General Discussion

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

86. DKF? Oh. lordy...nt

Reply to liberal_at_heart (Reply #84)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 05:31 PM

Jul 2013

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

UK, Germany, France, Bolivia, Venezuela, Do we even need to research Russia and China? [View all] stevenleser Jul 2013 OP

Lol it's okay because China and Russia do it!!!! dkf Jul 2013 #1

Now that straw man is a stretch even for you! ROFLMAO! stevenleser Jul 2013 #2

You were the one adding them as some sort of perverse justification. dkf Jul 2013 #4

! stevenleser Jul 2013 #6

Then what is the purpose of your posts? dkf Jul 2013 #9

The second sentence in my OP says it all. stevenleser Jul 2013 #17

Target the military and defense of other countries. Hands off normal civilians. dkf Jul 2013 #24

OK, as I asked below to MNBrewer, what would your Constitutional amendment look like? stevenleser Jul 2013 #28

We don't need constitutional amendments. We just need to use what we have. dkf Jul 2013 #36

As I responded to MNBrewer, the three branches of government don't seem to agree. And the stevenleser Jul 2013 #38

It's not the laws that are the problem, its the people who read into laws things that aren't there. dkf Jul 2013 #42

This isn't my first go around regarding discussing national security surveillance stevenleser Jul 2013 #45

Thus all three branches have proven they cannot be stewards of our constitutional rights. dkf Jul 2013 #53

I don't agree. There is a consistent principle the courts have applied for decades. We can disagree stevenleser Jul 2013 #56

Actually he's saying we should move on from blaming the US for the world's spying issue and discuss BenzoDia Jul 2013 #25

None domestically. NSA is for foreign threats. dkf Jul 2013 #30

It probably is treestar Jul 2013 #51

Aren't you supposed to be a liberal? Since when do liberals support authoritarian surveillance? dkf Jul 2013 #3

! stevenleser Jul 2013 #5

He goes on Foxnews a lot! Rex Jul 2013 #12

And RT and MSNBC too! Oops, there goes your point! ROFLMAO! stevenleser Jul 2013 #16

Oh look Aerows Jul 2013 #29

Why don't you love America? Rex Jul 2013 #34

I'd be laughing Aerows Jul 2013 #47

I think I should write a book entitled Aerows Jul 2013 #81

Yes it would. Rex Jul 2013 #93

So does Dennis Kucinich. KittyWampus Jul 2013 #97

You may have decided it is "authoritarian" but the bulk of society treestar Jul 2013 #52

Lol. The people barely know what is going on and even if they don't care much that doesn't mean it dkf Jul 2013 #54

They can always find out treestar Jul 2013 #55

Well I intend to do my best. dkf Jul 2013 #57

Are you just trying to be our side's version of Sean Hannity or what? Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #7

I have a simple question. Did you read any part of my OP at all? nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #8

Sure. Do you require that your post be broken it up sentence-by-sentence and responded to in kind? Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #10

Nope, just that your response in some way relate to my point. Attack it, agree, something. stevenleser Jul 2013 #13

You mean the 5 people on your side? Rex Jul 2013 #11

LOL!!!! I love it!!!! Classic Bandwagon fallacy! stevenleser Jul 2013 #15

Nonsense you in no way qualify to be my peer. Rex Jul 2013 #18

LMAO, the fallacy doesnt work that way! stevenleser Jul 2013 #22

To even think that the US might aim toward a "higher standard" would be racist, wouldn't it? MNBrewer Jul 2013 #14

We should aim for a higher standard. randome Jul 2013 #20

Well, he has an opinion on that, I guess.... MNBrewer Jul 2013 #23

He's no more credible than Daniel Ellsberg, I suppose. randome Jul 2013 #27

Ellsberg knows a bit about the issue of "leaking" MNBrewer Jul 2013 #32

Um, he received information from a leaker with the code name 'Deep Throat'. randome Jul 2013 #37

It was not illegal to "leak" what Bernstein published MNBrewer Jul 2013 #43

How does he know when we haven't seen it all? dkf Jul 2013 #39

Yeah, DIFI is better than most Republicans, but she's still a 1%er. MNBrewer Jul 2013 #44

Of course there may be more specific documents in the pipeline. randome Jul 2013 #48

Ya we done jumped the shark on that one and took him out to dinner. Rex Jul 2013 #21

Fine. Step 1. I propose that illegal warrants (i.e., those that do not conform to constitutional MNBrewer Jul 2013 #19

First, thank you, thank you, thank you for responding on point. stevenleser Jul 2013 #26

The 4th is perfectly fine MNBrewer Jul 2013 #31

OK, well, you think so, but the three branches of government dont seem to agree. The traditional stevenleser Jul 2013 #33

There are two traditional remedies MNBrewer Jul 2013 #41

Correct on the two remedies. I'm not sure an amendment would be ineffective. I wrote above in my stevenleser Jul 2013 #49

Are we to abandon our idea of what a warrant is? THAT is the question. MNBrewer Jul 2013 #67

I'm not sure I see your point. Warrants are being issued everyday in just about every jurisdiction stevenleser Jul 2013 #74

Blanket warrants do not conform to MNBrewer Jul 2013 #92

I think we'd all be much better off if we dissolved the House of Representatives. randome Jul 2013 #50

While you have somewhat of a point MNBrewer Jul 2013 #68

Ok, here goes then. Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #35

This is excellent. stevenleser Jul 2013 #46

This is part of the problem Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #58

Let me respond to one point, as I noted to dkf above, my understanding is that the exception to stevenleser Jul 2013 #59

I wish it were possible to pass amendment, and I admire your faith in our system. Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #63

Kick, in case the previous post got lost in the aether. nt Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #94

Such unamerican fucking bullshit! whatchamacallit Jul 2013 #40

Besides being not the point of my OP, of all things, you fall back on jingoistic patriotism? Really? stevenleser Jul 2013 #60

Preserving and observing the constitution and the the bill of rights is not jingoistic whatchamacallit Jul 2013 #89

Thank you. Greenwald, Snowden, Assuange, et. al. jazzimov Jul 2013 #61

You're welcome. Hopefully this is part of the start of that. stevenleser Jul 2013 #62

Probably need a new Constitution. moondust Jul 2013 #64

A Constitutional Convention attended by today's conservatives would produce a horrifically warped stevenleser Jul 2013 #72

Think ALEC. That's the model that Ryan promises us. freshwest Jul 2013 #87

I wouldn't recommend it either moondust Jul 2013 #90

That's a fairly insulting OP, Radioboi. DisgustipatedinCA Jul 2013 #65

You have no idea how unintentionally funny your cloud of dust remark is. stevenleser Jul 2013 #82

You're right--I don't. That's kind of the nature of unintentional humor DisgustipatedinCA Jul 2013 #83

How hard have you really tried to get ProSense to stop making OPs about Snowden? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #66

While you are at it, are there any other DUers you want me to attempt to control? stevenleser Jul 2013 #69

ProSense has produced over 100 OPs talking about Snowden muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #76

If you have a problem with ProSense, it sounds like you should take that up with ProSense. stevenleser Jul 2013 #78

I'm pointing out your OP is full of shit muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #85

LOL, thanks, I'll give that all the consideration it deserves. Hint--> nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #91

I take it for granted that trying to unravel all the spying in the world is fruitless. Liberal Veteran Jul 2013 #70

no what you're really saying is you are willing to have a discussion as long as we agree with you. liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #71

Nope. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #73

And your 3 other OPs in this subject this month have been: muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #75

LMAO! I'm having three or four simultaneous rational discussions up-thread. stevenleser Jul 2013 #77

your posts up thread are suppose to be rational? yeah okay. liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #79

By all means, tell dkf, MNBrewer, Romulus Quirinus and moondust that our conversations are not stevenleser Jul 2013 #80

oh, yeah I can tell by post #42 that dkf thinks that your posts are rational. liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #84

DKF? Oh. lordy...nt msanthrope Jul 2013 #86

The STASI did it, and the NAZIS did something similar but were limited by their JDPriestly Jul 2013 #88

How about some fucking SPECIFICITY? As called for in the Fourth Amendment? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #95

Interesting you use the 'A' word. I'll be talking about it on my show this week. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #96

That's all you have to say? You elicited the conversation... after all. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #98

As soon as you went ad hominem by calling me a name, that ended the conversation. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #99

LOL and LOL! LOL again! Please point me to the name I called you...? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #100

That's OK Bro. I know you didn't REALLY want to have a "conversation" about anything of substance. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #101