General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDisgusting: Wikileaks store carries pro-Snowden t-shirt product by Obama-hate designer
Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 01:17 AM - Edit history (1)
In case anyone out there doesn't know about the overlap in Snowden worship, Obama Derangement Syndrome, Right Wing lies, and Tea Party-type nonsense. The man who designed the Snowden worship t-shirts for sale on Wikileaks also designed this dartboard with a target on Obama's forehead:
and
and
read more http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42404_Wikileaks_Store_Snowden_T-Shirt_Designer_Sells_Dartboard_w-Bullseye_on_Obamas_Forehead
bemildred
(90,061 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)If not then this is nothing more than the worst form of propaganda you're pushing.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)But here is the link for the White House trying to change a story at the Washington Post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023473328
As for the lies, I'm one of those people who believes that when someone states something they know is wrong, they have lied. Telling the American people that the NSA hasn't abused its power while knowing that they had done so thousands of times is a lie.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)You showed examples of things that are NOT on the Wikileaks store site.
Here's the direct link to the site, and I invite everyone to go to the site and find the items you've posted (which are not there).
http://wikileaks.spreadshirt.com/wikileaks-featured-products-C127572
Fail. And, I invite you to self-delete.
railsback
(1,881 posts)The post NEVER said it was on the Wiki store site. It says the designs are from the same person who does all this other 'hate Obama' 'art' (cough).
Dishonesty is correct, as with all the other NSA rabble.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)mick063
(2,424 posts)This isn't Free Republic and we aren't dumb hillbillies.
The racist stuff is wrong. We get that.
On the other hand, there is almost nothing you can do to demonize Snowden any more than he has been, ad nauseum, here on DU.
That distraction doesn't work anymore.
1awake
(1,494 posts)It is in the title of the OP.
1awake
(1,494 posts)the OP wasn't accurate.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)it shows up right in that post.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)mick063
(2,424 posts)It really needs one.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)but you might pull a jury of DUers who employ this deceitful tactic every day. Good luck.
David Krout
(423 posts)Or not?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Something many folks here at DU have been pointing out for several weeks now.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)This overlap makes me the Fuhrer?
*edited because I mis-spelled "Fuhrer". I suck at being a Nazi.
*edited again because I suck at spelling "shrug".
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
At Fri Aug 16, 2013, 08:24 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Disgusting: Wikileaks store carries Obama-hate products by pro-Snowden t-shirt designer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023474016
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
The poster implies that the imagery he posted exists on the Wikileaks site. It doesn't and I suspect the OP is using this to post anti-Obama imagery.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 16, 2013, 08:33 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Juries are not the truth police.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Wrong to post this baloney here.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It looks like you've corrected the OP
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)our posts get hidden. I had three posts hidden in one thread for calling out lies posted about me.
Doesn't this merely promote propaganda and other falsehoods at the expense of the truth?
Archae
(46,318 posts)At a website linked at LGF.
http://libertymaniacs.com/
Libertarians, they sell that stuff, plus Ayn Rand phanboi stuff and much more, a great deal of which is as inflammatory as in the OP.
There is no connection I could see between Assange and this stuff.
Most inflammatory thing I found at Assange's site was a t-shirt that had Assange instead of Che Guervera in that iconic picture.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...and the jury went split-decision.
Archae
(46,318 posts)Their endorsement of the right-wing liar "Drudge" is enough.
We don't need to make things up.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)TRUE Libertarians and Civil Libertarians both want marriage equality.
TRUE Libertarians and Civil Libertarians both want unimpeded voting access.
TRUE Libertarians and Civil Libertarians both want a pushback against militarized police forces in the US.
...etc.
As I said upthread. I like dogs, and Hitler liked dogs. Does that make me a Nazi and Hitler a Liberal?
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)a woman's right to choose, or unimpeded voting access.
Or when have you ever heard the Paul's decrying the Rethug's assault on voting rights?
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...as do most Civil Libertarians.
The Paul's are NOT Libertarians. They may like to call themselves that, but TRUE Libertarians support all that you listed.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I also agree with SOME Libertarian views, but I'm an economic socialist. That puts me squarely outside the Libertarian sphere, but I'd work with them on issues of war, privacy, civil liberties.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Because he came out against marriage equality, very specifically, with a decisive statement. He has weasel-worded here and there, to try to bullshit people who aren't paying close attention, but his "man and woman/marriage is a sacrament" POV is pretty clear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage
Asked his opinion on same-sex marriage in October 2011, Paul expressed his support for marriage privatization by replying, "Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament." In the same interview, when asked whether he would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment like California's Proposition 8, he said, 'Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman."[140]
Previously, in a 2007 interview, Paul had said that he supports the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.[141] He also said, "Matter of fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." Paul has stated that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[142] He has also said he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[143][144] When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage, Paul responded, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[143]
Paul had also said that at the federal level he opposed efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[145] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996. The act allows a state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The act also prohibits the U.S. Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage.
He has opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the US Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, because he worries that with its passage liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a states ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.[145]
Paul has been a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in each Congress since the bill's original introduction. It would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Speaking in support of the Marriage Protection Act in 2004, he urged those of his fellow congressional representatives who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage to vote for the bill because its passage, requiring only simple majorities in both Houses of Congress, would be much more readily achieved than the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which, as a Constitutional amendment, would require not only much larger majorities in both Houses but also ratification by the state legislatures.[145]
And he's no fan of voting rights--he is full of excuses, e.g. he doesn't think there's a problem anymore, and thinks that ensuring voting rights for a sizable percentage of our population:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Voting_Rights_Act
In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[300] Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[301] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. Many of Texas' Republican representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[302] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, which Paul objected to on the grounds that one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and that as it currently stands it often forces large expenditures to prepare materials that are in some cases never used.[303]
The fact that he's regarded as a hero by Snowden and Assange is problematic. It's just unreasonable to not infer some kind of common cause.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/julian-assange-backs-ron-and-rand-paul/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-ron-paul_n_3414992.html
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Response to uhnope (Original post)
Cha This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...nor are they linked to from the Wikileaks site. The OP is a deception, and a weak one at that.
...and you recommended it?
Cha
(297,154 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)We can disagree on the issue, but neither side should employ deceit to prove a point.
Cha
(297,154 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...Prosense tonight!
Kum-bay-a m'lord, Kum-bay-a...
lol at Kumbayah
last1standing
(11,709 posts)It's cool to be able to respect someone you disagree with.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)leftstreet
(36,106 posts)Those items aren't from the wikileaks store
But you probably know that
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I'm sure he'll be a favorite with a particular group on DU.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)mike_c
(36,281 posts)Do you think we're idiots here?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)WikiLeaks exposed the traitors and warmongers for what they are. Crapola you posted only serves to help the grifters escape.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002366571
burnodo
(2,017 posts)And had a few different people pictured...
KG
(28,751 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)But it's better to be outraged than to just ignore crap.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)...won't make the overlap between Snowden worship, Obama Derangement Syndrome, Right Wing lies, and Tea Party-type nonsense go away
demosincebirth
(12,536 posts)Maybe I missed it.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)We know Assange is a Ron/Rand Paul fan who praises the Drudge Report and now we know Wikileaks folk also associate with and collaborate with the type of person who would put a bulls eye on an image of the president.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)in his book "Inside Wikileaks" that Assange turned Wikileaks into a semi-cult of followers loyal to him. We know Assange is a Paulian who praises the Drudge Report. It's no stretch that their organization, as I said in the OP, overlaps with the Obama Derangement Syndrome crowd, the right wing world and Tea Party-type hateful nonsense as evidenced by their friend the graphic designer who they got to do their Snowden t-shirts.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)among a certain segment of DUers.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)rather silly.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I'll bet I could guess your primary screen name here.
You are aware that sock puppets are against the rules, and could get your main account banned as well, correct?
uhnope
(6,419 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I like, and agree with the Snowden product.