Hey, my kind of troll.

john gets to make the rules. He's the only one qualified to make that decision.

Hide yer greens. The bunnykitty will nibble 'em.

It is silly beyond belief. Why should anyone who disagrees with anyone else be a "troll"? It's always some conspiracy theorist who's sure that anyone who might possibly disagree is a "freeper" or a "troll" or a "plant" by the other side.

Troll.

LOL

(NOT!)

Then how do you his "refining" his policy on Iraq or his "I am voting for telecom immunity after I was against it" or his "I'm for RTKBA now, even though I was against it earlier" or his "I'm really for death penalty for child rapers, even though I was against death penalty before" or ...

Yeah, you can pretty much say that there isn't a major campaign issue on which he hasn't done the Fosbury flop in the last few weeks.

And yet, you claim that he has not changed positions. Seems like you haven't been following the news too closely, lately. Been driving the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, maybe?

Thanks.

mp

Well, put. What he is trying to do is win the frigging election.

Juicy Kitty!!!!

I like. meowrrrr!

Am I a troll? I have no idea........

Sure, why not?

Strictly speaking tho, I should be considered a trollette if the booties fit.

MCP is shorthand for male chauvinist pig; a label wimmin's libbers such as myself used to throw around quite freely back in the days.

Once again you provide links that are at the end of a long string of perfectly reasonable comments being met with your "debate" tactics of posting single-source back-up to illogical opinions based on an incomplete understanding of just about everything and by applying reductio ad absurdum of all opposing views or criticism.

It bears noting at the outset that you have not provided a single link to substantiate even one of your outlandish claims -- such as your claim that "A number of lawyers have posted long and detailed explanations why both you and your horribly uniformed [sic] blogger are wrong about this legislation as well as the underlying legal factors behind it." That should be a remarkably easy claim for someone of your obvious (*cough*) skills and intellect to demonstrate -- if it were true. Over thirty-six hours later, you still haven't managed to post a single solitary link to one of those well-informed lawyers. Not. A. Single. One. (Except maybe this one.) So your comments, and your credibility, must be viewed in that context.

With that in mind -- Are you just hoping that nobody will trace the links back and read what actually happened? Because your lies and evasions at this point have become so transparent, it's a little difficult to keep believing that you're serious. Let’s evaluate the claim you made.

Case # 1:

In Tankard's post at http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/there-goes-the-supreme-court-a.php, codegen86 posted the classic response to anybody who dares to offer a criticism of Obama: “What’s your preferred alternative? McCain?” codegen86 repeated that meme further downthread. Tankard then responded that, while true, the claim “does not answer the question about whether defenders of the Constitution are willing to be complicit in the act of electing a person who is willing to weaken it." In response, hrebendorf posted a link to an article without explanation. Following that link, we wind up at the right-wing Ethics and Policy Center, cross-posting an article from the Weekly Standard. That article attacked Obama for his supposed "liberalism" with respect to judicial appointments ("Beneath the congeniality and charisma lies a leftist partisan who will readily resort to sly deceptions to advance his agenda of liberal judicial activism.") hrebendorf did not state the reason for posting the link, including only the comment, "For your amusement.” So, hrebendorf appears to be asserting that one right-wing writer was asserting that Obama preferred "liberal judicial activists." What that was supposed to prove, exactly, was unclear.

The article hrebendorf posted also contained a reference to the National Journal's (bogus) 2008 ranking of Obama (based, purportedly, on his record in 2007) as the "most liberal" member of the US Senate. This was, somehow, important to hrebendorf's point. Maybe the point was that Obama, having been branded the "most liberal Senator," had to somehow "prove" he wasn't, despite the obviously bogus nature of the rankings, and despite the fact that, suspiciously, the "most liberal Senator" ranking in 2004 went to Democratic POTUS nominee John Kerry, and despite the plain fact that Senators like Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer clearly outrank Obama on any scale of "liberalness". Nonetheless hrebendorf apparently believed that Obama had to run away from the label. Or that Obama was really liberal but couldn’t appear to be. Or something. Hardly an example of principle or character, but that's tangential at this point. Ben Hocking noted that this “most liberal” meme a typical move that 'wingers use against Democrats. hrebendorf responded that Obama had received the label from the NJ before he began running for POTUS.

Except... he hadn’t. Obama announced his run for POTUS on 10 February 2007. The NJ ranking was published on 31 January 2008, as I documented. Regardless of why hrebendorf saw it necessary to post this fact (which was never made clear), it was plainly, factually, false. This is a pretty basic fact to fuck up, taking all of 5 minutes and a search engine to verify. Caught in this factually false assertion, hrebendorf's typically graceful and eloquent response was "Blow me, shithead." And Tankard correctly responded, "In the words of David Letterman, sometimes these jokes just write themselves."

My sources were: (1) the full text of Obama's 10 Feb 2007 announcement of his run for President at the Old State Capitol in Springfield IL, posted at http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/obama/obama021007sp.html; and (2) the archived NJ article, with the date.

hrebendorf's sources: none.

So much for "perfectly reasonable comments" and "single-source back-ups to illogical opinions" #1.

Case # 2:

In http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/in-which-nc-steve-and-a-few-ot.php, Libertine began a comment thread stating: "I have a big problem with ANY politico who would be willing to 'compromise' away any of our Constitutional rights. I supported him in the primaries and I WILL STILL VOTE FOR HIM in November". You responded with typical grace and poise: "You seriously have no clue how anything is done in Washington and have no historical perspective on this legislation, used by both democratic and republican presidents since 1978. This bill granted immunity for something companies are already immune to and made implicit [sic] some court checks that were implied before,..."

Leaving aside the grammatical senes of that sentence or lack thereof, it bears repeating that, following standard operating procedure, you cited absolutely no references or sources for the five separate factual assertions contained therein. And again, following your standard "you're either a troll OR you're a fucking moron" trope, you alleged that Libertine's comment was “[either] misinformed drivel that needs at least a polite (or not so polite) debunking or it is a neocon disinformation campaign.” This, from someone who whines about accusations of drinking the Kool-Aid and the like. Sauce for the goose....

...but I digress. Regarding the "immunity" claim, I pointed out that, in Judge Walker's ruling on AT&T's motion to dismiss in the Hepting litigation, Judge Walker didn't buy the that argument -- or it was never raised. I quoted the order as follows: "Moreover, because 'the very action in question has previously been held unlawful,' AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal." At that point, you did not see fit to offer a reply.

So much for “perfectly reasonable comments” # 2.

That covers the two cases in the post you responded to. But we’re nowhere near done.

Case # 3:

In http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/obama-fiddles-while-the-consti.php, I posted a link to an analysis of the FISA amendments legislation by Tim Lee at the technology website Ars Technica. (This was actually the comment to which you responded by claiming I was posting hyperbole and out-right lies.) You did not say anything there, but when I linked the same article at http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/lanny-davis-publishes-a-column.php#comment-2954912, you finally got round to your response, which consisted of claiming that I had posted "a sourceless article as your source for an opinion that is clearly out of sync with reality." Needless to say, you provided no documentation for your claim that the opinion was "out of sync with reality." Your own "single source" was.... your own Pronouncement of what Reality was.

Case # 4:

In http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/will-obamas-fisa-cave-hurt-him.php, in a thread which started with what has become a very familiar “you’re either a troll or an idiot” salvo from you (with “sounds like a neocon to me” thrown in for good measure), you also claimed that the either I or the OP held “stupid opinions that can't be backed up with facts or common sense”. The previous three cases already demonstrate exactly how well you back up your opinions with facts and common sense.

In any event, downthread from that opening salvo you claimed that Judge Walker’s ruling was merely the words of a single judge and therefore easily dismissed as meaningless. You didn’t dispute the reasoning or the logic of the ruling, you simply dismissed Judge Walker. There’s facts and logic for ya. In any event, I pointed out that at oral argument on the appeal of Judge Walker’s denial of the motion to dismiss, all three Ninth Circuit judges appeared equally skeptical of the government’s arguments, as reported in the New York Times.

Had you bothered to read that article -- which either you did not read or did not understand -- you would have discovered that

Three federal appeals court judges hearing challenges to the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs appeared skeptical of and sometimes hostile to the Bush administration’s central argument Wednesday: that national security concerns require that the lawsuits be dismissed.

“Is it the government’s position that when our country is engaged in a war that the power of the executive when it comes to wiretapping is unchecked?” Judge Harry Pregerson asked a government lawyer. His tone was one of incredulity and frustration.

and that

All three judges indicated that they were inclined to allow one or both cases to go forward for at least limited additional proceedings before Judge Walker.

My sources:
Judge Walker
Judge Pregerson
Judge McKeown
Judge Hawkins
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/washington/16nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Your source: You.

Now, to be fair, the primary issues on appeal were the applicability of the state secrets privilege (which Judge Walker just ruled, in Al-Haramain v. Bush, is preempted by FISA, although he dismissed the Al Haramain suit on standing grounds with leave to amend) and standing. The arguments are nonetheless germane, particularly with respect to general government claims of secrecy and immunithy that pervade the case, especially since we now have a ruling that the statutory procedures and defenses in FISA preempt the state secrets privilege.

Case # 5:

In http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/will-obamas-fisa-cave-hurt-him.php#comment-2957391 you made the sweeping claim that “Before a single second of discovery happens this will end up in the Supreme Court. You know what they will say? The same thing they have said in the past when the Constitution has gone up against Public Safety. The will uphold the legislation....” I then provided a recent Supreme Court case “when the Constitution has gone up against Public Safety”, namely the Boumediene decision, and demonstrated that (1) according to both the majority and the dissent, the issues of “Public Safety” vs. “the Constitution” were clearly in play, and (2) the statute in question was struck down as unconstitutional, despite the public safety concerns raised rather hysterically in Justice Scalia’s dissent. The majority certainly acknowledged the public safety concerns but held that whatever those concerns may be, the Constitution must be followed and that it was possible to balance Constitutional rights with public safety interests.

You responded that you didn’t mean that kind of case “when the Constitution has gone up against Public Safety”, but only other kinds of cases. Fourth Amendment cases and search-and-seizure cases are necessarily different from habeas corpus and detention cases, although you didn’t explain how that distinction had any bearing on the issues at hand. After I noted that and other matters, you stated (correctly) that the SCOTUS has upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints and airport security screening, which you then immediately claimed are unconstitutional. Of course you failed to consider whether such measures, where public safety is immediately at stake and no reasonable alternative measures are available, had any relationship to what’s at issue in the AT&T case, which is an alleged massive dragnet of the electronic communications of millions of American citizens, together with the indefinite storage of such communications for data-mining on any subject the Government may choose, at any time, now or in the future. I pointed that out. You disappeared.

My sources:
Majority opinion in Boumediene
Dissent in Boumediene
New York Times article re oral argument in Hepting, cited above

Your source: You.

Case # 6:

In http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/obama-fiddles-while-the-consti.php#comment-2954876, you responded to me at one point, "All you have is criticism and hyperbole and out-right lies masquerading as 'concern' that we have all be taken in. You [sic] getting added to the Troll Watch-list." As usual, you did not document a single instance of “criticism, hyperbole or out-right lies.” I asked you to document even a single instance of an outright lie. Once again, you disappeared.

Case # 7:

In http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/a-question-on-trolls.php#comment-2957413, you claimed that I had only recently showed up here on TPM, and then only to troll against Obama (paraphrasing of course). I linked to three separate posts of mine from late February and early March of 2008, all in support of Obama in one fashion or another, and one (regarding the full context of Rev. Wright’s sermons) that drew a thank-you downthread from observer2. Proven wrong, you once again turned tail and disappeared.

In related claims in the same post, you asserted without evidence that attacks on my comments were “legitimate critiques” and that my comments were “combative and illogical bullshit.” I believe the record established in this post is enough to evaluate the truth of those claims.

My sources: Links to my previous posts from February-March 2008
My source: You

Case # 8:

Your failure to document your claim that "[a] number of lawyers have posted long and detailed explanations why both you and your horribly uniformed [sic

***

I tried to alude to the pussy issue via calling the thread daddy an sexist MCP. Too oblique or something.

One rarely heard the word "cunt" even in impolite mixed company back when the MCP label was in common usage. OTH, "pussy" was heard frequently in the usual negative context that implies the absence of balls.

At first, there was a great deal of genuine confusion when males started to get called out by their female partners and friends for using "pussy" to describe something that on the surface, "has nothing to do with all chicks or YOU at all, baby". Took awhile to educate some of 'em.

The whole concept of equating balls and courage is silly and no female in her right mind would want a pair or 3, including Hillary Clinton.

What ever happened having "guts'?

Apparently many idealogues think alike, as I recently heard Rush Limbaugh describe Obama as an "empty suit".

Ahh, the company we keep!

Maybe he's revised your opinions on these issues, and the opinions you may have thought he shared when/if you voted for him in the primary. But I actually listen to his remarks and I don't see an incredible degree of change--mind you, a great degree. So I think the word 'revision' fits.