General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe big schism on DU appears to be over exactly what we objected to about Bush
When it came to Bush and spying, we objected to the "Warrantless Wiretapping" he was engaged in.
If your objection was to the "Warrantless" part, you don't have as big an issue with President Obama forcing the NSA to go through the FISA courts. If you objected to the "Wiretapping" part, then it is easy for you to say that Obama is continuing Bush-era policies.
When it came to Bush and war, we objected to Iraq because it was a "War Based On Lies".
If your objection was to the "Based On Lies" part, you probably had no issue with the invasion of Afghanistan and applauded President Obama for ending the war in Iraq and completing the objective of Afghanistan by taking out bin Laden, just like Howard Dean. If your objection was to the "War" part, then President Obama is as much a puppet of the Military Industrial Complex as Bush ever was.
There has been some discussion lately about how we were all united under Bush, but now "It's OK If A Democrat Does It". But the things that you may have thought we were untied against aren't necessarily the things we all objected to.
No whining about DU, just trying to add some perspective.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
UTUSN
(70,729 posts)
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)But I know for some people this is about an unconscionable breach of civil liberties and for others (like me) it shows how President Obama has restored some accountability to a rogue agency like the NSA.
UTUSN
(70,729 posts)WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)And not have to be labeled racists or fascists or kool-aid drinkers or firebaggers.
Big Tent.
UTUSN
(70,729 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)for authoritarian policy, whereas the best way to not be labeled a racist is to just shut the fuck and praise Obama in all he says and does.
UTUSN
(70,729 posts)paying attention who you're talking to since you cannot cite one place I have praised anybody for all they said or did. And your "shut the fuck" is offensive to civility.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)one could realize that neither "authoritarian" nor "racism" have 100% clear bright lines.
The extreme cases are easy to detect. The marginal cases are much harder to label.
RC
(25,592 posts)But not so much for others.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)there should be no disagreement about the Ron/Rand Paul family. They indeed are, and one can use that term for them,
and not be accused of using it against anyone but them.(same with David Duke, George Wallace and Jorg Haider).
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)carrier sized chunks, looking for whatever they can find, from a secret court, using secret interpretations of a secret law by a bunch of Reichwing hacks appointed by a Reichwing hack is not restoring accountability but rather a cynical mockery of such.
Where is a little kernel of concern about the constitution being violated, even in the eyes of a group that is pretty easy to imagine being well to the right of our otherwise highly dubious and regressive Supreme Court and what happened and what is different now?
Any guesses on what is going on that will pass the current muster that might not float so well on a less obviously rightest court?
All under the cover of darkness?
Oh my God, this makes me sick to my soul.
I will say this, I've long said there is a bright line division across many issues based on if you think Bush was the problem or merely the logical continuance of a more pervasive and larger systemic cancer.
JimboBillyBubbaBob
(1,389 posts)..................this was wonderfully
stated.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Let's face it, he threw gas on the fire in every way possible. From fiscal policy to appointees, Iraq policy to domestic security, regulation and enforcement across the board, Bush pretty much did the absolute worst possible thing in every scenario.
People can criticize Clinton and his predecessors, but man, George W. Bush really went out of his way to sabotage the whole enterprise.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)and the powers behind him pulled out all the stops to get him in place including a Supreme Court ruling that asserts it is not a precedent.
While I'll agree he poured gas on the fire, he didn't start the fires and little if any efforts are being made to stop the gasoline deliveries.
Bush built on his predecessors and utilized connections decades in the making. The likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney have long been laying the groundwork. Folks like Clinton, Nunn, Skelton, Bayh, Feinstein, Baucus, and Lieberman helped lay the tracks down for the runaway train. There had to eventually be Bush or someone so much like him as not to make a difference. If it wasn't 2000 it would have been 2004 or 2008 at the latest.
Acceleration of the fire was a feature not a bug. The real "chess masters" and "long gamers" are corporatist and security staters.
George W. Bush was not some wild mutation but rather a predictable evolutionary advance of an established line.
One may not have been able to predict the exact timing but the coming cannot be a shock to anyone half way capable of seeing patterns. All the right wheels were greased in advance.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The thing that has disappointed me the most about the current NSA scandals is how disconnected from reality the opposition has become.
For example:
Nope.
According to the documents Snowden leaked, the broad warrants are just for storing the data. A more specific warrant, and the FBI, are required to actually search through the data.
If the metadata is being searched, Snowden failed to leak any evidence of it. PRISM, which isn't the metadata program, applies to non-US persons. So the 4th amendment does not apply.
In my opinion, the problem is lots of people assume TV and movies are accurate. The broad assumption is places like the NSA are chock-full of people who ignore all the rules because that's what makes "24" exciting. But reality is dull.
As another example:
What's the specific violation?
The constitution doesn't apply to PRISM, because that's non-US persons.
The metadata program? It's hard to argue it's a violation of your rights when it isn't your data. It's the phone company's data. And the phone companies are already selling the metadata to third parties.
So unless you fall into the very large group who erroneously thinks PRISM and the metadata program are the same thing, could you list what the specific violation is?
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)A more specific warrant is then supposedly needed to get the content but the dragnet still applies to "metadata" and the actual collection of the data that allows them to "rewind" with the more specific warrant.
The first layer is bullshit and unconstitutional by definition.
The constitution ALWAYS applies to the US government, it has no basis to exist or act without it.
Further PRISM is phony in it's asserted mission since it plays by some unexplained 51% rule anyway.
As far as "metadata" belonging to the corporation, I'll chalk that to more absurd than the thinking that says "corporations are people, my friends", of course you may buy that as well. I consider the "metadata" collection no different than tailing me with out warrant or any rational suspicion. Not the same as bugging my home, car, or phone but definitely a violation of my privacy.
The phone carrier needs the data to do what I employ them to do, their rights to that data should end there and I 100% support codifying such limitations on them as well and making sharing such information beyond the needs of the customer benefit criminal and subject to civil award. Other uses should require compensation by law and a completely separate agreement to that of user rights and obligations.
Any data utilized for network shaping should be wholly blind (ie cannot be related to any individual user). Such and such switch was hit 121k times while another was hit 10 million times during X time period. There was _ amount of internet traffic at 9am on Mondays.
Nothing the NSA wants with our data impacts our service so it is not required to perform the service so they don't need it from my perspective, they want it for their purposes not mine and not the publics because the public is not allowed to know about it.
We have no way of knowing what rules are followed or for the most part what the rules are and how they are justified. Since it is done under cover of shadows, it is best to assume nothing good and get to the truth not just of what abuse is happening (to what exact degree) but just as importantly what is the potential for abuse even if folks are staying in line now.
I distrust the motives of the entire operation.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The first layer is bullshit and unconstitutional by definition.
Odd that you were unable to explain why it was a violation of your rights when it isn't your data, and that data is already being sold to advertisers by the phone companies.
Believing something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it actually is. So specifically how does it violate your rights? And how come the phone company selling the exact same data is just fine?
It's not possible to determine with 100% certainty that someone is a US citizen living abroad without their compliance. John Smith could be from London, CT or London, UK. Feel free to propose how to figure out which one is which with 100% certainty without their cooperation.
If you're going to pretend to know what is constitutional and what is not, you should probably familiarize yourself with the US Supreme Court, and their 1979 ruling that declared that the metadata belongs to the phone company.
Otherwise, your claims of knowing what is constitutional ring hollow.
Well, there is this Snowden guy. If he had some documentation of those rules that are scandalous, how come he didn't bother to leak them? He was trying to make the NSA look good by covering up the rules but leaking the program?
Or you could realize that Snowden would have leaked the most inflammatory information he could find. Yet he didn't manage to leak anything showing that the rules (ex. FBI has to be involved in searching data) were not being followed. He made claims, but failed to provide anything to back those claims up despite all that he did leak.
If he could capture information about US persons in the US, why not arrange a phone call between himself and Greenwald, and capture that? Both of them would be aware that their conversation was being captured, and it would provide all the evidence necessary to show US persons are actually being spied on.
But he didn't do that. He leaked documents showing that isn't supposed to happen, and provided no evidence that it happens.
RC
(25,592 posts)Merely, you say? The reality is that there should be no doubt of that continuance.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)system is technically supposed to work.
I know people abuse power. And with the incessant howling about national security, and the cloak of darkness that shrouds these guys, who the hell is going to catch them when they abuse the system? No one.
marble falls
(57,181 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)For all you know he has expanded what Bush did and there are MORE egregious acts being done. With the expanded computing power Obama has more ability for abuse than Bush did.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If things were worse than under W, why did Snowden leak a program that added oversight from both other branches of government?
dkf
(37,305 posts)One whistleblower says they have dossiers on every American. I am waiting to see if that pans out.
He may be reeling them in, letting them defend certain parts, not letting them know he has more. If he can damage their credibility they will lose their authority to keep things secret because they will have decimated trust and goodwill.
I think they are stupid to not come clean because most voters seem non-offended anyway.
That makes me wonder much worse there is to know.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You've been arguing from the position that such programs have already been leaked.
That's a little like arguing marriage has already been destroyed in California. How 'bout waiting for the evidence before asserting something as true?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 7, 2013, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)
I think this gets to the gist of the really divisive things going on here.
I think another division is between those who think Snowden and Greenwald are part of a coordinated attack on the president (like Issa's recent IRS b.s.) and those who think Snowden and Greenwald are not necessarily on the same page as others here, but are performing a useful function for democracy.
Another division is between those who trust intel agencies and those who don't.
Personally, I think history indicates these intel agencies are not to be trusted because they have long patterns of overreach that go back, nearly, to their very formation. Knowing this history, it's hard to understand why others would trust them - it seem rather naive to some of us to think they've suddenly decided they should operate within the confines of the Constitution, especially given the events of the last decade.
Part of this distrust is knowing the ways Republicans have used people associated with those agencies to undermine Democratic leaders...those formerly "associated with" are now running the private intel contractors - so there's a lot of reason to have doubts about their actions and to question the reason for private intel in the first place. So, while some want to think Obama has restored some accountability, others think these agencies still have too much power outside of limits of the constitution.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Then why didn't Snowden leak that? He leaked a program with all sorts of oversight and Constitutional limitations.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)neither do you, nor do others here. that's why I have continually said that I don't have a firm opinion about him or his actions - because I see a value for whistle blowing and, frankly, the "he broke the law" claim is a joke, to me, when the powerful are so above the law they can't be held accountable for lying about the reasons for a war - this is and was a war crime and Bush, Cheney, et al should've been put on trial if our law matters at all. Not to mention "Too Big to Fail," or the subsequent "Too Big to Jail" for banks laundering drug cartel money (and, I would bet a large sum of money, if I had it, that that money laundering was used in Latin America to try to overturn current elected leaders.)
Maybe Snowden's really working for some insiders who want the nation to look at this issue and they think they have more hope of this with a democratic administration - a republican one would be hopeless for this since they have been the worst abusers of these same powers for more than 50 years. Maybe that's why the releases are not actually harmful.
After Nixon, we got the Church Committee during Carter's time in office. After Bush/Cheney committed a war crime, Congress couldn't be bothered to investigate that abuse of power. So, it seems like avenues for dealing with abuses have been shut off by Republicans. -- and Democrats are unwilling to throw their fellow complicit Democrats under the bus for aiding and abetting a war crime - some of them share blame. Or, maybe Snowden's a ratfucker. I don't know. I don't think anyone else does, either. Maybe Snowden didn't release such information because he didn't have access.
I think the conversation this moment has created is an important one to have. Over and over again. Checks and balances also come from the citizens of a nation.
And the treatment of a Latin American head of state by western democracies was an echo back to a long list of bad deeds done by intel agencies in Latin America - it's no wonder someone like Morales would enjoy embarrassing them. They deserve it after their treatment of people in Latin America.
So, with that remark you quoted, I was talking about the overall issue of the history of intel agency overreach. Bill Moyers' program from 1987 on PBS called "The Secret Government," which someone reposted here recently, offered a very good overview of this long history of overreach and the problems this situation has created for the entire world - like the overthrow of Mossadegh, in Iran, for starters.
If the "see a commie under every bed" intel agencies had not been fed so much false information from the Nazis they recruited to provide them information - maybe our entire nation would be very different than it is now. Maybe we, rather than western Europe, would lead the nation in creating the best indices for life in one country vs. another. Maybe we would spend money on people rather than military contractors, or intel contractors, or military bases around the world. Our military budget is a direct consequence of right-wing ideology in intel agencies - and it pays them well to maintain such povs.
The lurch to the right wing in this nation, tho, came about because our nation's intel accepted the word of Nazis like Klaus Barbie, the butcher of Lyon - whose interests also were served by creating scares - their personal and political interests.
These are the folks that created the Red Scare. Not all of them were Republicans. It was, however, an extension of Nazi propaganda, sanitized by moving it to US shores. WWII was about the fight between fascism and socialism and communism. Socialism won in western Europe. Communism won in Eastern Europe. It seems we brought the fascists to America. Our intel agencies have always aligned with corporate interests here and around the globe...but, based upon the classic definition of fascism, I guess that's sort of redundant to mention.
No doubt there were some people who were just those scary commies - but the reality is that this claim was, again and again, a smokescreen scare to protect business interests - the problem with Mossadegh was not that he was a commie - it was that he wanted Iran, not BP, to control his nation's oil reserves. What nation would not want and take that right?
What sort of assholes would assume their nation has that right but not others?
But this CRITICAL decision to engage in a coup to overthrow a democratically-elected leader is what led to the current shitstorm in the middle east. It wasn't the only decision, but it was a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE factor.
The decision to install the Shah, whose secret police, SAVIK, were trained by the CIA - and his brutal dictatorship led to the rise of Islamism in that nation and all the events that have happened since, including the Iran-Iraq war when our intel and defense contractors funded both sides so that they would kill one another. Oh yeah, and Saddam was another one of those torturing imperial figureheads. Why weren't those who put him in power in the U.S. executed when he was? They were guilty because they made it possible for him to torture and murder.
So, you can DIRECTLY BLAME American intel agencies for creating many of the horrible circumstances the entire world has been dealing with for decades.
Blowback has been worse than the potential outcomes. Yet these "masters of the universe" are never held accountable.
They, with their elitist and imperial pretensions, treat the world like the serfs of the businesses, ultimately, they exist to protect. We saw this with Bush's attempt to install Chalabi - yet another version of Saddam in Iraq. People are sick of this - and not just people in those nations. What sort of hubris thinks it may impose its will on the people of every other nation in the world? The imperial hubris that exists within intel agencies and the corporate interests they serve.
This reality is the basis for my comment about them suddenly operating within the confines of the Constitution. It was illegal to overthrow Mossadegh, and even if it hadn't been illegal, it was still wrong-headed and stupid because it stemmed from reactionary right-wing attitudes toward the entire world.
So, your question really had nothing to do with the reality I was addressing.
My answer, however, explains why I said what I did.
How many people providing intel from foreign nations are like the Nazis were back in the day? How many Kuwaiti lies from Bush Sr., about babies being thrown from incubators, to stir up hate in Americans? How many "Niger documents" with lies about enriched uranium, that Cheney's cabal made sure made its way into intel decisions?
The honest truth is that many wonder if the intel agencies themselves aren't bigger problems than any foreign threat.
Obviously we need intel - but I have little trust that those in power in both govt and privatized intel agencies are anything other than the same sort of crew that started out by overthrowing a democratically-elected president in Iran in the 1950s.
Not all of them are.
But too many of them are.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It makes little sense to leak something that's legal, but some find unsavory, when you have something massively illegal you could leak.
So either Snowden's a moron, or there isn't something massively illegal he could leak.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I said I don't know and neither do others here.
This may not fit those who want to put people into one box on another one this issue, but, oh well.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)ceased making new strips Spring of last year.
UTUSN
(70,729 posts)It could be random. It could be a comics editor with an inside "relevancy" joke. It certainly is my own personal interpretation. It might have nothing at all to do with what the artist originally intended.
We haven't even made up from our last little spat!1
*******ON EDIT: Whups, my Disclaimer is in the other thread, to wit: "Disclaimer: Comics "Crock" is separate from my reading crock into SNOWDEN"
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It is a joke about computers taking up human attentions. You try to foist it off as commentary, using Crock as some sort of mask. Bad. You would not have added your 'disclaimer' if I had not pointed out that this strip is old,old, old.
UTUSN
(70,729 posts)First of all, I posted this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023190706
Sun Jul 7, 2013, 09:13 AM, which remains unReplied-to and unedited
before I re-posted the 'toon into this current thread, and therefore certainly before you discovered your big SNOWDEN/GREENWALD type of "revelation" about Crock's demise. My disclaimer is posted, as I just said, in that previous thread and I Edited to include that previous disclaimer in that previous thread when I referenced it here.
My opinions are my opinions and comments, not trying to "foist" the 'toon as the artist's. No need for a "mask."
Nowhere did I imagine that whoever has the power to run or re-run a strip is ALTERING "content of a protected work."
But let's get to the point: You have found lots about my posts irritating for a long time. You have every right to keep on being irritated, glory be, despite that Administration has provided plenty of tools for such a situation (the Ignore feature; you, not me -- I'll never use it). Just face this: You will probably NEVER like what I post, while will probably always be mis-reading and projecting, and FOR SURE you are never going to convert me over to whatever it is that you believe. Really, let's just no-fault go our separate ways. It sure is a waste of time to pick apart your imaginings.
djean111
(14,255 posts)but are called racists and trolls when we do not do the same damned thing.
Arkansas Granny
(31,528 posts)WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)If we are, then we are like herding cats.
If we aren't then we are just like the Tea Party Puppets.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)a sycophant, or authoritarian, or troll, if you don't walk in lockstep with those who are most outraged.
See how that works?
The OP is accurate.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)and I have to think that those who do so are willfully ignoring the rank hypocrisy because it's so ridiculously blatant.
treestar
(82,383 posts)what friggin' hypocrite could possibly complain they are being called anything for their hair on fire antics?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)that they will ignore Snowden, GG, and all of the side issues so that a real discussion about the details might take place.
If not, I'm sure you can guess how that thread turned out. Its nothing but attacks against the so called sycophant, totalitarian, and fascist trolls.
The OPs are running at least 5-1 praising Snowden while complaining how mean some on DU are being to Snowden.
The right wing's war on Christmas has nothing on some of these folks.
And imagine, no real discussion there either. Should Snowden have released the documents? They won't even consider that maybe he made a mistake. The answer must be yes or we are totalitarians. They really do have a lot in common mentally with right wingers. Agree with our premise or you are mud! OH, and Obama bad.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,019 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Obama has his own diehards who will twist themselves into pretzels to believe he is exactly right.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)They lied us into a horrific costly damaging war that we may never recover from. Nothing at all like that is happening now.
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)I appreciate the thoughtfulness that President Obama has brought back to the White House. I do know for those that disagree with me, that it isn't about racism or anything else crass like that, but a deep held belief that this country and party are losing the principals they were founded on. And while I understand that perspective, I don't agree with it.
Lasher
(27,635 posts)Two months into this first term, Obama extended his campaign timeline to conform with that of Bush's SOFA. And even at that he wanted to leave troops there longer.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)or do they sell out their principles to the highest bidder?
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)Unlike Bush that had his attorneys bend the law into pretzels to claim he wasn't breaking it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)is legal to have a gay partner, no siree, he went on and on claiming it was about 'faith' and 'morality' and 'Sanctity' and 'Sacraments' and a 'spiritual element shared by one man and one woman' and 'God' and such. He never, ever said 'no on is breaking the law, so it is all good' he said 'God Sanctifies one man and one woman, I'm a Christian, I believe, blah, blah, blah'.
So how duplicitous is seems to come with some 'if it is legal by any measure it is then moral and correct and even desired' after years of preaching at others as if the law was utterly meaningless in the face of 'morality' and 'Gawd's will''
Pick one. Cake and eat it too politics makes me sick.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Right, got it.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Obama has classified their legal arguments and court decisions secret. All we know is what a handful of whistle-blowers have released, and what a handful of Congressman on the Intelligence Committees have described as "appalling" and "seriously troubling". But we also have several instances of administration officials outright lying to Congress about the extent of the surveillence. This should be troubling to most people. Those who aren't have either sold out their principles to a president simply because he has a D following his name, or simply had none to begin with.
Marr
(20,317 posts)argue that Edward Snowden is some horrible villain who should be locked up.
The Obama Administration can claim it isn't breaking the law because it's all *secret*. The legal arguments are secret, the courts are secret, the programs are secret, etc. They've used secrecy to block real legal review. We only know these things are happening because of a few whistle blowers like Snowden. The government certainly never offered it up freely with a proud explanation of how legal it all is.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Then why didn't Snowden leak that?
Instead, he leaked some programs about non-US persons (ex. PRISM) where the Constitution doesn't apply, and the "metadata" program that has lots of Constitutional protections - and is the phone company's data that they are already selling to third parties.
If the NSA is stomping all over the Constitution, how come Snowden didn't leak that?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)secret interpretations of the law. It has alarmed some senators. Unfortunately since all of it is secret we have no idea how far this has gone. It may not be breaking the law but it is breaking the spirit of the law if they are stretching and developing secret interpretations of the law IMO. It IS like Bush stretching the boundaries of the torture laws. It was all made legal but was not.
I object to it when either party does it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Is this just being misinformed, or trying to stir up shit where there is none?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)A consequence of the administration making secret legal arguments in a secret court that rubber-stamps every warrant request put before them. All perfectly legal...or so we're told. Just don't pull back the curtain and look too close.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and yet did not cause any hair on fire for 3 decades.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)That metadata belongs to the phone companies. And they're already selling it to third parties.
Rather difficult to argue it's a violation of your privacy when it isn't your data and it's already being sold to advertisers.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The post office doesn't open and scan mail you send, in case the government wants to read it. Private communication is private, and should remain so under provisions of tne 4th amendment. Govt is welcome to evesdrop on public comments, LTTE, Facebook, twitter, message boards...but the line should be drawn there.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Snowden's leaks do not include any programs regarding content for US persons.
The only programs he leaked where content is collected is on non-US persons. Which means the Constitution doesn't apply - Non-citizens who are not in US territory nor US custody have no 4th amendment rights.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)and what the hell does the NSA need yottabytes of data storage for, if they're not saving content? Why is the govt so secretive, if they aren't doing anything wrong? Why did Wyndel warn us that the public would be outraged if they knew the full extent of the govts actions? Why is Obama so panicked about whistle-blowers, which he promised to support? There's some serious shit happening, and the govt is desparate to keep it secret...doesn't that speak volumes?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Clapper was asked about data collection on Americans, not content collection.
They're free to save content on non-US persons. US persons is a problem.
There's about 6.75 billion non-US persons. Might need a wee bit of storage to save the information they produce.
Because when people know they're being listened to, they tend to not speak openly. For example, China now knows they can't keep using the email system in their main "cyberwarfare" university, thanks to Snowden.
Well, there's plenty of people outraged that we spy on other countries. But that isn't illegal nor unconstitutional. Again, non-US persons do not have Constitutional rights.
What panic?
Obama is prosecuting more, but there's also many more people leaking.
Keep in mind "official" leaks are not leaks. Our classification system was created by the National Security act of 1947. In that, Congress said "Hey executive branch! Come up with a classification system".
As a result, the President decides what's classified and what isn't (with lots of delegation). And he can change that decision on a whim. If the president says "leak it", then it's legal to leak it.
If Congress had bothered to actually set up a classification system, then the President would have to obey it too.
What, exactly, have they been doing that is "desperate"? Prosecuting people who leak is not desperation. It's called "Tuesday". You just don't normally hear about such prosecutions, because they are far more routine - Guy meets with someone he thinks is from China and asks "what do you want me to give you? It'll cost $5k".
Amonester
(11,541 posts)But, you know, OBAMA BAD = BAD OBAMA
Yep. BAD BAD BAD OBAMA created all this, and now maintains to tyranize us all forever after.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)You can't get a warrant to say search the state of Florida and go house to house. You'd have a warrant, but it wouldn't be a legal warrant.
It wouldn't be determined it wasn't a legal warrant until the legality of it was challenged in court.
No one has been able to challenge the legality of these warrants because they've been denied standing. Secret programs are very difficult to challenge in court.
The warrants are meaningless overly broad CYA tactics.
treestar
(82,383 posts)obviously that one would fail at the lowest court it was brought up in.
Others are tougher issues to deal with.
There are court decisions I disagree with, but I accept them as society's decisions, based on the rule of law. None of us can make our personal standards the standard by which the rest of society must abide.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)because it is done in secret.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They may be declassified at a certain age in any event - have not been able to find out about that.
and before that, the POTUS could do whatever they wanted. So we could just go back to that if there is no way we can trust FISA.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)What there is is a very vocal minority that has gone to great effort to demonize Snowden and Greenwald.
One need only look at the recs on the Greatest Page to see that the folks upset with these revelations FAR outnumber the dozen or so serial posters that attack Snowden and Greenwald.
It isn't even close.
Cheers!
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)But a host of issues that some people use to claim no difference between Bush and Obama that cause many others to scratch our heads because we see the problems under Bush being fixed under Obama.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)While it is certainly true that the Obama Admin. is not the Bush Admin. by a large measure, there are still several issues that there does seem to be no difference in their approach and policies. That is undeniable and to some extent to be expected. There is a great deal of grey area where the differences are merely shades of grey. Take for instance the lack of Wall Street prosecutions or the secrecy issue.
I find nothing wrong with criticizing Obama when he fails to deliver on promises or when he initiates policies that are not progressive and are, in fact, a continuation of policies of the GW Bush Admin.
Understanding that nothing is perfect is not a reason to mute our opinions. Even Obama himself has asked his supporters to keep the pressure on him and Congress to do the right thing. I understand your point that Obama has done several things that progressive Democrats agree with and that distance his Admin from that of GW Bush. I, for one, will give him his due praise when it is deserved and criticize him when it is not. That is our duty as Democrats and Americans in my mind.
Good post!
Cheers!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)when George W was in office.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)others or the declaration of divisions but in the explaining of your perception of things being 'fixed'. If that is what you see, why not hold that subject as important and speak about it, not about 'some people' saying things you don't care for and refusing to be persuaded by your characterizations. 'Some people' make 'claims' but you and 'many others' scratch your heads in wonder at how stupid 'some people are'.
You cant manage to address these obvious, glaring changes Obama is making. But you do manage to do the 'we are divided because some people do not agree with me, although I won't say what it is I think exactly'.
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)My knee jerk reaction on many an occasion has been to attack those that attack President Obama and claim they are doing the GOPs work for them. I am certainly not claiming anyone is stupid for disagreeing with me. This post is just a recognition that we all may have sincere beliefs that lead us to disagree on many issues.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You counted yourself among an unnamed group 'we' and you are busy head scratching while 'some people make claims'. We. Some people. We scratch our heads at the lack of understanding of some people. That is what you said. This is not 'self chiding' this is finger pointing. If that was not your intention, you should do a rewrite.
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)n/m
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)Many of us expected President Obama to operate based on sound moral principles (as his 2008 campaign promised); continuing to carry out activities which are based on the same principles we objected to when employed by the previous administration (covert surveillance & building massive tracking databases on US citizens; imprisonment of people who are not only not charged with any crime - and many of whom are likely innocent; political assassinations) does not fix the problem, it merely adds the color of law as a cover.
Marr
(20,317 posts)
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)I feel I needed to make up for some of my poor and less thought out posts.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)far too small to represent any division. 15 or 20 people at most. They make posts filled with emoticons and space taking style, no content other than name calling. But there are very few of them.
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)There are a host of issues over the past 5 years that keep dividing us as DUers. And while we were united in our opposition to Bush, I think we were not united in what exactly we opposed him over.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)equality. DU was very divided and many, many joined Obama is opposing and favoring 'civil unions' and others claimed to support equality but only 'later' after the next election, they'd whine that it was wrong to ask for rights now. The opposition to equality now called LGBT people 'poutragers' and 'pony wanters' and all of that.
But what happened in the end? Obama finally gets paid enough to say 'I support' and so now they all do. I can show you DU posts from a few years ago that say 'gay marriage is unthinkable to me' and such. Now, they claim to be allies for decades now!
So was all of that 'division' really divisive? Or was it a moment within a larger process of change? Do folks expect progress without a bit of upheaval or at least some debate?
I ask you, is the progress worth that phase in which it was all division and poutrage and accusations of pony wanting? Would it be better if there was clam agreement and endless static, no justice ever because it is too noisy and upsets the precious Centrists?
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)all the way back to DU2 to see that. However, I have never bashed Obama for the pace of his "evolving" on the issue. I agree that the division was divisive. It caused many posters to leave DU, never to return. Progress always requires upheaval to occur. To expect otherwise is naive.
But the hyperbole you accuse some of (The opposition to equality now called LGBT people 'poutragers' and 'pony wanters' and all of that.) was also directed at the presidents supporters calling them homophobes and bigots. Anytime our arguments devolve to name-calling and hyperbole, we create schisms among people here on DU that should be allies.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I'm not accusing anyone of anything, you can use DU search if you wish to pretend you don't know what I mean. Dozens of people said much worse than that, I am being kind by not linking and quoting and here you are defending those who opposed equality.
It is you who is claiming that it was not homophobic ideas being called out but 'the President's supporters'. As if it was not the attack on our families we objected to but Obama. As if it we were not his supporters as well. You still divide 'President's supporters' and 'Gay people' into two groups and then you claim criticism of the 'supporters' was for supporting, not for saying 'gay marriage is unacceptable to me' and such.
Just so you know, I don't think of the 'pony' and 'poutrage' people as Obama supporters nor as Democrats, no matter what they claim. You ascribed that status to them, I did not. A 'pony shouter' is a pony shouter. Supportive of nothing and of no one.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)because, honestly, I don't know who was here defending civil unions rather than equal rights and I'd like to know because that, to me, is the thinking of a sycophant.
Some party Democrats also took the view that... yes, we support civil rights but Martin Luther King is pushing it and African-Americans should just be patient back in the 1960s.. this was the standard party line view for many, especially Democrats in the southern states that had to placate racists to win elections.
So, as far as that goes, nothing changes much for some people in some positions.
I'd like to know who was saying this modern version of that old pov. But, actually seeing that such claims have been made here is educational and useful for people who want some metrics to decide whether someone else is operating from a position of expediency and blind loyalty or whether someone has actual principles.
Tikki
(14,559 posts)Tikki
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)I was much more mad over the dissing of the intelligence and the ignoring or Richard Clarke.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I would add that the "warrants" now sought go through so little vetting as to be essentially "warrantless" but I think you have some points worth ruminating on as we think about/discuss the nature of coalitions on DU and in the party.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)It is the path beneath my feet. I was not in favor of war in Afghanistan, nor Iraq. I am never in favor of violating Civil Rights. I am never in favor when human life, and human rights are sacrificed.
Liberal principles are my guiding light, and always have been. Liberal ideals are my center, and always will be. If this causes a schism or rift in DU, I am seriously going to be a surprised individual.
Look at my posts. Over a thousand, and a vast majority of them are calls for unity behind principle, and calling on others to remain true to the principles of Liberalism. Calling on us all to unite behind the principles that have made us a force that is lauded in history. Ignore the Conservative misrepresentation. Look at history. Civil rights for most of our citizens. Not the GLBT community yet, but soon we hope, and will keep working towards.
Civil rights marches, end the war in Viet-Nam. We marched against Nuclear war in the 1980's, to let the world know that not everyone supported Reagan's imperialist policies. We supported lawyers who argued unpopular cases in courts. Miranda, Roe V. Wade, and so many others. All according to Civil Rights, and Liberal Principles.
We argued for basic minimums for pay, because we thought there should be a bottom that no one could fall beneath. We argued and marched to protect a woman's right, we pushed to elect, pushed for ballot initiatives, argued against ballot initiatives. All according to the guiding principles of Liberalism, and our faith in the betterment of mankind by adopting those beliefs.
If some take offense at my words, then I am not sorry. Because those of us who marched to get AIDS recognized in the 1980's, and to end the generations of discrimination against Gays did so because we believed in the cause.
I have, and always will, stand up for Liberal Principles, because I believe in them with all my heart. I have faith, and that dream of a better world for the next generation, and the one after, and all those after is all that sustains me some days.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)that we didn't complain about Bush. That's how far out of whack things are. I have pretty much dropped out of those conversations, just like I have stopped talking to Republicans. You can't argue with crazy people. My view on this has two points:
1. When Dem politicians act like Republicans, they lose vast numbers of independent votes
2. When Dem voters start making excuses for (or agreeing with) dem politicians who act like republicans, they lose another large chunk of independent votes.
The president (party apparatchik) are doing a great disservice to the country and the party by adopting so many Republican positions. On January 20, 2009 they should have run full speed away from every single Bush initiative. That's what Obama's 70 millions voters thought was going to happen. All 70 million of them would have been in the streets for the resistance. Even Beck and Limpballs couldn't have overcome that.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)nineteen50
(1,187 posts)with all that support why did he go right?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)And the people for whom he actually works wanted him to go right.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)in his term
begun the end of both Afghanistan (which 99% including Ron Paul voted FOR)
begun the end of Iraq
begun the process to close Gitmo as promised, which the republicans like Peter King vigorously don't want to happen
wanted to try KSM in NY Federal court, but the uproar from Peter King made it impossible
Put vigorous controls on NSA (unlike Bush)
and the list goes on 100 times over
I also do not see anyone saying that all the FBI/CIA/NSA/HS and all war parts should be defunded
IF they are, that would be congress
Only way for congress to vote better is to vote democratic in and republican out. Same with senators and governors
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)competent than Bush and they have been largely satisfied. Some on this board wanted Obama to be more moral than Bush and they too have been largely satisfied. But many on this board (myself included) wanted Obama to be as great as FDR or Lincoln and have been largely dissatisfied, sensing the squandering of a golden opportunity.
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)I'm not even sure if FDR or Lincoln could be who they were in today's political climate.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)first time now (about how Lincoln worked with and included four other important Republicans in his adminsitration). A great read and one I heartily recommend to anyone on DU who loves American history.
After 8 years of Bush and Cheney, we sure as fuck did deserve an FDR or Lincoln. But I agree with you that today's political climate would test the patience of Job or lesser mortals. Didn't stop me from wanting it though and being largely disappointed when I didn't get it.
Put another way, saying Obama is better than Bush damns the former with exceedingly faint praise, imho.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)You did see the crowds on the National Mall, didn't you? Cheering the inauguration of a (black) Hope and Change President?
We gave him a big majority in the House, and a super-majority in the Senate (briefly, I grant you). Even a majority of the Senate would have been enough if it was actually functional.
And what did he do with those tools? Looked forward not back and let all the miscreants off the hook, reached across the aisle and got his fingers chewed off to the wrist (nobody could have predicted that), appointed people who caused the problems to fix them, etc etc etc. You should know the refrain by now.
Damn straight we were ready for, and deserved, better. Many people stayed home in 2010--not political junkies like us, but moderates and independents--because it seemed they just got more of the same.
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)It is the failure of morality which is my greatest disappointment - I consider the continuation of Gitmo immoral. I consider political assassinations immoral. I consider creating or maintaining tracking databases on US citizens immoral. I consider continuing the "war on terrror" in the Middle East immoral.
The ACA is anything but squandering a golden opportunity - there has not been any serious health care reform, despite diligent attempts for decades. To the extent I am disappointed in the ACA, it is because I consider it immoral not to treat access to health care as a right, but in order to avoid squandering the opportunity which would likely not be available for at least another decade, President Obama compromised on the moral principle that access to health care should not depend on health, wealth, or the ability to maintain employment.
So - it seems to me you have everything after the second sentence reversed.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)former with exceedingly faint praise, just as saying Obama is "more competent" does.
I agree with eery sentence you have written and wish only to clarify that my phrase 'squandering a golden opportunity' referred to Obama's opening for a second New Deal for the American people, one that to my view Obama largely squandered.
Today we face a reality that 1 in 5 American children experiences at least one episode of hunger per month. And nothing is being said or done about it. At the same time, acc. to Mother Jones Magazine, the top 10% now control over 75% of the wealth here.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Some DUers think elevating thieves & liars to the status of heroes, accepting/promoting their lies as fact, attacking Democratic leaders using those lies, and attacking anyone who has the temerity to question those lies & who bring actual facts into the discussion (all things which are hallmarks of the worst brand of Tea Baggerism) are acceptable to Democrats on a Democratic site.
SunSeeker
(51,677 posts)
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)when it started. Many here stated that this was a huge mistake. Now a Democratic President continues and expands and goes after people.
Same thing with TBTF and the Wall Street crap. Many, MANY here said that would be a fiasco. It has been and we are in the what year of a almost continual recession and stories of Wall Street corruption and a continual adding of what new crazy fucking thing they want to do or plan on doing?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)This is the same old shit, on steroids.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)hence the backlash. That is the price the Corporate Dems will pay by playing politics with the lives of the American people.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)The Great Greenwald propaganda stream is just the latest excuse for those who are inclined to bash Obama to do so.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,019 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)and your lie is easy to prove on DU.
you are part of the problem here.
Cha
(297,601 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)that have attacked him over every policy issue that he has faced since being elected in 2008. As far as I am concerned, those people have clearly demonstrated that they don't have a remote grip on reality. I have gotten to the point where I don't even read OPs or posts with their usernames because it is always the same ole hair on fire viewpoint of issues that they don't demonstrate much of a grasp of.
Cha
(297,601 posts)"The Greenwald propaganda stream" has let them sharpen their fangs and let them grow ever so much longer.
And, they will deny that to the very end.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)it's Obama carrying them out and expanding them.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Good God, there have been literally hundreds of posts here detailing essential differences that continue to be completely ignored, because some people just KNOW what they know.
Slap it on a bumpersticker and you're good to go.
RobinA
(9,894 posts)that posts listing "essential differences" are being ignored? I have read some of those posts and to me, what is cited is neither different in a way that I find meaningful, nor particularly essential. I keep hearing about facts and differences being ignored, as if Those facts and essential differences are dispositive if only I would pay attention to them. The differences and facts cited do not address what I find troubling. That seems to be something that is not understood by some.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)continue to find something "troubling" when confirmation bias is at work.
So really, the availability of facts isn't going to matter much anyway.
ileus
(15,396 posts)When we do it, it's with the purest of intent....not so much with them.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)... just feeling like this doesn't allow for shades of gray.
Dyslexics Untie!?
treestar
(82,383 posts)there is no "continuing Bush policies." That is off the table. If the person still does not like the system, they can attack it, but anyone saying Obama continued Bush policies is just shit stirring and refusing to admit Obama went back to the FISA law.
And if one does not like that law, one can go back to the era before that law passed, when Presidents were not restricted, or suggest more checks and balances be added to the FISA. But we don't see any of that, just emotional screaming of "spying on Americans" "Snowden is a hero" hopes that Snowden gets asylum (in some country generally worse, without even FISA like laws) and other hopes that the US gets taken down a peg. More breathless posts from sources like RT misrepresenting the present system, which, if it were really so bad, could be critiqued without lying exaggeration about how it works.
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)Policies are not the same as law. Many of us are offended by the policies of collecting and building large databases of tracking information on US citizens, imprisoning people who have not been charged with any crimes (and in many cases are innocent), political assassinations in foreign countries, among others. These policies have largely been continued by President Obama.
It is completely irrelevant to me whether those policies are conducted under the color of law or not. It is the policies I disagree with - regardless of the letter of the law.
And I have, for at least 4 decades, been working against laws which permit these kinds of activities. In addition to working personally against such laws, for a third of that time I have been on the governing body of an organization with the mission of opposing such laws. Just because the laws may** authorize implementation of immoral policies does not mean I am not also entitled to criticize President Obama for carrying out bad policies under the color of law.
**I also believe that some of these activities are not authorized by law or constitutional, but that is different discussion.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And any President's "policies" are to be in configuration with those laws. And "those of us (love that passive aggressive victim clique you're creating) who have to resort to lying exaggeration to get people upset over these laws just prove they aren't enough to get upset with to begin with.
What you want is not relevant until you get the voters to want it. If the SCOTUS says something is legal, that is what society has judged. "Those of us" who can't take it are reduced to screaming.
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)Your suggestion that there is nothing he can do about it because...it's the law... is as nonsensical as an argument that he is required to smoke because the law permits it.
The applicable laws do not require that President Obama's administration collect phone meta data on US citizens. They (arguably) permit it, if he chooses to do so. When I voted for President Obama, I voted for a candidate who said that kind of surveillance was a bad policy. I expected him to choose not to collect that data, even if the law permits it because that is part of the platform he ran on, and many of us voting for him did so in part because of his campaign promises NOT to do certain things EVEN if they are permitted (not mandated) by the law.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Into an OP and build upon its thèmes.
Well said!
RobinA
(9,894 posts)paragraph is why many people on your side of this debate are called authoritarians.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Bush ignored laws around surveillance, President Obama is obeying those laws.
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)is by people who are now pretending that if Bush had only complied with the laws we would have all supported his covert surveillance - because, after all, he would then have been complying with the law.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
truth2power
(8,219 posts)when they're doing things or implementing policies that you would have opposed if the other side had won."
-- Jeremy Scahill
Personally, a drone strike on a 17 year old American citizen, and the only way they could identify the victim is finding the back of his skull with the curly hair still attached....
Bush OR Obama...my principles; my conscience, tell me that's a mortal sin, for which either one of them would deserve to burn in Hell. Sadly, I don't believe there is such a place.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)One difference was that George Bush was actually truthful about avoiding the FISA court. Obama was smarter publicly, FISA as a rubber stamp and a secret seal approval. He's willing to have the NSA go through the formality of having court oversight, while making it a formality. Meanwhile, he protects the secrecy of the court just as much or even more than Bush. The meaning is one we never encountered with Bush: a secret court can't operate as a real court.
The second fact is, many pro-Obama Democrats are willing to look the other way if Obama does the very same things. They will deny, deny, deny that he's taking the very tact on policies, and they'll use the formalities of things like a secret kangaroo, FISA court to say Obama is different.
In all truth, he gets the same results as Bush. The 4th Amendment is still erased, he crucifies more whistle blowers, he guards even more state secrets and has the government funnel money to private companies for doing state security.
The only substantial difference is that Obama can nuclear correctly, and he doesn't have a gaffe every day.
These and economic issues go to show that if you're a Republican but you're not racist or sexist in the least, then you're actually a centrist Democrat who loves Obama.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)I doubt that you know something other people don't know. A rubberstamp doesn't reject the majority of requests that come before it. You attempt to validate your whole argument on your self-assigned description of the FISA Court as a rubberstamp, how dishonest. The fact is President Bush purposely ignored laws around surveillance because following them was inconvenient to his administration.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Cite for FISC rejecting the majority of requests that come before it?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I wonder if that poster will willfully continue to believe something 180 degrees wrong?
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)http://reason.com/24-7/2013/06/10/fisa-court-surveillance-rejections-extre
I haven't had math in a long time, but I seem to remember .03 percent isn't a majority. That's so low, it looks like a margin of error, like it's the ones that they didn't approve by accident.
I would have provided a source, but I didn't think what I said there was controversial. I especially didn't expect someone to make the claim you have.
polichick
(37,152 posts)...big issue entangled with terrorist threats, lost rights and both administrations - and that's the fact that private contractors now do the work of the government.
This means corporations with one purpose - to rack up profits - are now in charge of sensitive information. If corporate America is not patriotic enough to pay its fair share of taxes, choosing instead to hide profits offshore and use every other loophole possible to make money - why in the world would anyone trust it not to sell sensitive information?!
Apophis
(1,407 posts)If a Democrat president like Obama does it, by gawd, you better support it or you're not a real Democrat!
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Pre-DU3, the site self-identified as a "left-wing" forum that "supports Democrats." There's the built-in schism right there. The Democratic Party is not "left-wing."
Moving to DU3, the language was changed. With a center-right Democratic administration in the WH to support and defend, the "left-wing" designation has been replaced by "liberal," and the site is no longer "underground" per se. Those "liberals" who are also "left-wing" and are still here find themselves in conflict with the current administration. Meanwhile, those who are partisans first, whose only real interest in the site or in politics at all are partisan are going to be busy justifying whatever, as long as it's a Democrat who does it.
It's always been here, it's not going away, and the latest scandals are just the newest wave of conflict.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)It's really not true that DU didn't have people who swallowed Bush's lies and supported his pointless war then. What they were most afraid of was that Democrats who opposed the war would look unpatriotic. They cared more about the lies the Bushies would tell about Democrats telling the truth than they were about telling the truth themselves.
Supporters of the war ended up looking foolish. A lot of them just disappeared once it became obvious that Saddam had no WMDs. Some were very persistent and backed Lieberman for President in 2004 and didn't go away until Democratic voters in Connecticut rejected Lieberman in the 2006 Senate primary.
I'm hearing the same steer manure from the people arguing for the national security state here today. "Get in line or the Republicans are going to win." They will only if the Democrats don't propose anything better than a kinder, gentler national security state. Democrats don't make as good fascists as Dick Cheney or the Tea Party do.
I voted for Obama because I expected him to dismantle the national security state. He promised transparency, which to me means tearing down the opaque walls between us and the national security apparatus. Just saying that there are safeguards an oversights in place that weren't there before is insufficient. We cannot have transparency and secret laws or secret courts. President Obama has not delivered on his promise.
The national security state cannot protect America. The national security state is antithetical to America. The national security state is destroying the village in order to save it.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)despite the fact that we all voted for Obama twice. The people whose principles change because of parties or personalities get the government they deserve. So the Bushies and BOGers get the secretive, corporate, right-wing government they clamor for. Remember when Obama told us to "hold my feet to the fire"? Now anyone who even hints at criticism "hates" him.
Well, we'll be a 3rd world nation soon. At least I'll have my principles. The cultists will have nothing but autographed photos.
Skittles
(153,185 posts)I am beginning to no longer recognize this website
Skittles
(153,185 posts) Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)instead of the hateful name calling we've been seeing.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)So I hope this indicates you want to walk back on some of the attacks you have done.
As I've said here more than once in the recent past - if you are defending the powerful's position, you need to realize that what you say can hurt those in power.
The recent accusations calling others racist, for instance, was so far over-the-top my first thought was that only a ring-wing troll would engage in such divisive bullshit. But, apparently, those who think they are defending the president engaged in this crap.
What those people are doing, however, is engaging in their own prejudiced hate speech to score political points. That makes Obama look bad, no matter how anyone here wants to pretend they are doing something "helpful" for the President.
This issue isn't about race and it isn't about white privilege, tho no doubt racism and white privilege exist. There are many issue which make this entirely clear. This isn't one of them.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I know people on here don't attack Obama because of race.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)And I'm not trying to have an argument - I'm just asking for some deep breaths on both sides. And, as I said, those defending the President have a greater burden than those who are not speaking from/for a position of power.
I mention that moment with the accusations of racism because that was the moment when defenders jumped the shark, for me.
That was the moment when, for me, anyone who was doing this looked desperate.
Especially when they were attacking African-Americans, not realizing those people were African-American, who disagreed with the position that there was nothing to be concerned about.
Skittles
(153,185 posts)we all defend Obama when it is warranted (for example, re: birth certifiicate)
bowens43
(16,064 posts)The war in Iraq is not over, the war in Afghanistan is not over. Yes I did have an issue with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither war was justified and both are still on going.
Obama did not end either war, he continued them and he one of these wars into Pakistan..
Cleita
(75,480 posts)going to be hurling accusations around either until we get to the bottom of the truth.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Blanket warrants covering every person under one mobile provider for 3 months isn't a real warrant, it's not at all what the people who created the concept of warrants envisioned.
That's like giving all police in the US a blanket warrant to search everyone's car whenever they please, rather than basing it on probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of a crime.
It is this same perversion of language that allows obfuscationists to call this sham a "war". It's a "war on terror", a forever war with no end, with uncounted battlefields, with unlimited enemies.
Please do not lecture DU on the basis for objection to these terms if you don't understand them, and instead present a false dichotomy.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Somehow they think use of the word validates their BS. The fact is the NSA under President Obama ISN'T the NSA that Bush/Cheney led. What is it that you don't understand about the difference between a warrant-less wiretap and a wire-tap that is done only after review of justification by judges? Go ahead and use who the judges are to attempt to disqualify them, that is a favorite tactic of those tearing out their hair over nothing.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)and there is too wide a spectrum of ideologies in this party, due to there not being ANY other place for moderates to go.
We have essentially one viable party in America. So it's good cop bad cop now-- 'Go along with what we say or you'll have to deal with the GOP'.
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)And that requires a big tent
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)Have to take another look 
Number23
(24,544 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)A warrant issued by a secret court isn't in any way better than no warrant at all.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Tikki
(14,559 posts)by the al qaeda to attack on American soil, but I do know boosh received the information and chose to do
nothing with it.
After the attack we heard about the knowledge of sleeper cells in the US and that the suspected high-jackers had ties to these cells and that one or more had spent time on US soil.
Back then we were not mad at boosh for receiving intelligence but for not acting on it..
Tikki
nolabels
(13,133 posts)And for me it's not about Snowden or President Obama personally but more of the deal with the secretive corporate military / industrial complex garrison state we find ourselves in.
Our country is being pimped out to corporations to be their policemen for the rest of the world
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)And passing an illegal law won't pacify us.