Terrorism Under Veil of Journalism is Still Terrorism

[michigandem58]

Last night, Rachel Maddow used the first part of her show on MSNBC to go on an insane rant about Glenn Greenwald's boyfriend (as well as partner in crime) being detained by the British authorities at London's Heathrow airport. Maddow incessantly bellyached that Britain was abusing its anti-terrorism law to try to stop journalistic activity by Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras in reporting on NSA activities - which, if Rachel believes is unconstitutional, she needs a crash course in the fourth amendment - disclosed to them by the American fugitive and Russian guest Edward Snowden. "Journalism is not terrorism," Rachel lamented over and over, in the process chiding the United States for not objecting to Miranda's interrogation despite having advanced knowledge of it...

Let me educate Maddow on this, since she doesn't seem to either know or care. Under US law, this is how terrorism is defined - 18 USC § 2331:

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;

Edward Snowden's revelations - and Glenn Greenwald's possible instigation of the revelations, which he himself hinted at, before backpedaling furiously - quite likely have caused danger to American lives as it gave away to terrorists our intelligence sources and methods. That's not all. Greenwald openly threatened the United States, saying that it better hope nothing happens to Snowden, or the things he would reveal would be the "worst nightmare" for the US government. And no one - not even Greenwald, Poitras or Maddow, even claims that these revelations weren't intended to influence the policy of one or more governments (namely the US and UK governments)...

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/08/dear-rachel-maddow-terrorism-under-veil.html

[leftstreet]

1. Teenagers have 'boyfriends'

I believe the term you're looking for is 'partner'

[HardTimes99]

10. Homophobes use the diminutives 'boyfriend' or 'lover,' rather than

'partner' or 'spouse.'

You're being too kind by half to this OP.

[railsback]

54. --Homophobes--

LoL. Just when I think the DU couldn't sink any lower, it sinks lower.

Giving FOXNation a run for their money.

[HardTimes99]

57. Excuse me, I wasn't the one who referred to Greenwald's 'boyfriend'. This OP

has mired DU in the swamp of neo-McCarthyism and, in true McCarthyite fashion, is too chicken shit to defend his or her slurs. I've seen it happen now three days in a row.

[railsback]

59. So you don't think gay men refer to their partners as 'boyfriends'?

What planet would that be on?

My Gawd.

[railsback]

75. Yeah, the stupid definitely burns bad

Assuming that because 'boyfriend' is used instead of 'partner', that person is automatically a HOMOPHOBE. FOXNation now falling to a distant second and losing ground.

[quakerboy]

116. If Greenwald was talking about his partner, you might have a point. But he isn't, and you don't.

Whens the last time you heard a news agency or any serious participant in discussion call Michelle Obama the Presidents "girlfriend"?

Married. Partner, or Husband. If they were casually seeing one another, boyfriend might be appropriate. In a personalized, possibly jocular situation, sure, Ive got a Hot date with my favorite girlfriend tonight. But that's not what this is. This is a discussion of a pair of married men brought to our attention in a news venue.

But when referring to a person who is married, calling him a "lover" or "boyfriend" is clearly intended to diminish the relationship they have.

Who would want to diminish that relationship?

A defender of the presidents NSA spying policy, I suppose, or a homophobe. A defender of the president might also have been upset with comments by others who have actually attacke the president, as well as his policies. Michelle Bachman comes to mind as a prime offender, whose spouse has also come into the lime light. In how many DU conversations has anyone referred to Marcus Bachman as Michelles Lover. Or as Michelle's Boyfriend?

It seems quite clear that calling a married man a "boyfriend" or "lover" is clearly intended to diminish them. And the apparent underlying mechanism is Homophobia. Words matter.

[George II]

130. Rachel Maddow used the "boyfriend" term on her show

[quakerboy]

131. Maybe Im wrong.

Or maybe a show writer goofed. I dunno. But used as I have seen it on DU since yesterday, it sure looks like a pointed attempt to diminish Greenwald and his partner, to me.

[George II]

132. She referred to him as "his partner, life partner, boyfriend", about 4 minutes into the segment....

And I haven't ever seen any reference to them actually being married, just partners.

[quakerboy]

134. I havnt seen specific mention of being married

This bit from Wikipedia is the closest i can come

"In a profile in Out magazine, Greenwald explained that his residence in Brazil was due to the fact that an American law, the Defense of Marriage Act, barred the federal recognition of same-sex marriages at the time and thus prevented his partner from obtaining immigration rights"

That seems fairly suggestive of them being married, though not conclusive. I admit, I went off of others saying they were married.

[EOTE]

157. You were correct. They are married.

I wonder why this bit of information seems so hard to come by?

"The reason I live in Brazil is very simple. It is not because I voluntarily left the US to protest any laws.

The reason is that my spouse of eight years is a Brazilian national."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

[George II]

168. ....deleted and reposted, i responded to my own post, not the one I intended to respond to...

[George II]

169. Whether they are married or not really isn't the point, and it makes no difference to me...

....my gay brother is married. Married or not wasn't what everyone griped about.

But the issue at hand that I'm so pissed off about is that the OP was commenting about the Rachel Maddow segment the other night, and in his/her post called Miranda his "boyfriend". He was immediately attacked by several people here for being a homophobe for using the "politically incorrect" term of "boyfriend".

Unfortunately those that attacked him/her didn't even bother to check to see WHY he used "boyfriend", it was just too convenient to attack.

However, it actually was Maddow herself who referred to Miranda as Greenwald's "boyfriend". I didn't see any condemnation of Maddow for calling him Greenwald's "boyfriend".

And, sadly, those who attacked in a New York minute have now disappeared into the shadows instead of owning up to their error and apologizing for calling the OP a "homophobe" and other things.

Alas, this is the state of DU these days - attack, attack, attack without being fully and correctly informed.

[EOTE]

185. It kind of IS the point.

Considering so many here are throwing around terms like "boyfriend" and "lover". Somehow these things seem not to matter when opposition is in need of being discredited.

[EOTE]

156. They are married.

"The reason I live in Brazil is very simple. It is not because I voluntarily left the US to protest any laws.
The reason is that my spouse of eight years is a Brazilian national."

And do you think that there might be a very good reason you haven't seen any reference to them being married? Do you not see that as us being manipulated to an extent?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

[pnwmom]

133. Yes.

Whatever the merits or de-merits of the OP, this controversy about the use of the word "boyfriend" is overblown.

[EOTE]

155. Do you think anyone regardless of gender or orientation, refers to their husband as their boyfriend?

Because I've seen that term thrown around rather frequently regarding Greenwald and Miranda. That and 'lover' in a more vicious attack I saw today. 'Husband', 'Spouse' even 'Partner' seem far more acceptable and far less offensive. I have to wonder what the motivation for using such language is. Why is this crap all of a sudden so tolerated around here?

[railsback]

167. Ok, so then Rachel Maddow is ALSO a homophobe

From her transcript the other night:

""…Greenwald got a call, informed him his partner, personal life partner, his boyfriend, had been detained by authorities in uk at the heathrow airport , david miranda , he's brazilian.…"

Which just goes to show that when people feel like they're losing the argument, they resort to baseless accusations that skeptics are 'homophobes, racists, freedom-haters, etc'

Its beyond ridiculous now.

[EOTE]

184. Because a GLBT person says something stupid doesn't make it any less so.

You can continue to defend calling a husband a boyfriend, but I think it reeks of trying to discredit the opposition. The people who do it can't claim ignorance any more, although they can claim ignorance on a great many other things.

[railsback]

195. Like I said...

getting way beyond ridiculous now.

[EOTE]

204. You're right. It's way beyond ridiculous that people continue to throw out lies and smears

even when they're corrected. There's really no excuse.

[railsback]

206. Yes, you're right

Only someone like Rachel can say 'boyfriend'. Everyone else is a homophobe. Makes perfect sense.

[George II]

128. It was Rachel Maddow herself who referred to him as Greenwald's "boyfriend" - the OP...

....was just quoting what SHE called him on MSNBC!

[Cali_Democrat]

88. Saying someone has a 'boyfriend' is being homophobic?

I don't know about that.

When did 'boyfriend' and 'lover' become homophobic terms?

[boston bean]

93. God damn, you can't see why this would be an issue?

Ferchrissakes DOMA was just ruled unconstitutional, gay people that are married have spouses, a husband, a wife. Give them their agency ffs. Give them some god damned respect that is afforded to hetero married couples. You don't call married couples boyfriend or girlfriend.

[Cali_Democrat]

94. I didn't know they were married

Sorry.

In that case, he is a spouse. You're correct.

[Bluenorthwest]

109. You might also note that the 'writer' uses the word 'partner' very pointley directly after the

'boyfriend' tag. He says 'partner in crime'. It is a clear that the juxtaposition is intentional.

[George II]

118. Every reference I've seen anywhere, including by Greenwald himself, is "partner", not "spouse"!

[George II]

129. See my other posts earlier - it was MADDOW who called Miranda Greenwald's "boyfriend", dammit!

[Iliyah]

120. Oh my gosh

friends of mine in SF who have been together at least 40 years call each other boyfriends, geezzz. Who fucking cares, it's
GG's friend, shit.

carry on . . .

[George II]

151. Amazing, isn't it?

These people a quick to jump in and castigate the OP for using the word "boyfriend", when all he/she was doing was repeating what was said on the show that was being discussed.

What is equally amazing is that all those who whined and complained, now that it has been pointed out by me in several places here that Maddow was the one that used the word, have now crawled back into the woodwork without comment?

Don't turn the light out, they may come crawling back out!

[George II]

125. HEY! Did you even BOTHER to check out what Rachel Maddow actually said?????

SHE, a gay woman herself, was the one who referred to Miranda as Greenwald's "BOYFRIEND".

You fucking people are amazing, jumping all over people for saying something that they were just repeating from the segment on MSNBC, calling them homophobes, etc..

Watch this video at about 4:10 into it, THEN come back an apologize and retract all your freaking obnoxious comments!!!

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/52797608#52797608

You people really are no better than the people you blast every day around here.

[phleshdef]

191. There is nothing homophobic about "boyfriend". Thats stupid.

Straight people have boyfriends and girlfriends. Gay people should be afforded the right to use the same terminology without qualification.

I don't really feel that partner is homophobic either. But it is a special reservation that seems to pertain to gay couples. If we want to be all pc and use terms that grant blind equality, then boyfriend/girlfriend would be more appropriate than partner.

Of course, if they are married, it should be husband or wife, depending on the couple's gender, but I believe a lot of people didn't realize Greenwald and Miranda were married.

[Nancy Waterman]

158. Rachel used the term boyfriend

in the broadcast.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. Uncle Fester writes a new blog post. Yay, it's my favorite time of the day.

This isn't the Soviet Union, and we're not going to start arresting journalists for doing their jobs, no matter what some little bootlicker says in his blog. If you want to see the fires of hell open up below this country, charge Greenwald with terrorism. Meantime, work on getting an original thought. Uncle Fester isn't very impressive.

[George II]

152. Miranda isn't a "journalist" his partner is, Snowden is holed up in the remnants of the Soviet Union

[Egalitarian Thug]

162. He can't even do the light bulb thing.

[Deep13]

3. I don't believe Britain follows the 4th Amendment...

...or any part of American law.

Only a sucker would accept that the Federal government's definition of Terrorism is the right one, let alone the only one.

In this country (not Britain), the 1st Amendment trumps Federal statute if they conflict. So the degree to which the Federal law is a "law" that abridges the freedom of "...speech, of the press, or the the people to peaceably assemble..." or the right to "...petition for the redress of grievances..." it is unconstitutional and ipso facto not a law.

[dkf]

4. And there you go...journalism is the new terrorism.

Maybe speaking out against mass surveillance is the new terrorism too. Scary.

[TheBlackAdder]

9. It's amazing how people can get played by FOX and others... just to get played again.

It's not always the Right pulling the strings, sometime the left are the puppetmasters, sometimes both.

[socialist_n_TN]

55. Who's left?.......

I don't see any "left".

[kelliekat44]

23. Except terrorism by journalism is not new. Check your history. It is well documented.

It's just that if it's a story the power structure likes it's ok. And if it by people the media power brokers like it is not terrorism. How soon we forget the era of McCarthy, Viet Nam, the swift-boaters, election 2000.

[railsback]

27. [phone]

That's some serious truth.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. McCarthy was a Congress member abusing his power not a journalist. He was more like the NSA itself

looking for guilt where there was none, seeking excuses for rampant expansion of censorship and control of the media. On the other hand, one of the key voices against McCarthy was Edward R Murrow, journalist.

[2ndAmForComputers]

172. Hmmmmm.

Enemy of my enemy, uh?

[Cerridwen]

5. Your other right. n/t

[TheBlackAdder]

6. A tourist in GB can take a picture of a landmark and get collared for terrorism. n/t

[HardTimes99]

7. Have you no sense of decency, sir or madam? At long last

have you left no sense of decency?

[NuclearDem]

8. The police state thanks you for your service, citizen.

TPV can go fuck themselves.

[alarimer]

11. To me the test is whether you would approve of the spying if Bush was still in charge.

Well? Would you?

If you would, then you are no Democrat, certainly no progressive. If you wouldn't, then you are a hypocrite, a cheerleader for your guy, Obama and nothing he can do is wrong.

I personally wish more journalists would commit such acts of "terrorism." The world would be better.

Maybe this means the powers that be are so rattled they have to resort to illegal acts of intimidation to try and hide what they are doing.

There is no evidence that this has endangered anyone. That's bullshit. Neither did Manning.

[Vinnie From Indy]

12. LOL! I only have this as a response to your hilariously ridiculous post!

[LearningCurve]

33. Thank you so much for this

Now I must see more!

[leftstreet]

69. LOL

[AsahinaKimi]

98. LOL!

[East Coast Pirate]

122. So much better than the OP.

[one_voice]

13. Rachel is not insane...

you may disagree, and that's your right, but she does not go on insane rants. Glen Beck goes on insane rants.


Also Glenn Greenwald is married to Mr. Miranda.


edited because I left out a word. D'oh

[sheshe2]

14. About The Peoples View.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/p/about-peoples-view.html

The People's View is primarily a political blog, published by Spandan Chakrabarti (that would be me). I have been participating in online and offline liberal activism since 2003, when Gov. Howard Dean ran for president. I am a proud liberal and proud American who believes in pragmatic solutions.

The word "view" in the name of this site is not meant to define "opinion." For any blog or blogger to claim to represent "the people's" opinion would be foolish. The word view here is view as in a "bird's eye view" - in other words, perspective. Our goal is to analyze issues with the primary perspective of how totalities policies affect ordinary people, and what it means from that view, or perspective.

This blog is devoted to examining issues from a liberal perspective, on factual bases and on fair analysis. This site is also deeply zealous about liberal Democratic activism. At The People's View, we are committed to giving readers as much additional resources (mostly via links) as possible to educate as well as activate. The People's View is also a public policy blog for reasoned debate and discussion. At the moment, it is primarily covering issues of economic policy, health policy and civil rights issues. However, other issues of local, state or national interest will also be addressed. I am based in Silicon Valley, California; so Bay Area and California state issues may sometimes be of interest.

[frylock]

44. just yet another right-wing wanker advertising as a "self-described" liberal

[Wilms]

100. Now-now, I don't think Spam-Dan is a "right-wing..."

I think Spam-Dan is a Third-Way wanker advertising as a "self-described" liberal.

-edit to add Spammy's selfie-

[Rex]

179. He admits to hating Obama! These DUers that rec

him are strangely the ones that yell down the rest of us when we say anything about the POTUS...funny that right? I LOVE this thread, it shows you the true colors of DUers.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

108. Spandan the Executive Assistant is correcting Dr. Rachel Maddow...

the Rhodes Scholar?



"Reasoned debate"? Sure, if name-calling is what one considers "reasoned debate."

Spandan Chakrabarti
Communications, Fundraising and Administrative Professional

Kaplan University
in online BS program, Business Administration with Management focus

Mission College
2004 to summer 2004. Classes in history, economics, Global Studies.

UC Berkeley
Classes, math; physics, political science, statistics

....

Public policy, communications, fundraising and administrative professional with a deep interest in non-profits and public progressive organizations. Currently pursuing a degree in Management with a non-profit focus from Kaplan University.

....

Public policy and legislative research, communications at all levels of government and organizations, drafting messaging material, event coordination, drafting newsletters, managing organizational content based web sites, fundraising, technologically gifted, mission and process oriented

....

Public Policy Associate
Americans for Cures Action Network
March 2008 – November 2008 (9 months)

Fundraising Coordinator
Lupus Foundation of No
October 2007 – March 2008 (6 months)

Professional Services Administrator
ShareChive, LLC
June 2007 – September 2007 (4 months)

Executive Assistant
Future Families, Inc
February 2006 – June 2007 (1 year 5 months)

Administrative Assistant II
National Writing Project
August 2001 – May 2003 (1 year 10 months)

http://www.linkedin.com/in/spandanchakrabarti

Curious that ol' Spandan hasn't updated his LinkedIn with this oh-so-impressive blog of his...

[KG]

183. basically, some blowhard loser.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

197. Yep. And ol' Spandan/deaniac83 supports the ACLU...

Except when he doesn't.

His Crap Blog sees a fair amount of traffic. All in lock-step, with almost no attention paid to Republicans, only attacks against "the left." Maybe they're all OFA volunteers with too much time on their hands...

[Rex]

201. He supports Obama too...oh wait, no he doesn't at all.

Wouldn't even vote for him! Tsk tsk...

[WorseBeforeBetter]

207. I just waded into that cesspool known as People's View, and today's topic is "media bullying."

Remember when that was a favorite DU sport -- wading into Free Republic? My, how times have changed since 2008!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

110. Spandan: "Good riddance, Barack Obama"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3474792

Almost forgot to post the best one of all!

[boston bean]

160. I've seen homophobic writing on that blog. Not impressed.

[Rex]

176. Supporting an Obama hater...why am I not surprised

that SOME here put Liberal bashing above politics. Take note of who it is fellow DUers...they show their true colors with this one.

[Luminous Animal]

15. OH MY GOD. BART GELLMAN OF THE WASHINGTON POST IS A TERRORIST!!!!

WHY HASN'T THIS MAN BEEN ARRESTED!!!!

After all, his reporting comes from the same source material that Greenwald has.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. "journalist" who frighten the government are terrorist and should be treated as such

It is up to the government to decide what information the people should have - not the other way around

[cascadiance]

40. In a democracy it is the people who are the boss of those in the government...

NOT the other way around... Do you think you live in a Democratic Republic, or are you ready to cheer on the current moves that recent governments and their corporate partners are making towards a fascist police state?

The government SHOULD be frightened of the people if they F with them!

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. you talk like you think this is a liberal discussion forum

[cascadiance]

68. Are we missing a sarcasm icon in this section of this thread?...

Hmm....

[Douglas Carpenter]

71. in absence of a sarcasm Icon I hope my signature live reveal my literal views

to me using sarcasm icons is kind of like warning someone of a punch line when telling a joke - it kind of blows the purpose

[michigandem58]

17. "This blog is devoted to examining issues from a liberal perspective..."

"This blog is devoted to examining issues from a liberal perspective, on factual bases and on fair analysis. This site is also deeply zealous about liberal Democratic activism. At The People's View, we are committed to giving readers as much additional resources (mostly via links) as possible to educate as well as activate. The People's View is also a public policy blog for reasoned debate and discussion."

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/p/about-peoples-view.html

[joeybee12]

22. I play football like a pro...

I don't, I'm old and stink.

What I say I do and what I actually do are two different things.

See the difference? No one's buying this shit.

[LondonReign2]

36. LMAO

[frylock]

46. i'm an astronaut!

[Rex]

174. That is nice I can lie too if I want to...so why didn't he vote for Obama?

Just thought Left Bashing was good enough for a site like DU? Sadly, that is true.

[geek tragedy]

18. That is some AAA-grade, high octane stupid bullshit.

Every bad thing that gets said about NSA apologists and authoritarians applies to that blog post.

[MFrohike]

91. There's a phrase to remember

I might have to use that one in the future.

[Cha]

19. Exactly.. complain about it if the USA hints at telling another country what

to do..and then when they don't.. it's the same as doing it. As long as they can get a good whine on.. facts be damned.

In addition the hilarious juxtaposition of someone who generally despises the US government telling other countries what to do suddenly getting bent out of shape because the Americans didn't tell Great Britain what to do, in her cult-like worship of Glenn Greenwald, Maddow also decided to patently ignore the essential cornerstone of journalism herself - namely the idea that before going on righteous talk-radio style rants, one ought to wait for all the facts. All the facts about why Miranda may have been detained - that, as I pointed out, his activities of transporting stolen property (US and UK classified documents) may well have been a part of instigation of espionage by his partner and Poitras - and the facts about what terrorism is under UK and US laws.

And before I'm accused of "throwing Maddow under the bus".. I'll say: I like her work at times but don't always agree. This is one of them.

thanks michigandem

[freshwest]

215. Maddox never claimed to be a Democrat or support Obama. She has a job where she is paid to talk.

And she's a good voice most of the time, but it may be some bias she has that others not so situated may not have. She wouldn't be human if she didn't. The OP has a right to his opinion, and the nerve this has struck is over the top and not rational. This is from RM's Wikipedia entry:

Asked about her political views by the Valley Advocate, Maddow replied, "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform..."

Distinguishing herself from others on the left, Maddow said she's a "national security liberal" and in a different interview that she's not "a partisan."[52][53] The New York Times called her a "defense policy wonk"[40][52] and Maddow has written Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power (2012), a book on the role of the military in postwar American politics.

During the 2008 presidential election, Maddow did not formally support any candidate. Concerning Barack Obama's candidacy, Maddow said during the primaries, "I have never and still don't think of myself as an Obama supporter, either professionally or actually."[54]

In March 2010, Republican Scott Brown, the junior United States Senator from Massachusetts, speculated that Maddow was going to run against him for his seat in 2012. He used this premise for a fundraising email that read "...The Massachusetts political machine is looking for someone to run against me. And you're not going to believe who they are supposedly trying to recruit — liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow."

Maddow said Brown's speculation was false. On her March 23, 2010, TV program, Maddow said, "I have the best job in the world. I am not running for office. Scott Brown didn't ask me if I was running or planning to run for office before he wrote a fundraising letter with my name. No, it's completely made up by him." Despite her comments, the next day Brown continued along the same line, telling a Boston radio station, "Bring her on."

To help put an end to the matter, Maddow ran a full-page advertisement in The Boston Globe confirming she was not running, and separately demanded Brown's apology. She added that despite repeated invitations over the months, Brown had refused to appear on her TV program.[55][56][57][58] Ultimately, it was Elizabeth Warren who ran in 2012, defeating Brown...[59]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow

She may be a libertarian, for all we know, or some other factor may have gotten her into this. She's not in politics, she's in media. That carries a lot of weight with those in the industry, they always support each other unless their bosses tell them no.

Do the media pundits support us, or do they play us? We can't tell and the idea DUers would attack each other with such viciousness over what they have to say over a public figure sounds like hero worship.

The OP doesn't agree with her one show there, and I never agree with Beck, Rush, O'Reilly and whatever. Does that mean I am deserving of unquestioning respect?

Does anyone think that Maddox, who is making millions of dollars a year, cares what a poster at DU thinks?

I think not. I signed up in the DU2 days to talk with Democrats and learned a lot from those who to the left and right of me, some that I felt uncomfortable with until I found we had common ground in other things. From them I have learned about what their life in the bigger world is.

But calling for people to be banned, piling on and name calling, is not about discussion. It's a mob going after a group in the minority to purge. This is Skinner's website and he chooses who will be a member here. This is spite and does nothing to change the world.

[rhett o rick]

20. Let me get this straight. Greenwald is terrorizing the USofA. Read the definition again.

States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

Our governments including our British "allies" are trying to intimidate our populations by detaining people with out probably cause. They torture whistle-blowers.

[SidDithers]

21. People's View rec...

'cause I know so many neo-DUers hate this site.

Sid

[Luminous Animal]

29. What is a neo-Duer? I like to keep up with all the hip lingo.

[villager]

35. Evidently a phrase the neo-cons on this site came up with

n/t

[Luminous Animal]

48. Undoubtedly that is true but I'd like to know the definition.

I suspect that there isn't any.

[nashville_brook]

89. from earlier context i figured it was analogous to neo-liberal third way "new Dem"

as in not an FDR, JFK, LBJ dem.

[L0oniX]

77. ^^^this^^^

[QC]

121. Maybe it's someone who can actually vote for Democrats. n/t

[HangOnKids]

189. Boom!

Thank you.

[Rex]

180. A term the Liberal bashing, Obama haters came up with.

nt.

[Luminous Animal]

181. Actually, it was used by an Obama supporter in reference to Snowden supporters.

[Rex]

182. Which Obama supporter?

Are you sure they are a supporter?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. Hey, noob. I've been here awhile, and I don't like the site either

So no, not liking what Uncle Fester at the people's view has to say doesn't correlate to your made-up term. Some of us just like a little more intellectual stimulation than poorly-written blog posts and adherents to said posts using emoticons in substitute for...you know...a functional vocabulary.

Did you ever get that MIRT thing figured out, by the way?

[L0oniX]

79. ^this too^

[HangOnKids]

193. Haaaaa!

I will just sit here and laugh. Thanks Don!

[Rex]

200. The recs for a blogger that hates Obama but bashes the Left!

My my my...interesting ain't it?

[Fumesucker]

58. The People's View:"Good Riddance Barack Obama"

This guy sounds like the Black Helicopter Tabloid Howling Left to me..



http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2007/10/obama-lost-my-vote-general-election-too.html?m=0

Obama Lost My Vote - General Election, Too

Lest you think this is because I was personally offended as a gay man, you are right. But it wasn't only because of that that I made this decision. I draw the line in the sand when politicians pander to any group and sacrifice their stated goals of equal dignity under law and associate themselves, willingly, with known bigots of any kind, be they racists, sexists or homophobes. This is such a line. Obama has crossed it. Good riddance, Barack Obama.

[Rex]

175. The Liberal Bashers on this site have no shame at all.

They would rec this guy that wouldn't vote for Obama! Pathetic lot imo.

[cali]

138. now there's a brilliant reason to rec something. Not for what it says but

because people you disagree with don't like the site.

[Rex]

186. Par the course for that one.

Always been that way.

[Rex]

173. Rec for a guy that refused to vote for Obama?

My my...

[AZ Progressive]

24. michigandem58 is a King George Democrat

He / She (as well as some others on DU) would've been comfortable living under the rule of King George III and calling George Washington and the other Forefathers terrorists if living in the pre-revolutionary times in America.

Seriously, calling journalists terrorists is something I would expect from an Authoritarian Republican. What about Obama's drone program, even if it isn't intended as terrorism, it is terrorizing people in Pakistan as well as other countries through the hundreds of civilian casualties and the families and villages around them that are affected.

[Vinnie From Indy]

41. Thanks alot!

You made me spit out some very expensive wine and have to clean my computer screen!

Your headline is very funny! I may steal it!

Cheers!

[leftstreet]

52. LOL

[Number23]

25. I usually like The People's View but I disagree with this post

There was no "terrorism" at issue here. If Miranda was indeed pedaling the documents from Snowden, he was most definitely handling stolen data (and that has never been up for debate no matter how many folks here try to "parse" that) but trying to align this with terrorism is crazy.

If in fact he did have the stolen data on him at the time, I am genuinely surprised that he wasn't charged.

[Luminous Animal]

30. To whom was he "pedaling" documents?

[Number23]

32. Every reasonable account says he was the relaying info to Poitras and Greenwald

And if they were Snowden's docs, which again the accounts say, they were stolen goods.

[Luminous Animal]

47. What do you think the definition of peddling is?

Greenwald says they are not Snowden docs and I can't believe that they would be. Both Poitras and Greenwald would each have a full set (and Greenwald has admitted so).

Logically, one would conclude that the drives contained work product based on the documents for which each added their own insight.

FYI, Bart Gellman and the Washington Post also retain many (if not all) of the same documents that Greenwald and Poitras have. Do you also advocate for Gellman or Gellman's assistant to be detained at airports and their equipment confiscated?

What you can't seem to wrap your head around is that the documents are now source material for journalists they are no more "stolen" in the hands of Greenwald, Gellman, or Poitras than the Pentagon Paper were in the hands of Neil Sheehan of the NY Times.

[Number23]

50. The documents were stolen. They will ALWAYS be stolen. Wrap your head around that.

[Luminous Animal]

56. And the Pentagon Papers were stolen and they will ALWAYS be stolen...

And the only people calling for the prosecution of the NY Times and it's reporters were Nixon, his cronies, and John Birch types.

Though I was aware of some Democrats were uncomfortable with Ellsberg's actions, none called for the persecution/prosecution of journalists. NONE.

[Number23]

62. And what EXACTLY does that have to do with the current discussion?

Who has called for the "persecution" of journalists? What the hell are you talking about?

And to the "points" that you raised, Ellsberg knew what he'd done was illegal, though morally sound. I don't think Snowden has the first clue about either of those issues, well except perhaps the illegal aspect which would be why he fled the country.

[Luminous Animal]

70. Characterizing journalism as terrorism (see the title of the OP) is persecution.

And conveying information from one person to another is not peddling.

Snowden also knew what he had done was illegal and he clearly expressed that his motives had a moral imperative. He fled the country because he witnessed the treatment of people like Thomas Drake, William Binney, and Bradley Manning. These are the grounds that the conflict stands. Not some made up bullshit about his personality.

[Number23]

72. There is probably a very good reason that you have decided to "bless" my posts with your

bewildering responses. But for the life of me, I have no idea what those reasons may be particularly as my first post in this thread said quite clearly that I DISAGREED with this OP.

Snowden also knew what he had done was illegal and he clearly expressed that his motives had a moral imperative. He fled the country because he witnessed the treatment of people like Thomas Drake, William Binney, and Bradley Manning.

If that's what you need to believe, knock yourself out. PLEASE believe me when I tell you that I honestly couldn't care less.

[Luminous Animal]

81. Number23 says, "Who has called for the "persecution" of journalists?" I merely pointed out who has..

for one. I can find dozens of others but I am sure you have seen them.

Nowhere in my posts did I say that YOU called for the persecution of journalists.

Ta. I've got to pedal off to peddle some wares.

[Number23]

85. I'm sure peddling is a distinctive strength of yours. Toodles.

[stevenleser]

105. Hmmm. Not exactly. Ellsberg had more of a right to those documents. He helped write them.

Snowden took documents he had no right to even look at. He had a lot of access to a system and he took advantage of that and grabbed documents.

[spin]

26. History will determine if Snowden was a hero or a traitor. ...

If we gain control over the alphabet agencies that are gathering data on every American citizen and violating our rights to privacy as guaranteed in our Constitution, he will be considered a hero.

If we continue down the path we are on and turn into a police state, he will be viewed as a traitor.

[NorthCarolina]

107. That's really it right there. nt

[stevenleser]

28. I disagree with the idea that it is terrorism, but rec'd for an interesting perspective. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. it is amazing what one can read on liberal/progressive board these days

[villager]

37. That is neither liberal, nor progressive, you mean?

Kind of disillusioning, really, how readily people clang the bars shut behind themselves.

[socialist_n_TN]

60. It's just a small, noisy group that take these perspectives......

DU is still made up of a majority of actual left reformists, but the other contingent is prolific. By the word maybe?

[villager]

127. Whatever their motivation, they're certainly noisy as hell!

[LondonReign2]

34. Is the author of this blog a fucking moron?

Terrorism = being exposed to the author's spewel

[HardTimes99]

67. +Infinity! - nt

[Democracyinkind]

73. The author is a member of DU.

Try to wrap your head around that.

I'm still trying.

[morningfog]

144. What screen name?

[Democracyinkind]

145. I just realized that I misread, sorry.

Spandan does not post on DU. I misinterpreted a statement by another DUer.

To be honest, though, I think the author would fit in nicely with the "new crew".

[Katashi_itto]

136. +10000

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Which idiot wrote this homophobic crap?

I guess the need to denigrate minorities is one of the things that unifies the Center with their allies on the Right.

[LondonReign2]

153. Worse, which idiot keeps linking to it on a Democratic board?

[George II]

170. Why do you refere to it as "homophobic"?

[Fire Walk With Me]

39. Bad. This is the same government which has used domestic terrorism against the Occupy movement.

It is an illegal government engaging in illegal surveillance of its population. These matters make any =journalism=, truth-telling, speaking truth to illegal power, and whistle-blowing (which Obama made claims to promote and protect) a non-issue in comparison.

The article's writer is guilty of non-proportion and even to the threat against their career.

Dear author: The US government consider Occupy to be terrorists. Now journalists. Anyone who dares question or point out the government's illegal actions and intent is a terrorist to them. Are you okay with this? Because it comes directly from GEORGE W BUSH and his family and the neocons, who made all of this possible and who are profiting wildly in terms of power and money as a result. Are you supporting George W Bush? Because you're either with him or you're with the terrorists.

[cascadiance]

51. Yeah, calling so many people "terrorists" arbitrarily smacks of the techniques used by the Stasi...

... in the old communist East German police state...

[PSPS]

42. Another tired #5

Worshiper/Apologist Hit Parade:

1. This is nothing new
2. I have nothing to hide
3. What are you, a freeper?
4. But Obama is better than Christie/Romney/Bush/Hitler
5. Greenwald/Flaherty/Gillum/Apuzzo/Braun is a hack
6. We have red light cameras, so this is no big deal
7. Corporations have my data anyway
8. At least Obama is trying
9. This is just the media trying to take Obama down
10. It's a misunderstanding/you are confused
11. You're a racist
12. Nobody cares about this anyway / "unfounded fears"
13. I don't like Snowden, therefore we must disregard all of this
14. Other countries do it

[xfundy]

78. Wow, that was helpful.

Not.

[DirkGently]

43. So. Threats of truth telling should be treated like threats of violence?

Yes -- this is exactly the rationale applied by every despicable authoritarian regime in history. The absolute antithesis of the First Amendment.

Congratulations. This post bulls-eyes the absolute bottom of the philosophical barrel.

The argument that embarrassing the state with truthful information that is threatening only in its likelihood of raising the public consciousness of government wrongdoing is precisely the most anti-democratic, purely vile and evil sentiment possible, on not only the subject of press freedom, but as to civilization or government of any kind.

This is how you get to dictators and genocide and everything else Americans and all decent people everywhere oppose.

Repellant. Filthy. Indefensible.

[mindwalker_i]

49. From !.A, all activities that break the law are terrorism

You have managed to make the term lose all meaning. It's been happening for a while, so you're in good company, but it's no longer possible to take anyone's cry of "terrorism" seriously.

But it gets worse: now, you have a journalist trying to inform you about how your own government is violating the constitution, against you, and you call reporting on that "terrorism." So to keep you informed about the most basic things you should know to be a good citizen - to vote for the things that make the country work - just to keep you informed is terrorism.

That's not just a bad idea, it's voluntary retardation.

[idwiyo]

61. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

[Pholus]

64. Don't forget those quakers or that 82 year old nun.

We must make sure your "law" includes all the actual cases where the terrorism label was trotted out to make things seem worse than they are.

Go on, conjure up some *more* injustices with your awesome magic word that says whatever you need it to say at the moment.

And "thepeoplesview" honestly does sound rather Pravda-ish when it comes down to it. I am starting to see why the left-authoritarian label seems apt.

[kelliekat44]

65. I said this before. So the US and UK should just ignore Snowden and let all the info out.

Once that is done, let the chips fall where they may. Damn having an entire nation held hostage and blackmailed by cowardly journalists. Most of the damage to the US and UK (which is the obvious motives of Greenwald and Snowden) has already been accomplished.

[Rumold]

104. Cowardly Journalists ?

cowardly journalists. really

[eridani]

135. Whatchu mean "US" and "UK"?

The one percenters whose interests are the only concern of our military/espionage establishment? Or could it be that the rest of us poor slobs who just live here have some claim to the designation?

[HangOnKids]

212. An entire nation held hostage and blackmailed?

Really?

[Democracyinkind]

74. I can't believe that people can write such stuff and think of themselves as liberal.

[xfundy]

76. So, you agree with this ASSessment?

WhatTF are you doing on DU? You should be riding a horse, with a big gun, natch, and screeching it out with a megaphone.

[mike_c]

80. strong is the fail, with this one....

[Proud Liberal Dem]

82. I don't agree with Britain using anti-terror laws in this manner

by the same token, it sounds like they at least had *some* justification for detaining Mr. Miranda to determine if he was in possession of stolen documents.

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. can we now at least knock off this bullshit denial about how the pro-surveillance apologist are not

authoritarians? Can we at least ALL agree to be intellectually honest and admit that the quarrel here is a struggle between those who support the liberal and democratic state versus those who support the authoritarian state? Can we all at least agree to stop this facade that it is anything other than that?

[DirkGently]

87. I accept that some are just very blindly partisan. Or nihilistic.

We get a lot of the "shut up when it's 'our guys' doing it" vibe here. Some honestly believe you stick up for your team, and wait for the other guys to do the same thing before you criticize.

But it's also shocking how many people have no appreciation or understanding whatever as to what our core civil liberties mean, what they prevent, and where we'd be without them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

92. you are probably right - but civil liberties principles include the principle that it applies to

all sides. Freedom of religion doesn't just mean my religion or lack there of - it means everyone's - freedom of speech is for speech I hate as much as speech I like - Even Saudi Arabia has free speech for speech the regime likes. Freedom from an intrusive surveillance state and protections for the right to privacy - I cannot even imagine why it should apply only during a Republican Administration.

[DirkGently]

95. Yes. It's not a left / right issue at all. Authoritarians

come from all over. There are rightwing dictators and leftwing dictators. Fascist authoritarian regimes and communist ones. Civil rights get murdered wherever the greedy, fearful, and stupid go unchecked.

This amoral trope that truth is the enemy when it's inconvenient -- it's the baseline for everyone who's okay with just finding a way to smash dissent and silence all disagreement.

[L0oniX]

84. Obviously this fucked up US government thinks journalists are probable terrorists.

This is what happens when the American Idol crowd switches to the TV show ... 24.

[CincyDem]

86. What makes me crazy about this "putting lives in danger" meme is...

...we're more focused on the sin of getting called out (and pointing the finger at the whistleblower) than we are at the risks created by the act itself.

This is like one of this chits from Stubenville who apologized something along the line of "I'm sorry I took pictures". WHAT??? Not sorry that I did it but sorry that I took pics that got me caught.

Focus on the key issue here - should the NSA effectively had unfettered retroactive access to virtually 100% (if not totally 100%) of the electronic correspondence in the world?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

90. Thank you! K&R! She also loves Cory Booker, the same guy who defended Bain Capital and Mitt Romney.

Just because she's Rachel Maddow doesn't mean she's always right. But, DU worships Maddow as if she's the queen of all that is righteous and moral. She's not.

Thanks so much for sharing.

Kicked and recommended!!

[Bluenorthwest]

112. Trouble with this Stalwart is that the OP also LOVES Cory Booker I just left a thread about how the

'far left' was defeated by Booker. "Cory Booker Wins Senate Primary. The Far-Left Wins Nothing. Again".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023493711#post96

This might put a crimp in your back slapping. Or perhaps you will just switch to be a Booker supporter 'cause of Salon.com being so dang leftist, who knows?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

159. Yes, and it's a fucking shame, too. There was nothing wrong with the more

liberal candidates on that ticket. I don't give a damn about Booker.

And Democrats who have fallen in love with Chris Christie disgust me, too! They are falling for a charlatan.

[another_liberal]

96. If you can only save our President . . .

Argue against the truth of what the spy masters have done all you want. The sad fact is that if you can only save our President by saving the NSA as well, then our President is beyond saving. Your efforts would be far better spent helping President Obama disassociate himself from a surveillance empire which is completely out of control.

I think it is time to cut our losses and throw the NSA "under the bus."

[Android3.14]

97. And that's why fascism is okay with michigandem58

Maddow needs an education from you just like you should teach a class on Constitutional Law and latrine construction.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

99. ...

[cthulu2016]

101. This peoplesview blog is hilarious. Thanks for the daily updates.

[NuclearDem]

102. We're not allowed to link to pro-socialist websites

But this crap is still just fine?

Oy...

[stupidicus]

103. the author of that is a terrorist for using the terrorism charge coercively

and quite an obnoxious dumbass to boot.

[99Forever]

106. Tyranny under the veil of "security" is still tyranny.

Aren't there some jackboots that require licking?

[JEB]

111. From the headline

I thought this was about Judith Miller. Maybe it should be.

[MisterP]

114. they don't mind Miller or Katherine Harris: I remember that they didn't in 2002 (or Yoo)

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2013, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130802/14032124047/its-dangerous-free-speech-when-we-confuse-leakers-with-spies.shtml

[20score]

113. It’s obvious that anyone who thinks critically, honestly or with empathy is a terrorist.

Just like the Bushies before you, the only problem I see is that you don’t go far enough. A good police state doesn’t just torture logic and the law, it tortures anyone who threatens their power.

You’re on the right track. Start reading about Caligula and move right on through Pol Pot and you’ll get the feel of it.

[Ocelot]

115. OK, but who's to decide what is "terrorism"...John Roberts?

"Edward Snowden's revelations - and Glenn Greenwald's possible instigation of the revelations"

At first you people were going on about how Snowden was an attention seeker, now he provides "revelations" on the scale of St. John the Divine. Give it up, you've lost the debate.

And you do know that John Roberts is the "decider" who gets to secretly appoint all the secret NSA Judges, don't you? That's forever, as long as John Roberts is Chief Justice. Nice gig for John Roberts. You're all fine with that, huh?

[Half-Century Man]

117. There is an old adage "the pen is mightier than the sword"

And it refers to just this situation. Because TPTB can not justify violence or suppression against a collection of words. Actions can be reacted to. Using the idea of a fair response words can only be argued against and still be seen as justice.

TPTB know that their illegal actions deserve a reaction and fear that backlash. The only way to quell the extent is to preserve as much of the secrecy as possible.
In order to justify their actions, they need us to acquaint the words as an action (terrorism).

The words are not actions and may only be engaged by a superior argument. To acquaint them to actions is like arguing that. By the fact platypuses have an airfoil shaped bill and feet and a streamlined body, if we could just get Aaron Rogers to cooperate; we would have monotreme air shows for halftime.

[Cleita]

119. Of course it is.

Now would you like a nice cup of tea?

[Marr]

123. Seriously-- is there ANYONE at DU who wants to read this shit?

I can't imagine it would appeal to much of anyone, besides the author who keeps pimping it here. He seems unhinged.

[Blecht]

124. Why post this drivel?

I am going to make sure I do not see any more crap from you.

[whatchamacallit]

126. With quislings like Spandan, who needs terrorists to fuck up this country? n/t

[Katashi_itto]

137. Your on the wrong website.

[cali]

139. the author of that pathetic website is seriously stupid.

one has to be, to seriously suggest that Greenwald or Snowden meets the definition of a terrorist.

Seriously stupid and dishonest.

[Quantess]

146. I think it's the OP's own website...?

I think.

[cali]

140. It's embarrassing that this crap got 22 recs.

[Puzzledtraveller]

188. no kidding

[Rex]

192. Not embaressing, revealing.

Notice how many of them are the ones constantly yelling at the rest of us if we don't support Obama 100%. Yet, strangely enough they manage to ignore the fact that the blog owner hates Obama and wouldn't vote for him!

IMO, their liberal bashing is overriding their supposed support of the big O. Or the like to play pretend a lot.

[Little Milly]

141. Remove both bling words: Terrorism and Journalism

A person suspected of carrying stolen classified documents was detained and searched.

The "press" is peddlin' its papers.

[HangOnKids]

213. Terrorism and Journalism are bling words?

Oh my!

[morningfog]

142. There we go. Been looking for someone to come right out and

say this. Disturbing how far we've come.

[Quantess]

143. Thanks for the suggestion to watch Rachel Maddow's clip.

It sounds like good tv!
Is it this one? http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/52797608#52797608

[morningfog]

147. Unmitigated right-wing bullshit. This is fascist apologia.

This is why some are called authoritatians. Those who support this should be ashamed.

What the fuck? Do you want to send a drone out after them? You really think this is terrorism?

I am asking all those who have recced it too:

Tarheel_Dem sheshe2 Cha greatauntoftriplets michigandem58 Jamaal510 SidDithers kelliekat44 stevenleser railsback bama_blue_dot mwrguy CakeGrrl sagat Liberal_Stalwart71 4bucksagallon UTUSN BumRushDaShow uponit7771 Lil Missy sigmasix ucrdem

[muriel_volestrangler]

148. To those who post or recommend this crap: Have you left no sense of decency?

This is simple McCarthyism. No DUer should even contemplate supporting a witch-hunt with the scare word "terrorism" like this.

[morningfog]

154. A shameful lot. Really scary to see how low they go.

Makes me fearful to wonder how much lower they could go.

[Puglover]

171. Honestly.

I am surprised you're surprised.

[muriel_volestrangler]

202. Not surprised about the thread starter; one or two of the recommenders used to have

some morals.

[Puglover]

203. Yes I agree.

But bring Obama and this admin into the mix and everything else is expendable. Sad I know.

[Rex]

214. Or so you were led to believe maybe?

Can't be right all of the time.

[hobbit709]

149. and stupidity under the veil of bigotry is still stupidity.

[Bonobo]

150. Kick for visibility

An absolute low point for DU and I won't let this poster or those who recced it crawl into their hole just yet.

[michigandem58]

161. Your kick is appreciated

I suspect the view of the writer is closer to that of prominent mainstream Democrats than yours.

[Bonobo]

164. And if MLK knew you were using his photo,

he would never stop vomiting.

[Rex]

178. Yeah NOTE that the blog owner hates Obama and loves to bash the Left

and also notice too how many people rec this thread...I guess they put their own personal views above party.

[Egalitarian Thug]

163. I don't suppose you have a definition for terrorism, do you? n/t

[michigandem58]

165. Good Lord

It's in the excerpt - you don't even have to click the link.

[Egalitarian Thug]

166. I don't help spammers fake their clicks-for-cash scams. n/t

[burnodo]

209. Anything that doesn't agree with the current government is terrorism

How dare anyone question King Obama???!?

[Rex]

177. So you support a guy that hates Obama and bashes the left?

And all the recs...yeah I knew you guys hated Obama and just bash the left when ya can, because you hate us.

What a shocker!

[michigandem58]

194. Actually, I'm far more supportive of President Obama

than the Professional Left.

[Rex]

196. Not you the idiot blogger you linked to.

Sorry did not mean you. Why does he hate Obama? Just likes to bash when he can?

EDIT - you link to this guy a lot, do you know him? Why does he hate Obama so much?

Blog owners own words - "Obama Lost My Vote - General Election, Too

Lest you think this is because I was personally offended as a gay man, you are right. But it wasn't only because of that that I made this decision. I draw the line in the sand when politicians pander to any group and sacrifice their stated goals of equal dignity under law and associate themselves, willingly, with known bigots of any kind, be they racists, sexists or homophobes. This is such a line. Obama has crossed it. Good riddance, Barack Obama."

Whats up with that? Obama has been GREAT for the LGBT community! What did I miss?

[Puzzledtraveller]

187. Wow

Terrorism Under Veil of Journalism is Still Terrorism

[Rex]

190. Something you would expect to read in 1984.

nt.

[Puzzledtraveller]

198. My theory is this is just the disgusting display

of complete adoration for a potus. Veiled as real concern. I asked the #1 offender Prosense in a thread if she would have wrote all she has if there were a president Romney or Mccain in office, surprisingly she succinctly responded. No.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3489967

[Rex]

199. For some I can see that being the case. The blog owner the thread is linked to...no not at all.

If it is complete adoration for a potus, then why does the blog owner type this?

"Obama Lost My Vote - General Election, Too

Lest you think this is because I was personally offended as a gay man, you are right. But it wasn't only because of that that I made this decision. I draw the line in the sand when politicians pander to any group and sacrifice their stated goals of equal dignity under law and associate themselves, willingly, with known bigots of any kind, be they racists, sexists or homophobes. This is such a line. Obama has crossed it. Good riddance, Barack Obama."

Not very pro Obama if you won't even vote for the guy!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

208. LOL. love the pretzel logic.

and by love i mean have no respect for.

[Matariki]

210. Right Wing Garbage Under Veil of Progressive Analysis is Still Right Wing Garbage

Last edited Wed Aug 21, 2013, 08:29 PM - Edit history (1)

[George II]

216. I find it very interesting that the OP was blasted for using a specific term in reference to.....

....Miranda. Although it was pointed out (by me, several times) that Rachel Maddow herself used the term "boyfriend" in reference to him, there has been no further comment or retraction of the insulting comments by them.