General Discussion

Bodhi BloodWave

(2,346 posts)

159. it has had a number of definitions though haven't it?

Tue Feb 18, 2014, 01:09 PM

Feb 2014

when i saw the name i actually thought it ironically fitting(having used a somewhat different definition) considering the direction the US has been heading for a while now.

after all, with the right wing course it was heading it isn't a bad thing to want to return to a more sensible course(it does admittedly turn the term halfway on its head but in my mind it kinda fitted)

addendum: A explanation an American friend gave me a while back that i saved to a file was this: A Reactionary is a rational moralist combating cultural and political insanity. (i always liked that line and looking at the republican party well, the words 'political insanity' suits them perfectly)

minor addition: I'm not saying its a good word or bad word, merely letting some thoughts run free from my mind(reason i won't put a definite on it is that words can differ quite in meaning across the pond so its quite easy to talk past each other )

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

187 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DEA Manuals Show Feds Use NSA Spy Data, Train Cops to Construct False Chains of Evidence [View all] Are_grits_groceries Feb 2014 OP

Remember when there was mocking for suggesting that the spying even existed? woo me with science Feb 2014 #1

Yeppers. Threads were locked for spreading woo. Baitball Blogger Feb 2014 #2

Too much stuff labeled "Woo", later turns out not to be woo. RC Feb 2014 #4

+10000 woo me with science Feb 2014 #9

What really gets me is how people and organizations break the law Baitball Blogger Feb 2014 #21

....^ 840high Feb 2014 #85

Yes, we wouldn't want the spreading of woo. In the meantime it's Enthusiast Feb 2014 #22

See no evil Aerows Feb 2014 #152

Post removed Post removed Feb 2014 #6

Now "that" is some steaming PR effusion. woo me with science Feb 2014 #8

And predictable as the sunrise. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #23

Not shocked at all. nt. neverforget Feb 2014 #10

Fake Democrats are well-ingrained in our Party and DU. Scuba Feb 2014 #17

Republican Democrats, I've heard as well. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #83

+1 And right now we get to witness the magic of an election year, woo me with science Feb 2014 #93

And that's what pisses me off Aerows Feb 2014 #144

Fucking McCarthyites! n/t hootinholler Feb 2014 #28

They have become parodies of themselves. bvar22 Feb 2014 #35

I've put both of them on my ignore list, and threads have immediately become more constructive. [n/t Maedhros Feb 2014 #62

Yes. But now that it has been exposed, the way not to deal with it is to use the 'look over there' sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #39

We have always had spies...who was deluded into thinking this is something new? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #57

If the OP is true we aren't talking about spies. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #70

Well that's a huge leap... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #71

Yes, that's what the article in the OP is alleging: that an insider has provided that evidence Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #72

Well just saying "somebody said so" is not going to cut it... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #73

Which is exactly what would make falsifying chains of evidence so egregious. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #74

OMG (Clapper again)....and yeah...I am dismissing... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #75

For a while Watergate was merely hearsay. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #76

lots of things are hearsay and never proven true too... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #80

But we would never know either way unless we pursued the truth. n/t Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #81

but you don't just believe every thing you hear just because it fits your narrative VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #82

I didn't have a narrative until the NSA gave me one. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #87

yeah right...no narrative.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #90

Do you have anything of substance or just a smiley provided to you by the founders of this forum? Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #92

reuters reported on this last summer questionseverything Feb 2014 #95

Exactly n/t Aerows Feb 2014 #101

You are absolutely right, Nuclear Unicorn Aerows Feb 2014 #100

Honey, if you got any more phony with your arguments Aerows Feb 2014 #145

Oh, you showed up Aerows Feb 2014 #97

Wait a second Aerows Feb 2014 #143

K&R. nt OnyxCollie Feb 2014 #3

HUGE K & R !!! WillyT Feb 2014 #5

You'd be a fool to trust the EN-SS-EH blkmusclmachine Feb 2014 #7

Yep spied, lied and tried... zeemike Feb 2014 #11

But, but, but it's LEGAL! Th1onein Feb 2014 #183

Has the ACLU gotten involved ohheckyeah Feb 2014 #12

They're keeping two sets of books jsr Feb 2014 #13

How to violate our Fourth Amendment rights is in their training manuals? Oilwellian Feb 2014 #14

+1 This should be the beginning of relentless investigation of these crimes, woo me with science Feb 2014 #15

NSA appears to be a criminal enterprise. nt grasswire Feb 2014 #29

No hyperbole there. nt woo me with science Feb 2014 #36

kick for that n/t reddread Feb 2014 #37

Second kick Aerows Feb 2014 #53

It boggles the mind Aerows Feb 2014 #103

So they have a "taint review team" Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #16

You guys did read all the training slides available, right? randome Feb 2014 #18

In your opinion is constructing false evidence trails an ethical government practice? n/t Fumesucker Feb 2014 #19

I would think it irrelevant in regard to non-citizens. randome Feb 2014 #20

to be confronted with the witnesses against him questionseverything Feb 2014 #26

Where in the Constitution does is say it only applies to citizens? hootinholler Feb 2014 #27

And there it is. Endorsement of secret government fabrication of evidence trails. woo me with science Feb 2014 #31

What you are saying that it doesnt matter how you get evidence. Search warrants are not required rhett o rick Feb 2014 #32

Well, Carl Bernstein says it okay so for randome, that means its okay!111!!!1 nt riderinthestorm Feb 2014 #34

Randome Aerows Feb 2014 #47

Seems to think the time's have gone beyond it. Octafish Feb 2014 #66

When you believe the Constitution Aerows Feb 2014 #96

Where did I ever say we don't need laws or am in favor of anarchy? randome Feb 2014 #105

Your own petard Aerows Feb 2014 #106

The biggest change I would like is to do away with the House of Representatives. randome Feb 2014 #108

Having the rule of law Aerows Feb 2014 #109

But every law and rule on the books has exceptions. randome Feb 2014 #113

"I promise" Aerows Feb 2014 #117

My very first example is valid, I think. randome Feb 2014 #121

Oh, so now you admit they often abuse their responsibilities? Aerows Feb 2014 #125

I never said 'often'. randome Feb 2014 #129

If that is your defense Aerows Feb 2014 #130

When you defend creating false evidence trails Aerows Feb 2014 #120

No one is creating false evidence. At least not within the confines of the OP. randome Feb 2014 #122

Randome Aerows Feb 2014 #124

it is illegal because they are denying a fair trial questionseverything Feb 2014 #127

The 'witness' in the example I suggested, would be the email. randome Feb 2014 #131

SC disagrees questionseverything Feb 2014 #132

I get that. randome Feb 2014 #136

so sorry but spying on American citizens questionseverything Feb 2014 #140

I knew that and other responses on that thread bothered me for a reason. Octafish Feb 2014 #110

what the defenders of illegal spying fail to point out is questionseverything Feb 2014 #116

It just goes to show Aerows Feb 2014 #123

When people openly advocate Aerows Feb 2014 #118

that kind of explains it all questionseverything Feb 2014 #112

Yep Aerows Feb 2014 #115

Yeah, that poster always poo poohs the NSA revelations. It's not shocking that they hold neverforget Feb 2014 #171

Did we change your mind? I hope!!! grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #84

Uh, no. randome Feb 2014 #98

The Constitution of the United States of America Aerows Feb 2014 #107

You asking if I would rather follow the American system of jurisprudence enshrined in the grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #158

Someone could answer the question I posed. randome Feb 2014 #163

It's acceptable, of course it is Aerows Feb 2014 #48

Did Clapper lie under oath? sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #41

You know, it becomes more clear by the day Aerows Feb 2014 #45

I have never used 9/11 as a justification for anything. randome Feb 2014 #102

You wouldn't know a law Aerows Feb 2014 #104

"not permissible to lie under oath" progressoid Feb 2014 #63

Nobody in government has to obey the law anymore Aerows Feb 2014 #114

Hey, lying under oath Aerows Feb 2014 #126

+10 (nt) reACTIONary Feb 2014 #65

Perhaps expecting inhabitants of the Innertubes to actually read and understand documents, struggle4progress Feb 2014 #86

I am quite enjoying this thread...the shutdown of Silk Road, which almost certainly happened because msanthrope Feb 2014 #88

the solicitor general lied to SC because he assumed justice would follow the law? questionseverything Feb 2014 #94

LOL! Aerows Feb 2014 #128

Ah...the defense of Silk Road...and human trafficking. Lovely. Silk Road would operate msanthrope Feb 2014 #133

Interesting way of deflecting a sincere question. Aerows Feb 2014 #134

Don't forget the murder-for-contract hire. randome Feb 2014 #137

You've defended some repugnant things Aerows Feb 2014 #138

when they come to take your rights away questionseverything Feb 2014 #141

We may be voices in the wilderness, my friend Aerows Feb 2014 #142

Now is it a Police State? Octafish Feb 2014 #24

As usual, you cut directly through the bullshit. woo me with science Feb 2014 #25

kick for this n/t reddread Feb 2014 #30

Kicking this comment Aerows Feb 2014 #49

U.S. to review DEA unit that hides use of intel in crime cases ProSense Feb 2014 #33

so the farmer says to the fox questionseverything Feb 2014 #38

+1 succinct and dead on correct reddread Feb 2014 #40

Amen to never has been Aerows Feb 2014 #50

"Spin"? ProSense Feb 2014 #42

Oh, I think the American people Aerows Feb 2014 #51

You know what: ProSense Feb 2014 #52

Well Gee, my dear ProSense Aerows Feb 2014 #54

Ah ProSense Feb 2014 #55

Should I offer you a box of rocks Aerows Feb 2014 #56

Well, ProSense Feb 2014 #58

Copy/Paste is such a high-level skill set Aerows Feb 2014 #59

Aerows ProSense Feb 2014 #60

Thanks for kicking it Aerows Feb 2014 #61

Thank you. woo me with science Feb 2014 #43

Sounds like grounds to debunkthis Feb 2014 #44

Sure does Aerows Feb 2014 #46

+1000000 woo me with science Feb 2014 #77

+1000 G_j Feb 2014 #111

Kick woo me with science Feb 2014 #64

K&R me b zola Feb 2014 #67

Gee, nobody saw this Happening! **sarcasm** fascisthunter Feb 2014 #68

Parallel construction is used... reACTIONary Feb 2014 #69

Interesting User Name. Maedhros Feb 2014 #89

No, it was imposed upon me... reACTIONary Feb 2014 #146

Interesting choice, given the forum we are on. That's all. Maedhros Feb 2014 #147

I might be a bit slow(or just ignorant) but just how does the name antagonize Liberals? n/t Bodhi BloodWave Feb 2014 #150

Because liberals are referred to as reactionary Aerows Feb 2014 #155

"Reactionary" originally referred to those elements in France that opposed the Revolution. Maedhros Feb 2014 #157

it has had a number of definitions though haven't it? Bodhi BloodWave Feb 2014 #159

A poster with the handle "reACTIONary" posts consistently in defense of the NSA Maedhros Feb 2014 #162

I have no problem with the nsa as an agency, they have a job to do Bodhi BloodWave Feb 2014 #164

Opposing surveillance in the absence of suspicion Maedhros Feb 2014 #165

The NSA is an inteligence organization... reACTIONary Feb 2014 #172

See, it's posts like this that convince me you aren't arguing in good faith. Maedhros Feb 2014 #173

When you accuse me of defending "blanket survelance"... reACTIONary Feb 2014 #180

yes that is the entire point of this op questionseverything Feb 2014 #184

No, The NSA spys on foreign targets... reACTIONary Feb 2014 #185

maybe this judge can explain why it is illegal questionseverything Feb 2014 #186

I have never heard of anything like this at all... reACTIONary Feb 2014 #187

So the Constitution doesn't apply to intelligence agencies? neverforget Feb 2014 #174

The fourth amendment... reACTIONary Feb 2014 #176

No kidding. This debate is about the NSA spying on Americans. neverforget Feb 2014 #177

The NSA is not spying on Americans... reACTIONary Feb 2014 #178

Baloney. Verizon, of which I am an American customer, has been handing over metadata to the NSA neverforget Feb 2014 #179

I think you definitly can reasonably assume that... reACTIONary Feb 2014 #181

Trust us! We would never abuse our power! Ever! Smith v Maryland, the ruling that supposedly allows neverforget Feb 2014 #182

Thanks! (nt) reACTIONary Feb 2014 #167

Indeed n/t Aerows Feb 2014 #153

I am a liberal... reACTIONary Feb 2014 #166

As a Liberal, I am much more concerned with how parallel construction negatively impacts Maedhros Feb 2014 #168

As citizens who value our freedom and our liberal democracy... reACTIONary Feb 2014 #169

Valerie Plame Aerows Feb 2014 #154

Lets look again... reACTIONary Feb 2014 #170

K&R n/t Michigan-Arizona Feb 2014 #78

This is an injustice. Literally. Legitimate concerns? Tough shit. Work within the law ... GoneFishin Feb 2014 #79

& k & r! n/t wildbilln864 Feb 2014 #91

Wow, they don't call it a War on Drugs for nothing Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #99

Defending this Aerows Feb 2014 #119

Did this not go away? Aerows Feb 2014 #135

Yup. woo me with science Feb 2014 #149

I'm pretty tired Aerows Feb 2014 #139

K & R n/t JohnyCanuck Feb 2014 #148

How many convictions will be overturned because of this breach of our constitutional rights? Coyotl Feb 2014 #151

K&R n/t Aerows Feb 2014 #156

This is really messed up Aerows Feb 2014 #160

I refuse to let this sink Aerows Feb 2014 #161

This is serious. I'm with you Aerows! neverforget Feb 2014 #175