Great job.

Most of the infiltrators I read about in NYT, LA Times and New Yorker were targeting whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds and now Edward Snowden. This all started after 911 where most if the targets were any random person discussion 911 or the Iraq War as based on lies. It was military paid contractors with our tax dollars taking advantage of multi-managed sock puppet profiles that corporations started originally for PR or product placement value. I'm as alarmed as you but even though conservatives have money to employ such cretins I believe most of it is to support and maintain NSA funding or whatever current war the contractors wish to force on us to profit from.

I totally agree with what you said in this thread.

However, I think this flooding of discussion forums by the apparatchiks is not totally to (mis)inform anyone. I think it is to get most of us to move on to another page, out of disgust with the conversations. So much he-said, you-said, she-said that the important points are lost and the sincere reader/commentator is waterboarded by the robotic streams of non-sense.

I like the way you write.

Positively stupid accusing those democrats at DU as RACIST who think Obama is acting like a moderate republican. I can't think of a single reasonable person who would believe such crap. I think many republicans are opposed due to racism and even some CONSERVATIVE democrats who defend wars, NSA, prisons etc but they have an ally with Obama as he hasnt challenged them. I have a big feeling many of the people you are disingenuously calling racist are in fact Black. I almost thought this post was sarcasm or from The Onion. But those of us who are hardcore, left wing, antiwar foot soldiers who carry the torch for freedom and peace will not be affected by this lame, suspect rhetoric no matter how many people I respect cheerlead it. I worked for years for BAM and UCAR and I know what I believe. Totally offensive. Who is trying to divide Democrats now? YOU!!!!! We focus on facts not calling up down, right left, or saying war is peace, freedom is slavery or ignorance is strength. If Obama started cracking down on NSA or Wall St or foreign intervention I wouldn't be surprised if you tried to imply he himself was racist. George Carlin chime in from beyond please.

I don't want Obama to fail. But as Obama tried to tell you it's not about him...it's about having our causes succeed. Obviously they have not and in your frustration you are blaming the progressives here? Isn't this exactly what you are accusing others of doing by blaming Obama? If I hear another person start labeling people Rand Paul Libertarians because they oppose injustice or support human rights I'm gonna throw up in my own mouth. I never thought I would see the day when some so-called liberals castigate and mislabel people because they won't shut up about military intervention, the doomed drug war, NSA and CIA crimes against OUR people or a Wall St subversion. Now you are asking us not to even have political discourse and are playing upon people's emotions who know Obama has been treated unfairly by racist conservatives? This is needlessly dividing democrats, neutering our causes and simply acting shamefully. I encourage everyone to think for themselves and question authority...even when it's not perfect it's way better than the alternative. I showed this post to some Black very liberal friends of mine and they couldn't believe it. We all want Obama to succeed by supporting our causes but we aren't foolish enough to think he will based on skin color. We believe Condi Rice is a war criminal because of her actions only.

and "We all want Obama to succeed" works for 2004, but like you stated, we now have discourse, a discussion, where that did not happen.

Sadly he abandoned ones the ones I cared most about.

Excellent rebuttal.

These accusations seem more like a sad pathetic attempt by a disgruntled segment that will invent any conspiracy up in order to feel better about themselves and their willful ignorance. I've also been accused of being a Rand Paul supporter because I oppose unfettered government mass eavesdropping. Edward Snowden catapulted the discussion because he is also against this but because he's had past libertarian tenancies and that apparently negates any position he takes. I assume the same goes for other libertarian views on wars of aggression and the war on drugs. We are now supposed to believe in those things because....the Pauls are opposed to them.

That's the Washington, corporate game. Keep us divided and fighting each other instead of the corrupted, privileged few at the top. When there is some common ground like not dying in senseless wars or opposing mass surveillance of citizens they drum up some cultural difference or prejudice to make sure no one unites against injustice. Lots of cash is involved and to operatives to use whatever tools are necessary to try and discredit good people. They revere Hillary Clinton but she was president of the College Republicans and supported Nixon before his first election so people change. Snowden saw the reality of what was occurring and it shocked him to find out we have been lied to regarding the War On Terror and that those who were there to protect our rights were routinely violating them.

We get it you have friends that are black, or as you say it Black. Are you using this to make a point or to get street cred?

and judging from that comment, you just don't get it.

And the kind I have seen before. I think it's despicable. In my experience there are few racists here and when I see one they don't try to hide it. Those are the obvious republicans. Calling people here racist, fake liberals who don't support deals with the devil that we have made just to gain an irrelevant inch or two against the rethuglicans could make me question those who do it just as easily. I've seen those with the same priorities as me and with good hearts get easily manipulated by those with hidden agendas yes but I also know spotting the manipulators isn't always as easy as we think. The real racists are easily spotted and, no, not because they disagree with the moderate direction our president has taken. The real ones are wolves in wheels clothing but watch out because before long everyone will be pointing fingers at everyone else and yelling " narc!" This is what the actual narcs want. It's call destabilizing. It's a weapon of economic, military and political warfare. When I was heavily involved with activism the good people always had many disagreements which usually revolved around who was willing to be the most willing to sacrifice and put their ass on the line versus those who wanted a more moderate, measured approach that wouldn't jeopardize their future personal goals. It is quite correct to assume this site is infiltrated but figuring out who is who is a lot harder as I can attest the informants that infiltrated our organizations were always trying to divide us or convince us to be more extreme in our actions. I understand the frustration but as a liberal since the age of 17 and someone who has actually fought in the trenches I find this post completely unproductive, distracting and offensive.

were hardcore, stone DLCers to the bone, but when Obama got elected, they suddenly became Kucinich style ultra liberals overnight, because on DU you are only supposed to be allowed to criticize Dems "from the left" (this was during the era of mods, not juries, so if you were popping off dissing Dems and it wasn't coming from the left, your posts got deleted or you got tombstoned. with the jury system, anything goes). Die hard Clintonites who now denounce the Clintons from the rooftops.. I couldn't put an accurate number of how many, but it's a good handful of people. For them it's not really about policy, but rather a continuation of old grudges. Presidential primary seasons on DU get NASTY.

In many ways the primary wars of 2007 and 2008 never ended. if you were on DU at the time you'd know what I mean.

that is not to say that this scenario applies to every detractor, nor that all detractors are jaded Hillary supporters, nor that there aren't real reasons to be critical of some of the things Obama or his administration has done. but there are some old grudges still alive today here.

I thought Obama was the one until he flip-flopped on the a telecom Immunity Bill before the election in 2008. I see little difference between him and Hillary anymore. God knows what he's been threatened with. I enjoyed seeing him chime in from his plane during the video broadcast Grateful Dead benefit show. I think the problem is the leadership shakers and movers and we need to build grass roots movements around causes and not candidates.

I notice there are a few, very vocal, very prolific Snowden attackers that spend gigabytes worth of data attacking any comment criticizing NSA. They spend all their time going after Greenwald and Snowden. It's like a full time job for them. If they were getting paid they would be doing quite well. They respond to and NSA forum in lightning fast speed and are usually first to get to the comment slot followed by scores of comments in tandem following each NSA related article.

whistleblowing (even though we were discussing the NSA doing this shit on DU 8 years ago, but hey, it's big in the news now, it's going to be discussed heavily). unfortunately, it's probably all legal somehow under the Patriot Act, which should be fixed right away. I don't think the Dems are doing anything heinous with this information, but it's information that shouldn't be collected or stored indefinitely unless there's a damn good reason and legitimate warrants have been obtained. I shudder at what a GOP administration would\could do with all that info.

If Snowden gave info to other countries about our intelligence gathering, that's a whole different ballgame to me, and very wrong.

I don't have much use for Greenwald myself, I see him as an opportunist, but I don't want him to trip and fall down some stairs or anything like that. maybe if I met him in person I'd like him, who knows...

Are you suspicious of those who make a full time job trying to discredit these two given the powerful and wealthy enemies they have made within the military industrial complex? You seem reasonable so I'm just curious. Back in my activist days we had to deal with infiltrators on every level and even ended up in court with some of these paid instigators.

could see it. IMO, if a paid republican infiltrator was here, they would pretend to be a cartoonish caricature of an "extreme liberal", and post shit that make liberals look stupid. I bet rethug infiltrators here are pretty much adventurous freepers and such who like to stir up shit and start flame wars that can suck in otherwise rational posters.

For real DUers, I believe some of it is legit beef with what Snowden may have done regarding our international spying, or believing the idea that Greenwald is this looking for name recognition and a payday.

At the same time, some of it is pure knee jerk defense of the Administration in the never-ending DU Obama wars.

for the first 8 years of DU, it was easy because we were all united against bush; liberals, socialists, communist, conservative dems, you name it.

DU has been in a civil war since Obama got in, it seems to me.

They act like raging liberals on all the soft or undivisive issues but go crazy defending NSA...which is literally turning our country into an Orwellian nightmare only a deluded republican could support. I was out of the blue told if I don't oppose Snowden then I must be a racist or against LBGT rights! Can you believe that? And I've fought on the front lines and in government galls for those issues. For decades. These people seem like total frauds to me. They try to goad people into arguments by their snarky accusations if being a Ron Paul supporter too when they resemble Joe "The Rat" Lieberman to me. I do disagree with you though on one point. DU is a laboratory for progressive ideas and views and given the activist, involved nature if the people here the effect of their viewpoints is greater than on big, overridden sites where it's too much nonsense and few facts coupled with hyperbole muddling everything up. People come here for actual discussion. I know I do.

I really don't think there are any or very few actual Libertarians here. I do know there are liberals who are actual liberals who like they used to support legalizing drugs, stopping surveillance and infiltration by disruptive narcs as was always prevelant in the 60s and 70s and are, as they should be, anti-war peace activists. Negating all those old core democratic, leftist principles just because one guy on the Republican party supports them seems like Republican, law enforcement trickery to me. No one used to fall for that stuff 20 years ago.

Supporting the NSA.

It works like this: Someone praises Snowden and then someone else says that Snowden needs to face the music - then I see that person who was praising Snowden refer to the dude who said that Snowden should face the music - as an NSA lover or some such thing.

I acknowledge that I don't read every thread, but what I do read - looks like what I just said. I also see a lot of mischaracterizing other folks such as 'supports everything the president does' when someone points out that the president is limited to a large extent by the republican controlled House of Representatives.

Perhaps, there aren't any folks here who are actual libertarians, but the people who I see behaving in this manner - whether they are a libertarian or not, they're forwarding a libertarian agenda. Either they're being intentionally dishonest, or they don't understand how the government works. In other words - libertarians.

NSA had nothing to do with libertarianism. It's a very visceral issue. Democrats were the victims of this spying by McCarthyites in the 50s, by the FBI in the 60s, by the CIA in the 70s and the environmentalists got crushed by it in the 80s and 90s. Bush brought it back on steroids and the fact that it's gotten worse is alarming. AND yes it's so unnerving and an invasion of ones personal life and mental state that everyone hates it including many republicans. So I'm supposed to support it now because it's so bad even some republicans hate it? I don't think so. That circular logic is messed up. Some republicans are accepting gay marriage now too and I'm not going to oppose it because of that. If there were billions of dollars at stake, trust me, certain interest would be commenting here to do just that. Follow the money.

There's that exact leap of logic that I'm talking about.

Snowden handled it wrong <> supporting the Security State.

Just because a person believes that Snowden should have handled it differently doesn't mean that the person critical of Snowden supports the spying. I disapprove of Snowden's actions because supporting it is encouraging anarchy. We are still a nation of laws. Those high ranking individuals (like Jimmy Carter) who believe he did the right thing - also believe he needs to face the charges. Unless he comes back and tells his side of the story - he's just a guy who tucked some classified information under his arm and fled to asylum in another country.

It's an empty act without him returning to face the charges. I'd like to see them shift a whole bunch of the 'spy apparatus' spending over to public works projects, that makes me exactly the opposite of a libertarian - they believe we need to dismantle the 'spy apparatus', then dismantle FEMA, then dismantle the EPA, then eliminate the Department of Education.

That's what libertarians are looking for - then we can cut the Koch brothers taxes.

I know the real issues aren't personalities good or bad but policies. Every time I mention NSA the distracters and deflectors turn it back into Snowden to change the topic. I really would not waste so many energy debating the man with so much wrong going on within our policies. It's a red herring. Focusing on the messenger is pointless. Russ Tice exposed NSA under Bush as wiretapping all our leading politicians, judges, journalists, attorneys and generals to gain leverage over them and play ball. You think I gave a crap whether Russ broke any rules? Fortunately for him he didn't take documents and spread them around BUT that just gave the naysayers more ammo. They said see it's just his word...where's the proof. Snowden sees this and provides the proof and the same naysayers want his head for breaking a law. You can't win arguing with anyone who doesn't want to stop NSA wiretapping. I'll be curious to see if these same people comment in support as much when Jeb a Bush is president. If they suddenly oppose it at least I will feel a little better their stance was because they were defensive with respect to Obama. If they still support it then all their comments about being a team player will lead to to believe they just were NSA supporters all along. And I want an EPA...but they need to stop the foxes from running the henhouse ( now FOX News name makes more sense lol). The foot soldiers and scientists are dedicated but appointing Monsanto lobbyists and similar cretins to direct those agencies is offensive don't you agree?

In charge of the EPA, and the FDA.

Very strange thinking and behavior.

citation by a DU'er much wiser than me --
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024388396
And it’s not illegal just because it violates the Constitution – although it does (the Fourth Amendment, specifically). The illegality of the NSA’s telephone metadata program is much clearer and even more disturbing than that. The program is illegal because no law authorizes bulk collection of phone record data. To the contrary, several laws forbid it. Understanding that the program is illegal doesn’t require fancy lawyer arguments about the frustratingly terse and vague provisions of the U.S. Constitution. It requires only that you read section 215 of the Patriot Act, which is the statute identified by the NSA as providing congressional authorization for its programs. We read it. It is surprisingly clear. And it does not authorize the NSA to do what it’s doing.

Wired has an article going viral about the shady Harris Company providing Stingray devices to police depts and making them sign non-disclosure agreements. These devices mimic cell phone towers to monitor your cell phone location. They say not content. But all you do us stick a storage device in the port and it does record content. ACLU sued and guess what happened? US Marshals stepped in and seized all the documents ACLU had been granted. This is unprecedented so they are hiding something BIG. More drug war bs. What I noticed in the comments section were a combination of full blown anti-Obama racists that really believe its about Obama and not simply following in Bush's footsteps to please the Shadow Government of revolving door spys, contractors and silver-spoon sellouts and a mix of NSA type military contractor cop groups that pollute the discussion with any profane name calling to divert the argument in the diluted wrong direction. So it's true...many twisted, racist idiot republicans who make it about political parties like the ignorant misled fools they are coupled with those who depend on police state dollars distracting, obfuscating and deflecting and discussion that gets at the truth.

God help us all.

Whats crazy is that stories were written about these Stingray devices 6 years ago. We have Snowden to thank for renewed attention to it even though he never released info on this specific method.

I got it but since I don't agree with it, I must have not gotten the point? How right of you.

There are other websites for socialists, they just kind of suck because the same 23 people talking to each other gets old after a while


lets sit under the elm tree LOL

I love DU because they are more people here and it is more diverse. I agree with a progressive site like commondreams.org more but we are all preaching to the choir there so I just read editorials for fun and rarely comment as we all already agree. But I love Dean Baker, Ray McGovern, Mark Weisbrot, Medea Benjamin, Chris Hedges etc. These are experienced policy analysts who I greatly respect. They reflect the truth of our time. Some may not like what they say but that's good. I respect speaking truth to power. I'm not a fan of calling people socialists though.

that many of the so called anti-obama people who are called racist on DU are black, based on? You ought to check yourself "hardcore, left wing". Your attempts at division among the DU leftists and some members of a specific racial segment of our population is very suspicious, indeed.

I merely meant people should check themselves and do some serious soul searching if they want to be taken seriously when they call anyone that disagrees with something like NSA as racist. Believe me I know for a fact most opposition to Obama is based on racism and his policies simply opposed because is is a Black man at the helm. And a very, mild mannered reasonable guy which makes them look even worse. I'm not a freaking idiot. But because this is the truth some unsavory people exploit it to sow division within our own ranks. Every person I know who is like that is a republican. Granted I don't live in the South but this space is for discussion. I've never seen an issue where most regular people(not FOX hacks or those with agendas) on both sides agree. Maybe food labeling but definitely reigning in NSA. A much bigger % of liberals are against wiretapping as they always have been because they were bigger victims if it in the 50s red scares, 60s anti-war movement, 70s human rights trends, 80s environmental movements and so on. So yeah I believe if someone is going to call someone racist just because they want to torpedo the discussion I believe a special place in the pits should be reserved for them. I have been the victim of racism and prejudice for real. Not fake. For real. I don't appreciate shallow people playin with the term. I support Elizabeth Warren but I don't call the moderates here misogynists if they don't support jailing bankers. What is going on? But yeah I wouldn't be surprised if somebody Black was called racist to neuter discussion about something regarding invading Syria or NSA reform simply because they never migrated to the center like so many in the party. Rest assured you need not be suspicious of me. If I were president you would have all very, very liberal judges to offset the damage done to our justice system by republicans. Did you know that on the federal DC circuit court resides Bush's cousin? Walker I believe? There ate lots of nepotism cronies like that. How about a thread discussions that? I know Greenspan and Mitchell are married but these are judges. It makes me sick.

my apologies and agreement with everything you wrote.

Sorry about the mistakes. I try to reread and correct but in all honesty I've spent too much time here as it is.

but I keep coming back because I miss the sanity.

JMHO.

I'm joking ofcourse. I recall White Democrats, male and female, talking about voting for McCain after Obama won the 2004 Dem primary...like Clinton and McCain had anything more in common than skin color.

Face it. There are:

a) Dems/Liberals/DUers who hate Blacks
b) Dems/Liberals/DUers who resent the growing Latino demographic
c) Dems/Liberals/DUers who negatively stereotype Asians, like Stephen Colbert with his ching-chong ding-dong shit
d) Dems/Liberals/DUers who are sickened by gays(most Blacks, I'm ashamed to say as a straight Black man)
e) Dems/Liberals/DUers who have nothing but disgust for the poor
f) Dems/Liberals/DUers who are male chauvinistic pigs
g) Dems/Liberals/DUers who sour at atheists, Jews, Muslims, and every other non-Christian faith.

They selfishly choose the Democrat/Liberal label because the party/philosophy strives to address their social, economic, and civil liberty struggles. Once their struggle ends, these sell-outs join the Repukes. They don't give a shit about the plight of other abused demographics. To Hell with those kind of Dems/Liberals, and their poorly disguised hatred of Obama!

And don't even get me started on Dems/Liberals/DUers who hate men, Whites, heterosexuals, Christians, and the rich. Sometimes I wonder if "fighting hate with hate" is what this site is all about.

Sid

The Eternally Dissapointed are a very small pool of Liberals, and some of them aren't Liberals but more like Libertarians.

which is not at all the same thing as a Koch-head.

Koch-head, Omidyar-head, what exactly is the difference?

I mean, here I am, pretending to be a Democrat, building up deep cover over several years and thousands of posts, and, as per page 37 of the employee manual, occasionally criticizing Obama for being insufficiently progressive.

Obviously, the only reason I would do so is that I'm in the pay of the Koch brothers. Is it really so freakin' hard for a couple of gazillionaires to make sure that the check is in my mailbox by the first of every month?





By the way, given the level of intellectual discourse to which DU has sometimes been sinking, I feel compelled to mention that the foregoing is sarcasm. My apologies to all the intelligent DUers whose time I wasted with this note.

"The goals are the same" ?

Really? So let me get this straight: having been anti-war, anti government surveillance, pro choice, pro environmental protections, pro progressive taxation, pro social security and medicare, pro universal healthcare -- basically everything David Koch opposed in his platform in 1980 -- now thanks to my racist hatred of Obama (in spite of being bi-racial myself), I have totally reversed all my beliefs and am now a rightwinger dedicated to destroying the Democratic party?

And now someone on this thread says people are taking down names and keeping their eye on the "far left" at DU because we are somehow insincere in beliefs we have held our whole lives? Like some sort of Manchurian candidates, we lived ordinary lives, engaged in activism for liberal causes until the trigger "scary black man in the white house" suddenly turned us like MKUltra subjects? Is that really what is being insinuated on this thread?

DUs Loyalty Review Board:

I think it's the Ron & Rand fan club.

can it just be pure coincidence these guys drink out of the same trough of Libertarianism?

stoner lookin dudes were there with no jackets, with their foldout table of larouche brochures, harassing all the customers...

I took a brochure and kept it as a keepsake.

People who are disappointed in Obama because they think he is not regulating enough, or is not supporting social services enough are Libertarians?

Sure that makes a whole lotta sense.

DU poll, 2007ish.

Obama is a poopypants and Everyone Hates Him.
DU polls, 2008-2014

I am agreeing with the information that Cali posted.

Anything else?

Either I am being very dense about understanding you.

Or you need to crack open a dictionary and read up on recent political history.

If he is your definition of a Libertarian, then Bernie Sanders is a right wing Tea Partier.

Unless you have her on ignore, which would explain why your reply to me sounded so silly.

Until it sinks in. ALL THE WAY in.

FOX hates Snowden and GG most so, yes, people are missing something here or deliberately avoiding the obvious.

So, apparently YOU are missing something here. Or deliberately avoiding the obvious.

Im clear

I am rather unhappy with a number of things our president has done or not done, however, when, as a regular respondent to YouGov polls, I answer questions about him and his presidency with most positive answer and the highest possible ratings. I figure that in that case anything else will just give the Rs ammunition.

and/or a MIR team member of the offending posters.

You mean paid shills shouldn't be alerted on?

Great job, DI!

Disagreeing with the President on policy and holding feet to fire is not racism. I'm fact, POTUS asked for that.

....Limbaugh loving, Paulite, paid operative of the GOP?

that said that POS car salesman BS got from the likes of beckerhead, limpbrain, handmedown. That was very wrong

when WAS the last time YOU said something....ANYTHING supportive hmmmm?