General Discussion

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)

109. I decided to get involved with my local Democrat party

Wed May 14, 2014, 06:59 AM

May 2014

in 2002. As a lifelong activist, I came in all enthusiastic and raring to go. I started talking about the issues of the day -- common discussions on the internet, including DU, and was amazed at the deer-in-headlights look I got from these people. They had NO idea what I was talking about nor did they care. What they DID care about was jockeying for position to be Chair of this or that committee. Iow, I've never seen more INactive, UNinvolved people in any supposed "organized" group. By 2004, I was an Executive Board member of the California Democrat Party, an early organizer and HUGE supporter of Howard Dean and got to see, from the INSIDE, what they did to Dean and how they did it. I resigned all committee chairs and my seat on the E-board, and re-registered as "no party affiliation." I got to see from the inside, what the purpose of the major political parties are and it had NOTHING to do with Democracy and everything to do with blind support for whatever the party told you to support -- no matter how counterintuitive and no matter how heinous. You see evidence of it here on DU every day -- complete with Blue Links to Nowhere and the justifications for the most disastrous of right-wing policies by a supposed "Democratic" president that would make the most nimble contortionist look arthritic.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

220 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

'I Have Been to the Darkest Corners of Government, and What They Fear Is Light' [View all] Octafish May 2014 OP

K & R !!! WillyT May 2014 #1

The State Targets Dissenters Not Just 'Bad Guys' Octafish May 2014 #19

patriots, boys, patriots grasswire May 2014 #37

Best post evah! Vattel May 2014 #46

Excellent !!! - K & R !!! WillyT May 2014 #54

I'm thinking that there's a conundrum here.... BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #66

Because it's very different. Also, the USG is both buying AND selling our info in the marketplace. merrily May 2014 #85

that point you explained about our info in the marketplace BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #153

No, not completely one sided. merrily May 2014 #154

your explanation (including the previous one) was very good BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #171

What snark? merrily May 2014 #173

I thought you were being snarky to me-- BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #181

It was not intentional. In fact, I had edited my original version of that sentence merrily May 2014 #182

ok, good then. BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #184

Good! merrily May 2014 #186

Actually, the Bill of Rights does not "give" us our rights. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #202

Yes, no and maybe. I stand by my statement, as it was phrased, in the context in which I made it. merrily Jun 2014 #215

And the person or entity to whom or which your information, your personal JDPriestly Jun 2014 #201

Oh, I know...that's more what I was thinking when I first posted, actually. BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2014 #216

To "the State," dissenters ARE the bad guys (and gals). merrily May 2014 #84

There is a USG preference for the American Right Le Taz Hot May 2014 #93

I think it's because most government and goverment defenders are the right. merrily May 2014 #95

There is the left and then there is the left. Le Taz Hot May 2014 #101

I agree that there is the left and then there is the left. (We need some new vocabulary words, but merrily May 2014 #105

K & R n/t Hotler May 2014 #150

Thanks for posting. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #200

Recommend! and...Here's Tom Englehardt's Introduction.. Also a Good Read KoKo May 2014 #2

Thanks for posting that. JDPriestly May 2014 #43

Thanks..and if you go to the link he has news reports to back up all of his statements KoKo May 2014 #50

Obama Directive Makes Mere Citing of Snowden Leaks Punishable Offense Octafish May 2014 #155

Glad to get here before the "Snowden is a traitor" folks. zeemike May 2014 #3

Oh come on now ...get with it. Peoples jobs depend on stripper polls. L0oniX May 2014 #6

Is this some kind of federal holiday that the anti-Snowden crowd is taking off? JDPriestly Jun 2014 #203

Dunno L0oniX Jun 2014 #211

Rather than protect the First Amendment, they attack the whistleblower and the reporter. Octafish May 2014 #69

I had never heard of him zeemike May 2014 #76

Me too. I was going to say that sound you hear is the security-state apologists heads exploding. nt silvershadow May 2014 #77

We shall know the truth, and the Truth will set us free Demeter May 2014 #4

K & R " What They Fear Is Light" indeed! L0oniX May 2014 #5

good read. BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #7

indeed grasswire May 2014 #28

K&R pscot May 2014 #8

How can anyone not get that he is a hero of epic proporations, with a fearless heart of justice? DesertDiamond May 2014 #9

I have no idea. The fact that there are some "Snowden is a traitor" people Nay May 2014 #13

Because he also told China which of their systems we were spying on Recursion May 2014 #70

And This Matters To You Why? - Seems Irrelevant To Others - Further Where Is The Proof? cantbeserious May 2014 #86

As the poster himself said, making it about "Snowden bad" or "Greenwald bad" merrily May 2014 #87

Yes - The Cognitive Dissonance In Left Leaning Authoritarians Is Surely Debilitating cantbeserious May 2014 #88

The left lionized Ellsberg for revealing info that happened to embarrass a Democratic President. merrily May 2014 #90

This *did* hit the fan during the Bush administration. Does nobody else remember 2005? Recursion May 2014 #92

Are you saying th left all supportive of Bush at that time? Is that your point about my post? merrily May 2014 #103

I'm saying comparing illegal to legal surveillance is apples and oranges Recursion May 2014 #115

No, you did not say that at all, or that's what I would have responded to. merrily May 2014 #117

Congress can pass any law it wants, at which point the sanctioned activity is "legal" Recursion May 2014 #118

No, that is "merely wrong." Violations of the Constitution do not become legal when Congress merrily May 2014 #119

So, I see you completely avoided my question Recursion May 2014 #120

I had already answered your question. BTW, how many of my questions and point have you avoided merrily May 2014 #122

There it is again Recursion May 2014 #124

Well, now you've resorted to pretending I said things I never said. Know another word for that? merrily May 2014 #125

Umm.. no, it's exactly what you said Recursion May 2014 #126

Nope. I never said it. I did say that you already had my answer on Tice. merrily May 2014 #127

Ignorance is bliss for trolling behavior. Ichingcarpenter May 2014 #121

Yes, thank you. I know. merrily May 2014 #123

No. Congress did not make all of what the NSA is doing legal. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #206

He did not show us documents. That made the difference. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #205

There will be no difference in reaction from the real left. Le Taz Hot May 2014 #98

Wait for the "No True Scotsman" replies. merrily May 2014 #106

I decided to get involved with my local Democrat party Le Taz Hot May 2014 #109

Yes. merrily May 2014 #111

We get here through different paths. Le Taz Hot May 2014 #113

Here is where I MAY being going next: merrily May 2014 #128

Oh, sorry, this is a link to the post where I began merrily May 2014 #129

Glad to see you are supporting Elizabeth Warren. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #207

Why does what matter to me? Proof of what? Recursion May 2014 #91

Do you mean the South China Morning Post? Is this the interview you're referencing? merrily May 2014 #108

All Allegations - No Proof Provided - Sound And Fury Signifying Nothing cantbeserious May 2014 #139

We should see a link soon. merrily May 2014 #112

I guess we won't be seeing that link after all. merrily May 2014 #130

Do you seriously think that China and Russia did not know which of their systems JDPriestly Jun 2014 #204

Because at least some of this happened under Obama's watch. alarimer May 2014 #183

No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are... alterfurz May 2014 #10

That is a great quote by William Blum. Octafish May 2014 #51

And no matter how much of an establishment apologist you are, merrily May 2014 #110

I hope Comrade Snowden or Rand Paul has a leading role.... nt Cryptoad May 2014 #11

In violating our Constitutional rights? Paul, possibly. Snowden, no. merrily May 2014 #114

How come Snowdens Dossier doesn't even match Historic NY May 2014 #12

That's one thing I want to know, too. Octafish May 2014 #14

Yes, that's what I, too, thought the issue was. merrily May 2014 #132

For one, NSA vs CIA employment. Octafish May 2014 #149

Snowden has what H2O Man May 2014 #34

Yeah, I was wondering that too (nt) Recursion May 2014 #80

The discrepancies between bios are the issue, not the Constitution? merrily May 2014 #131

He is/was a spy. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #208

Hardly... Historic NY Jun 2014 #210

"That meant the NSA was secretly and indiscriminately collecting the telephone records yodermon May 2014 #15

Legality is only one issue Distant Quasar May 2014 #17

The case cited by the poster does not dispose of the legality issue as to what is going on now. merrily May 2014 #134

The applicability of Smith v. Maryland to the NSA's blanket surveillance activities is questionable. Maedhros May 2014 #36

Agreed. Distinguishable on the facts. Very distinguishable. JDPriestly May 2014 #45

exactly Vattel May 2014 #74

Agree, but I would say it's much more than problematic. merrily May 2014 #135

I found this article helpful: Maedhros May 2014 #156

Thank you. I looked quickly at the wiki of the case this morning. merrily May 2014 #157

Thank you for the words of support. Maedhros May 2014 #162

You are most welcome (as are your posts). merrily May 2014 #164

P.S. I really don't want the SCOTUS to get its hands on this. merrily May 2014 #165

Court opinions on whether something is legal or not Vattel May 2014 #48

You do understand that the court is there literally for the purpose of interpreting the law... right TroglodyteScholar May 2014 #62

That is the usual misunderstanding. Vattel May 2014 #63

Interpretations can change, of course TroglodyteScholar May 2014 #64

Trog, you are right. Case law can overturn statute law. Marbury v. Madison, 1803. Manifestor_of_Light May 2014 #67

To be fair, you have to admit that you are moving the goal posts a bit Vattel May 2014 #73

Don't conflate a court interpreting a statute--which Congress can overrule by enacting a new law-- merrily May 2014 #159

I didn't conflate those two things, did I? Vattel May 2014 #167

Your post sure seemed to conflate them. merrily May 2014 #175

hmmm, weird Vattel May 2014 #179

PS merrily May 2014 #163

Nothing you say here is incorrect nor does it contradict what I said. So we agree! Vattel May 2014 #166

None of my posts to you were incorrect. merrily May 2014 #176

Google "Gov. George Wallace denied a Supreme Court decision was the law of the land." merrily May 2014 #158

Here I am afraid you are incorrect. Vattel May 2014 #168

In what respect, Vattel? merrily May 2014 #174

The point is kind of pedantic, but even when a court does overturn an earlier decision Vattel May 2014 #180

Yes, it does. Unless and until Plessy was overturned, it was the law of the land. merrily May 2014 #185

You are quite right that in the case of common law, judges make law and and change law. Vattel May 2014 #189

Please read my post again. I never said that judges amended the constitution. merrily May 2014 #194

Please read my post again. I never said that you did say that. Vattel May 2014 #195

Not in those exact words, but that was the implication, given that the subject was whether judges merrily May 2014 #198

Sorry, that case is easily distinguished. merrily May 2014 #133

FYI: At least one federal court judge has said the NSA collection of date is merrily May 2014 #143

There is no court decision holding that the government has the authority JDPriestly Jun 2014 #209

K & R!!!!!! n/t Holly_Hobby May 2014 #16

Highly recommend. n/t Jefferson23 May 2014 #18

Glenn Greenwald just revealed that NSA is intercepting packages Stainless May 2014 #20

So no spying? No wiretaps? No investigations? What a perfect world you must live in. randome May 2014 #21

Our Constitution is a contract entered into by representatives of the people of the US. JDPriestly May 2014 #29

Once more: are American citizens the targets or not? randome May 2014 #39

If you read the article in the OP, then you know the answer. JDPriestly May 2014 #47

Oh, the metadata again. randome May 2014 #49

The Social Security Administration does not compile and analyze your data with huge JDPriestly May 2014 #60

If the laws need to be updated, I don't have a problem with that. Why would I? randome May 2014 #104

A couple of other whistleblowers tried to warn us without bringing out the huge array of JDPriestly May 2014 #172

So many things backasswards LiberalLovinLug May 2014 #30

I am afraid of nothing. randome May 2014 #41

That must be why you think the Constitution is 'old and outmoded.' Octafish May 2014 #58

+100 nt Mojorabbit May 2014 #78

Which still avoids answering, let alone, asking, the question of whom the NSA monitors. randome May 2014 #96

Exactly. It's modified legally only by amendment. Let someone put a modification to a vote. merrily May 2014 #137

Wow. Marr May 2014 #152

Truth to ones allies? LiberalLovinLug May 2014 #160

'Allies' as in liberal thinkers of DU. Not 'allies' as in international espionage. randome May 2014 #161

No they'll never end spying, its been going on since mankind first days LiberalLovinLug May 2014 #191

We do have public oversight of the NSA. Not enough, admittedly. randome May 2014 #192

Freeedom is not possible... nikto May 2014 #40

Once more: are the actions of the NSA directed at American citizens or not? randome May 2014 #42

How is it that you know the answer as to whether the NSA's actions are directed at American JDPriestly May 2014 #53

I don't know the answer, although I have my inclinations. randome May 2014 #99

You have just made my argument. JDPriestly May 2014 #177

Why play games? YES. Octafish May 2014 #55

And was this info from the NSA provided as a consequence of international monitoring? randome May 2014 #100

So why continue to spew the company line when you're both shown wrong? Octafish May 2014 #147

There is no 'company line' for me. randome May 2014 #148

+1000000 The denial is beyond absurd at this point. woo me with science May 2014 #187

Wow nikto May 2014 #61

The way to rid the Bill of Rights of the Fourth Amendment (and others) is merrily May 2014 #82

Not sure why this needs to continue to be stated. randome May 2014 #94

It does when government is involved. merrily May 2014 #97

Sorry, I made the wrong point. randome May 2014 #116

Assuming you are correct, and I don't yet know of a reason to assume that, merrily May 2014 #136

A fair point but if we start mandating that our laws apply to the world... randome May 2014 #142

"If we start mandating?" The Constitution was ratified in 1789. merrily May 2014 #146

Well, at least bringing up that point out of nowhere spared you from the Constitutional issues. merrily May 2014 #107

The NSA was not supposed to turn its powers on the citizens of the United States. Octafish May 2014 #24

New business for IT folks -- debugging NSA spyware. ancianita May 2014 #33

K N R DirkGently May 2014 #22

Thanks for posting. JEB May 2014 #23

This should answer the question as to whether Snowden was a patsy. JDPriestly May 2014 #25

Well, the question was whether Greenwald was a patsy (or at least dupe) Recursion May 2014 #71

Many here at the "Underground" fear the same thing villager May 2014 #26

Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast May 2014 #27

Naive, self-serving. moondust May 2014 #31

I think we are gonna see a lot more unsettling relevations Ichingcarpenter May 2014 #32

"Organized crime." JDPriestly May 2014 #56

Seeing how CIA has done business with NAZIs, Mafia, and Wall Street, yes. Octafish May 2014 #59

Yes. I know about Gehlen. I will have to read Blowback. Somehow I missed it. Thanks. JDPriestly May 2014 #75

K&R#80 n/t bobthedrummer May 2014 #35

Hating Snowden=Hating freedom=hating privacy=hating AMERICA nikto May 2014 #38

Sunlight = Democracy Agony May 2014 #44

Absolutely! Octafish May 2014 #72

The US is a republic, but sunlight is necessary for that as well. merrily May 2014 #138

NO ONE IS GONNA BUY YOUR BOOK GLENNY Capt. Obvious May 2014 #52

He's a poopiehead!!! QC May 2014 #57

nanabooboo merrily May 2014 #83

actually, I am.... mike_c May 2014 #178

. MohRokTah May 2014 #65

Rec 840high May 2014 #68

Gratias, Amatorem Veritatis. DeSwiss May 2014 #79

Whut?! No "transparency"?!?! blkmusclmachine May 2014 #81

To Greenwald's and Snowden's detractors and propaganists Le Taz Hot May 2014 #89

Agree. Disturbing to watch. djean111 May 2014 #102

And puzzling. merrily May 2014 #140

"I say, you are traitors to this country and to it's citizens" ProSense May 2014 #144

It's so cheesy, it makes my teeth hurt. randome May 2014 #145

+10000 I wish I could rec this post. It should be on the top of every forum. woo me with science May 2014 #169

G�bbels 101 Octafish May 2014 #190

^^^this^^^ ...and for those making K&R notes - K & R L0oniX Jun 2014 #212

Let there be light. merrily May 2014 #141

K&R. Great interview on Democracy Now yesterday. Overseas May 2014 #151

This thread was worth logging in to rec. Thank you, Octafish. woo me with science May 2014 #170

K & R Quantess May 2014 #188

Kick n/t bobthedrummer May 2014 #193

This deserves to stay on top. nt woo me with science May 2014 #196

kick woo me with science May 2014 #197

kick woo me with science May 2014 #199

punt L0oniX Jun 2014 #213

kick L0oniX Jun 2014 #214

kick woo me with science Jun 2014 #217

kick woo me with science Jun 2014 #218

kick woo me with science Jun 2014 #219

kick woo me with science Jun 2014 #220