Samhain
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,939
- Reaction score
- 2,131
- Location
- Northern Ohio
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I'm talking specifically about general warrantless wiretapping. That can of worms was opened during the Bush era... in the name of protecting against terrorists. :roll:
You think they haven't/won't ask all the other carriers for the same information?
IN all honestly, despite this being a blatant violation of the Constitution (supported, obviously by every right wing tard in Congress), I doubt Obama is the kind of dude to use the data for malicious purposes or even hunt down terrorists.
For starters, any terrorist worth his salt wouldn't be stupid enough to talk over a cell phone.
I believe that O is simply trying to play Chicago-style politics, i. e. dig up compromising info on his political opponents and/or their corporate sponsors and then threaten to use it against them to achieve his political goals.
IMHO, federal politicians are not entitled to Constitutional protections. The Constitution applies only to the people.
There were a large number of conservatives upset about the patriot act. The running joke was that democrats had finally joined the "Black Helicopter" conspiracy theorists in their fear and mistrust of the government. Pretending people from both sides werent upset with and apprehensive about the Patriot act is just simply dishonest. That being said...we arent talking about GWB and its the worst kind of pathetic to continually defend 'your guy' by comparing his actions to Bush. There is no comparison BTW. Many portions of the Patriot Act were dangerous and just plain wrong. Obama? He has taken this to its own level. He has esentially declared American Citizens HAVE no freedoms or rights to privacy...that they are all subject to the whims of the federal government and the greater good, and you and people like you cheer him on and defend him at every turn. The government has no business being in your house...unless of course Obama says so in which case the government has every right to know what is in your freezer, your emails, to listen to your cell phone conversations, and know what kind of deodorant you wear.Judging from the partisanship of your OP, it's not a stretch to think you've given the Bush Administration a big pass on this. Or, you simply did not know that this has been going on for some time, and are not completely deflated because it's one less false outrage against Obama in your playbook.
Umm....first, Politicians are still citizens.
You're of the opinion that becoming a politician should remove your constitutional protections of free speech, assembly, etc?
Second...are you seriously just coming out and saying that you don't think there's anything wrong with a president using unconstitutional actions, or even constitutional actions, of the government with the explicite purpose of damaging political opponents?Like, for instance, Nixon and watergate...a-okay?
I'm talking specifically about general warrantless wiretapping. That can of worms was opened during the Bush era... in the name of protecting against terrorists. :roll:
IN all honestly, despite this being a blatant violation of the Constitution (supported, obviously by every right wing tard in Congress), I doubt Obama is the kind of dude to use the data for malicious purposes or even hunt down terrorists.
For starters, any terrorist worth his salt wouldn't be stupid enough to talk over a cell phone.
I believe that O is simply trying to play Chicago-style politics, i. e. dig up compromising info on his political opponents and/or their corporate sponsors and then threaten to use it against them to achieve his political goals.
IMHO, federal politicians are not entitled to Constitutional protections. The Constitution applies only to the people.
You dont seem too concerned. We're you outraged when Bush did it?
A hairball would be nice.Is that enough or do you want tears too?
You had me at right wing tard.
And where's your outrage now? I don't remember you being a silent observer or critic regarding survellience during the Bush years.
Did the Bush Administration perform wholesale warrant-less wiretapping of entire telecom subscribers? If so, that would have been horrible too.
edit: And more to the point, this isn't warrant-less wiretapping, its data mining, and guess what? It was asinine then, and its asinine now.
Seriously? This is old ****ing news. Where was your outrage during the Bush years?
Revealed: NSA collecting phone records of millions of Americans daily
Seriously, spin that, Obama fans.
There were a large number of conservatives upset about the patriot act. The running joke was that democrats had finally joined the "Black Helicopter" conspiracy theorists in their fear and mistrust of the government.
Pretending people from both sides werent upset with and apprehensive about the Patriot act is just simply dishonest.
That being said...we arent talking about GWB and its the worst kind of pathetic to continually defend 'your guy' by comparing his actions to Bush.
There is no comparison BTW. Many portions of the Patriot Act were dangerous and just plain wrong. Obama? He has taken this to its own level. He has esentially declared American Citizens HAVE no freedoms or rights to privacy...that they are all subject to the whims of the federal government and the greater good, and you and people like you cheer him on and defend him at every turn. The government has no business being in your house...unless of course Obama says so in which case the government has every right to know what is in your freezer, your emails, to listen to your cell phone conversations, and know what kind of deodorant you wear.
But...but BUSH did it too...
Starting now...The reporter who broke the story (Glenn Greenwald) is about to give (first?) radio interview on this story.
You can listen at:
http://www.wnyc.org/popup_player/#
How is that relevant?
Yeah, but that was going in the opposite direction. Basically, if the suicide-bomber-facilitator in Quetta made a sudden phone call to New York, we didn't stop collecting just because the other end of the line was in New York - we waited to see who was getting called by suicide-bomber-facilitators from Pakistan.
This seems more like collecting every single American phone records, and sifting through them to see who's been naughty or nice.
It's the difference between a policeman having probable cause, and searching you just to see if anything turns up.
But the point is that it is wrong, no matther who is in office.
It seems that my post was mistaken for "BUT BUSH DID IT TOO SO ITS OKAY!LOL1!" This is not the case. I have always said that in the area of civil liberties and privacy Obama has been sorely lacking, but so far every serious contender the Republicans have put forth have held...the exact same position.
So give us an alternative and we'll talk. Until then, stop blaming Obama, and start blaming a system that believes we should only be allowed to have the choice of a)having our rights crapped on and b)having our rights crapped on.
Representatives of the Senate Intelligence committee are confirming this now...Well I don't know how far it goes back, but it looks like its been going on longer than that, possibly since 2006.
An expert in this aspect of the law said Wednesday night that the order appears to be a routine renewal of a similar order first issued by the same court in 2006. The expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues, said that the order is reissued routinely every 90 days and that it is not related to any particular investigation by the FBI or any other agency.
Ari Fleischer: "Just to be clear...I support President Obama's anti-terror actions. They're bi-partisan now."This is not the case. I have always said that in the area of civil liberties and privacy Obama has been sorely lacking, but so far every serious contender the Republicans have put forth have held...the exact same position.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?