Greenwald: Obama "excellent at finding excuses not to prosecute the most powerful"

[Exciting Trip]

"Obama is excellent at finding excuses not to prosecute the most powerful, from torturers to Wall St. to Clapper"

Link.


On a related note, The Hill reports today: "Obama: Clapper ‘should have been more careful’ in congressional testimony"

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/197060-obama-clapper-should-have-been-more-careful-in-congressional#ixzz2s1urWxDT

[Cha]

1. Fuck greenwald.

[dsc]

2. I don't care if it was Hitler saying it

Clapper lied, flat out lied, to Congress. He did so about a relevant part of oversight and could have avoided the situation very simply because he was given the questions BEFORE he was asked. This is flat out perjury done to leave a flat out false narrative with the American people that he knew couldn't be corrected without either the person losing any access to further information (Wyden or another Senator) or going to jail or on the lamb anyone else.

[Shemp Howard]

9. You are, of course, 100% correct.

Clapper lied to Congress, and by extension, to the American people. If a question was too sensitive, he could have said something like "I'm sorry, but I cannot answer that question for national security reasons."

But no, Clapper chose to lie. I don't care who appointed him. His lies were not only illegal, but also very destructive to the citizen-government bond we all rely on.

And the OP is also correct about the Wall Street criminals. Some kid steals a $10 CD, and he gets arrested and prosecuted. Maybe the kid does jail time. But bankers illegally manipulate the system and steal millions. Millions! No prosecutions there. None.

I would have expected that if Bush were president. But now, I don't understand it at all.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. NO he didn't....if he did the REPUBLICAN Congress would be all up in his shit...

BET on that!

[Aerows]

75. Did it ever occur to you that maybe

everybody in Congress, Democratic and Republican *should* be all up in his shit? What in the hell do we have elected officials for, if not to "get up in the shit" of people that break the law and violate the Constitution?

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. but they aren't....

and don't give me the lame "all the same" remark...Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are there too...

[Aerows]

78. Warren and Sanders are such horrible people

I have Kendo practice, I'll see you later.

[VanillaRhapsody]

162. they are?

are they STILL under the bus for liking Pres. Obama's SOTU?

[Aerows]

193. Where is this bus?

Did it roll over every principle of the Democratic party platform because it was convenient?

Let me stall the argument right here that some demand perfection. Personally, and I only speak for myself, I think President Obama could do a better job if he actually did the things to which he pays lip service.

I've always followed the "watch what I do, not what I say" philosophy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

207. NO its the ones that the "purists" throw everyone else under....

in fact let me fix my typo before you guys all pop a aneurysm...

[treestar]

223. They must be, as they serve in Congress

The worst group of people in the world? The Pure would not lower themselves to get elected to that corrupt body.

[Aerows]

236. Oh, well

Last edited Sun Feb 2, 2014, 03:12 PM - Edit history (1)

"The pure" are horrid individuals for adhering to what is ostensibly the Democratic Party platform.

[treestar]

241. Especially Warren, you should throw her under the bus

for belonging to that terrible party and even getting elected to an office within it!

How is she dictator of that party? If so, why can't she force its other members to think as she does?

[Aerows]

256. Oh, I'm sorry

I should have used the sarcasm tag. I mean I thought it was obvious sarcasm, but apparently it wasn't.

[VanillaRhapsody]

333. who you calling pure?

I'm the big tent kind of Democrat...how about you?

[Aerows]

336. Take it up with Treestar.

He was the one that used the term, I just expounded by using it in a reply.

[VanillaRhapsody]

338. and I asked why you "expounded" on it...

[Aerows]

340. Because it was relevant to the conversation

That's why I expounded on it. That's what we are here for, after all, to converse.

[rhett o rick]

99. So because the Republicans are upset, therefore he didnt lie. Is that your argument?

You didnt hear what he said? The question was clear and his answer was a lie.

Besides Clapper is a Republican. And Republicans love their rough, tough, authoritarian leaders. I am surprised you do also.

[Aerows]

101. As long as it is official the Obama Administration kept

Both Clapper and Alexander, it doesn't matter that he was Bush appointee. You will be rebuked for denouncing Clapper and Alexander.

[rhett o rick]

217. So the big question is why did he keep two of Bush's authoritarian Republicans?

I can think of only two answers. One he liked their programs and their tough authoritarian leadership, Constitution be damned. or 2. He was afraid to replace them for some reason.

[Aerows]

345. Either/or

neither is a pleasant prospect.

[VanillaRhapsody]

169. I heard it and I also know that when you work in the field he does...

things are not the Black and White world you would like to live in...

And you do NOT fool me with your quip about Republicans...IF they could smear Obama with him...BELEIVE they would....they would not hesitate to throw this man overboard to do it...

Not buying...that they would protect him because they think he is a scary guy...pffffft

[rhett o rick]

179. So you forgive his obvious lie because why? The question was simple and yet he lied.

You can paint it however you like, but he lied. The fact that you are so willing to forgive a Republican lie is very revealing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

208. there wasn't a lie...that was my point...

[rhett o rick]

211. Your argument is very limited. How do you come to the conclusion that he didnt

lie?

[VanillaRhapsody]

212. limited because I do not believe we live in a Black and White world like you?

[rhett o rick]

220. So you wont tell us why you think he didnt lie? You must have a good

reason.

"Wyden asked Clapper whether the National Security Agency collects "any type of data at all on millions of Americans.” Clapper responded, "No, sir" " (emphasis mine)

""So that he would be prepared to answer, I sent the question to Director Clapper’s office a day in advance. After the hearing was over, my staff and I gave his office a chance to amend his answer," Wyden said. Wyden said in a statement Tuesday that he gave intelligence officials the courtesy they needed to give a "straight answer," but said they declined to give one."

In lieu of explaining his answer to Sen Wyden, Gen Clapper chose to explain to NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

So after all that, what did the Gen mean? Did he mean that they might collect data on millions of Americans "but not wittingly"? What does that mean? They collect data on millions of American by accident?

I would really like your argument on this.

[VanillaRhapsody]

224. AND that has been explained to you multiple times...IF it was such a bald faced lie

he would be in contempt of congress AND he would have been prosecuted BY the Republican led house to smear Obama. Plain and fucking simple as that....rocks and hard places sometimes have grey areas between them...

And if you think I am not telling the truth about Republicans wanting to use Clapper to smear Obama...here you go...(YOU agree with Darrel Issa btw....)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/27/darrell-issa-james-clapper-lied-to-congress-about-nsa-and-should-be-fired/

But somehow...they don't have enough evidence to prosecute this...therefore..YOU are wrong...they most certainly WOULD if they could.

"Update: Caitlin Hayden, a White House spokesperson, said in an e-mailed statement that Obama has "full faith in Director Clapper’s leadership of the intelligence community. The Director has provided an explanation for his answers to Senator Wyden and made clear that he did not intend to mislead the Congress."

[rhett o rick]

227. That is a logical fallacy. Just because he hasnt been prosecuted doesnt

mean he hasnt committed the crime.

Is that your best argument that he didnt lie?

[VanillaRhapsody]

230. I know how you LOVE to use that phrase but...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/intel-dir-james-clapper-lie-congress-complicated/story?id=19390786

[rhett o rick]

243. Thanks for the link which finished with, ""Perjury is a serious crime. Mr. Clapper should resign

immediately." The article you linked to quotes experts that explained how Clapper could have answered without having to lie.

You loyalty to the Republican General is amazing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

244. and it is not being prosecuted for it....but YOU deem him guilty without a trial...

how very Republican of YOU...

By the way...Presdent Obama...also is loyal to him...I am in good company ....now the company YOU are keeping in this...lets see...Rand Paul, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Darryl Issa?

and you want to point a finger at me?..hahahahahahahahahahaaah....yeah right!

[rhett o rick]

228. I trust a Democratic Senator over a Republican General. How about you? nm

[VanillaRhapsody]

232. Do you trust Rand Paul and Darryl Issa? Because they both agree with YOU!

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/rand-paul-james-clapper-national-security-agency-101306.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/193597-paul-calls-on-clapper-to-resign

and so does Jim Sennsenbrenner...Author of the Patriot Act...also agrees with you..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/james-clapper-prosecution_n_4399623.html

Nice cast of characters you've aligned yourself with buddy!

[rhett o rick]

240. I trust a Democratic Senator over a Republican General. nm

[VanillaRhapsody]

242. and I trust President Obama over Rand Paul, Darryl Issa and Jim Sensenbrenner....

but you apparently don't!

[fascisthunter]

257. Do you really believe the stupid accusations you make

against those who do not agree with your point of view? Grow up already.

[VanillaRhapsody]

262. Do I believe that there are those in this conversation that agree with the positions of

Rand Paul, Darryl Issa, and Jim Sensenbrenner on this issue...why YES I do!

Grow up yourself.

[cali]

276. you trust your beloved President over anyone. You don't seem to grasp that

many, many liberal dems disagree with him on this- like Pat Leahy- and yeah, I trust Pat Leahy over Obama any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Your attempt to smear liberals with Issa and Sensenbrenner and Paul, is transparent and worthy of NO tolerance or respect.

[VanillaRhapsody]

277. I trust HIM over the words of that bunch...

YMMV!

[truth2power]

355. Please stop! That's a disinformation tactic and you know it...

and you're not the only person on this site that uses it to try to stampede people into doubting what their own good sense tells them.

If I come to a conclusion regarding a particular issue, using my own intellectual abilities, it's not necessary to then troll the internet to see if that same opinion is also held by someone we hate, thus making sure I don't 'align' myself with them. How ridiculous!

Even crazy people are entitled to have opinions and I am not responsible for how or why they come to their conclusions or whether they do or don't agree with my own.

[cali]

271. your world is incredibly binary: Anything Obama does or says: Good, great, must be

defended by ANY means. Anything that doesn't go with that simplistic view you perceive as bad and relentlessly attack.

that is an absolutely accurate depiction of your posting history here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

274. Mostly I do yes....You have a problem with Democrats supporting the Democratic President?

(the wildly successful under the worst of circumstances...twice elected by MAJORITY vote by the way...

because so does Rand Paul, Darryl Issa and Jim Sensenbrenner on this issue...what's your excuse?

[cali]

278. YOU have a huge problem with liberal dem politicians who don't support the President on

issues where he is acting like a repuke.

[VanillaRhapsody]

283. Liberal Democrats no....no I don't

I am just not a purity troll!

I don't throw the baby out with the Bathwater...

Oh and recently Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren agreed with him....are they agreeing with a "repuke" too?

[cali]

280. lol. still trying the childish, inance and transparent attempt at linking

people who disagree with your beloved president with right wing repukes, when it has nothing whatsoever to do with them.

your kind of support is NOT a healthy thing. at all. not even a little bit.

[VanillaRhapsody]

284. No I try the truth...

its up to you wether you accept said or not...

and are you threatening me?

Because, I am quite healthy thank you very much!

[SMC22307]

314. "and are you threatening me?"

Dishonest Debate Tactic #... ?

[VanillaRhapsody]

316. You made the statement...I was just asking...sounded like a veiled one to me...

and that would definitely be bad "debate tactics" esp if caught in it...

and you would have to step up your game to actually think you are in a debate with me....I do this stuff just for fun...

[SMC22307]

319. I can almost see the spittle flying.

You've lost track of who you're having fun with.

[VanillaRhapsody]

322. Oh yes...here comes chapter 7 in the manual

accuse the opponent of being, angry or hysterical or "flying spittle" or whatever you can to make them seem "unhinged"...

right right right

Yeah not my first summer out.....

[SMC22307]

326. You're doing a good job of that on your own.

But do continue, it's oddly fascinating.

[VanillaRhapsody]

327. and yet....here you are...

wasting Football Sunday!

[SMC22307]

334. I only care that two pot states are fielding teams.

And that an actual singer, not an over-indulged pop star, will be singing the National Anthem. Oh, and that it's being played outdoors.

But thank you so much for expressing concern as to how I spend my time!

[VanillaRhapsody]

339. Better than that false concern about my health I got....

right?

[SMC22307]

343. I don't speak for that poster.

Or any poster.

[VanillaRhapsody]

344. So you would rather have someone falsely ask about your health?

Okay....good to know...

[SMC22307]

346. I couldn't care less who asks me what on an "anonymous" message board.

And are you quite sure you were being asked about your health, or your "support"?

Healthy: "Indicative of sound, rational thinking or frame of mind."

Since you like definitions, and all...

[VanillaRhapsody]

348. hmmmm I don't think soo....

[cali]

363. lol. you think you can debate? at all? too funny, vanilla

sad that you actually think that you ever post a cogent argument.

try again, dear vanilla.

[cali]

362. please post anything I wrote to you that can be construed in any way as a threat.

as another poster pointed out, this is just another of your dishonest attempts to shut someone up. You will do or say anything to defend Obama.

[VanillaRhapsody]

285. there are some "rightwing Repukes" that DO agree with YOU on this matter...

shall I repeat "Darryl Issa, Rand Paul, and Jim Sensenbrenner!

[Fawke Em]

357. I've noticed three or four posters - all with the same avatar

who meet this description.

Is it some kind of cult?

[sabrina 1]

182. He lied, period. And what is a Bush loyalist and appointee doing in a Democratic (note the spelling)

Administration in the first place? Why are there so many REPUBLICANS in this administration? Are there no Democrats who are qualified to hold these powerful positions? IF we wanted Republicans that is who we would have elected.

I can't wait until Clapper, like Gates writes his memoirs and trashes this president. Because that is what Republicans do, no matter how 'nice' you are to them. I wonder what you will be saying about him then? How about when we warned about Gates? And we were told to stfu?? His book was no surprise to anyone with half a brain cell working.

[VanillaRhapsody]

209. NOT Period...just like I said IF it was sooooo "period" he would have been charged...by the

Republican controlled House to smear Obama...since they couldn't do THAT...its not so "PERIOD" is it?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

353. Yes, it's been "period" since it happened for anyone who isn't an idiot or a shill.

[VanillaRhapsody]

356. So are you calling me an idiot or a shill?

are you???

Please decide.....


But it certainly IS a "period" for Darryl Issa, Rand Paul and Jim Sensenbrenner isn't it?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

359. What do you think, VR?

Read it again carefully and see what you can determine.

[VanillaRhapsody]

360. I don't know...you are the one accusating!

You tell me....I can't read YOUR mind...

but come on...you know you want to!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

361. I'm accusating? You know the George W Bush glossary is supposed to be humorous, right?

I made my post very clear. You should be able to understand it, unless of course one of the two conditionals applies to you.

[cui bono]

372. LOL!

Good times.

[Doctor_J]

159. God forbid he piss off the Republicans

after all, 70 million people voted for him to schmooze them.

Listen to yourself some time. The excuses have gotten beyond pathetic

[VanillaRhapsody]

245. I don't need your approval at all.....the President agrees with me...

I'll take that over your opinion of me any day!

by the way...Darryl Issa, Rand Paul and the developer of the Patriot Act...Jim Sensenbrenner...agrees with YOU!

[Marr]

165. This is the second time I've seen you use that laughably stupid, circular excuse.

Your defense is that Clapper cannot have lied, because if he did, the Republicans would have made an issue out of it.

Well, obviously your assumption is incorrect. He did lie, and the Republicans did not make an issue of it. Why not just digest these two facts and see if you can reconcile them?

[VanillaRhapsody]

210. You think they wouldn't toss him overboard to smear Obama?

that is laughable!

[Marr]

213. Did they?

For god's sake, this isn't complex. Clapper clearly, demonstrably, lied.

The GOP doesn't want to expose the issue of domestic surveillance anymore than the WH does.

[VanillaRhapsody]

214. NO THAT you are right about....this ISN'T complex...

IF he outright lied...THEY would go after him with a vengeance to smear Obama....where have you been the past 5 yrs?

We are not dealing with "smart people" in the GOP....

[Marr]

216. He lied, period.

Why are you so determined to defend Clapper, when he very obviously lied?

[VanillaRhapsody]

237. No he didn't but Darryl Issa, Rand Paul and Jim Sennsenbrenner all agree with you...

However, President Obama doesn't

Obama suggested he accepted Clapper’s initial explanation as an excuse for untruthful testimony.

“His concern was that he had a classified program that he couldn't talk about and he was in an open hearing in which he was asked, he was prompted to disclose a program and so he felt that he was caught between a rock and a hard place,” Obama told Tapper.

“Subsequently, I think he's acknowledged that he could have handled it better.”

Now lets talk about how often do you actually agree with Republicans?

[Marr]

270. Again, why are you so doggedly defending this Republican liar?

I'll give you points for at least attempting to turn that around. It was clumsily done and featured your usual brand of un-logic, but still-- points for the attempt.

[VanillaRhapsody]

272. for the same reason President Obama did...see my previous post...

YOU are the one agreeing with Darryl Issa, Rand Paul and Jim Sensenbrenner...you seem to be using the same "logic" that they do!

You lose points for agreeing with the "cream of the Republican crop (including the creator OF the Patriot Act).

[Marr]

275. Please-- let me help you. I want you to stop making a fool of yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

It's embarrassing when you post things like that.

[Aerows]

303. You are asking a dogged apologist for the NSA.

Also note the date of registration. Odd little coincidences, aren't they?

[SMC22307]

235. Clapper believes WMDs were shipped from Iraq to Syria before the war.

THAT is some serious bat-shit crazy, the stuff I heard from the nuttiest of wingnut coworkers and neighbors.

He's served under Poppy, W, Clinton, and Obama. Bipartisan confirmations put him there, with many of those Senators in office today. Rep. Amash and Sen. Paul, relative n00bs, have gone after him. Clapper's about as "Washington" as it gets -- the club that you and I are not members of. MIC = good. Remember that. But it appears that you already do...

[VanillaRhapsody]

239. And President Obama says of the incident...

Obama suggested he accepted Clapper’s initial explanation as an excuse for untruthful testimony.

“His concern was that he had a classified program that he couldn't talk about and he was in an open hearing in which he was asked, he was prompted to disclose a program and so he felt that he was caught between a rock and a hard place,” Obama told Tapper

“Subsequently, I think he's acknowledged that he could have handled it better.”


Now lets talk about how often you agree with Darryl Issa, Rand Paul and Jim Senssenbrenner okay?

[SMC22307]

253. Yes, let's!

How often? None that I can recall. That's how bad this is -- I agree with those three chumps over a Democratic president. Clapper should be fired. I also agree with the 26 Senators, four of whom were - gasp! - Republicans, seeking answers on surveillance.

Don't try guilt by association with me, it won't work.

[VanillaRhapsody]

255. Well we know of at least one such instance don't we?

like YOU wouldn't condemn me by association...yeah I totally believe that!

[SMC22307]

258. "Democrat" Party?

Was that it?

[VanillaRhapsody]

260. a freaking typo...that's the best you got?

but you OUTRIGHT agree with the positions of Rand Paul...Darryl Issa and Jim Sensenbrenner...the "cream" of the Republican crop..

a "typo" can't explain THAT away can it?

[SMC22307]

267. LOL

Oh, Vanilla. Seriously.

I don't agree with Paul in droning liquor store robbers! And I'm thrilled about Dave Peiser, challenger to Issa! And Sensenbrenner will always be a sucky American for his role in the Patriot Act!

Please redeem me in your eyes! Please!

[Marr]

273. No kidding.

Captain "Association Fallacy" suddenly has a high standard for argument.

[SMC22307]

282. It's reached the cat playing with a half-dead mouse stage.

Think I'll go find a sunny window and take a nap.

[mike_c]

332. of course he lied to Congress-- that is not in question....

To suggest that he didn't is simply sticking your head in the sand, or worse, revisionist history. He later justified his own lies by calling them "the least untruthful statements I could make." Even Clapper admits his congressional testimony was entirely "untruthful." And Obama supported his false testimony. And continues to support it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. Bullshit!....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/clapper-lie-congress-nsa-national-intelligence-counsel

[G_j]

87. Robert Litt is general counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence nt

[rhett o rick]

95. You dont mean to suggest he might have a bias? nm

[rhett o rick]

89. I agree that it's bullshit. Let's take a look at it.

From you link:

"Robert Litt, the general counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, has written to the New York Times to deny the allegation that James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, lied to Congress about the collection of bulk phone records by the National Security Agency (NSA)."

So the counsel for the National Intelligence Agency says Clapper didnt lie. Not there is an unbiased opinion.

In his letter to the newspaper, referring to one of the key Senate advocates of NSA reform, Litt continued: “Senator Ron Wyden asked about collection of information on Americans during a lengthy and wide-ranging hearing on an entirely different subject. While his staff provided the question the day before, Mr Clapper had not seen it. As a result, as Mr Clapper has explained, he was surprised by the question and focused his mind on the collection of the content of Americans’ communications. In that context, his answer was and is accurate.

So the question in question was provided to Clappers staff, Clapper didnt see it. How convenient. That was pretty important to not give the General. I wonder if anyone got fired. Therefore Gen Clapper was "surprised" by the question. But surprise or not, it was a simple question that he had to have understood. In fact Sen Wyden, surprised by Clapper's answer, ASKED THE QUESTION A SECOND TIME. Apparently Gen Clapper again was surprised and lied. Atty Litt claims that Gen Clapper's answer was correct in some other context. What? And when the good Gen went before the Corporate Media (where he would not be subjected to tough questioning) to explain his answer he admitted he told the least bad lie.

What a crock of bullshit.

What surprises me is that you hold Clinton to a higher standard than you do a Republican. Clinton lied about a BJ and Gen Clapper lied about violating the Constitution.

[VanillaRhapsody]

263. Lets take a look at who DOES agree with you...

Rand Paul, Darryl Issa and Jim Sensenbrenner (of Patriot Act fame). How high to you hold them up?

The President however DOESN'T

[G_j]

294. completely irrelevant and you (should) know that

and you just don't inspire much confidence in your credibility when you scream Bullshit! at someone, and then offer up a statement from the dudes fucking lawyer! This is just absurd!

[VanillaRhapsody]

295. I don't find it irrelevant....if those guys agree with you...

perhaps you should rethink your position! Just saying...

I also offered up what President Obama has said....and I agree with him.

What does Pres. Obama say?

“His concern was that he had a classified program that he couldn't talk about and he was in an open hearing in which he was asked, he was prompted to disclose a program and so he felt that he was caught between a rock and a hard place,” Obama told Tapper.

“Subsequently, I think he's acknowledged that he could have handled it better.”

But we know you pretty much oppose every position Pres. Obama has...

But you are welcome to stick by Rand Paul, Jim Sensenbrenner and Darryl Issa if you want...its up to you!

[G_j]

301. talk about bullshit.

"But we know you pretty much oppose every position Pres. Obama has... "

really???????????????????????????

"But you are welcome to stick by Rand Paul, Jim Sensenbrenner and Darryl Issa if you want...its up to you!"

I have NEVER stood by those people!!!!

I sure wish I could say what I think of people who post this kind of toxic garbage...

[VanillaRhapsody]

302. Bullshit only because Rand Paul, Darryl Issa and Jim Sensenbrenner agreeing with you

makes YOU look bad!

[G_j]

308. yea, and I bet they think water is wet too,

do you agree?

[VanillaRhapsody]

310. So I guess you agree then...

they do (Sensenbrenner, Issa, and Paul) make people who form the same opinions as they do...look pretty bad!

[G_j]

312. I don't know what they think

I don't care what they think.

[VanillaRhapsody]

313. I do...I posted what THEY think earlier in this conversation that you thought you just had to add

your "two cents" too!

It hasn't increased in value so far...still worth all of that 2 cents!

[G_j]

331. then please explain in a comprehensible manner, why their

opinions are relevant.
Two cents are still better than zero.

[Aerows]

318. OMG - the clock was right twice in one day!

It *must* then tell the accurate time in perpetuity!

That's the argument you are going with?

[VanillaRhapsody]

320. whatever gets you through the night...

if that's what you gotta tell yourself...

[Aerows]

323. I'll just make sure to note

that four fingers are pointing back at you when you point the finger at me !

[VanillaRhapsody]

324. only thing I used my fingers for so far today is eating and typing...

I have no idea what you have been doing with yours...and no interest in finding out...


but thanks for the Pee Wee Herman reply....that just wins EVERY TIME!

[Aerows]

325. Well, I wasn't planning on sharing, but

[dsc]

92. He was provided the questions in ADVANCE

even your link admits that, he simply could have told the committee he wouldn't answer the question at all, but that wouldn't have left the false idea that the NSA wasn't collecting data so he chose to answer the question and did so falsely. Incidentally the link you provided actually gives a different reason why Clapper lied. Clapper said he gave "quote the least dishonest answer he could" implying he knew damn well the answer was a lie. This link says he had to be told it was a mistake. They can't both be correct.

[rhett o rick]

94. He was provided the question in advance, the question was straight forward and easy to

understand, and when he bluntly lied, Sen Wyden was surprised by the lie and asked the question again. And the General lied again.

Instead explaining to Congress what he "really" meant, he choose to tell the friendly media, where he was safe from tough questions.

Why isnt he being held accountable? Because he has too much power.

[dsc]

96. I had forgotten the second time

but you are correct, it was asked twice making his conduct even more egregious.

[VanillaRhapsody]

264. and he THOUGHt he was being asked a question about National Security in an open forum

that would have also been illegal...no amount of parsing changes that fact.

But Darryl Issa, Rand Paul and Jim Sensenbrenner agree with you...so there is THAT!

What does Pres. Obama say?

“His concern was that he had a classified program that he couldn't talk about and he was in an open hearing in which he was asked, he was prompted to disclose a program and so he felt that he was caught between a rock and a hard place,” Obama told Tapper.

“Subsequently, I think he's acknowledged that he could have handled it better.”

[dsc]

287. Did it get classified between his being given the question and the hearing?

If not, then he could have said, before the hearing, I can't be asked that in public. I am pretty sure that Wyden wouldn't have asked the question then. But he willfully chose not to do that, what he did instead was let the question be asked, not once but twice, and tell a lie.

[VanillaRhapsody]

288. He made a mistake....being mistaken is no the same as lying....

but of course you know that...as does Pres. Obama....as noted above...

[dsc]

290. Let me just say if you or I made such a mistake

we would be sitting in a jail cell. He lied. Even he says he lied.

[rhett o rick]

291. The question was crystal clear.

If "he thought he was being asked a question about National Security", he could easily have said,

"'Frankly, senator, I'm unable to answer that in an open hearing,'" said Jim Lewis, a former Foreign Service officer at the State and Commerce Departments.

When someone who knows top-secret information is asked about it in a public congressional hearing, what should he or she do?

"The traditional answer is so easy: 'Frankly, senator, I'm unable to answer that in an open hearing,'" said Jim Lewis, a former Foreign Service officer at the State and Commerce Departments.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/intel-dir-james-clapper-lie-congress-complicated/story?id=19390786

[treestar]

222. No, he didn't

this is a meme I saw often on DU, googled Clapper and now I see the disingenuousness of this claim. It's become another left wing "we repeat it over and over until it is true," just like the right does. Extremists have more in common than they think. That they cannot convince anyone of their position, so they have to resort to repeating over and over what they want everyone to think.

[Aerows]

254. What websites have you been Googling

if you think Clapper told the truth? The man flat out lied, and admitted as much himself! "I gave the least untruthful answer." In what world does that not amount to telling a lie?

[VanillaRhapsody]

289. AGREED....and I will always take President Obama's position over

Rand Paul, Darryl Issa and Jim Sensenbrenner any day!

[Rex]

249. You have to excuse some around here, their abilities only allow them to make 'fuck xyz' statements.

I was there too at one point, until I stepped back and saw how absolutely STUPID it made me look.

[rhett o rick]

23. I doubt that he'd be interested.

[Puglover]

69. ROFL!

No shit. Who would be?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

112. .

[SoapBox]

3. Shut the fuck up Greenwad.

You got no cred and as a former American (now that you live in Brazil) I'm not interested in your opinion.

[Titonwan]

18. He's a full United States citizen

and he's very far from shuttin' the fuck up. He's just gettin' started, as a matter of fact. Personally, I'm very grateful! (So do a lot of liberal leaders).
Credibility: Glenn's been on the media for a long time and has many readers, world wide. Gobs of people are interested in his opinion. GOBS.

[treestar]

225. A person is a US citizen or they are not

What the heck is a "full" citizen?

[Aerows]

261. Well, now

That was an intelligent rebuttal.

[treestar]

349. There's no such thing as a "full citizen"

since there are not partial citizens. It's as dumb as "full custody." Makes the person saying it look dumb.

[Aerows]

352. Nitpicking

always makes a person look intelligent.

[Titonwan]

335. As in natural born in the U.S.A. n/t

[treestar]

350. People born citizens outside the US are no less citizens

nor are naturalized citizens. It's dumb sounding.

[Titonwan]

358. You can't be president

if you're naturalized. There's one difference.

[rhett o rick]

22. Is he disturbing your comfortable denial bubble? nm

[Rex]

33. You know, I use to be there with the 'fuck XYZ' until I stepped back

and realized how fucking stupid it made me look on a public forum.

[Aerows]

76. Until it mattered :D

I love you, Rex, but this issue matters. You will take up arms over something that matters to you, too. I've seen you do it. Let's leave personality out of this and focus on right/wrong.

P.S. I have always respected you when you stood firm against injustice, and I respect you now even while I disagree.

[Rex]

190. Change is good for people, often it is a growing experience.

Oh once I saw all the people getting thrown under the bus, it became apparent this was larger than just 3 people.

Love you back always Aerows, we don't disagree on this issue but we do disagree on how it is/was handled/being handled at this very moment.

I took up arms against BFEE and now get mocked for it...my how times change.

Love you man

[Aerows]

191. You are a good egg, Rex

I don't know how this is being handled, honestly. I just had to speak up when I saw offensive bullshit.

[Rex]

192. I like it when you speak up.

Hell I didn't really think General Clapper lying his ass off and the leaking of what was going on would change anything! I was so wrong, it really did open up the sunshine on a vipers den didn't it?

[Aerows]

195. Sunshine is *definitely* needed

Clapper lying his ass off to Congress should have consequences.

[Rex]

198. Yes I think it is about time the WH gets involved.

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. Cowards don't get a say...

[Aerows]

81. Who is the coward?

You seem to be sitting comfortably in an armchair.

[SMC22307]

279. "Former American"? Has he renounced his US citizenship? (n/t)

[LeftyMom]

7. Homophobia. Klassy!

[slipslidingaway]

8. ^^^^^^ +100. n/t

[Titonwan]

19. Sounds like you got to see the REAL deal.

It's sad, be we got a few.

[kelliekat44]

72. Now it is as bad to criticize the opinion and actions of some gays as it is to criticize the actions

of the Israeli government, or the President. You either have to be a homophobe or an anti-Semite, or an Obama hater...that's the new form of censure and muzzling discourse.

[LeftyMom]

83. I take it you missed the edit.

[nomorenomore08]

177. "Criticizing the actions of some gays" is not the issue. There's nothing wrong with that.

Nor is there anything wrong with criticizing the Israeli gov't, or our own Prez. But when you invoke homophobic - or anti-Semitic, or racist - stereotypes in doing so, as the poster above did before they (wisely) edited, then that's a problem in itself.

For example, there's a big difference between merely criticizing Israel's policies toward the Palestinians, and doing so in a way that invokes stereotypes of sinister, conniving Jews. And frankly, anyone who considers themselves politically progressive should be able to see the distinction.

[Aerows]

187. Exactly. n/t

[1000words]

11. Nice save ...

Next time, stand by your words ... and take the hide. There's at least some semblance of honor in that.

[slipslidingaway]

12. I wish the edit feature was only for grammar and not a quick retreat from someone's true ...

reaction to a situation. Sometimes those initial comments tell a tale.

[Puglover]

71. Actually one thing this website is fairly

consistent at in tombstoning homophobic bigots. Even IF they quickly edit their slurs.

"But he might enjoy it"

Boggers another to be proud of!

[MineralMan]

27. We can read what you wrote originally, you know.

Homophobic posts aren't welcome on DU. Not even when they're just referential.

Self-delete, and your post will disappear. That's my recommendation, along with not doing that again.

[Thinkingabout]

35. Heterophobia should not be allowed also.

[Aerows]

45. Is that like reverse racism?

Just asking

[Thinkingabout]

47. Works both ways.

[Aerows]

48. The gays and the blacks are coming for your rights!

They want to be treated equally, like human beings, OMG, if that happens, society will cease to function!!!!!

God forbid they bring it up. Then they are just shit-stirrers.

[bravenak]

68. +1

(Heterophobia)

[dlwickham]

84. you forgot women

white straight males are so put upon in our society

[Aerows]

98. Yep. Daring to discuss such things means

that you have white males under the gun. How dare you criticize them, since they are doing so much for our community. Racism, homophobia and privilege no longer exist, because a white male declared that we shouldn't and don't have a valid complaint.

[nomorenomore08]

174. Hating someone for who they are, and being suspicious because of what they *do*, are not at all

the same thing! No halfway-sane gay person I've ever heard of hates heteros simply for being hetero - whereas just about any online comment thread of sufficient length, will include at least one or two people who hate gays simply for being gay.

Same thing with "reverse racism" - yes, black people hating white people for their skin color is still wrong, but that, and mere suspicion due to acts of injustice, should not be conflated as though they were the same thing.

[Thinkingabout]

178. Perhaps you have not traveled far enough in life, it happens.

[nomorenomore08]

184. Perhaps *you* haven't traveled far enough not to take every damn thing personally...

Sorry to say it, but if you're gonna patronize, prepare to be patronized in return.

And I just said that hating someone for who they are is wrong, full stop, even if they belong to a socially advantaged group. You seem to have missed that part entirely. But taking to task straight people who happen to be homophobic is not "heterophobia" - any more than taking certain white people to task for being racist, amounts to "reverse racism." It's just simply not the same thing as unfairly demonizing an entire group who've done nothing wrong.

[Thinkingabout]

185. I reread your post

"No halfway-sane gay person I've ever heard of hates heteros simply for being hetero - whereas just about any online comment thread of sufficient length, will include at least one or two people who hate gays simply for being gay"

I have heard gay people abuse heterosexual, ergo the statement you have not traveled far enough. It happens.

[nomorenomore08]

197. Well, that's a shame, but even if misguided that doesn't mean there's no reason for it.

Consider the "traditional" (and even contemporary, in some respects) treatment of gay folks and I don't blame them for having a bit of a chip on their shoulders.

[William769]

56. Yes I agree, that runs rampant on DU

And Homophobia does not exist.

This whole post

[uppityperson]

80. Where is heterophobia on DU? What do you mean? Please clarify, thank you.

[Thinkingabout]

85. Maybe from those crying about homophobia. it works both ways.

[uppityperson]

86. What do you mean? Those fighting against homophobia are heterophobic? Please clarify, using

more words as that didn't do much. Thank you. I am trying to understand what you mean, thanks.

[Thinkingabout]

88. Simple, if a known gay person has something negative said against them then it turns into

The person being homophobic. Then if someone says something negative against a known straight person then the person on the attack is heterophobic.

[uppityperson]

90. Thank you. Could you give me an example of either of those, I'd appreciate seeing what you mean.

[Thinkingabout]

100. Sure, in this thread Greenwald accuses Obama of not prosecuting the powerful,

then by the measures of responses in this thread of "homophobic", it will apply to Greenwald and the responders of homophobic making them heterophobic. It works both ways.

[uppityperson]

102. Do you mean this now edited homophobic post or the ones talking about it?

Do you think this post is homophobic?

would say fuck Greenwald
but he might enjoy it too much.

You write "by the measures of responses in this thread of "homophobic", it will apply to Greenwald and the responders of homophobic making them heterophobic".

What does "responders of homophobic" mean? Are they the DUers who say that post "would fuck Greenwald but he might enjoy it too much" is homophobic? The only "responders of homophobic" that I see are those protesting that post.

Do you think "would fuck Greenwald but he might enjoy it too much" is homophobic?

Where does your claim of "heterophobia" come into this equation?

[Thinkingabout]

104. Your dog does not seem to be able to hunt, sorry.

[uppityperson]

105. Aparagus is tasty, you are welcome. Is that post homophobic?

You answer with non-sequiters and partial sentences and rather than jumping on your shit, am seeking clarification.

Do you think this post is homophobic?

would say fuck Greenwald
but he might enjoy it too much.

[Thinkingabout]

108. Try post # 7

[riderinthestorm]

109. Are you Leftymom? I'm not sure what you're saying nt

[uppityperson]

111. Post #7 is saying the previous post is homophobic. Do you think it is homophobic? Are you LeftyMom?

I see LeftyMom is saying this post is homophobic. Do you think it is homophobic? Or are you saying LeftyMom is heterophobic for calling a homophobic post homophobic?

I would say fuck Greenwald
but he might enjoy it too much.

[William769]

116. This is what you're going to hear now.

[uppityperson]

117. Aw, you know me. I like to clarify before jumping on someone's shit as words can be used in differen

ways and I like to make sure of what someone says. Even if it seems obvious to them, especially on the internet communication can be unclear and odd.

[Thinkingabout]

119. you wanted to know where homophobic was, i gave you the post information.

Let me state this again, when there is a post negative to a known gay the answer is "homophobic", then if this is true when there is a post negative against a straight person then it should be "heterophobic". Now if this does not help you I don't think I can turn on a brighter light.

[uppityperson]

124. No, I wanted to know if YOU think that post is homophobic. I wanted to know where heterophobic

was. Which you never answered.

Is this homophobic? Yes. No. It is that simple.

I would say fuck Greenwald
but he might enjoy it too much.

I see a homophobic post, "I would say fuck Greenwald but he might enjoy it too much."

I asked if you thought it was homophobic and you say see post #7.

Post #7 is not homophobic but says that "I would say fuck Greenwald but he might enjoy it too much." is homophobic.

I have asked, repeatedly, is that post homophobic. You obviously do not consider that post homophobic, can only think it is "negative to a known gay". So, do you consider it homophobic?

It is that simple. You can answer with one word. Yes. or No.

[Thinkingabout]

125. Reread your post # 80.

[uppityperson]

126. You mean one about heterophobia you haven't answered yet? Yes. I see it. Will you answer?

Where is heterophobia on DU?

Do you think this post is homophobic?

I would say fuck Greenwald
but he might enjoy it too much.

Or are you saying calling homophobia homophobia is in actuality heterophobia?

OMG, 3 questions here for you to not answer. To simplify matters, I will number them. Except for #1, the question in the post you reference now, they are simple yes/no answers.

1. Where is heterphobia on DU?
2. Is "I would say fuck Greenwald but he might enjoy it too much." homophobia?
3. Is calling homophobia homophobia heterophobia.

[Thinkingabout]

129. Neither should be in DU, if someone calling another homophobic then they need to have heterophic

Returned to them. You may be getting my post confused.

[uppityperson]

136. If I call a racist a racist for saying something like all n*ers love watermelon, that makes me a

racist?

If I call someone sexist for saying "Ms. Clinton is such a fine looking piece of ass", that makes me a sexist?

If I call someone a homophobe for writing a homophobic statement like "I would say fuck Greenwald but he might enjoy it too much" , that makes ME a bigot?

Thank you for clarifying your position that people should never call someone on their bigotry because then they are a bigot.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[uppityperson]

128. Someone who calls out a bigot for bigotry is because of that a bigot themselves?

Someone who does not let bigotry slide is...bad? Is not open minded enough to accept those beliefs in others?

I think this is what you are saying. Am. I. Right?

[Thinkingabout]

130. There are times when one may be bigoted one way and call the other bigoted but likewise be bigoted

Themselves. Two opinions, both opposing, how can you say both are not bigoteBTW, thanks for assisting me in explaining this.

[riderinthestorm]

132. You do realize this is the same argument used by Pat Robertson and his ilk?

That "your intolerance of my bigotry, is bigotry?"

Is that really where you want to go with this?

[Thinkingabout]

134. Why in the hell can there not be civilized dicussions without jumping in with "homophoic"

"heterophic", "bigoted", etc. Understand not everybody on DU agrees with everyone else but the attacks are not needed. Where does it require one side or the other be taken, why can't I remain neutral, live and let live.

[uppityperson]

137. Why in the hell can there not be civilized discussions without jumping in with homophobia?

It is not an attack but a statement of fact that there are homophobic statements posted on DU. Do you seriously want us to simply accept them? To "remain neutral"?

Remaining "neutral", letting homophobia, sexism, bigotry hurts many people.

Did you read DU's Terms of Service? Here, I'll copy/paste the relevant part.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

No bigoted hate speech.
Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

[William769]

139. So you have no problem with racism?

Or sexism? Or bigotry of any kind? so you can remain neutral so all can live and let live. Is that what your saying? Because that sure as hell sounds like what your saying. Please feel free to clarify if this is not correct.

[Thinkingabout]

144. Yes, do I like to see and hear racism or sexism and I do not like the titles bestowed on others.

The US is a big melting pot. Are there some people I like and choose to associate with, yes, but it does not mean I hate Muslims as many do here, hate people of other religions', of different color. I don't like thugs in any form.

[William769]

145. Oh so it's only homophobia you don't have a problem with.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Thinkingabout]

148. I DONT LIKE THE HOMOPHOBIC OR THE HETEROPHOBIC!!! I never said I like one or the

Other. I don't like the accusations about either. Neutral.

[William769]

151. You have said so over & over and over.

You might want to rethink your avatar. Ann Richards was a champion for the LGBT community. you do her a dis service.

Have a nice day.

[Thinkingabout]

154. WTH, do you want me to say, I get along with both groups. Can a person get along

With both groups or is it your opinion I gave to choose? Hell no, i am not going to choose to make anyone happy. Ann Richards was a strong woman, I choose to be a strong woman with my own opinions, I will remain this way. She would not have bowed to another telling her which side to be standing, so yes she is one of my heroes.

[uppityperson]

152. If we see homophobia, you don't want us to say it. Is this right?

[Aerows]

265. Translation:

Why can't I be as bigoted as I want to be without someone calling me on it? *THEY* have the problem, not me!

[uppityperson]

135. People who call others on their bigotry are, by your definition, bigoted. Wow.

Working towards getting others to see people as individuals rather than putting 1 characteristic of someone in their group of whatever it is means I am a bigot.

I think you are really confused. Being open minded does NOT mean accepting nastiness and bigotry of others. It does NOT mean letting the KKK do whatever they want because otherwise "I" am being intolerant.

[Thinkingabout]

138. Calling me confused, wow, oh the name calling. You can step on whatever side you want, I

Choose for accepting those around me for as they are. In all of the back and forth I don't think you understand where I stand. If one wants to call another homophobic, be prepared to be heterophic. I am neutral, I hope this can be understood.

[uppityperson]

142. Homophobia kills people. Homophobia denies equal rights. You don't care.

Racism kills people. Racism enslaves people.

Sexism kills people.

Ageism lets older people starve because they cannot get a job.


Remaining "neutral" condones all that.

You accept the KKK for as they are. You accept the killers of Matthew Shepard for as they are. You accept not allowing girls to attend school because you are "neutral".

Thank you for clarifying so clearly.

[Thinkingabout]

146. You have a problem and you need to deal with it. You are writing a script which has totally

Missed the point of what I have said. If you want to go the KKK route you will have to go without me.

[uppityperson]

150. No, you are the one complaining about us calling out bigotry. Or is it is sexual orientation bigotry

that is ok with you?

You accept the murderers of Matthew Sheppard for what they are. If I call them homophobes, I am a bigot, right? Even though the only reason they killed him was because of his sexual orientation.

[Bobbie Jo]

158. +1

You have the patience of a saint. When people show you who they are, believe them.

Nicely done.

[uppityperson]

161. Thank you, trying to clarify what they meant rather than insulting. Language, esp on the internet,

can be difficult to work out and trying to clarify helps communication. What one of us thinks is obvious may not be so to another, especially with non-face to face communication.

[Aerows]

196. I had to bow out of that conversation

because saying what I think would get me banned. UP is Job for patience.

[uppityperson]

143. One last simple (truly) question. Where in the world do you live? What country, state, etc, as you

seem to be an ESL (english second language) person and I'd like to know more. Thank you.

[Thinkingabout]

156. I am a natural born citizen of the US, many generations in the US. Proud American, lifelong

Democrat, Union member, tolerant of others opinions, like to exist and be peaceful. I do not like thugs.

[uppityperson]

157. Thank you for answering, your grammar sounded ESL and I wanted to make sure we were

understanding each other due to a possible language issue.

I am proudly intolerant of those who try and hurt others.

[Thinkingabout]

160. I write hoping others do not confuse what I am trying to convey, I must point out you

May have misinterpreted my post. I will try to be more simple.

[Aerows]

189. I love this

"known gay" designation. It's kind of cool. Am I a "known gay"?

[William769]

122. I was wrong. You got this.

[riderinthestorm]

127. I'm not sure anyone can "get" this...

One of the more bizarre DU exchanges I've ever witnessed. And I've seen a few...

The disconnect is... well... gobbledygook.



Good thing its uppityperson handling it.

[Aerows]

269. I especially like the idea

that calling someone on bigotry makes you a bigot. That's some interesting reasoning skills there.

In case anyone needed the tag

[William769]

114. A couple of days ago we were called bullies.

Today we are being called Heterophobia's Do you see a recurring theme here?

I guess some people get a little bent out of shape when they are called on their bullshit and wish life would go back to the good old days. Unbeknownst to them those days are gone for good.

[Behind the Aegis]

163. Apparently, now we are thugs.

Heterophobia:
1. n. the reverse-racism of issues relating to sexual orientation;
2. n. the resulting actions of any GLBT or ally who dares to question or stand against homophobia
3. n. (see also) bullshit (used to excuse/defend homophobia)

[riderinthestorm]

164. I tried to alert but got a split vote. Seems this is "too difficult" for DUers to understand

I'm getting discouraged about the state of affairs here on DU...

[Sissyk]

172. Please do not get discouraged, riderinthestorm.

Please, keep pointing out and speaking out.

I have started to notice a difference. More of us are starting to call out bigotry and isms.

It's worth it even if some people that don't quite get it are reading these exchanges and learning and leaning our way.

[riderinthestorm]

173. .

[muriel_volestrangler]

202. In this thread, #1 and #3 were strongly anti-Greenwald, but they did not mention his sexuality

and you will see that no-one called them homophobic. #4, however, did allude to his sexuality. That is the difference. Seeing that is not 'heterophobic'.

[Thinkingabout]

205. Actually post #4 was homophobic, someone replied there was not a need for homophobic

On DU of which I replied or of heterophobic on DU because it is name calling and for many replies afterwards from those who did not follow the post to see what was being said and apparently thought perhaps I have malice in my heart. I just don't like the hate on this issue on either side. I ca dislike Greenwald and I do not base this on his sexuality.

[muriel_volestrangler]

206. The problem is what you wrote in #88

Simple, if a known gay person has something negative said against them then it turns into

The person being homophobic. Then if someone says something negative against a known straight person then the person on the attack is heterophobic.

This is not true, and the examples I gave showed this. #1 and #3 said something negative about a known gay person, but no-one said that was 'the person being homophobic'.

You brought up 'heterophobic' completely unnecessarily; while #4 was an example of a homophobic remark on DU, and there have been many more before, no-one can think of a heterophobic remark that has been made here. You claim there is hate on both sides; heterophobia is vanishingly rare anywhere, and a 'both sides do it' remark is very inappropriate.

[Thinkingabout]

219. You know,

all can keep up the attack on me, I can handle it, I know where I stand, I do not like to see the "homophobic" or the "heterophobic" attacks on DU, it is not what DU should run on. We should be able to exist where these attacks are not happening. I have been as clear as possible, everyone's desires for their life on their sexuality is respected by myself. If this response is not accepted then it is not my problem. Sometimes we need to know the whole story. As I have stated several times, I am neutral, I will remain in this position.

[muriel_volestrangler]

234. You are implying there have been heterophobic attacks on DU

and everyone disagrees with you. You haven't been able to give a single example. Your claim of 'both sides do it' gives the impression that heterophobia is as big a problem as homophobia in society. It isn't, but you diminish the problem of homophobia by pretending that it is.

[Thinkingabout]

247. I do not diminish homophobia any more than I diminish heterophobia in which many seems to

want to do. I don't understand what you would prefer me to do except to hate all in which you might hate, it is not going to happen, I do not have to hate either, again I am neutral, you nor no one else can change my position, it is not my problem, think whatever you want, hate as long as you desire, I will not be a part of it.

[Aerows]

281. It isn't hate to point out

bigotry. Never has been, and never will be.

[Thinkingabout]

292. This is what I did on my first post on this thread and the responses went bad so

I assume it is not good to point out bigotry.

[Aerows]

293. Because there is rampant "heterophobia" on DU?

Are you for real?

Let me know when you get bashed on the street for your sexual orientation, because it sure as hell has happened to gay people.

[Thinkingabout]

297. Has already happened, did not see a reason for it but I lived.

[Aerows]

300. Are you seriously going to sit there

and tell me that you were bashed for being straight, when the gay community has gotten the crap pummeled out of them for being gay?

I call bullshit. Enormous silos full of bullshit. "That's not a moon, it's a gigantic heap of bullshit" sized pile.

[Thinkingabout]

306. I need to ask you, is there any reason you to try and change my opinion from being neutral?

Why can I not enjoy every body. As I have stated many times I do not like the homophobic or heterophobic remarks. Just as you state about statements, name calling, and beating up or killing others is not to my liking. I will not change my opinion.

[Aerows]

307. When you defend homophobic remarks

someone is going to call you on ... making homophobic remarks. Making racist or sexist remarks is going to result in being ... called on racist or sexist behavior.

I really don't understand how you can't get this. If you don't want to be called a homophobe when you make homophobic remarks and equate your "harassment" by claiming that gay people beat you to a pulp because you are straight, then the way to avoid it is to stop being a homophobe, and an apologist for homophobes.

That's it. That's all you have to do.

[Thinkingabout]

309. Saying I am neutral is a homophobic remark?

[Aerows]

311. Pretending to be neutral

when you have done everything to defend making homophobic statements is what is bogus bullshit.

[Thinkingabout]

317. I will not change my opinion, I am required to work everyday in the public, I refuse

To be badgered into changing my opinion by anyone. Perhaps you should look into easing your position and allow me to have my opinion of which is to judge people by who they present themselves and not by the color of their skin, religious beliefs, vocation, where they shop or their sexuality. Again I will not change how I treat others to satisfy the likes or opinions of others.

I found out you can't change your childhood, the last ten years or yesterday but tomorrow when I wake up I want it to be the best day of my life. I will not live my life with hatred.

[Aerows]

321. Being a bigot

is certainly a comfortable place, I guess. Anyone challenging you on being a bigot clearly is badgering you and it a bigot themselves.



That's all I can say.

[Thinkingabout]

341. That's what you say.

[Aerows]

342. That's my story

and I'm stickin' to it.

[William769]

364. You probably won't watch this but here is a teaching moment

[Thinkingabout]

367. Here is where you and several others here are totally wrong, if you had read many post

on this thread you would know I have repeated many times I am neutral, yes I did watch, yes I have attended drag shows. I am not shocked or prejudiced. I am being accused wrongly. I feel the prejudiced towards me and they are wrong. Why does this happen when I have said so many times I am neutral?

[William769]

368. If you did watch as you say you did.

I would have your comprehension checked.

[Thinkingabout]

370. My comprehension is quiet well, this has been overblown by others, the only thing I can

think is many can not accept I do not care about another's sexuality, if it bothers others then so be it. I do not plan to change my opinion.

[William769]

371. I leave you with this thought (take it for what it's worth).

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."

[marym625]

176. This is a joke

Right?
How does Obama not prosecuting Bush, Cheney, Clapper, etc while hunting down Snowden, have anything to do with sexuality?

[Fearless]

194. In my six or so years with DU

Two of which were hosting the LGBT group, I have never once. EVER. Seen an instance of heterophobia on DU.

Can you provide an example?

[MineralMan]

203. Heterophobia?

I'm not seeing anything like that on DU. Link or it didn't happen.

[sabrina 1]

39. I don't agree with deleting posts. People ought to stand by what they say or don't

say it in the first place. Deleting the evidence doesn't erase the memory to those who are hurt by it.

[William769]

54. Thats not that persons first comment like that.

And it's safe to assume it won't be the last.

[NuclearDem]

140. It really should be their last.

Whether it's their choice or the admins is up to them.

[William769]

141. No argument from me.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Edit history allows us to see that you made a homophobic comment typical of those

who attack Greenwald, many of whom do so because he is gay. The history on DU is brutal and disgusting and you are right in like with the worst of it.

[last1standing]

62. Your blatantly homphobic post is still there for people to see.

Why are you posting homophobic comments?

[Doctor_J]

103. Is the entire BOG populated with bigots, or would you consider yourself an outlier?

I don't go there so I'll take your word for the answer.

[Bobbie Jo]

155. God that was petty.

What a stupid fucking post.

Go deal with the bigot and leave the gratuitous bullshit in jr high where it belongs.

[fascisthunter]

215. awww

[Bobbie Jo]

266. Pffffft.

Your turn.

[1000words]

315. You reject it ...

yet, you've gone and lowered yourself to Junior High.

[OnyxCollie]

5. Looking forward...

to speaking tours, Presidential library, etc.

[Titonwan]

6. The truth hurts. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. +1. nt

[Octafish]

107. +2

Frank Church warned us:

“That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

"I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

DU Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023398994

[Whisp]

13. shut your hole you creepy little has been shit. n/t

[grasswire]

17. I thought it was against DU rules to insult a newbie here at DU. nt

[Autumn]

38. I don't think that was against the poster. Aimed at Glen.

Glen does not love Obama. Bad, bad Glen.

[Marr]

168. Another insightful rebuttal.

[truth2power]

268. Yep! Juvenile, isn't it? n/t

[ProSense]

14. When did it become the President's job to prosecute people for Congressional testimony?

WTF?

[slipslidingaway]

15. How about crimes against the Bush administration ...

what was the reply ' if items surface that constitute crimes we'll look at the evidence?'

If they happen to land in my lap with a bow!

This was an interview before the election ... big clue!

You can look it up prosense ... probably in my journal somewhere.

[MFrohike]

20. 1789

The executive branch, through the Department of Justice, pursues indictments and prosecutes for crimes stemming from Congressional testimony.

[ProSense]

28. Like I asked

"The executive branch, through the Department of Justice, pursues indictments and prosecutes for crimes stemming from Congressional testimony."

...when did it become the President's job? Did Congress hold Clapper in contempt? Did Congress request an indictment?

[Rex]

32. 'and prosecutes'...can't make it any more obvious for you.

[rhett o rick]

36. When they dont have an argument, they try to distract. Strawmen abound. nm

[Rex]

199. Yes the selective reading is pretty amusing.

One of Obama's generals lied to Congress under oath. He should get involved.

[rhett o rick]

34. Asked and answered. Interesting that you love to give the Pres credit for things like

the ACA but it's all Congresses fault when things go wrong. Loyalty apparently is more important than principles.

[questionseverything]

55. executive branch enforces the law

legislative branch makes the law

so it became the presidents job when he was inaugurated

///////////////

sadly potus has not fulfilled his obligations regarding the criminal activities concerning the last admin, and has stopped other countries from prosecuting/and or punishing (Italy,spain) so while it is not surprising it is still his job to enforce the law

[ProSense]

63. OK,

"executive branch enforces the law"

...now that the President's position is know, and Congress isn't pressing the issue, what now?

Congress hasn't held Clapper in contempt. The President stated his position. You and others believe he has no intention of doing anything.

Now what?

[questionseverything]

67. simply encourage him to do his job

and remind others it is clearly his obligation..as we all learned in grade school while studying the Constitution

[dsc]

21. since the advent of perjury laws

[rhett o rick]

24. Who said that? Do you have a quote? Distract much? nm

[ProSense]

29. So the other responses above yours were also confused? n/t

[Rex]

25. Derp.

nt.

[Cha]

31. When fuckhead wants some attention.. he

knows there's an element that will buy any shit he's selling.

[ProSense]

64. Just start a thread: Obama sucks.

Skip the stupid spin.

[sabrina 1]

40. Or to defend those who lie to Congress?

[questionseverything]

73. or lying to supreme court

I am not sure what is going on with the justice department////


Muhtorov’s challenge has its roots in the case rejected by the Supreme Court last year. In deciding to dismiss, the Supreme Court relied upon the assurance by the U.S. solicitor general that the government would notify criminal defendants when it had used evidence from the surveillance.

But the solicitor general at the time did not know that the Justice Department had a policy to conceal such evidence from defendants. He learned of it only after some criminal defendants sought clarification of remarks that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) made in late 2012 that the government had used evidence from warrantless monitoring in certain cases. The department reversed its policy last year.
/////////////////////////////////////////////

so the solicitor general presented false info to the supreme court????? because he did not know that justice department was (illegally) concealing evidence???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/terrorism-suspect-challenges-warrantless-surveillance/2014/01/29/fb9cc2ae-88f1-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html


///////////////////////////////

to be clear the line that freaks me out.....the solicitor general at the time did not know that the Justice Department had a policy to conceal such evidence from defendants.

[Rex]

250. Notice he ran away with his tail between his legs.

I swear it is sad to watch sometimes.

[TransitJohn]

43. Ratification n/t

eom

[struggle4progress]

16. GG's idiotic on public policy, a crappy lawyer,a lousy political analyst, and an all-around a-hole

It's just good public policy for the President not to stick his nose into Department of Justice investigations and prosecutions: there's too much potential for abuse, and for the appearance of abuse, if he does so. Giving Greenwald the benefit of the doubt here unfortunately means assuming that Greenwald is a nitwit on public policy; there may be other interpretations

The Senate has mechanisms for enforcing its prerogatives: if the Senate feels Mr Clapper perjured himself in testimony, the Senate is entirely capable of forwarding an official request for prosecution to the DoJ. Greenwald has enough legal training to research the rules and statutes governing this, had he any inclination beyond mere rhetoric directed against Mr Obama -- and it is unconscionable that Greenwald has apparently made no effort whatsoever in that direction

In any case, it is a prerogative of the Senate, not of the Executive (which lies in a different branch of government); and it would be entirely inappropriate for the President to pretend to know what the Senate prefers here. There are other options beyond formal mechanism, if Senators are outraged: for example, a letter from sufficiently many Senators, objecting that they did not feel Clapper had enough credibility to deserve the trust of the Senate in discussing matters with Senators, would certainly secure Clapper's resignation. It is unclear to me whether Greenwald simply lacks basic political insight here, or whether he simply lacks the integrity to report what political common sense dictates -- but in either case, he is contributing nothing to the understanding of his readers

Putting such pieces together once again suggests that Greenwald's primary intent remains his continuing project of splitting voters from the major parties, by any rhetorical means necessary, in the hopes they may vote Libertarian

[rhett o rick]

26. I couldnt get past your ad hominem attacks. Where do you get your hatred for Greenwald?

From the Corporate-Media?

[struggle4progress]

30. I gave the arguments in the post

[rhett o rick]

37. Sorry but I didnt get past your ad hominem attacks. I figure if you think that's necessary

then you've got nothing.

[Thinkingabout]

41. K & R

I would like to know when GG is going to step up and bring Snowden back to the US to stand trial. GG wants to know why Obama is not doing something and I would ask GG why is forgetting to get Snowden back im the US. Even the Senate members knows why Clapper gave his answer. Did Clapper do harm to our national security? No but Snowden has.

[TheMathieu]

42. It's a shame he has found an excuse not to prosecute Glenn.

He'd make good cellmates with D'Souza.

[Autumn]

46. What law has Glen broken?

[Thinkingabout]

49. That's easy, receiving stolen goods.

[Autumn]

52. Yeah, kind of like the Pentagon Papers were stolen goods.

And published by a newspaper.

[Thinkingabout]

70. Perhaps or perhaps more.

[truebluegreen]

97. I suppose it would be irresponsible not to speculate.

[Aerows]

347. LOL

[bobduca]

175. Revenge fantasies

for exposing stuff about your best friend the president!

[NuclearDem]

180. Oh for fuck's sake.

War criminals, greedy banksters who nearly collapsed the world economy, and people involved in the rollback of civil liberties are walking around free and clear, but the people who should be thrown in prison are the ones who call Obama on not prosecuting them.

Give me a fucking break. Greenwald says things that hurt sometimes, get the fuck over it.

[DesMoinesDem]

44. I love how much this thread pisses off the BOG.

[Luminous Animal]

50. Spittin' mad over a tweet!

[pa28]

66. This thread is filled with pouty temper tantrums over a small kernel of truth.

Must be past nap time or something

[Puglover]

74. Ain't it grand??????????

[Skittles]

106. I bet not a single one of them actually read the article

not a one

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

115. I see some ass kickings (sic) in the horizon. :-P

[QC]

121. Seeing the name of the hated Greenwald,

who never really loved Him, is sufficient.

If only Pavlov had had DU, he would never have had to torment all those dogs.

[Skittles]

131. LOL....STOP IT QC

[bobduca]

149. ^^ this

Operant conditioning for the win!

Psst. Hey BOrG collective, don't get high on your own supply of propaganda.

[neverforget]

296. Dog that is the truth!

[randome]

113. That's the difference between us, DesMoinesDem.

I don't find any pleasure when you are discomfited.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

286. And the difference between *us* is that I don't get discomfited

[randome]

366. Touche!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[bobduca]

147. BOG Defense System Activated

Operation Tiger Beat Down is GO!!!

[SMC22307]

188. OMG, I've got to get to bed, but this thread is too f*ckin' funny.

[Marr]

170. Same here.

[treestar]

226. That's odd

Really, so you really do want to fight other Democrats? You hate the President's supporters enough to wish them to be unhappy?

Very odd for a Democrat. Or even a Socialist or Green. Why would you despise your allies that much? Or, allies you need to hope to see any progress towards the world you want, as the Republicans are not going to help you (though they can make you happy when they say the sort of things that make the BOG unhappy).

Very revealing for DU posters to say this sort of thing. Makes one think twice.

[Rex]

251. I know there hosts are all in here crying like 5 year olds.

I really don't understand what they are so mad about...they got an echo chamber and kicked out all the honest DUers. Sad bunch imo.

[Egalitarian Thug]

51. LOL & Thanks.

[WillyT]

53. K & R !!!

[bravenak]

61. Greenwald: Excellent at self promotion.

More at six on your local NBC affiliate.....

[sibelian]

200. As there is no way anyone in the public eye can say anything at all WITHOUT running the risk of

appear to "self-promote", the criticism is equally applicable to all known public figures.

This being the case, your criticism has no value of any kind. Except, perhaps as an indication of your inability to express anything substantive on the subject.

[bravenak]

201. I bet you think that what you just said was quite profound.

Too bad really.
I notice you didn't say I was wrong about him being excellent at self promotion, you just don't value my critism. Thank goodness I'm not living in your world, cause I think I have a valid point. His self promotion is shameless. Why does it offend you that I pointed it out? Are you a big supporter of his or a personal friend? If so, you should ask him if he thinks his self promotion is shameless, cause it sure seems like it.

I love how you condescend to me about my abilities to express anything substantive on the subject, while there was actually no value to your post other than to criticize me for expressing an opinion. It's truly remarkable how some people have a startling lack of self awareness. You probably wouldn't notice....

This was a blast! Ta-ta!

[treestar]

229. Eddie and Julian couldn't get any play today

Eddie's wiped out, he did a few days in a row. It's Glenn's turn.

[last1standing]

65. Looks like homophobic smears and straw man arguments are all the Swarm has to offer.

Thanks for the post. Good to see Greenwald can still make the cultists lose control of their bowels.

[Aerows]

82. It isn't homophobia, apperently

unless it is directed at the POTUS. It's fine, otherwise, I guess.

[Marr]

171. +1

[grasswire]

354. "the Swarm"

Good one.

[polichick]

79. Remember, "it's a big club and you ain't in it."

George Carlin

[whistler162]

91. So it wouild be good for a Republican President

to decide who to investigate and order prosecuted!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. He's still looking for those "comfortable walking shoes".

Besides, "we have to look forward" and forget about torturers and congressional committees and lies.

[randome]

110. I know, Obama should prosecute anyone who is trying to get out of paying their back taxes.

Starting with G. Greenwald.

So the premiere journalist must not be finding any dirt to dish out from Snowden's 'windfall'. All he can do now is reveal his true colors by bashing the President. All hail the Libertarians!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Andy823]

118. Isn't it amazing

Some new poster with 24 posts comes in, post a post that is obviously going to stir up shit, and then never even replies to their own post! Just saying!

[randome]

120. Not to mention the fact that this thread has gone way off its intended rails.

Perhaps...mission accomplished?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Andy823]

123. Yep,

Seems to be a lot of the same "mission" going on around here lately. The old post and run mission I guess!

[treestar]

233. You Better Believe It!

[SMC22307]

329. Is that the BOG's crowning achievement?

Getting one poster banned?

[treestar]

351. No I believe Better Believe It didn't need the bog

to get himself banned.

[Aerows]

298. Rails?

Where we are going we don't need rails!

[dionysus]

167. new poster, you think? i'd wager a bunch of return customers in this thread...

[Andy823]

218. You are probably right nt

[MindMover]

133. Everybody better hold on ... the next decision from our potus will ..

Curl your eyebrows and sharpen the spurs .....

[JoePhilly]

153. Obama also kicks puppies competitively for distance and accuracy ...

This one went 43 feet, did a flip, and landed in a glass of water.

[frwrfpos]

166. excellent OP

speaks to the utter hypocrisy of the administration

[WeekendWarrior]

181. Didn't Greenwald support Bush?

Is it just me, or does he seem to have some kind of vendetta against Obama?

[bobduca]

183. No but some here keep repeating it as if it were fact.

Last edited Sun Feb 2, 2014, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Repetition, Repetition, Repetition!

(on edit: redirected this at those who persist in spreading lies about Greenwald.)

[WeekendWarrior]

186. Jump back, dude. I'm merely asking a question.

I had read somewhere that Greenwald supported the Patriot Act and Bush. Maybe I'm wrong. Which IS WHY I ASKED.

Jesus Christ.

[bobduca]

204. My honest apology

I genuinely thought you were asking that question semi-rhetorically re: Greenwald's previous criticism of Bush Regime. I forget that not everybody has wasted as much free time as I have on reading DU's oprganized anti-greenwald screeds!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024429658

This thread cites some of Greenwald's pre-2008 reporting on Bush Administration. While I think he may have advocated for the Patriot act at the time, it's clear his reporting has gone after those in power who are responsible for the systematic abuses of our justice system that was setup post-911 by the Bush Administration.

[WeekendWarrior]

299. Apology accepted

My knowledge of Greenwald is close to nonexistent. And I'm actually on the fence about the whole Snowden thing. One day I want to root for the guy, the next day I think he's an opportunistic asshole. Which is unusual for me, because my thoughts on such matters are usually pretty clear cut.

[treestar]

231. He is a "libertarian"

So he likely did support Dubya on many things. As far as vendetta against Obama, he does have severe ODS, but it may be cynical, IOW, it's a way to get attention and attempt to be relevant.

[Rex]

248. Yeah he wrote three books all anti-Dubya but don't let the facts get in your way!

You should stop assuming things, you are horrible at it.

[Exciting Trip]

365. He slammed Bush on a constant basis

Google would have told you that. But it would have ruined your insinuation that Greenwald is a Bush lover. So you didn't google.

[treestar]

221. Since Glenn is not an Attorney General

or even a deputy, I'm going to pass on considering his judgment of worth.

[MrScorpio]

238. Makes you wonder what the Prez could have accomplished...

If he spent all of limited political capital and time prosecuting anyone and everyone that all these disappointed people wanted him to prosecute. There is no shortage of these people to go after, depending on who you talk to.

I can't imagine how much complaining there would be if all of these people, who are able to afford the defense money can buy, would be able to get away with either leduced or not guilty sentences.

That would bring plenty of complaints that he's a failure, not getting anything important done.

[gulliver]

246. Can't Greenwald just go back to defending Nazis?

I don't think he is going to make it to the Drudge money.

[fascisthunter]

259. oh brother...

[madrchsod]

252. oh god it`s greenwald again....

i didn't realize obama had that kind of power and if he did greenwald would complain about that.

[Exciting Trip]

305. Obama said we should move forward not backward regarding torturers

Your theory that if Obama had direct prosecution powers he would jail the powerful is proved wrong by the quote above.

[SMC22307]

328. Good of you to show up.

[Exciting Trip]

330. Forward not backward

You didn't like that I reminded you of that, did you.

[SMC22307]

337. You're confusing me...

with the fan club.

[Orsino]

369. The excuses are not excellent.

They are old and stale.