Thank You Bernie Sanders: 'The Devil Will Be In The Details' .. 'I Do Not Agree With The President'

[sabrina 1]

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)

The direct quote ""I do not overall agree with the President on that issue" at 4:14.

Thanks DUers Autumn and Eomer ..

he was referring to the storage of people's data in response to a question regarding the President's statement that he would have to find some other entity to 'store all that data. Sanders stated, 'the question is not WHO will store it, but SHOULD it be stored at all.'

In the same CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, Sen. Sanders was asked what he thought about the NSA reforms as described by President Obama in his speech.



Sen Sanders on NSA Reforms

Video at link.

Bernie was excellent as always as he continues to defend our Constitutional Rights.

'It's a start' he stated but 'the Devil will be in the Details'.

He expressed serious concerns about the statement by the President regarding 'who will store the data'. He was very clear that this was a violation of Constitution and believes that the data should not be stored at all. He went into detail about the chilling effect of these violations on people, including young people, students etc regarding 'going to a library and fearing to ask for a book, in case they might be viewed as a 'terrorist'. Very good responses from him on this.

He was asked by Wolf Blitzer if he had a received an answer to his question, 'Is the NSA spying Congress'. Blitzer stated that he had heard the Senator had received some responses. Sen. Sanders pointed out the enormous danger of such a practice, the potential for bribery etc and when asked what he had meant regarding Nixon (apparently referring to earlier statements) he responded: 'If Nixon had had this technology, can you imagine what he would have done with it'.


Worth listening to the whole interview. He was excellent as always.

Thank YOU Bernie. Never sells out the interests of the American People. Never prevaricates when it comes to our Constitutional Rights, while always given credit where it is due.

He expects a lot more reforms before this issue is resolved.

Note: I paraphrased his comments from the interview, they are not direct quotes ...

[ProSense]

1. No where does Sanders say or imply that. n/t

[sabrina 1]

2. Say or imply what?

[ProSense]

3. He did not say: "I Do Not Agree With The President"

[sabrina 1]

5. He was asked what he thought about the President's statement about finding

a new place to store the data. His response was clearly that he did not agree with the president, that the question should be whether it should be stored or not.

Did he AGREE with the President, is that what you're stayin?

[ProSense]

6. That was not his response. n/t

[eomer]

9. "Look, the devil is in the details but I don't agree with the overall position of the president ..."

"... on that issue."

At approximately 4:05 in the video:
http://thevictoryreport.org/freedom-sanders-reforms/

[Rex]

12. Don't expect an answer.

Facts bother some here.

[ProSense]

21. I listened to the whole thing, including

Senator Sanders stated that he wanted the NSA to check if an known terrorist was calling someone in Vermont: 5:44

Now, changing quotes matter. The OP text is in quotes, and the context of the statement is lost.

"Facts bother some here."

Evidently, they do.

[pa28]

24. FYI single quotes are for paraphrased material.

Seemed like a good place to kick this excellent post.

[ProSense]

25. "Paraphrased material" isn't designed to change the meaning or context of a quote. n/t

[arely staircase]

37. and removing qualifiers is disingenuous. nt

[Rex]

58. Good point that will be ignored.

nt.

[pa28]

81. Well of course. Distraction, not accuracy is the real purpose here.

[sabrina 1]

31. He stated what he believed the job of the NSA should be, 'looking for terrorists' which btw

we now know they have not found. He expressed grave concern over them spying on the American people. Don't twist the context in which he said, rightly, that he 'wants them look for terrorists' in response to Wolf Blitzer.

[ProSense]

33. You can't be

"Don't twist the context in which he said, rightly, that he 'wants them look for terrorists' in response to Wolf Blitzer."

...serious. I made a point and directed to the exact portion of the clip. You can go there and check it out. There is nothing to hide or "twist."

[sabrina 1]

57. You did twist what he said and took it out of context. You should qualified your comment as I

qualified my OP, first I included the link so people could see the interview, then noted at the end that I paraphrased (which is why I did not use quotation marks, Bernie's comments. You did none of that. You took his comment out of context and made i seem that he supported all of what the NSA is doing. He does not, far from it. What he wants is for them to do the job they are supposed to do, find terrorists, NOT spy on the American people.

[ProSense]

59. No, I did not. You are projecting. n/t

[Swagman]

68. but..but..does this means Sanders is an egotist like Assange ?

criticizing a government policy ?...isn't this just Sanders seeking relevance ?

[sabrina 1]

69. And attention! Lol!

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. are you making a comparison between the two?

hahahahahahaha...right.

[bvar22]

30. Oops.

Bernie Sanders did INDEED "say that".

"I do NOT agree with the overall position of the President".
---Bernie Sanders

I'm sure there will be a post correcting the false claim,
and a Mea Culpa from the poster of that untruthful attack.
.
.
.
After all, thats the only thing to do if one cares about REALITY, TRUTH, and DOCUMENTED FACTS,
or their own credibility on DU.
.
.
.
any minute now
.
.
.
.
.

[sabrina 1]

35. Do you know if anyone went over to correct the other OP which completely distorted Bernie's position

on the reforms? I haven't checked, but surely if accuracy is the issue, at least those who are in this thread demanding it, must have done the same in the other thread ....

[Rex]

54. Believe it or not, SOMEONE in this very thread went and rec 'cd THAT thread!

I would say their agenda cannot be any more painfully obvious then right now.

[sabrina 1]

63. Omg, I am going to have to go see that for myself!

[Rex]

65. It is painful to watch this go one anymore!

They LOVE the other thread! It trashes Bernie...so that gets a high5 donchaknow!

[sabrina 1]

82. I wondered how long it would be before Bernie joined all the other great Progressives under the bus!

Lol!

[Enthusiast]

165. He has tire tracks on his face.

[bvar22]

110. Some search for TRUTH.

Others peddle LIES.

I'm grateful for the Thread Info button.
It lets us ALL see the names of the 11 other DUers have sided with the peddlers of Willful Distortions & Deceitful Propaganda in that other obscenity.

Woo said it best:

[font size=3]The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.[/font]

It is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.

It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.

The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

woo me with science Sun Jul 28, 2013

[bvar22]

64. Not a chance.

They will try to spin, divert, and distort,
split very fine hairs,
and parse out what the meaning of the word "overall" is.

"I made a mistake" is NOT something that crowd ever says.
Incidentally, that is also Conservative Rule #1: Never admit you are wrong.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3739639


I went and reviewed the clip.

Bernie Sanders does indeed say,
[font size=3]"I don't agree with the overall position of the President."[/font]
That in NO WAY changes the substance of your OP.
In fact, it VALIDATES it.



Bernie also says:
"The current USA surveillance program represents a clear violation of the 4th Amendment ban on unreasonable searches"

and

(It is) "clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution,
and THAT has to end."

So Bernie Sanders not only agrees with you and me,
[font size =3]but also agrees with Rand Paul!!![/font]

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on President Obama's NSA surveillance reform speech:
'While I am encouraged the President is addressing the NSA spying program because of pressure from Congress and the American people, I am disappointed in the details. The 4th Amendment requires an individualized warrant based on probable cause before the government can search phone records and e-mails' - via @NBCNews

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/obama-nsa-reform-proposals/

...and NO. I don't expect any kind of retraction or Mea Culpa for the unwarranted, baseless attacks in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347724

It really is a matter of having an internal Moral Compass.
Some have it,
some don't.

If it was WRONG in 2006,
It is STILL WRONG today.
Case closed.

[sabrina 1]

76. Bernie also says that the 'current surveillance program is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment

of the United States Constitution, and THAT has to end."

Lol, I think I might have to write another OP on this. I missed just how much he disagrees with the President.

I didn't really expect a retraction. For that to happen, the demand for ACCURACY would have to be sincere after which a sincere person would apologize.

But I have learned that not only will there be no apology, one of the most 'concerned about accuracy' posters in this thread, actually REC'D the total distortion of Bernie's position in the other OP.

Do people who are so obvious as to their motives, really think they are influencing anyone? That has always puzzled me.

[Autumn]

89. Your thread was awesome. And this little gem here blew me out of the water

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

who would have ever imagined

[Purveyor]

102. lol. Great find and post indeed! Hypocrisy knows no boundary it seems for some...

[Autumn]

103. Just imagine if you will.

What if we had had an Edward Snowden in 2006? Hypocrisy indeed.

[sabrina 1]

146. If you want to know what would have happened had Edward Snowden appeared in 2006 all you

have to do is remember how EVERY WHISTLE BLOWER, most of them Republicans at the time, EVERY SOLDIER who refused to be deployed and stated why, Bush lied, was a HERO.

But imagine if Drake, Binney, Tice, Sgt Benderman et al had appeared NOW?? Lucky for them they appeared during the Bush years.

And imagine if Assange had appeared in 2006, Manning? There would be PASSIONATE defenses of them, petitions would be started, pay pal accounts set up.

And one more thing. We DON'T have to imagine what would have happened if Bush had used Drones, because he did and I remember the villifications, the ANGER that any president of the US could do such an immoral thing.

I think the game is up. Most people HAVE imagined all of that, and pointed it out, but they don't seem to absorb any of it. However everyone else does and that's what matters.

[Autumn]

107. As you see, it's not a question of "what", it's "who".

Right there.

[neverforget]

129. Indeed! When it's a D, it's all cool.

Thanks for the find!

[sabrina 1]

138. That was revealing and if you read further down that thread there are several other great links

to Why The NSA Spying Program is Illegal! Lol!

Thank the gods I have the same position on Spying on the American people now that I had then. The truth never changes!

[JDPriestly]

160. Incredible. What a different tune is being piped now that Obama is in office.

We were promised change, but I never thought that the change would be in the opinions of DUers on very fundamental government programs. Wonders never cease.

[Enthusiast]

166. ...

[bobduca]

152. amoral public relations flak for the DLC

[woo me with science]

233. "It really is a matter of having an internal Moral Compass."

[sarcasmo]

128. +1

[wildbilln864]

20. see post #9! n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

126. Sabrina's represntation of the discussion is accurate

At 2:48, Mr. Blitzer sets the context of the discussion by quoting the Senator as saying that the current NSA program is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. At 3:04, Senator Sanders states "To my mind, when every telephone call made by every single American is on file in the NSA -- that is clearly, to my mind, a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution -- in my mind -- and that's got to end."

In case you've missed it, that is also my view. To those who claim that there is no evidence of any abuse under this program, my answer is that the storage of the data, or metadata, if you prefer, is an abuse of the constitutional rights of citizens in and of itself. So please don't thy to tell me that there is no abuse.

At 3:24, Mr. Blitzer interrupts Senator Sanders to explain President's idea that the information should not be stored at the NSA any longer than necessary. He asks the Senator, "So who's going to store all these records? Who would be an appropriate person or source or institution to do such a thing?"

At 3:45, Senator Sanders says, "Well, Wolf, it's not a question -- you're asking who should store it, the question is whether it should be stored."

Mr. Blitzer at 3:50 interrupts with "The President says they should be stored. The President says that by the end of March, he want a new formula to store all that information so that in case there's a threat of a terrorist operation, they can sort of connect the dots and find out who might be responsible."

We're now at 4:05, when Senator Sanders says, "Again, the Devil is in the details, but I don't agree with the overall position of the President on that issue."

I'm not using paraphrases, but direct quotes from the tape. Nevertheless, I find Sabrina's paraphrasing of the discussion an accurate representation of what was said. "That issue" to which the Senator refers is the issue of whether the NSA program is a wholesale violation of the Fourth Amendment. President Obama obviously believes it is not. Senator Sanders believes that it is and I agree with him.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I honestly do not understand how anybody can read that and conclude that the NSA domestic spying program passes constitutional muster.

The solution is quite easy. If the government has reason to believe a private American citizen is conspiring with international terrorists, then it may get a warrant to search his phone records. The Fourth Amendment has worked for over 200 years and there's no reason to abandon it now.

[sabrina 1]

147. That is an excellent post, Jack Rabbit. Thank you for taking the time to do this.

Frankly people are sick and tired of those trying to defend the indefensible. THIS COUNTRY is what is important but that seems to not be a concern for some.

However I am certain that a majority of Americans DO see the importance of this issue, and polls indicate that the more people learn, the more people view Snowden as a Whistle Blower, NOT a 'traitor' as they have tried to portray him.

I suppose they calculated that if a Democrat pushed these policies they could get the Left to stop whining about them. They already had the Right, well enough of them to keep it going. But they were very much mistaken. People don't generally wake up one morning and change their minds about issues as important as this.

Thank you for a great post, Jack Rabbit, I appreciate it very much ...

[Autumn]

8. He said "I do not overall agree with the President on that issue" at 4:14.

Gotta be precise!!! Thanks for posting this.




Cracking up here.

[Rex]

13. Can you believe all the flip flopping going on to control the debate?

Thankfully, as always, it is only about 5 or 6 people. You think they will ever give up?

[Autumn]

16. All I can say is

Maybe in 2017

[Rex]

18. BAWHAHAHAHAHA!

Don't...I have a mouthful of soda!

[sabrina 1]

36. Lol, amazing isn't it? I am still wondering if the other OP distorting Bernie's position was

descended on with demands for accuracy??

[Autumn]

44. No demands for links or quotes, accuracy or any of that shit .

Your OP just doesn't fit their narrative --for their purpose, anyway.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10024353382&info=1#recs

[Rex]

48. Golly gee I dunno...that really kinda makes them look...well

two faced? I for one am glad to watch countless DUers remind them of their narratives narrow scope and purpose.

[Autumn]

50. Hey, I only quoted a couple of posters in this thread

[Rex]

52. LOL!

You are on a roll today!

[Autumn]

55. I did forget to use quotation marks and credit the poster

but fuck it, they can read the thread and find the exact quotes I'm gonna watch my movie

[Rex]

56. I agree, if they care so much they can find it. Have a great movietime!

[Autumn]

71. You know what really sucks worse than no exact quotes when someone is paraphrasing?

That's finding out a movie is stuck in the blu-ray player and the movie you want to watch is a blu-ray DVD.

So I'm just gonna sit here by you and enjoy and this delightful thread

[sabrina 1]

84. Think of it as 'reality tv'. But more fun!

Sorry about your movie. What was it? If you don't mind answering and don't forget, 'accuracy is everything' except when you rec a totally distorted OP!

[Autumn]

86. Spaceballs, the 25th anniversary edition

My Grand Daughter bought it for me yesterday She knows the way to my heart.

[sabrina 1]

91. Shouldn't you have quotation marks or something around the title of the movie?

Sorry, couldn't resist. I hope you get to see it, sounds like your grand daughter is very thoughtful.

[Rex]

88. Oh shit!!!

Hmmmm...is there a pin hole on the front? Sometimes players come with a small pin hole to push a paper clip into and it will manually open the tray door!

It is funny watching them rec one thread (because it trashes Bernie) and then trash another because of WHO started it!

[Autumn]

92. It's rather amusing, and all too common.

Don't see a pin hole on the front. I'll have my Husband look at it when he gets back from town.

[HuskyOffset]

176. There is no such thing . . .

Quote:

That's finding out a movie is stuck in the blu-ray player and the movie you want to watch is a blu-ray DVD.

. . . as a "blu-ray DVD". In a thread that appears to be all about accuracy, I feel obligated to point out that a piece of optical media can be classified as either a blu-ray or a DVD, but not both. There are specific definitions for both of those things, and those definitions specify, among other things, the physical characteristics of the media, and blu-ray and DVD are different. The thing you want to watch is either a blu-ray or a DVD, it cannot be both. Sorry for the interruption, you may now return to your argument.

[Autumn]

199. That is so interesting, thanks for the information from one who still has

a VHS player and the tapes. Must be why my blu-ray player wont play "regular" DVDs . I will try to be much more precise in the future.

[sabrina 1]

85. Lol, I didn' and look what happened, 'forget' anything important, such as the paraphrase commas and

a note stating it was paraphrasing AND a link to the actual interview. So I wouldn't worry about accuracy it doesn't seem to matter at all.

[sabrina 1]

66. Lol, I was just told that one of the people in this thread DEMANDING accuracy

actually REC'D that TOTAL distortion of Bernie's position!

Are we on the comedy channel?

[Rex]

47. One can only wonder!

I see No Facts fled this thread when introduced to the facts. I think the Usual Suspects are all trying desperately to get on the same page.

[bobduca]

153. Doing the math

5 or 6 X



= ~ 25-30

[Rex]

179. Bingo.

nt.

[rhett o rick]

182. She has nothing of substance so she tries to find an error in the OP to use

for a distraction. Blind faith is not pretty.

[rhett o rick]

181. It smacks of desperation when you pick a minor point and use it to try to hijack the thread.

Why didnt you simply ask what color Sen Sander's tie was? It's as meaningful as your attempt to distract.

[woo me with science]

4. Thank you for correcting the record.

The corporate-government talking points, as usual, are cherry picked distortions that fundamentally misrepresent.

It is a sign of how corrupt the US has become, not only that we now live in a surveillance state, but that we now live surrounded by relentless, dishonest messaging to smear and misrepresent representatives of the people and prop up the corporate state.

[sabrina 1]

94. No problem. The problem they are having now is that they are so obvious they are probably

doing more harm than good for their 'cause', whatever it is. I have not seen them change a single mind, on the contrary, the nastiness is driving more and more people AWAY. So what is the motive, is to destroy the Dem Party or what? I can't figure out engaging in such a futile campaign. People are not dumb, least of all Dems so they are not going to do anything other than discredit THEMSELVES.

[Enthusiast]

168. Yeah. What is their cause?

That's the part that has me baffled.

[bvar22]

245. What is The Motive?

Woo me answered that better than anyone:

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.

It is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.

It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.

[font size=3]The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.[/font]

woo me with science Sun Jul 28, 2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

Beautifully Stated.
Concise.
To the Point.
Undeniable.

[bobduca]

253. Thats the best description of PRO SENSE's role on this board yet.

"pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur."

[bobduca]

252. Their Cause or is it Cos?

as in cos-playing that they are PR agents for the white house? because there's no way that anyone would think this line of argumentation is effective.

[Cali_Democrat]

158. Do you think the people doing the messaging are all paid operatives?

BTW, what happened to your Elizabeth Warren 2016 signature pic?

Are you over her for 2016?

[rhett o rick]

183. I think your post is called JAQing. nm

[Cali_Democrat]

188. Fuck Ron Paul. nt

[rhett o rick]

190. If you wish, I wont stop you. nm

[bvar22]

200. LOL.

!

[Cali_Democrat]

221. *giggle*

[sabrina 1]

248. Lol! n/t

[one_voice]

7. ' I paraphrased his comments from the interview, they are not direct quotes'

LOL...of course you did. It reads better that way--for your purpose, anyway.

[sabrina 1]

10. Here's the direct quote, thanks to Autumn above:

"I do not overall agree with the President on that issue" at 4:14.

Are you claiming that he AGREED with the President?

I paraphrased the remarks and stated that. Is there a problem when someone states that these are not 'direct quotes'?

Did you chide the poster who completely misrepresented Sen Sanders btw?

[Autumn]

14. overall. overall. overall

Carry on

[bvar22]

201. The word "overall" is their Benghazi !!!

They have become parodies of themselves,
and Oh So transparent.

[sabrina 1]

213. "overall" is their Bengazi"

Lol! That really cracked me up! The OUTRAGE certainly was worthy of at least a Bengazi!

[Rex]

15. They are having some difficulties controlling the message.

Sad ain't it that it happens on a forum for Dems?

[arely staircase]

19. why did you change the quote? nt

[ProSense]

22. And the context. n/t

[sabrina 1]

26. I included the quote provided by two DUers in this thread. Here it is again, better

than my paraphrase. Did you see the link to the interview where people were free to view it for themselves and the note stating I was NOT quoting him btw?

Have you been over in the other thread that completely distorted his position yet, just for fun I"m sure? If you have, good for you ....

"I do not overall agree with the President on that issue" at 4:14.

You stated he did not say or IMPLY that he disagreed with the President on this issue. Do you still believe he supports the President on this issue now that the quote, and yes I described the context which preceded his response btw.

[Rex]

60. Been there? He rec'cd that thread!

BUT I am sure NOT because it trashes Bernie...NO, surely not!

[sabrina 1]

67. Whaaat? You're kidding right?

This has to be comedy. No one could expect to be taken seriously after that, ever again! Lol!

[sabrina 1]

23. Huh?? I didn't quote him, see note at the end of the OP. You know what paraphrasing means? But

here's the quote, which is actually BETTER than my paraphrasing, he makes it crystal clear that he does not agree with the President looking for somewhere else to store the data.

"I do not overall agree with the President on that issue" at 4:14.

Are you suggesting he AGREES with the President on that?

[arely staircase]

29. then why not just say that?

I suggest it is because the words you removed are qualifiers without which his disagreement with the president seems much stronger than it is.

[sabrina 1]

40. Did you read the OP?? Btw, have you corrected the other OP which completely distorted Bernie's

position on the reforms? I can't get anyone to answer that question so I guess I'll have to go check myself. Good for YOU if you already did so!

Btw, the actual quote states more clearly than my paraphrasing, that Bernie does not agree with the President on storing the data. It has been added to the OP. And do read before jumping in the future. The note at the end of the OP stated that comments from Bernie were paraphrased, AND a link to the interview was included.

[sabrina 1]

49. Omg! I just read this again: Why did you not say that'?? Are you seriously asking that question?

See the NOTE at the end of the OP. What does it say?



It's always better to read something before making comments about it.

Btw, have you chided the other OP which completely distorted Bernie's position on this?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

197. Oh look...it's the barley-comprehensible meltdown guy

I'm still trying to figure out what the hell you were talking about in that other thread. I'm going with bath salts until I hear otherwise.

[joshcryer]

28. doesn't fit the narrative

[arely staircase]

32. she removed words that were clearly qualifiers of Sander's disagreement.

it sounds much stronger without them, so she took them out.

[ProSense]

38. Not only that,

the comment was to a specific proposal. The "devil is in the details" is to the package of proposals.

The OP creates the impression that Senator Sanders disagreed with the President's proposals.

[sabrina 1]

53. I guess you didn't see the link. Or the note at the end of the OP. Surely if you had you would not

make such a comment.

Are you claiming that Bernie AGREES with the President on the issue of storing date? I believe the OP makes clear that when he stated he did not agree with it, he was talking about the issue of 'storing the data'.

Have you corrected the other OP which totally distorted the Senator's position? I did ask you before, but don't believe you answered yet.

[sabrina 1]

106. Let me ask you something. You are claiming a concern for accuracy here, yet you rec'd a total

distortion of Bernie's position on this in that other thread, the one that caused me to check 'for accuracy'. Why would you do that if accuracy is what you care about?

[ProSense]

116. Are you

Let me ask you something. You are claiming a concern for accuracy here, yet you rec'd a total

distortion of Bernie's position on this in that other thread, the one that caused me to check 'for accuracy'. Why would you do that if accuracy is what you care about?

...citing this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024353382

Here is the clip: http://www.msnbc.com/weekends-alex-witt/watch/sen-sanders-we-have-a-very-long-way-to-go-120722499615

My transcription:

Starts at :40

I think the President began the discussion. I think he has some ideas which merit consideration, but I think, Alex, we have a very long way to go on what is an enormously important and complicated issue, and the bottom line is everybody wants to see the Government do all that it can to make sure this country doesn't see another terrorist attack. No debate upon that. Many of us want to make sure that we protect the American people without undermining the Constitutional rights that make us a free people or our privacy rights, and the devil in the details...

At 6:16

On the other hand I have to say, when people work for intelligence organizations, and they sign oaths of secrecy, I have a problem with people saying "well, you know, I will just release all the information I want.

[sabrina 1]

121. You rec'd a thread that called Bernie a sellout and that implied when we found out what he

said he could forget his presidential aspirations. So some of us found that not believable and went to check. It was not true, the opposite was true.

Sanders said what we all have been saying including you when Bush was caught doing this, that the collection of data on every single American is a violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution and that 'it has to change'.

His opinion is clear, he is glad to see SOME action being taken but considers it 'just a start'.

You slammed me for an OP that is ACCURATE in terms of presenting his true position while rec'ing one that outright lied. You didn't write the OP, so why are you showing me what you wrote? The OP was a lie, yet you rec'd it. Sorry that makes no sense at all.

[ProSense]

122. You do recognize snark, don't you? n/t

[sabrina 1]

134. I recognize that a lot of people fell for it AND sadly, hoped it was true.

[sabrina 1]

41. Lol, you should quit while you are only this far behind. Did you go to the other OP which distorted

Bernie's position on this yet?

'overall' was left out, which is even MORE strong language than I recalled when I paraphrased it from memorty. OVERALL, he disagrees OVERALL. That is pretty clear isn't it, not just disagrees with part of the President's position on storing data, but he disagrees with ALL of it.

I would most certainly have that stronger language had I remember it. But have now included it.

[Rex]

51. My my...they are totally ignoring your posts now...the truth is too hard for them to write up some

BS reply to! How sad!

[sabrina 1]

61. I know. It's hilarious. When you have to make stuff about something that is RIGHT THERE

for people to see, I don't know what to call that. Sometimes the truth is painful but Bernie was clear, he views these reforms a 'start'.

I saw the other OP, and found it hard to believe that Bernie would have taken that position so I checked it out. Have they been over there correcting that totally false distortion of his position? I've asked, but can't get an answer! If not, I have to conclude that accuracy is not the issue here! Lol!

[Rex]

62. Yeah...gee this is not about accuracy in reporting, what could it be then?

They LOVE the other thread!

[bvar22]

73. It is hilarious to watch them flailing in their own shit,

...but kinda sad too.

I used to expect this kind of willful distortion only from FR and Fox News Conservatives.

[font color=white]..............[/font][font size=3]Its not just for Republicans anymore! [/font]

[joshcryer]

144. I like the self-congratulatory derisive nature of these posts.

I mean, literally nothing was objectively proven here by the OP, but yet here we are patting ourselves on the back.

[Rex]

194. Ouch! THAT's got to hurt!

But spot on!

[Scootaloo]

72. But it's not intent or context that matters, only the exact, precise words!

Standard tactic for when someone loses a text argument.

You: "Well, you clearly are of a pro-execution, pro-corporate, anti-dog persuasion..."
Them: "SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID I AM 'PRO-EXECUTION, PRO-CORPORATE, AND ANTI-DOG'!!! YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE I'VE NEVER SAID THOSE EXACT WORDS!"
You: "But... you support the death penalty (link) you're for free-trade deals (link) and you want to see this breed of dogs eradicated (link)"
Them: "But I never said I was pro-execution, pro-corporate, or anti-dog, Y U LIE SO HARD!"
You: "But that's exactly what all of that amounts to."
Them: "lolroflwhatev"

There seems to be a poor understanding of the use of quotations. either that or these people operate at a second-grade reading level (it's not just being able to identify words, people, it's about comprehension)

I must admit i'm more used to that nonsense from the right... but I guess it's inevitable that an unmoderated forum like DU would end up collecting its own share of internet flotsam too.

[sabrina 1]

90. I don't think there is any question now what this was all about. The OP was clear, a link was

provided, no quotation marks PLUS a disclaimer at the bottom to say the comments paraphrased. The 'outrage' was hilarious considering the actual quote the objected to was posted almost immediately and was even more clear that Bernie did not agree with the President on the storing of data.

I could have quoted him stating that 'it was a clear violation of the US Constitution' and 'has to change'. But I assumed people would, and they did, watch the interview.

Even more damning for them is that this OP was to correct the OP that completely distorted Bernie's position but when I asked if any of them had gone to that OP to correct those gross distortions, not only was there no answer, one of the 'demanders of accuracy' REC'D that complete distortion.

What can be concluded from all this is obvious.

Thanks for you comment, your dialogue scenario is perfect!

[joshcryer]

119. would it be that people provided such links

instead they persist in false accusations without providing one iota of proof

[bvar22]

203. Well, if you close your eyes, then you can truthfull say you didn't "see" the proof,

..but you can NOT claim that the TRUTH was NOT provided in this thread by the original OP.

Bernie Sanders exact quotes have been precisely documented several times.
[font size=3]It is undeniably true that Bernie Sanders said he did not agree with President Obama

and that the collection and storage of meta-data and any other data by the government or any other US entity is a clear violation of our 4th Amendment Protections.[/font]
Undeniably TRUE.

Keep cheering for the losers and distorters in this thread.
That must be more important to you than seeking the TRUTH,
because YOU have publicly chosen where you stand, and with WHOM you stand.
Bad Choice.

Didn't you call yourself a "revolutionary",
and choose the Che avatar to represent you when you first came to DU?

[joshcryer]

223. on the issue of data collection

not the need for the NSA to begin with

Sanders agrees with the president on that issue, and frowns upon Snowden for violating secrecy oaths

I've never used a che avatar

[bvar22]

246. Now THAT is some tortured spin, joshcryer...... and another Strawman.

Please post a link to where anyone advocated for the complete dissolution of the NSA.
NO ONE has said that.

What has been said is that the NSA should be brought into complete compliance with the 4th Amendment.
Collecting and Storing the meta-data of American citizens without a warrant signed by a judge "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" does NOT comply with the 4th Amendment.


To avoid future public embarrassment for just making stuff up and posting it to DU,
please read the above sentence slowly,
and THINK about that for a while
before posting.

Here is the 4th Amendment:

[font size=3]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/font]

and HERE is what Bernie Sanders said, (quoted EXACTLY) in this very thread:
"The current USA surveillance program represents a clear violation of the 4th Amendment ban on unreasonable searches"

and

(It is) "clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution,
and THAT has to end."

SEE?
NOW, if you would like to disagree with Bernie Sanders or the 4th Amendment,
Please Proceed.
But DO try to stick to reality and things people have really said.

THAT is WHAT this thread is all about.

[joshcryer]

247. you support the NSA?

you don't think we should abolish the NSA?

I didn't take you as a MIC supporter, anything to won an internet argument, eh?

I advocate the complete end to the CIA and NSA

I think Sanders should too

[sabrina 1]

98. The facts presented here in this OP are not intended to fit the narrative, the one which completely

distorts Bernie's position on the NSA reforms, he went further than what I noted in this OP, he called the data collection a 'clear violation of the US Constitution' that 'has to end'.

Did you go and correct the OP which prompted this one, the one that totally distorts Bernie's position? Apparently some of the outraged in this thread, while screaming for accuracy, actually REC'D that total distortion. Because it DOES fit the narrative they hoped for. And if they don't get it, they make it up.

I am responding again to a comment of yours that attacks me. I have asked you not to address me directly or indirectly with false statements. I will correct your distortions every time I see them, either by attaching them to the comment itself, or with the 'third party' tactic.

Bernie's narrative has not changed. Although we were falsely led to believe so today. This OP has corrected that false narrative.

[joshcryer]

115. yet again I have not addressed you in any way

[sabrina 1]

123. You addressed me again in an indirect way and once again tried to distort my intentions.

I will not let your attempts to discredit me go unanswered. This old tactic of indirectly addressing people is well known. Just forget I exist, and I will do the same.

[joshcryer]

124. uh, removing words from a quote...

...is LITERALLY changing the narrative

[sabrina 1]

136. If someone 'removed words from a 'QUOTE' you might have a point. I made it clear I was

paraphrasing his comments. Your refusal to give it up now that everyone sees the attempts at deception only discredits you. Iow there was no quote.

Each time you attempt to distort, I will correct it and as more people read the thread, the links I provided, the note I made sure to post, the more people understand the lengths that a few here will go to to protect those who are abusing our Constitutional Rights.

This might help you:

Paraphrasing does not equal Quote. There was no quote to 'remove words' from.

[questionseverything]

139. you have the patience of a saint

I read du for years before I signed up and a couple more years before I posted so I really appreciate people like you who doggedly print the truth and correct the record

[sabrina 1]

145. Thank you, I am glad you did sign up. I am attaching this comment regarding Josh Cryer's

above as I am not as patient as I used to be lol! As you can see, they believe that if they continue to post FALSE information even when everyone knows it is false, some of it might stick. That is wishful thinking even when they realize most people do not even want to engage them anymore because most people DO want to see serious issues discussed, intelligently.

Pretending not to understand the difference between a Quote and Paraphrasing, giving a synopsis of what someone said, only makes THEM look foolish. I say pretending because it's hard to believe that anyone DOESN'T know the difference. This particular poster never addresses the content, but keeps repeating the same old nonsense. Most DUers are very familiar with this kind of tactic.

I wonder if it ever occurs to them that they are HELPING get the truth out by repeatedly kicking a thread they clearly wish was never posted?

Thanks again for your comment, I am happy you are here AND posting

[joshcryer]

143. Your 'paraphrase' was almost a spot on quote.

Your 'paraphrase' left out the most important part, however, and it's clear that it was intentional.

You know that Bernie Sanders was not disagreeing completely with Obama on the NSA, and in fact he has yet to call for the dismemberment of the NSA as he should and as I have advocated.

Also, you completely neglect to mention Bernie Sanders went against Snowden on the issue of secrecy oaths, which I disagree with Bernie Sanders about, because again there is no legitimate reason for the NSA to exist (it is purely around to fuel the MIC), and therefore Snowden has no requirement to agree to secrecy oaths as a self-determined individual in opposition to the MIC.

As far as your continued harassment on this issue, I'd request you stop, but it's unlikely you are going to do so as you have obviously decided that you can reply to me whenever you want to even after I have never once instigated a reply to you since you asked me not to. Even when you post in subthreads and make some snide remark about me I do not reply. But if you reply directly to me I have no reason to allow the misleading smears to continue. That would be like having a bully, someone telling me not to reply to them, and then letting that bully continually punch me in the face.

I've experienced that tactic with climate change denialists and it is familiar here with Obama detractors.

[bvar22]

217. BS.

Are you really going to use the word "overall" as your [font size=3]BENGHAZI!!![/font]

The OP was an accurate representation of Bernie Sanders position during this interview.

Screaming the word BENGHAZI! [font size=1](oops. My Bad)[/font] "Overall" changes nothing about Bernie's "Overall" position.

[joshcryer]

222. 'on that issue'

Sanders agrees with Obama that the NSA needs reforming

the OP makes you think otherwise

instead the NSA should be abolished

[sabrina 1]

225. Thank you. It's become a joke at this point and if I were in that position where I have become a DU

joke, I would quit, go away for awhile and hope people might forget this embarrassing incident.

I do love your analogy though 'Overall' = their Bengazi'! Lol!

Bernie, like the rest of us, agrees with one thing and on thing only, he agrees that this is a START and that the issue of Spying on the American People 'has to stop'. I could not agree more.

[rhett o rick]

184. Is that the only thing you could find that you didnt like about the OP? If you look

closely you might find a misspelling. I sense desperation. It must be a hard choice between supporting the Constitution or supporting authoritarian figures like Gen Clapper and Gen Alexander. Did they promise you security in exchange for your FAITH?

He who is willing to give up liberty for a promise (and it is just a promise) of security, is a fool.

[Luminous Animal]

11. You didn't watch the video, did you? He flat out says that he does not agree

with Obama in regards to the collection and storage of information whether by the government or a third party.

[one_voice]

34. Yes I did...

are you saying I was in some way misrepresenting what the OP said? I quoted her directly.

Tough, if you don't like it. Those were her words, she claimed she paraphrased. Take it up with her.

I merely gave my opinion on what I thought of her paraphrasing. I will continue to give my opinion.

Have a nice day.

[RobertEarl]

42. All that matters is

That you agree with Sanders that it ain't right to keep a file on you?

Obama seems to think it is ok to keep files on everyone, and Sanders does not think that is a good idea.

Pretty simple, really; Is one for more freedom, or less freedom, from snoops?

[sabrina 1]

43. Did you give your opinion to the other OP which totally distorted Bernie's position being that you

rightfully so concerned about accuracy I assume you did. If so, good for you.

I left out a very important word in the paraphrased version. A word that makes Bernie's position EVEN STRONGER than my memory of it. He not only disagrees PARTLY with the president on this issue, he disagrees OVERALL, with ALL of that position so thank you all for helping to get in to the OP.

[Maedhros]

127. It's funny that three of you showed up here, all with the exact same criticism

and the exact same response to the refutation of your criticism.

Hmmm. Curious.

[one_voice]

130. uh-huh...

Don't hurt yourself.

[Maedhros]

137. It's just such a weak criticism.

Seems odd that more than one person would cling to such a ridiculous argument.

[Rex]

195. Nice catch, believe me when I say many, many of us notice that

since it is a common occurrence.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

196. Where'd you go, little one?

Seems you've been proven as dead wrong again, and without enough personal wherewithal to come back. Typical.

[nenagh]

17. Thank you sabrina 1 for the link...

to the whole interview and as you say, thank YOU Bernie.

[sabrina 1]

45. You are very welcome nenagh ..

[WillyT]

27. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[whatchamacallit]

39. K&R natch n/t

[hootinholler]

46. We need a Restore Ephemeral Communications Act

Bernie is spot on in his analysis and identifies the root of the issue: Our communications are not ephemeral in nature anymore.

All txt messages are stored.

Metadata for every call, and most likely every app fetching data from some server or other. That includes location data.

There needs to be serious jail time for abusing any capabilities we have.

I'll bet my ass that the Koch Bros have someone on the inside of the repository.

[sabrina 1]

140. He is spot on. He said that the collection of meta is a 'Violation of the US Constitution'

and he added, that it must be changed! And yes, we asked for jail time when Bush's gang were caught doing this, not only did it NOT happen, they CHANGED THE LAW retroactively which I could not believe at the time, to protect the criminals. And it wasn't just Republicans. That was a stunner and nearly lost Obama the election when he flip flopped and voted for that horrendous amendment.

Bernie also said this is just a start so he's not going to accept these reforms as anything other than a beginning to start desconstructing these egregious programs.

I wish we had hundreds like him in Congress and we would not be here right now.

As for the Kochs, I would be surprised if they didn't have someone on the inside.

[Enthusiast]

169. I agree.

Why wouldn't the Koch Bros have someone on the inside of the repository? They are insidious.

[Rex]

70. K&R for pissing off all the RIGHT people!

BAWHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Oh they doth protest too much me thinks!

[stevenleser]

104. I'm certainly not upset. I told you all from the beginning Snowden would change nothing.

This is window dressing. You all are right about that much. Snowden has not altered the trajectory of change on NSA Surveillance at all and will not change it.

[Rex]

105. Never figured you for an authority type.

Maybe at one time I was wondering, but gosh I have this strange habit of making mistakes and realizing I'm wrong about something.

Call it stupidity.

I know nothing is going to change, the NSA will keep on doing exactly what it has been doing for 60 years. Their mission statement won't change just because they fucked up and hired a shitty contractor. If anything it should wake them up toward how easy somebody got in and got away with untold numbers of national secrets.

Then again I thought it was stupid of Snowden to run off to China and Russia. Hanging out with a dictator cannot help you when you preach for transparency...can't deny that fact.

[stevenleser]

112. I'm not an 'authority type'.

Those of you who disagree with me cannot account for several things. One of the more important ones is:

- The fact that around a dozen (that we know of) countries supply the NSA with data so that the NSA can help them with their fight against terrorism.

That fact by itself destroys several of the pro-Snowden memes out there. That makes this issue

A - Not about the United States or supposed wrongdoing by the US

B - It means that terrorism is a real issue about which many countries besides us are extremely concerned about and the real reason behind this unlike what many Snowden supporters are saying.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So, if terrorism is as concerning to all of these countries as it seems, what exactly is Snowden blowing the whistle on? Programs by these countries to try to protect their citizens? That is not compelling to me.

[Rex]

117. I don't know the man, if he thinks he is on a noble mission

to write/right wrongs...I just don't know. I do know that you are correct and that his acts nor the lie General Clapper told Congress will change anything. On the flip side of the coin, if there is nothing wrong with the NSA, then why was Obama saying they are going to reform it? You cannot have your cake and eat it AND have plausible deniability.

Snowden could be working for the Russian mafia, I doubt it, but really would place more stock in him if he would go to a neutral country somewhere with a better human rights record.

Again, does that change anything? No, the NSA will still continue to spy on the populace as long as it is legal to the people that write their paychecks. Ethics never enters into the picture, like war or counter surveillance. Of course people are worried about terrorism, it is the prime theme around the world only second to global austerity.

It is completely also about control and who is in charge. The United States is in charge, that is something that won't change as well.

[sabrina 1]

154. So you agree with Bernie Sanders that spying on the American people is a violation of the 4th

Amendment, but you you believe our government is so corrupt (remember the ONLY thing required of them in their oath is to defend the Constution. I know that is, as Bush said, quaint but some of us still take it seriously, in fact A LOT of us take it seriously.

I'm not sure what point you are making. Snowden has already changed things, he has changed the most important thing that CAN lead to changes. He has informed the PEOPLE, here and elsewhere of these criminal practices, these violations of their rights.

Governments don't change things, they do everything they can NOT to change things especially when they and their cohorts are profiting so much from the status quo.

PEOPLE are who change things. That's how it has always been throughout history.

Why do you think they work so hard to keep their nefarious deeds secret from THE PEOPLE? They do not fear the government, or the corporations, they fear the people.

Polls now show a majority of Americans, more in other parts of the world, believe that Snowden is NOT a traitor, that he is a Whistle Blower despite all the efforts to paint him as a traitor.

And the efforts were intense. THAT is what Snowden changed, the most important thing he could have done.

And that is why they are reacting, to mollify the PEOPLE. If he had thought he could trust the Government to change things, he would have gone to the government. Clearly he knew that would not happen. He knew he had to inform the people.

I am surprised you didn't realize what a huge change that is and how threatening it is those who want anything BUT change.

[stevenleser]

173. No. nt

[rhett o rick]

191. Seems to me that if you are willing to allow the conservative Republican run NSA to

operate without checks and balances, then that would be authoritarian. Absolute FAITH in the authoritarian leaders.

Your insinuation that those that want to see the NSA controlled to protect our Constitutional rights are not concerned about terrorism is absurd and a logical fallacy.

[sabrina 1]

150. Rex, just want to correct one thing. Snowden didn't go to Russia, he was on his way

to another destination, Russia was just a stopover and he would have been out of there in a couple of hours at most. However the US Government prevented him from leaving when they took away his passport. I have wondered all along WHY they forced him to stay in Russia, especially since they are now claiming they have to worry about him being there. Something very strange about that imho.

[Rex]

155. I guess it boiled down to they have nukes

and can actually keep him at arms length from US forces...which is just about everyone else. I know the intelligence community cannot really be that concerned, despite all their bluster - since they seem to be right back in business with Booz Allen. I consider them to be the shady operative in this.

[rhett o rick]

228. Why isnt anyone looking at Booz-Allen? How much data do they have control of? And who

do they owe allegiance to? Does the NSA work for Booz-Allen or other way round?

[Rex]

230. Yes and why does the NSA suddenly trust them again - enough to

let them hold all our meta data? It seem like it is business as usual imo.

[rhett o rick]

238. IMO the NSA works for the same boss as Booz-Allen. nm

[Rex]

240. You and I agree on that.

Plutocracies work that way. Everything is geared toward the 1%.

[bvar22]

114. You really said that?

You said, "I told you all from the beginning Snowden would change nothing"

Well, he forced the President to come out on the Public Stage on his knees "promising" to change things, and has altered the Foreign Relations between major European Countries and the USA.
Besides, it ain't over yet.

But that is beside the point.
Because you still inexplicably insist that Snowden hasn't "changed" anything,
does that mean we should just go along meekly?
At the very least, Snowden has changed my life,
and the lives of MILLIONS of others around the World,
including YOUR life,
or you wouldn't be here insisting that he changed anything.

The impact of Snowden's revelations and patriotism will not die.
The ripples are still spreading,
and if WE pick up his torch,
and show a fraction of the courage and commitment he has shown,
then CHANGE will come.
If it doesn't, then it is OUR bad, YOURS and mine,
not Snowden's.
Snowden put that ball in OUR court.
Put up, or shut up time for us.

I think you need to backtrack a little,
re-examine your position,
and stop embarrassing yourself in public.

[KoKo]

180. Well said...eom.

[rhett o rick]

186. Let me guess your point. Because Snowden's revelations didnt change anything, we should all just

relax and let the authoritarian Republicans do what they want. Pass the kool-aid.

Those that are willing to give up their freedoms and liberties for a promise (and it is just a promise) of security, are fools.

Republicans lie, why would you trust them?

[blkmusclmachine]

74. The Hope/Change well has done run bone dry. We need some REAL action. Not just more insincere speech

-es.

Thx, Bernie!!!

[truedelphi]

79. If we had ninety nine other Senators like him,

We could all go back to believing in hope and change.

[dawg]

75. I find it amusing when someone scours speeches by Bernie Sanders or ...

Elizabeth Warren, looking for something to throw in the faces of those of us who oppose NSA overreach, drones, the TPP, or whatever.

They need to get a grip.

We don't think that way.

We don't don't blindly follow our heroes. It doesn't hurt our feelings that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren might not agree with us 100% of the time. We are more than willing to oppose Sanders, Warren, or anyone else that promotes policies that we believe are hostile to the freedoms our country is supposed to stand for.

We are no more likely to blindly follow Bernie Sanders than we are to blindly follow President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

Speaking for myself, I'm not *for* any of these politicians. Conditions could arise that would induce me to vote for, or against, any one of them, depending on the circumstances.

[sabrina 1]

80. Good post, thank you ... especially this '

We are more than willing to oppose Sanders, Warren, or anyone else that promotes policies that we believe are hostile to the freedoms our country is supposed to stand for.

In a NY minute, if either of them were to change their positions they would hear about it immediately.

It was painful for those of us who supported this president, when he began reversing his positions on important issues. They don't get that. Or maybe they do.

[QC]

108. Personality cultists believe that everyone else is also a personality cultist.

People who disagree with them on some issue or another are really just devotees of a different personality that they find appealing for some inexplicable reason.

It's a weird mindset, and one that I used to think only Republicans/conservatives were subject to. Sadly, that has turned out not to be the case.

[Doctor_J]

135. The problem is that many ARE for Obama, regardless of his policies

If they'd dragged him into our party instead of cheering his far right agenda, the party and the country would be a lot better off now.

[Egalitarian Thug]

142. Really good point.

I was stunned at his actions after the election, but what absolutely floored me was the immediate amnesia that seems to have afflicted so many after the fact.

[Enthusiast]

170. Damn, dawg!

What a post!

[truedelphi]

78. Sanders is about the only Senator I have faith in 100% of the time.

While in the House, I respect Garamendi and Jackie Spier.

“Our goal is to learn what we, as employers and community leaders in the Yuba/Sutter area, can do to help veterans," said Representative Garamendi.

And his critique of the 67 billion dollar Twin Tunnel, water transfer system that Jerry Brown is promoting was awesomely informative.

[Autumn]

83. Bernie rocks my world

[Agony]

96. I agree

and this is especially disturbing to me in that both of my Senators are Democrats, of the Wall Street stripe I am afraid...

[Enthusiast]

171. +1! Democrats of the Wall Street stripe

are hurting our cause and damaging the nation.

[woo me with science]

189. +100000 No Trojan horse there.

How enraging that we must constantly be on the lookout for Trojan horses now.

[BelgianMadCow]

87. HUMONGUOUS K&R

[Agony]

93. Kick

Thanks...

[Fumesucker]

95. Hilarious thread if you've been following the various personalities for a while

This place just cracks me up sometimes, the Claqueurs got a bit ahead of themselves on that ~other~ thread evidently.

Recced.

[sabrina 1]

101. Lol, do you think they don't like me?

I am so sad!

The truth hurts especially when you deliberately try to distort it and someone spoils your fun.

I have not seen the same people who seem to have disappeared by the way, lol, correct the gross distortions that are in that other thread. I wonder what it all means?

[Fumesucker]

111. To know you is to love you Sabrina

I appreciate your fire and dedication.

[sabrina 1]

141. Aw, thank you Fumesucker ...

I feel the same way about you ...

[rhett o rick]

192. .

[Agony]

97. this deserves another Kick!

[Autumn]

99. And it deserves another kick

[Autumn]

100. I tried to watch the one on MSNBC could'nt even get the damn thing to load

But it's all good I like this one better.

[silvershadow]

109. Moderates/DLC types: "Hey, look over there, Chris Christie!"…

I seriously wonder what will happen to the party after this next election. I hope it goes the way of Warren and Sanders. If not, Democrats may have their own tea party going on in 16. (An actual tea party, not this stupid corporate shill group).

[dotymed]

113. If Bernie Sanders decides to run for POTUS

and the American people are too ignorant to elect him, IMO, we will NEVER get this chance for a peaceful revolution again.

It will be a revolution in the sense that people will actually be represented not just the elites and corporations. I would work like a fool for that opportunity.

Bernie Sanders is our last hope, fuck political parties.

[sabrina 1]

118. That is how a lot of people are feeling, 'fuck political parties'. Not the first time in history

that this happened. Even back to the FFs they warned that a two party system would be bad for the country.

If he runs, I'll be supporting him and I don't care what letter he has after his name.

[woo me with science]

132. [phone]

[NorthCarolina]

175. If he runs, he WILL have my vote.

If he doesn't, and my only choice on the ballot is a third-way Dem, then he (or Senator Warren) may get a write-in vote anyway.

[Solly Mack]

120. K&R

[reddread]

125. nice work!

lotta bloody fools looking the part right now.

[KoKo]

131. Thanks! and a Big Recommend....

[stupidicus]

133. and I suspect he won't like those details

and will find the devil in them

[ProSense]

148. Transcript

<...>

BLITZER: You and I have discussed this on several occasions over the past several months. At one point, you said strong, new limits are needed to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. Did the president go far enough today, in your opinion?

SANDERS: Wolf, the devil is going to be in the details. I think in a very significant way, the president began the conversation on what is a very difficult issue and a complicated issue. It's difficult because everybody wants to see us do all we can to protect the American people from terrorism. It is complicated because every single day technology changes.

And the question of how we protect the American people without undermining our privacy rights and our constitutional rights is a huge issue. I'm going to be having a town meeting in Montpellier, Vermont on February 1st. I would hope that millions of people become engaged in this enormously important issue. I think the president started that conversation. We've got a long way to go.

<...>

BLITZER: So, how do you bridge that gap? How do you... protect national security on the one hand and prevent another 911, while on the other hand making sure that Americans' privacy is protected?

SANDERS: Well, that is the -- that is the question. And let me -- let me add to that question by saying that that technology is changing every day. And think about what technology will be like in 10 years from now. And that is why we need a constant discussion and debate on this issue. My own view is that, at this point, we have gone too far in attacking the privacy rights of the American people. But you're asking the right question. And there is no simple answer. And that answer will change 10 years from now. We need a massive conversation on the parts of the American people to say how do we protect ourselves from folks who we know want to hurt us but do it in a way that maintenance us as a free society. Not an easy they think. President started this discussion. I would go further than the president in terms of protecting privacy rights. But this is an issue that Congress has got to embrace. It has to move up the totem pole in terms of important issues that we discuss.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1401/17/cnr.05.html

[sabrina 1]

149. My summation was accurate. Jack Rabbit already posted the relevant parts. Bernie is clear on the

fact that he believes the storing and collecting of data violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The president clearly does not. Bernie is correct. In fact YOU used to believe that yourself.

Thanks for the transcript.

[ProSense]

151. "Thanks for the transcript. "

You're welcome.

"Bernie is clear on the fact that he believes the storing and collecting of data violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The president clearly does not. Bernie is correct. In fact YOU used to believe that yourself."

I have never said anthing in the past against storing metadata. Please don't imply that I somehow changed my views.

I railed against Bush's illegal spying on Americans. Actual spying. This past comment
has been posted several times as an attempted "gotcha" to create the impression of a change in opinion, but it had nothing to do with metadata.

For example, this quote, "Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal," is about illegal warrantless wiretapping, and that was what Bush was accuse of.

The program was in fact a wide range of covert surveillance activities authorized by President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. At that time, White House officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, had become convinced that FISA court procedures were too cumbersome and time-consuming to permit U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to quickly identify possible Qaeda terrorists inside the country. (Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington, referred to the FISA court in one meeting as that "obnoxious court," according to former assistant attorney general Jack Goldsmith.) Under a series of secret orders, Bush authorized the NSA for the first time to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails between the United States and a foreign country without any court review. The code name for the NSA collection activities—unknown to all but a tiny number of officials at the White House and in the U.S. intelligence community—was "Stellar Wind."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081216011008/http://www.newsweek.com/id/174601/output/print

Note, this is inside the U.S. and involves bypassing the FISA court to actually "eavesdrop."

Republicans fought to make that legal, and succeeded in doing so before Democrats were able to force an expiration of the law.

From a post last year:

There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the PAA with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.

While the article mentions that Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), there is no mention of the fact that the Act expired in early 2008.

Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 60–28 (record vote number 309).[12] On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836).[12] On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history

The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.”[38] The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Protect_America_Act_of_2007

Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

[sabrina 1]

204. I never used the words 'meta data' back then either. They weren't in the vocabulary. But

I opposed what back then was called by its proper name, but Dems at least, 'spying on the American people' and so did you. And if those words had been used back then, you and I would have opposed it as fiercely as some of us are still doing now.

Collecting meta data on every single American IS 'actual spying'. As Shakespeare said: A rose is a rose, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'.

And this is where you are veering off from the position you took during the Bush years which I completely agreed with.

They are still spying on the American people.

They are violating our 4th Amendment rights.

They passed an egregious Amendment to cover and protect the Bush/Cheney from the real threat of being impeached for doing exactly what they have now made legal. That Amendment was a disgrace and it wasn't just Republicans who passed it, DEmocrats helped. YOU were outraged. Now you are using 'the law' to try to tell us that what is now going is 'legal' it seems to me. It isn't. No Corporate law trumps the Constitution.

Obama, after promising not to vote for it, did a complete turnaround and did so. I remember that, it was a bad sign to those of us who supported him. But we let it go hoping he would fix it once elected.

Bottom line, nothing has changed regarding our government violating our Constitutional Rights.

There is no such thing as a 'mass warrant' on over 300 million people. What is their probable cause, what am I, a customer of one of the telecoms passing MY data over to government agencies, accused of? I asked to see the warrant and the probably cause that caused my provider to turn over my data for 'storage'. They denied it was happening. Why? If they were doing something legal they would have shown me how my data came to be in the hands of Private Security Corporate Spies.

[ProSense]

205. Good for you, but don't imply that I changed my views. n/t

[bvar22]

211. Well, we can let the readers of this thread decide for themselves:

ProSense (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimes by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

[ProSense]

212. When I

Well, we can let the readers of this thread decide for themselves:

ProSense (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimes by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

...said here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024353639#post151) that this past comment
has been posted several times as an attempted "gotcha" to create the impression of a change in opinion, I was referencing posts like yours.

The desperate way in which that comment is repeatedly posted is beyond hilarious. It's as it's just posting validates the bullshit intent behind posting it.

[bvar22]

216. LOL

Still taking those Tap Dancing Lessons?
They aren't working.

[font size=3]"Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. "

[sabrina 1]

214. So long as you don't imply that anything HAS changed. n/t

[arely staircase]

156. at first you don't succeed

try

try

again

[great white snark]

159. Might as well...even when wrong or disingenuous the Greenies still give praise. (nt)

[sabrina 1]

162. What is a 'Greenie'?

[sabrina 1]

161. Okay, I'm rooting for you. You certainly have been trying, over and over again. The best

way for you to succeed in this case is to simply admit 'I was wrong'. People respect those who are big enough to do that. I would be more than willing to accept an apology.

[JDPriestly]

157. As usual, Senator Bernie Sanders is intelligent, articulate and fair in his discussion of the issues

He would make a good president.

He understands the issues and encourages us to think about them creatively and come up with the best solutions. Just love the guy.

[mindwalker_i]

163. He just has ODS

[sabrina 1]

164. BDS, remember that? 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'. Someone reminded me today, that's what

we used for Bush supporters. Odd that now that same phrase has been revived to use against DUers.

[mindwalker_i]

187. Yeah, it's used in the opposite way

Bush people who agreed with him by default had BDS, but here, people who DON'T agree with everything Obama does have ODS. I've even been accused of having xDS where x was a poster's name here.

[solarhydrocan]

167. excellent +r

[Enthusiast]

172. Recommended 1000X and kicked too.

[delrem]

174. kick!

[Progressive dog]

177. Bernie is a grown up,

"I do not overall agree with the President on that issue" is a far cry from the Libertarian anarchist attacks on the entire government, particularly this Democratic President.

[randome]

178. Yes, because disagreements among intellectuals always means one is right and the other wrong.

Geeze, people.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

193. Does that mean that you support Sen Sander's statements? nm

[randome]

209. That he doesn't agree with the President? That's merely him making a statement.

He doesn't even say that the metadata should or should not be collected. He's saying that's the question without telling us his own opinion on that.

The metadata stuff is inconsequential compared to all the other things going on in the world today. Four levels of approval needed to view it. Four. It's pretty well guarded.

And if it disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice but we would hear a chorus of meaningless "Look what we did!" statements. And the real problems in the world would simply continue.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

210. Really? You believe someone that told you they only collect meta data.

You believe that meta data is useless (even though we taxpayers give Booz-Allen billions for collecting it). You believe someone that told you that there are four levels of some kind of approval. If they had told you 10 levels, would you be quoting that here? Snowden didnt have any trouble getting through those "four" levels. Hard telling who else has done the same and are using the data for their own benefit.

Are you familiar with the saying that power corrupts? We dont even know how much power The Carlyle Group / Booz-Allen / the NSA have. Some wish to pretend that they will use that power for goodness. You gotta see the naivety there.

Those willing to give up their liberties and freedoms for a half-assed promise of security, deserve to live in Russia.

[TheKentuckian]

219. Hell, even if it where true "metamata" is essentially a 24/7 365 warrantless tail.

We are on continuous surveillance and constant suspicion as a consequence of taking part in current day normal communications. Even "metadata" starts from a place that is highly inconsistent with or constitution.

[rhett o rick]

220. It may be very difficult to draw the line between a total security state and a free society, but

that doesnt mean we shouldnt try like some here seem to think. In my opinion, they are cowards that get in our way in our fight to maintain the liberties and freedoms that our founders fought for.

[randome]

242. Snowden was not able to get at any personal data. That's how well-guarded it is.

I don't believe we are paying Booz-Allen a dime for the metadata. The telecoms furnish that to us. I only go by what is reported and what seems likely.

You don't want to believe anyone? Then how do you sleep at night? We could put a stop to the metadata collection tomorrow but, according to your frame of reference, we would never know if it was stopped or not.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

244. Who told you Snowden was not able to get any personal data? A Republican?

You dont believe we are paying Booz-Allen a dime to metadata. You mean you've made up your mind without seeing any proof. Does trusting authoritarian Republicans let you sleep at night? According to your frame of reference, you dont want to know the truth. You are happy in your delusion that the authoritarian Republicans will give us security. Yes, but at what price. Are you so easily ready to give up your freedoms and liberties? But in your frame of reference you seem to believe that as long as you are good, you will not be bothered.
When they come for the liberals you wont speak out because you are not a liberal.
When the come for the union leaders you wont speak out because you are not a union leader.
When the come for Occupy, you will look the other way, because you are not in Occupy.
What will you say when they come for you?

[bvar22]

215. You are STILL wrong.

Bernie Sanders specifically said that
the question should NOT be WHO gets to keep the meta-Data,
but WHETHER we should be collecting it at all.

Bernie also says:
"The current USA surveillance program represents a clear violation of the 4th Amendment ban on unreasonable searches"

and

(It is) "clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution,
and THAT has to end."


Go listen watch the video BEFORE declaring you know what Bernie Sanders said.
You can go watch the video HERE before making up statements about what Sanders said or didn't say.
http://thevictoryreport.org/freedom-sanders-reforms/

That way you can avoid embarrassing yourself in public.

[randome]

241. 'Embarrassing myself'? That's not possible when I'm fine with being shown wrong.

I only went by what was posted. I didn't watch the video. And I simply disagree with Sanders. It's not 'clear' at all. If it were, courts would not have ruled that third-party business records do not fall under 4th Amendment protections.

No one is searching the metadata unless and until a crime has been committed. It's the same as looking through a folder of papers to find the one you're interested in. The difference is that this is the Information Age. In fact, when manually looking through papers, you are more likely to see something you aren't supposed to. Whereas in the case of running a database query, you get only the results you requested.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

185. Those willing to give up their freedoms and liberties for the promise of security are fools.

And some are posting above. But most are conspicuous by their absence. FAITH is a dangerous concept, blind faith is even more dangerous.

[underthematrix]

198. why do you have to give up your freedoms? The problem is

everyone doesn't have the same ethical compass. That's why we have laws. Do you think people are going to stop using drugs even though it is illegal or selling drugs or killing people or abusing children or dumping shit in a river that provides drinking water for over 300,000 residents of West Virginia? The reality is we have a serious domestic terrorism problem. They are angry, armed and dangerous. The NSA hasn't had any direct impact on my life - none. In contrast, the white sheet and hood republicans have had an enormous impact. I just got health insurance, which they are still fighting tooth and nail to repeal. They don't want extend to UI benefits to people who are struggling to find work. Many are families with children. They pass PBO's infrastructure AMERICAN JOBS ACT. Instead, they are pre-occupied with vaginas and Benghazi. Adelson, a Romney backer spent 100 million dollars to try and get Romney elected. I assume some of that money went to the Benghazi operation, e.g. the incendiary movie, the "spontaneous" riots throughout the Middle East, the outing of the CIA safe house and subsequent killing of Amb Stephens and his tech team.

While I don't believe the NSA keeps me safe, I do believe it maintains the integrity of our political, social and economic system. I take responsibility for my safety. I don't hang out with political crazies, buy or use drugs or guns or contribute to America's criminal economic system.

[sabrina 1]

202. The NSA has been privatized. Our 'security' has been outsourced. That was a Republican

scheme, implemented by Bush/Cheney using fear after 9/11 to so. Billions of tax dollars have been spent on these Private Security Corporations, like Booz Allen eg, Clapper's Corporation, an old Bush loyalist, and they have zero to show for it, as the Panel confirmed, other than spying on the American people. According to Feinstein we are in more danger than ever. That wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement for spending any more of our tax dollars on Private Security Corps. All of that has contributed to the Deficit they keep talking about.

I don't trust Republicans with anything, least of all Public Funds intended to be spent on the American people, education, also being privatized, security, military, MORE 'private contractors/mercenaries and they are after SS which they borrowed from to pay all these private corporations for the scam they've running for the past dozen years.

If you view any of this predatory capitalism which has swiftly moved money up to the top 1% leaving the working class jobless, homeless and poor, in any way 'preserving our integrity', I could not disagree more.

Sanders and a couple of Dems, too few obviously, have been trying to change these Bush policies we were left it, but it's not easy when both parties are on board.

Maybe if they stopped funding Private Corps to spend their time spying on the American people, they could do the job they were elected to do, security is the business of CONGRESS and outsourcing it costs the tax payers BILLIONS and we get nothing for it according to the reports now. What IS their function if after 12 years of obscene amounts of money and spying on the wrong people, WE are not the ENEMY, they have not caught a single terrorist?

Sorry, integrity has a whole different meaning for me .... I want public money spent on the public not on Bush/Cheney's private corporations which still filled with old Bush loyalists which not only doesn't make me feel safe, it scares me to death. Why were they not fired?

[bvar22]

206. WHOOP! There it is.

You said:
"While I don't believe the NSA keeps me safe, I do believe it[font size=3]maintains the integrity of our political, social and economic system."[/font]

You mean the Political and Economic System that is responsible for THIS?

65 percent of working families are living from paycheck to paycheck
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

Billionaire wealth doubles since financial crisis
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/11/12/Billionaire-wealth-doubles-since-financial-crisis/5011384268135/?spt=hts&or=12

95 percent of the economy’s gains have gone to the top 1 percent
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/

US Wealthy Have Biggest Piece of Pie Ever Recorded
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/09/11-6

Gallop: 20.4% of Americans now “going hungry”.
http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/12/20460846-1-in-5-americans-struggling-to-put-food-on-the-table?lite

Obama Appoints Bain Capital Consultant Jeff Ziets to Top Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662209

Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210

The Totally Unfair And Bitterly Uneven 'Recovery,' In 12 Charts – HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662029

Larry Summers Gets 'Full-Throated Defense' From Obama In Capitol Hill Meeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014553343#post1

Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719
Income gap widest ever: 95 Percent of Recovery Income Gains Have Gone to the Top 1 Percent
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/10/one_percent_recovery_95_percent_of_gains_have_gone_to_the_top_one_percent.html

Older Workers:.Set Back by Recession, and Shut Out of Rebound
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/booming/for-laid-off-older-workers-age-bias-is-pervasive.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3&
[/font]

THIS ^ does NOT happen by accident.
It is the result of carefully planned and implemented Economic Policy.
It requires careful preparation, marketing, buying the right politicians, message control, courts packed with Conservative Corporate Rights Judges, and the marginalization and suppression of any opposition.


So I agree with you. The NSA that You and I are funding is indeed protecting the Economic and Political System that is transferring the Nations Wealth to the already vastly over-RICH 1%.
What I can understand is WHY you would side with this,
unless YOU are a member of the 1%?
If you have to Work for a Living like the rest of us,
why cut your own financial throat?

If you think they are going to let you into the Country Club if you carry enough water for them,
you are very wrong.

[Autumn]

207. WHOOP! THERE it is.

[woo me with science]

218. ...

[rhett o rick]

208. I can understand how some might like to have a strong authoritarian government that was sympathetic

to the people and not the 1%. But the 1% can and have purchased control of our government. They are clearly looking out for the 1%. They will propagandize to convince the masses that they are only interested in our best good. Only fools believe that.
You say, "The problem is everyone doesn't have the same ethical compass. That's why we have laws." True and that's why we have checks and balances to try to keep the powerful from stepping on us. We dont even know how much power the NSA has and yet there are those that want us to give them carte blanche. That's foolish.
You say, "The NSA hasn't had any direct impact on my life - none." I hope you understand how selfish that sounds. And it probably isnt even true. You have no idea what they have done with their power that might impact your life and you seem not to want to know.
You say, "I do believe it [the NSA] maintains the integrity of our political, social and economic system. " Really? First of all our political system has little integrity and you have no idea how the NSA affects the system.
The NSA and similar agencies are run by very powerful conservative Republicans that are not directly accountable to the people. That is very scary. But some prefer to live in a denial bubble, pretending that the all powerful Republicans will protect them.

[frwrfpos]

224. In much of Europe Sanders would be considered a moderate

Its disturbing to see how fascist this country has become when Sanders would be considered a moderate in most civilized countries

[sheshe2]

226. Sabrina!

[sabrina 1]

227. sheshe2 ~don't talk to me talk to Bernie!

I love that guy though, he never wavers when it comes to our Constitutional Rights.

[sheshe2]

229. hey sabrina...

you do indeed misinterpret what Bernie supports.

Yet that is you, misinformation over fact, have fun~

[sabrina 1]

231. Just click the link in the OP and you can hear him in his own words, on video.

Unless you think posting a link to the man speaking for himself on television is 'misinformation over fact' of course!

[sheshe2]

232. Okay....

You~

Thank You Bernie Sanders: 'The Devil Will Be In The Details' .. 'I Do Not Agree With The President'


Real Statement :

From your post!

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

The direct quote ""I do not overall agree with the President on that issue" at 4:14.

A bit different don't you think!??!

The devil is indeed in the details sabrina.

Kudos sabrina! Best spin I have ever seen!

You indeed deserve the academy award~

[sabrina 1]

234. Bernie is the one who deserves an award. For standing by his oath of office.

One thing is required of elected officials, to defend and protect the Constitution of the US.

As Bernie said, the collecting and storing of the data of every single American violates the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution and that has to change. I agree with him, I always opposed Bush's policies of spying on the American people. Bernie obviously takes his oath of office seriously.

He disagrees with the President that finding a place to store this 'data' is what he has to figure out.

As Bernie said, the question is, should it be collected or stored at all because it violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

Do you disagree with Bernie?

I agree with Sen. Sanders, who could not? He is right. He took an oath of office and he is abiding by that oath.

Why are YOU reluctant to say what you stand up for? I have no idea where you stand on the violating of our Constitution rights. You appear to be avoiding stating where you stand.

I have no problem saying where I stand, I am for elected officials abiding by the oaths they take. Bernie is doing that.

If he ever stops doing that, I will not support him. It's simple when you focus on the issues rather than the personalities.

[sheshe2]

235. sabrina~

you are a gem on DU. Treasured by many~

Your spin and distortion of facts is amazing. I give credit where credit is due~

Rock on sabrina...me, I will stick with this President.

See ya~

[sabrina 1]

236. I will stick with the country and it's people. No matter how painful it is

sometimes to realize that politicians even those you admire, are in the end just people.

You're a treasure yourself, sheshe.

But you're wrong, there is no spin in this OP. Just facts. Facts that I thought would be very good news for most people. And it was, actually.

Take care perhaps the President will listen to Bernie and then we can all be happy.

[joshcryer]

251. +1, almost 200 recs on misinformation, academy award indeed.

[Bobbie Jo]

239. sheshe....

You nailed that one, I would only add these words of wisdom:

A half truth is a whole lie.

The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold. (Aristotle)

The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted. (Lichtenberg)

Most appropriate for this thread and the apparent modus operandi, IMO.........

[sabrina 1]

243. Bernie Sanders: "I do nor agree with the overall position of the President".

Aristotle could have used some of the posts desperately trying to deny the truth in this thread as an example.

[BelgianMadCow]

237. Eomerian K&R

no text

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

249. "...should it be stored at all?" Hell, should it be gathered at all?

[sabrina 1]

250. Yes, but Bernie was referring to the President's speech in which he stated

that they had to figure out where to store the data already collected. He obviously believes, and said so I believe, that collecting such data violates the 4th Amendment.