Parasites who know that neither the left nor right can stand them, but know they can burst in to feed as they do the bidding of the one percent.

They have spread and infected forum after forum demanding that we close our eyes and wish the spying away.

This is not about "left" or "right". It is about the nature of the state and the limits on its power. The authoritarians across the political spectrum despise limits on state power.

These people don't care about helping the poor or protecting freedoms, they only care that their side has the power to influence and control.

to their being in complete control of the state.

But does this mean that Cheney still has some control of the state? It would not surprise me if he did.

And Liz doesn't seem to be popular with the GOP "establishment"

And yes Cheney continues to be an influential member of the neocon faction of the ruling elites.

Thank you.

in the economy, in the health care system, to regulate the environment, create workplace standards, etc? The power of the state to tax and to spend as it sees fit?

nt

See the discussion upthread re "their" power.

The economy is not being regulated for the benefit of the people. Health care reform, the single achievement of the Obama administration, is a massively compromised give-away to the health care industry first and foremost, with very modest reforms that will provide very limited benefits to the people of this country. They aren't creating workplace standards, the current administration is at best slowing down the deconstruction of existing regulations while participating in the ongoing privatization of public goods and services. They tax and spend all right, and there is bi-partisan consensus to continue to tax the living shit out of working people while spending not only every dime in revenue but also all of their alleged pension surplus on schemes and cons to further enrich the 0.01%.

I'm not a fucking paulbot.

"The government doesn't regulate the economy for the benefit of the people." An absurd generalization that is emotive, not descriptive.

Health care reform is one of Obama's achievements, not the 'single' one (really, what a silly thing to write). One could provide factual refutation, but then the complaint would be "Oh no, THE LIST with BLUE LINKS"--which is a cute little game people like to run.

Why is it that the Republicans are so set on repealing Obamacare? Guaranteed issue, community rating, medical loss ratios, exchanges are not side pieces of the ACA--they're its core. And they are changing the fundamental role of the government in the healthcare market.

The government still enforces OSHA and other workplace standards, correct? If so, that's an exercise in state power over private individuals, for the benefit of the people (something you said doesn't happen). And I guess someone should tell Rob Cordray that his efforts are serving the 1%. Someone should also tell that corporate stooge Elizabeth Warren that, since it was her idea.

Bi-partisan consensus on tax burdens? That's just plain false. Virtually every proposal that has or would have made the income tax system more progressive draws its support from Democrats, and every one that would make it less progressive draws its support primarily from Republicans. Remember the debate on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? One party wanted to get rid of the tax breaks on high income levels, the other wanted to preserve those tax cuts for the wealthy even if it meant risking higher taxes on the working poor.


It's awfully nice and convenient to pretend that the current government is just some evil beast that does nothing but evil in order to maintain ideological distinction from the paulbots while not disagreeing with their general anti-government inclinations.

This administration has had two opportunities to let the tax cuts on the rich expire and refused to use those opportunities to do so. I know you all have your splainations for that, but the facts are what they are.

and middle class--the "let them all expire" option.

The worst things Obama's done, imo, are the things that never wound up happening--trying to give away the house during debt ceiling negotiations, chained CPI, etc.

This administration has an endless stream of excuses for its complicity in the ongoing pillaging of the public sector and the sacking of the middle class for the benefit of the 0.01%. We've heard them all. The end result is the same: complicity.

you bash him for NOT raising taxes on the poor.

Sounds like you're more interested in criticizing than you are in protecting the poor.

Hence this "guilt by association" line of reasoning is not a smear tactic, whereas the the Greenwald admirer= Rand Paul supporter BS definitely is a smear.

by the logic of this OP.

Good to know that our choices are to be either Dick Cheney or Rand Paul.

n/t

The majority of responses in this thread seem to buy into the "disagree with us on NSA=you're Crashcart" logic.

It seems to me like it is you trying to have it both ways.

Something that has not been done with the NSA which has neither effective safeguards nor limitations on it's ability to spy on US citizens.

However, any time a national database is being considered it is important to ask what the purpose of that repository will be and how it could be used against the people. Could a combined database be used by local authorities to harass citizens they don't like? Not every database is inherently a good thing.

thing at you, they did so wrongfully.

Unfortunately, there is a contingent set on belittling any discussion (something I've tried to have many times) with insults and smears.

Yes, I know there is also a contingent that demands that the US give up all data collection and spying on foreign governments but they are not nearly as vocal or belligerent as those trying to shut the conversation down.

tones. There really hasn't been a clear articulation as to why the government having our financial, employment, and medical information is progressive governance but allowing it to sift through telephonic metadata means we're East Germany.

That's not to dismiss the concerns over the potential for NSA abuses, the lack of transparency and controls, etc. Those are problems and they do need to be fixed.

In my experience the more powerful the tool the more carefully and judiciously that tool should be used, smacking your thumb with a framing hammer is one thing, driving a nail through your kneecap with a nail gun is entirely another.

Government as we all know can be a great force for good, every silver lining comes with its associated dark cloud, government can and has been a force for great evil, yes even in this country.

History shows in the starkest of terms that going down certain paths with respect to government powers is unwise which is why so many DUers were hollering at the beginning of the Iraq war and even some at the beginning of the War on Terror.

It's not a good thing for medical and income records to be combined. I would think this obvious as it is easy to see how those with more income could be treated differently. For the same reasons it would not be good to have other records combined for viewing. Does that mean all data collection is bad? Of course not, but it does matter what is collected in which file and who has the authority to view it.

As for the collection of 'metadata,' Clapper has already admitted that more than mere metadata is being collected and we also know that FISA warrants are being handled by secret courts in a manner that would never pass constitutional muster in a regular court. We know that one person has total control over who sits on these FISA courts with absolutely no oversight whatsoever. We also know that the government is trying to quash any judicial review of these decisions by claiming national security.

These are major concerns that need to be discussed, but whenever someone tries to do so, the same crowd swarms the thread and turns it into a smear-fest. I must worship Snowden because I want to enact safeguards against abuse. I must be a Libertarian Paul-bot because I think our domestic spying program is out of control.

Do some DUers post anarchist crap? Of course. But they aren't shutting down discussion, only injecting a belief I don't share. There is a difference.

fashion. Support Obama too much? You're an authoritarian. Etc etc.

And like some posters here really are libertarian, some posters here are definitely authoritarian - so long as their leader is in power. Personally, I'm fine with both as they should be able to express their views. The problem lies in the swarm that hits any real discussion of issues with smears, lies and misdirection.

I got a comment blocked by jury, 6-0, simply for using the word "teleprompter" as a joke the other day. Because simply using that word that freepers, etc have used. AND referred to MIRT on top of it all! And worse words were used in posts before and after mine.

other than the NSA would have access to it which they probably already do. IRS, SS, and most state and federal agencies, not so sure about Homeland Security are all agencies that you and I, if not willingly, at least knowingly give the information to more or less voluntarily. So no this wouldn't be much of a threat to civil liberties.

Merging databases for unrelated things like criminal records and health records would be horrible.
Merging Federal, state, and local criminal records might not be so bad.
It's all in the context, transparency, and reasoning.

When I look at the NSA data collection scheme, there is no transparency, no reasoning, and no legality under the Constitution.

I call that hilarity.

I thought its centrism was the major complaint of the Cuddly Mensheviks.

Charter schools, fracking, chained CPI, unlimited NSA domestic spying, faith-based initiatives, etc...

It wasn't long ago that Democrats stood solidly against all of those things.

You've misidentified the Democratic Party as being part of the left.

n/t

FDR's New Deal party comfortably accommodated Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond, LBJ's Great Society had room for Bella Abzug and George Wallace. The Left today seems to have a vision of some glorious Democratic past when the party was a bastion of social democracy, I think that's a view more romantic than realistic.

Whatever the case, the fact is today's Democratic Party is not a left party, I think we can agree on that much. I challenge the left to actually build their own party, instead of continually projecting their dreams and desires onto the Democrats, who are guaranteed to prove disappointing.

The Democratic party has done some lousy things but it is also the party of civil rights, social security, medicare, pro-Union policies and The Great Society. I am not projecting my beliefs onto a party that was never to the left, I am working to get it back to its days of greatness.

Care to join me?

Slavery, states' rights, segregation, the Palmer Raids, and Massive Resistance. Some cherries are sweeter than others.

You've had to reach back over 150 years for some of those examples to a completely different party and had to use examples supported by republicans and only a sub-section of Democrats to get to the others (a sub-section that became republican after losing the fight for racist policies in the Democratic party).

To shake hands with the Democratic party that passed Social Security, Medicare and was pro-union. And that same national party included a pretty nasty contingent in the "solid south" that supported all the things we both abhor.

Your Democratic party died many, many years ago after losing the internal battle for the soul of the party. Many of us today are working to try to save it from those who would sell it off to the highest bidder.

Which side will you take?

I've merely pointed out that the great supposedly progressive party of the past wasn't always as progressive as some would like to think.

Many of the threads I read here are complaining about the failings of the current DP. I suggest that the left build its own political vehicle instead of dreaming of reforming the current DP.

Any party on a national scale will have to compromise to get as much of its agenda passed as possible. Yes, Bill Clinton signed Don't Ask - Don't Tell. What is never mentioned is that this was after he signed an executive order allowing gays to serve in the military and he only signed it to keep another bill that specifically banned them from passing. So Clinton did a lousy thing in order to prevent a worse thing. It happens. Should I resign from the Democratic Party because of it or try to work within it to make sure we don't have to make such compromises in the future.

Splitting off when there is a chance to reform the party is a guaranteed way to ensure the republican's win. I don't support that. Do you?

How did "your" party react to NAFTA and GATT? Who in "your" party applauded Greenspan's reappointment?

You'll have to admit this is a bit confusing. Was Clinton the last Democratic executive in "your" party? If so, are you asserting that Obama is to the right of Clinton?

Bill Clinton did some lousy things and was not nearly my first choice in the primaries, however he also raised taxes on the wealthy, pushed through the Family Medical Leave Act and tried to get a real single payer health care system enacted.

And yes, Obama is definitely to the right of Bill Clinton but that doesn't mean he hasn't done some very good things as well. The point of my OP (in case you missed the sarcasm) is that it's asinine to label someone as completely good or bad based on a single out of context quote or position.

...there are two parties. A conservative party (center right) and a right wing party.

Creeping fascism

A hefty contingent of the "left" on this site gleefully proclaims that they are not members of the Democratic Party. More to the point, they constantly hyperventilate that elected Democrats are mostly corporatists doing the bidding of the plutocrats.

Where, exactly, is "your" Democratic Party's voice on DU?

Or are you perhaps hyperventilating because not everyone thinks as you do?

I'm a member of "this" Democratic Party. I'm a supporter of "my" Democratic Party's platform. I generally support "the" Democratic Party's elected representatives and its elected President.

Perhaps you can't grasp that I have no expectations that all, most, or even more than a few of my wants and desires are going to be met by a bureaucracy designed to accommodate the majority. I'm rarely disappointed in party leadership because I have no expectations that my desires are going to be met. I'm the only one who can satisfy my requirements, and it would be ludicrous to expect that from anyone else.

It's hilarious that you would entertain the notion that I'm at all bothered by anyone disagreeing with me. It's the emoprogs who demand absolute fealty, not us pragmatists.

And of course the "emoprogs" insult is rather sad to see as well.

I didn't know that pragmatism was about not expecting any results from your work. I also didn't know that pragmatists made a habit of making extreme comments then trying to state that the person who called them out on it is the actual extremist.

You expect nothing of your elected representatives but "demand absolute fealty" from those who put him there. If you can't see how backward that is, I don't know what else to say?

was the reference to emoprogs. Frankly, I would've used the more appropriate Puritanists, but that seems to cause some confusion. Otherwise, my point stands.

As to the rest, I might have really enjoyed the counterpoint had it made any sense whatsoever. What's got you so convoluted?

And likely never will.

You must not be very old.

Sometimes it's good to review what we've accomplished so we remember what we stand for:

1. Women’s Suffrage Movement
2. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
3. Social Security Act
4. Unemployment Compensation
5. Rural Electrification Act
6. Federal Home Loan Program
7. 40 hour work week
8. Minimum Wage
9. Over Time
10. GI Bill
11. School Lunch
12. Marshal Plan
13. NATO
14. Peace Corps
15. First manned moon mission
16. Civil Rights Act
17. Medicare
18. Medicaid
19. Voting Rights Act
20. Head Start
21. Guaranteed Student Loan Program
22. Family & Medical Leave Act
23. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

...and on...and on

Of course since Reagan it the country has been going backwards.

Of course those were Dixiecrats who long ago switched to the republican party but we have to forget all the accomplishments you named because of a regional party that hasn't identified with us in 60 years.

It makes you wonder about some people, doesn't it?

They were not Democrats. And the reason Southerners did not belong to the Republican party is because Lincoln, who defeated the south in the civil war, was a Republican.

You are spewing the Republican version of history

I thought it was obvious but I should realize with the crap that gets posted here nothing is obvious.

For the record I know very well that the Dixiecrats were not actually Democrats. They formed they're own party and ran candidates in direct opposition to the Democratic party.

in this day and age in the Democratic party.

The truth is anyone can call themselves a Democrat, even register as one. I see evidence of that every day on DU.

If you don't think todays Democratic Party is to the right of the party of even 20 years ago, you need to restudy your history.

But I agree with you about trying to change the party, I think it is beyond hope and those of us on the left should form a coalition with those on the right to fight for our common problems. 90% of the country have common problems that are being ignored or even worse eroded by the 1%. We need to come together to solve our common problems.

a democrat'.

... since Alan Dershowitz, known torture supporter, also supports the NSA program.

So, yes, by all means, let the linkage begin.

a liberal or progressive Democrat during this whole NSA thing. They have exposed themselves as pure lock-steppers who don't think for themselves.

to expose their silly games.

But you are correct, there has been a notable convergence of the Cheneyite War Criminal Element and the Third Way, which is in reality a Third Party that has attached itself to OUR party.

I really don't want to single people out or be rude but these lies and smears they're posting have gotten out of hand. They don't want to express their views, they want to shut down any form of discussion.

position, the only thing left is to try to distract, to smear those looking for the truth, to jump and down and throw a temper tantrum. But unfortunately for them they have no grasped the seriousness of the issues at stake or they would know that all these efforts are in vain. Some things transcend even party lines, this Surveillance issue is one of them. They are on the wrong side of history and they can't defend that.

Even though they continually come on here demanding that we all agree to support republican policies, they still call themselves the only "true Democrats." We're libertarians, emoprogs, single issue voters, Naderites, and worse, yet we're the ones advocating the positions on the Democratic Platform.

Yet, they don't get the irony.

You have to remember that both Bill and Hillary are Third Way proponents.

The problem we're likely to have in 2016 is the same one we had in 2008, no real non-third way candidate.

Yeah-It's all from Tony Blair and the dudes running Australia in the late 80's. I think the original text (The Middle Way-1938) is by Brit PM Harold MacMillan and democratic theorist Anthony Giddings, but it also comes from Ropke who was one of the German Ordoliberals whose work is at the base of today's Neoliberalism through our own supply-side morons.

We kept our side of the bargain why do they scream when we do what they suggested?

.... are they supposed to be something else?

No Hillary in 2016! Besides I'm sick of dynasties. We've had enough Clintons for a while. It's too much like the GOP's trotting out of ancient dinosaurs (like Newty) or their spawn (Rand? Liz?) every election. Can't we get some new people in?

used by those who have formed the most despicable alliances possible.

Good job exposing how slimy and hypocritical.

As I've said in other responses, I don't have a problem with those who truly believe that the NSA is doing a fine job and want to discuss the merits of the program, it's the strawman smears and out of context quotes used to change the subject and belittle anyone who tries to disagree that bothers me.

A thousand posters can scream "GODWIN'S LAW!!!!!" all they like but their tactics are pure Goebbels propaganda:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”.

n/t

Ouch!

Hey, the association game can be fun!

Sid

If I thought your response to this post was sarcastic I'd be tempted to suggest that you may be a hypocrite of sorts.

But we both know that isn't the case, don't we.

This one is horseshit.

Sid

Consistently wrong, but consistent nonetheless.

and give it a hearty DURec.
This is even funnier that the other thread.


---bvar22
and I approve of this message!

He is the love child of this unholy marriage.

"He doth protest too much."

I'm particularly fond of Macbeth.

"Out, Damned spot! Out I say!"