I've been accused of being some kind of left-wing radical for opposing the immunity bill.

[BuyingThyme]

I'm happy to be identified as a left-wing radical, but how the fuck does defending the Constitution make one a left-wing radical?

Is it simply because the people who wrote it were also left-wing radicals?

[anonymous171]

1. Maybe if we formed an alliance with the 2nd amendment people.

If liberals supported the entire constitution maybe we would get more support.

[BuyingThyme]

5. I think that alliance is a done deal.

But they're not really Second Amendment people; they're gun people.

[anonymous171]

14. Ah, that is a problem.

They don't seem to care about the Constitution as much as they care about their guns.

[JVS]

2. really?

[Occam Bandage]

3. Yeah, it must be awful having a whole 5% of Democratic Underground disagree with you on something.

[BuyingThyme]

6. Again, I have no problem with it.

I'm just trying to figure out how this works.

[Occam Bandage]

7. I'm going out on a limb here and guessing it's not because you disagreed with the bill, but

rather the way you chose to express that disapproval.

[BuyingThyme]

15. I just posted a Huffington Post article

about the backlash of his decision.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6428965&mesg_id=6428965

[Levgreee]

4. no one was accusing for the position, more for the manner in which people were opposing

to be honest, it does make you seem more radical when you incorrectly make it only into an issue of defending the constitution.

Anyone who criticizes the outspoken ones becomes an obstacle in the way of defending the constitution.

It is hyper defensiveness.


Mail Obama, mail senators, discuss the issue rationally, fine. Spam posts simply criticizing and attacking Obama, it's useless and not how a real "defender of the constitution" would act.

[BuyingThyme]

8. I haven't been around much, so I certainly haven't participated in any spamming.

And what is it beyond a Constituional issue? A political one?

Not to me.

[Levgreee]

9. whenever you are communicating with people there are issues of ettiquite and behavior

and it's not just been you, it's been dozens of people spamming about it. It creates a snowball effect.

[Occam Bandage]

10. The claims of "it's a Constitutional issue, not a political one" ring very hollow indeed

when the subject of the outcry is not Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, or the other Democrats of Senatorial power who could have actually forced a change in this bill, but is rather Barack Obama, who has very little influence in the Senate, and who represents only one vote in a lopsided loss.

Barack Obama is a juicy political target, though. I understand why he'd be targeted. And those reasons have jack shit to do with the Constitution.

[BuyingThyme]

11. Could it be that he's being targetted because

he's evidently/apparently/probably voting to give himself extra-constitutional powers?

[Occam Bandage]

12. Wow, you're right. Obama is a fascist. That's the only reasonable explanation.

:crazy:

[BuyingThyme]

16. So I guess this means you agree with me

but are too much of a coward to admit it to the people reading this forum?

I don't see any other way to interpret your silly post.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occam Bandage]

21. Never mind. Obama is clearly trying to amass illegal powers for himself.

I don't know how I could have been fooled. He's the real enemy.

[BuyingThyme]

28. The fact that Obama is planning to vote extra-constitutional powers

to himself has nothing to do with me.

It's just a fact.

[Occam Bandage]

30. FISA's been around since 1978. This bill largely returns it to its pre-Bush state.

You'll note that the primary specific complaint isn't anything actually regarding the Constitution, it's about immunity from civil suits--that is to say, it's about getting cockblocked in a revenge attempt.

[BuyingThyme]

32. You couldn't be more wrong.

The latest bill is intended to destroy FISA as it was written in 1978.

FISA was written in response to Nixon's illegal use of the FBI and CIA to spy on Americans without warrant. It think the most appropriate examples are the Weatherman and Daniel Ellsberg.

The latest bill is aimed at reversing what FISA gave us. It gives spying power back to the president.

[Occam Bandage]

33. Ah, I see you have responded to my claim that you have nothing but hyperbole with, er, hyperbole.

Great!

[BuyingThyme]

35. Again, you couldn't be more wrong.

The only reason Bush is trying to block the civil suits is because civil suits involve discovery.

This is their way of keeping their secrets.

[Occam Bandage]

36. More unfounded paranoid hyperbole. But that's expected.

[hokies4ever]

22. Are you or are you not supporting Obama?

It's hard to tell from your posts.

[BuyingThyme]

27. I support the Constitution over Obama in every case.

But that has abolutely nothing to do with whether or not I support his candidacy, which I do.

I'm one of those Constitution before Party types.

[EFerrari]

26. After the leadership, Obama does have more power than anyone

in the party right now. And it is ALL political, so to suggest that we just wait until he is tucked into office to weigh in is simply foolish.

[Occam Bandage]

31. Not in the Senate. The only power he has there is the power to ask

Reid and Durbin to go along with what he wants, so as not to embarrass the party's nominee. He has power over the DNC. The DNC is not the Senate.

[EFerrari]

34. Right. Which is why I said "in the party". And if you believe

the Senate Democrats are unconnected to the party, I have a new line of bridges you might want check out. :)

[hokies4ever]

13. It's not abou the Constitution for most

It's about retribution against Bush.

[BuyingThyme]

18. Retribution? No.

This is about protecting and reclaiming our rights.

We're talking about the government and corporations conspiring to spy on you to their benefit.

This is kinda a big deal.

[hokies4ever]

19. Yet people always gripe about the retroactive immunity

out of fear that we won't find out the extent of what the program used to be. Retribution indeed.

[EFerrari]

20. It's more about justice for Bush, retributive or otherwise.

Suits against the telcos mean discovery. Discovery means outting Bush's illegal spying on Americans.

[BuyingThyme]

23. Yep, they've covered discovery on all other angles.

This bill is aimed at closing the door forever.

[hokies4ever]

24. I agree

I just think that people should be honest and give this as their reason.

[Occam Bandage]

25. But if they admit it's about revenge on Bush, then they can't claim that Obama is trying

to give himself nigh-dictatorial powers.

[EFerrari]

29. People's motives are mixed most of the time, imho. n/t