dagblog - Comments for "Vive la resistance?"

"Warrentless wiretapping" is

Flavius — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 05:16:16 +0000

"Warrentless wiretapping" is the most important issue about which frankly I don't give a damn. Scarlett.

I recall gettingi cleared for something or other and in the process being given the classified dossier about me to carry between offices. Naturally , like any one, I had to take a leak, i.e. read them. What a bunch of nonsense ! Back in the dear departed days of the Hillary "email scandal " (yawn) Hal asked me whether I wasn't worried about her failing to comply with security regulations . My answer was that a large proportion of the classified documents I'd happened to read reminded me of the Flavius dossier I'd read in that men's room .

And recall meeting a truly top security official whose name , was and is , mentioned in awe. Lunch's venue - his choice- a non descript hotel dining room, empty, in a no- where suburb of DC. Son of the Flavius dossier!

Maybe as a consequence I've been bemused as various friends acquired shredders. Because A I doubt whether the importance of the stuff fed into the device rose to the level of my long ago dossier and B if anyone actually did want it,they'd have long ago gotten it.

And yet.

I'm slow to criticize Nancy and Debbie and Adam for backing the Administration. If the bill was primarily intended to permit the NSA to intercept traffic by non US citizens transiting the US , be my guest. And if it also meant some govt. agent learned that I was suppose to bring home a gallon of low fat and a head of endive. Ditto.

Just wish they'd give me an F.U. 20 minutes later . About the endive

On a certain level I agree

ocean-kat — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 04:40:09 +0000

In reply to "Warrentless wiretapping" is

On a certain level I agree with you, on another level I don't. I too don't actually worry about the government tracking anything I do online or my emails. At 60 I rarely go to protests anymore. My online activity has a small footprint, the news, netflix, World of Warcraft or other games, some informational type videos or music on youtube. I haven't looked at porn for a couple of decades. After downloading at least 50,000 pics it starts to get boring. Nothing I do now is embarrassing and I was never important enough for anyone to care what I did.

I support restricting government surveillance in solidarity with those it could hurt. Government surveillance can find embarrassing information about leaders of political movements I support. It's happened before, it's probably still happening though perhaps not quite as severe as it was with MLK. It shouldn't matter if an activist fighting for environmental protections or against voter suppression etc. had a sexual fling, viewed some kinky porn, or is a closeted homosexual. But it does and threats to out someone unless they stop their activism can be effective.

We must fight to protect the privacy of all to protect the ones it could hurt.

Thanks, agree. Hal grasps

NCD — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 04:24:34 +0000

In reply to NCD, Hal doesn’t think things

Thanks, agree. Hal grasps onto any news/opinion piece that he believes will discredit the opposition Party. It makes me think he doesn't care about opposing Republicans.

Saw this concise apt characterization, from 2012, on the GOP double con:

The strategic alliance of snake-oil vendors and conservative true believers points up evidence of another successful long march, of tactics designed to corral fleeceable multitudes all in one place--and the formation of a cast of mind that makes it hard for either them or us to discern where the ideological con ended and the money con began.

Honestly no.

Flavius — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:45:24 +0000

In reply to You honestly don't care if

Honestly no.

I don't see many comments

artappraiser — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 03:31:36 +0000

In reply to There is no paradox.

I don't see many comments that I'd consider ad hominems against you.

Ithink it's clear that you are pushing an agenda, trying to sell something, something you are passionate about. Whether it's blog entry or a news post, it's usually about your agenda. That's one kind of blogger, but another is more like a diarist, just sharing their thoughts on things.

You've therefore branded yourself with your advocacy. If commenters don't agree with brand/the advocacy, I don't see that as an ad hominem. They're not attacking you personally, they're attacking what you are pushing. They don't like what you're selling. The regulars do it all the time because you're doing it all the time.

Try writing on something else that's not political, that truly doesn't have anything to do with your agenda, and you'd likely see very friendly responses. Of course, again, if with that you.re going to write like an advocate for something, it's not to work out, i.e., some of the most famous nasty ad hominems are between a sports fan of one team vs. the sports fan of another.

Most people active in discussing here don't seem to be that interested in pushing an agenda. They might have one but they don't use the site to push it to others. They might say what they believe and who they voted for and express who they wish would lose an election and who they wish would win an election, but they are not trying to convince others to go along with them. It's more like when they analyze that someone else seems to offering up stuff detrimental to what they appear to want or like that they attack. That's when I see people here attack you on Hillary vs. Bernie, they think you should have come round to supporting Hillary and that would have helped with your own stated goals. That's not an ad hominem either, that's constructive criticism. You disagree, you continue to push that doing it the Hillary way will not.help with your agenda.

I'm going on and on about this because it's something that interests me from way back from TPMCafe days. Early on, it really upset me when Josh Marshall was doing a series of entries on how he'd like to see the site develop, he said he'd like to have be partly for "political activism". I knew from past group blogs, including one where I was a moderator, that introducing "political activism" is like throwing a bunch of lawyer advocates with their "talking points" into the mix, and that would constantly destroy the "civil conversation" he also said he wanted and which the initial small group of members was very successfully having. (BTW that ended up water over the damn with the great invasion of Obama fans in 2008 and the smaller set of Hillary fans.)

People don't think lawyer advocates and salespeople and their cohorts, political war room spinmeisters are honest, it's just that simple. I give you credit for really skillful rhetoric, you actually do an amazing job of keeping it civil. You "listen" to other points of view and seem to try to adjust your rhetoric to them to a point. But if people dislike the product, or don't see sense in it, they are still going to be throwing at you, and often. Also if all you want to do is brand yourself as selling one thing and even if they happen to agree with some of what you are selling, they may distrust all your arguments.

CVille Dem — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:45:37 +0000

In reply to There is no paradox.

Regardless, what's most interesting is the incessant focus here on me personally rather than on the particular positions that I take. One has to wonder why those who disagree with me are so intent on attacking me - especially since I never or virtually never make ad hominem attacks. Of course I don't need to.

Hal, speaking for myself, I can say that you react in a very typical way to every idea that is presented. You give academic-style challenges, but you never pay attention to the thoughts and ideas that many of us go to the trouble to respond to you. You have wrapped yourself up with a candidate who lost with the party he only pretended to be a member of. You insist that the popular vote-winner was a weaker challenger to the candidate who promised to ban Muslims, Mexicans, and others. He promised wonderful health care (not having a clue of what that would mean), and people BOUGHT it.

This is despite the well-thought out, AND WELL FUNDED approach of the Hillary campaign.

You don’t acknowledge that your stubborn mind-set has hurt the country, and so, yes! I call your bluff! I say it is you! You are incapable of comprehending the thoughts of others who want the best for our company. I think, basically, that you are incapable of empathy.

This might be why you so rarely respond to my comments.

PS: these are NOT ad hominem comments

NCD, Hal doesn’t think things

CVille Dem — Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:58:04 +0000

In reply to The Hal paradox is explained

NCD, Hal doesn’t think things through. He never thought about what you just mentioned. He never thought about the fact that voting for Forrest Gump (guess who?) would either give us a president who didn’t know how to get his dreams/wishes accomplished ... which would never have happened...and instead gave us the crude guy who has accomplished much malfeasance. Legislation? Who needs it?

The Dem Primary voters got it right, as did the majority of voters.

The Hal paradox is explained

NCD — Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:14:07 +0000

In reply to There is no paradox.

The Hal paradox is explained when recognizing you very often use any issue you find to attack the Democratic Party.

If one trusts a government to tax us to a fairer income equality, with all the personal sensitive financial information, taxes and data that would be collected, and also support a government paid for cradle to grave single payer health care system, with all the personal medical data and information necessary to justify that care....one cannot go around agitating and spreading fear about emails or phone calls logs - kept by private corporations - being available to government courts and law enforcement.

Without objectively noting the positions are incompatible, incongruous and conflicting, and reveal a biased inclination to attack Democrats.

Here are the six sitting

rmrd0000 — Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:18:48 +0000

In reply to No what happened in the

Here are the six sitting Senators who voted against Martin Luther King Jr Day

https://thedailybanter.com/2018/01/six-sitting-members-of-congress-mlk-day/

I answered your question above.

There is no paradox.

HSG — Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:43:18 +0000

In reply to The Hal paradox is he

There is no paradox. Providing health care is not the same thing as spying on us. In any case, I trust a democratically-elected and accountable government to do both with appropriate safeguards - including court oversight. Regardless, what's most interesting is the incessant focus here on me personally rather than on the particular positions that I take. One has to wonder why those who disagree with me are so intent on attacking me - especially since I never or virtually never make ad hominem attacks. Of course I don't need to.