What law?

ETA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141027729#post88

They are a gift to me and others.

Now I'm gonna sit here and watch because you just hurt the feelings of those who are still not over your last righteous rant. BRACE YOURSELF

What happened?

Thank you in advance.

The Will Pitt of 2001 - 2007 vs. Will Pitt 2008 - present is like night and day. Almost two different people.

not happy about it myself

You're on that line, and moving over it here.

and avoid addressing any of the substance of the post.

It's a real thing.

Give it a try.

in 2008.

Topics:

NSA spying on American citizens
warrantless wiretapping
whistleblowers
Wall Street execs appointed to the White House
Drones

The list goes on.

But it's clear why they changed. Whether or not Will changed is up for debate, but when I read his posts they are based on policy, not a person.

And very, very regrettable.

It is funny how some people's views changed once a dem was in the White House

As long as no one swears her in I'm good

that was fucking clever.

has grown here to a frightening degree, apparently the last resort when there really is no denying the facts??

There ARE some issues that are way, way more important than a few words on an internet forum. Well to most of us I suppose.

she certainly deserves it.

Maybe you could address the message instead of the messenger?

Well said

... it's riddled with bullshit.

She did everything he stated.

Is it 100% factual? Is the context perfect? No hyberbole or wild extrapolations?

It's clear you and I will disagree...

You people crack me up.

Read it again.

I was not implying you were acting like Limbaugh and O'Reilly ... until your comment to me. Nice self indulgence, Rush.

Why would you run from it on an anonymous discussion board? Unless it made you feel like an ass.

At about the same time that the Koch Brothers donated to the DLC and sat on its Executive Council, they conceived of the Tea Party. One was a rightest faction within the Democratic Party; the other would come to be a rightist faction within the Republican Party. However, the establishment of the Republican Party had the sense to fight their right wing faction. Democrats allowed their right wing faction to take over and transform the Party.

Just curious.

I understand what you mean, but answering the question head on implies agreeing with the "incredibly premature" part.

Personally I don't care what email government officials use as long as it is open to FOIAs and public archiving. In the Bush white house, IIRC, staffers and officials were given privately supplied "off of radar" laptops to use with unofficial email addresses and so forth. We weren't angry because they broke the 2014 law. We were angry because we didn't trust them to not hide all kinds of nefarious skullduggery by bypassing official email. I think it is safe to say that the republicans are going to accuse Mrs. Clinton of N.S. as well.

To me that is the same issue as Hillary's unofficial email use. I.e. now a private party gets to decide what gets turned over in a records search, which leads to the "missing minutes on the Nixon tapes" scenario.

To me, the things done by our government in our names must be available to the public. If national security is an issue, a FOIA can be denied, but at least the record is there in case a later president changes his mind or 100 years go by or whatever. But I am skeptical when any public servant has the ability to erase the past.

So from my perspective (if you'll allow me to paraphrase your question my own way), this is an issue and I think it needs to be discussed. The republicans are going to use it against her, so even if you are a Hillary supporter you ought to want to be out front discussing it and putting it to bed, if you can, before she announces her candidacy.

Why are you speaking for Pitt? Do you feel he's incapable?

And I DID NOT compare Pitt to Limbaugh or O'Reilly other than his selective use of the truth.

If you and your baby bird feel that I have somehow harmed Pitt's fragile ego, well ... who really cares?

otherwise why craft a response?

Keep coming back.

yeah, that's much preferable to caring.

Too many people at this place just jump in anywhere making dorky statements out of context and think that's the equivalent of being profound.

I've had it with people who "really enjoy throwing salt in the wounds" and think that doing so somehow ads a measure of quality to the discourse.

If you can't see that this is the behavior of a troll, then not only are you trolling, but you're oblivious to your own negativity.

Listen, pal -- you injected yourself in the middle of a conversation with a snarky comment, and you want me to "add a measure of quality to the discourse"? I see -- do as I say, not as I do.

And calling people trolls is a big, fucking violation of DU rules -- not to mention a huge dose of outrageous hypocrisy on your part. If I were a run-of-the-mill DU prick, I'd alert this. But, I'll leave that to you.

every one of your posts in this thread is slathered in snark. You admit you like to piss people off, but I make a comment and suddenly you're all "listen, pal-- you interjected yourself" as if DU were your private venue

You can troll all you like, but expect to catch hell now and then.

Just thought I'd help out.

Your exact words:

My favorite is Keystone -- the make-believe problem. The two most ridiculous aspects: a) Keystone will add about 1% to the domestic, total length of petroleum pipeline and b) the filthy shit the Canadians are ripping from the ground will be (and is) part of the global petroleum market no matter what sort of empty, symbolic gesture we make.

Nothing more.

Spend your energy and contributions (assuming you put your money where your mouth is) on something that will make a difference.

Keystone is just another Tea Party Moment for progressives.

A party platform that advocates all the good stuff you cite and a nominee who, at one time or another, has actively opposed every item on the list.

It's been hard at times coming to grips with it in the Obama era, it will be orders of magnitude harder with Clinton as our nominee.

All they have to do is ask the NSA for copies of all her emails. You know they are all in the data center in (I said Utah, but I've been corrected -- thank you) wherever they're storing all your, my, and Hillary's emails.

Or, they could just ask Bibi for copies. I'd be very surprised if Israel didn't have them. Very surprised.

Or maybe Putin, except he's probably not speaking to us right now.

Or we could ask the Germans, British Intelligence, the French -- in fact any major power.

And, as a last resort, Anonymous.

Appreciate the update

It had to be said.

because Big Brother's got everything it needs anyway.

DU gets scarier every damn day.

NSA is supposedly protecting us from terrorist attacks. Having to dig through billions of emails to isolate Hillary's public business emails would be a distraction from their vital mission, no? I didn't think anyone would seriously suggest excusing Hillary from the law because, given enough manpower, the NSA can drop everything else and come up with Hillary's emails.

Besides, are we really sure the NSA has hers?

Wasn't there some flap when Merkel was supposedly shocked to learn that her personal phone was being surveilled and not just her German Government phones? Hmmmm.

from DU's looney left and its even loonier conspiracy theory that the DNC has been trying to avoid a primary challenge to Hillary, and most especially to avoid a primary challenge from the anointed one's left.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren-2016-elections-99869.html#ixzz3TAVO0MoF

Jesus.

So it's not just DUers who think there shouldn't be a primary.

“When I took over the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] in 2005, we instituted a new policy, we tried to avoid primaries, because primaries are really a killer,” Schumer said Thursday at The Atlantic’s Washington Ideas Forum.

And they seem to REALLY want us to vote for Hillary.

So everyone, go ahead, break the law, it's fine because Big Brother has got the goods on you anyway.

The info in there is very specific and sourced.

HRC broke no law

can't admit they made a mistake .

Therefore, she is blameless in all things, including this.

Violation of law? No problem. It's probably a foolish law. Besides, as I just read in a post on this thread, the NSA has her emails.

So, in all. Nothing to see here. Tempest in a Tea Pot Dome.

Set up your armed camps, folks, pick your hat and let the simian play begin.

Corporate media knows exactly how predictable left wing politics can be.

Do you support the PATRIOT Act?

Did you support the Iraq war?

Do you support Wall Street crime run rampant?

Where are you on Keystone and tar sands oil?

...what color hat are you wearing?

"You're either with us or the terrorists."

Personality over policy, a lot of pundits make a living on the Two Armed Camps approach, each weaponized with....nothing at all.

fundamentalist Jews
fundamentalist Christians
fundamentalist Muslims
fundamentalist right wingers
fundamentalist left wingers


to different standards...


If somebody tells me they have it all figured out I'm running.

You know we have Democrats that don't have her baggage.

I'm serious. Give us a good Democratic challenger that has the ability to win the Presidential election. For those that continue to hold on to the hope Elizabeth Warren will run, that just isn't happening. So who? Joe Biden? Bernie Sanders? Martin O'Malley? Jim Webb? Please tell me which of them are more progressive than HRC and if they won the primary could win the general. I would love to see them all run, just so she would be challenged and perhaps be forced more to the left. My concern is the General election.

I like Hillary. Am I in-sync with all the positions she had taken........No. But if I have a choice between Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, or Jeb Bush, by God Hillary will get my vote. There's too much at stake (like Supreme Court appointments) to give the White House to the Republicans.

Why does anyone think she has to be the next candidate? I'm tired of her being shoved in my face. It only makes me want her less, if that is at all possible.

be a more acceptable candidate for those that are against HRC. It fine bashing her, if that serves a purpose, but who do you suggest as an alternative? And will that alternative have a chance in the general?