Holy Fuck Me Harder!

[hootinholler]

No, this isn't about GD turning into Gender Dysfunction, or is it?

I just waded through the Cannonfire blog's take on Greenwald's latest reveal from the Snowden papers.

It's worse, way worse than I had even imagined when in my paranoid fantasy land. Yes I know there is another thread, but it doesn't link the Cannonfire presentation and is fine for general discussion of this stuff.

The point I'm trying to focus on here, isn't about anonymous or even about internet persona management, but the spooks are choosing winners and losers in the market:



Let that one soak a few minutes, stop deals / ruin business relationships. It would seem that we have found one connection to counter-intuitive results in the marketplace when the invisible hand moves.

Holy shit. Talk about something that should be illegal. This is illegal, right? Choosing business winners and losers? Choosing political winners and losers?

Well I guess it's no worse than the CIA selling crack.

Oh, and feel free to apologize for the shit stirring surrounding Snowden.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Novel title.

Reminds me of Mohammed "I'm hard" Bruce Lee - quote from the film Snatch.

[hootinholler]

4. Not familiar with it. n/t

[KoKo]

7. Well...I almost skipped this important post because of your Title....

It was a little OTT.... But, the article is definitely worth the read. Just hope you don't lose viewers because of the language. On the other hand, given "GD" these days I guess one has to do what they gotta do as you stated.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

57. Heh, that's why i read it.

[KoKo]

140. Absolutely...Different Strokes for Different Folks!

I'm with ya' but do express my opinion. 's

[ChairmanAgnostic]

198. My humor is almost as warped as my femur.

[Lost_Count]

2. Thought it was the Duke porn student...

[hootinholler]

3. Whatever it takes to get you in the thread. n/t

[Ecumenist]

202. Me too, Lost_Count, BTW, a belated but hearty welcome to DU. Right glad tameetcha!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

223. I need to know about this Duke porn student. n/t

[Lost_Count]

226. Ta Da....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4562743

[Fantastic Anarchist]

231. Thank you ...

... at work, so I'll view it ... now.

[Lost_Count]

244. It's fine. Sadly the thread is without pictures..

[Democracyinkind]

5. The talking point being distributed right now is "this isn't really illegal".

It will be followed by "we've known this for years. How is this news??".

Yes, I am the Mentalo of talking points.

[sabrina 1]

12. Yes, those talking points have become more than familiar with each illegal violation

of our rights especially, 'we always had this kind of thing going on'. I am always fascinated by that one. I always think 'we always have had murder going on' so, what are we supposed to do about? The suggestion is, 'don't bother going after murderers because they have always amongst us'.

Even their talking points are lame. I hope they don't pay a whole lot for them.

[Blue_Tires]

32. You mean all this time I could have been getting *paid* while DUing?

[fasttense]

50. Yes, there are several people here on DU one of them my own personal stalker

with about 5 screen names that are getting paid to post on DU. They post the typical "yeah for the uber rich and the corporations who will be our new gods" kind of crap. They really hate Venezuela and they got a hate on for anything socialist.

I wonder if I pretended to be a RepubliCON and singed up to post on DU for RepubliCON money, how long would it take the fools to stop paying me?

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. what is your proof they are being paid though?

I see this often but have yet to see someone actually out someone..

[Aerows]

77. LOL n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. So you have? please show me....

I would love to see that....

I am not denying it.....just want to know if it is just being bandied about or if it has actually happened.

[Aerows]

81. "I am not denying it"

Good place to start.

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. OH you are accusing me?

Then that really is.....

I WISH I got paid for all the time I put into this....I would be rich!

[Aerows]

86. The truth will set you free.

Remember that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. Yeah that's what I heard....Is this a direct callout?

Are you making THAT accusation?

[Aerows]

93. If quoting Bible verses amounts to a callout

and offering good advice amounts to a callout, I fear you haven't been on the internet too long. I know who I am, and you know who you are. I'll just deliver a deadly smirk and offer you a tiny wave.

[VanillaRhapsody]

95. too chicken to make the accusation outright are you?

YOU don't know shit about me....as a matter of fact....I have probably been on the Internet longer than you have...since like 1985 in fact. I actually have a degree in programming ....so why would I need to be a "cheap labor" paid shill?

But come on on....accuse me....say it outright....make my day!

[Aerows]

97. I don't think anyone has to accuse anyone of anything

when they make it clear through their actions. Yes, you have been on the internet longer than I have - I only got on it in 1989. Because I was busy going to elementary school and junior high.

During that time, I learned that how people act tells you more about who they are than anything they say. It has been a valuable lesson for me that I have kept in mind my entire life.

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. YOU clearly WANT to make accusations about people...

I am not the one that questioned anyone's internet "cred" that would be YOU...

And again I must say....YOU don't know SHIT aboiut ME!

I on the other hand....have a job that pays me to notice patterns....that is what programming is...keep that in mind.

[Aerows]

99. Noticing patterns?

Isn't that what started this whole conversation?

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. No its not....that would be YOU accusing people of being paid shills.....

That's what you dropped into this conversation for....

OR did you have anything of import to say other than a lame attempt at trying to insult me? If so...FAILURE!

[Aerows]

103. Recognition of patterns

and failure. Good abilities to have .

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. You get paid for that?

[Aerows]

115. Yes, I do get paid to recognize failure

I fix problems. I don't create them and then complain that someone pointed it out.

[VanillaRhapsody]

119. apparently you do....You weren't in this conversation to add anything except to stalk

me...You added nothing to the conversation except a vague accusation that you refused to back up...I would call that YOUR failure....

"Please proceed Mr Romney"

[Aerows]

121. Please proceed, Governor.

I fixed that for you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

122. Well apparently you respect Romney more than I do...

[Aerows]

123. I get the quotes of President Obama

correct.

[VanillaRhapsody]

124. that's about all you get right....

determining patterns and finding paid shills....not so much.

[Aerows]

125. It seems I

was able to identify incorrect statements and failure. No need to thank me.

[VanillaRhapsody]

127. because I didn't call Romney Gov? Thats your big "Get"? Congratulating yourself for that?

hahaahahahaha

Oh yeah and Paid shill detection...FAIL!
I'd say your "fail" is of epic proportions!

[Aerows]

128. I'm not sure where you are going with this

You made a misquote of the President. I corrected it.

You have a problem with people stating what President Obama said correctly?

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. I am not sure what the hell you have been talking abou from the start your ONLY

objective was to insult me.....you failed that objective too. (isn't that called trolling?)

Just trying to put enough posts on this thread perhaps? Does that help the OP poster....are they getting paid by the response?

[Aerows]

131. If someone was insulted

you did it to yourself, VR. I just didn't play along.

As to your other question, well, you would know better than I do!

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. thats the point....no one was insulted....

so you even suck at trolling

[Aerows]

133. Oh good

because I wasn't.

[VanillaRhapsody]

134. Yes actually you WERE...

stalking someone just to trash talk IS the epitome of trolling....you are just not very good at it.

[Aerows]

136. I was stalking you?

Please, dear, give me some credit. I merely responded to a thread you were in. You are the one that keeps this going. Maybe I should be flattered . In fact, I think I am.

[VanillaRhapsody]

203. You responded with trollish behavior.

Since you sought me out....perhaps it is "I" that should be flattered....YOU came to me...remember?

[Aerows]

204. I gave you attention in the form of replies

you probably should be .

[Aerows]

207. LOL!

Now you are talking. Escalate the argument. .

[VanillaRhapsody]

208. You were arguing?

Not so's anyone could tell what with all that drooling and googly eyes!

[Aerows]

209. I'm drooling and making googly eyes

over the idea that Taco Bell is going to introduce breakfast. Good Lord that sounds awesome, and hand me some hot sauce to put on my ... whatever the hell this is rolled up in a flauta with eggs, cheese and sausage.

We can get along as long as you don't get in my way of that!

[Rex]

280. ...

[Aerows]

286. I did the best I could in that exchange

I wasn't really left anywhere to go with that, Rex.

[Rex]

287. I know, that was a perfect reply imo.

You did far better in that exchange than I ever could.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

225. I've been through one of these with VR before.

It's relentless.

I'm mean super-duper relentless.

[Democracyinkind]

267. It usually takes a jury to end it. nt

[Aerows]

289. I just replied

to the best of my ability. Ranting at me, gay-baiting and other tactics to cause upset. It isn't right, but it's the way of things, I guess.

[rusty fender]

312. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[fasttense]

215. Well my little stalker got banned.

but she has several other screen names she uses. She slipped up and used the plural to refer to herself.

I use to post on Thom Hartmann's web site and they had a RW troll that I kept silent about. He was constantly throwing out RepubliCON talking points and fighting with others. Later, after the election, he came out and told everyone he was getting paid by a RW site and sorta, kind of apologized. I suspected him from the start and should have trusted my instincts. I stopped posting there because he was so annoying.

But at least I learned from him what they do.

I do not have 100% guaranteed proof that she was getting paid. But she and her minions used the same tactics as did the paid troll on Thom Hartmann.

In addition the Glenn Greenwald piece about our government disrupting on-line communities makes me wonder about the recent in-flow of disruptors with low post counts to DU.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

[Zorra]

239. Classic!

[grahamhgreen]

253. Proof is in their policy positions.

[KoKo]

141. ...and, it was a warning revealed in the latest documents....

"..we've seen this before...it's old news."

I believe it's there in one of the charts as another form of disinfo tactics. Actually, much of what we who have been on the web have seen for years now. All the items in this latest document release...most of us have seen used on places we've been and either read or commented in the discussion.

[sabrina 1]

179. Yes, when something as lame as that is repeated over and over again by

different people, it is a talking point. Real people don't repeat talking points, they speak from the heart.

Here are a few trumped up to slam Liberals with, and not from Republicans, who had their own list for Liberals, these began around 2004 on Dem forums:

'You don't belong to the Reality Based Community'.
'Thanks for your 'concern'.
'Concern troll'

'Purity Troll'. That is a favorite, accusing those who stick to Liberal principles of 'purity'. Whenever I see that I remember where I first saw it, and I know that individual was an operative. He was eventually proven to be. Nasty, insulting, 'democrat' who could not hide his disdain for actual Democrats.

There was a whole list of these words and phrases rolled out around 2004 and that's when we began to see attacks on Liberals like Dennis Kucinich, mocking garbage we had only seen from the right until then.

Those are other identifiers, WHICH Dems they attack, usually the most Left Leaning.

I have often had disagreements with people who I know are not part of any of this. Because they USE THEIR OWN WORDS and do not PERSONALLY attack, they might get angry, frustrated but you can tell when someone simply disagrees on an issue and when the goal is to undermine the PERSON.

[KoKo]

182. The tactics against Kucinich, David Swanson (peace activist) and

others including Ralph Nader (as single handedly causing 2000 Selection by the Supreme Court of Bush II as President) and so many others who were turned upon (thrown under the bus) by tactics that are divulged in this release.

Assange discredited by suspicious accusations which are classic "Honey Pot" tactics and Snowden discredited by "boxes in garage" and "pole dancing girlfriend" amongst other slings and arrows.

So many ....

[sabrina 1]

187. Yes, exactly. Anyone who joins in those attacks in my experience for over eight years now, has

often been part of the campaign against truth telling and against Liberals, who tend to want to know and tell the truth no matter where the chips may fall.

I love Swanson, and he was one of the first actually, to come under attack from those I spoke about above, on a different forum than this, a prominent forum. Here it took longer, but I see it now and recognize it from back then. Not as overt as it was there but recognizable nevertheless. I am not surprise that people like Swanson have moved away from these forums and has a much broader audience now without the nonsense he and several others, also moved on, doing much more elsewhere, on Independent TV etc, where they are immune to that kind of 'smear campaign'.

Some of course just join in because they naturally 'lean right' on several issues and have a natural disdain for the 'left'. Inadvertently they are helping these deceptive campaigns. Some eventually realize it and distance themselves from it.

It's a shame to have so much deception such intense effort to stop people from having serious conversations. It was inevitable that these snakes would slither onto the internet to make sure the people have nowhere to simply discuss important issues and maybe make a difference.

[Generic Other]

278. "It's a shame to have so much deception..."

This is my issue. I post on DU with my heart on my sleeve. I don't lie about my beliefs. And when I am being stubbornly wrongheaded in anyone else's view, that is 100% me with no paid sponsors. The idea that there are people who are not equally honest is strange as they seem to believe they are going to control my thinking with their machinations. Frankly, if someone actually said to me, "I get paid to shill for this candidate/issue/party, and I will do my best to promote my issue and my point of view, I am not sure I would be upset. The honesty would feel refreshing. And I might take what they had to say more seriously.

If news people prefaced remarks by reminding viewers their companies had very strong partisan views about issues, I would trust them more. In my local paper, they still endorse candidates and explain their choices. I prefer that to going behind my back, paying off lobbyists, doing backroom deals, etc.

[KoKo]

290. Kind of like (before your time...I think) here of the Fairness Doctrine where

there was Forced Equal time for Opposing Candidates to have equal time. There were some other parts of the "Fairness Doctrine" that caused it's demise ....but Equal Time with announced Party Affiliation and the Source of the Sponsorship of the Ad would be at least a small step back to "FAIRNESS" in ADVERTISING for our Candidates.

If you do a Search of "History of the Fairness Doctrine" it's interesting about why it was instituted in the first place and what it was about.

I grew up under it and there was much worth in having "Equal Time" for political viewpoints policed by the Network "Standards and Practices Divisions" which were unfortunately disbanded when the "Fairness Doctrine" was thrown out.

[sabrina 1]

300. Good points re transparency. In the early Bush years on some Dem forums, maybe others, it was

required that people reveal it if they were professional operatives, for candidates eg, or any other kind of 'work'. That made sense because then people understood where they were coming from and it did not upset anyone, it just explained why someone might be unwilling to admit to certain things eg or why they were so 'passionate' about their opinions.

I don't know why it is not a requirement. You should be able to ask someone 'are you working for someone' when it appears that way.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

224. We should always be looking forward. Never backwards.

That's how things a run, ya see?

[Blue_Tires]

23. I came up with that "talking point" myself, thank you very much

Did anyone here really think the competitive business world was all pristine and fair play before this story? Did anyone here think governments in every developed nation haven't had a direct or indirect role in determining which corporations thrive while others wither on the vine??

If someone could ever be bothered to research the "why" and "who benefits" in these stories, then we might actually get somewhere...

[Democracyinkind]

26. You actually managed to combine both in one post. ;)

[Blue_Tires]

29. Maybe I'm on the NSA payroll...

God knows I've been called everything else during my time here...

So do my questions get answered, or are we just going to snipe?

[Democracyinkind]

35. I won't.

You address me as someone who is naive about such things, and that puts me off.

I happen to know quite allot about the intersection of intelligence and business, academically and personally. No need to trot out the old "did you really think this hasn't gone on forever"...

You might think I was sniping, or responding to your input from another thread, but both assumptions are wrong. My smileys are always friendly and disengaging

Edit: I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. Naturally, this is a subject that is nearly impossible to investigate. But there are attempts, and there are famous cases where many people "know", such as the case of Boeing vs. Airbus, which is as much a battle between Intel as it is a battle between businesses.

[Blue_Tires]

48. One of my many issues with Greenwald's stories is that he's good on

the "what" and "how", but never delves into the "whys" or the specific "who" (i.e., who is pulling the strings and/or who is reaping the rewards)...Without those, it's impossible to uncover the chain of responsibility or bring people to account, since everyone can keep passing the buck...

I don't like stories that just hang "out there" with unanswered questions and untracked leads...If there is a wider context to this (and there always is), I'd rather it be explored and fleshed out instead of alluded to and hinted at...

So I tend to be more flippant than I probably should about stories that at the bottom line don't tell me a whole lot...

[Democracyinkind]

49. Actually, I have pretty much the same critique.

But I'm not sure if it's Greenwald's fault. Being familiar with historical works about intel and espionage, this is a problem that the whole discipline faces. Maybe it's in the nature of the subject rather than in the competence of researchers. Then again, Greenwald is a journalist, not an academic, so I'm not that big on him.

I think that the thing that bugged me about your post was that I have pretty much the same attitude toward people that I consider less knowledgeable on the subject or toward the all-hype-no-content-stories that often ger posted here. So, sorry for being an ass. What you wrote is actually true, and I mistook you for someone who simply wants to dismiss the subject. Now I see that you're actually just venting your frustration over the intangibleness of the subject. A frustration that I share.

[2banon]

269. "all-hype-no-content"

(post 49)

.......toward the all-hype-no-content-stories that often ger posted here.

I share your frustration,, although my reactions generally live in the universe of "supreme annoyance" planet.

I'm going to steal this quote/phrase from you (if you're ok with that) because you've succinctly articulated my thoughts on 75% of most news headlines, but especially video clip and OP titles etc.

and don'tcha just love OTT headers on the same/similar theme?

'so and so did an all time "smack down", blah blah blah.. (go click on it, only to discover a mealy-mouthed "counter" is described as an 'all time smack down', or other similar descriptives..

[sabrina 1]

250. The what and the how is what journalists are SUPPOSED to tell us. I wish the MSM would do it

but they, on the contrary, deny there even is a what or a how. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'why', that's pretty easy to figure out once you get the facts which we don't get from the Corporate media. Which is why people don't even bother with them anymore, unless they WANT to be deceived.

[rwsanders]

45. The "why", without the particulars of "who" is covered pretty well by L. Fletcher Prouty's book...

on the JFK assassination.
I finished it recently and it really gives context to a lot of what is being uncovered by the NSA revelations.

[hootinholler]

145. You mean journalists like

Danny Casolaro or Gary Webb?

I suspect that Glen isn't very suicidal.

[sabrina 1]

192. That's kind of like saying after we read about a murder 'does anyone think

that there never was a murder before until this happened'? What point are you making by stating the obvious, at least to those of us who are sentient. Does it make it RIGHT when something is reported that has happened before, like bank robberies, or murder, or rape, all have happened before, multiple times throughout history yet we still express horror when we read of the latest crime.

The fact that this may have happened before is completely irrelevant to THIS latest revelation. It was bad THEN and it is bad NOW and maybe it's way past time, since as you point out, these dirty tricks have been practiced before, to DO something, as have about other crimes, like pass laws, to at least diminish their occurances and where when they are exposed, there can be accountability for them, making sure the public how unprincipled and corrupt these people are. Liars, deliberate liars, SHOULD be exposed and held accountable as they are HURTING people.

[KoKo]

6. Thanks "hoot" ...this is another piece of info from original article deserving separate

attention. Some of the earlier Snowden releases alluded to business transactions being corrupted by the spying...but this link really focuses on what should have everyone concerned.

And, take it back to the "Financial Meltdown" we suffered and are still suffering through and think of what might have been known and done to cause it. Aside from the manipulation that Wall Street and our large Global Companies could do with privileged information from spying. And, implications for Emerging Markets, Third World Countries and "Revolutions" which result from instability in Commondities Resources, Currency Manipulation and Company Advantages in these countries.

Thanks for posting this!

[ancianita]

75. ... what you say conjures this image...I hate feeling like I'm living in the belly of the beast...

[KoKo]

138. That is one creepy Graphic...and you might even add a door for

Ukraine...given our meddling there.

[woo me with science]

310. Now that

is a chilling cartoon.

[jsr]

8. Recommend title and article

[Scuba]

9. American intelligence has been under the control of Wall Street since William Donovan at the OSS.

[sabrina 1]

14. So why was it not stopped before now? This is illegal and if it has been going on for

a long time and Congress knew it, it is SHAMEFUL that they have nothing about it. That is why these revelations are so important, only the people can changes this and in order to do so, they NEEDED to know what is going on.

[hootinholler]

21. I'm not so sure of that

I do know there has been a symbiosis between the two in that it has always been easy for the CIA to place an executive in a corporate office as part of a cover story. We also know there are CIA front companies as well.

But it is a bit of a leap to accept your assertion that Wall St controls the CIA. Wall St is a little too nebulous a thing to control anything. If you can narrow it down to some tangible people who control the CIA, I could possibly agree with your assertion.

[Democracyinkind]

31. I agree with your caveat.

Then again, it doesn't get anymore Wall Street than the Dullesses, the Georgetown Set and their Old Boy network.

The CIA, at least, is and always was deeply intertwined with Wall Street. I don't even think that that is really disputed anywhere. Burton Hersh (among others) wrote a great book about it.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. I don't have the underlying info & sources at my fingertips, but

I have taken it for granted for years that the CIA & Wall Street are Siamese twins.

Check out the bios of Allen Dulles & his brother John Foster Dulles as cases in point.

[rwsanders]

46. They had a starring role in a book I mentioned above by L. Fletcher Prouty on the JFK assassination.

[KoKo]

143. Who controls the "High Frequency Trading, Commodities and Energy Markets and

Natural Resources Extraction from Countries we choose to Invade ...or those who we help to incite revolutions in to get access over China or Russia into their "rare earth minerals, oil, Nat Gas and common minerals" for extraction?

Having super spying into the companies vying for those interests and the Governments of those who have those resources would be a huge advantage to our Global US Companies, Pentagon and and MIC... Wouldn't it?

[go west young man]

158. The Guardian had this article recently on

definitive industrial espionage regarding US surveillance of Siemens in Germany. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/26/edward-snowden-nsa-industrial-sabotage

It only makes sense that that if the Carlyle Group is in charge of Booze, Allen, Hamilton who is conducting spying all over the world, then those people (who lied us into the Iraq war incidentally) are going to be using the info to make themselves rich. Like the Wall Street bailout money, the public is aware of the problem and the conflict of interest, but no one is doing anything to stop it. I myself would never play the stock market these days. It was always rigged for the high rollers in the know, now their "in the know factor" is guaranteed.

[KoKo]

163. Yep..."in the know factor" is and has been for awhile.."guaranteed."

It's hard not to fit the pieces together as all of this transpires. Even those who don't have time to read as much as others...are going to be waking up.

This is about US...THE PEOPLE...and what's being done to us with Austerity Programs and Joblessness plus the manipulation and downsizing of our lives and the stresses of Climate Change, dislocation and people at their wits end trying to survive on the poorest end and the Middle Class in such decline that they are whip sawed caught up in policies and financial manipulation that we have no time to catch a breath before the next stressful horror visits.

[ReRe]

64. Why....

... it twas the daddy of the CIA to begin with some 66-67 years ago.

[Earth_First]

10. You don't need the NSA to influence the markets/politics...

It doesn't take the NSA to get any of that information into the right hands; for the right price of course.

'Expert Network' consultation that operates in broad daylight, registered with the SEC, and make millions annually on offering information to 'subscribers' on Wall Street.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_network

These expert networks have the ability and track records to provide information pertaining to comapnies' 'probable' earnings reports, current research and development, and social connections with the companies that traders and firms have the ability to make millions on or save their own asses.

Insider trading? Probably.

Illegal. Absolutely.

Frontline did a piece called 'To Catch a Trader' in 2010 which highlights these expert networks and much more...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/to-catch-a-trader/

All of this of course has political implications when it comes down to the bottom line and who has access to this information.

[KoKo]

146. Well...that's the point...Who ALL has ACCESS to this Information.......

and the "more the Merrier" for the "Five Eyes.'

[Cali_Democrat]

11. ...

[cali]

25. that is a truly silly and inane post

are you suggesting that the op is just a hoax?

[neverforget]

27. If this were to have come out under President Bush, I'm sure the reaction from

Last edited Tue Feb 25, 2014, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)

him would be entirely different......

[Aerows]

70. Suddenly in 2017

It will be a very different song and dance. I didn't do the song and dance in 2000-2008, and I don't do it now.

Those that cheaply throw away integrity for the sake of recognition of a party? They will throw their ... and I almost said something that is very bad, because this angers me intensely, but I didn't.

Suffice to say, for some, principles are for sale.

[neverforget]

73. Exactly. It it was wrong under a Republican then it's wrong under a Democrat.

[Aerows]

114. Oh, so you want to get personal?

Well that speaks well of you and your message. I guess if you can't beat the message, you beat on the person. Congratulations, Cali_Democrat. I'll forget you said this if you do, because frankly, it doesn't do you any favors.

[Aerows]

150. I don't know that I'm taking the high road

I'm just refraining from going as low as I can.

I'm not perfect, I could, but I won't.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Not as silly as your post earlier today defending medicare payments to private insurers.

You really exposed yourself with that one.

DURHAM_D really took your post apart, my dear:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4561751

[cali]

33. it's contemptible to make shit up. In no fucking way did I defend

medicare plus. and YOU know that. I said that the repukes will scream Medicare cuts in this election year and that it's a political risk.

disgusting and false claim from you,

[Cali_Democrat]

34. Yes you did.

You tried to attack Obama for cutting those rates. In your rush to attack Obama, you exposed yourself as somebody fighting for private insurers.

You got called out for it and rightly so. You got your you know what handed to you in that thread.

That shit would be fucking laughable if it wasn't so sad.

[cali]

43. I said it will be used against dems and it will. reality.

YOU made up that I defended it.

[Hissyspit]

53. Typical, though.

[Hissyspit]

52. You think this OP is baseless and worth mocking, but THIS evidence-free speculation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024557383

is not?

[Cali_Democrat]

54. Yes that thread is speculation

Did I say it wasn't?

I see you replied to me there, but self-deleted.

You really enjoy following me around DU, huh?

[Hissyspit]

71. No. No, I don't.

Having to constantly counter the same repeated nonsense is a pain.

[Cali_Democrat]

72. All I did was post a picture which I've never posted before

and you decided to link back to another thread and question me about it even though I didn't create the OP.

This isn't the first time you've done something like that.

You really do seem to like following me around DU.

[Hissyspit]

74. Yep, more character assassination attempt stuff from you.

As usual.

You post in all these threads, with the most egregiously illogical or false stuff that demands to be countered. It only seems like I'm following you around.

[Cali_Democrat]

78. Pointing out the obvious fact that you follow me around DU is character assassination?

Oh lawd...

I mean...you replied to me first (as usual) and then you questioned me about an OP which I didn't even create.

You also felt the need to "counter" my picture which apparently contained "false stuff" that "demands to be countered" even though I didn't even write any words in that post?

It's all rather creepy if you ask me.

Seriously. Try to leave me alone or I will be forced to report you to the admins.

[Hissyspit]

83. Try to quit posting bullshit and I'll quit having to respond to it.

Or feel free to do anything you want.

"Obvious fact." Yes, I realize you think lots of things are obvious facts that actually are not. That's part of what compels counter-argument.

Meanwhile, address the ISSUE. Why is this mock-worthy, but the other post wasn't? (Or course, your deflection off of the argument onto the poster is the point, isn't it?)

[Cali_Democrat]

84. Oh I see...I'm forcing you to stalk me because I post things you disagree with

Seriously?

Stop following me around DU.

[Hissyspit]

87. I'm not following you around.

[rhett o rick]

88. Once again I see you have nothing to add. Just here to attack posts. Why dont you stay in the BOG.

They probably appreciate you there. You dont have to post anything of substance there.

[Cali_Democrat]

90. The BOG!!

[rhett o rick]

94. Ah yes, the BOG signature ridicule emoticon. Does Sid give you extra points each time

you use it. I think all you guys/gals are in jr. high.

[Cali_Democrat]

96. Extra points? No....

Sid and myself are actually paid-to-post NSA operatives sent by Obama (via the BOG of course) to infiltrate DU.

We're paid by the post and we also get a bonus every time we use the rofl emoticon.

You didn't know?



You see? More money in my pocket!!



Funny how you throw around ridiculous accusations and accuse other people of being in Jr. High.

Hilarious!

[rhett o rick]

100. If someone is paying either of you, they arent getting much for their money.

I dont think you are getting paid.

[Cali_Democrat]

102. Any time someone posts something you disagree with...

just say they are a BOGer and you will win the argument. They don't even have to post in the BOG.

Just accuse them of being a BOGer and you've won!!!!

<<<<-----another bonus

[rhett o rick]

106. Of course you missed my point. You dont ever disagree with me

you never commit yourself one way or other. That's my complaint. Are you here to only disparage anyone that dares to not submit to the loyalty you think the president deserves? I ask you guys to commit to whether you support fracking, cutting SS, the XL-pipeline, the TPP, but you refuse. In my opinion some are here only to disrupt.

[Cali_Democrat]

107. Do I support fracking?

No.

Cutting SS?

No.

XL-Pipeline?

No

TPP?

No

Is that commitment enough?

<<<<----- another bonus!!!

I've stated many times that I disagreed with some of Obama's policies in the past...I disagreed with him when it came to drone strikes, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc....

I can post the links if you want.

You just failed to pay attention. You've created a fictitious poster in your mind and you think it's me.

Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.

<<<<------- more money!!!

[rhett o rick]

110. No links needed. I will take you at your word. It's possible that I misjudged you. If so, shame onme

But it's hard to get past that ridicule emoticon.

[Cali_Democrat]

113. Well...

Check out my previous posts:

On Drugs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=244072

Drone strikes and war:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2030334&mesg_id=2030354
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101612761
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=671338&mesg_id=671956

On the MIC:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=177432

Those are just some I could find. I also created a number of posts opposing intervention in Libya.

You really don't know me.

Don't pretend like you do.

[Number23]

147. Why are you even dignifiying that person's comment? No one here owes him/her anything

I don't even understand why you are responding to their bizarre and needless "demands" for you to produce positions on issues.

[Cha]

120. I see you have a

scary net nanny on your case about where you should post and where you should not post.

My question is.. who anointed him the decider?

The BOG!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1102

[Marr]

170. If I'm not mistaken, your entrance into this thread was...

...a series of references to other posts people had made. That's some pretty strong projection.

Also, baseless accusations of stalking are, I think, a type of harassment in themselves.

Like the other poster above, I'd love to know what sentiment you were attempting to express with that TV image. Do you think the documents Greenwald cited are fakes?

[hootinholler]

178. Let us know if you get a PM

Cali_democrat picked up a hide in the thread.

[cherokeeprogressive]

139. "You really enjoy following me around DU, huh?" I know someone who does that...

[Cali_Democrat]

142. Well...

When you engage in xenophobic racism, I WILL call you out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021347209

His words when referring to Libya and Libyans::


"backward, third world country"

"shitty little piece of sand"

"may the fleas of ten thousand camels infest your fucking armpits AND your crotches, you stupid fucks."

"your shitty prophet"

"Fuck Libya"

[cherokeeprogressive]

184. You're goddamn right I was pissed off at Ambassador Stevens' murder. Looks like I was the only one.

Judging by the aggressive pursuit (has this administration even interviewed any of the probable players? Or was it more important to jail a nobody living in Cerritos?) of his killers, there sure aren't many.

I would add that anyone with half a brain could see that my angry words were directed at the Libyans who planned and orchestrated the attack at ended in with the Ambassador's death, and those of Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty, not to mention the grave injuries to people as of yet unnamed, and who undergo polygraph tests monthly to ensure they don't talk to the press. They weren't directed at all Libyans. I wouldn't expect someone possessed of your towering intellect to see that.

It still makes me sick to think that to this day the only person publicly named by the Obama Administration as having been involved in the death of Ambassador Stevens, and the ONLY person to have served a MINUTE in jail is a petty criminal who lives in Cerritos.

Yeah, I'm a xenophobic racist. And, I hang with the gunnerz (omg!) on occasion too. Aren't you the bright one...

[JI7]

200. that looks to me more like using Stevens as cover for your bigotry

[rdharma]

201. I guess I'm not the only one who see's that, eh? nt

[Cali_Democrat]

59. Funny how you seem to manage to always reply to me first in threads...

but I'm the one wasting your time and attention....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4525956

[hootinholler]

62. Wait, I was being mocked?

I thought that was a truthful admission.

[progressoid]

13. I refuse to read this because he's a trayter and he lives in a forein country.

[sabrina 1]

15. And don't forget 'this is nothing new, it's always been this way'!

[Jackpine Radical]

39. And for more good news, the chocolate ration

is being increased to 26g this month.

[Fawke Em]

56. And the rolling, laughing smileys...

[sabrina 1]

104. Oh yes, I nearly forgot the little roly poly laughing guy. Lol, that one

stands out like a sore thumb!

[KoKo]

149. Much of the middle of this thread is an example of exactly what those

documents show. It's really amazing to see it concentrated here when most folks replying must have been aware that the tactics they are displaying in this thread are the VERY TACTICS that COINTLPRO/and the Latest Document Release are warning about.

It's like there's no SHAME....JUST KEEP DOING IT!

[sabrina 1]

176. Whoever orchestrates these campaign, and we have seen one of them exposed thoroughly

the one against Glenn Greenwald, are not too smart. I was surprised at how juvenile their tactics were. 'Find out if he has a wife, what Church he attends, if he has children'. I mean they could have googled all that info, or gone straight to his blog. And for this they get PAID, these security contractors.

To keep on doing it even after they have been exposed is just plain stupid. It's like being caught stealing candy as a child, denying it, then going back and doing it again while you are being watched. Lol.

Their game is up regardless of what they do and I know they think that repeating lies over and over again will eventually work.

What I don't get is, since they have failed so often due to the intelligence of their target 'audience', what are they trying to acomplish? Do they even KNOW? If anything, once people learned of this kind of targeting of Glenn Greenwald, eg, it only garnered SUPPORT for him, even from people who didn't previously know him, because in the end, Americans don't like these kinds of dirty tricks. They should remember the Right Wing attacks on Clinton, same exact tactics, but in the end, THEIR behavior was so disgusting, it turned the American people against THEM. And Clinton had more support, maybe more than he deserved, than he had when it all began.

[KoKo]

188. Interesting...what you say about these tactics causing more support

because people react to unfairness and dirty tactics when they are so obvious and "in your face."

Good Points. And, so many here and elsewhere have gone after both Greenwald and Snowden and yet the international community and others here in US are even more supportive of both. And both are winning awards. Yet...the trash keeps getting thrown on them...with some thinking if they repeat: "I haven't seen any more than Power Point Presentations" over and over again --somehow, that will create an overwhelming meme across the internet to discredit Snowden and Greenwald. If you give these people links...they refuse to read them and just keep the same refrain up over and over whenever the chance presents itself.

[sabrina 1]

191. I think it's just desperation. And as I said, they are not very imaginative people.

They see how popular and successful Greenwald has become. This has to be a nighmare for those who bought the contract HB Gary was bidding on. And for the contractors who sold it to them, I believe it was BOA. They probably got a huge payment and are under intense pressure to succeed and failure means less business for them.

After all when they started the smear campaign against Greenwald, he wasn't very well known, just a Liberal Blogger with a fairly big following, many Right Wingers who would go to his comment section and try to shut him up regarding Bush.

Since they went after him, look what happened, rather than succeeding in discrediting him, he got a far WIDER audience, he was hired by the Guardian and was able to reach an international audience instead of the relatively small, liberal internet following he had before. THAT got him the Snowden leaks.

Now he has caught the attention of someone with enough money to start their OWN Independent news organization where his audience will be even BIGGER.

Lol, if I had taken out a contract for a smear campaign against him, I would want my money back. And if I was the idiot who got the contract, I would retire from the 'smear campaign business as a failure'. I wonder can you sue these Security Contractors who do these smear campaigns? I wish someone would, that would bring it all out into the open! But they can't, too much risk of the public finally learning all about these dirty tricks.

[KoKo]

235. HBGary, Palantir, Prism, Facebook & The Industrial Surveillance Complex

Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:19 AM PDT
HBGary, Palantir, Prism, Facebook & The Industrial Surveillance Complex

by LieparDestinFollow

Part 1 of several to come:

Lets begin a couple years back with the release of the hacked e-mails of defense contractor HBGary by Anonymous. Many readers will be familiar with these events as it was covered extensively on this site as well as many others. The Nation offers a refresher:

Two years ago, a batch of stolen e-mails revealed a plot by a set of three defense contractors (Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies and HBGary Federal) to target activists, reporters, labor unions and political organizations. The plans— one concocted in concert with lawyers for the US Chamber of Commerce to sabotage left-leaning critics, like the Center for American Progress and the SEIU, and a separate proposal to “combat” WikiLeaks and its supporters, including Glenn Greenwald, on behalf of Bank of America— fell apart after reports of their existence were published online. But the episode serves as a reminder that the expanding spy industry could use its government-backed cyber-tools to harm ordinary Americans and political dissident groups.

“I think we need to highlight people like Glenn Greenwald. Glenn was critical in the Amazon to OVH [data center] transition and helped WikiLeaks provide access to information during the transition. It is this level of support we need to attack. These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals. Without the support of people like Glenn WikiLeaks would fold.”

HBGary was to be tasked with creating an army of sock-puppets to spread propaganda or infiltrate groups:

HBGary was part of a consortia that submitted a proposal to develop a “persona management” system for the United States Air Force, that would allow one user to control multiple online identities for commenting in social media spaces, thus giving the appearance of grassroots support or opposition to certain policies.
More at:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/23/1218189/-HBGary-Palantir-Prism-Facebook-The-Industrial-Surveillance-Complex

[bobduca]

186. Mr Roffle Waffles used to be an honest emoticon

now he is just a tool of the 1%.

[sabrina 1]

190. He has been appropriated!

Lol, I thought he was cute until he was captured and used for nefarious purposes.

Poor guy, he's sort of like a prisoner of war, forced to do what his captors make him do.

[SidDithers]

199. Moochy moochy...nt

Sid

[ProSense]

28. You should read it for sheer entertainment. n/t

[sabrina 1]

105. I found it extremely informative, and missed the entertainment value. Could you

point out the entertaining parts for us?

[hootinholler]

183. It's entertainment that you can see through

One might say so fucking transparent.

[MadrasT]

16. Really interesting.

And scary.

[Marr]

17. And how do you suppose they attain that confidential data?

Anyone who believes they use these ridiculously broad surveillance powers just to fight the bad guys from 24 is a colossal sucker.

[sabrina 1]

118. THIS is what they are trying to hide. The REAL reason for the 'surveillance'

which has nothing to do with 'protecting the American people' from 'terror'. It was a ridiculous claim to begin with and all the attempts to 'explain' how this would help 'fight terror' when we had a perfect of example of how it DOENS'T with the Boston Bombing. Note how they hate it when you mention that terrible tragedy btw. Because it makes liars out of them.

It's a fantastic scheme for Corporations, getting tax payers to pay for their market research. Spying on the competition, doing it all over the world because THEY are Global Corps.

I can't wait to see the documents that must exist where they discuss BUSINESS as a result of the spying. Sooner or later they will emerge, and nothing will be done about it I'm afraid. A few words about how it was not 'criminal, but probably immoral' will be said, and no one will be held accountable.

[bvar22]

256. I fear you are right,

....and it is happening on a Global scale that is frightening.

[Oilwellian]

18. This sounds very similar to Jim Cramer's game

[KoKo]

153. He's WIRED IN...and that's why he won't be fired. He's an example

of WIRED... And, his connections feed him...and who are his connections......?

Well....One can take a guess. You don't work in Big Time Corporate Media these days unless you have "The Connections."

Most of us here on DU for years figured that out. But, it's getting even more a "closed society" since the Banksters/Wall Street Criminals didn't get thrown into jail with the 2007-08 Meltdown hanging around their neck.

They are ALL STILL THERE....just payed a Bunch of Millions/Billions in Fines...but still keep their Millions in Bonus and Stock Shares while 99% Americans get "Austerity."

[JaneyVee]

19. Do we have proof this is occurring, or just PowerPoint slides?

Not saying it isn't occurring, but I would love to see actual evidence of this illegal activity taking place.

[go west young man]

196. This is the really all the proof one needs.

All those mini cities being built around DC aren't for nought. All the information is coming together at this point to form an easy to see picture. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024546724 "Anatomy of the Deep State" Bill Moyers

It's beginning to to look like "House of Cards" is not too far off base with all the nefarious backdoor dealings taking place.

[Octafish]

20. DDDD – Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, Deceive

Quite a show, Dude.

[OnyxCollie]

137. Prove it!

[hootinholler]

174. Seems like it comes from this slide

[OnyxCollie]

175. Dude...

[hootinholler]

177. My Sister has a blue heeler who is deaf

We decided it doesn't matter what we call him, so we make a point of calling him different names around people because the dog doesn't care, he ain't listening.

[woo me with science]

22. "It's worse, way worse than I had even imagined..."

Yes, it is.

[Enthusiast]

51. This is what I've been saying for a long while.

Imagine the very worst and you might be in the ball park.

[justiceischeap]

24. If you haven't already, you really need to read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"

It would appear what the US has been to third world nations, is being done from within the US at this point... but that could just be my hat talking.

[hootinholler]

38. It's on the reading list

I might even have picked up a copy before my last move. ( I still have some book boxes left after two years. )

Maybe it's time to get it on kindle, but a paper copy would be more stable.

[zeemike]

58. And are those boxes in the garage?...lots of unpacked boxes in the garage?

and did you refuse to pet your neighbors dog?...I thought so...

[hootinholler]

61. Um why yes, they are sort of

Not a garage, but an unconditioned room in the back of the house. I think I have a stripper pole back there too (not set up).

As to the dog, it's my sister's and since he's deaf it doesn't matter what we call him.

[Zorra]

161. But...the dog smelled of elderberries. nt

[ReRe]

67. After you read that one, read Naomi Klein's...

... The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

[arcane1]

42. It was only a matter of time, really.

The Shock Doctrine comes home.

[KoKo]

154. Fantastic Read...and more Current with the lastes ongoing revelations!

[Fawke Em]

40. They do this to people, too.

Every seen trolls out in force on Twitter, FB and other social media? Most of them are paid.

[stillwaiting]

69. I would not be surprised by this.

Do you have anything to substantiate this or is it just a hunch?

When I see the sheer volume and number of trollish posts saying the dumbest things possible online I feel completely disconnected from my fellow Americans.

If many of them are paid, then that would truly be Mission Accomplished for TPTB.

Keeping us divided, not united, I'm positive is a Top Priority for the Spooks. I'm sure they are very effective at what they do in a number of ways.

[arikara]

211. I don't mind posting this again

it fits so well with this thread.

The 5 Rules of Propaganda

The Rule of Simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
The Rule of Disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
The Rule of Transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
The Rule of Unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: drawing the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’.
The Rule of Orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.

[Eleanors38]

249. We in the "Gungeon" have seen it for years. Now, full-time in GD.

[bvar22]

273. Reminds me of this:

[font size=3]"All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. Thus its purely intellectual level will have to be that of the lowest mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach. "

<snip>

"But the most brilliant technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."[/font]

Double Bonus Points for anyone who can ID the above quote.


[font color=white]---volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925)[/font]

[arikara]

299. He who must not be named

and yet is the architect of modern propaganda and control of the unwashed masses via "media".

[friendly_iconoclast]

303. Edward Bernays?

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

[WillyT]

41. Where Have All The Defenders Gone... Long Time Coming...

& Rec !!!

[cali]

44. oh they're around

doing their usual contemptible, morally bankrupt shit.

[fascisthunter]

47. Yeah, I noticed That

It really needs to be addressed harshly. I like reading your posts... very informative. Keep up the good fight, Cali!

[zeemike]

60. I second that.

In fact this post has a nice collection of people who I enjoy reading...and keeping up the good fight.

[sibelian]

213. I agree with this.

But I'm not sure what do do about it. It's silly to argue with them symmetrically as that's what they want.

[sadoldgirl]

91. Hey cali, while I am rather new here

it did not much time to find several dubious posters here. My question is: why even bother to answer? I like your OPs,btw. At least they contribute to what I thought DU should be about.

[ProSense]

65. There is nothing to defend.

Like I implied here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097#post80), the shit is getting out of hand.

It's simply being used to discredit anyone who disagrees.

Meta: Your paranoia is crazy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/25/1280304/-Meta-Your-paranoia-is-crazy

[Hissyspit]

85. Kos is mostly wrong.

[bvar22]

152. Move along.

Nothing to see here, folks.
All the Pros agree.
If you are concerned about Government Spying, you're just paranoid.
Big Brother really LOVES you,
and its ALL for your own good.

About that MetaData:

[ProSense]

156. Aren't you tired of posting that out of context attempt at propaganda?

"Move along. Nothing to see here, folks. All the Pros agree."

No, don't. Continue the stupid implications about everyone who doesn't hi-five your out of context nonsense.

"Big Brother really LOVES you,
and its ALL for your own good. "

Lame crap.

[bvar22]

166. Now THAT was pathetic.

You are slipping.
I'm used to better from you.
Have you been replaced?

I had a DOS 3.2 program in 1990 that repeated what someone else said,
and then added a comment like "Lame", or "Bullshit" at the end.
Kinda like one of those Magic 8-Balls.
Completely stupid program, but got some laughs from the peanut gallery
until they figured out that there was no intelligence at all behind the facade,
and it was the same thing, over & over.

I thought THAT program was lame back in 1989.

[ProSense]

168. LOL!

You are slipping.
I'm used to better from you.
Have you been replaced?

I had a DOS 3.2 program in 1990 that repeated what someone else said,
and then added a comment like "Lame", or "Bullshit" at the end.
Kinda like one of those Magic 8-Balls.
Completely stupid program, but got some laughs from the peanut gallery
until they figured out that there was no intelligence at all behind the facade,
and it was the same thing, over & over.

I thought THAT program was lame back in 1989.

I suppose you think that's not "pathetic," even more than your previous lame crap?

Wait, you thought that was clever? Seriously?

[bvar22]

258. Previous "lame crap."

A video clip of Joe Biden commenting about WHY we shouldn't trust our government with MetaData.
Here it is again.

Now why don't you enlighten us as to WHY Joe Biden's comments are "lame crap".
I'll wait.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

281. Was it called Abuse? If so, I played with that in the late 80's. nt

[neverforget]

172. Way back in 2006

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

Hmmm, she held a different view then, one which I agreed with her. Now, not so much.

[ProSense]

181. Maybe

"Way back in 2006...Hmmm, she held a different view then, one which I agreed with her. Now, not so much. "

...you shouldn't jump on the bandwagon of people who make stupid accusations because they have no idea what they're talking about (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024353639#post151).

Here's a clue. I railed against Bush's illegal spying on Americans. Actual spying. This past comment
has been posted several times as an attempted "gotcha" to create the impression of a change in opinion, but it had nothing to do with metadata.

For example, this quote, "Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal," is about illegal warrantless wiretapping, and that was what Bush was accuse of.

The program was in fact a wide range of covert surveillance activities authorized by President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. At that time, White House officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, had become convinced that FISA court procedures were too cumbersome and time-consuming to permit U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to quickly identify possible Qaeda terrorists inside the country. (Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington, referred to the FISA court in one meeting as that "obnoxious court," according to former assistant attorney general Jack Goldsmith.) Under a series of secret orders, Bush authorized the NSA for the first time to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails between the United States and a foreign country without any court review. The code name for the NSA collection activities—unknown to all but a tiny number of officials at the White House and in the U.S. intelligence community—was "Stellar Wind."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081216011008/http://www.newsweek.com/id/174601/output/print

Note, this is inside the U.S. and involves bypassing the FISA court to actually "eavesdrop."

Republicans fought to make that legal, and succeeded in doing so before Democrats were able to force an expiration of the law.

From a post last year:

There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the PAA with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.

While the article mentions that Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), there is no mention of the fact that the Act expired in early 2008.

Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 60–28 (record vote number 309).[12] On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836).[12] On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history

The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.”[38] The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Protect_America_Act_of_2007

Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

[neverforget]

185. Would you defend this program under a Republican President?

[bvar22]

259. Your "position" is crystal clear, and has been for a long time.

[font size=3]Its OK if Obama does it.[/font]

ProSense (111,995 posts)

"I don't think Obama is going to cut Social Security.
I can't be sure, but either way he's got my vote."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218

I know this is incomprehensible to you,
but most of us have internal Moral Compasses,
Lines we will not cross,
and deep concerns that focus on Policy, Issues, and the Direction of the Democratic Party.

[ProSense]

260. LOL!

Its OK if Obama does it.

ProSense (111,995 posts)

"I don't think Obama is going to cut Social Security.
I can't be sure, but either way he's got my vote."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218

I know this is incomprehensible to you,
but most of us have internal Moral Compasses,
Lines we will not cross,
and deep concerns that focus on Policy, Issues, and the Direction of the Democratic Party.

Which part do you object to, believing Obama isn't going to cut Social Security (he hasn't) or holding one's nose to vote for Obama (or against the other guy)?

I mean, isn't that what most of you with your superior "internal Moral Compasses" did?

[Old and In the Way]

277. The lessons of 2000 will never be learned by those willing to

"vote their conscience" instead of the current political reality. That's how Bush got elected. And forget Florida, one only has to look at the NH results that actually threw the Presidency to Bush. Obama is not perfect, but he is light years better than any Republican who will be a serious candidate in 2016. And Supreme Court...if you hate HRC, think how our laws will be totally screwed for generations should a Republican get to the WH. I guarantee those Koch endorsed nominees will be to the right of Scalia, Thomas, and Alioto.

[neverforget]

295. So would you support this under a Republican President?

[OnyxCollie]

159. Cass Sunstein thinks it's a wonderfully effective method of message control.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

3. Cognitive infiltration

Rather than taking the continued existence of the hard core as a constraint, and
addressing itself solely to the third-party mass audience, government might undertake
(legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories, arguments
and rhetoric that are produced by the hard core and reinforce it in turn. One promising
tactic is cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. By this we do not mean 1960s-style
infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in
future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in
weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that
constitute these networks and groups.

How might this tactic work? Recall that extremist networks and groups,
including the groups that purvey conspiracy theories, typically suffer from a kind of
crippled epistemology. Hearing only conspiratorial accounts of government behavior,
their members become ever more prone to believe and generate such accounts.
Informational and reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest
that the generation of ever-more-extreme views within these groups can be dampened or
reversed by the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government
efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies)
might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to
undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises,
causal logic or implications for political action.

In one variant, government agents would openly proclaim, or at least make no
effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations. A recent newspaper story recounts that
Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in
dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms and websites in order to ventilate arguments not
usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success.68 In
another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false
identities. Each approach has distinct costs and benefits; the second is riskier but
potentially brings higher returns. In the former case, where government officials
participate openly as such, hard-core members of the relevant networks, communities and
conspiracy-minded organizations may entirely discount what the officials say, right from
the beginning. The risk with tactics of anonymous participation, conversely, is that if the
tactic becomes known, any true member of the relevant groups who raises doubts may be
suspected of government connections. Despite these difficulties, the two forms of
cognitive infiltration offer different risk-reward mixes and are both potentially useful
instruments.

There is a similar tradeoff along another dimension: whether the infiltration
should occur in the real world, through physical penetration of conspiracist groups by
undercover agents, or instead should occur strictly in cyberspace. The latter is safer, but
potentially less productive. The former will sometimes be indispensable, where the
groups that purvey conspiracy theories (and perhaps themselves formulate conspiracies)
formulate their views through real-space informational networks rather than virtual
networks. Infiltration of any kind poses well-known risks: perhaps agents will be asked
to perform criminal acts to prove their bona fides, or (less plausibly) will themselves
become persuaded by the conspiratorial views they are supposed to be undermining;
perhaps agents will be unmasked and harmed by the infiltrated group. But the risks are
generally greater for real-world infiltration, where the agent is exposed to more serious
harms.

You can tell him the shit's getting out of hand here. He's also looking for suggestions "for ways the Obama administration can continue to streamline and eliminate regulations."

[ProSense]

164. Oooh, a 2008 paper by some guy

Funny, that did nothing to convince me that this isn't being used as a tactic by those who want to call everyone who disagrees with them hacks.

I mean, the evidence of this silly behavior exists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024523599#post89
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024523599#post195

[OnyxCollie]

169. "Some guy" LOL!

You're on fire tonight!

"Some guy" was the administrator of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs one year after writing that paper.

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

On January 7, 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that Sunstein would be named to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).[8] That news generated controversy among progressive legal scholars[9] and environmentalists.[10] Sunstein's confirmation was long blocked because of controversy over allegations about his political and academic views. On September 9, 2009, the Senate voted for cloture on Sunstein's nomination as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. The motion passed in a 63–35 vote. The Senate confirmed Sunstein on September 10, 2009 in a 57–40 vote.

[ProSense]

171. LOL!

"'Some guy' was the administrator of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs one year after writing that paper."

Evidence in the mind of someone desperately seeking to justify nonsensical crap.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024523599#post89
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024523599#post195

Maybe you're projecting?

[OnyxCollie]

173. What are you trying to say?

(Maybe someone could write a better algorithm.)

[SolutionisSolidarity]

193. They aren't trying to say anything.

They are just trying to disrupt this conversation that is so obviously due. There are a handful of posters who are clearly more dedicated to posting in an online forum than any person who isn't doing it professionally could be. They post nothing but pro-government propaganda and stalk the forums trying to shut down discussion of people they label conspiracy theorists.

Sunstein was kind enough to lay out his plan to cognitively infiltrate what he termed as conspiracy theory clusters, and then he was installed into power. Now we have obvious highly polished shills posting here, drowning out any attempt critically look at how our government operates - particularly its foreign policy. This is a case of 2 + 2 = 4.

[ProSense]

218. No, I said what

I fucking meant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024523599#post89
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024523599#post195

Maybe you're projecting?

Welcome to DU.

They are just trying to disrupt this conversation that is so obviously due. There are a handful of posters who are clearly more dedicated to posting in an online forum than any person who isn't doing it professionally could be. They post nothing but pro-government propaganda and stalk the forums trying to shut down discussion of people they label conspiracy theorists.

Maybe you're also projecting?

[bobduca]

237. projecting? LOL

[woo me with science]

241. "also"

[jtuck004]

55. K&R n/t

[DeSwiss]

63. K&R

- Welcome to the Nakatomi Building. As you can now see, the crime has been in-progress since 1913. Feel free to join in at anything!

Thank you for your participation!!!

[marble falls]

66. All markets are free, some markets are freer than others. Forget about it, Jake, its Chinatown,

[ReRe]

68. K&R

[Purveyor]

79. Related: How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101686113

By Glenn Greenwald 24 Feb 2014

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations”.

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

[KoKo]

155. YES! Greenwald's Site has commenters mentioning ASSANGE Honey Trap!

His original article is a good read but the Comments are fascinating for information...and links..

[Oilwellian]

92. Here's an excellent comment left on Greenwald's page

Don’t speak to me now of Trust.

Trust is the basis of cooperation and society. Trust maximizes the efficiency of pooled labor and specialization. Trust builds up the foundation of science and technology.

Trust minimizes energy expenditure. Say it once more. Trust minimizes energy expenditure.

The total amount of labor, capital, and energy we have flushed down the toilet because of the actions of the NSA and our current leadership is mind boggling.

We will lay stagnant for a generation compared to the growth we would have achieved. Whatever hope we have as individuals and as a species is inextricably tied to trust and cooperation. To squander our trust is to squander our humanity. We are cooperative and social beings. Trust is the basis of our empathy.

Trust increases government’s ability provide positive and productive services to the citizenry. How many decades of progress have we thrown away? Government as a brand is now all but dead. Imagine how much energy will be spent just to rehabilitate the idea of government, just to regain trust. A generation lost.

We are only beginning to appreciate the size and ramifications of this debacle.

[G_j]

108. right on

and of course, once trust has been broken, it's very hard, if not impossible, to restore.

[woo me with science]

129. [phone]

[adirondacker]

189. ***** . !

[TheKentuckian]

194. Fucking A. I strongly believe in government's ability to be a positive force in people's lives.

This does not sell my position, it sells it out in an ugly spiral of cynicism.

Fucking Miracle Grow for anti government fervor. Why the hell would someone desire such things? Hard sell folks who need to be convinced at all.
Instead the risk of losing folks leaning your way is far greater than any plausible draw.

It is just super wrongheaded from a democratic and I had always believed a Democratic point of view. You willfully undermine the trust of the people.

Fucking stupid.

[woo me with science]

243. " I strongly believe in government's ability to be a positive force in people's lives."

I strongly believe in government's ability to be a positive force in people's lives.
This does not sell my position, it sells it out in an ugly spiral of cynicism.

Thank you.

[TheKentuckian]

296. How did this become rocket science? It didn't. I'm starting to wonder if all the screeching about

libertarians is just projection because the same folks have no bones about undermining faith in government and display nearly nonexistent concern about actual people, often calling fundamental needs as "ponies" and poo pooing accountability and transparency will rallying around multinational corporations.

Some of those hollering "fuck Ron Paul" seem to have the fewest degrees of separation from his wretched ass other than the few things he at least presents/pretends as correct on like the drug war, imperialism, and natural rights.

[reddread]

297. if you consider what might happen if anti-surveillance, pro-privacy and freedom voters coalesced

I think the libertarian "hatred" makes more political sense.

[TheKentuckian]

298. Seems they like the corporate dominance, fuck the environment, fuck the people aspects just fine.

That's the part that blows chunks. The "fuck Ron Paul" shit shows up in security state discussions, war mongering, and propping up the failed drug war mostly.

[WillyT]

195. + 1,000,000,000... What You/He/She Said !!!

[starroute]

111. Greenwald himself has been the target of these same techniques

That's one thing that strikes me, and I wonder how much his seeming reticence in writing about this presentation is a result of having been affected personally.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110209/22340513034/leaked-hbgary-documents-show-plan-to-spread-wikileaks-propaganda-bofa-attack-glenn-greenwald.shtml

Feb 10th 2011

You may have followed the recent story involving a security firm called HBGary Federal, in which the company's CEO, Aaron Barr, told the Financial Times this weekend that he had secretly "infiltrated" the non-group Anonymous and identified its leadership... and that he was planning to hand over the info to law enforcement. Of course, it was pretty questionable how accurate the information is, considering Anonymous isn't actually a "group" with a hierarchy at all. It wouldn't be surprising to find out that there were some folks who were heavily active, but that's different than claiming there's "leadership." Either way, Anonymous did what Anonymous does when someone does something it doesn't like: they hacked. Beyond taking over Barr's Twitter account and revealing all sorts of private info and taking over various web servers connected to HBGary Federal, it also released 44,000 of the company's emails. . . .

There are two key slides in the presentation. The first is a totally bizarre plan of attack on Salon journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been an outspoken supporter of Wikileaks. However, these three companies seem to think that they can pressure him to give up supporting Wikileaks in this case and that will somehow solve a big part of the issue.

According to the Tech Herald, the word "disrupted" in the final presentation was actually written as "attacked" in earlier drafts of the presentation. This suggests some pretty confused thinking on the part of these firms. The idea that Wikileaks would "fold" without people like Glenn supporting them seems pretty silly, as does the idea that Glenn would suddenly give up the cause. Still, it's pretty freaking ominous for the firm to seriously be suggesting that it can somehow put pressure on Greenwald that would lead him to "choose professional preservation over cause." It makes you wonder just what level of underhanded tricks they were thinking about pulling.

[Rex]

116. Big Brother and Big Biz been playing social engineer for decades now.

Don't you like the 13 different brands of toilet paper to choose from? You must have something against freedumb! We have to call security on you now?

[me b zola]

117. K&R

[wildbilln864]

126. Thank you again Mr. Snowden and...

k & r!

[Zorra]

135. Congratulations, fellow leftists. we are validated, and vindicated, in so many ways.

Not that we ever had any doubt.


Taciturnus Consensu

[KoKo]

160. You Said it! Great Graphic!

[Zorra]

167. Glad you like it, KoKo.

I made that one back when the Anti-Justice Movement trolls were out in force against Occupy.

[blkmusclmachine]

180. 9/11???

[Warren DeMontague]

197. You know, I'm all for making Batman edgy

but this goes too far.

[hootinholler]

214. What does that even mean? n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

262. I don't know.

[hootinholler]

271. LOL

I'll claim a senior moment! Well played.

[zeemike]

206. This is one hell of a long thread.

But I tell you there is a lot of good stuff in it, and very enlightining...I am glad I took the time to read most of it.

[bobduca]

210. K&R for pissing off all the right douchebags

[ProSense]

217. Calling other people "douchebags"

I suspect that this is a win for Greenwald, huh?

[reddread]

220. Government deployed douche bag sock puppets arent people

they are douche bags.

[ProSense]

221. And, of course,

"Government deployed douche bag sock puppets arent people"

....kicking this thread for "pissing off all the right douchebags" means the thread is crawling with "Government deployed douche bag sock puppets," huh?

Stupid crap.

[reddread]

222. Lambchops stew n/t

[woo me with science]

228. +1 Moral corruption. Moral vacancy.

Last edited Wed Feb 26, 2014, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

There is *no* amount of money that would allow a decent human being with an intact conscience to do that kind of work.

[Bobbie Jo]

245. ?

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[bobduca]

247. Oh look the bog loyalty brigade is out in force!

[Bobbie Jo]

248. What "bog?"

Wipe the spittle off your keyboard and try again.

[Rex]

265. K&R for all the people that reply to such posts with defensive outrage!

As if there aren't a million right wing dbs in the world that you could be talking about!

I LOVE to watch people project in the morning...smells like, victory!

[bobduca]

301. Yeah thats on them, lol

I guess they are admitting that this subject pisses them off.

[joshcryer]

212. Going by this thread it looks like it's working perfectly.

The first assumption you should make while around activists is that in your midst are infiltrators. Once you come to terms with that, it's easy enough to talk around them, as they are irrelevant. We saw the breakup of Occupy in part came because of divisive divide and conquer tactics that trashed Occupiers from within.

https://disinfo.com/2012/09/inside-the-fbis-manual-on-the-anarchistenvironmentalist-threat/

[stevenleser]

219. Yep. Paranoia about infiltrators almost always does more damage than a potential infiltrator.

Particularly on a place like DU where everyone feels comfortable telling anyone they disagree with to go to hell, there isnt much an infiltrator could do here.

But paranoia about infiltrator(s)? That seems to cause a lot of angst.

[joshcryer]

275. Another thing is that close confidants have turned.

So even if there aren't infiltrators you still could be manipulated by someone you used to trust.

If Emmanuel Goldstein exists is the Two Minutes Hate necessary? Going by this thread, yes.

[joshcryer]

276. oops double post

[woo me with science]

216. kick

[Savannahmann]

227. Stand by for the "Stand with Obama" loyalty test thread

Should be coming any time now.

[bobduca]

230. They gotta flood the zone

[ProSense]

233. Are you admitting that the goal of the OP is anti-Obama?

"Stand by for the 'Stand with Obama' loyalty test thread"

I mean, this is a site filled with people who voted for Obama. Do you expect not to see people expressing support or standing "with Obama"?

BTW, that's a rhetorical question, as it's clear that for some the goal is that as many people as possible turn against the President.

Nothing short of declarations of...

"I'm sorry I voted for him."

"I'm no longer a Democrat."

"Obama is a trojan horse."

...will do. Obama must be completely maligned and dismissed so that anything he proposes can be misconstrued as bad or deceptive.

Clownish.

[hootinholler]

293. How dare you even guess my motivation to post this.

Disgusting that you would ascribe some sinister motive to me.

I saw something that was being overlooked in the other discussions and thought it an important tidbit. It seems 150 or more kind of agree with me.

To be clear, this has nothing to do with my opinion of The President.

[ProSense]

234. So as to

"Stand by for the 'Stand with Obama' loyalty test thread"

...prove you right, I just kicked this thread, again:

Five years of Obama, and 2014 has been a busy year thus far
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024559777

[bvar22]

291. Here is the theme song:

&feature=kp

[secondwind]

229. Another revelation from today: FBI claims Sonny Liston took a fall in his fight with Cassius Clay,

He bet against himself and made a million dollars.

[Progressive dog]

232. The papers are from the UK.

Does Snowden hate all English speaking countries?

[Aerows]

263. Maybe he just loves

privacy and a lack of propaganda in all countries.

[Progressive dog]

268. And maybe he is just a criminal

who fled to Russia to avoid prosecution.
If he wanted privacy and less propaganda, he wouldn't have picked Russia as a refuge.

[bvar22]

272. And maybe I'm Anastasia Nikolaevna,

.....the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II,
and heir to the Russian throne.

[Progressive dog]

306. I don't know whrer you fled to,

but I know where Snowden did.

[stevenleser]

236. Here is the same thing posted on DU 18 months ago.

Here is at least one prior thread on this same subject 18 months ago. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1004633

[KoKo]

238. But Steve...that's one of the tactics used:

"Old News....nothing to see here just move along.."

Along with the meme:

"I haven't seen anything but Power Point Slides...where's the news?"

Were you aware of that?

[stevenleser]

240. The claim that "its a tactic" is a combination of two logical fallacies.

First of all, lets get out of the way that with my link, I am 100% correct. I've proved that this has been talked about on DU before quite some time ago. In fact, this is raised regularly and I have mentioned it to Skinner at least once some time ago either in private mail or in Ask the Administrators.

Presenting a response as something to be discounted and ridiculed without providing any facts for why it should be discounted is an appeal to spite logical fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-spite.html and an indirect poisoning the well logical fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html i.e. what is implied is that anyone who points this out must be "one of THOSE people".

Warnings about US Intelligence agency agent provocateurs attempting to disrupt liberal and progressive organizations predate the world wide web and really got going with cointelpro, as my link indicates.

[Zorra]

246. No matter. It's always good for people to know that paid RW corporatists swarm the internet in order

to try to splain away truth, discredit those who speak the truth, and spread lies to cover up the corruption of the Military Industrial Complex of the 1%.

They are clever liars who use deceitful propaganda to protect the interests of corrupt fascists, in order to deflect attention from the truth about their corrupt actions.

All these bullshit attacks on Assange, Snowden, Greenwald, Manning, etc. were all just fascist troll generated bullshit memes designed to discredit good people with honorable intentions who challenged the fascist Military Industrial Complex, and a bunch of suckers fell for the RW bullshit and cheered it on.

Signed,
Zorra, proud member of the DU Emoprog Firebagger Association of Emotarian Leftist Librul Paulista Pole Dancing Strippers for Truth...who sometimes have boxes in their garages, if they have garages.

[Romulox]

252. You've got to wonder why some posters object to this discussion, old news as it is...

[Zorra]

254. Exactly. It's a perfectly valid, and increasingly important, discussion on a progressive website. nt

[Romulox]

255. The idea that somethings is less true now--because it was true before--is bizarre on its face.

Things that are true today tend to have also been true in the past. Getting evidence of things that happened previously is the only way a fact-based approach can be developed.

So who decided that the fact that something was discussed previously invalidates consideration of the same topic today? It's nonsense on its face. It's an argument designed to confuse and obfuscate, not to convince or persuade.

[Rex]

279. That is a strange phenomenon, glad someone else sees that happen too.

Always left me scratching my head on that one.

[Zorra]

242. Well, darn...that's really observant, KoKo.

that's a really interesting thread you found, thanks.

[Romulox]

251. Because something that is true can't be mentioned more than once. Q.E.D.

Er, what?

[hootinholler]

261. WTF are you prattling on about?

That is a list of suspected tactics. This is confirmation that at least some of those tactics are in fact in play by the five eyes intel nations.

A subtle difference, I can understand your confusion. Oh and the old news is I think number 8 on one of the lists you linked.

[stevenleser]

264. There is no confirmation here, only yet another accusation. ALmost a nice try. nt

[hootinholler]

270. The simple fact that slide is classified TOP SECRET is confirmation

Go have a look at the entire deck which contains more confirmation this is a tactic in use. Why else would they have a certification course for this?

[Rex]

266. Ooooh posted by 'mkultra' no less!

[friendly_iconoclast]

304. Some of the "Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation" have been used in this thread...

...with examples:

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation


2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post34

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post142


5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post142

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive...


9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post152

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post156

"In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance."




13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact...


17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post30

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'...

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post65

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post159

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post164

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024562807#post169

[certainot]

257. the irony is that the regulation and atmosphere needed to fix this shit is still

very dependent on democratic feedback that is severely distorted any time they want because the left continues to ignore their best weapon- the rw radio monopoly.

that might be a standard business tactic by a republican owned big biz toward smaller competition - ('a republican owned big biz' might include a govt...)

it's implied in an e-business handbook i read through that it can happen, and i heard a caller to a computer tech show ask the host how they could stop a competitor from abusing social media to trash them - the assumption was that it was unwarranted and not unhappy customers po'd about an asshole business owner, etc....

i myself have posted comments about businesses associating themselves with limbaugh radio stations- but i wasn't lying

that a govt agency would do it is the big problem, although elements of govt (along with the rw stink tanks) have probably been using RW talk radio very effectively for 25 years- including paid callers to increase recruiting and keep 'defense' spending high, help lie us into wars, drum up fear of terrorism, attack their critics, deify their operatives, etc. altho 'defense' contractors might be more likely to do that.

ultimately the rw radio monopoly is still much more effective for the corporate interests than a still relatively free internet for most objectives - enabling and intimidating politicians and media, selling frames and memes, swiftboating opponents, except maybe using social media for attacking their 'enemies'.

it has been used to fill the GOP with sycophants and loons that will continue to obstruct real reform on any major issue (look at US history the last 25 years since reagan killed the fairness doctrine- the rise of ALEC for one). we'd be a hell of a lot better off now if talk radio wasn't practically invisible to the left, because it can't be read and it hurts our heads and ears.

[KoKo]

274. Good Points and thanks for Posting this. RW Domination of Radio is a Disgrace!

Rush Limbaugh is still being beamed to our Troops and it's total Propaganda. There was a lot of push back from the Left a few years ago...but, it all drifted away. Limbaugh is Propaganda and while it's not technically fitting in with NSA Spying...some of us have always wondered if there was more than just "Clear Channel" where he was getting his drug money from and his lifestyle.

[certainot]

292. i remember reading about a connection between talk radio, ABC, and cia's william? casey and his

involvement in getting the monopoly going.

and radio is a classic tool for psyops with advantages over TV and print- it has worked really well in this country- and it's been invisible to the left.

it's the only medium that can blanket large areas of the US with repeated lying that never gets challenged in real time.

[Rex]

282. K&R for pissing off all the right people!

[stevenleser]

283. Thank you for demonstrating another logical fallacy component to this

Both argumentum ad hominem and poisoning the well.

It's always a feat when you can hit two of them with one sentence.

[Rex]

284. I love how people project when they read and reply to a post!

See post #265.

[stevenleser]

311. I agree, you have projected when you replied.

And I cannot read #265. I have either that poster or the poster of the post at the top end of the thread on ignore.

[markpkessinger]

285. I know a retired Episcopal priest who was an SEC prosecutor before becoming a priest . . .

. . . I was with having brunch with him and a group of parishioners a couple of years after O.J. Simpson's infamous trial. The subject of O.J.'s acquittal came up, and some of the folks felt (as indeed many did and many do) that he had effectively been able, because of his wealth, to 'buy' his acquittal But then my federal prosecutor-cum-priest spoke up. He said (paraphrasing from memory here): "Anybody who is accused of a crime who doesn't throw every possible resource he may have into the cause of defending himself is a blithering fool!" (He pointed out that the government effectively has unlimited resources available to it to put towards prosecuting someone.) (Stay with me for a second longer -- you'll see how this relates.) He pointed out additionally that not only does the government have unlimited prosecutorial resources, it often plays dirty. He offered this example: "When I was at the SEC, if we had a situation where we wanted to go after a particular company but didn't really have enough on which to proceed, or if we simply wanted to 'shake the trees' a little, all it took was a few well placed phone calls to officers of other corporations in the same or related industries as the target company, to the effect of, 'Hello, Mr. Jones. This is John Smith with the SEC. We are interested in speaking with you regarding any of your business interactions with XYZ Target Company.' And then we would sit back and watch as the company's stock price, in a matter of hours, tanked."

[hootinholler]

294. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I'm pretty sure every investigative service has similar abilities. That really is an abuse of power but I'm not sure if it's illegal.

[frwrfpos]

288. recommend

[cantbeserious]

302. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[woo me with science]

305. kick

[KoKo]

307. another...

[Zorra]

308. ^

[WillyT]

309. Could Be...

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024575087

[woo me with science]

313. kick

[Zorra]

314. ^