A Sad Dose of Reality for the Obama-Bashers (Left- and Right-Wingers Alike)

[riqster]

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/a-sad-dose-of-reality-for-the-obama-bashers-left-and-right-wingers-alike/

Snips:

"And one man, with no oversight, guidelines, checks or balances, chooses each and every one of those judges: John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court. And he has picked “conservative” judges that pretty much follow the Bush/Cheney philosophy towards the Bill of Rights: that being, “f*** your so-called-rights, peons”. Small wonder that pretty much every request for surveillance gets approved."

"Roberts was and is, of course, a Bush appointee, and Obama has no power over him. None. Zippo, Zilch. Nada. Ixnay. So, to blame Obama for the actions of the FISA court is far, far, FAR beyond stupid. There are many things we can blame him for, of course, but not this."

More at the link, as always.

[el_bryanto]

1. Yes - but it's Obama's administration that is requesting the Warrants

You can't blame Obama for the fact that the court gives out those warrants, but you can blame him for asking for those warrants.

Or am I missing something?

Bryant

[FSogol]

3. What is wrong with asking a court for a warrant?

Isn't that how the system works?

[el_bryanto]

17. Well that would depend on if you think those warrants are valid

Or if you think spying on our cell phone records or internet usage is valid - some people do some people don't. I haven't made up my mind on this.

But if you think it's wrong for the Administration to spy on peoples cell phone records or internet usage - well, than I think there's blame to be shared between the administration and the FISA court. And since the administration is the motivator, probably more blame accrues to them.

Bryant

[FSogol]

19. So, every warrant is a example of the admin spying on Americans? None of the warrants are

justified or necessary?

[el_bryanto]

21. Yep - thats exactly what I said

And not just the warrants issued by this Fisa Court - all Warrants issued by any court. In fact the very conception of warrants is a fascist conception.

Actually - what I meant was that some of these warrants may be unreasonable searchs and seizures of wide swaths of information; I don't know if all of them are, or if some of them are or if very few of them all.

I'm just saying that if that administration requests a warrant that contradicts the 4th amendment, the blame has to be shared between the administration for requesting that warrant and the court for granting that warrant.

Bryant

[FSogol]

23. 4th Amendment purity is total nonsense. Every single right and freedom we have is

balanced with limits. No yelling fire in a crowded theater, can't own an ICBM, etc.

[el_bryanto]

24. It must be of great comfort to you that you have resolved this complex issue so thoroughly

Good on you.

Unfortunately I don't think your arguments are very convincing.

Bryant

[FSogol]

25. Oh well, enjoy the pure air up on your high horse.

[el_bryanto]

29. Thanks - I will. nt

[meaculpa2011]

40. According to some here...

reasonable is when you're being spied upon, unreasonable is when I am.

Or... unreasonable is when the other party is doing the spying. They're bad guys.

Reasonable is when our guy is doing the spying. He's motivated by pure intentions.

[riqster]

49. Well phrased.

That mindset really hacks me off. We need facts, and we need to respect them and act on them when we get them: not simply apply a partisan filter to each and every thing that comes along.

[Aerows]

66. They aren't

You've got it right that some of these warrants are far too broad, and that makes them against the 4th Amendment.

[riqster]

28. ^^^This^^^

"I'm just saying that if that administration requests a warrant that contradicts the 4th amendment, the blame has to be shared between the administration for requesting that warrant and the court for granting that warrant. "

Exactly right. And the court has been deliberately re-structured so as to facilitate the granting of warrants.

[KittyWampus]

36. Not of there's a legitimate reason for asking for the warrant. NOW- if people who claim to care

about this issue keep pushing to find evidence of the Obama Administration asking for warrants without a legitimate reason… then you've got a case or a point.

So if you are so bound and determined… you better search around for court cases trying to prove just that.

[RC]

56. There is not even a legitimate reason for the data base the warrants request the information from.

All that information was hoovered up in violation of the 4th Amendment, without probable cause. Is every citizen in the United States a suspect in a crime?
That is what you have to believe, if your think the wholesale gathering everyone's electronic communications into a mass data base is OK.
So how can the warrant itself ever be legitimate? The warrants are therefore evidence of witch hunts.

[East Coast Pirate]

78. A case for being run over by a bus, you mean.

NOW- if people who claim to care about this issue keep pushing to find evidence of the Obama Administration asking for warrants without a legitimate reason… then you've got a case or a point.

[Maraya1969]

37. A warrant is given to look for a specific thing. Like if you get a warrant to search a house you

have to prove to the judge that there is reasonable certainty that certain items are in the house. You can't obtain a warrant without that information.

So if Obama is asking for warrants it must be to look for specific information. Maybe Homeland Security has gotten a tip about a person who wants to plant a bomb.

Everyone was so upset at the brothers who planted that bomb but the reason they got away with it is they never told anyone about it except their family. They were not part of a group and they didn't discuss anything on the internet that would raise a flag.

Think about how many bomb plots have been disrupted because of all the surveillance that has been done. We don't know the number but I bet it is high.

[riqster]

39. Actually, the Bushies changed the law back in 2007-8

..to allow for a more programmatic level of surveillance. So the standard you cite is higher than that used by the FISA courts today.

[caseymoz]

54. What's wrong with granting one?

Why should we judge either part of the process unequally and heap more infamy? Granted, Roberts deserves a lot already, but why should he receive more just for doing what the Obama Administration asks?

The FISA court can't grant a warrant without a request. Since a conservative Chief Justice was in place when FISA was given it's current powers, I'm thinking it's working exactly the way Bush Administration designed it to work. Meanwhile, Obama is doing exactly what the Bush Administration did. You'd expect no less with the former. Why is the latter happening?

[riqster]

4. It's his administration that has been asking for the warrants for past 5 + years.

Agreed. But many are blaming him for the Surveillance State itself, or for not single-handedly dismantling it. Those are the targets of the snark.

[Bannakaffalatta]

41. Is it?

Who or what is actually asking for the warrants?
The administration itself?
Obama appointee heads of departments?
Obama appointee chiefs of security agencies? Or new agencies instituted by Obama?
Chiefs/operatives of agencies that have been in place before Obama, and are continuing business as usual, regardless of who is in the White House?
Has Obama extended the powers of these agencies? On his own initiative? Or by signing a duly-passed bill?
Should Obama have shut them down?
Did he, and does he, have the power to shut them down? To limit their powers?
What specific steps should he be taking?
Is anyone advising him to take those steps?

I don't know the answers, but i think it's important to know, in order to lay blame fairly.

[riqster]

48. Very true!

The article on Roberts and FISA is one tiny piece of the information we need to do just that.

[pnwmom]

100. Why should anyone blame Obama for asking for a warrant in a criminal investigation?

Bush was doing this with no warrants. Obama is following criminal law and getting a warrant.

[TransitJohn]

2. Right, so Roberts directs the NSA, et. al., to conduct illegal surveilance.

No, that's the President who does that.

[riqster]

6. Actually, it's impossible unless the Roberts FISA courts allow it.

Like I said in the blog post, there's lots of stuff to blame Obama for (Drone strikes, for example). But let's blame the man for what he has done, and not for the actions of his predecessors, or for branches of Government that he does not control.

[zeemike]

55. So that means that Obama nd Roberts are in accord on that.

That makes me feel better...as long as our president agrees with the right wing.

[obxhead]

57. So because Obama didn't start the program

he has no blame in continuing it?

[riqster]

60. Not what I said.

What I said was, blame Obama for his part. And blame others for theirs.

But it starts with having knowledge of those other parts.

[RC]

61. +10 That is what they want you to believe.

Obama didn't start it, so he is blameless for using it. Black it white, up is down, etc...

[TransitJohn]

67. he controls the Executive, which is

The branch committing illegal spying. How do you get that Roberts runs the NSA?

[NineNightsHanging]

70. Sorry, youre just being ignorant riqster

If Obama had no culpability, you wouldn't be reading things like this:

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/court-throws-out-obama-administrations-state-secrets-defense-in-nsa-surveillance-case-130710?news=850525

[djean111]

5. I don't feel Obama started any of the surveillance, but the people doing it have

strengthened themselves under his administration.
Of course, now it seems that to criticize anything that is happening while Obama is president, even if Obama is never mentioned, is considered Obama bashing.
In any event, Obama ran on "transparency", so he kind of owns that dissonance with what is actually happening.
Very interesting, Obama is portrayed as helpless a great deal of the time.
No, I never loved him, but I voted for him. Twice (different elections, freepers).
Since, hopefully, I will never be asked to vote for him again, I don't see why I should declare fealty, unless the Hillary group considers Hillary an extension of Obama and that being critical of Obama will carry over to Hillary, since they are both corporate creatures.
I think the details of the TPP might sink a few ships. I hope so. It stinks.

[riqster]

7. I don't like him either. Never have. But liking counts for bupkis in this business.

And I bash him myself, when he has it coming. I have been told to "go fuck myself" for such comments, in fact.

But placing the blame for the Surveillance State on Obama strengthens the Reeps who actually set up and enhanced the activities of said surveillance: it strengthens them by letting them off the hook.

[djean111]

9. How to separate Obama and the Reeps, though? (Great name for a band!)

It seems that we are supposed to not criticize anything at all if it happens or is still happening under Obama, for fear of the GOP.
What a fucked up system.
And guess what - the GOP is never ON the hook. Ever. We don't prosecute them, there is no blow-back. We keep seeing them appointed to high positions in this administration. Some days, most days, I don't feel like there is really a difference, when I look at what actually happens. Lots of bluster about student loan rates, right? Still doubled. Snap and Social Security, IMO, will still be used as pawns.

[Scuba]

10. +1

[riqster]

11. Good question.

I bash the Reeps by finding facts that support bashing them. In the blog post linked to in the OP, there is an article showing how the Bush-Appointed Roberts appointed the FISA judges, and demonstrates how their judicial philosophies have manifested themselves in their rubber-stamp rulings.

Waiting for the MSM to provide accurate information is a huge waste of time. We must promulgate facts ourselves if we are ever to demonstrate the differences between the Bushies and the current administration.

And that is how we put the GOP on the hook.

[djean111]

14. If nothing changes, that is just a mighty decorative and useless "hook".

Is anything going to change? Not that I can see. There is just pissiness and revenge because the extent of the surveillance has been leaked.
Looks kind of lame when the official explanation is that the GOP started this, the GOP is still doing it, and doubling down, and Obama is helpless to stop it. So we should just accept it, and hey! if we have nothing to hide, no need to worry!

[riqster]

22. I said nothing of the sort.

By promoting the facts of the matter, people can make a change.

Defeatism such as your post seems to suggest is the fastest way find one's self defeated. I shall not take that route.

Call out Obama for what he has done. And call out the others for what they have done.

[djean111]

27. Defeatism? Reality.

And if we keep having no other choices than corporate Democrats to vote for, the truth.

[riqster]

30. So, lay down and surrender if you prefer.

I'm not so inclined.

[djean111]

32. I am not surrendering.

Surrendering is pretending that keeping corporate dems in office is going to change anything.

[riqster]

34. I would define it as inaction when action is possible.

And that is the impression your posts here are giving.

[djean111]

43. Sorry you got that impression.

I will vote for local progressive Dems.
I will vote - but not be a cheerleader for - Dem candidates for prez and Congress if that is my only choice.
I will not pretend Obama is my idea of a Dem.
And I don't think any praise or criticism of Obama will sway any GOP voters to leave their fold.
If the TPP is as bad as advertised, all bets are off. I fail to see how things could get much worse.
Looks to me like the current ruling Dems, with a very few exceptions, just allow GOP things to be implemented after a great deal of blather and bluster.

[riqster]

47. Sounds fair to me.

[zeemike]

59. Yep...we are supposed to believe the bluster

And ignore what actually happens.

[cali]

15. links to your criticism of Obama?

[riqster]

20. Just go to the blog site.

I am sure you can search for it here. For example, I called him a jackass on this very thread for not prosecuting the Bushies.

[Scuba]

8. The apologist's efforts are getting more and more lame.

[99Forever]

12. So you are saying that ...

... Roberts is the most powerful person in this nation and Po' Po Hapless Barack is helpless to anything about it. I didn't get that memo.

I don't recollect Roberts being elected to anything.


The smell of coverup desperation is thick in the air.

[riqster]

16. No, not at all.

I am saying (and there is supporting evidence at the link) that the Bushies, via legislation and appointments, have created a situation that gives one man power: power with no checks or balances, a situation almost unique in our system of government. And it is doubly intolerable because that man (Roberts) was not elected to anything.

If you'll think back to the Bush Occupation, one thing was consistent: a disdain for the rule of law. The attempts to weaken our rights, the free speech zones, waterboarding, many other examples exist. That did not end when they were shown the door: indeed, they were able to set up any number of institutional constructs to continue the operationalization of that philosophy. This is but one example of that.

Yes, we can and should hold Obama to account for how he has used those powers since coming to office. But by focusing our anger on him, we let other guilty parties off the hook.

Just because Obama chose not to prosecute the Shrub and his many Shrublets doesn't mean WE have to shrug off their many crimes. In fact, his jackass inaction in that regard makes it more important for us to call them out and make sure people remember what it was like, living under an illegitimate government for eight years.

[Bannakaffalatta]

44. "a situation almost unique in our system of government."

almost McCarthy? Norquist?

[riqster]

46. Nether of them actually held such power without checks and balances applied.

Roberts does. And THAT is why I wrote this OP. Scary shit.

[99Forever]

72. Sp precisely what is your ...

.. plan for "us" to do instead of "WE have to shrug off their many crimes." Some of us have been "calling them out" for years. Seems pretty evident to me, at least, that the Obama Administration cares fuckall about what we have to say, and have had the attitude since the day he was sworn in.

[riqster]

93. I shrug off nothing. My cardiologist tells me I have to change that. Not likely, I'm afraid.

No, what I am saying is, let's not spend so much time following the MSM lead and bashing Obama (or the target du jour) that we don't also point out the other toothy swimmers in the cesspool that is our government.

Check the comments on this thread for an example: very few even address the Roberts issue. Many of them are fixated on Obama and how he sucks, and how much he sucks. And the Reeps swim merrily on their way while America is looking at the bright shinies.

Kind of proves my point, and that is very sad. And scary, too.

[whatchamacallit]

13. Whoomp there it isn't!

This place is getting lamer by the day.

[dkf]

18. It's Obama's administration that has been misleading congress and keeping lawsuits from being heard.

This idea that he is an innocent bystander is such BS.

[riqster]

26. I did not call him an innocent bystander.

I DID, however, point out that he is not solely culpable for the current state of affairs. And I provided factual evidence to back that statement.

Focusing on Obama and ignoring the rest of the Surveillance state is foolish at best.

[Scootaloo]

31. Of course he's not solely culpable.

So what are the mechanisms for holding Roberts culpable? oh, there aren't any? Okay, then who's the next guy in line? Bush? He's put of office, as is pretty much everyone from his administration. so who's that leave to catch this particular ball?

Obama's not the only culpable party by a long shot. But by dint of his position, he is the one responsible for addressing (or not) the issue.

[riqster]

35. You put your finger on the exact problem.

The lack of prosecution of the Bushies (I still can't believe Obama failed to do so, Jesus Fucking Christ on a trampoline), and the continuation of the paradigm that they set up makes it difficult to fix the real problem.

But focusing on Obama for the parts for which he is not culpable makes fixing that problem completely impossible.

[dkf]

33. The courts are blaming congress for writing too broad a law and congress is blaming the admin

For misleading them on how the law is being used.

That puts it on the Admin who does implement all this after all.

Just watch...Obama and his team are going to take all the heat. They haven't played it safe but have relied on the secrets privilege and with the exposure, that will be gone soon enough.

[riqster]

38. They deserve to take a good deal of heat.

But not all of it.

We can not and must not let the Bushies off the hook. Even if we can't get them tried in a court of law, we CAN get them tried in the court of public opinion.

Which often helps to correct imbalances and abuses in the courts of law, and government in general.

One thing I've learned in my career: if one person is responsible for a situation, then personalizing the problem and the blame is appropriate. But if more than one person is culpable, then personalization does nothing to solve the problem, and simply lets most of the guilty parties scuttle quietly away into the shadows, never to be held to account for their errors and misdeeds.

[Maraya1969]

42. How many of the threads bashing Obama get to the very top of the Greatest Page. I think it will

be very telling of this forum if this thread stays low with the number of recs.

[riqster]

45. I am accustomed to that phenomenon

But hey, we all do what we can.

[Savannahmann]

50. Egregiously insulting.

Trying to lay the blame solely on the FISA court is insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved. No court, no matter how right wing, no matter how fascist, can approve a warrant request that is never made. The DOJ which is run by one of us, makes Warrant requests to the FISA Court. The NSA, run by one of us, makes warrant requests to the FISA court. Any agency that requests a warrant from the FISA court is run by us. They are all answerable to President Obama. Pretending that they are all blameless is asinine in the extreme.

There is an old quote that comes to mind. It is better to be thought of as an idiot, than to speak and remove all doubt. Obviously this blogger has removed all doubt with this disgraceful post.

President Obama has signed the PATRIOT ACT reauthorization into law. He is not blameless. His appointee's are the ones filing the requests for Warrants, they answer to him. He hired them, Congress approved, but he hired them. He can fire them if he believed that they were acting outside of the intentions he gave them, the direction he gave them. He defends the ones applying for the warrants, and executing the warrants. They are not blameless, President Obama is not blameless. To claim otherwise is folly of the most extreme sort.

We are responsible. We Democrats are responsible. Yes republicans vote for it, and yes they push it in Congress. But only we have the power to implement it. Only we have the power to apply for the warrants, and only we have the power to execute them. If we applied for no warrants, the FISA court would have nothing to approve. I can't stress that obvious truth enough. I can't believe that you, and the individual who has removed all doubt would pretend that you don't see that simple truth. I say pretend, because I refuse to believe that anyone is that idiotic to actually not realize the simplest truth of this debacle.

[riqster]

51. And in response I will say

...that your premise of "Trying to lay the blame solely on the FISA court is insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved." is in no way, shape or form what I said in the blog, the OP or the comments I've made on this thread.

Blame Obama for what he deserves to blamed for. And blame others form what they deserve to be blamed for. And yes, that includes ALL Americans, regardless of party affiliation (if any).

That is not blamelessness. That is proportionality. That is justice.

[think]

52. Another glorious day filled with profits for The Carlyle Group

Why's everyone so sad?

Here go out and buy yourself muffin. Now put that smile back on your face and run along!....

[riqster]

53. In our Brave New World

A muffin is better than a damn.

[think]

58. For the right price we can build you a dam made of muffins

There is no damn muffin too big for The Carlyle group.

Carlyle Groups Settles in "Pay to Play" Scandal Probe

By RICHARD ESPOSITO and BRIAN ROSS (@brianross)
May 14, 2009


The Carlyle Group, a giant Wall Street firm best known for its ties to former President George H.W. Bush and other prominent public officials, made more than $13 million in payments to a indicted political fixer who arranged for the firm to receive business from a New York pension fund, New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo said today.

Cuomo said Carlyle had agreed to $20 million to "resolve its role" in the ongoing corruption investigation and agreed to a new code of conduct that prohibits the use of such middlemen.

~Snip~

According to Cuomo, his corruption investigation found that in 2003, Carlyle hired Hank Morris, the chief political aide to then New York state comptroller Alan Hevesi, as "a placement agent" to help obtain investments from the New York Common Retirement Fund.

"If Boss Tweed were alive today, he would be a placement agent," Cuomo said.


Full article:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/story?id=7586756&page=1#.Ud0QiW2y3IU

In March 2009, New York State and federal authorities began an investigation into payments made by Carlyle's Riverstone Holdings subsidiary to placement agents allegedly made in exchange for investments from the New York State Common Retirement System, the state's pension fund. In 2000, Carlyle had entered into a joint venture with Riverstone Holdings, an energy and power focused private equity firm founded by former Goldman Sachs investment bankers. It was alleged that these payments were in fact bribes or kickbacks, made to pension officials who have been under investigation by New York State Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo.[43] In May 2009, Carlyle agreed to pay $20 million in a settlement with Cuomo and accepted changes to its fundraising practices.[44]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group#Since_2007

CARLYLE GROUP FINED IN NY PENSION SCANDAL

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last Updated: 2:28 PM, May 14, 2009
Posted: 12:51 PM, May 14, 2009



One of the nation's largest private equity funds has agreed to pay $20 million over its role in a corruption scandal involving New York's public pension fund.

The Carlyle Group was one of several firms that paid millions of dollars to an aide to New York's former comptroller in exchange for help obtaining investments from the retirement fund. ...

~Snip~

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_Y7TIdVqJlQ6A2qZOUYK3zM

[totodeinhere]

63. Obama needs to come out strongly against the surveillance state once and for all. He needs to call

for the repeal of the Patriot Act and when the GOP in the House refuses to go along he needs to take his case to the people and use that as one more reason why the Democratic Party needs to retake the House and increase its seats in the Senate in 2014. Yes Roberts makes appointments to the FISA court but we don't need Obama sitting passively by and letting it happen without voicing strong opposition to it. We elected him to be a leader and take stands on vital issues such as this.

And while we're at it we need to primary corporate sellout Democrats and fashion a Congress that will repeal the Patriot Act and stand up for the average American. I know that this will be hard to accomplish and powerful forces will be fighting us all the way, but I believe in the power of the people and we have got to start this fight sometime. Now is the time.

[cthulu2016]

64. This is a DEEPLY hopeless and rather dishonest argument

The best face to put on this *blockbuster* is that the Obama administration relies on a corrupt Bush appointee to sign off on nefarious things THEY REQUEST.

Do you see how pathetic that is, as a defense of anything?

[riqster]

65. Not what I said.

What I said was, blame Obama for what he did and does. Also, blame those who came before him and set the whole thing up.

AND, be aware of just how truly, madly, deeply fucked we are, that an unelected man can exert the power that Roberts does, with no checks, balances, accountability or transparency.

Even if Obama pledged to have his people request no additional FISA requests, this completely unacceptable cancerous mess at the heart of the process would still exist. It needs to be remedied.

And bashing Obama does nothing to do so.

[rhett o rick]

102. It would help greatly if Pres Obama would not appoint Bush guys to run the Bush

programs.

[riqster]

103. Sure as hell would. No argument.

Him we can influence if we are loud enough. Or we can scare other Dems if he won't listen.

Roberts, we have no leverage.

[Union Scribe]

77. It really is amazing

how insultingly condescending these apologia have become.

[rhett o rick]

68. Pres Obama isnt as helpless as you portray in your quest to absolve him from responsibility.

He appointed James R. Clapper, extended Robert Mueller and now is nominating James Comey. These are all well known conservatives that are deeply involved with domestic spying under Bush. Pres Obama appointed these men and others knowing full well what their ideologies are. He is responsible for their actions.

By the way if you want a decent discussion, please dont start off by calling those of us that want transparency in our government, Obama bashers. That's a bully tactic.

[riqster]

79. Speaking of bully tactics, so is distorting my words in your response.

I did not "absolve" Obama, quite the contrary. I said he is partially culpable. So your response to me fails at the outset.

Did you even read what Roberts can do, has done, and is doing? Are you even aware that he will be in that chair for many years after Obama is out of office? Are you not at all concerned at his unchecked and unstoppable chokehold on the FISA courts?

Or is it that you are hell-bent on keep on focusing on one man who will be out of office in a few years, and ignoring the rest of this pervasive, corrosive threat to our nation?

[rhett o rick]

83. WTF. The only words in the OP that belong to you are,"More at the link, as always."

I fully understand about Roberts. That does not absolve the President from his responsibility of appointing the same Conservatives that were running the illegal spy program under Bush. Pres Obama could have appointed someone, oh I dont know, that is a Democrat.
Funny how all those that hated Republicans when Bush was president now seem to accept them when Obama appoints them. The spy programs are the same and those running the programs are the same. Obama made no effort to make a change.

I know Roberts is our enemy, I was hoping Pres Obama would try to work against him.

He will be out of office in a few years but those that love him will push for a continuation of corporate policies with Ms. Clinton.

[riqster]

86. So, if those were the only words that belonged to me, then you'd have even less grounds.

Since there isn't anywhere on the thread where I "absolve" him. I make it quite clear that, while I don't care for the Prexy, we need to blame him only for what he has done. And other players are doing things as bad, or in some cases, far worse. And with all the Obama-bashing, that message is getting lost in the din (this post of yours is a very good example of that).

But, as it happens, that is my blog (as started in my profile), where I write for those outside of the echo chamber. So those were my words. And they still don't say what you said they did.

As to Obama 'fighting' Justice Roberts: had you paid attention, you'd have found that Obama has no way to do so. So that statement of yours fails as well.

You can keep ignoring the real enemy and crapping on the President whether he deserves it or not. I shan't.

[Scurrilous]

69. Boink.

[riqster]

80. And to you!

[madokie]

71. right on

I haven't looked to see but my bet there is still O bashers even in this thread
Sad

[riqster]

81. Your intincts serve you well.

Sad, indeed. But don't call them bashers, they take umbrage at that.

[madokie]

85. I know,

my bad

[riqster]

87. No worries.

[madokie]

88. Peace

[Cha]

73. Good advice from bluntandcranky, riqster

Memo to wingnuts of all sorts: Before blaming Obama, check to see if the facts support your case. If they don’t, then kindly STFU.

mahalo for the link

[Cha]

74. 'Course that won't stop the inveterate whiners. they

always know better than the facts.

[NineNightsHanging]

75. Cha, care to address THESE facts? I know you won't

but what the hell---

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/court-throws-out-obama-administrations-state-secrets-defense-in-nsa-surveillance-case-130710?news=850525

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/president-obama-called-fisa-court-transparent-despite-it-being-shrouded-secrecy


I await your fact-filled response

[riqster]

84. Interesting. But neither has f***-all to do with my OP.

Said OP being that yes, Obama bears responsibility for many things. But at the same time, Chief Justice Roberts has unchecked power to shape the FISA courts to suit his agenda. As it says in the blog post:

"And one man, with no oversight, guidelines, checks or balances, chooses each and every one of those judges: John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court. And he has picked “conservative” judges that pretty much follow the Bush/Cheney philosophy towards the Bill of Rights: that being, “f*** your so-called-rights, peons”. Small wonder that pretty much every request for surveillance gets approved. From the article:


“No other part of U.S. law works this way. The chief justice can’t choose the judges who rule on health law, or preside over labor cases, or decide software patents. But when it comes to surveillance, the composition of the bench is entirely in his hands, and, as a result, so is the extent to which the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation can spy on citizens."

It is one thing to request facts in a debate. It is something quite else to ignore the facts presented at the outset, substitute facts of one's own on a tangential matter, and then pretend the opposing team is not respectful of facts.

Possible explanations of your behavior could be: [1] being so bust bashing Obama, you're not capable of seeing other threats to our nation's integrity, or [2] support for the unchecked and nearly secret power of the Chief Justice to shape and run the FISA court as the Bushies would have wanted.

Or, it could just be intellectual laziness. No matter the cause, you haven't addressed the problem: an unelected man who may well spend two or three more decades secretly running the Surveillance State. Because you're too arsed about an elected man who will be here for only a few more years.

Which one is the greater threat? My money's on Roberts.

[NineNightsHanging]

92. WHERE did I defend Roberts?

It's neither Roberts or Obama who is the greater threat. It's the systemic expansion of the surveillance state. However posters are repeatedly posting factually inaccurate/incomplete information in order to get Obama off hook for this.

Obama is fighting IN COURT to maintain the secrets of FISA, while claiming to be providing full transparency. It's a bold-faced lie. POINT BLANK. Go see the EFF about this

If you t hink Obama has a problem with Robert having all this power, why is maintaining the secrecy so tightly? Think carefully, please.

If people were posting things defending Roberts, I would be responding to that. I made 1 response directly to you, and 1 response to a poster right above who called people very concerned about FISA/NSA "whiners" You really have some never calling me intellectually lazy for doing so. Give me a break.


Now, let's review how you even KNOW about Roberts and his power now. That was reported AFTER snowden by the NYTimes and others. It was reported by anonymous sources, because---yes---it's all secret. And Obama, in ALL his actions thus far in this presidency , from his stance towards whistleblowers to fighting the EFF in court , to ignoring international law in regards to Snowden's asylum attempts (as per the ACLU), has shown zero interest in lessening any of that secrecy

So it is VERY relevant

[riqster]

94. You may not defend Roberts. You DID ignore him, so as to bash Obama.

Your post proves my point. It's all Obama's fault to you, even when it isn't. And you'll cherry-pick the facts that prove your case, and the words you choose to read, so as to convince yourself of that.

Which means that of the hypotheses I submitted, the first was true.

[NineNightsHanging]

95. Obama is the president , isnt he?

when did I say it's all his fault? Nowhere. Ever. I'd assume people on a site called Democratic Underground would be aware of the Bush administration having implemented a lot of this stuff.

If you think calling people "Obama bashers" is an intelligent way to debate. have at it.

You can't respond to the substantial things I posted, so you just say "cherry picked facts"



The main point, once again, is Obama has so far done EVERYTHING he could to maintain the secrecy around FISA and the NSA. Mayhaps him and Roberts are not so opposed as you'd like to believe?


For the curious-

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/federal-judge-allows-effs-nsa-mass-spying-case-proceed

[riqster]

96. Obama can be removed from office if need be.

In fact, he will be in a few years.

Roberts will be here for a lot longer, and can do more damage, and do it in secret. He and others like him are the real threat.

[NineNightsHanging]

97. and Obama is helping to enable the Surveillance state

maybe the NSA has blackmailed him, I don't know. It's certainly plausible considering what Russ Tice has revealed

but, we do know, without a doubt-- by his actions its very clear they are getting stronger, not weaker

[riqster]

98. And you care nothing for anyone's actions, save his.

"Obama basher" may not be polite, but after this exchange I'd say it's spot-on in your case. And the Kochs would be weeping with joy if they could see how you have swallowed the bait they dangled for you, hook, line and sinker.

Continue carrying water for the Right Wing by focusing entirely on Obama and ignoring all else. Hopefully most of us will bash the Prexy ONLY when he deserves it, and spend most of our time on the real enemy.

[NineNightsHanging]

99. You're not going to be able to pull that crap

So, we shouldn't point out

-Obama administration fighting in court to maintain secrecy

-Obama's war on whistleblowers

-Obama's approval of drones for American airspace

etc


because it might make the Koch brothers or Putin happy?

lol

Sorry, is the NYTimes now run by the Koch brothers now? Afterall, they broke some of the information (some of which YOU yourself are using). Oh the irony


I'll also point out that the Right Wing has mostly thrown their support behind the NSA now, and call Snowden a traitor, etc

I'd say it's Obama carryng water for the right wing, not me, genius. He has consistently protected bushie and cheney in court

[riqster]

101. Enjoy your irrational hatred of the Prexy.

I will focus on him, AND others. Adieu.

[Union Scribe]

76. Oh good, more blog insult-by-proxy

You guys outsourcing your left-bashing now?

[riqster]

89. Nope. That's my work.

And if you think saying words to the effect of "John Roberts has unchecked and secret power to manipulate the FISA courts, and holy shit that's a bad thing" and "while the Left and Right are concentrating on bashing Obama, Roberts is doing some creepy shit" to be left-bashing, well, I probably won't reach you in any case.

[great white snark]

82. K&R

Thank you riqster.

[riqster]

90. Thank you right back.

"great white snark", by the way, is a cool screen name.

[mick063]

91. The reality

There are chinks in the armor.

Some of the peasants have refused to bow.

The dissent is increasingly difficult to ignore.

The palace guards are on alert.