Democrats Have Abandoned Civil Liberties

[Theodarzna]

Taibbi is not the one that posted this thread.

He made the article. So whatever this gotcha' point is you are going to have to really struggle here.

But I love that you answered my question initially with some off the wall deflection. Good form.

[Dontrike]

For clarification you are saying what? Matt Taibbi made every single detail up? Its fake news, what are we saying here?

When the idea is that people have abandoned civil liberties for not listening to a known corrupt partisan shill the entire argument is already built upon a fucking hyperbole and strawman it's already stupid enough as is, but you trying to make it sound plausible in any respect just shows you have way too much time on your hands.

[Draco-Onis]

He made the article. So whatever this gotcha' point is you are going to have to really struggle here.

But I love that you answered my question initially with some off the wall deflection. Good form.

Are you retreating to "I am just the messenger" defense? because that's just plain sad.

[Endus]

He made the article. So whatever this gotcha' point is you are going to have to really struggle here.

But I love that you answered my question initially with some off the wall deflection. Good form.

You posted the article for discussion, and supported its contents. So no; you're going to be held responsible for defending that point. If you cite something as supporting evidence, and it falls apart on scrutiny, you take the blame for having cited it in the first place and not applying due scrutiny to the piece beforehand.

[Yuujin]

I have a pretty clear position its just a tough one to easily churn out a response. Like if I came in here with "DAMN LEFTISTS HELPING THE CIA AND PRAISE TRUMP HELL YEAH!" that would be easy and clear, the battle line is simple, you don't have to think to much about how to respond. Its safe and easy to reply to that. If I was a fairly generic "Hey the Rubin Report said...." or "Ben Shapiro PWNED THESE SOCIALISTS" but I don't grant you that kind of simple thing to knock down so you say I don't have a position. My position is basically Leftists correctly called out this stuff, well most did, under Obama but were ignored. Liberals only care when its not "THEIR GUY" and I don't care what the Rightoids believe about it.

I don't think you or anyone is interested in ideas, I think you are merely whinging that I'm not a really easy strawman to respond to and that is frustrating. So because I'm not an easy strawman I must be playing some secret psyop or some other nonsense.

You're giving yourself too much credit. I don't think you're playing at some complex game. It's actually pretty basic. You build your case, present your conclusion/argument but leave enough vagueness so that you can change it when someone comes at you with a rebuttal that doesn't support your original conclusion.

Your first post was about the blue party, you didn't make a distinction between 'Leftist' or 'Liberals' until after the rebuttal and then you dismissed it by making a blanket claim about the Leftist and Liberals that you just introduced into your argument.

This is basic high school internet shit.

And also, don't project on to me. I won't strawman your argument because I'm not interested misrepresenting your point. Like I said, for me, it's not about winning.

- - - Updated - - -

You posted the article for discussion, and supported its contents. So no; you're going to be held responsible for defending that point. If you cite something as supporting evidence, and it falls apart on scrutiny, you take the blame for having cited it in the first place and not applying due scrutiny to the piece beforehand.

This right here. You're responsible for the credibility and accuracy of the evidence you present to support your argument.

[Theodarzna]

You're giving yourself too much credit. I don't think you're playing at some complex game. It's actually pretty basic. You build your case, present your conclusion/argument but leave enough vagueness so that you can change it when someone comes at you with a rebuttal that doesn't support your original conclusion.

Your first post was about the blue party, you didn't make a distinction between 'Leftist' or 'Liberals' until after the rebuttal and then you dismissed it by making a blanket claim about the Leftist and Liberals that you just introduced into your argument.

This is basic high school internet shit.

And also, don't project on to me. I won't strawman your argument because I'm not interested misrepresenting your point. Like I said, for me, it's not about winning.

I'm actually not playing any sort of super awesome secret game. I don't actually leave any vagueness, its just not a canned conveniant angle from say a Redstate blog, or you know an Ann Coulter tweet. Because yeah, that is easy and familiar, like if I come here with the Sargon of Akkad, and maybe a Rubin Report video you guys could rip that apart easy but I come here from an angle you aren't use to and it drives you guys nuts because its equal parts frustrating since you can't just use your canned reply's and have to resort to "This must be some secret trick"

And I presumed such big brained super intellectuals like you didn't need that spelled out. Plus in my OP I didn't say Leftists, or Liberals I think so you are merely projecting into what I am saying what you want to read into it.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you retreating to "I am just the messenger" defense? because that's just plain sad.

No, I'm retreating to the "I'll let you shadowbox your sparing dummy on your own" defense.

- - - Updated - - -

When the idea is that people have abandoned civil liberties for not listening to a known corrupt partisan shill the entire argument is already built upon a fucking hyperbole and strawman it's already stupid enough as is, but you trying to make it sound plausible in any respect just shows you have way too much time on your hands.

He is a corrupt partisan shill.... I suppose now I should ask for evidence of that. Because we can say that about any journalist in the world really.

[Dontrike]

Swing and a miss.

I asked for your proof of whom I'm voting for or supporting.

You're right, 'cause who you're voting for is such a mystery. We'll need Scooby Doo to solve it. I mean we all know it's Trump, but Sooby Doo being around would be cool.

- - - Updated - - -

He is a corrupt partisan shill.... I suppose now I should ask for evidence of that. Because we can say that about any journalist in the world really.

I was talking about Barr. Please try and keep up, even just a little.

[Yuujin]

I'm actually not playing any sort of super awesome secret game. I don't actually leave any vagueness, its just not a canned conveniant angle from say a Redstate blog, or you know an Ann Coulter tweet. Because yeah, that is easy and familiar, like if I come here with the Sargon of Akkad, and maybe a Rubin Report video you guys could rip that apart easy but I come here from an angle you aren't use to and it drives you guys nuts because its equal parts frustrating since you can't just use your canned reply's and have to resort to "This must be some secret trick"

And I presumed such big brained super intellectuals like you didn't need that spelled out. Plus in my OP I didn't say Leftists, or Liberals I think so you are merely projecting into what I am saying what you want to read into it.

- - - Updated - - -



No, I'm retreating to the "I'll let you shadowbox your sparing dummy on your own" defense.

It's like you can't remember what you replied however many minutes ago. Can't tell if you're drunk or just full of shit.

And again, you're trying to turn it around on me. I'm not claiming to be some beacon of intelligence and for the last time, I don't think you're that clever.

MMO Champion isn't some big scary place where you have to carefully craft an argument so the mean libtards can't come in and shred it apart before it has a chance to stick. Not sure who Sargon of Akkad is but if you're bringing him up in the same paragraph as Ann Coutler I'm sure he's definitely someone who has perfectly valid points that aren't deserving of being ripped to shreds upon arrival.

Shit's childish, you're childish. Imma be childish. Your argument is bad. Your conclusion was bad and easily refutable.

[Xarkan]

When the idea is that people have abandoned civil liberties for not listening to a known corrupt partisan shill the entire argument is already built upon a fucking hyperbole and strawman it's already stupid enough as is, but you trying to make it sound plausible in any respect just shows you have way too much time on your hands.

The idea that a country lets a political appointee have actual say in matters like this is hilariously absurd

But that is only hilarious because in this case it is not my country

If (and to some extent when but direct interference is.. frowned on here) it was my country i would not be amused

[Theodarzna]

It's like you can't remember what you replied however many minutes ago. Can't tell if you're drunk or just full of shit.

And again, you're trying to turn it around on me. I'm not claiming to be some beacon of intelligence and for the last time, I don't think you're that clever.

MMO Champion isn't some big scary place where you have to carefully craft an argument so the mean libtards can't come in and shred it apart before it has a chance to stick. Not sure who Sargon of Akkad is but if you're bringing him up in the same paragraph as Ann Coutler I'm sure he's definitely someone who has perfectly valid points that aren't deserving of being ripped to shreds upon arrival.

Shit's childish, you're childish. Imma be childish. Your argument is bad. Your conclusion was bad and easily refutable.

How was it refuted? All I've seen is "You are bad and trying to trick us! This author said the Democrats aren't good on something so he must be a partisan shill!"

I haven't cared much what you guys say since you seem content to throw everything and the kitchen sink at me to basically say the same thing. Somehow, some way that you can't actually prove beyond personal intuition, I must be trying to deceive you into something.

Everything you say about me, namely "Vagueness" is pure projection.

[Knolan]

Which claim. Are you voting for biden?

Or sexual assaults?

MY bad. Trump is at 25.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald...ct_allegations

Joe Biden 1?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bi...ult_allegation

I can explain why Republicans are giving you such a hard time over this.

When Brett Kavanaugh had a sexual assault allegation in 2018, the democrats and the left wing media sites went crazy with it. It was non stop hashtags to believe women and take allegations seriously and all that stuff.

Where is the outrage now?

Heck, Biden himself said we should believe women. He should have added the caveat at the time that this does not apply to himself or his friends.

[Draco-Onis]

No, I'm retreating to the "I'll let you shadowbox your sparing dummy on your own" defense.

If you need to retreat behind Tabbi because you are unable to defend the contents of the article don't bother posting the thread.

- - - Updated - - -

I can explain why Republicans are giving you such a hard time over this.

a) because republicans are blind hypocrites with no morals.
b) because republicans are unable to understand that public reaction is different because of them and a pandemic.
c) because they don't realize that their champion is grab them by the pussy Trump?
d) all of the above.

[Howel]

Chill thy self, I cannot nor do I read every single response, sometimes I miss things. I apologies I didn't get around to you.

I am unsure why my intentions would matter? On what level do my intentions change the post? And what are my intentions? How are these people sure what they are?

It matters greatly, because that's how human interactions function; just because it is the internet doesn't mean that suddenly disappears. Yeah, the truth is not different, it is the messenger that has to be the believed that it is a worthwhile truth.
They change the same way that a partner might tell you that you are getting fat and should lose weight. Now it might be the truth, that you are getting fatter and losing weight would be a health benefit; but the messaging and intentions of it, can be far more broad than just that. It can from a frankly almost abusive partner, basically being a mean douchebag that don't care about the health benefit, but instead just gets the kicks out of kicker someone lower than them. Or it can be from a place of concern and love, and that person wants the best for you. Same truth, way different intention and reaction to it.

As to what they are and why they are sure, again, you do not have the trust nor belief of people. So you might have good intentions, but that's not going to be something you can just say, and be believed.
Now the interesting thing in that regard, is there are a good dozen and more that will ascribe to the truth that you are not believable; a truth that you equally are unwilling to face, which is an interesting dilemma. You demand to be believed, but equally so deny to make efforts or even try to be believed, for all intends and purposes, you are all terrible and just grinding each other down in a circle of pointing fingers.

So you can stomp your feet and say that it is unfair that people treat you in a certain way, but just like with Trump (and no, I am not calling you a person like Trump, that's an insult I don't throw around) he can moan and bitch at liberals all day long, even if he is speaking the truth, he has not earned the notion of being trusted.

I know that's a hard concept for people to understand, that truth isn't just a naked thing you can throw in people's face and that they will bow down and accept it. But it is not, and even the people believe that, are faulty off it themselves, however unique and neutral they think they are.

I get blinded whenever the left wing in my country attacks the right wing, however true it might be what they are saying, I am not going to say to my "enemy" that they are right. Just like one is not going to say to the person in their face calling them a weak loser, that they are a weak loser. That is just not how the world works.

There are liberals on this website that have called Obama and the Democrats out for his dronestriking, and his support of the Patriot Act etc.. But they have done so, towards people that they trusted to say such a thing to, not conservatives who would dance and prance and point at the liberals for giving up and antagonizing them for admitting their candidate is shit. And vice versa. Because it is MAD, you have to hold your ground and not give in, because they are not gonna be kind and do the same in return, so you only lose by doing so.


Want a tip? Don't antagonize one party, when all are at fault. This thread could easily just have been about how politicians across the spectrum are douchebags who don't respect civil liberties, and people would have agreed (yes they'd still point fingers at each other, but sure as shit not to this extend). But instead, it was Democrats, front and center that had to be the ones admitting defeat, which is something that I haven't even touched upon, you demand that they admit to it. Never, ever demand someone to bow before a truth, because that will get you nowhere.
Something I think you of all people should have great understanding off, because as far as I know, you are very much aware that is what conservatives loathe when it comes to liberals, the notion that they don't just say that they are right, they demand that conservatives admit to it as well.

[Orange Joe]

I can explain why Republicans are giving you such a hard time over this.

When Brett Kavanaugh had a sexual assault allegation in 2018, the democrats and the left wing media sites went crazy with it. It was non stop hashtags to believe women and take allegations seriously and all that stuff.

Where is the outrage now?

Heck, Biden himself said we should believe women. He should have added the caveat at the time that this does not apply to himself or his friends.

We wanted a investigation. I'm ok with an investigation into Biden also. but atm it seems her story isn't holding up as well as Kavanaughs accuser.

- - - Updated - - -

I asked for your proof of whom I'm voting for or supporting.

Are you voting for Biden? It's a simple yes or no question.


Yes you are voting for biden = I'm wrong. No you aren't voting for biden = You're ok with a sexual predator being president.

[Felya]

Heck, Biden himself said we should believe women. He should have added the caveat at the time that this does not apply to himself or his friends.

Yes, it’s why Biden sponsored Violence Against Women act in 1993, the reinstatement of which GOP has been blocking since last year. It’s why Biden said to release his congressional record, before her story changed that one doesn’t exist. I’m not sure what else you want Biden to do...

Biden isn’t calling this a GOP conspiracy or demanding there be no investigation or witnesses. Biden or democrats aren’t saying that this is a sign that men are scared of hiring pretty women.

[Beefhammer]

I can explain why Republicans are giving you such a hard time over this.

When Brett Kavanaugh had a sexual assault allegation in 2018, the democrats and the left wing media sites went crazy with it. It was non stop hashtags to believe women and take allegations seriously and all that stuff.

Where is the outrage now?

Heck, Biden himself said we should believe women. He should have added the caveat at the time that this does not apply to himself or his friends.

Big difference, is there were holes in her Tara's story almost immediately. What happened changed, corroborating witnesses changed their stories in line with when her story changed. locations and landmarks she claimed changed or were not even around at the time. Biden may have a history of being handsy, but Kavanaugh had a reputation of being someone if accused of rape, pretty much everyone would go, I could see it. Only one person has accused Biden, everyone else says handsy, but not in a sexual or malicious way. Hell He wasn't even on the list of men to not be in an elevator alone with female congressional staffers had.

You can believe Reade, I chose to listen before making a decision. I believe she may have felt uncomfortable, being asked to dress more professionally, and being asked to do things she did not want to do like, errands not related to congressional staffing work. But as more of her story unfolds, it doesn't seem like she is credible in the sexual harassment or assault claims.

Ford on the other hand appears credible, but even with her story, there was some doubt that Judge Boof was there.

[Yuujin]

How was it refuted? All I've seen is "You are bad and trying to trick us! This author said the Democrats aren't good on something so he must be a partisan shill!"

I haven't cared much what you guys say since you seem content to throw everything and the kitchen sink at me to basically say the same thing. Somehow, some way that you can't actually prove beyond personal intuition, I must be trying to deceive you into something.

Everything you say about me, namely "Vagueness" is pure projection.

The argument I framed was Democrats are not embracing anything they haven't already embraced before Trump. It just so happened to suggest Republicans are embracing it less now because of circumstances. I also don't recall attacking the author in my response but I may have. I'm also suggesting that abuse of power is too broad and to say all abuses are equal and therefore one party can not claim the other sides are worse or more atrocious is dishonest.

I think you are confusing me with someone else.

[Levelfive]

Since when has Matt Taibbi written trash like this? I've known his work for a long time, he started in the States in my hometown (Buffalo). His Rolling Stones work has largely been about excoriating the war criminals of the Bush Administration. His books are about Eric Garner and the 2008 Recession and a book about Trump being elected called Insane Clown Presidency (admittedly, haven't read any of his books, but I roughly know what they're about).

After some brief research, it seems like Russia is an incredibly big blind spot for him, which dates back to him actually being Russian and working in Russia. And his rabid opposition to "RussiaGate" has made him a poster boy for the alt-right? Plus his online personality is very critical of media and how they cover things, which admittedly can come off as right wing at times.

Honestly, it's the only shitty opinion of his I've read.....and this particular op-ed seems to stem from that disdain for the Russian collusion investigation. Very weird for a journalist whose work I really admired in the '00s and early '10s. Coincidentally, doesn't seem like Rolling Stone is publishing much of this stuff.

This is my take as well. Disappointing to see Taibbi eliding the truth here using the same nonsense Republican talking points, in some cases even "citing" WSJ opinion pieces (excellent paper outside of its op-ed pages, though) and Fox News. His other citations don't really support his claims regarding Russian interference, which he derides much like the shills around here, as if it didn't happen, or if it did, it shouldn't have been investigated, which is an argument not worth taking seriously. And by "warrantless surveillance" is he talking about...Kislyak? Because *I* could have told you that US intel would have been monitoring Kislyak's communications, which would include anyone he was talking to, which would include conversations with the incoming National Security Advisor and whether he was promising Moscow a sanctions reprieve on the dl, in complete contravention of US policy at that time, which is also against the law, and which Taibbi consciously mischaracterizes as "telling Russia not to overreact to sanctions. That's it." Even his line about Papadopoulos is incredibly misleading and selectively edited to imply there was no basis for investigating Papadopoulos at all, which implies there was no predicate for the whole investigation itself:

"Remember George Papadopoulos, whose alleged conversation about “dirt” on Hillary Clinton with an Australian diplomat created the pretext for the FBI’s entire Trump-Russia investigation? We just found out in newly-released testimony by McCabe that the FBI felt as early as the summer of 2016 that the evidence “didn’t particularly indicate” that Papadopoulos was “interacting with the Russians.”

Except here's what's in the actual transcript:

Mr Gowdy: We may come back to the sensitive criminal matter, but I want to fast forward the application before the FISA court. Why not seek coverage of George Papadopoulos? Why Carter Page? It seems you have a history with Carter Page. You have a pretty discrete comment by George Papadopoulos.

Mr. McCabe: We did, although Papadopoulos' comment didn't seem to indicate that he was the person that had had -- that was interacting with the Russians.

In other words, Papadopoulos was the drunk goober running his mouth about Russia helping the campaign, not the contact himself. No shit. NOT that the investigation wasn't sufficiently predicated, because it was, NOT that there weren't alarming contacts between Russian intelligence and members of the Trump campaign, because there were, just that Papadopoulos wasn't the recipient of the Russian dirt he referenced being given to help the campaign, all of which we knew.

On a side note, for our more conspiracy theory-prone, the transcript also makes clear that the investigation was opened prior to them having the Steele dossier, not that I expect facts to suddenly matter to them.

With the Justice Department becoming completely subsumed in service to Trump's personal, corrupt purposes, dropping charges against Flynn, who is guilty and admitted it more than once, is an actual, definitional travesty of justice. That it's being morphed into some kind of victory for civil liberties by people who should know better is no more than we're used to seeing coming from the right, really.

[Stormspellz]

I can explain why Republicans are giving you such a hard time over this.

When Brett Kavanaugh had a sexual assault allegation in 2018, the democrats and the left wing media sites went crazy with it. It was non stop hashtags to believe women and take allegations seriously and all that stuff.

Where is the outrage now?

Heck, Biden himself said we should believe women. He should have added the caveat at the time that this does not apply to himself or his friends.

republicans also blocked a proper investigation and refused to call witness on the matter, let alone the propaganda smear campaign against her by right wing media, on top of Bret's perjury, gop obstruction of confirmation documents, and you know a SCOTUS confirmation.

None of that applies here: All the major players and organizations have already come and said she should be heard; any new information on the matter hits the news cycle and then fads because we have little to no new information on the matter and what we currently have is flimsy at best.

[Felya]

None of that applies here: All the major players and organizations have already come and said she should be heard; any new information on the matter hits the news cycle and then fads because we have little to no new information on the matter and what we currently have is flimsy at best.

It’s a very disingenuous premise. First they claim Reade is just like Ford, but then claim that the lack of evidence Reade has to advance the mater, is Biden’s fault since Ford had so much more information. At some point, they might consider their original premise flawed and not that there is some conspiracy.