Skip to main content

That is all.

Signed,
A concerned & violated citizen


EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What do you have against building bridges? (22+ / 0-)

    Reaching across the aisle...

    Working WITH the Republicans...

    Putting aside party differences...

    I got more... lemme know if you need em.

    /snark

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 08:50:11 PM PDT

  •  My hope is this is something they feel can't just (8+ / 0-)

    be abruptly stopped and that's why they opposed it, i hope they plan on winding it down like thy did the email metadata.

  •  Actually Obama's on the Right side of the argument (8+ / 0-)

    Just saying...

    History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

    by quill on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 09:43:29 PM PDT

  •  Well Beavis and Butthead have nothing to hide. (7+ / 0-)

    Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -- Frederick Douglass

    by Cassiodorus on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 09:55:11 PM PDT

  •  So, another diary based, heck, even ... (6+ / 0-)

    ... titled as a logical fallacy. And please, for the fourth time, provide some actual legal analysis to support this nasty, yet utterly baseless, allegation:

    "A concerned & violated citizen"

    I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

    by Tortmaster on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:07:20 PM PDT

    •  so you're saying that he's not feeling... (10+ / 0-)

      concerned and violated? last i checked, he is the arbiter of how he feels and not anyone else.

      hell - i'm a concerned and violated citizen as well.

      you telling us we have no right to feel that way is utter manure.

      "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." ~George Orwell "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." ~Charles Beard

      by poligirl on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:28:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You can feel any way you ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mrblifil, duhban, JoanMar

        ... want, but if you want me or anyone else to believe it, then show some proof. Thanks, though, for the strawman diversion! I didn't realize that the Constitution could be divined using only "feelings."

        I think I'm gonna do a diary tomorrow with all the strawmen I've received over the last month and a half when I've asked people to prove, based on Constitutional law, the Constitution, federal case law or any other binding precedent since the Magna Carta, why the NSA program is any kind of "violation" whatsoever.

        Ignore the baseless allegations if you wish, but I won't.

        I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

        by Tortmaster on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:16:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Perhaps like I feel about (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming, poligirl, NonnyO

          habeas corpus?

        •  proof that i'm a concerned and violated citizen? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stevemb, NonnyO

          well, if you look at my history of diary reccing, you'll see my pattern of concern and i am a Verizon customer, and we know they've been handing this stuff over as part of the gov't Constitutionally dubious program.

          so there's your proof of my feeling concerned and violated.

          in short - even if you don't think i have a right to be violated - which is a really dickish thing to do - you do not get to decide how someone feels, period. end of story.

          furthermore - how is stating how someone feels his or herself an accusation in the first place? surely you know what 'accusation' means right?

          "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." ~George Orwell "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." ~Charles Beard

          by poligirl on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 07:56:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  He is violated by the (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban, AgavePup, sviscusi, sunbro, JoanMar

      NSA every time that they listen to his calls and read his emails. And he knows that they do this, as impossible as it may seem that one organization can listen to every communication of all 350 million of us, because Glen Greenwald and Edward Snowden said so.

      •  And adminstration apologist #1 shows up (7+ / 4-)

        To tell us that. How nice.




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

        by DeadHead on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:19:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And a defeat is ... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban, Tony Situ, doc2, JoanMar

        ... "victory"! Up is down. Right is wrong. In his other diary, supposed Democrats are calling Tammy Duckworth, Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz such names as "demons" and "scumbags."

        Based on nothing. Based on a program that searches you 1,000X less than the Census and 100X less than a phone book.

        This is embarrassing.

        I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

        by Tortmaster on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:19:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All is well. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lost and Found

          Nothing is different than it ever was.
          The phone book...good god,
          IT"S THE PHONE BOOK!

          (now be a doll and tell us all how you know those parameters given that it's a top secret program)

          •  I have actually ... (5+ / 0-)

            ... been paying attention. Perhaps you should pay some attention to this or this?

            (By the way, your argument that the program is secret kinda cuts both ways, my friend. D'oh!)

            All very embarrassing.

            I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

            by Tortmaster on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:44:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Quit apologizing. (0+ / 0-)

              You shouldn't be embarrassed by your blind allegiance to those publicly released statements (especially when cited by "The Daily Beast"), especially in light of verifiable revelations proving publicly released statements inaccurate.

              The inaccuracies are documented--so again, how do you know definitively the phone book is violating my privacy worser?

              Embarrassing indeed...

              •  Haha! I have nothing to apologize ... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                duhban, doc2, JoanMar

                ... about. I'm not the one supporting a diary based entirely (and solely) on a logical fallacy, from an author who claims the President is killing privacy with a program that included a grand total of under 300 query searches last year out of over 600,000,000+ telephone numbers and who knows how many individual email accounts in the United States based on no legal reasoning whatsoever. I'm not the one comparing America to Nazi Germany, the Stazi or 1984 based on a program 1,000X less intrusive than the Census and 100X less intrusive than your average telephone book.

                As to your other points, the diary I linked to above contains screengrabs from a letter sent by a USDOJ attorney to the Judge in the NSA case. If you think that it is full of lies, then that is your right. I will think that that is being paranoid, as the attorney would be disbarred by the judiciary and forced to testify at a committee hearing by Congress. So, there are two different branches of Government providing checks and balances for that sort of thing. But, again, you are allowed to believe whatever you want ....

                The telephone book has your name and address and ... voila ... your telephone number in it. Any person can look inside it to find out that information and arrive at your front doorstep. If you have been following this debate at all, you'd know that the Government only keeps anonymous telephone numbers or email addresses, and only if that anonymous number or address is directly linked to a terrorist's number or address can your information be found out.

                Believe what you want, but if you fall for all of this crap, I will believe that that is embarrassing.

                I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

                by Tortmaster on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:11:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  That's true, it cuts both ways. (0+ / 0-)

              For instance, you don't know if I'm diddling your wife, so I deserve the benefit of a doubt on that.

              UNLESS I've diddled her before and you caught me doing it, after I lied to you about it with a straight face.

              But I swear I'm not diddling her right this moment (obviously my fingers are typing) and you can't prove I am.

            •  Like everything else out there (5+ / 0-)

              It ends at Smith v. Maryland, a case from 1979, where the Supreme Court examined the two tests in Katz namely:

              Consistently with Katz, this Court uniformly has held that the application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "justifiable," a "reasonable," or a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action. E.g., Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 439 U. S. 143, and n. 12 (1978); id. at 439 U. S. 150, 439 U. S. 151 (concurring opinion); id. at 439 U. S. 164 (dissenting opinion); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 433 U. S. 7 (1977); United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 425 U. S. 442 (1976); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1, 410 U. S. 14 (1973); Couch v. United States, 409 U. S. 322, 409 U. S. 335-336 (1973); United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745, 401 U. S. 752 (1971) (plurality opinion); Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U. S. 364, 392 U. S. 368 (1968); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 392 U. S. 9 (1968). This inquiry, as Mr. Justice Harlan aptly noted in his Katz concurrence, normally embraces two discrete questions. The first is whether the individual, by his conduct, has "exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy," 389 U.S. at 389 U. S. 361 -- whether, in the words of the Katz majority, the individual has shown that "he seeks to preserve [something] as private." Id. at 389 U. S. 351. The second question is whether the individual's subjective expectation of privacy is "one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,'" id. at 389 U. S. 361 -- whether, in the words of the Katz majority, the individual's expectation, viewed objectively, is "justifiable" under the circumstances. Id. at 389 U. S. 353. [Footnote 5] See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S.
              Except that it doesn't really end there.

              In 1996,  Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that had a Section 702 entitled "Privacy of customer information" that is codified at:

              Title 47 › Chapter 5 › Subchapter II › Part I › § 222

              And in that we find:

              (c) Confidentiality of customer proprietary network information
                  (1) Privacy requirements for telecommunications carriers
                      Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of
                      (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or
                      (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.
              What is customer proprietary network information? The Telecommunications Act of 1996 defines it as:
              (h) Definitions
                  As used in this section:
                  (1) Customer proprietary network information
                  The term “customer proprietary network information” means—
                      (A) information that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship; and
                      (B) information contained in the bills pertaining to telephone exchange service or telephone toll service received by a customer of a carrier;
              except that such term does not include subscriber list information.
              What happened here is that Congress explicitly created a privacy interest in the numbers you dial, or the numbers that dialed you, in addition to all those other things listed in the definition above.

              It addresses both tests in Smith v. Maryland.

              But besides all of that, the government is collecting that telephone metadata under the Business Records Order issued by the FISC and is based on an argument pertaining to Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act which allows the government to collect via an Order "any tangible thing" from a business.

              The government is explicitly avoiding anything to do with the laws related to Pen Registers / Trap & Trace. They don't want to go anywhere near them because it would require warrants that were narrowly targeted.

              Further, the government has argued that once collected it can search the data without triggering a "search" or a "seizure" under the 4th Amendment because the data being searched is already in their possession. That is, they argue that they don't need any warrant or any order from any court, let alone the FISC.

              This is how they are avoiding the warrant requirements related to the wiretap laws even though the data they are collecting with respect to telephony metadata is exactly the same as if they were retrieving it using the pen register statutes.

              The data collection authorized is required to be related to an investigation. However the government is not pursing collection based on an investigation of certain individuals or certain groups or even of specific events. It is clear from the kinds of questions being asked in the public committee hearings that the government is playing semantic games here as well.

              The response to the court in the ACLU suit mentioned that the NSA analysts only perform few queries against the data collected and that they have to go to the FISC for approval. Did it only 300 times in 2012 they claim.  But what they are doing here is a bit of slight of hand because the NSA isn't the one going to court to collect the telephony metadata but rather it is the FBI as we see in the Verizon Order. So there is no way to ascertain whether one has anything to do with the other.

              Further, it is silent on the fact that the government performs a process called contact chaining that by public admission the other day may go to three hops. That contact chaining is performed by computers not people. And the Mukasey Memorandum states clearly that the government believes they need no order from any court to do so. Which means the government can access the same data via a contact chain database without accessing the telephony metadata database at all yet retrieve the same information without ever having any oversight, rigorous or otherwise, by any of the branches of government.

              The government is desperate to try to keep the Supreme Court from getting anywhere near this stuff because almost all of what the government is doing here relies on not only Katz but the two tests of Katz being the only tests of 4th amendment protection. And this Supreme Court is rather pissed at that government position as can be seen in Jones from August of 2012 and Jardinnes v Florida from February of this year. While neither have to do with telephony metadata they both were based on the government's narrow Katz view of the 4th amendment.

        •  We did the math the other day... (5+ / 0-)

          When the diary about three hops came out.  Using three hops as the basis, and with a starting list of just 500 targets, the NSA could spy on every single person in the United States.

          •  Oh, well, they could. (0+ / 0-)

            So they must be doing so, right? You know, the "government" owns enough thermonuclear warheads to kill all of us in a millisecond. Oh no! Call your Congressman! They are going to kill us all! Because they can.

            •  I think you've made some grave misunderstanding (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheMomCat

              about where the burden of proof lies.  The NSA has broken the law before (Church Committee) in truly heinous ways.  And they have a fiduciary responsibility to us.  They are not citizens for whom due process is due.  They are not entitled to the benefit of a doubt on these questions without a full airing of the facts.  Failure to disclose those facts is sufficient for us, the public, to suspect them of wrongdoing.  A reasonable suspicion is all that is required, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

        •  I'm not embarrassed by this site. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sviscusi

          Because I've never agreed with everything said here. True, the fog of paranoia is thick at times these days, with any and all claims made about US spying or military activities lapped up by an audience convinced that no "whistleblower" claim can be untrue, and that no self-serving leaker does not deserve to be hailed as a "whistleblower". As long as there are plenty of reasonable people here (for instance, those who do not think that Nancy Pelosi is a jack-booted thug), the site will endure. In my experience, the riff-raff either leave on their own volition or the fever passes and they come to their senses. No worries.

      •  Three things get better and cheaper every day (4+ / 0-)

        and they are:  (1) mass data storage, (2) processing power, and (3) data mining software.

        So much for your strawman.

        "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." - James Madison

        by gharlane on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:20:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Non sequitur. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          doc2

          I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

          by Tortmaster on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:58:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You can store whatever you'd (0+ / 0-)

          like. But for a human being to actually read my emails or listen to my phone calls would actually take time. You can't do that to 350 million people. And if the metadata of my calls is being stored, so what? I really don't care. No one is recording my phone calls, and no one has the time or the inclination to listen to them live. This is the most ridiculous example of mass paranoia this community has ever suffered. Thank goodness the American people by and large are more balanced than we are on this occasion.

    •  Why, you're a lawyer, aren't you? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      barleystraw

      You provide your legal analysis to counter it, and he can write the fucking diaries he wants.

      Deal?




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:42:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Haha! Another strawman diversion! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban, JoanMar

        I'm collecting them and will do a diary soon. It is the diarist's claim, can he not back it up? Can't you come up with any reasonable argument based on the law to back him up? I presume you rec'd the diary and tipped the tip jar. Why? On what legal basis.

        I have backed up my legal and practical reasoning here, here, here and many other places. Still no response.

        I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

        by Tortmaster on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:38:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can you tell me (0+ / 0-)

          How asking you to provide your own legal analysis and letting the diarist write what he wants is a "strawman diversion?" What makes it a "strawman" type, and not just a regular ole diversion?

          And when you're done enlightening me, maybe you can tell me why my needing to provide you with a legal basis for tipping and reccing a fucking Daily Kos diary isn't a "strawman diversion."




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:04:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree, it is a "fucking ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban, JoanMar

            ... Daily Kos diary"!

            As for your question about how the "strawman" worked in this exchange, well, DeadHead, we've got an initial question from me asking the diarist to back up an utterly devoid-of-proof argument.

            Now, my question isn't a strawman because all I did was to ask for proof of the original nasty allegation. What you did was to avoid my question entirely and create your own implied strawman: Something along the lines of, "See, you can't even answer the question" or, "Why should we do your work for you."

            When I actually responded with proof that the diary is silly and embarrassing, then I naturally suggested that you having rec'd and tipped the diary was silly and embarrassing.

            You see, I think it is important to have some minimally basic argument ready to back up any position I take. But, you have again managed to NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION with diversionary tactics.

            I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

            by Tortmaster on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:11:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I hate to break it to you, but (0+ / 0-)

              This isn't a court of law. I know that's your default mode of thinking, but not everyone is a lawyer.

              You're just doing what you always do in these diaries, you latch on to a few words said by a non-lawyer (I assume) expressing his view on what he sees as an assault on on our privacy/rights, and expect him to draft a fucking legal opinion supporting it.

              Basically, you make unreasonable demands that are impossible to meet in an attempt to discredit these types of diaries.

              It's obvious, and, as it turns out, ineffective.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:36:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're right, it appears .. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                duhban, JoanMar

                ... to be unreasonable to request that certain people support their arguments.

                I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

                by Tortmaster on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:56:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here is the 'argument' for which you're requesting (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  stevemb

                  a detailed legal analysis in support, from the diary:

                  A concerned & violated citizen.
                  My Dream Team will get right on it, on behalf of the diarist.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:21:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Seems you have been (0+ / 0-)

                out-argued, DH. :)

                Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

                by JoanMar on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 07:52:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's a matter of opinion. (0+ / 0-)

                  One shared by you and one other person, who, as it happens, doesn't like me.

                  And, this isn't my diary. It's isn't my responsibility to defend what amounts to this very, very specious claim: "a concerned & violated citizen."

                  But thank you for your comment, nevertheless.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 03:20:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Here you go (0+ / 0-)

      I'm a verizon customer.  Verizon was ordered to hand over all of their phone records to the NSA, which would include my phone records.  My phone records are not relevant to any investigations so my right to privacy has been violated.

      "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

      by Quanta on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:48:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Both Bachmann and King believe that (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AgavePup, Tony Situ, sunbro, duhban

    2+2=4; so if we believe that are we wrong?

    You can't decide on important issues either by agreeing with Michelle Bachmann OR by disagreeing with her. She is not smart enough for you to rely on her for any important signals whatsoever. Same goes for Peter King, or Dick Cheney, or anyone else.  Barack Obama rarely agrees with these people, but when he does, he's not going to childishly change positions just to "do the opposite" of them. And I'm disappointed that anyone would want their president to decide things in such an arbitrary way.

    •  This reminds me of logic class from High School: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      barleystraw

      "True or False: All that glitters is not gold; gold glitters, therefore gold is not gold."

      The fallacy, of course, comes from ignoring the premise, that all that glitters isn't gold.  Not anything that glitters, all.

      Similarly, David posits that when you're on the same side of a debate about Constitutional depredations as two of our more Constitutionally challenged Congresspeople, you're on the wrong side.  Not the same side of a debate about anything.

      I'm actually embarrassed to have to explain that here to someone who's been around this forum as long as you have.

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

      by nailbender on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:55:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Doesn't matter what it is about. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stevemb

        You don't trust Bachmann to tell you the answer to a question. No matter what. On any subject.

        •  I feel the same way about Obama these days (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nailbender, stevemb




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ergo, 2+2 = ? (0+ / 0-)

          You're in a logic sinkhole.  Try not responding.

          "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

          by nailbender on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:24:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, you are. (0+ / 0-)

            Bachmann's supporters also could say that she must be wrong since she is agreeing with Obama, their nemesis. So, following the logic of your argument that going the opposite way of others is a reasonable way of deciding important issues, both Obama AND Bachmann should switch positions. It is you that is in a logical quagmire. You don't decide issues based on how someone else has decided them; you use your own noggin. I can't believe someone here is arguing against thinking.

  •  The National Security State will be a One Party (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gharlane, Dumbo, stevemb

    State.

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:43:37 PM PDT

  •  What is gained from a guilt by association (9+ / 0-)

    argument?  

    David, I love you dearly, and I signed the petition, and for once in my entire life, the entire Republican Congressional delegation from Utah agrees with me which seriously creeps me out and gives me pause, but if one is going to rub people's noses in Michele Bachmann and Peter King, the next step is to have ones own nose rubbed in Gohmert, Chaffetz, Rob Bishop, Chris Stewart, and a bunch of other nasty-ass, mouth breathing teabaggers.  How does this help fight against NSA overreach?  What does it say about anyone's argument to have an idiot or several agreeing or disagreeing with them?  What do you hope to gain by this approach? And yes, I know you've only addressed the pres in your terse diary, but I've seen this slung at kossacks all evening, and if it doesn't get slung in this very diary, I will eat my hat.

    If you can explain to me how this isn't just pie and ad hom, I'm willing to listen.

    "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

    by middleagedhousewife on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:06:17 PM PDT

  •  The vote was far closer than I expected... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eztempo, Dumbo, stevemb

    ...and with any luck the amendment will be brought up again and again, till it passes.

    I agree with those who say that this vote should be a litmus test for reelection, and now's the time to use our voice to let members of Congress know how we feel about their votes on this.

    (I plan to call Waxman's office to thank him for NOT being on King's and Bachmann's side.)

  •  I'm curious (5+ / 0-)

    since Bachmann was also against SOPA/PIPA does this mean that the bill was in fact a good idea?

    Another question since the congressman who proposed the bill is against any and all funding of Planned Parenthood does that mean anyone supporting this bill is against Planned Parenthood?

    See while it's handy even fun to make broad statements because people we don't like do certain things it is not always helpful. If anything the vote today showed that this is an issue that crosses a lot of idelogical lines with people like Bachmann voting with people  like Pelsoi (and despite the insults leveled at her she's been one of the most progressive memebers in the House for quite some time).

    So maybe we could move this beyond sound bites and being clever to having an actual discussion? Because the fact is that if you want to flat out defund the NSA or even some of  it's programs that is going to have consequences and I think we should talk about those consequences.

    Or we could just keep making blanket statements.

    In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
    Shop Kos Katalogue
    Der Weg ist das Ziel

    by duhban on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:08:37 AM PDT

    •  Um, this diary is ISSUE-SPECIFIC (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dumbo, TheMomCat

      In the title it says "NSA debate."

      There was no "blanket statement" about anything.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:44:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  um this diary is a logical travesty (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi

        hence the point being made.

        Please keep up

        In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
        Shop Kos Katalogue
        Der Weg ist das Ziel

        by duhban on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:59:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uhhh (0+ / 0-)

          What the fuck are you talking about?

          And, why did you HR me above?




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:17:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asf (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi

            1. Reread my comments, you should be able to puzzle it out

            2. Because you broke the rules with that 'number 1 apologist' remark.

            In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
            Shop Kos Katalogue
            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:12:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What rule, duhban? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dumbo, TheMomCat

              "apologist" isn't an HRable term.

              Or did you just pile on after you determined it was "safe" to do so?




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:25:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

                if you don't like that frankly too bad. Your words were insulting and the comment served no purpose other then to demean. Much like this current one does.

                In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
                Shop Kos Katalogue
                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:30:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Just because you disagree doesn't make it a rule (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm glad you got your jollies getting back at me, just don't be under the impression you're fooling anyone.

                  You wouldn't have HRed it if there weren't three HRs already on the comment.

                  You're so brave!!!




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:36:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  and you continue to behave in exactly the (0+ / 0-)

                    way that got you those hrs.

                    But by all means please proceed.

                    I however am not going to debate my choices as a trusted user with you, if an admin wants to discuss it with me or tell me that I was wrong then they know how to reach me.

                    This topic is over unless you want to take one last shot at me

                    In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
                    Shop Kos Katalogue
                    Der Weg ist das Ziel

                    by duhban on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:43:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah, like I need (0+ / 0-)

                      a fucking lecture about behavior and trusted user status from you.

                      You go on with your brave HRing self, duhban. You're an asset to community moderation on Daily Kos.




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:56:03 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  you're in no danger of HRs from me, (4+ / 0-)

                      Duhban, but if you act like that, sooner or later you're going to get hammered by everybody.

                      •  I thought him out of line for that one comment (0+ / 0-)

                        I've never given him an hr before, hell I've never even called on him to be given hrs and even now as he continues the very behavior that brought on those hrs I still am not doing that.

                        If calling out hypocrisy and trying to be impartial gets me 'hammered by everyone' so be it. I'd rather be me then not.

                        In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
                        Shop Kos Katalogue
                        Der Weg ist das Ziel

                        by duhban on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:04:39 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So, by that reasoning, the fact that you didn't (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          DeadHead, TheMomCat

                          give this a donut (or anyone else for that matter) means that the content is fully justified...

                             That's so fucking outrageously dumb (6+ / 0-)

                              and gobsmackingly achingly strawmannishly derpy at the same time that I think even Andrew Sullivan circa 2002 might not posted it to try and sneer silence out of people.

                              Bravo. D-Man. You make Andy Dick look like Whitey Bulger.

                              In lieu of your being pathologically incapable of convincing people to agree to put on that fucking ballcap for a team, right or fucking wrong, with you and your posse of pissants instead of making up their own minds, you think you will be a force of intimidation. I get it. It's your schtick. Well, my. How scary you are. Like rancid mayo is frightful to an aircraft carrier. What with your sneering and searing intellectual wit that wouldn't get you out of the shallow end of the kiddie pool or an old Yahoo message board comment thread.

                              Duh? Can I call you Duh, this is why I almost never respond to you or your little comments. It's like trying to have a conversation with a passing fart rising up from a nearby table at Denny's. It's gas. It smells bad for a second, and then fades away until the next fart. Also gas.

                              I mean, Jesus H. Christmas Holy Bean on Toast....

                                  I think I even have a giant scale some where or we can get really medieval and just start tossing people into the lake. I'm sure 'god' will make the guilty sink and the innocent float.

                              Did that sound smart in your head? Did it?

                              I bet it did.

                              I bet you think every time you have one of these little gnats of a thought, that somewhere Michael Moore is crying.

                              I bet you mouthed the words as you typed that shit, and then hit post with a anti-humble pie-eating grin worthy of Dick Cheney unexpectedly walking into a baby kicking contest.

                              Goodness. You didn't even capitalize the G in God.

                              All cappers are knee cappers compared to that.

                              If you are going to get your holier-than-thou smarter-than-thou Kathleen Parker meets Joe Lieberman at the corner of Harold Ford and Lanny Davis on, at least capitalize the G in 'God' to drive that motherfucker's Very Serious Seriousness home.

                              You call that a withering and intimidating broadside?

                              So scathing that people's hair will winnow white in terror at the mere thought of raising your seething ire?

                              I'm never going to believe that your various and varied liberal frenemies online are the main reason that bad things happen to people and institutions that you like unless you go for the gusto with this kind of thing.

                              Your little sneering thine enemies into fearful silence routine doesn't work if you aren't Algonquin Round Table intimidating.

                              Look at what you wrote.

                                  I think I even have a giant scale some where or we can get really medieval and just start tossing people into the lake. I'm sure 'god' will make the guilty sink and the innocent float.

                              Wowsers. Remind me never to cross you. I hate having to hose roadkill off of my undercarriage.

                              If you were six, I wouldn't put that on the fridge next to the yellow and orange crayon blob with 'DOG' written over the top of it so mommy and daddy know that it was supposed to be Fluffy.

                              You make 'Two and a Half Men' seem like early Mamet.

                              The M. Night Shyamalan hook in your story is that you have a coherent point.

                              For future reference... yawn.

                              You are about as intellectually intimidating as Chris Farley. Like, now. Dig him up and that is about you on the brought low into silence scale.

                              I'm not in one of your little Rox vs. Sux circle jerks of a circle, I don't give a shit about putting Edward Snowden on a stamp or up on a cross, I come to neither praise or damn people you love or love to hate, so play with your own snot as a response to somebody else's comment you smugly mediocre little nugget of nada with a homemade hall monitor's sash.

                              Next time I'll be unkind.

                              I am a Loco-Foco. I am from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.

                              by LeftHandedMan on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:13:13 PM PDT

                          Just want to make sure you're not a hypocrite.

                          'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

                          by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 06:57:21 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  As to #1 (0+ / 0-)

              No, there's no "puzzling out" your comments.

              You just said something was a "logical travesty," provided irrelevant comparisons that disprove nothing regarding Obama being on the same side of the NSA issue as Bachmann and King.

              How are Bachmann and King not on the same side as the president on this issue?

              The votes don't lie.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:32:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  are you really missing the point (0+ / 0-)

                or just being blatantly  obtuse? There's nothing irrevelant about what I said and I already explained why.

                If you want to take on the merits of that argument then do so but your attempts to declare me wrong and thus that's it are just silly and illogical. Just because you don't like the argument doesn't make it wrong and one day maybe you'll understand that.

                If you have nothing of substance I'm going to stop indulging you.

                In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
                Shop Kos Katalogue
                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:46:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I see you learned a new word today. (0+ / 0-)

                  That's the first time I've seen you use 'obtuse.'

                  Good for you.

                  Now, how are Bachmann and King being aligned with the president on this issue, as evidenced by their 'no' votes on this amendment, a "logical travesty?" Because of their votes on some other shit?




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:04:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, that's horseshit (2+ / 0-)

              we talked about that in another diary night before last.  Apologist isn't an over the top insult, or even an insult at all.  Go to Google and type "definition apologist."  See what comes up first.

              •  I disagree and stand by my decesion (0+ / 0-)

                since me, you and DeadHead are supposedly equals in moderation my opinion counts as much as yours or his. If you want to bring it to the admins you are welcome to and if they have an issue with my use of my status then of course I'll listen.

                Till then I will act as I think I should.

                In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
                Shop Kos Katalogue
                Der Weg ist das Ziel

                by duhban on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:06:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Progressives: When you agree with Lyndon LaRouche (8+ / 0-)

    and Rand Paul, you're on the wrong side of the NSA debate.
    See what I did there? :)

    The Troub, I've seen your diaries before.
    You're capable of much better than this.  I'm not, but you are. :)

    Just as Rand Paul's and Lyndon Larouche's agreement with progressives on this issue cannot be used to conclude the progressives are wrong on the issue, so Bachman's agreement with the President is not sufficient to prove that that President is on the wrong side of the issue.

    And personally, Rand Paul is a more odious figure than Michelle Bachman.  Bachman is a clown and a buffoon.  Rand Paul is a neo-confederate sympathizer, a racist, has said he opposes the 1965 civil rights act.  And he's a serious candidate for the Republican presidential nomination (Bachman was a joke of a candidate, like Herman Cain and Gingrich).  

    If reverse-appeals-to-authority ("You're wrong because an odious person agrees with you") are the order of the day, then progressives should be careful, because I don't know that there is a more odious figure than Rand Paul.

    IMO, there are both good and horrible people on both sides of the issue.  I don't agree that all Dems that voted with the President are "scumbags" like I saw a highly rec'ed comment proclaim.  There are scumbags that agree with him, but there are also very respectable people that agree with him.  There are very respectable people that agree with progressives on the issue and there are also scumbags that agree with them.

    •  nuance I am afraid is dead (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sviscusi

      people are letting their emotions and outrage do their thinking for them.

      In the time that I have been given, I am what I am
      Shop Kos Katalogue
      Der Weg ist das Ziel

      by duhban on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:14:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Tony, I SORT of agree with you (0+ / 0-)

      about the pointlessness of appeals to authority, or reverse appeals...

      But I've become so used to see them, usually used against me, it's kind of funny to use them in reverse.

      When it comes to HUMAN RIGHTS, though, I think that Dick Cheney is the very definition of the reverse authority that I would oppose.  I might agree with him on some other issue -- I don't know what,  but it's possible.  On HUMAN RIGHTS, though, he will always be the mirror opposite of me.  Not because he's a bad guy, and he is a bad guy, but just because Dick Cheney has a proven track record he is outspoken about and proud of.

      So I'm not a Dick Cheney Democrat.  Anybody who is a Dick Cheney Democrat on HUMAN RIGHTS (that specific issue) is not somebody I want to be associated with.

      Likewise, with Rand Paul, I might agree with him most of the time on human rights issues, but on ECONOMIC ISSUES, I oppose everything he says.  On that one issue, I am not a Paul Democrat.  I can't say I would be nearly as offended if somebody called me a Paul Democrat, because Paul hasn't committed anything so heinous and beyond the pale as the war crimes of Cheney.  But yeah, on ECONOMIC ISSUES, he's always going to be the definition of what I oppose.

      So why I still support what David is saying is that we ARE talking about human rights, the civil rights of every American citizen, US.  That's one reason that I dont' want to be on the same side as people who are so abysmally bad on HUMAN RIGHTS as Michele Bachmann and Peter King.  An appeal to reverse authority, in this instance, thus, is justifiable.  

      •  Rand Paul opposes the 1965 Civil Rights Act (0+ / 0-)

        So I wouldn't say he has a great HUMAN RIGHTS record, in fact, given the history of the country he Lives in, I'd say he has a horrible human rights record, the worst record of anyone in Congress.  IMO, when it comes to human rights, the US history's worst offenses on that score have been about race, by far, not about any of the other issues that Rand Paul's hatred of government causes him to fall on the "right side" of as a side effects.  So if a US public official is wrong on HUMAN RIGHTS when it comes too race, then he's not one that progressives should want to side with on HUMAN RIGHTS.

        As evil as Cheney is, he's no racist, nor does he oppose the civil rights act or the enforcement thereof.  Given this country's history, Paul's HUMAN RIGHTS stance is worse than Cheney's, Paul's saving grace is that he hasn't been in a position of power to implement his ideas, unlike Cheney.

        And there are more to HUMAN RIGHTS than race or NSA, such as worker safety rights, child labor rights, the right to breath clean air and drink clean water, disability rights, Tec, all of which Paul comes down on the wrong side of, unlike Cheney, and those things have more immediate impact on people's Lives than NSA does.

        So when it comes to reverse appeals to authority, I wouldn't agree that Cheney is the worse of the two to be in agreement with even on HUMAN RIGHTS.  

        They both suck though. :). Which is one reason why the reverse appeal to authority doesn't work.  This diarist has made strong, eloquent arguments for the progressive side of this issue, and other issues as well.  But this diary is nowhere near up to his usual standards.

        •  There is only one of the two (0+ / 0-)

          that is guilty of an indictable crime against humanity.  I don't have to defend Ron Paul at all to point out the enormous difference that makes.

          Ron Paul is also, by the way, opposed to torture.  Good for him.  I can oppose him on everything else but embrace him on that point.  There are too many on the right that are actually PROUD of torturing prisoners of the US government and want the world to know about it so they can all know what big swingin' dick people we are.  

          I also suspect that if/when it comes out that Obama is still torturing people, that there will be some here who find ways to justify/rationalize it.  If that ever comes to pass, you know which side I'll be on without any resort to appeals to authority, positive or negative.

          •  I know Paul opposes torture. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi

            Which affects like 0.00000001% of the population.  He also opposes enforcement of civil rights law.  Which affects over 30% of the population.  Paul also opposes environmental protection law, which affects. 100% of the population.

            Fine, the "Stand with Rand" crowd wants to defend Rand Paul's human rights record.  lol.  Why?  You don't need him to make your case against the NSA.  

            Your baseless suspicion that Obama is torturing people doesn't impress me; your suspicion is just a manifestation of your belief that the President is a sadistic monster horrible human being, whatever.  You have no proof, so who cares about your "suspicions".  You know what?  At FreeRepublic they "suspect" that the President is a Kenyan Manchurian candidate intent on imposing Shariah law on the land.  They have no proof for their suspicions and you have no proof for yours.

  •  David (Or troub)... (3+ / 0-)

    I keep hoping somebody will do a spreadsheet to analyze the PVI (like, Gohmert comes from a PVI R+24 district) of the congressmen of both parties who voted for and against the Amash Amendment.  I have a suspicion that those Democrats AND Republicans that are the most centrist are the ones who voted for it.  Which is funny because I think there was a poll that showed Independents were more incensed about the NSA spying than either party.  If centrists from moderate districts who NEED independent votes and depend on them to stay in office are deliberately blowing off their constituents to vote against Amash, just who the hell do they really represent?

  •  this argument works both ways? (3+ / 0-)

    if anyone odious voted "yes", that means what?

    isn't this textbook "guilt by association?"  I thought you called bullshit when I tried this argument during the "stand with rand" debacle?

    that said, agreed that the optics on that are terrible.

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 07:01:19 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site