The real enemy is ...

Rob Graham

"You did it first" - what a terrific defense of the hypocrisy shown by the left in seizing the surveillance powers they once railed against with more gusto than ever shown by the right... You should be very proud of yourselves.

Synaptrik

Unfortunately the tactic is wrong, but the underlying message I think was lost, which was this is the result of selective support. And why its dangerous to support under any administration. Power received is rarely relinquished. So arguing for surveillance under Bush, which turns out Cheney was using against democrats in office, has the backlash of the next incoming party using it for much the same. If you rail against it at all it should be against all.

This statement is false

oilFactotum

Rob Graham wrote:

"You did it first" - what a terrific defense of the hypocrisy

I made no defense of gov't surveillance. But Stan has, and very vigorously. He really has no room to complain, as a result.

Rob Graham

Synaptrik wrote:

If you rail against it at all it should be against all.

I couldn't agree more, and find defenses like "you started it" and "Serves you right for having started it" to be feeble and hypocritical. Those who make such statements reveal clearly that their objection was a partisan in nature all along, rather than a sincere opposition out of principle. Stan and Oily both fail that test, IMO.

Rob Graham

You certainly don't seem to disapprove now. Silent acceptance differs little from tacit approval, and "you reap what you sow" strongly suggests that you actually approve.

oilFactotum

Rob Graham wrote:

You certainly don't seem to disapprove now.

Why should I care how it seems to you?

Rob Graham wrote:

Silent acceptance differs little from tacit approval

And you have been silent for the past 8 years. Clearly you must really approve.

Rob Graham wrote:

"you reap what you sow" strongly suggests that you actually approve.

What it strongly suggests is schadenfreude.

Oakman

Synaptrik wrote:

So arguing for surveillance under Bush, which turns out Cheney was using against democrats in office, has the backlash of the next incoming party using it for much the same. If you rail against it at all it should be against all.

Well said. But I doubt that any of the True Believers will think you are talking to and about them.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

oilFactotum wrote:

And you have been silent for the past 8 years.

Same technique, just with a twist. But the truth is that you are either lying, if you know - as I do - that Rob has spoken out against government intrusion often during Bush's presidency, or you are making up something to attack him with because you have no better method of countering what he said.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I fully support government surveillance of terrorists of any stripe. I sure as hell hope the Obama administration is keeping tabs on them. You know, people like his buddy Bill Ayers. However, it is very revealing that you are outraged by the notion of government spying on terrorists who are not white christians, but applaude it when they are. As usual, oily, you are the bright shining example of political hypocrisy here, not me.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

union workers

You mean these guys?[^] Why? Is that a problem? But, yeah, Jon, you are absolutely correct. I believe exactly the same thing about the people who put Obama into power as they feel about me. I don't consider them to be my countrymen. I want to be liberated from them. And, yes, if there were a political movement, with a real, elected, political head, to achieve that, I would lend it my support without hesitation. I hate these people. I wish them nothing but ill. Not very christian of me, I know, but there it is.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Le Centriste wrote:

I remember you calling people that did not agree with you "communists", "leftits", etc, even if they are not.

No, I call people who are "communists", "leftists", etc, "communists", "leftists", etc. You know, people like you and B.Obama.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, I call people who are "communists", "leftists", etc, "communists", "leftists", etc.

Of course you disagree with them but only because they are communists, leftists, etc. And the proof that they are communists, leftists, etc. is that they disagree with you. What a wonderfully neat closed system.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

But, yeah, Jon, you are absolutely correct. I believe exactly the same thing about the people who put Obama into power as they feel about me. I don't consider them to be my countrymen. I want to be liberated from them. And, yes, if there were a political movement, with a real, elected, political head, to achieve that, I would lend it my support without hesitation. I hate these people. I wish them nothing but ill. Not very christian of me, I know, but there it is.

As a not very good Christian, perhaps you should change your religious affilation. It's obvious that except for the name of the Suprememe Being, you and Osama agree on just about everything. Especially the hating most Americans part.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Le centriste

Thank you for proving my point.

Stan Shannon

Your You're welcome.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

I've disagreed with Illion on any number of issue. I've never called him a leftist.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

oilFactotum

Oakman wrote:

if you know

I don't know that it is true. Every conversation that I have had with him, he has either fully supported Bush's actions or denied that anything was even done. So, in one way, I was wrong - he was not silent.

Oakman wrote:

you are either lying

Your ad hominem attacks bore me.

Oakman wrote:

no better method of countering what he said.

I have no need to counter him. I have not been silent about the expansion of the surveillance state.

oilFactotum

Stan Shannon wrote:

I don't know what the f*** you're talking about.

The sad thing is - I believe you.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I fully support government surveillance of terrorists of any stripe

But it's never been about that. The government will spy on anybody and everybody when you give them unlimited ability to spy without oversight - not just terrorists. I pointed it out to you months ago that these powers that you so avidly desired the president to have would soon be in the hands of the people you fear the most.

Stan Shannon wrote:

However, it is very revealing that you are outraged by the notion of government spying on terrorists who are not white christians, but applaude it when they are

You just don't get it and I assume you never will. This has never been about terrorists. This has always been about opposing giving the government the power to spy on everybody without oversight or limits. I have never been "outraged" by spying on terrorists and I have never "applauded" spying on white christians.

Stan Shannon

oilFactotum wrote:

I pointed it out to you months ago that these powers that you so avidly desired the president to have would soon be in the hands of the people you fear the most.

And I said then, and repeat now, they can wiretap my phone any time they please. I don't care. I do not believe myself to be endowed by my creator with an unalienable right to use a telephone. If it might save someone's life - go for it.

oilFactotum wrote:

I have never been "outraged" by spying on terrorists and I have never "applauded" spying on white christians.

When I hear you howling for Obama's impeachment, I will believe you.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

John Carson

Oakman wrote:

Can you imagine the screams of outrage that would have been all over the media and the halls of Congress if Bush, Cheney, and skeleton-head had put out a 9 page document targeting all liberal groups as worth watching, especially Union members? Denis Kuchinich would have immediately introduced three more bills of impeachment. The level of paranoia shown in that document is far beyond anything generated by the Bush administration. You have to look to something like the Unabomber's manifesto, or some of Stan's rants, to equal the paranoia evidenced by Homeland Security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?_r=1[^]

John Carson