General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI believe the government when it says there was no domestic spying.
Yes or no?
24 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
1 (4%) |
|
No | |
23 (96%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)We wouldn't even be having this discussion if information wasn't leaked.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But indeed "we" don't officially know even the broad outline of what is going on. How can a representative democracy function with essentially zero transparency? It is a rhetorical question. It can't. The combination of a closed, walled off, authoritarian national security state and a government completely corrupted by financial organizations with a vested interest in that security state is lethal. Our republic is broken.
TBF
(32,029 posts)they let us spout off some which makes it different from some authoritarian regimes. But they do watch and the imperialism is strong.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)So I think you should
edit it to Surveillance/spying.
The STAZI never said they were spying on their citizens they were just doing surveillance.
They are synonyms for the same behavior
Octafish
(55,745 posts)BTW: Gen Clapper is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)uponit7771
(90,323 posts)Stinky The Clown
(67,776 posts)Let's have a really straight talk.
You keep coming into my threads and posting things similar to what you posted here and you begin to look like an obsessed fan. This has been going on for quite a little while. And that's fine, if it helps you feel good about yourself.
I want to explain something, just for you. I don't like the rightward tilt of the Democratic party of late. And I especially don't like the hateful tone with which its defenders defend it. Do they think they're helping those of us not in the thrall of the politicians they defend toward suddenly having an epiphany?
Far too many of the party's prominent personages are pretty much the same sorts that would have been Rockefeller Republicans in my youth. Most of that bunch were actually good people. Not liberals, but not hard right nutters. Back in that era, the hard right were intellectual nutters like William F Buckley and the John Birchers. The Democrats back then saw Scoop Jackson as an anomaly in the party's mainstream. Nowadays he'd be totally mainstream, or maybe even seen as liberal.
Today, as the Repubican Party is moving its mainstream to right wing crazy land, the liberal (by comparison) Republicans have bailed and become Democrats. As Democrats, they have far too much influence in our party than their late comer status ought to deserve. Yet they seem to be the media darlings and seem to be seen as typical of our fundamental principles.
They aren't.
You're not going to change my mind on anything. And I don't expect I'll ever change yours. Nor do I particularly care about you enough to want to change it.
So, unless you do it for some perverse pleasure, just stay out of my threads and we can both coexist peacefully. I get that you don't like me. That's okay. I'll have to just learn to live with that personal deprivation. The feeling is probably mutual, except for one significant difference. I don't pay you any attention unless you post to me as you did here. Apart from those encounters with you, you pretty don't even exist for me.
I, on the other hand, choose not to follow you around posting insult filled rebuttals when you haven't even addressed me directly.
Now why not just run along and find another sandbox in which to play.
And have a swell rest of the weekend.