How the Hell did despising liberty become the sine qua non of Obama support, any

[Ptarmigan]

How the Hell did despising liberty become the sine qua non of Obama support, anyway?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023492362

Do I smell a schism here? I sense it.

cthulu2016 (8,649 posts)

How the Hell did despising liberty become the sine qua non of Obama support, anyway?

Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 06:32 PM USA/ET - Edit history (4)
 On TV and the internet the best predictor of just how much of an in-the-bag stooge for the NSA a commentator is seems to be past performance on Obama-boosting in specific, as opposed to boosting workers, Democrats, moms, apple pies, etc..

It is weird.

I have never thought of Obama as defined in terms of contempt for things like the 4th Amendment. As Presidents go, I think of him as above average on liberties. Perhaps way above average.

I never felt that Obama was a unique champion of liberties in a single-issue crusader way, but he was not notably different from Hillary or Biden or Dodd or whoever. Reliable wishy-washy Democratic center on liberties. Far to the left of Diane Feinstein types, for instance.

I don't love the Democratic Party center-point on liberties but it is miles better than the Republican average on liberties and arguably better than the libertarian center-point on liberties. (re: Libertarians. When another Party rivals you on your supposed single issue, that's sad.)

But to see the line-up of newly-minted fanatical authoritarian stooges on the inter-webs and TV machine one would think that Barrack Obama had been, his entire life, a single-issue figure rising and falling on the solitary platform of trampling the 4th Amendment.

How? Why?

I don't picture Obama foaming at the mouth over spying on people. I don't think his presidency is, or shall be, defined in terms of domestic surveillance.

It is an issue he was handed that just goes with the job, same as every president.

And I am damn sure that NOBODY in America voted for Obama because they were single-issue haters of human privacy.

So how did crapping on liberties become the signal issue, the definitive issue of the established single-issue pro-Obama-the-man spokespeople?

Did you vote for Obama?

mike_c (31,795 posts)
1. I'm convinced this issue is being stoked by paid PR hacks....

I mean, we see small number of DUers who have seemingly devoted 24 hrs a day to flogging this issue, going to ridiculous lengths to discredit whistleblowers, journalists, politicians, fellow DUers-- anyone who criticizes the security and surveillance state that they themselves cannot possibly welcome as wholeheartedly as they would have us believe.

Either that, or it's being flogged by some utter obsessives with the worst tunnel vision I've ever seen. But my money's on at least a couple of the most active ones being paid to post happy thoughts about the regime all day long.

The bug professor strikes again. 

Douglas Carpenter (16,344 posts)
3. I'm sure they're being dingbats for free. I suspect it is an obsession rooted not in actual support

for the surveillance state - at least in most cases - but the tunnel vision of hyper-partisanship and personality cult.

cthulu2016 (8,649 posts)
6. But Obama has never enegendered that "support"

Obama has never said anything (at least that I have heard) that would encourage a normal person to view surveillance-luv as the definitive indicator of support.

Obamacare is a definiive Obama issue.

Surveillance is a balance-of-powers, nature of the state itself over-arching issue that kind of transcends politics.

Yet, you voted for him.

cthulu2016 (8,649 posts)
4. But the regime is not all about surveillance.

One could ignore it as a nagging problem that all presidents will have.

But it seems to be foisted as THE ONE ISSUE THAT PROVES WHETHER YOU ARE A REAL DEMOCRAT, and I don't get why.

It seems like a really stupid issue to make central to supporting the President or the Party or much of anything.

It is the quintessential 'shit you live with' issue. Secrecy, war on drugs, religion coddling, defnding executive perogatives... everyone knows that even a really cool president will tend to disappoint on such things.

A terrible "With us or against us" issue, sure to drive away more than it could possible attract.

snappyturtle (12,841 posts)
5. +1 Happy thoughts! That's exactly what it is.....goes nicely with

another term that I can't type....but still makes me laugh.

Just thinking.....Happy, happy, happy thoughts....
to the tune of "Happy Talk" of Rogers and Hammerstein's
"South Pacificc"....those were the days....1958.

Douglas Carpenter (16,344 posts)
2. If someone is pro-Single payer universal healthcare - does that make them anti-Obama?

If they were pro-marriage equality prior to the President taking that position - did that make them anti-Obama?

If someone were to agree with this statement - does this make them anti-Obama? , ""It is not excessive to believe this growing, gargantuan, secret complex now represents the greatest threat to our freedom in the new twenty-first century." - former U.S. Senator Gary Hart -

When on earth did solidarity with the ever expanding clandestine services become a liberal and progressive cause?

Mole anyone?

muriel_volestrangler (67,151 posts)
7. Since Obama decided to stand by the NSA and James Clapper


Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 06:30 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
There are DUers who are saying "my party, right or wrong", and taking the lead for "the party" from Obama, ignoring that the majority of House representatives voted to defund the NSA in its present state. So they have tied themselves to Booz Allen Hamilton and its surveillance state, as Obama did, and are now whining that admitting Snowden is right would mean admitting a supporter of Ron Paul is right on one topic, and they won't do that. They'd rather agree with Dick Cheney - because Obama does.

randome (16,459 posts)
13. How is shrieking 'Stop spying on us!' different from Brietbart's 'Stop raping people!'?

Many people don't seem interested in looking at all the factors. There are good and bad aspects to the NSA.

We can argue all day -and often do- as to whether or not enough evidence has been presented but the majority, I believe, look at Snowden's briefing documents and think, "Okay. Yeah. What else you got?"

At the very least, it should be possible to try and understand someone else's opinion without resorting to that "You're either with us or against us!" you mention.

[zeitgeist]

muriel_volestrangler (67,151 posts)
7. Since Obama decided to stand by the NSA and James Clapper


Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 06:30 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
There are DUers who are saying "my party, right or wrong",

Well that tears it, this bitch stole that from my mole. 

I mean really Muriel, really.   

I have been sensing the same thing for a long time over there.  Now with the Hillary thing ripping what little there is left of the Lame DUck to shreds it should be a fun fall.  I cannot help but wonder if she is embracing "revenge, a dish best served cold".  I am pretty sure MoeDo is (although that is just Cougar jealousy over the bent one choosing the Lewinski bimbo to use as his personal humidor over her).

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Why is it so hard to believe that a bunch of greedy know it all would support totalitarianism so long as they are promised a pony (delivery not necessary)?

[Wineslob]

DUmmies, is that a tingle down your leg, or are you finding out your Depends just failed?

[DumbAss Tanker]

Why is it so hard to believe that a bunch of greedy know it all would support totalitarianism so long as they are promised a pony (delivery not necessary)?

"If only Stalin knew..."

 

[jukin]

I remember the good old days when the leftists had their panties in a bunch about library books.  Ahh good times.

More from the liberty loving King Barky the Incompetent.

"Change! Obama Asks Supreme Court to Allow Warrantless Cellphone Searches"
http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/change-obama-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches/

Looks like Barky also had Glenn Greenwald's gay guy held for 9 hours in London.

The state sponsored terrorism, like political violence, has always come from the left.

[obumazombie]

DUmmies, is that a tingle down your leg, or are you finding out your Depends just failed?

Even Chrissy Mathews has become disenchanted with owebuma. Story on the blaze.

[freedumb2003b]

Another schism?

These people are schismoid...

[zeitgeist]

Even Chrissy Mathews has become disenchanted with owebuma. Story on the blaze.

And today they are confronted with Camille Paglia at the Saloon dissing Hitlary.  Oh the pain, the pain Will Robertson. Will this schism never end?

[GOBUCKS]

I just love it that a DUmmy could use sine qua non properly.

Expect to see it soon in a Filner update at East County Magazine.
 

[DumbAss Tanker]

I just love it that a DUmmy could use sine qua non properly.

Expect to see it soon in a Filner update at East County Magazine.
 

That would involve Gnads also using it properly, which is a statistical impossibility.