Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   "Back in 2007, Obama said he would not want to run an administration that was "Bush-Cheney lite." He doesn't have to worry... there's nothing lite about it" OH SNAP   (nytimes.com) divider line 158
    More: Interesting, obama, humans, Andrew Card, Fort Meade, Douglas A-20 Havoc, technical assistance, Bush administration, Xi Jinping  
•       •       •

1631 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jun 2013 at 5:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-09 02:13:17 PM  
The President is wrong.  No way to sugarcoat it, he's wrong.
 
2013-06-09 02:13:22 PM  
NYT fell for a politician. Why dont they ever learn?

Why do we still put trust in them?
 
2013-06-09 02:15:01 PM  

cman: NYT fell for a politician. Why dont they ever learn?

Why do we still put trust in them?


Move to Somalia. You won't have to wear your heart on a sleeve there
 
2013-06-09 02:18:27 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: cman: NYT fell for a politician. Why dont they ever learn?

Why do we still put trust in them?

Move to Somalia. You won't have to wear your heart on a sleeve there


Can you please explain your comment in more detail?
 
2013-06-09 02:21:11 PM  
I love, love, love that we've decided that this guy being kind of untrustworthy is EXACTLY as bad, or worse, than the motherfarker who got us into two wars and had a huge hand in tanking the economy.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-09 02:25:02 PM  
So, following the law with oversight from all three branches of government is the same as illegally conducting wiretaps?
 
2013-06-09 02:26:29 PM  

vpb: So, following the law with oversight from all three branches of government is the same as illegally conducting wiretaps?


No, but passing laws making it legal to do exactly what you were doing before isn't much better.
 
2013-06-09 02:31:19 PM  
Where's your black Jesus now?
 
2013-06-09 02:36:36 PM  

cman: NYT fell for a politician. Why dont they ever learn?

Why do we still put trust in them?


Sounds like the makings of a heavy metal ballad.
 
2013-06-09 02:47:56 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Where's your black Jesus now?


he was always black mohammed
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-09 02:50:37 PM  

nmrsnr: vpb: So, following the law with oversight from all three branches of government is the same as illegally conducting wiretaps?

No, but passing laws making it legal to do exactly what you were doing before isn't much better.


It's a good thing that no one did that then.  But I guess the fact that FISA has been around since the '70's, the NSA isn't wiretapping anyone and the collection of data was authorized by a warrant by the FISA court isn't going to matter.

"The gubmint's out to get me" is a favorite paranoia for a lot of people and it's too good an opportunity to let a few puny facts get in the way of a good biatchfest.
 
2013-06-09 03:02:21 PM  

vpb: It's a good thing that no one did that then.  But I guess the fact that FISA has been around since the '70's, the NSA isn't wiretapping anyone and the collection of data was authorized by a warrant by the FISA court isn't going to matter."The gubmint's out to get me" is a favorite paranoia for a lot of people and it's too good an opportunity to let a few puny facts get in the way of a good biatchfest.


There are two distinct things here, there's metadata collection, which was never illegal, and warrantless wiretapping, which very much was. When
Bush got in trouble for warrantless wiretapping Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments act of 2008 which, among other things, said:

Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.
Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records (it requires them to keep the records for a period of 10 years).
Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists". Immunity is given by a certification process, which can be overturned by a court on specific grounds.
Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance if the target is reasonably believed to be outside the country.[19]
Increased the time for warrantless surveillance from 48 hours to 7 days, if the FISA court is notified and receives an application, specific officials sign the emergency notification, and relates to an American located outside of the United States with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power. After 7 days, if the court denies or does not review the application, the information obtained cannot be offered as evidence. If the United States Attorney General believes the information shows threat of death or bodily harm, they can try to offer the information as evidence in future proceedings.

So, basically, protecting telecoms for participating, and expanding the warrantless wiretapping period to a week, which is enough time to get the FISA court to rubber stamp whatever it is they are doing (as far as I know the court has never said "no" to a warrant).

So yeah, basically legalizing everything Bush got in trouble for.
 
2013-06-09 03:11:57 PM  

cman: Peter von Nostrand: cman: NYT fell for a politician. Why dont they ever learn?

Why do we still put trust in them?

Move to Somalia. You won't have to wear your heart on a sleeve there

Can you please explain your comment in more detail?


It's just more sad whining that all politicians are bad and it's farking tiresome. Plus it fires off nonsense that NYT fell in love with Obama. If you don't trust politicians, go somewhere without a government. Barring that, get over it
 
2013-06-09 03:17:59 PM  
Are the copyeditors at NYT using Miller cans? Whatever.

The fact that this scandal comes from the London Guardian is the key to understanding it. Britain wants Obama to attack Syria, but he keeps refusing to do it. Now the rebel death squads are cornered in Aleppo and Assad is about to crush them, so Britain, having no time left, uses its left-leaning press to lead the left-leaning press of the U.S. to put heat on Obama with his base. David Cameron, David Petraeus and Donald Graham are at the Grove Hotel right now having drinks with Henry Kissinger and laughing about it. I just hope Obama doesn't buckle, stays out of Syria and figures out how to deal with the British.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-09 03:18:33 PM  

nmrsnr: vpb: It's a good thing that no one did that then.  But I guess the fact that FISA has been around since the '70's, the NSA isn't wiretapping anyone and the collection of data was authorized by a warrant by the FISA court isn't going to matter."The gubmint's out to get me" is a favorite paranoia for a lot of people and it's too good an opportunity to let a few puny facts get in the way of a good biatchfest.

There are two distinct things here, there's metadata collection, which was never illegal, and warrantless wiretapping, which very much was. When
Bush got in trouble for warrantless wiretapping Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments act of 2008 which, among other things, said:
 ...


Bush used wiretapping for a lot longer than 7 days, the NSA under Obama is collecting metadata not wiretapping and it isn't warantless anyway.  Obama didn't take office until 2009 for that matter.

So no, Bush's wiretapping wouldn't be legal even under todays law and it isn't the same thing that Obama has authorized, which is legally collecting meta-data with a warrant.

Not even close to what you claimed.
 
2013-06-09 03:20:57 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: cman: Peter von Nostrand: cman: NYT fell for a politician. Why dont they ever learn?

Why do we still put trust in them?

Move to Somalia. You won't have to wear your heart on a sleeve there

Can you please explain your comment in more detail?

It's just more sad whining that all politicians are bad and it's farking tiresome. Plus it fires off nonsense that NYT fell in love with Obama. If you don't trust politicians, go somewhere without a government. Barring that, get over it


Both sides are bad, so support Obama.
 
2013-06-09 03:25:37 PM  

Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: cman: Peter von Nostrand: cman: NYT fell for a politician. Why dont they ever learn?

Why do we still put trust in them?

Move to Somalia. You won't have to wear your heart on a sleeve there

Can you please explain your comment in more detail?

It's just more sad whining that all politicians are bad and it's farking tiresome. Plus it fires off nonsense that NYT fell in love with Obama. If you don't trust politicians, go somewhere without a government. Barring that, get over it

Both sides are bad, so support Obama.


*notthisshiatagain.jpg*
 
2013-06-09 03:32:01 PM  
PLEASE LOG IN
Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.


That's exactly what "they" want me to do.
 
2013-06-09 03:32:57 PM  

Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: cman: Peter von Nostrand: cman: NYT fell for a politician. Why dont they ever learn?

Why do we still put trust in them?

Move to Somalia. You won't have to wear your heart on a sleeve there

Can you please explain your comment in more detail?

It's just more sad whining that all politicians are bad and it's farking tiresome. Plus it fires off nonsense that NYT fell in love with Obama. If you don't trust politicians, go somewhere without a government. Barring that, get over it

Both sides are bad, so support Obama.


HA!

We now own that meme
 
2013-06-09 03:35:20 PM  

vpb: Bush used wiretapping for a lot longer than 7 days, the NSA under Obama is collecting metadata not wiretapping and it isn't warantless anyway.  Obama didn't take office until 2009 for that matter.So no, Bush's wiretapping wouldn't be legal even under todays law and it isn't the same thing that Obama has authorized, which is legally collecting meta-data with a warrant.Not even close to what you claimed.


Once again, I never claimed metadata collection was illegal, it's not. But as for wiretapping, FISA is essentially a rubber stamp, like I said, there is no evidence that they have ever refused a warrant, and with a week's worth of warrantless wiretapping before you need the rubber stamp to listen in indefinitely (technically you need it updated every 30 days or something, but again, FISA never says no), it makes Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping obsolete, since it's easy enough to get your legal authority. There is no indication that the wiretapping the government is doing has lessened, just that it's all legal now.

Also, the whole PRISM thing where they can read your E-mail as you type it does not seem above-board to me. But I don't know enough about that yet.

But you're right, Congress didn't relax the warrantless wiretapping requirements under Obama, that was still under Bush.
 
2013-06-09 03:43:57 PM  
Nobody gave a fark until the POTUS got his tan

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-09 03:53:25 PM  

nmrsnr: vpb: Bush used wiretapping for a lot longer than 7 days, the NSA under Obama is collecting metadata not wiretapping and it isn't warantless anyway.  Obama didn't take office until 2009 for that matter.So no, Bush's wiretapping wouldn't be legal even under todays law and it isn't the same thing that Obama has authorized, which is legally collecting meta-data with a warrant.Not even close to what you claimed.

Once again, I never claimed metadata collection was illegal, it's not. But as for wiretapping, FISA is essentially a rubber stamp, like I said, there is no evidence that they have ever refused a warrant, and with a week's worth of warrantless wiretapping before you need the rubber stamp to listen in indefinitely (technically you need it updated every 30 days or something, but again, FISA never says no), it makes Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping obsolete, since it's easy enough to get your legal authority. There is no indication that the wiretapping the government is doing has lessened, just that it's all legal now.

Also, the whole PRISM thing where they can read your E-mail as you type it does not seem above-board to me. But I don't know enough about that yet.

But you're right, Congress didn't relax the warrantless wiretapping requirements under Obama, that was still under Bush.


That was my point.  I'm not saying that the law is good, I'm saying that Obama didn't sight it and he didn't break it.  Bush did, so not the same at all.

The whole controversy was about rule of law.  Obama followed due process which includes checks and balances and Bush didn't.  Claiming that it's the same thing is silly.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-09 03:56:09 PM  

edmo: Nobody gave a fark until the POTUS got his tan


I think that it's more about the fact that there have been a lot of privacy/anti government activists who see this as their big opportunity to get national attention and promote their cause.

If you can't have the "Big Brother" you want, go with the one you have.
 
2013-06-09 05:02:46 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: cman: NYT fell for a politician. Why dont they ever learn?

Why do we still put trust in them?

Move to Somalia. You won't have to wear your heart on a sleeve there


So we've come to "love it or leave it" from the left. Awesome. You have become the monsters you railed against. We told you to quit staring into the abyss.
 
2013-06-09 05:03:25 PM  
THREAD JACK:

I guess it hasn't been greenlit yet, meet the whistle blower : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistl e blower-surveillance
 
2013-06-09 05:05:22 PM  

LasersHurt: I love, love, love that we've decided that this guy being kind of untrustworthy is EXACTLY as bad, or worse, than the motherfarker who got us into two wars and had a huge hand in tanking the economy.


Or that he's beyond reproach until he is EXACTLY as bad, or worse, than the last guy.  Pick a side.
 
2013-06-09 05:05:36 PM  
Please Log In PLEASE LOG IN
Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?

E-Mail or Member ID Password Remember Me Log In
 
2013-06-09 05:08:18 PM  

Mentat: The President is wrong.  No way to sugarcoat it, he's wrong.


So, that makes Glenn Beck President for life and all Democrats are being deported to France?

No doubt about it. There has been a fark up during his watch. I have yet to see any evidence that he personally signed any directive, and it looks like this was started back when Bush-Cheney were in charge. So, I'm gonna give the guy one small ounce slack that he was as caught off guard as the rest of us by this bombshell for him to at least begin making some efforts to weaken/overturn the Patriot Act.

/take a guess what key word I typed that probably tripped off a flag in some NSA server somewhere
 
2013-06-09 05:09:02 PM  

GoldSpider: LasersHurt: I love, love, love that we've decided that this guy being kind of untrustworthy is EXACTLY as bad, or worse, than the motherfarker who got us into two wars and had a huge hand in tanking the economy.

Or that he's beyond reproach until he is EXACTLY as bad, or worse, than the last guy.  Pick a side.


It's not even about picking sides.  We can protest Bush to do something, we have to protest the guy who's CURRENTLY in the office.


IF you vote for the guy, you don't have to agree with everything he does, it OK to criticize him. There is not a person on the Earth I agree with 100%. I will never back a politician 100% like these true-belivers do.
 
2013-06-09 05:09:19 PM  

uber humper: THREAD JACK:

I guess it hasn't been greenlit yet, meet the whistle blower : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistl e blower-surveillance


Leaking NSA classified information should be considered high treason regardless of the circumstances. As we speak terrorists are organizing through telecoms because they know they will not be watched using that media at the current time nor be prosecuted.
 
2013-06-09 05:09:47 PM  

uber humper: We cancan't protest Bush to do something,


FTFM
 
2013-06-09 05:09:59 PM  
PS:

Imagine if it was Romney and Ryan in charge right now with this info. Do you think they'd even give a sh*t if you were mad or not?
 
2013-06-09 05:10:59 PM  

Granny_Panties: Leaking NSA classified information should be considered high treason regardless of the circumstances.


Applying troll-spray to this post lest anyone believe it's a genuine sentiment.
 
2013-06-09 05:12:07 PM  

Granny_Panties: uber humper: THREAD JACK:

I guess it hasn't been greenlit yet, meet the whistle blower : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistl e blower-surveillance

Leaking NSA classified information should be considered high treason regardless of the circumstances. As we speak terrorists are organizing through telecoms because they know they will not be watched using that media at the current time nor be prosecuted.


I think the people who are involved in this domestic spying program should be treated like the East German Stasi, after the wall fell,  everyone who was involved in the spying had their names posted in the newspaper. It was legal for them to spy, but it was wrong.
 
2013-06-09 05:12:25 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Do you think they'd even give a sh*t if you were mad or not?


Honey badger doesn't give a shiat, he just takes.
 
2013-06-09 05:12:27 PM  
3 branches of government in collusion is oversight.  The new AMERIKA!
 
2013-06-09 05:12:46 PM  

GoldSpider: Granny_Panties: Leaking NSA classified information should be considered high treason regardless of the circumstances.

Applying troll-spray to this post lest anyone believe it's a genuine sentiment.



Be careful you don't mistake it for troll musk.
 
2013-06-09 05:14:52 PM  

TV's Vinnie: PS:

Imagine if it was Romney and Ryan in charge right now with this info. Do you think they'd even give a sh*t if you were mad or not?


No, because we would be swimming in jobs and budget surpluses. All world problems would be solved and we would be paying 0 taxes in a world finally at piece. Oh, and all gays would be dead and the Mexicans would all be in Mexico. Blacks would also be going back to Africa because Romney made Africa awesome again.
 
2013-06-09 05:15:06 PM  

uber humper: Granny_Panties: uber humper: THREAD JACK:

I guess it hasn't been greenlit yet, meet the whistle blower : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistl e blower-surveillance

Leaking NSA classified information should be considered high treason regardless of the circumstances. As we speak terrorists are organizing through telecoms because they know they will not be watched using that media at the current time nor be prosecuted.

I think the people who are involved in this domestic spying program should be treated like the East German Stasi, after the wall fell,  everyone who was involved in the spying had their names posted in the newspaper. It was legal for them to spy, but it was wrong.



To this day in Budapest the names and *photos* of everyone who was known to be in the Hungarian secret police are posted permanently in public on the side of a building downtown.
 
2013-06-09 05:16:40 PM  

GoldSpider: Granny_Panties: Leaking NSA classified information should be considered high treason regardless of the circumstances.

Applying troll-spray to this post lest anyone believe it's a genuine sentiment.


Why are people so God damn serious on this site? I thought this site was supposed to be funny? I mean, like a fun place... Never mind...
 
2013-06-09 05:17:21 PM  

Granny_Panties: uber humper: THREAD JACK:

I guess it hasn't been greenlit yet, meet the whistle blower : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistl e blower-surveillance

Leaking NSA classified information should be considered high treason regardless of the circumstances. As we speak terrorists are organizing through telecoms because they know they will not be watched using that media at the current time nor be prosecuted.


So you agree that PFC Manning should be tried for treason.
 
2013-06-09 05:19:14 PM  

Granny_Panties: Leaking NSA classified information should be considered high treason


So should destroying the Fourth Amendment.
 
2013-06-09 05:19:35 PM  

TV's Vinnie: PS:

Imagine if it was Romney and Ryan in charge right now with this info. Do you think they'd even give a sh*t if you were mad or not?


got news for ya:  the GUY IN OFFICE RIGHT THE FARK NOW doesn't give a shiat.  Why do we care what MIGHT have happened?
 
2013-06-09 05:19:49 PM  
Please Log In PLEASE LOG IN
Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?

E-Mail or Member ID Password Remember Me Log In
 
2013-06-09 05:21:13 PM  

BafflerMeal: uber humper: Granny_Panties: uber humper: THREAD JACK:

I guess it hasn't been greenlit yet, meet the whistle blower : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistl e blower-surveillance

Leaking NSA classified information should be considered high treason regardless of the circumstances. As we speak terrorists are organizing through telecoms because they know they will not be watched using that media at the current time nor be prosecuted.

I think the people who are involved in this domestic spying program should be treated like the East German Stasi, after the wall fell,  everyone who was involved in the spying had their names posted in the newspaper. It was legal for them to spy, but it was wrong.


To this day in Budapest the names and *photos* of everyone who was known to be in the Hungarian secret police are posted permanently in public on the side of a building downtown.


Interesting. Put something simiar on the sidewalk to the Whitehouse to remind the politicians who they work for.
 
2013-06-09 05:22:09 PM  

Granny_Panties: Why are people so God damn serious on this site? I thought this site was supposed to be funny? I mean, like a fun place... Never mind...


Poe's Law.
 
2013-06-09 05:25:25 PM  

GoldSpider: Granny_Panties: Why are people so God damn serious on this site? I thought this site was supposed to be funny? I mean, like a fun place... Never mind...

Poe's Law.


No crap...

lolimage.com
 
2013-06-09 05:25:49 PM  

TV's Vinnie: PS:

Imagine if it was Romney and Ryan in charge right now with this info. Do you think they'd even give a sh*t if you were mad or not?


Good point. Obama might feel slightly guilty. Now I feel LOADS better.
 
2013-06-09 05:28:17 PM  

Nabb1: Peter von Nostrand: cman: Peter von Nostrand: cman: NYT fell for a politician. Why dont they ever learn?

Why do we still put trust in them?

Move to Somalia. You won't have to wear your heart on a sleeve there

Can you please explain your comment in more detail?

It's just more sad whining that all politicians are bad and it's farking tiresome. Plus it fires off nonsense that NYT fell in love with Obama. If you don't trust politicians, go somewhere without a government. Barring that, get over it

Both sides are bad, so support Obama.


If you don't, you're a racist.... and want to completely disband the government and turn the country into a Mad-Max-Style wasteland.

There is no middle ground.
 
2013-06-09 05:28:43 PM  

LasersHurt: I love, love, love that we've decided that this guy being kind of untrustworthy is EXACTLY as bad, or worse, than the motherfarker who got us into two wars and had a huge hand in tanking the economy.


Yeah, but he promised hope and change. Bush didn't specifically pinky swear that he wouldn't start a pointless war and tank the economy. (amidoingitright?)

What's farking hilarious is to see the whining and moaning coming from the very same people who defended Bush's warrantless wiretapping program as essential to the security of the country, and "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

That said, I feel sorry for anyone who's watching me. Talk about total farking boredom.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report