Now get this straight: Obama is NOT spying on Americans.

[Jackpine Radical]

Just the NSA,FBI, IRS, DEA, CIA, KBR, Xe, Booz Allen Hamilton, and a few other similar organizations are spying on us.

[MotherPetrie]

1. I feel better already!

[Heather MC]

117. don't forget yahoo, google and Facebook

I did one stupid search for a king gong vibrator as gag gift for a bachelorette party. Now my email is flooded with all sorts of adult goodies, ain't body fo' dat

[MNBrewer]

118. They might blab to the government about you

but they can't arrest and prosecute you. Google and FB are annoyances, the government is the real deal.

[Rockyj]

169. Very Well Said!

I hear one more Liberal say, "Well we need to protect ourselves & I'm not doing anything wrong...I will scream!"

[leveymg]

2. That cut through the crap. KNR

[ProSense]

3. You forgot Facebook, Google, Verizon, AT&T and Twitter

It's a scary world.

[Cha]

5. ..

[Phlem]

36. Facebook, Google, Verizon, AT&T and Twitter

are not the FBI.





-p

[mercymechap]

53. Exactly! n/t

[sabrina 1]

61. And being a Democrat, you are joining the majority of Congressional Democrats who are planning

to put an end to this 'scary world' we have been living in, right?

I know I am ...

[awoke_in_2003]

64. I can avoid those sites...

Please tell me, in your infinite wisdom, how I can avoid the executive branch of the government. I bet you bitched about this same shit when Bush was president. But now you are part of the echo chamber. I guess it is okay, as long as Obama does it.

[LondonReign2]

73. You bet correctly

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't be changed to make that legal.

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

[ret5hd]

94. SLAP!

[Civilization2]

123. drat, the interwebs have history? Who knew,.. lolz

It is interesting to see such clear proof of the partisan double standard.
Sadly some folks seem more concerned with party than democracy.

[East Coast Pirate]

158. Quick,

blue links!

[Mojorabbit]

147. She did but now it seems to be A OK with her. nt

[Rockyj]

170. I will also scream

If I hear one more Liberal say, "Well I am okay with it because its different with Obama than with Bush!"

[Warren DeMontague]

176. Do Facebook and Google arrest cancer grannies for getting high?

Does Twitter drag a college student out of a Frat Party for smoking pot and throw him in a room for 5 days with no food or water, so he has to drink his own urine to survive?

I'm bettin' they don't.

[flvegan]

4. So...Obama has outsourced spying?

What?

[JaneyVee]

6. Well, I guess single payer is off the table. Too much personal info.

And what if they take a DNA swab?!

[jazzimov]

9. This has NOTHING to do with single-payer.

Focus!

[baldguy]

34. According to Snowden's pal Ron Paul it does.

[delrem]

141. Ron Paul isn't "Snowden's pal", so can it with the crank posts. nt

[baldguy]

151. Thoughtful, serious & mature progressive Democrats always give campaign cash to RW lunatic clowns.

Racist RW lunatic clowns, too. Oh yeah, that's the ticket.

[Hydra]

21. Old Meme is Old

It didn't work for Coffee either. Try again.

[JaneyVee]

23. Old meme is deflected, again.

[Hydra]

25. Old Meme fell flat, as it should

I'm a single payer supporter. I don't support the NSA. I'm fine with Medicare having my health records if they are going to oversee all of our healthcare. I'm not fine with the NSA looking through my data and assigning me a "Terrorist Quotient"...because it's illegal for them to do so.

Pretty simple. Pretty straightforward. Pretty boring. Please feel free to forward that to the message massaging committee with a vote of "sloppy."

[JaneyVee]

33. They'll have much more than just health records.

[Hydra]

35. Oh? Do tell...

It sounds so deliciously sinister.

[JaneyVee]

38. Income, occupation, employer, SS numbers, home address, Phone number,

Driver license number, past criminal offenses, blood test results on record, personal medical records, bank account info, email address, etc.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

40. Did you go through an airport scanner? They've probably got the photos for that as well.

[Hydra]

145. If that was addressed to me

I haven't been on a plane since before 9/11, and they let us run through security because we were late for our plane.

Ah, the good old days...

[treestar]

75. Why are you fine with the government having your health records?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. With women's healthcare now covered it will be tracked like all other medical conditions

So some future GOP administration will have access to the name of every woman that ever had an abortion.

[Hydra]

146. Why shouldn't I be if they are my insurance provider?

Are you against Medicare/Medicaid for some reason?

[treestar]

159. No. I'm in a debate about why people so "frightened"

that the government has access to their phone call records is OK with having the government have something much more personal, their medical records. They are the ones who should be against Medicaid, because it invades their privacy.

[Hydra]

163. OIC what you're trying to say

Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2013, 08:20 PM - Edit history (1)

See, this isn't just metadata- the NSA is collecting and analyzing everything. All of our phone calls, emails, financial transactions, who you meet, where you drive, what your political leanings are, who you donate money to, etc.

What do I get as a service for all of that? Higher taxes, reduced social services and a greater threat from law enforcement. Oh, and more RW BS.

If we get single payer, the gov't gets my medical records.

In return, everyone gets health care and there are less sick people passing diseases around.

While I almost see what you're trying to get at, you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not a Libertarian- I don't want a smaller gov't, I want a bigger and more responsible one that follows the laws.

[Caretha]

171. How interesting

HEALTH RECORDS HEALTH RECORDS HEALTH RECORDS

The new talking point put out this morning.

I can hear it now. Tell those bozos who support ACA that Health Records = NSA spying.

Fuckin' rollin' my eyes dude.

PS Get a new schtick and tell em that one went over like a lead balloon.

[JoePhilly]

86. They'll already have blood and urine samples.

Prescription histories.

Every diagnosis.

But those who are sure that we are being spied on claim to be FINE if the government has access to our medical records.

They can't close the logic gap without admitting that either their claim of "spying" is false, or by dropping any notion of government run health care.

Those can't co-exist.

[Caretha]

172. Just be honest

here for a sec....how many of your peeps had a meeting last night/this morning etc. to push the HEALTH RECORDS MEME ?

It may not seem obvious to you, but not all of us are blind, and you guys are being very blatant....blatant.....blatant....blatant....


Once again, your friggin' OBVIOUS is showing.

[JoePhilly]

178. You can't resolve the logic issue. That's what's obvious.

I pointed this out WEEKS ago.

You can not claim that we (a) live in a totalitarian police state, and (b) that exact same totalitarian police state wouldn't use your medical records against you.

The logic does not work.

And you clearly can't make it work. That's what's obvious.

[cantbeserious]

7. Damn - You Mean We Have To Like Him Now?

eom

[Skeeter Barnes]

18. It would help if he liked us.

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. +100000!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

41. Nailed it.

[zeemike]

45. Best back-at-ya of the day.

And welcome to DU

[MissDeeds]

114. Word!

[Myrina]

121. Aw c'mon he DOES like us ...

.... during campaign season ....

[jazzimov]

8. Actually, none of the government agencies are "spying"

without a warrant. They are "collecting" which means that if a warrant is issued they CAN spy on you. But if you are a US citizen, a warrant is still required. If you are NOT a US citizen, then you are fair game without a warrant.

Is this fair?

Private companies are spying on you, because you gave them permission. If you are using a loyalty card, you gave them permission. If you joined a website and checked the "I Accept" button, you gave them permission. You also probably gave them permission to share that info with anyone they decide to share it with.

So, private companies are tracking you and spying on you. Without a warrant. Because you told them it was ok.

[CakeGrrl]

12. You can try being logical and reasonable,

but I don't think it will go far.

These agencies just CANNOT be trusted. EVER. People apparently want to wring their hands in perpetual paranoia about what they could POTENTIALLY do.

'Cuz Snowden said they MIGHT.

Proof doesn't seem to matter.

[99Forever]

13. You can call it by whatever authoritarian bullshit name you please.

I call it SPYING and UNConstitutional:

Read and learn:


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now, reread it again.

And again.

Repeat until you understand what it says.

[forestpath]

16. +1000

[Dragonfli]

43. When you call spying "collecting" it becomes a hobby and no longer spying (didn't you know that?)

The NSA is merely a hobby club, sort of like scrapbookers and every scrapbooker needs to "collect" material to put in their scrapbook with your name on it, they are true hobbyists, their scrapbooks are absolutely huge and there is one for everybody.

A harmless hobby nothing to be afraid of and certainly not spying silly.

[treestar]

77. You are not the one who decides what is unconstitutional

Society has decided on other methods than rule by your personal opinions.

[A Simple Game]

119. Explain this to me if you can.

Why was it illegal when Bush was doing it? When caught they had Congress pass a law to make it legal, even retroactively, to cover his poor butt. So why is it now constitutional?

[treestar]

120. Bush was doing it without FISA warrants.

[A Simple Game]

136. Ok, but why was it illegal to do it without FISA warrants? n/t

[treestar]

162. Because the law said the executive needed permission from the

FISA court in order to wiretap at all. Bush had no right to do any without those warrants.

Before FISA, the executive could do any wiretap he wanted. Bush wanted to go back to those "good old" days.

[A Simple Game]

179. But it is my understanding that even before FISA to preform a wiretap

required a warrant from a judge. At least for a wiretap in America on an American citizen.

Do you disagree, it looks it from your post:

Before FISA, the executive could do any wiretap he wanted.

I find that statement hard to believe, could you back it up please?

[treestar]

180. here

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

[84] Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court [Keith, J.], 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith &quot , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.

[A Simple Game]

182. Very interesting case but...

From your excerpt: the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information

The OP was about Obama spying on Americas and the sub-thread we are now in is about it's constitutionality. The case you cited was also from an appeals court not the Supreme Court.

Did you even read what it said about United States vs Duggan? This case was initiated by an informant, not data mining. There was no data mining in this case, it was targeted wiretapping of three people based on information from a live person. I believe the informant equals probable cause. What you quote does not eliminate the probable cause part of the fourth amendment, just the warrant part. This case also involved people that wanted to buy and ship arms to Ireland for use against British soldiers, not use them in America, thus foreign involvement.

The reasoning behind not needing a warrant was to expedite the use of a wiretap to guarantee any pertinent information was gathered quickly and not lost, not to allow mass gathering of information.

Is my calling my brother one town over considered collecting foreign intelligence information? I can assure you neither I nor my brother are part of PIRA or the IRA.

A very interesting case and I think I remember reading about it at the time, but hardly a good excuse to allow data mining of American citizens without a warrant. But it does bring up another question. If as you say before FISA a President could wiretap without a warrant, why would any President back a law saying they needed one? Perhaps Jimmy Carter was the last President that believed in the Constitution, none since seem to want to follow it.

[treestar]

183. The case is not invalid

and it does show there were no limits on the President before FISA. That was the point.

Of course the case is not about data mining, but the courts can consider that question.

Circuit Courts still make law, and it stands in that circuit and persuades other circuits. Not everything goes all the way to the SCOTUS. But they are not wrong that there were no limits on the President before FISA.

[A Simple Game]

187. There does seem to me and apparently also to many other to be a big difference

between

"the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information"

which it appears you believe we have returned to, and data mining US citizens. But to me it doesn't show that the President had no limits about data mining. I don't see how you don't see the difference. Then there still is the probable cause argument.

It appears that the NSA still believes it to be illegal, otherwise when they pass information to the DEA, why do they tell them they have to establish a parallel investigation? If it is legal, why not just use the information at hand?

[cvoogt]

116. 'no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause"

well, at least they got the 'no warrants' part right

[reusrename]

22. Government agencies do not need a warrant before they spy on you.

That is no longer the law.

They can read your email and listen to your phone conversations. Haven't you been paying attention?

There is no requirement to obtain a warrant before they peek.

The amended FISA law only requires that a warrant be obtained sometime within the next 72 hours. These are automatically applied for by the PRISM software, and they are automatically granted by the secret court, since all legal requirements are automatically met as part of the policy.

[quadrature]

26. wrong... gov't will look at everything they get.

the warrant is needed if the stuff is used as
evidence in court.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. They don't "look" they "data mine".

I feel safer already.

[RobinA]

135. Me Too

I mean, data mining would be done with big machines, right? No eyes or brains on big machines, just mechanical "mining." Not like anyone can actually SEE anything.

[zeemike]

47. The BIG BIG difference is.

That the government can issue a warrant for your arrest, and try you for a crime and use that information against you...That ability gives them enormous power over you and that is the reason for the fourth amendment.

Facebook does not yet have that power.

[HardTimes99]

112. That has to be the scariest 'yet' I've read on DU (yet :) - nt

[mercymechap]

55. Geez, all the

whining about the NSA collecting records!

[Warren Stupidity]

70. We redefined torture too. Word games are such fun.

[Myrina]

122. ^^ Winner, winner chicken dinner!!! ^^

Exactly.

[Ms. Toad]

72. So - it isn't spying for NSA to scan my e-mails for key words

without a warrant, copy the entire content of those which contain certain names or other key terms without a warrant, to forward a copy of my e-mail to be read by human beings without a warrant?

The official said that a computer searches the data for the identifying keywords or other “selectors” and stores those that match so that human analysts could later examine them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad-is-seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

[Egalitarian Thug]

110. Can you name one single instance in the entire record of human history when

power has not been "misused"?

[RobinA]

133. Interesting Idea

this after-the-fact warrant. So by the same token, the cops can come search every house on my block without a warrant, and then if they find some kid's stash they THEN apply for a warrant so they can use the stash to indict the kid. Novel.

On another note, do you seriously not understand the difference between me voluntarily giving a private company my information for some consideration that I deem valuable, and the government collecting my information without my permission or probable cause, to use as it sees fit, including to incriminate me. Aside from that damn, pesky Constitution, that is. I'm just asking from a categorical standpoint. Those two things are the same to you?

[delrem]

143. That's a crock of sophistry. "collecting isn't spying" - purest bullshit.

[mick063]

10. A footnote in history.

A place holder. A Millard Fillmore. A James Buchanan. Historians won't hate him, they will just forget him.

That is until the great revolt in the distant future. Then they will dig up the archives and point to this era, when a President had a chance to stop our direction, but went "all in" instead.

This would be a great episode for a time travel TV show. You know....those guys that time travel back from the future to try to save the world from it's impending doom.

[ProSense]

14. Yeah: First African American President

That's it. Nothing else will be remembered, right?

[Cha]

48. Some people have ODS so bad .. I almost feel

sorry for them. The Ignorance must burn like a MF.

[ProSense]

57. Is it too late to primary him?

[treestar]

78. +1

That was ridiculous!

[CakeGrrl]

15. When did POTUS piss in your cornflakes?

Clearly you'd love to relegate him to nothing status, for whatever reason.

I firmly believe, living outside of the cyberspace bubble, that history will regard him far more respectfully and kindly than you would like.

Outside the bubble, he has accomplished an impressive amount despite the naysaying, obstruction, animosity and/or dissatisfaction from all corners.

If one only read what was happening here, you'd think this was a supremely failed presidency.

Not so much in the real world.

[Lonr]

37. He pissed in my cornflakes

the day he signed the NDAA ( 2013 ) into law...

[Dragonfli]

44. Hell he even dropped a small turd in your bowl while pissing on that one

[rhett o rick]

60. Good point. While his apologist can blame the Patriot Act and domestic spying on his predecessor,

he owns indefinite detention.

[Maedhros]

125. He pisses in my cornflakes whenever he drops a missile on a bunch of Yemeni teenagers.[n/t]

[rhett o rick]

50. Glad you asked. After we worked our butts off to get him elected he picked Rick Warren to give

a prayer on inauguration day. Now why would he do that? It was a clear message that he was done with us on the left. He not only didnt need us anymore, he needed to convince the right of center that he wasnt aligned with us. He pissed in our corn flakes on inauguration day. And then came Rahm Emanuel, and then Clapper, Mueller, Geitner, Comey, , Bernanke, Immelt, Cote, Alexander, Bush, Gates, McChrystal, Lew, Norton, Brennen, Hegal, Taylor, and of course Penny Pritzker. He turned his back on Van Jones and ACORN. I guess he pissed in lots of cereal.

Yes I am bitter.

[ProSense]

56. Then you worked your "butts off" to get him re-elected?

Where was everyone when Wyden and others raised the NSA issue early last year?

[rhett o rick]

58. It appears that one of my fans on ignore replied. Sorry, have a great evening. nm

[Enthusiast]

67. Don't forget fucking Bowles and Simpson.

Holy crap!

The President has many ways to say, "I hate you damned hippies!"

[rhett o rick]

106. It was just politics. In 2012, he knew he needed the right of center vote more than the left.

When Rahmbo told the left to "sit down and shut up" and called ideas of the left as "retarded", it was with a purpose. The right of center love it. And now the Democratic party is wallowing in right of center bastards and they love Ms. Clinton.

[LondonReign2]

76. Thank you

That sums up nicely the Obama turn to the right.

Candidate Obama certainly fooled me.

[treestar]

79. That was such a big deal?

Really?

Were you expecting a POTUS to do everything the way you want?

[Zorra]

89. LGBT folks, and straight folks who can empathize with their fellow citizens who are unjustly

being denied their rights, know that, yes, it is a big deal.

[treestar]

92. Bigger deal than repeal of DADT

Bigger deal than DOMA being shot down.

[Zorra]

96. It is very sad that you (A) Can not grasp the insult, and

B) Feel the need to justify the insult.

Maybe if I explain it like this, you will be able to get it:

Pretend it is 1961, and JFK picks a preacher who belongs to the KKK to give the invocation at his inauguration ceremony.

Black folks all across the country are upset.

Can you understand why they might be upset?

[treestar]

103. Warren is nothing like a KKK member.

He doesn't advocate violence. He is just wrong on one issue. Obama was trying to let the right wing feel included on that day.

At any rate, it's nothing next to repeal of DADT, etc.

[rhett o rick]

105. You just plain dont get it. Your loyalty is blinding you. You think it was more important for

him to "let the right wing feel included on that day." than say thanks to the left for their support. That event was important because he couldnt wait, he had to "reach out" to the right at the expense of the left. And he never, ever turned back.

The move was a blatant, in your face move.

I admit he fooled me. But, you dont go fooling me again. I wont support Ms. Clinton under any circumstances. Just another DLC liar.

[treestar]

128. Yes it was

He wanted to be different than Bush, whose attitude was if you aren't with us, you aren't American.

Bush tried to exclude us. We don't try to exclude right wingers.

Inauguration Day is not a day to thank anyone for support. Election night, maybe.

The Presidency covers the whole nation. A President is not supposed to spend the term rewarding only his supporters/voters.

And it still is nothing compared to repeal of DADT, etc.

[rhett o rick]

134. I will try one more time only. He deliberately insulted us. And that was just the

beginning of his "distancing" from the left. If you think he should "reach out" to the right, how about reaching out to the left?

Rick Warren was just the first shot, and he couldnt wait for us to stop celebrating before he "shot".

And by the way, his appointment of Republican after Republican isnt bipartisanship, it's partisanship. He repealed DADT and attacked Social Security, gave Wall Street a pass, etc.

[treestar]

137. I'm sure it was no intended as a deliberate insult.

You were done with him over that, on Inauguration Day?

Even though he signed repeal of DADT?

Just sounds like an intent to be unhappy almost. No president would ever be good enough. Whoever says the prayer on Inauguration Day had no effect, whereas signing DADT repeal did.

[Zorra]

126. I know you don't understand how and why you are a homophobe, but you are.

[treestar]

130. Over the Rick Warren thing?

I support gay marriage and repeal of DADT. You're going to resort to calling someone with those positions a "homophobe" over the Rick Warren thing? It's like you are trying to lose support for gay rights.

And I only said that the Warren prayer doesn't begin to compare with repeal of DADT. I'm happy with the progress made since Inauguration Day. Rick Warren is not. So it doesn't seem his prayer did anything to stop progress.

[Zorra]

139. So please give a straight answer here: If, in 1961, JFK had invited a well known black hating racist

bigot preacher to do the invocation at his inauguration, do you believe that black folks would have every reason to be seriously offended by that action?

[treestar]

160. Of course

But as I said above, that would be a lot worse. The KKK had done violent things. It exists solely to put down black (and some other) people. Warren does have other things he does, and is just wrong gay rights, and so far as I know isn't advocating violence.

Besides I was talking about ROR's OTT reaction to the Warren prayer.

Calling someone who supports gay marriage and even boycotting the Russian Olympics being called a homophobe for not thinking the Warren prayer is a huge, huge deal is just sad. By that token, there are few who are not homophobes, including some gays.

[NorthCarolina]

167. So, you could lose your "support for gay right" over a comment?

Must be some deeply held conviction you have there.

[Maedhros]

127. Shit like this is still happening:

http://www.komonews.com/news/crime/Mans-nose-broken-in-possible-Capitol-Hill-gay-bashing-218384061.html?tab=video&c=y

Anyone telling their congregations that LGBTQ Americans are somehow tainted is partly responsible for the mindset that lets this happen. Advocating for second-class citizen status for LGBTQ Americans is advocating violence.

[treestar]

131. I generally go with the rule that you decide what you do

It didn't work that Obama was a communist for "associating" with Ayers or a whatever for "listening" to Rev. Wright.

People in those congregations know violence is wrong - they make their own decision to commit it. That article doesn't make any link to a church.

Even church pastors, if they preach about it to their congregation - you'd have to work hard to find one advocating any violence.

[Maedhros]

138. Just like racist Southern culture allowed lynchings to happen,

bigoted religious culture allows gay bashing to happen. Who's responsible? Those who maintain the culture.

[treestar]

161. No the person who chose to commit violence is

There's no excuse based on what others may have said.

[rhett o rick]

107. Dont give him credit for ending DOMA. He drug his feet for 5 years.

And the SCOTUS said it was harder to repeal DOMA because the President's DoJ didnt defend it like they are required by law. So the SCOTUS spent more time on fighting that issue (the President not defending an existing law) than they did on DOMA. Pres Obama fought it every step of the way.

[rhett o rick]

104. That is hilarious. You should have included the sarcasm emoticon.

By the way, here is another interesting post that "The Group" is avoiding. Why is that? Do you guys read these posts and not comment?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014560337

[MotherPetrie]

90. +1

[HardTimes99]

113. He tipped his hand the minute he threw Reverend Wright under the bus. Talk about a stab

in the back. The funny thing is that Wright was correct on 99.99% of his claims.

[Egnever]

174. You never worked your butt off to get him elected.

LOL best revisionism yet!

You have done nothing but try to tear him down since the first primaries.

I defy you to show one positive post from you from the primaries.

[rhett o rick]

175. I guess it's on you to prove that. You know full well what the President promised

and what he delivered. But that doesnt matter to you because you have nothing but adulation. Down on your knees groveling. Pathetic. You have no principles, just blind FAITH. Well good luck with that. And leave me the fuck alone.

[Egnever]

177. LOL You said you worked hard for him. Prove it!

Pull up one possitive post from the primaries.

You cant.

[rhett o rick]

181. And if I do what? nm

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Actually a middling one

But historians will place the period...starting with the Reagan Revolution, in ess that good terms.

The beginning of the fall of Empire can be traced to that administration decision to no longer protect steel.

As to the present administration, mu guess two more worst case...it is a trying thing to defend an empire in decline.

I say that as a historian...what they do...is very much predicated on that.

[RobinA]

142. I See There Is

someone else in this country who bangs this drum-

"The beginning of the fall of Empire can be traced to that administration decision to no longer protect steel."

Absofuckinglutely. With a nod to the air traffic controllers.

[quakerboy]

52. Time has yet to tell

The man isn't done yet. And whatever else happens, he will always be the first not fully Caucasian president of the USA.

Its still possible he could do something to surprise us.

And Obamacare could yet take off, and morph into something better in time.

That said, so far he seems to be in a league with Bill Clinton. Adequate. Mildly better than a Republican. Disappointing to people who care more about principle than party. Great in the minds of those who value charismatic symbolic leadership over principled accomplishments.

[truebluegreen]

87. I'm guessing not so distant future.

The water is rising. And Obama will be remembered as a placeholding defender of the status quo, a guy with his thumb in the dike while its foundations are being eaten away.

The time traveler would have had to go back to--at least--Ronnie of Raygun.

[uponit7771]

11. But all of the spying started under Obama so he's the one that is at fault for it

[Hydra]

28. You're so right!

Because carrying water for George Bush and Dick Cheney is always the right decision, right?

[uponit7771]

42. Carrying water to bashers = breathing in the same house Bush breathed in. Again REASONABLE expect

..expectations != ending all 2342134 programs Bush started in less than 123423 years

[LondonReign2]

82. Poor, helpless President Obama

He just hasn't had enough time to reveal is true policies. All that public supporting of the NSA? Well, he'll get around to reversing that evetually I'm sure.

[uponit7771]

95. Yeap, more right wing meme...obstruct and then act as if Obama has authority he doesn't

[LondonReign2]

97. Are you saying Obama doesn't support what the NSA is doing?

That when he has publicly stated his support that he was lying? That he doesn't have authority to make up his own mind about the NSA?

What exactly is the Republican Congress doing to obstruct Obama with regards to the NSA? Why is it that Obama is aligned with the Republicans on the NSA?

And, do you still support Obama acting unconstitutionally and following unconstitutional laws as you said before?

[uponit7771]

98. No, Obama doesn't support right wing memes...not deflecting and I don't think EVERYTHING the NSA

...is doing is wrong.

Could care less about "survelience" even though I think it's wasteful...

I care about spying which no one has shown proof of

P.S. - Some winger Obama bashers words are not "proof"

[LondonReign2]

100. No, your argument was that it was unreasonable to expect

Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Obama to have eliminated Bush's programs at this point in his Presidency, a position which is laughable given he has been in office approaching 5 years.

Further, by his own words Obama completely supports the activities of the NSA, so your attempt to argue that he simply hasn't had time to reverse the program is idiotic and false on its face.

And you didn't answer -- do you still support Obama acting unconstitutionally and following unconstitutional laws?

[uponit7771]

184. Yes, do you understand how many programs Bush started?!?!??! This is crazy!!

*Do you understand some of those programs will have to be replaced!?

I support the activities of the NSA too, I don't believe Paulian bashers..they have an agenda and there's been NO PROOF of spying on Americans

[LondonReign2]

188. LOL, something is indeed crazy here

I'm starting to suspect that you are a double agent, and your true intent is to make the pro-NSA side look bad.

[Maedhros]

129. If you "could care less about surveillance", then you are a bigger fool than you appear to be [n/t]

[Hydra]

148. No, he's actually worse

Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2013, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)

In one of his threads, he claimed that he didn't care if the President was doing something unconstitutional as long as it was "legal."

Talk about not understanding the law.

[Maedhros]

154. "It's no use. He's obviously the most powerful mind we've ever dealt with!"

[LondonReign2]

156. Yup, he was baffled

that people would criticize Obama for unconstitutional acts or for following unconstitutional laws.

[uponit7771]

185. ...then they get mad at you

[rhett o rick]

108. You are wrong. The programs were started under Bush and Pres Obama is powerless to do anything

about them. Gen Alexander tells Obama what's what. I bet you thought it was other way round. The intelligence agency power TRANSCENDS mere presidents.

[DJ13]

17. Not Obama, just his.........

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. I will admit it, I find minions adorable.

[leftstreet]

19. The NSA did not have spying relations with those Americans!

[Dragonfli]

39. Well you see it depends on what the word is is, also reasonable means always and recording all your

phone calls, emails, billing information, your location when each call is made, the identity of all of your associations and their whereabouts when you speak to them, all of your texts, videos, every search and site you visit, everything you purchase, every step you take, every move you make, they'll not be watching you, because the word "collecting" means they're not watching you, because collecting and recording all of this when called "collecting" is not spying at all. No one will ever use the neato software installed on thousands of workstation in both private and public offices that is designed to make searching through your giant NSA file of EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU very easy to do, they are all hired to sit at there desks and play solitaire and only look at stuff if you are a foreign terrorist.

It is like the common knowledge wisdom that oral sex is not sexual relations and building a giant dossier on every American is not spying. Just collecting, a mere hobby.

[leftstreet]

63. It's just a hobby!

Yes!

Collecting....like stamps or coins or Star Wars action figures!

What could be more American?

[rhett o rick]

109. A team of lawyers have reviewed the fourth amendment and concluded that the word "collection" is

not included.

Booz-Allen-Hamilton uber alles.

[Amonester]

20. You forgot google, microsoft, apple, and the lot of the rest of

them

[Amonester]

27. And yahoo's n/t

[Amonester]

29. and facebook's nt

[Amonester]

30. 'n twitR's

[LondonReign2]

80. Which of those have the power to arrest me?

[Amonester]

88. Why would they arrest you if they had it?

[RobinA]

144. Because

they could? Because I said something they didn't like? Because I don't look like them? Because I belong to a group they don't like? Read some history.

[Coyotl]

46. 'n those encrypted Skype sex video "chats" too, of course

Can't let those lower-level minions at private contractor 'Booze whatever' get bored on the job

[Octafish]

49. Bullfeathers, Jackpiner. The United States Government is NOT spying on Americans!

It's the Carlyle Group. The killing on Americans, that's another contract.

IAS: Thank you for an outstanding OP.

[dougolat]

66. +++ nt

[DeSwiss]

51. K&R

[Spitfire of ATJ]

54. Hell, they're spying on HIM TOO.

[rudyb]

59. So when did this all start?

I say this is not a new activity for the gov. It is just more current due to Mr Snowden's postings. I would say it has been happening for decades though now there are better tools to do this.

[1-Old-Man]

83. Wrong question. You should be asking "when will all this end?"

[sabrina 1]

62. Okay, I really didn't think he was actually reading my email. But why is he defending those who

are spying on Americans?

[Amonester]

84. A: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in politics.

Same with banksters: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in politics.
Same with TWOT: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in politics.

Status Quo as long as $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ will remain in politics.

As simple as that.

[tofuandbeer]

65. Yawn

[Scuba]

68. Thanks Jackpine, nailed it again.

[Sancho]

69. DHS, our local cops (cameras, facial recognition, car tags), voter registration, and traffic cameras

...everything we do and everywhere we go is recorded. Next on the horizon: GPS black boxes in our cars, RIF chips in our driver's licenses (already in our passports), work and school ID's that track where you are every second.

Just wait, the spying is yet to come!!

...but I can't figure out where those black drones over my house are coming from....

[treestar]

74. No they are not spying on all of us

How is the IRS spying on us? We give them a lot of information in filing tax returns - we are required to by law - is that spying?

The government enforcing the law is not "spying."

[1-Old-Man]

85. The hell they aren't.

You give them some information, then they go get more information. Its not the information that you are lawfully required to give that is in question its the information they get by way of secret laws, secret methods, and approved by secret courts. And if that doesn't bother you then I have to think you are out of touch with reality.

[treestar]

93. They get far more information voluntarily

If you're really "scared" by the FISA warrant giving them one company's metadata, you're paranoid.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

99. You're not qualified to make that judgment

Stick with something you know.

[treestar]

102. I am.

In fact, I deal with the government, and most people, if they have to deal with it, applying for something or defending on some issue, can find it bureaucratic and non-responsive, and that is way more frustrating than it having a huge list of phone calls it might consult, maybe, for good purposes as well as nefarious.

[xchrom]

81. du rec.

[WillyT]

101. K & R !!!

[Life Long Dem]

111. Social Security has our SS numbers

Ever hear of Identification theft?

[on point]

115. We are only collecting dossiers on everyone. Spying would be only when we open those dossiers...

[Civilization2]

124. for profit,. follow the money,. BigIntel is corporate wet dream,. secret budget!!!

Wake up people. This is about money! Control and money.

[matt819]

132. Depends on your definitions

What is your definition of:
We

and

Are

and

Not

and

Spying

and

On

Americans

[99th_Monkey]

140. Makes perfect sense. The NSA, FBI, CIA, et. al. will be there long after Obama leaves

Obama was "just passing through", like some wayward tourist?

[Jackpine Radical]

149. Absolutely.

I would trace the origins of a domestic public/private espionage/surveillance establishment back to the Civil War and the early days thereafter and the Pinkerton Detective Agency.

From Wikipedia:

Pinkerton Government Services, Inc., founded as the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, usually shortened to the Pinkertons, is a private security guard and detective agency established in the U.S. by Allan Pinkerton in 1850 and currently a subsidiary of Securitas AB.[1] Pinkerton became famous when he claimed to have foiled a plot to assassinate president-elect Abraham Lincoln, who later hired Pinkerton agents for his personal security during the Civil War.[2] Pinkerton's agents performed services ranging from security guarding to private military contracting work. Pinkerton was the largest private law enforcement organization in the world at the height of its power.[3] At its height, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency employed more agents than there were members of the standing army of the United States of America.[citation needed]

The Pinks were the Blackwater/Xe/Booz Allen/Bulletproof Guards of their time.

Don't recognize Bulletproof? They're the guys patrolling the Gogebic Mine property in northern WI.

See Hue's early post on the topic:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1084&pid=8169

[99th_Monkey]

150. Jay Gould comes to mind. RR Baron of the same era, who infamously said, "...

"I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."

[Jackpine Radical]

152. Of course.

And he could get the National Guard &/or the Pinks out and help deal with those grubby Wobblies.

[wandy]

153. And thems only the ones we knows about. nt

[midnight]

155. Thank you for clarifying...

[backscatter712]

157. I think Bill Hicks got it right.

On Inauguration Day, as soon as Obama walked into the White House for the first time, from the parade and cheering crowds, he was led to the Situation Room, and "Roll the film!"

OK, so I'm not sure that the film rolling is that other film of the Kennedy assassination (not the Zapruder film, the one filmed from the grassy knoll) - that may be too

But the NSA certainly has plenty of material...

[GliderGuider]

164. That is so sickeningly believable you have to laugh to keep from screaming.

I've always thought that was about how it worked. Except in my vision there's no smoke in the room, it's clean and quiet. The guys around the table don't look like plutocrats, they all look like Uncle Jack in quiet Armani suits, and they all sit very still while a well-spoken four-star rolls the film.

Fuck I hate that sketch.

[bvar22]

165. He doesn't have a Magic Wand,

...so what CAN he do?

"Its ALL Joe Lieberman's Fault!!!!

[Jackpine Radical]

166. Some people not only want their pony, but

want one that isn't chipped with a GPS transmitter.

[Rex]

168. Yeah I believe him.

I seriously doubt Obama is spying on Americans.

[lastlib]

173. This message brought to you by the friendly spyfolks at the KGWB.....

(When Bush was working to create the Dept. of Homeland Security, I was trying to come up with a name for the new agency that would reflect its abuse of our civil liberties; I thought about how much it was like the old Soviet KGB, and with GWB's hands all over it, calling it the "KGWB" just seemed completely natural--plus Tom Ridge just looked like a Kommisar, sans the battle ribbons.....)

[sarcasmo]

186. Kick!