Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: White House Invokes ‘STATE PRIVILEGE’ To HALT Inquiries Into Data Mining [View all]Agschmid
(28,749 posts)56. Nope wrong.
We can be supportive but blind love is very lemming like... and with you it's very repetitive as well.
Up to 24 already huh?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
116 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
White House Invokes ‘STATE PRIVILEGE’ To HALT Inquiries Into Data Mining [View all]
Segami
Jun 2013
OP
I hear ya. I fall into this trap, myself, from time to time. And you're right, it's...
Poll_Blind
Jun 2013
#6
I am the same way -- all the time, and you are right about cognitive dissonance
BlueStreak
Jun 2013
#7
Why did they quickly shut-down the extra scrutiny given TeaBag FREAKS yet want to maintain
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
Jun 2013
#3
Haha. The Bush Administration used it 23 times in 5 years. Little known? Bullshit.
DevonRex
Jun 2013
#8
You did well. There are posts I learned a lot from a long-time DUers. I saved them to read again.
freshwest
Jun 2013
#22
Progressives don't need this to turn against 0bama. There's a myriad of other deceitful
byeya
Jun 2013
#39
Ah yes, ... FUDr meme 4 and 7 obfuscate the point and act like there's no difference between two
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#96
The Bush Administration did an awful that WE disapproved of. Since when did the Bush War Criminals
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#77
"this rule makes the president and his security administration into a dictatorship"
marmar
Jun 2013
#14
I, for one, am not 'fine with it' ... however, I consider the 'alternative' to be worse ...
brett_jv
Jun 2013
#20
If Congress feels a president is abusing power, they have a host of options to check him
tritsofme
Jun 2013
#23
The privilege is not obscure; the judges reviewed the documents and agreed with its assertion.
FarCenter
Jun 2013
#25
FUDr response 1 and 5; ad hominem condenscending tone and then state Obama is bad person...
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#97
Never took the bar exam. But I never sold my soul to defend twisted govt policies, either.
WinkyDink
Jun 2013
#80
Mother Jones is reporting judicial reviewers told them to blow it out their hineys.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jun 2013
#41
Because in the intelligence business, you do not reveal your means and methods
FarCenter
Jun 2013
#36
I knew there was going to be a dust up when you found out about the state secrets privilege!
treestar
Jun 2013
#44
Nixon can only stare in slack jawed wondrous admiration from his fiery niche in Hell
kenny blankenship
Jun 2013
#79
If that's the case, don't you think the previous administration should be put on trial as well? n/t
Ian David
Jun 2013
#109
And while Bush was pResident, did you ever express the opinion that he should be impeached? n/t
Ian David
Jun 2013
#115
No thanks, I demand my civil liberties be treated as sacred and to hell with anyone who does not
TheKentuckian
Jun 2013
#71
The caps for emphasis is a nice touch. Now all you need is an ominous DA DA DUM sound.
great white snark
Jun 2013
#90
ACLU: DOJ Tells Court It's Reconsidering Secrecy Surrounding Patriot Act's Spying Powers
ProSense
Jun 2013
#100
Why not rent a blimp sporting an "Our position is indefensible" sign?
winter is coming
Jun 2013
#110