on libertarians and I am not here to support the libertarian ideology, so I will just say you are not even 75% correct with the brush.

They just see the constitution a bit different. Do you see it s a document that limits - not people- but rather places limits on the government?

[Scootaloo]

8. I tend to not bother talkign constitution on the internet

'cause amazingly, everyone's always an expert, and everyone thinks the other self-proclaimed experts are ignorant assholes. Fruitless effort.

I haven't run into a libertarian who was not a selfish twerp. Many seem to be outright sociopaths. They are not interested in liberalism or progressivism, except for those parts that would directly benefit them personally ("I get to smoke weed, but you don't get foodstamps, you statist moocher!&quot

[RobertEarl]

9. Really? the constitution is beyond you?

That says a lot.

Just remember this: the constitution tells the government what it can or can't do. The rest is up to the people.

[Scootaloo]

15. That's not what I said. I said it's not worth bothering to discuss it on the internet

It says a lot that you decided to make up something to put in my mouth. While rallying for libertarians.

You're just going to have to live with my being unable to stomach those sacomasochistic sociopaths, I guess.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. That's not what Scootaloo claimed at all. Scootaloo clearly explains that in

the very first sentence of his/her post.

Why are you twisting his/her words?

[RobertEarl]

54. Oops.

Yeah. What they really said was that they are not capable of having a discussion about the constitution, even here on DU. My bad.

[BlueCaliDem]

56. Ugh. You sure do love twisting people's words, don't you? Go back and reread what Scootaloo

wrote. I assure you, it's not difficult to understand.

[RobertEarl]

61. How 'bout you?

Can you discuss the constitution? Or do you get too upset?

Did you know the constitution was formed to limit the government?

[BlueCaliDem]

69. What you mean to say is, can I discuss *your* version of the Constitution?

No. And I won't. It's a waste of bandwidth and my time.

Just try and not twist the words of a poster and then admonish him/her for it. That should be beneath you.

[RobertEarl]

72. Hahahaha

No, lets discuss your version. This is a discussion forum, and here you are. Tell us all your problems....

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. The John Birch Society (JBS) is an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism...

limited government, a constitutional republic[1][2] and personal freedom.[3][4][5] It has been described as radical right-wing.[6][7]

[RobertEarl]

82. Hi, vanilla, what 'bout you?

IMO, The constitution is a document describing what the government can and can't do. It is bigger than any individual be they the president or dog catcher. Allies supporting your rights should always be welcome to be heard.

What's your take on my assertion?

[VanillaRhapsody]

93. that no...if Osama Bin Laden said he supported my rights....i wouldn't trust him...

I don't sell my soul to the devil....

[AgingAmerican]

100. Libertarians are whack jobs

Their 'ideology' is based on a fiction novel about an imaginary utopia. Yeah, they see things differently alright.

They are to politics what L Ron Hubbard's 'Dianetics' is to religion.

[Gravitycollapse]

4. "There are no atheists in the foxholes." - I hate that idiotic statement more and more each day.

[RobertEarl]

6. You'll learn to like it one day?

The idea is that when faced with an overwhelming force and one is in the trenches, like we are, fighting conglomerates and the 1%, we are the 99% and we all hang together or we hang separately. Meaning we all focus on our asses being somehow saved.

[Gravitycollapse]

7. Saving your ass does not equal having a religious conversion after decades of non-belief.

That's the kind of stupid crap peddled by religious zealots.

[RobertEarl]

11. Well,

Let's hope you never find yourself in a foxhole depending on others and circumstances beyond your control. Really.

Not all religious zealots are the enemy. And there are some really weird things that happen that not even nuclear scientists can explain!

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. Yes...all religious zealots ARE the enemy!

they put their religion above all else...

[RobertEarl]

85. Sounds paranoid

Lumping a bunch of people into the category as being enemies of yours is actually a bigoted approach. THOSE PEOPLE!!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. Not paranoid...ALL fundamentalists (thus zealots) are dangerous...

Yes..THOSE people...

If I made a statement about Terrorists...would that make me a bigot against terrorists?

[pnwmom]

13. Libertarians don't fight conglomerates; some of their biggest supporters,

like the Koch brothers, are in the 1%.

[RobertEarl]

14. Yeah

So are some Democratic party people.

Your point is?

[pnwmom]

19. Democratic party people still believe in good government.

Libertarians want to shrink government till it can be drowned in a bathtub. They worship free enterprise and will sacrifice anything to that god, including civil liberties. They scream and holler about civil liberties when it furthers their aim to shrink the government, but they oppose any regulations on private enterprise that require them to treat people equally. Progressives who think we can safely make common cause with them are deluding themselves. They aren't about freedom and equality and fairness for HUMAN BEINGS. They are all about free enterprise and survival of the fittest.

[RobertEarl]

21. Mostly they are selfish

They can't see that Liberal tendencies are the best way to govern. But having found common ground with them when fighting fascists who want to control everything we do, I welcome their concerns for liberty.

[pnwmom]

25. But they don't care about liberty or freedom in general.

They don't care about megacorporations treating people equally or paying fair wages. All they care about is minimizing the power of government.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

29. dkf's banning stirred up on the hornet's nest. Might as well give up for now. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. Oh really...

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ~~ John Kenneth Galbraith

[Jamaal510]

63. Libertarians holler about civil liberties and freedom,

except when it comes to rights for minorities, the poor, women, and gays, then all of a sudden it's whatever.

[gollygee]

96. +1

[DireStrike]

64. That's not the idea of the phrase.

You've repurposed it.

The original meaning of the phrase was that under extreme conditions, atheists will turn to religion. Which frankly, isn't true, making the phrase quite annoying.

[RobertEarl]

70. Yes. I did. Do.

Our lives exist on beliefs. One can, at any moment, become a believer in something they did not believe just moments ago.

Just like we see people now coming to believing the centrists and moderates are the crazy ones. Like Reagan and the Bushies.

In some circles it is called: Getting an education.

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. Reagan and Bush were centrist and moderate?

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. No that is NOT what that is about...

its what supposed Christians tell each other...

You have totally gotten that quote wrong...

[Th1onein]

10. Absolutely, RobertEarl.

There are few things that the left and the right agree upon, but this is one of them.

[pnwmom]

12. Their views on the government's role and on economics trump everything else,

and is what separates them from all progressives and from all moderates and centrists.

They don't really care about civil liberties or legalized pot except as a side effect of a shrunken government, with as little power as possible. The power they worship is "free enterprise." They don't believe that private industry has to treat people equally or that government should be able to regulate it. They are NOT our allies.

[RobertEarl]

16. Yep

In few cases do they see the same as we. But they make up the purple color in the electoral maps. And if they support spying, maybe should be PPR'd from DU?

So what are your limits?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

17. Yep. Any efforts against government policies we don't like should not

be done by legitimizing extreme far right groups.

I think the content of the article went way above the heads of some.

[RobertEarl]

23. Above the heads?

No. Pretty much below us. The writer is very non-tolerant and is in favor of the NSA spying.

Question: What reforms of the NSA are you, BSB, in favor of?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

28. The author is not in favor of the NSA spying. Read it again. nt

[RobertEarl]

30. We disagree about the author then

What about you, BSB? What reforms would you like to see in the NSA?

Me, I'd want the NSA to be very limited and only following people who have already done something wrong. And not casting about for everyone and anyone.

So, what is your idea of reform?

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. You didn't even know what the "athiests in a foxhole" was about.....why should we consider

any of these other thoughts you have that you seem to be so self impressed by?

[RobertEarl]

91. Wow, Are you on the attack or what?

This like the 5th post in the last 5 minutes replying to me.

You are setting a record. A broken record. Some call it spamming?

[VanillaRhapsody]

92. no I call it pointing out the fallacy...

perhaps you shouldn't put yourself out there with your false statements on a Democratic blog...you won't feel paranoid...as you used earlier...

[RobertEarl]

50. Hello, BSB.

Whats up? Where'd you go? Scared of answering the question?

How do you feel about the spying? What is your position?

[sabrina 1]

32. Why does the Dem Leadership appoint Republicans to positions of

power?

I would say that NO Political group has worse ideas for this country than Republicans.

And why do they appoint Corporate CEOS, such as Clapper, and former Monsanto Ceos to positions where their ideology is paramount to the decisions they make. Especially AFTER the people threw them out?

Can you explain that?

[pnwmom]

43. What does that have to do with the political and economic philosophy of libertarians?

You're just trying to divert the discussion to criticism of Democrats, which is your usual M.O.

But since you brought it up, libertarians share the economic philosophy of the tea party, which makes them worse than old-fashioned Republicans like Jon Huntsman.

[sabrina 1]

46. I'm trying to find out what the standards are regarding what we have been told

when Democrats objected to forming powerful alliances with Republicans. Not just casual alliances but ones that place them back in positions of power after we work hard to throw them out.

Airc, we are told that 'bipartisanship is necessary in order to get things done'.

So, is this a selective policy or does it apply across the board in order to get things done?

Eg, would you refuse to accept the votes of Republicans or Libertarians to get a Democrat elected despite their complete opposition to most Democratic policies?

How about accepting their support to change Bush policies such as spying on the American people, a policy that outraged Democrats at the time including how Congress covered for him by making his illegal activities legal?

There is the appearance of hypocrisy here when we are told we must be bi-partisan when Republicans rather than Democrats are appointed to powerful positions, but otoh, we should not be bi-partisan on major issues.

I want to know why and if you can't explain it then we are both in the same boat.

[RobertEarl]

65. It's like Fox news from these people

We Liberals should compromise with them, and only them. We can't work with anybody but moderate centrists. See, everyone is crazy but them.

Their hypocrisy is astoundingly simple. Fox like.

[Uncle Joe]

78. + Infinity with a cherry on top. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. Now you have seen it come full circle...the Anarchists are defending the Libertarians!

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. ah baloney...thats an old wives tale...

[Oilwellian]

18. This is ridiculous

There are hundreds of progressive groups involved in this protest. Nice try in your attempt to stymie our First Amendment rights. But it won't work. I look forward to hearing some of the speakers at this event.

A stellar group of whistleblowers, activists, researchers and others from both sides of the political spectrum will be speaking at this historic event. The list includes:

Congressman Justin Amash
Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Bruce Schneier, internationally renowned security technologist
Former senior NSA executive and whistleblower Thomas Drake
Indie pop senation YACHT
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson
Lt. Dan Choi, LGBT advocate and U.S. veteran
Laura Murphy, ACLU
Rainey Reitman, EFF
Craig Aaron, Free Press
Social critic Naomi Wolf
Kymone Freeman, Director of the National Black LUV Fest
Khaliah Barnes, EPIC
Shahid Buttar, Bill of Rights Defense Committee

I remember marching along side the anarchists in several anti-Iraq war protests during the Bush years. It doesn't mean I support their cause. It's dishonest to suggest we'll be controlled by Libertarians at this event. What do you think we are? Lemmings?

[RobertEarl]

20. Is it an attempt to divide us?

Rather crafty, eh?

[Oilwellian]

22. Of course that's what this is

They're scared to death we will ALL join together and end their kleptocracy. The march tomorrow isn't about Libertarian ideals. It's about restoring our Fourth Amendment rights.

[RobertEarl]

24. Yes.

Our rights are under attack. Some here won't even discuss that matter, and others are all for the spying.

[pnwmom]

31. Libertarians don't share our ideals. The only freedom they want is

freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. They worship at the altar of free enterprise and don't want government to interfere with that at all. They oppose government enforcing equal employment laws and restricting corporations from doing whatever they want.

They will NOT help us to get out from under the 1%. A central and functioning democratic government, as flawed as ours is, is the only thing that can save us from the overreaches of the 1%.

[sabrina 1]

35. Republicans share our ideals far less than some Libertarians.

They will NOT help us get out from under the 1%, they ARE the 1%. So why are there so many Republicans in this administration's cabinet? Airc, the excuse has been that 'bi-partisanship is necessary in order to get things done'.

Can you explain why the people should not unite on issues they agree on when it's okay for the leadership of this party to unite even when they don't agree on major issues?

The North united with the South during the American Revolution. They agreed on practically nothing. Had they not done that, there would be no US.

So either bi-partisanship is necessary 'in order to get things done' or it isn't. Which is it? And no, we cannot be selective about these things.

[pnwmom]

41. IMHO, there are two kinds of libertarians, the ones who call themselves

Republican or conservative or tea party; and the ones who call themselves Libertarian and consider themselves members of that party.

The first kind tend to be conservative on "social" issues, the second kind tend to be "liberal." But they share the same poisonous economic and political philosophy that underlies everything else.

That's why it makes sense to align ourselves with all the groups on the left side of the spectrum including socialists, communists, and Greens, -- but not with libertarians. We shouldn't be giving them a platform.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. I also think we should not align with Republicans like Hagel and Clapper but they got

appointed to very high positions by Obama. Why are 'we' giving them a platform, lending to them the legitimacy of our own President?
Or is your stance that it is ok to appoint Bush war yes voting Republicans to high office but not ok to agree with them on anything? Just trying to keep track of the plates you have spinning here.

[pnwmom]

76. I don't like every decision Obama has ever made,

but I didn't mind the Hagel appointment.

Hagel was a Republican who learned something from Vietnam. He compared Iraq to Vietnam as a lost cause from the beginning and openly mocked Cheney for his assertions about why we were there.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. So what is your standard? It's ok to appoint Republicans just never march with any?

Hagel of course voted for the Iraq War so that 'criticism' was an odd sort, the sort where you vote to kill people for a lost cause? How twisted is that?
How about Gates? Did you love him when Georgie appointed him too? Clapper? How about Obama's public bromance with Tom Coburn? All of that is ok, but not some protest against NSA over reach?
Good gravy.

[pnwmom]

97. Lots of Dems voted just like he did. Not "for" the Iraq war

but for a resolution that gave Bush the authority to initiate war IF they found weapons of mass destruction. WHICH WERE NEVER FOUND.

The people who voted for the IWR in the fall knew that if they didn't give Bush a resolution with conditions, the incoming Congress, dominated by Republicans, would give Bush its own IWR -- a blank check without any conditions.

So they made a tactical error, putting the restrictions in their IWR, not knowing Bush would just ignore them. But it didn't change the outcome. Bush would have gone in no matter what.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. And then there are those who are, and do not fit either of those definitions

Two of them are in the US Senate, and do not sport and R behind their name, or an I for that matter. What is left, I wonder.

[sabrina 1]

33. No, it's a fear that if the people ever unite instead of REMAIN

divided on some very important issues, like War and Spying and SS, the Corporate influences in our government will be run out of town finally.

Notice how it's okay for a Dem President to appoint Republicans of all people, to powerful positions in government AFTER we threw them out.

And listen to the excuses we get when we ask 'wtf', we voted AGAINST THEM.

Here is what you will be told:

'You don't understand, you are naive, bi-partisanship is necessary in order to get things done, appointing them shows how 'democratic our Big Tent is' etc etc.

The best response to these attempts to crush a movement is to simply say what THEY constantly lecture us about:

'Bipartisanship is necessary sometimes in order to get things done!

[RobertEarl]

38. I see your point, Sabrina

And since you elucidate far better then I ever could will just say I agree, and thanks.

Oh, and to the OPer, you really need to read what Sabrina has written.

Solidarity!

[Oilwellian]

40. Oh, I like the way you ended that

They hate their own words used against them.

[woo me with science]

45. ^^^^^^^^^^This is the correct answer.^^^^^^^^^

This should be an OP. We had a very brief period a few months ago when the country seemed to be waking up to the divide and conquer game of corporatists. We were united across party lines against NSA spying and watched the ugly spectacle of corporate Dems and Republicans joining together in desperation to defend it. We fought back across party lines against bombing Syria. We seemed to be waking to the partisan scam being used to divide us and realizing that there is power in standing for issues and principles rather than party.

Then the PTB successfully diverted us to partisan talk about the fake budget crises, and the wagons got circled again. Now all the talk is partisan again.

It's a scam, and we need to stop playing the game.

[jsr]

47. +1.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Yup

[winter is coming]

26. +1000. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

27. Be afraid. Be so very very afraid.

[Cha]

34. Fuck libertarian rand paul's sneaky shit. and that goes for hacker snowden too.

s

[Luminous Animal]

37. And fuck all the Democrats who are participating?

[RobertEarl]

39. I doubt Obama would like what Cha has written

No, I know he'd shake his head. Stuff like that does not help Obama at all.

[BlueCaliDem]

55. + 1000 ^^^This!^^^ eom

[Pholus]

74. Agreed. The same goes for the slimy domestic NSA spying program!

See you can talk about the issue without the personalities.

[Luminous Animal]

36. I'm participating online & fuck you to any one who tries to scare me with McCarthy tactics.

[woo me with science]

42. What a sick post. Corporate Democrats urging us NOT to fight the shredding of our Constitution,

Last edited Sat Oct 26, 2013, 06:46 AM - Edit history (1)

NOT to fight the surveillance state, NOT to stand up against the abuses of the NSA.

Of course, the solution to the "Libertarian" problem would be easy for principled Democrats: Become the party *against* surveillance and the police state; *against* assaults on whistleblowers, journalists, and the Constitution; *against* more warmongering; and for *increasing* rather than cutting social safety nets.

What a sick revelation of the state of our party, that corporate Democrats would suggest NOT fighting on these important issues, because Libertarians may claim to fight for some of them. And that corporate Democrats are reduced to even caring about the messaging of a fringe party, just because they cannot tear themselves away from their corrupt corporate Masters to own the issues they should own.

[reddread]

44. corporatist Democrats giving advice

lazy and complacent. Divide and conquer has always worked,
they dont need to reinvent the wheel.
know them by their words.

[Ohio Joe]

57. Another thread of this bullshit? You are working real hard to stop anti-spying protests

Why do you keep ignoring all the liberal organizations/people involved? Why do you keep trying to put this off as a right wing action when it clearly is not?

[Ohio Joe]

60. Why do you keep avoiding the facts?

Are you that thick?

Why do you keep trying to pass this off as a right wing action when it clearly is not?

[BlueCaliDem]

59. K&R!

Let's not forget that the Koch Bros are Libertarians, too.

[LittleBlue]

62. I will ally with anyone who opposes the spy state

to oppose the spy state. No matter who it is.

I will not fall for the lies of surveillance pimps.

[msanthrope]

66. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. nt

[LittleBlue]

67. This threat is so dire that it actually is, to me. nt

[msanthrope]

71. Indeed. I am reminded of this--

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/04/the_idealist_in_the_bluebonnets.html

Be careful who you hold hands with.

[LittleBlue]

73. I'm always careful

Which is why I will oppose the most serious threat to free society in my lifetime. And if that means with libertarians, communists or the king of Saudi Arabia, so be it.

[msanthrope]

75. Really? You think the NSA is the most serious threat to a free society in your

lifetime?

Ok.

[LittleBlue]

98. Unquestionably. nt

[woo me with science]

86. +100000

[woo me with science]

87. Thank you. We need to ally with ALL AMERICANS to stop this. nt

[SidDithers]

68. DU rec...nt

Sid

[WorseBeforeBetter]

94. LOL I'm a big girl...

and quite capable of supporting this rally, aligned with:

"Tim Berners-Lee, Daniel Ellsberg, Xeni Jardin, Eli Pariser, Anil Dash, Dan Gillmor, Rebecca Mackinnon, Glenn Greenwald, John Cusack, Molly Crabapple, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, and Andrew Rasiej. Companies backing the effort include Reddit and Ben & Jerry’s."

...without being being sucked in by that pesky ol' Libertarian Party.

Focus on the Malleable Middle, not libruls.

[Fumesucker]

99. K&R For the Anti-Hypocrisy League

[OutNow]

101. So what are your "core principles"?

Mine include upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So if my core principles don't align with existing electoral political lines, that's OK. The Democratic Party is composed of many constituencies. People like me do much more than vote and campaign for good Democrats. I have always supported civil liberties groups like the ACLU. There are some libertarians that are also supporters of civil liberties. I will work with ALL supporters of civil liberties and always have.

This is not a new phenomenon. During the LBJ administration many Democrats came out against the Vietnam War. The "mainstream" wing of the party accused them of abandoning the core principles, abandoning all the progress made in the war on poverty, the gains in the civil rights movement, etc. Compared with the current situation, it was a much bigger crisis. It even caused an incumbent Democrat to withdraw from his campaign for reelection and ultimately caused the Democrats to lose the election in 1968.

Of course the right solution would have been for Johnson to end the war and unite the party. He didn't and bad things happened. Today, the right solution is for our President to end illegal spying and other bad practices and unite the party. If he doesn't, perhaps bad things will happen. But don't try to blame it on Democrats who support the Constitution. That's baloney.