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.

(Some Guy) Video Let's go back to 2008 and see what candidate Barack Obama promises about illegal wiretapping, shall we?   (content.bitsontherun.com) divider line 203
    More: Video, wiretaps  
•       •       •

1954 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2013 at 1:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-11 02:20:45 AM  
link fail, page fail, site fail.
 
2013-06-11 06:52:32 AM  
What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?
 
2013-06-11 07:05:53 AM  

Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?


"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.
 
2013-06-11 07:26:54 AM  
Let's go back to 2007 and see that as a senator he voted to gut FISA.
 
2013-06-11 07:28:07 AM  

MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.


With a few more Alitos on the bench, we could gut the Constitution in its entirety.
 
2013-06-11 07:45:28 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act.


Why has Faux News forsaken their beloved Patriot Act?  It's like they never supported it.
 
2013-06-11 07:50:03 AM  
also remember a couple months back when Obama floated the idea that the Patriot act and all of the added powers that it gave the president should be repealed?  And how the right said he was crazy?

Now look, Obama's got the right in such a tizzy that they my repeal the act themselves.   Maybe this was Obama's plan all along.
 
2013-06-11 11:53:51 AM  

MmmmBacon: But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.


A government doesn't give up a power once it gets it, no matter who is in charge. I blame Bush for starting it and disappointed but not surprised at Obama for not ending it.
 
2013-06-11 12:02:39 PM  

Mugato: MmmmBacon: But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.

A government doesn't give up a power once it gets it, no matter who is in charge. I blame Bush for starting it and disappointed but not surprised at Obama for not ending it.


Part of the problem is that traditionally, the executive branch has to fight for and use each power it has.
 
2013-06-11 12:10:27 PM  
The only people really spazzing about this are those who's existence relies heavily on religion and superstition. Those easily led by fear and controversy.

And have a shortcut link to YouTube on their desktop.
 
2013-06-11 12:12:02 PM  
The PRISM isn't illegal, and I'm not even sure it's "wiretapping", but otherwise that is a good point.

Probably better to nail him on the "national security letters... spying on Americans that aren't suspected of committing a crime" quote.
Though they're supposedly not "using" the data for citizens, they're collecting data on everyone, so I think there's an argument to be made there.

//didn't listen to the screaming part of the video
 
2013-06-11 12:24:13 PM  

Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?


nothing
the program is 100% legal and has not been determining to be unconstitutional. yet.
the ACLU is refiling their case because they now have standing.
everyone with a phone or email now has standing to sue the federal government

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR????
 
2013-06-11 12:31:50 PM  

bongmiester: Why has Faux News forsaken their beloved Patriot Act? It's like they never supported it.


I don't watch Fox News, but it should be an interesting dance that they (and their Republicans) do here.

They're calling for Snowden to be extradited.
They've been briefed on the PRISM program, so they're either complicit or negligent.
But of course, there is some controversy, some negative coverage of Obama, so they will be compelled to press it, one way or another.
Epic amounts of concern trolling predicted.
 
2013-06-11 12:37:00 PM  
1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.
 
2013-06-11 12:39:25 PM  
What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't
 
2013-06-11 12:40:59 PM  
As has been mentioned numerous times, no laws were broken, so technically Obama has not broken any of his promises. However, in the words of the Daily Show last night: "Nobody is saying you've broken any laws. What we're saying is it's kind of weird you didn't have to."
 
2013-06-11 12:46:19 PM  
Many of those involved with the 08 crash didnt break any laws and yet that does not stop others from screaming "arrest them!"

Just because it is legal does not mean it isnt wrong.
 
2013-06-11 12:47:18 PM  

vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't


Well of course they aren't.  They have computers doing that and breaking down conversations to look for key words.  Then when they find them, they listen to the conversation.
 
2013-06-11 12:48:11 PM  

vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't


The social networking data is more than enough information.
Take the boston brother bombers.
They take all the known phones/emails for both of them.
Examine all the back data for all known contacts, and contacts of contacts, etc.
Oh look, here is where he learned to build bombs. TADA

The science is "easy" and AWESOME.
shudder
 
2013-06-11 01:00:25 PM  
You mean the illegal wiretapping that didn't even happen until Obama was Pesident?
 
2013-06-11 01:09:27 PM  
If you've ever thrown your telephone bill in the trash and put it out on the curb, it is perfectly legal for *anyone* to go through it and get the exact same information the NSA has a blanket warrant to collect.
 
2013-06-11 01:23:28 PM  
That's funny ...watching TYT in another tab...

Cenk is the man...
 
2013-06-11 01:25:46 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.


I don't think that could have been more partisan. Bravo.
 
2013-06-11 01:27:16 PM  

vernonFL: If you've ever thrown your telephone bill in the trash and put it out on the curb, it is perfectly legal for *anyone* to go through it and get the exact same information the NSA has a blanket warrant to collect.


In a lot of jurisdictions going through garbage is illegal.
 
2013-06-11 01:28:46 PM  

cman: Many of those involved with the 08 crash didnt break any laws and yet that does not stop others from screaming "arrest them!"

Just because it is legal does not mean it isnt wrong.


And just because something isn't "right" doesn't mean you get to arrest them.  Complain, yes, but don't be surprised if your calls for them being arrested are brushed off.

Call for changes in the laws, at the level of specifics.  General "everyone must act ethically" laws are BS.
 
2013-06-11 01:29:26 PM  
Huh, a politician saying things which appeal to the masses in order to get elected, but having no actual desire to follow through.

why I never...
 
2013-06-11 01:30:31 PM  

max_pooper: In a lot of jurisdictions going through garbage is illegal.


Where I live, as long as its on the curb (to be picked up), on a public street, its okay for the cops or anyone else to go through it - no warrant needed.

If its on your property, then its NOT okay for the cops or anyone else to go through without any kind of warrant or anything.
 
2013-06-11 01:30:36 PM  

MadHatter500: General "everyone must act ethically" laws are BS


General "everyone is considered under suspicion" laws are BS.
 
2013-06-11 01:30:42 PM  
Someday, people will figure out that a candidate's words rarely match his actions once he is elected.

Until then, people will still be shocked when their candidate does essentially the opposite of what he campaigned on.


/meh
 
2013-06-11 01:33:25 PM  

GanjSmokr: Someday, people will figure out that a candidate's words rarely match his actions once he is elected.

Until then, people will still be shocked when their candidate does essentially the opposite of what he campaigned on.


/meh


Someday, people will be shocked to learn that legally acquiring a warrant to gather telecom data is different from illegally recording a telephone call without a warrant.
 
2013-06-11 01:35:03 PM  
People seem to forget that the biggest Democratic complaint about Bush's wiretapping program is that he couldn't even be bothered to brief Congress on it or obtain appropriate FISA court oversight. This program is not illegal. You can debate whether or not the improvement in security is worth the infringement of privacy, but it's not illegal.
 
2013-06-11 01:35:18 PM  

MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.


Has anyone actually challenged the Patriot Act in front of the Surpemes?
 
2013-06-11 01:35:19 PM  

max_pooper: GanjSmokr: Someday, people will figure out that a candidate's words rarely match his actions once he is elected.

Until then, people will still be shocked when their candidate does essentially the opposite of what he campaigned on.


/meh

Someday, people will be shocked to learn that legally acquiring a warrant to gather telecom data is different from illegally recording a telephone call without a warrant.


So... politicians don't lie their asses off to get elected?  Thanks for the info!
 
2013-06-11 01:37:45 PM  
Subby doesn't understand the meaning of the words "illegal" or "wiretap," does he? Because the recent NSA program under Obama was neither.
 
2013-06-11 01:37:58 PM  

Nadie_AZ: This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.


The PATRIOT Act is the one area where Dems and Repubs are in agreement.
 
2013-06-11 01:38:13 PM  
Aw for fark's sake.  This isn't wiretapping.  This is information Google and your phone company already have.  Are you worried that the big bag gubbermint has violated the sacred relationship between you and Sprint?
 
2013-06-11 01:38:36 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 2. President sworn in to uphold law.


What?

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
 
2013-06-11 01:39:46 PM  

vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't


From 2008

Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Intercept operators allege the NSA is listening to citizens' phone calls. "These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.
 
2013-06-11 01:40:21 PM  

vernonFL: If you've ever thrown your telephone bill in the trash and put it out on the curb, it is perfectly legal for *anyone* to go through it and get the exact same information the NSA has a blanket warrant to collect.


I shred my utility bills along with other important documents. Does that mean the NSA can't spy on me?
 
2013-06-11 01:42:30 PM  
If my phone sex calls are ever leaked, I'll jump off a bridge
 
2013-06-11 01:43:05 PM  

karmaceutical: Are you worried that the big bag gubbermint has violated the sacred relationship between you and Sprint?


No.  The government violated the relationship between me and the government guaranteed by the 4th amendment.
 
2013-06-11 01:44:00 PM  

GanjSmokr: max_pooper: GanjSmokr: Someday, people will figure out that a candidate's words rarely match his actions once he is elected.

Until then, people will still be shocked when their candidate does essentially the opposite of what he campaigned on.


/meh

Someday, people will be shocked to learn that legally acquiring a warrant to gather telecom data is different from illegally recording a telephone call without a warrant.

So... politicians don't lie their asses off to get elected?  Thanks for the info!


No, but your example of Obama being a "politician lying their ass to get elected" in this instance does not appear to have been lying.
 
2013-06-11 01:45:15 PM  

Muta: No. The government violated the relationship between me and the government guaranteed by the 4th amendment.


Well the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the 4th, and they have since before most Farkers were born.
 
2013-06-11 01:47:17 PM  

Muta: karmaceutical: Are you worried that the big bag gubbermint has violated the sacred relationship between you and Sprint?

No.  The government violated the relationship between me and the government guaranteed by the 4th amendment.


You would be wrong.
 
2013-06-11 01:49:04 PM  

max_pooper: GanjSmokr: max_pooper: GanjSmokr: Someday, people will figure out that a candidate's words rarely match his actions once he is elected.

Until then, people will still be shocked when their candidate does essentially the opposite of what he campaigned on.


/meh

Someday, people will be shocked to learn that legally acquiring a warrant to gather telecom data is different from illegally recording a telephone call without a warrant.

So... politicians don't lie their asses off to get elected?  Thanks for the info!

No, but your example of Obama being a "politician lying their ass to get elected" in this instance does not appear to have been lying.


I have not specified that I was referring to a specific person or party.

They are all liars AFAIC.
 
2013-06-11 01:49:27 PM  
Doubleplusungood! Messiah Obama is always correct! Messiah Obama has never contradicted himself! Unthought! Unthought!
 
2013-06-11 01:52:14 PM  

Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?


The secrecy is to protect against the voters, not against the terrorists. *That* is what I have a problem with.
 
2013-06-11 01:52:22 PM  
I remember back when we invaded Iraq partly based on all of George W's lies there were a number of farkers always pointing out how he technically wasn't lying if you read the actual verbiage. Similar situation going on here.
 
2013-06-11 01:52:57 PM  
Not illegal.  Not right either.  Reminder: bush did same thing without warrants.  Doesn't make this ok.
 
2013-06-11 01:54:06 PM  

Muta: karmaceutical: Are you worried that the big bag gubbermint has violated the sacred relationship between you and Sprint?

No.  The government violated the relationship between me and the government guaranteed by the 4th amendment.


You mean the government violated the 4th amendment that requires a court issued warrant before conducting a search by acquiring a court issued warrant before conducting a search? I can totally see your outrage.
 
2013-06-11 01:55:08 PM  
Cenk is just trying to knock some sense into other liberals.

Obama sucks bad and not enough liberals seem to see it. At this point I don't see much difference between him and bush when it comes to policy.

I gave the guy a year and had to give up on him... what a total pussy.
 
2013-06-11 01:55:19 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.


Except the Republicans have sworn to NEVER EVER compromise with Obama, for any reason, or their derpmasters will not vote for them

Yes, the Republicans do have to count on lunatics for votes.
 
2013-06-11 01:56:57 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.


You forgot one:
4.5 President is blah.
 
2013-06-11 01:57:21 PM  

MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.


If he can close Gitmo, he can certainly kill the Patriot Act.
 
2013-06-11 01:57:25 PM  

Silly_Sot: Doubleplusungood! Messiah Obama is always correct! Messiah Obama has never contradicted himself! Unthought! Unthought!


Where the hell do you get that from?

/And yet, your choices, Romney/Ryan and McCain/Palin were objectively far worse candidates.
 
2013-06-11 01:57:28 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: The PRISM isn't illegal, and I'm not even sure it's "wiretapping", but otherwise that is a good point.

Probably better to nail him on the "national security letters... spying on Americans that aren't suspected of committing a crime" quote.
Though they're supposedly not "using" the data for citizens, they're collecting data on everyone, so I think there's an argument to be made there.


He'll say it's not spying, just collectin' some data. Which we may or may not use (and, hand to GOD, only with a court order), but hey, at least it'll be there just in case we need it. On that basis, the feds should be able to come into my house and photograph everything and copy all my papers, not because I've done something wrong, but "just in case".

//didn't listen to the screaming part of the video

There was no "screaming," just a moderate raising of the voice in emphasis. If you're trying to discredit somebody it helps to characterize them as screaming, since it makes them sound like they're irrational, which this guy was not.
 
2013-06-11 01:57:51 PM  

Headso: I remember back when we invaded Iraq partly based on all of George W's lies there were a number of farkers always pointing out how he technically wasn't lying if you read the actual verbiage. Similar situation going on here.


No this is very different. What the current administration is doing is legal*, what the Bush administration was doing was illegal. If you can not see the difference, you are just a partisan stool.

*You can argue that what the current administration is doing should not be legal, but your complaints need to be directed to Congress not the executive.
 
2013-06-11 01:59:06 PM  

max_pooper: No this is very different. What the current administration is doing is legal*, what the Bush administration was doing was illegal. If you can not see the difference, you are just a partisan stool.


Ask W if what he did was illegal, you'll get the same answer Obama will give you about this.
 
2013-06-11 01:59:18 PM  

ikanreed: Not illegal.  Not right either.  Reminder: bush did same thing without warrants.  Doesn't make this ok.


No, Bush conducted wiretaps without a warrant. That is not the same thing as collecting telecom records.
 
2013-06-11 01:59:36 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.


This is completely correct.
Strangely enough, someone later in the thread thought that you were being partisan.
I am not sure if they were talking about you, or about congress preventing a change.

In the end, it is the party in control of congress which decides which bills get passed or not.
Clearly, this is all the GOP's fault.

Yes, President Obama could have gone public and denounced these horrible laws and refused to do anything until the laws were repealed.

It would be interesting to know if there were secret attempts to change the laws which were blocked.
 
2013-06-11 01:59:57 PM  
Reagan couldn't remember, too busy destroying SAG as the FBI's confidential informant T-10.

redalertpolitics.com
 
2013-06-11 02:01:16 PM  

InfrasonicTom: Huh, a politician saying things which appeal to the masses in order to get elected, but having no actual desire to follow through.

why I never...


THIS..and funnier when the sheep try and act like it's nothing, "yawn", B-B-Bush is worse or the farker fav .... "Well jsut imagine how bad it would have been if (insert Rep) had been in charge.
 
2013-06-11 02:03:07 PM  

Headso: max_pooper: No this is very different. What the current administration is doing is legal*, what the Bush administration was doing was illegal. If you can not see the difference, you are just a partisan stool.

Ask W if what he did was illegal, you'll get the same answer Obama will give you about this.


Except W's opinion was based upon the Nixon standard of "if the president does it it's not illegal". The opinion that the current administration is not in violation of the law is based on the actual law.

Like I said before, you can argue that mass collection of telecom records after getting a court issued warrant should be illegal but you should be complaining about Congress not the Executive.
 
2013-06-11 02:05:47 PM  
he made himself Supreme Commander,  Why come won't 0bama just change the laws back to how Bush made it? we were all so safer than and the Constitushion was more than toilet paper.

all of our Liberty is belong to him! Impeach now so Congoress can do they're job led by Jesus's hand! Wolferinces!
 
hej
2013-06-11 02:08:01 PM  
I thought PRISM was for digging through phone records, but all I see are people talking about wiretapping. As if the two things are the same.
 
2013-06-11 02:08:43 PM  

max_pooper: what the Bush administration was doing was illegal.


Mind sourcing this please?
 
2013-06-11 02:09:41 PM  

namatad: This is completely correct.


Except for being wrong, sure.
 
2013-06-11 02:09:57 PM  
What people think is going on:


readjack.files.wordpress.com

Reality:

davewagner.com
 
2013-06-11 02:13:25 PM  

max_pooper: Headso: max_pooper: No this is very different. What the current administration is doing is legal*, what the Bush administration was doing was illegal. If you can not see the difference, you are just a partisan stool.

Ask W if what he did was illegal, you'll get the same answer Obama will give you about this.

Except W's opinion was based upon the Nixon standard of "if the president does it it's not illegal". The opinion that the current administration is not in violation of the law is based on the actual law.

Like I said before, you can argue that mass collection of telecom records after getting a court issued warrant should be illegal but you should be complaining about Congress not the Executive.


I'm sure W's legal team had deeper reasoning than the obviously partisan way you are framing it. I'm sure the true believers in W would react the same way you are doing here about the legality of it all and would also pass the buck as you are doing. Maybe you do have a leg to stand on and it is all just dejavu-ish coincidentally.
 
2013-06-11 02:16:11 PM  

vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't


It is if they are capturing actual email conversations.  Or stored voicemails.
 
2013-06-11 02:16:11 PM  

devilEther: If my phone sex calls are ever leaked, I'll jump off a bridge


What will you be wearing?
 
2013-06-11 02:17:05 PM  
So is this program useless because it didnt prevent the premeditated Boston marathon bombing or are they just not being intrusive enough and should step it up?
 
2013-06-11 02:19:45 PM  
I still don't understand why people think they ever had a 4th amendment right to exert over someone else's property.

This is Verizon's, AT&T's, Google's, etc.'s data. It's their business records - just because you do business with them doesn't give you any right to or over their records.

You have a right to privacy over the content of your calls and emails - but the company you use to make those contacts has the right to keep records about how their system was used. Content free.

I mean, that's the lifeblood of Google, Target, and any other retailer that uses analytics to target products at customers.

Why on earth did you not ASSUME and EXPECT the government to do the same thing in counter-espionage and counter-terrorism?

Hell I might criticize the government for being out of step with the times if I found out they DIDN'T have any kind of program to try and use anlytics to figure out who is not just viewing bomb-making YouTube videos, but also making contacts with suspected terrorists abroad, and talking on Facebook with dangerous radicals. That doesn't even broach content, and is no different than what google tries to do in targeting ads.
 
2013-06-11 02:19:55 PM  

almandot: So is this program useless because it didnt prevent the premeditated Boston marathon bombing or are they just not being intrusive enough and should step it up?


no, no it stopped some plots you don't know about, they go to a different school...uh in canada
 
2013-06-11 02:22:56 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: With a few more Alitos on the bench, we could gut the Constitution in its entirety.


A Few More Alitos would be a great name for a band though.
 
2013-06-11 02:23:12 PM  
Nothing to see here....move along. Its all good in the 'hood.
 
2013-06-11 02:24:02 PM  

namatad: In the end, it is the party in control of congress which decides which bills get passed or not.


Not quite.  A sizable minority can completely block things, preventing most things from coming to a vote, if they act in unison.
 
2013-06-11 02:24:48 PM  
Funny how these blustering holier than thou CONservatives apprently have never heard of the Patriot Act signed by their butt boy george Jr. and the source of all these lax rules that the government is taking advantage of.

wierd how that works. now, its the Black Guy who is wiretapping, spying, etc.

when ole' white as the driven snow george implemented things 10 years ago, no one knows a damn thing about it until Blackey show up.
 
2013-06-11 02:27:18 PM  

bongmiester: Marcus Aurelius: MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act.

Why has Faux News forsaken their beloved Patriot Act?  It's like they never supported it.



they were fine with it until the Black Guy showed up.   now with all these lax rules that the Patriot Act gave the government, the CONservatives are crying and running to mama Limbaugh complaining and sniveling about that Black Guy who is trying to ruin America.

wow, CONservatives/Republicans have stooped to a new Low.
 
2013-06-11 02:29:34 PM  

Linux_Yes: Funny how these blustering holier than thou CONservatives apprently have never heard of the Patriot Act signed by their butt boy george Jr. and the source of all these lax rules that the government is taking advantage of.

wierd how that works. now, its the Black Guy who is wiretapping, spying, etc.

when ole' white as the driven snow george implemented things 10 years ago, no one knows a damn thing about it until Blackey show up.


Funny how these blustering holier than thou DemocRATS apparently dont realize that the focus of the attack is coming from Liberals themselves. Sure, there are Conservative partisan assholes that have a loud voice, but this has been also a very important thing for many on the left.
 
2013-06-11 02:31:44 PM  

Linux_Yes: stooped to a new Low.


Never challenge a Conservative to a Limbo dance-off.
 
2013-06-11 02:32:51 PM  
Obligatory, might as well get this out of the way, etc.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-11 02:34:13 PM  

MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.


If something violates the constitution, it is by definition illegal.  The courts could say that a law requiring you to pray to x god is legal, that doesn't make it so.  The constitution trumps all.
 
2013-06-11 02:35:36 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 1. Law Patriot Act is passed [by uncle george jr and his republican buddies as well as some dems.]
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Repukelican Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody CONservatives/Repukelicans angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.



Repaired.
 
2013-06-11 02:35:51 PM  

MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.


Hmmm....I wonder what kind of reaction Obama would have gotten from congress for wanting to repeal the Patriot Act.

If only their repeated actions could foretell what they might have said to him.
 
2013-06-11 02:37:24 PM  

Shryke: max_pooper: what the Bush administration was doing was illegal.

Mind sourcing this please?


No problem...

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Judge-Bush-overstepped-wiretapp in g-authority-3268539.php
 
2013-06-11 02:40:36 PM  

cman: Linux_Yes: Funny how these blustering holier than thou CONservatives apprently have never heard of the Patriot Act signed by their butt boy george Jr. and the source of all these lax rules that the government is taking advantage of.

wierd how that works. now, its the Black Guy who is wiretapping, spying, etc.

when ole' white as the driven snow george implemented things 10 years ago, no one knows a damn thing about it until Blackey show up.

Funny how these blustering holier than thou DemocRATS apparently dont realize that the focus of the attack is coming from Liberals themselves. Sure, there are Conservative partisan assholes that have a loud voice, but this has been also a very important thing for many on the left.



i hear a whole lotta' whining from the CONservatives/Republicans.  Liberals?  yea, some are whining but the voices are louder on the Right. they use it to make Obama less popular and less help to the Dems in 2016.  the Reich Wing wants back in the White House so bad they can taste it.
 
2013-06-11 02:42:57 PM  
How farking stupid are you sheeple?! How farking long is it going to take you to learn that no politician will ever live up to their promises? If you are stupid enough to believe their bullshiat, I have no sympathy for you.

/I shouldn't call you sheeple, it's an insult to sheep.
//Brain damaged cockroaches?
 
2013-06-11 02:43:10 PM  

max_pooper: Shryke: max_pooper: what the Bush administration was doing was illegal.

Mind sourcing this please?

No problem...

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Judge-Bush-overstepped-wiretapp in g-authority-3268539.php



 how could you!   uncle george jr could do no wrong.  he was protecting Freedom.  only the Black Guy is ruining Freedom.
 
2013-06-11 02:43:14 PM  

Alphakronik: Hmmm....I wonder what kind of reaction Obama would have gotten from congress for wanting to repeal the Patriot Act.

If only their repeated actions could foretell what they might have said to him.


UnAmerican, Terrorist sympathizer who wants nothing more than real Americans to be killed.

The Terrorists have  won!!
 
2013-06-11 02:43:30 PM  

Linux_Yes: wow, CONservatives/Republicans have stooped to a new Low.


Yes, keep telling yourself that it's all conservatives. Certainly not the ACLU or Glenn Greenwald or Hrper's or The New Yorker or The Atlantic or any number of liberal sources that very much had a problem with Bush, as well.

/and me
 
2013-06-11 02:43:38 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.

If something violates the constitution, it is by definition illegal.  The courts could say that a law requiring you to pray to x god is legal, that doesn't make it so.  The constitution trumps all.


Actually it does, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter what is constitutional. If 5 justices rule in a case that a law is constitutional, it is.
 
2013-06-11 02:46:57 PM  

max_pooper: Shryke: max_pooper: what the Bush administration was doing was illegal.

Mind sourcing this please?

No problem...

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Judge-Bush-overstepped-wiretapp in g-authority-3268539.php


It appears the case (which included the current administration) was dismissed.
 
2013-06-11 02:51:32 PM  
HURR we the people need to IMPEACH him...
 
2013-06-11 02:56:41 PM  

max_pooper: BraveNewCheneyWorld: MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.

If something violates the constitution, it is by definition illegal.  The courts could say that a law requiring you to pray to x god is legal, that doesn't make it so.  The constitution trumps all.

Actually it does, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter what is constitutional. If 5 justices rule in a case that a law is constitutional, it is.


No, no it doesn't.  Not here in reality.  Something is either constitutional, or it is not.  The very fact that supreme court decisions get overturned by future justices is direct proof that you are wrong.  If the constitution has not changed, and opinions based on it do, then opinions can not be a valid metric.
 
2013-06-11 03:00:32 PM  

max_pooper: GanjSmokr: Someday, people will figure out that a candidate's words rarely match his actions once he is elected.

Until then, people will still be shocked when their candidate does essentially the opposite of what he campaigned on.


/meh

Someday, people will be shocked to learn that legally acquiring a warrant to gather telecom data is different from illegally recording a telephone call without a warrant.


Someday, people will be shocked when they realise how easily manipulated they were by their own government.
 
2013-06-11 03:02:28 PM  
fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-06-11 03:09:33 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, no it doesn't. Not here in reality.


Of course it does.

"The very fact that supreme court decisions get overturned by future justices is direct proof that you are wrong."

Nonsense.  Arbiters can indeed revisit their decisions. They remain the arbiters regardless.
 
2013-06-11 03:09:40 PM  

Headso: almandot: So is this program useless because it didnt prevent the premeditated Boston marathon bombing or are they just not being intrusive enough and should step it up?

no, no it stopped some plots you don't know about, they go to a different school...uh in canada


You know, we JUST heard about a foiled bomb plot that was supposed to remain secret, that was the whole impetus behind looking into the AP's phone records. So if the government says there are plots we foiled that they're not talking about, since we actually know of at least one where this was truly the case, I'm inclined to believe them on that one.

/sorry for jumping on you if you just wanted to make a Canadian girlfriend joke.
 
2013-06-11 03:10:14 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Something is either constitutional, or it is not.


sure.  So let's look at the constitution.  Is your "person, papers, or effects" inclusive of things you willfully share to third parties like Verizon, Google, or Facebook?  No, and prior to FISA, the government would go digging though that stuff without oversight. After FISA they have to get secret warrants.  Eitherway, the constution, a document written over 200 years ago, doesn't have anything to say about it -- I'd recommend we change that, but you know how people get all pissy if you suggest it's anything but the most perfect thing ever written.
 
2013-06-11 03:10:57 PM  
You see, under Bush, these things were happening but Bush only targeted terrorists. Now the nig, err Obama, is using it to target me with audits from the IRS and is trying to steal my guns through my cell phone.
 
2013-06-11 03:11:08 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: max_pooper: BraveNewCheneyWorld: MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.

If something violates the constitution, it is by definition illegal.  The courts could say that a law requiring you to pray to x god is legal, that doesn't make it so.  The constitution trumps all.

Actually it does, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter what is constitutional. If 5 justices rule in a case that a law is constitutional, it is.

No, no it doesn't.  Not here in reality.  Something is either constitutional, or it is not.  The very fact that supreme court decisions get overturned by future justices is direct proof that you are wrong.  If the constitution has not changed, and opinions based on it do, then opinions can not be a valid metric.


Reality? You are claiming that the Supreme Court's opinion does not determine constitutionality of a law?

In actual reality, here in the United States of America, the Supreme Court's opinion is the only determining factor of the constitutionality of laws. Legislators' opinions, the President's opinion, political pundit's opinions and opinions of past Supreme Court justices don't matter. A simple majority of the 9 current justices determines constitutionality.
 
2013-06-11 03:12:47 PM  
This is unpossible. I've been told in no uncertain terms that liberals and the liberal media are entirely in the tank for obama and do nothing but carry his water and furthermore comma
 
2013-06-11 03:15:33 PM  

max_pooper: BraveNewCheneyWorld: max_pooper: BraveNewCheneyWorld: MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.

If something violates the constitution, it is by definition illegal.  The courts could say that a law requiring you to pray to x god is legal, that doesn't make it so.  The constitution trumps all.

Actually it does, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter what is constitutional. If 5 justices rule in a case that a law is constitutional, it is.

No, no it doesn't.  Not here in reality.  Something is either constitutional, or it is not.  The very fact that supreme court decisions get overturned by future justices is direct proof that you are wrong.  If the constitution has not changed, and opinions based on it do, then opinions can not be a valid metric.

Reality? You are claiming that the Supreme Court's opinion does not determine constitutionality of a law?

In actual reality, here in the United States of America, the Supreme Court's opinion is the only determining factor of the constitutionality of laws. Legislators' opinions, the President's opinion, political pundit's opinions and opinions of past Supreme Court justices don't matter. A simple majority of the 9 current justices determines constitutionality.


Probably easier just to post the tried and true Area Man link.
 
2013-06-11 03:17:15 PM  

I_C_Weener: vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't

Well of course they aren't.  They have computers doing that and breaking down conversations to look for key words.  Then when they find them, they listen to the conversation.


This needs to be pointed out more often.
Its a lawyerly response to say the government isn't listening to calls or reading emails.

It would be a huge waste of time to have people listen in on phone calls.
You'd use voice recognition to transcribe the call, and then do a key word search.
 
2013-06-11 03:17:55 PM  
MY GOD WE MUST STOP HIM
 
2013-06-11 03:28:27 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: You see, under Bush, these things were happening but Bush only targeted terrorists. Now the nig, err Obama, is using it to target me with audits from the IRS and is trying to steal my guns through my cell phone.


uhh
 
2013-06-11 03:30:11 PM  

Shryke: BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, no it doesn't. Not here in reality.

Of course it does.

"The very fact that supreme court decisions get overturned by future justices is direct proof that you are wrong."

Nonsense.  Arbiters can indeed revisit their decisions. They remain the arbiters regardless.


There's a difference between "ruling" something as being constitutional, and something actually being constitutional.  If the court rules that 2+2=5, the government will act in accordance with the new understanding, however this doesn't change reality.  They routinely slant reality in similar ways which a reading of the bill of rights with a companion dictionary from the era of its writing will similarly disprove.  I'm not arguing that court decisions establish the government's official views, I'm saying that those official views are not necessarily in accordance with reality.

DarnoKonrad: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Something is either constitutional, or it is not.

sure.  So let's look at the constitution.  Is your "person, papers, or effects" inclusive of things you willfully share to third parties like Verizon, Google, or Facebook?  No, and prior to FISA, the government would go digging though that stuff without oversight. After FISA they have to get secret warrants.  Eitherway, the constution, a document written over 200 years ago, doesn't have anything to say about it -- I'd recommend we change that, but you know how people get all pissy if you suggest it's anything but the most perfect thing ever written.


Derp, so if you wrote something on leather skins, it wouldn't be covered under "papers"?  That's ludicrous.
 
2013-06-11 03:30:12 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: You see, under Bush, these things were happening but Bush only targeted terrorists. Now the nig, err Obama, is using it to target me with audits from the IRS and is trying to steal my guns through my cell phone.


Classic stuff. In much the same way that Bush critics were branded as unpatriotic to undermine them, Obama critics are branded as racist.
 
2013-06-11 03:36:16 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Shryke: BraveNewCheneyWorld: No, no it doesn't. Not here in reality.

Of course it does.

"The very fact that supreme court decisions get overturned by future justices is direct proof that you are wrong."

Nonsense.  Arbiters can indeed revisit their decisions. They remain the arbiters regardless.

There's a difference between "ruling" something as being constitutional, and something actually being constitutional.  If the court rules that 2+2=5, the government will act in accordance with the new understanding, however this doesn't change reality.  They routinely slant reality in similar ways which a reading of the bill of rights with a companion dictionary from the era of its writing will similarly disprove.  I'm not arguing that court decisions establish the government's official views, I'm saying that those official views are not necessarily in accordance with reality.

DarnoKonrad: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Something is either constitutional, or it is not.

sure.  So let's look at the constitution.  Is your "person, papers, or effects" inclusive of things you willfully share to third parties like Verizon, Google, or Facebook?  No, and prior to FISA, the government would go digging though that stuff without oversight. After FISA they have to get secret warrants.  Eitherway, the constution, a document written over 200 years ago, doesn't have anything to say about it -- I'd recommend we change that, but you know how people get all pissy if you suggest it's anything but the most perfect thing ever written.

Derp, so if you wrote something on leather skins, it wouldn't be covered under "papers"?  That's ludicrous.


The "reality" is that if the Supreme Court says something is constitutional it is. Your opinion of what "reality" is has no bearing. The Supreme Court's opinion is all that matters. Like I said earlier, go ask a "sovereign citizen" sitting in jail for not paying taxes if his opinion on the constitutionality of federal income tax laws matter. They do not.

I think you actually know this simple concept but are just acting like a retard because you don't want to admit you were wrong.
 
2013-06-11 03:39:35 PM  
The constitution is the 4th branch of government? Fascinating.
 
2013-06-11 03:40:15 PM  

MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.


"Nothing"? Why the quotes?  Its it not actually nothing?
 
2013-06-11 03:42:58 PM  
Haha listen to the little brownshirts making excuses for the liar in chief.
 
2013-06-11 03:43:10 PM  

max_pooper: The "reality" is that if the Supreme Court says something is constitutional it is.


If the constitution does not change,  and the court's ruling on it does, that means that a ruling is not a real standard.  I'm sorry this is too difficult for you (and others here) to understand.  No matter what you say, there is no argument that based on our current constitution, that executing you in the street without trial is constitutional just because a hypothetical court might say it is so.  The words of  the constitution are not magical ineffable things, they have a real meaning that is not changed based on lies told by 9 appointed people.
 
2013-06-11 03:48:23 PM  

Agneska: Haha listen to the little brownshirts making excuses for the liar in chief.


Haha look at the moron who's trying to deflect the fact that Bush let the genie out of the bottle in the first place.
 
2013-06-11 03:51:00 PM  

THX 1138: Agneska: Haha listen to the little brownshirts making excuses for the liar in chief.

Haha look at the moron who's trying to deflect the fact that Bush let the genie out of the bottle in the first place.


But but but but bush...my name is THX and I approve this retardedness.
 
2013-06-11 03:51:48 PM  

THX 1138: Agneska: Haha listen to the little brownshirts making excuses for the liar in chief.

Haha look at the moron who's trying to deflect the fact that Bush let the genie out of the bottle in the first place.


Bush was wrong.  I certainly spoke out against him when he did it, but he's not in office doing it right now, Obama is.  Can't we agree that they both belong in jail?
 
2013-06-11 03:55:50 PM  

skullkrusher: YoungSwedishBlonde: You see, under Bush, these things were happening but Bush only targeted terrorists. Now the nig, err Obama, is using it to target me with audits from the IRS and is trying to steal my guns through my cell phone.

uhh


edgy
 
2013-06-11 03:56:15 PM  

Agneska: But but but but bush...


Are you saying that if Bush hadn't expanded surveillance powers to the extent that he did, you believe that the current situation would still be exactly the same?
 
2013-06-11 03:57:16 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: You see, under Bush, these things were happening but Bush only targeted terrorists. Now the nig, err Obama, is using it to target me with audits from the IRS and is trying to steal my guns through my cell phone.


I know you think you're making a brilliant point and all, but some of the most racist things I've heard and seen on FARK come from those trying to make a point about how racist the other side is.

/you're not helping.
 
2013-06-11 03:57:24 PM  
You bootlickers are disgusting. Before WW2 the Germans had a nice program that went and gathered what religion everyone was. No big deal right? Why would I care if the government knew I was a Jew? These powers need to be revoked as whomever in power cannot be trusted to use these powers responsibly. That of course won't happen but it would be nice. It would also be nice if the whomever the president was would just order his underlings to STOP using them. But Obama won't because he's just as bad as Bush with this shiat. Just because someone gives you the keys to the bank doesn't mean you should walk in and take all the money outta the vault.
 
2013-06-11 03:58:27 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Derp, so if you wrote something on leather skins, it wouldn't be covered under "papers"? That's ludicrous.


Derp indeed, as  it doesn't matter what it's written on or if it's just a string of bits.  What matters is handing it over to a third party out of your control.  The 4th Amendment doesn't cover this, and it never did.
 
2013-06-11 03:59:32 PM  

THX 1138: Agneska: But but but but bush...

Are you saying that if Bush hadn't expanded surveillance powers to the extent that he did, you believe that the current situation would still be exactly the same?


No, I'm saying...But but but but bush...
 
2013-06-11 04:00:55 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: You bootlickers are disgusting. Before WW2 the Germans had a nice program that went and gathered what religion everyone was. No big deal right? Why would I care if the government knew I was a Jew?


This guy TRIED to warn us!
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

But we wouldn't listen!
 
2013-06-11 04:03:59 PM  

DarnoKonrad: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Derp, so if you wrote something on leather skins, it wouldn't be covered under "papers"? That's ludicrous.

Derp indeed, as  it doesn't matter what it's written on or if it's just a string of bits.  What matters is handing it over to a third party out of your control.  The 4th Amendment doesn't cover this, and it never did.


In general, those things are covered by a contract which states that the company will not hand it over unless a warrant is issued, meeting the same level of criteria as personal papers.  The government now essentially copies everyone's papers then presumably awaits court orders before reading them.  So yeah, you're still derpy.
 
2013-06-11 04:06:01 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: max_pooper: The "reality" is that if the Supreme Court says something is constitutional it is.

If the constitution does not change,  and the court's ruling on it does, that means that a ruling is not a real standard.  I'm sorry this is too difficult for you (and others here) to understand.  No matter what you say, there is no argument that based on our current constitution, that executing you in the street without trial is constitutional just because a hypothetical court might say it is so.  The words of  the constitution are not magical ineffable things, they have a real meaning that is not changed based on lies told by 9 appointed people.


The meaning of the words in the constitution are determined only by the Supreme Court. They are the only one's whose opinion matters. Your opinion certainly does not matter, which we are all glad to hear since you lack very basic understanding of the legal system in this country.
 
2013-06-11 04:10:26 PM  

DarnoKonrad: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Derp, so if you wrote something on leather skins, it wouldn't be covered under "papers"? That's ludicrous.

Derp indeed, as  it doesn't matter what it's written on or if it's just a string of bits.  What matters is handing it over to a third party out of your control.  The 4th Amendment doesn't cover this, and it never did.


True the 4th amendment doesn't cover it, but there are some exceptions (that are set by legal precedent such as attorney / client privilege and doctor / patient privilege) that seems to implant into the simple brains of common folk the unfounded idea that privacy extends to any 3rd party regardless of the fine print on the contract (if any).  The right to privacy and individual security as defined in the amendments applies only to the government, something I wish was first and foremost taught in civics for secondary schooling.
 
2013-06-11 04:10:33 PM  
I can't believe the amount of twisting and writhing going on to justify Obama's use of these shiat programs.  They were disgusting when Bush was doing it and they are disgusting to this very day.
 
2013-06-11 04:12:33 PM  

FarkedOver: I can't believe the amount of twisting and writhing going on to justify Obama's use of these shiat programs.  They were disgusting when Bush was doing it and they are disgusting to this very day.


I, for one, am looking forward to seeing you called a Bush voting Rethuglican.
 
2013-06-11 04:14:50 PM  

BKITU: max_pooper: BraveNewCheneyWorld: max_pooper: BraveNewCheneyWorld: MmmmBacon: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

"Nothing", thanks to the Patriot Act. But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.

If something violates the constitution, it is by definition illegal.  The courts could say that a law requiring you to pray to x god is legal, that doesn't make it so.  The constitution trumps all.

Actually it does, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter what is constitutional. If 5 justices rule in a case that a law is constitutional, it is.

No, no it doesn't.  Not here in reality.  Something is either constitutional, or it is not.  The very fact that supreme court decisions get overturned by future justices is direct proof that you are wrong.  If the constitution has not changed, and opinions based on it do, then opinions can not be a valid metric.

Reality? You are claiming that the Supreme Court's opinion does not determine constitutionality of a law?

In actual reality, here in the United States of America, the Supreme Court's opinion is the only determining factor of the constitutionality of laws. Legislators' opinions, the President's opinion, political pundit's opinions and opinions of past Supreme Court justices don't matter. A simple majority of the 9 current justices determines constitutionality.

Probably easier just to post the tried and true Area Man link.


Or even Marbury v Madison

/not saying i agree with marbury decision - pretty silly for a branch to decide the limits of its own decisionmaking capability
//some group *does* have to be the final arbiter, though
///... i'd say 'ok, that task should be limited to the legislative branch, since it's most connected to the people' if this nation weren't filled with ignorant voters
//but allowing a mere 5 people to fundamentally change the constitution is creepy, too
/*food for thought*
 
2013-06-11 04:15:32 PM  

max_pooper: The meaning of the words in the constitution are determined only by the Supreme Court.


[This is what some people actually believe.jpg]
 
2013-06-11 04:15:44 PM  

FarkedOver: I can't believe the amount of twisting and writhing going on to justify Obama's use of these shiat programs.  They were disgusting when Bush was doing it and they are disgusting to this very day.


There are major differences between the Obama administration getting warrants to collect telecom records and the Bush administration directly recording telephone calls without a warrant.

If you can't see the difference between these two activities you are a partisan stooge.
 
2013-06-11 04:16:23 PM  

skullkrusher: FarkedOver: I can't believe the amount of twisting and writhing going on to justify Obama's use of these shiat programs.  They were disgusting when Bush was doing it and they are disgusting to this very day.

I, for one, am looking forward to seeing you called a Bush voting Rethuglican.


You know it will happen.  It just makes me laugh because the democratic voters are just as bad as the republican voters when it comes to projection.  It's not until you remove yourself from the two parties that you actually see the glaring bullshiat they both spew.
 
2013-06-11 04:18:05 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: max_pooper: The meaning of the words in the constitution are determined only by the Supreme Court.

[This is what some people actually believe.jpg]


And they would be right.

The previously mentioned Onion article is appropriate for your understanding of the US Constitution.
 
2013-06-11 04:18:30 PM  

max_pooper: There are major differences between the Obama administration getting warrants to collect telecom records and the Bush administration directly recording telephone calls without a warrant.

If you can't see the difference between these two activities you are a partisan stooge.


The fact that he is using bullshiat laws to justify these bullshiat wiretaps is stupid.  You're a partisan stooge for sticking up for it just because Obama is doing it.

In short:

t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-11 04:18:58 PM  
this isn't even newsworthy. who didn't think they had this capability? Hell I want them to have this capability. I need them on that wall.

www.hvorfor-cbs.dk

Congress is okay with it. (except a few scoring political points)
SCOTUS is okay with it
The FISA judges are okay with it
It's saved lives.

The only people who seem to be pushing this is the media and only because it was used on them to track down a mole.
 
2013-06-11 04:20:06 PM  

FarkedOver: max_pooper: There are major differences between the Obama administration getting warrants to collect telecom records and the Bush administration directly recording telephone calls without a warrant.

If you can't see the difference between these two activities you are a partisan stooge.

The fact that he is using bullshiat laws to justify these bullshiat wiretaps is stupid.  You're a partisan stooge for sticking up for it just because Obama is doing it.

In short:

[t3.gstatic.com image 249x202]


You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not know what a wiretap is.
 
2013-06-11 04:20:23 PM  

FarkedOver: these bullshiat wiretaps


They aren't wiretaps.
 
2013-06-11 04:21:04 PM  

max_pooper: FarkedOver: I can't believe the amount of twisting and writhing going on to justify Obama's use of these shiat programs.  They were disgusting when Bush was doing it and they are disgusting to this very day.

There are major differences between the Obama administration getting warrants to collect telecom records and the Bush administration directly recording telephone calls without a warrant.

If you can't see the difference between these two activities you are a partisan stooge.


If you think that Bush's surveillance programs being worse than Obama's somehow excuses Obama you too are a partisan stooge.
 
2013-06-11 04:21:29 PM  

max_pooper: You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not know what a wiretap is.


I'm sorry "data mining".  There, that makes everything better now.  How could I have been so shortsighted as to disagree with the government collecting data on citizens.
 
2013-06-11 04:22:16 PM  

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: FarkedOver: I can't believe the amount of twisting and writhing going on to justify Obama's use of these shiat programs.  They were disgusting when Bush was doing it and they are disgusting to this very day.

I, for one, am looking forward to seeing you called a Bush voting Rethuglican.

You know it will happen.  It just makes me laugh because the democratic voters are just as bad as the republican voters when it comes to projection.  It's not until you remove yourself from the two parties that you actually see the glaring bullshiat they both spew.


and now you've done a both sides are bad!

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-11 04:23:32 PM  

skullkrusher: FarkedOver: skullkrusher: FarkedOver: I can't believe the amount of twisting and writhing going on to justify Obama's use of these shiat programs.  They were disgusting when Bush was doing it and they are disgusting to this very day.

I, for one, am looking forward to seeing you called a Bush voting Rethuglican.

You know it will happen.  It just makes me laugh because the democratic voters are just as bad as the republican voters when it comes to projection.  It's not until you remove yourself from the two parties that you actually see the glaring bullshiat they both spew.

and now you've done a both sides are bad!

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 205x246]


Well when both major political parties are capitalist..... as an anti-capitalist, I tend to call both sides shiat....
 
2013-06-11 04:24:12 PM  

max_pooper: FarkedOver: I can't believe the amount of twisting and writhing going on to justify Obama's use of these shiat programs.  They were disgusting when Bush was doing it and they are disgusting to this very day.

There are major differences between the Obama administration getting warrants to collect telecom records and the Bush administration directly recording telephone calls without a warrant.

If you can't see the difference between these two activities you are a partisan stooge.


Let's take Bush out of the equation....

How do you personally feel about what is being done (legally) under Obama's administration?  Do you think it is good or bad?

Again, please leave any previous administrations' actions out of your answer to this very specific question.
 
2013-06-11 04:25:10 PM  

GanjSmokr: How do you personally feel about what is being done (legally) under Obama's administration? Do you think it is good or bad?

Again, please leave any previous administrations' actions out of your answer to this very specific question.


It's getting to the point where it's almost as bad as the Bush supporters who were trotting out the old "Well if you've got nothing to hide..." line.
 
2013-06-11 04:26:17 PM  

The Numbers: max_pooper: FarkedOver: I can't believe the amount of twisting and writhing going on to justify Obama's use of these shiat programs.  They were disgusting when Bush was doing it and they are disgusting to this very day.

There are major differences between the Obama administration getting warrants to collect telecom records and the Bush administration directly recording telephone calls without a warrant.

If you can't see the difference between these two activities you are a partisan stooge.

If you think that Bush's surveillance programs being worse than Obama's somehow excuses Obama you too are a partisan stooge.


No, Bush was recording phone calls without a warrant. The Obama administration is getting warrants from a court of law to collect telecom records, which is apparently perfectly legal.

That's not excusing Obama for doing something that is perfectly legal that I don't agree with. It's pointing out that people that are saying Obama is just as bad as Bush are being partisan stooges or simply do not understand the difference in their actions.
 
2013-06-11 04:27:11 PM  

The Numbers: YoungSwedishBlonde: You see, under Bush, these things were happening but Bush only targeted terrorists. Now the nig, err Obama, is using it to target me with audits from the IRS and is trying to steal my guns through my cell phone.

Classic stuff. In much the same way that Bush critics were branded as unpatriotic to undermine them, Obama critics are branded as racist.


You're right. I forgot the other possibility for the complete lack of introspection on behalf of the conservatives blaming Obama for shiat that they passed into law and championed mere years ago. They could be toddlers. Sorry for assuming that toddlers wouldn't be able to post absolutely pants-on-head retarded crap on Fark.
 
2013-06-11 04:27:13 PM  

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: FarkedOver: skullkrusher: FarkedOver: I can't believe the amount of twisting and writhing going on to justify Obama's use of these shiat programs.  They were disgusting when Bush was doing it and they are disgusting to this very day.

I, for one, am looking forward to seeing you called a Bush voting Rethuglican.

You know it will happen.  It just makes me laugh because the democratic voters are just as bad as the republican voters when it comes to projection.  It's not until you remove yourself from the two parties that you actually see the glaring bullshiat they both spew.

and now you've done a both sides are bad!

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 205x246]

Well when both major political parties are capitalist..... as an anti-capitalist, I tend to call both sides shiat....


ok, let's just focus on the parts where you weren't being dumb, ok brah? ;)
 
2013-06-11 04:27:22 PM  
Well sure back when Bush was doing it I was 100% opposed to these practices. Now under obamas guidance Im 100% OK with these practices.

GOBAMA
 
2013-06-11 04:27:22 PM  

vernonFL: FarkedOver: these bullshiat wiretaps

They aren't wiretaps.


douglaslain.net
 
2013-06-11 04:28:35 PM  
max_pooper: No, Bush was recording phone calls without a warrant. The Obama administration is getting warrants from a court of law FISA Secret Courts, who by the way, rarely if ever turn down the government's request for a warrant, to collect telecom records, which is apparently perfectly (wouldn't call it perfect) legal.

That's not excusing Obama for doing something that is perfectly legal that I don't agree with. It's pointing out that people that are saying Obama is just as bad as Bush are being partisan stooges or simply do not understand the difference in their actions.

/There, edited for accuracy.
 
2013-06-11 04:29:02 PM  
How do FARK moderates feel about this?
 
2013-06-11 04:29:30 PM  

FarkedOver: max_pooper: You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not know what a wiretap is.

I'm sorry "data mining".  There, that makes everything better now.  How could I have been so shortsighted as to disagree with the government collecting data on citizens.


Oh my god, the goverment has records of every single citizen and resident's payroll information too. We must stop this intrusive government from collecting data on citizens!!!!

Don't even get me started with the government keeping records of the property citizens own and the birth records all children born.


\Yeah, you sound almost that stupid.
 
2013-06-11 04:30:21 PM  

FarkedOver: max_pooper: There are major differences between the Obama administration getting warrants to collect telecom records and the Bush administration directly recording telephone calls without a warrant.

If you can't see the difference between these two activities you are a partisan stooge.

The fact that he is using bullshiat laws to justify these bullshiat wiretaps is stupid.  You're a partisan stooge for sticking up for it just because Obama is doing it.

In short:

[t3.gstatic.com image 249x202]


I am against this gathering of information. I think Obama and his administration should not do it.  I think it should be illegal to do without a warrant. Unless the administration gives us many, many specific circumstances in which these records were used to thwart many, massive terror attacks, I want the administration to stop doing it immediately.

Nonetheless, what was done was not illegal, has not been found to be unconstitutional, and is most likely, under current jurisprudence, not going to be found unconstitutional if challenged.  If this is a problem, then contact your legislators and tell them to change the laws.  And contact the White House, if you want, and tell them to support a change in the laws.  But saying Obama should be in jail or impeached for taking actions that are perfectly legal is not going to help the debate over these practices, it will just make it more likely that the practices will be allowed to continue.
 
2013-06-11 04:31:40 PM  

max_pooper: Oh my god, the goverment has records of every single citizen and resident's payroll information too. We must stop this intrusive government from collecting data on citizens!!!!

Don't even get me started with the government keeping records of the property citizens own and the birth records all children born.


\Yeah, you sound almost that stupid.


I think there is a slight difference between the census, birth records and the like, compared to a dragnet that has the sole purpose of prosecuting people.
 
2013-06-11 04:35:51 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.


Can you send this memo to Barry about Immigration laws? Since you know his job, as you stated, is to uphold the law. Thanks.
 
2013-06-11 04:36:29 PM  

RyogaM: Nonetheless, what was done was not illegal, has not been found to be unconstitutional, and is most likely, under current jurisprudence, not going to be found unconstitutional if challenged. If this is a problem, then contact your legislators and tell them to change the laws. And contact the White House, if you want, and tell them to support a change in the laws. But saying Obama should be in jail or impeached for taking actions that are perfectly legal is not going to help the debate over these practices, it will just make it more likely that the practices will be allowed to continue.


I don't think that this is just an Obama problem, don't get me wrong.  This is a both side of the aisle problem.  I can contact my congressman until I am blue in the face, but considering I am not a lobbyist and I have nothing to offer him I, frankly, don't count.
 
2013-06-11 04:53:44 PM  

badaboom: Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.

Can you send this memo to Barry about Immigration laws? Since you know his job, as you stated, is to uphold the law. Thanks.


When a cop is faced with having to investigate a murder vs. who broke into my car and stole my ipod, the cop will probably concentrate on the murder and rightly so. Tracking down and deporting people that were brought to this country illegally as children who have no criminal record and are going to school or have jobs isn't exactly the best use of resources and it is pretty juvenile to insinuate that focusing resources on high priorities is the same as not upholding the law.
 
2013-06-11 04:57:14 PM  

mikaloyd: How do FARK moderates feel about this?


Tepid.
 
2013-06-11 04:59:08 PM  
How do FARK moderators feel about this?
 
2013-06-11 05:20:08 PM  

neversubmit: vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't

From 2008

Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Intercept operators allege the NSA is listening to citizens' phone calls. "These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.


O'rly?

(post Boston bombing)

On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

"All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".
 
2013-06-11 05:41:46 PM  

mikaloyd: How do FARK moderates feel about this?


My heart is full of neutrality.
 
2013-06-11 05:58:18 PM  

mikaloyd: How do FARK moderates feel about this?


Really couldn't care less. Privacy isn't being violated here. A person does not own their phone records...a company does. If you don't want a company to have a record of your phone calls, stop using a phone. Not to mention, this has been going on for quite a long time now. To rehash this again just seems political. Conservatives got their way last time. So, let the conservatives have their spying.
 
2013-06-11 05:59:39 PM  

theknuckler_33: badaboom: Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.

Can you send this memo to Barry about Immigration laws? Since you know his job, as you stated, is to uphold the law. Thanks.

When a cop is faced with having to investigate a murder vs. who broke into my car and stole my ipod, the cop will probably concentrate on the murder and rightly so. Tracking down and deporting people that were brought to this country illegally as children who have no criminal record and are going to school or have jobs isn't exactly the best use of resources and it is pretty juvenile to insinuate that focusing resources on high priorities is the same as not upholding the law.


LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.  Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.
 
2013-06-11 06:06:16 PM  

Doc Lee: mikaloyd: How do FARK moderates feel about this?

Really couldn't care less. Privacy isn't being violated here. A person does not own their phone records...a company does. If you don't want a company to have a record of your phone calls, stop using a phone. Not to mention, this has been going on for quite a long time now. To rehash this again just seems political. Conservatives got their way last time. So, let the conservatives have their spying.


Moderate indeed.  You might as well be the poster boy for fascism.
 
2013-06-11 06:24:57 PM  

SunsetLament: LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.


Man, so why are deportations up under this administration?
 
2013-06-11 06:27:05 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.

Man, so why are deportations up under this administration?


Inflation?

BTW, is this where you think I'm going to defend Bush as being good for the country regarding illegal immigration?
 
2013-06-11 06:40:46 PM  

SunsetLament: theknuckler_33: badaboom: Nadie_AZ: 1. Law is passed.
2. President sworn in to uphold law.
3. Congress sworn in to prevent President from doing anything reform minded
4. President upholds law.
5. Everybody angry.

This is what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps. Nothing constructive gets done and everyone get entrenched. This is why compromise for BOTH parties is so important.

Can you send this memo to Barry about Immigration laws? Since you know his job, as you stated, is to uphold the law. Thanks.

When a cop is faced with having to investigate a murder vs. who broke into my car and stole my ipod, the cop will probably concentrate on the murder and rightly so. Tracking down and deporting people that were brought to this country illegally as children who have no criminal record and are going to school or have jobs isn't exactly the best use of resources and it is pretty juvenile to insinuate that focusing resources on high priorities is the same as not upholding the law.

LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.


You got citations about this? Because I'm guessing the situation isn't quite the way you are making it seem.

Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.

What the hell are you talking about?
 
2013-06-11 06:47:22 PM  

theknuckler_33: SunsetLament:

LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.

You got citations about this? Because I'm guessing the situation isn't quite the way you are making it seem.


Sure

----------

Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.

What the hell are you talking about?


and ... Link.
 
2013-06-11 06:57:55 PM  

MmmmBacon: But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.


Nothing about the Patriot Act is illegal based on the Constitution. The 4th Amendment has one very important word that many of you seem to forget, "unreasonable". It's not for you to determine what constitutes an unreasonable search.
 
2013-06-11 06:58:41 PM  

SunsetLament: theknuckler_33: SunsetLament:

LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.

You got citations about this? Because I'm guessing the situation isn't quite the way you are making it seem.

Sure

----------

Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.

What the hell are you talking about?

and ... Link.


It's almost like the feds have decided they have to prioritize things. That is, unless, you support big government and big spending to cover the funding deficiencies in obtaining the resources needed to nit-pick every single one of the 11 million suspected undocumented immigrants in this country and 8 billion pot heads.
 
2013-06-11 07:10:38 PM  
I didn't read the thread. Was it full of libs defending Obama doing things they would have freaked out about under bush and cons attacking Obama for things they would have defended under Bush?

/lol libertarian
//succcckkkkeeerrrrsss
 
2013-06-11 07:12:14 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: theknuckler_33: SunsetLament:

LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.

You got citations about this? Because I'm guessing the situation isn't quite the way you are making it seem.

Sure

----------

Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.

What the hell are you talking about?

and ... Link.

It's almost like the feds have decided they have to prioritize things. That is, unless, you support big government and big spending to cover the funding deficiencies in obtaining the resources needed to nit-pick every single one of the 11 million suspected undocumented immigrants in this country and 8 billion pot heads.


Yawn.  If a local police department calls ICE and says "We have an illegal alien in custody - come pick him up and deport him," and ICE responds with "Nah, just let him go," ... it's no longer an issue of prioritizing resources.

But, to answer your question, when it comes to federal spending, I am all in favor of increasing federal law enforcement budgets (and only federal law enforcement budgets).  If ICE or the DEA (or the US Attorney's Office) does not have enough cash to pick up people already in custody, I'm sure they (and only they) can go to the congress and the Democrats would love to give them the funding they need, right?
 
2013-06-11 07:15:20 PM  

SunsetLament: theknuckler_33: SunsetLament:

LMAO - ICE is refusing to come pick up and deport illegals who are already in state and local custody.

You got citations about this? Because I'm guessing the situation isn't quite the way you are making it seem.

Sure

----------

Same shiat as Obama refusing to enforce federal drug laws.  He does what he pleases; he couldn't give a rat's ass what his duties under the Constitution are.

What the hell are you talking about?

and ... Link.


Did you even look at the results of your LMGTFY link?  One example of ICE not coming to get illegals in custody. One example. It is exactly as I suspected. And the other thing is also as I expected. I reduced focus on marijuana prosecutions is not "refusing to enforce federal drug laws". If you can't speak about things in an intellectually honest manner, I don't have time for you. There are plenty of things to not like about Obama, but your little rant was nothing but derp. All presidents have the AG give direction about how to enforce federal laws of all kinds. Every administration does it. It's the normal business of any administration.
 
2013-06-11 07:18:49 PM  

SunsetLament: Yawn.  If a local police department calls ICE and says "We have an illegal alien in custody - come pick him up and deport him," and ICE responds with "Nah, just let him go," ... it's no longer an issue of prioritizing resources.


Suspected. You know what due process is? Deportation isn't just a matter of picking up anybody with brown skin and pushing them out over the Sonoran whenever possible. It takes time and costs money.

SunsetLament: But, to answer your question, when it comes to federal spending, I am all in favor of increasing federal law enforcement budgets (and only federal law enforcement budgets).  If ICE or the DEA (or the US Attorney's Office) does not have enough cash to pick up people already in custody, I'm sure they (and only they) can go to the congress and the Democrats would love to give them the funding they need, right?


So you love big government, big spending and bankrupting the country. Gotcha.
 
2013-06-11 07:21:36 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: Yawn.  If a local police department calls ICE and says "We have an illegal alien in custody - come pick him up and deport him," and ICE responds with "Nah, just let him go," ... it's no longer an issue of prioritizing resources.

Suspected. You know what due process is? Deportation isn't just a matter of picking up anybody with brown skin and pushing them out over the Sonoran whenever possible. It takes time and costs money.


Let's not forget it was a single instance and the source was Sheriff Joe.
 
2013-06-11 07:48:03 PM  

Hobodeluxe: this isn't even newsworthy. who didn't think they had this capability? Hell I want them to have this capability. I need them on that wall.

[www.hvorfor-cbs.dk image 210x166]

Congress is okay with it. (except a few scoring political points)
SCOTUS is okay with it
The FISA judges are okay with it
It's saved lives.

The only people who seem to be pushing this is the media and only because it was used on them to track down a mole.

Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Progressives and all of our allies.
 
2013-06-11 07:48:08 PM  

Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?


Amendment IVThe 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.
 
2013-06-11 07:51:33 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 2. President sworn in to uphold law.


His oath is to the Constitution, not "the law".
 
2013-06-11 07:55:08 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: MmmmBacon: But if we had a SCOTUS that actually cared about the Constitution, the Patriot Act would have been thrown out years ago for various violations of  the Constitution.

Nothing about the Patriot Act is illegal based on the Constitution. The 4th Amendment has one very important word that many of you seem to forget, "unreasonable". It's not for you to determine what constitutes an unreasonable search.


The Supreme Court has ruled many times about the definition of that.  Basically, there must be an immediate threat to be able to dispense with the warrant.  "Somewhere in the world a terrorist might be thinking about doing something bad" does not meet this definition.
 
2013-06-11 07:59:48 PM  

Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?


vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

 
2013-06-11 08:12:00 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: Yawn.  If a local police department calls ICE and says "We have an illegal alien in custody - come pick him up and deport him," and ICE responds with "Nah, just let him go," ... it's no longer an issue of prioritizing resources.

Suspected. You know what due process is? Deportation isn't just a matter of picking up anybody with brown skin and pushing them out over the Sonoran whenever possible. It takes time and costs money.

SunsetLament: But, to answer your question, when it comes to federal spending, I am all in favor of increasing federal law enforcement budgets (and only federal law enforcement budgets).  If ICE or the DEA (or the US Attorney's Office) does not have enough cash to pick up people already in custody, I'm sure they (and only they) can go to the congress and the Democrats would love to give them the funding they need, right?

So you love big government, big spending and bankrupting the country. Gotcha.


Yup, spend all you want as long as it's to defend the borders and enforce federal law.
 
2013-06-11 08:18:49 PM  

SunsetLament: Yup, spend all you want as long as it's to defend the borders and enforce federal law.


So why do you support big government? I bet you think the government should do everything. Why do you love socialism and hate America?
 
2013-06-11 08:41:20 PM  

InfrasonicTom: Huh, a politician saying things which appeal to the masses in order to get elected, but having no actual desire to follow through.

why I never...


I'm not an Obama supporter by any means but I do have to cut the guy some slack. It's really easy to be an ideologue before you're elected and "in the know." But once you're elected and you start learning what's really going on out there, well...I can't fault him for backtracking on some things.
 
2013-06-11 09:03:34 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: Yup, spend all you want as long as it's to defend the borders and enforce federal law.

So why do you support big government? I bet you think the government should do everything. Why do you love socialism and hate America?


I didn't realize that there was a political ideology attached to "enforcing federal law" ... not to mention your assertion of a anti-jingoism stance.
 
2013-06-11 09:05:12 PM  

SunsetLament: YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: Yup, spend all you want as long as it's to defend the borders and enforce federal law.

So why do you support big government? I bet you think the government should do everything. Why do you love socialism and hate America?

I didn't realize that there was a political ideology attached to "enforcing federal law" ... not to mention your assertion of a anti-jingoism stance.


I was unaware that conservatives were so concerned ab
 
2013-06-11 09:07:00 PM  
Concerned about enforcing federal law, given their recent penchant for attempting nullification and attempts to stop implementation of the Medicaid exchanges under Obamacare
 
2013-06-11 09:17:21 PM  

TerminalEchoes: InfrasonicTom: Huh, a politician saying things which appeal to the masses in order to get elected, but having no actual desire to follow through.

why I never...

I'm not an Obama supporter by any means but I do have to cut the guy some slack. It's really easy to be an ideologue before you're elected and "in the know." But once you're elected and you start learning what's really going on out there, well...I can't fault him for backtracking on some things.


I'm fine with that to certain extent, but it loses something since the guy was a senator.  Should have known at least a little of what was going on.
 
2013-06-11 09:38:30 PM  

Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?


you mean besides the fact that it is collecting massive amounts of data on u.s. citizens which it is not authorized to do (it was only authorized to collect international phone calls and email)?
and besides the the fact that it is doing so in direct conflict with the plain language 4th amendment requirement for probable cause?
and besides the fact the NSA is a military branch that seems to play some vital role in enforcing federal laws against civilians in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (it was only authorized to collect international phone calls and email - and the PCA only allows military law enforcement when specifically authorized by comngress)?
besides that, nothing is illegal, so feel free to go back to being an obama supporter.
 
2013-06-11 09:55:31 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: Concerned about enforcing federal law, given their recent penchant for attempting nullification and attempts to stop implementation of the Medicaid exchanges under Obamacare


... by following the provisions available in the law?

I think you need to settle on a new set of consistent talking points.
 
2013-06-11 09:57:13 PM  

relcec: Dinki: What exactly is 'Illegal' about the NSA program?

you mean besides the fact that it is collecting massive amounts of data on u.s. citizens which it is not authorized to do (it was only authorized to collect international phone calls and email)?
and besides the the fact that it is doing so in direct conflict with the plain language 4th amendment requirement for probable cause?
and besides the fact the NSA is a military branch that seems to play some vital role in enforcing federal laws against civilians in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (it was only authorized to collect international phone calls and email - and the PCA only allows military law enforcement when specifically authorized by comngress)?
besides that, nothing is illegal, so feel free to go back to being an obama supporter.


Ding.  Ding.  Ding.  Anybody who thinks that what has been alleged this week is authorized by the Patriot Act obviously hasn't read it - and that includes these FISA judges.
 
2013-06-11 10:11:17 PM  

SunsetLament: YoungSwedishBlonde: Concerned about enforcing federal law, given their recent penchant for attempting nullification and attempts to stop implementation of the Medicaid exchanges under Obamacare

... by following the provisions available in the law?

I think you need to settle on a new set of consistent talking points.


I'm so sorry that the government isn't accomodating your desire for an exodus of 11 million people to the extent you seem to desire. I'm sorry that using the same schtick and talking points that have been thrown at liberals for years are coming back to bite you in the ass.
 
2013-06-11 10:57:22 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: SunsetLament: YoungSwedishBlonde: Concerned about enforcing federal law, given their recent penchant for attempting nullification and attempts to stop implementation of the Medicaid exchanges under Obamacare

... by following the provisions available in the law?

I think you need to settle on a new set of consistent talking points.

I'm so sorry that the government isn't accomodating your desire for an exodus of 11 million people to the extent you seem to desire. I'm sorry that using the same schtick and talking points that have been thrown at liberals for years are coming back to bite you in the ass.


So, in other words ... you've got 'nothing.  Don't feel bad; that's liberal ideology in a nutshell.
 
2013-06-11 11:18:01 PM  
let me see if I am following you on this?
Since Obama knows that congress will not repeal the patriot act if they know that's what he wants. He is acting like he is using it so they will pull it out from underneath him? Thereby completing what he wanted in the first place? Brilliant!!
 
2013-06-12 12:10:36 AM  
The only good that will come out of this is the easily citable hypocracy of all the leftists defending this shiat.
 
2013-06-12 12:59:52 AM  
I'm honestly shocked at the people who claim to be anti PATRIOT ACT but just shrug all this off and say "Well Bush did it too and everything's legal now so why all the fuss?"

Are you crazy? Do you have any idea how hard it is to make the American people give a damn about something? There's such a small sliver of time before the public shrugs and goes back to the next "scandal" of the day. Why give Obama a pass? Especially if you consider yourself a liberal, what better time is there to fight this than now? Or do you think it'll be easier to fight against the PATRIOT Act after another 4 years of living with it, possibly with the Republicans in control of the White House and Congress?

Have you just given up and accepted a permanent state of war as the norm? Are you that cynical?

And I bet some of you claim to be anti spending on the military industrial complex. Why? If you really think we shouldn't be engaged in perpetual war, why not take a chance to make a difference and make the Democrats do what we want them to do? Is it because you'd rather just biatch and feel self righteous than actually try to change the status quo?
 
m00
2013-06-12 01:12:32 AM  

Edsel: This program is not illegal. You can debate whether or not the improvement in security is worth the infringement of privacy, but it's not illegal.


No, of course not. A government that has the power to make any conceivable act legal for itself will never be in violation of the laws which are written to give it these powers. This is exactly why we have a constitution. I mean, it's pretty clear the program violates the 4th amendment and is therefor unconstitutional. What's not clear is whether the Supreme Court still works for the People, because the other two branches absolutely do not.
 
2013-06-12 01:30:30 AM  
Seriously if you're playing the "It's all perfectly legal" card right now, you're on the same side as Lindsey Graham. LINDSEY EFFING GRAHAM! Lindsey Graham the man who's been empirically proven to be the dumbest man in the Senate. Lindsey Graham that's always wrong about everything.

Lindsey Graham and you see totally eye to eye on this. Think about that.
 
2013-06-12 08:13:12 AM  
ITT:  It's okay because my guy is in charge.

ITT 8 years ago:  Bush is literally Hitler and Stalin's love child for doing this.
 
2013-06-12 08:34:19 AM  

vernonFL: What they are doing is NOT wiretapping.

The government is not recording or listening in on the content of the conversations.

/at least they say they aren't


It was my understanding that they are recording every call and key words alert the system to bring the call to the attention of a monitor
 
2013-06-12 09:24:03 AM  

m00: Edsel: This program is not illegal. You can debate whether or not the improvement in security is worth the infringement of privacy, but it's not illegal.

No, of course not. A government that has the power to make any conceivable act legal for itself will never be in violation of the laws which are written to give it these powers. This is exactly why we have a constitution. I mean, it's pretty clear the program violates the 4th amendment and is therefor unconstitutional. What's not clear is whether the Supreme Court still works for the People, because the other two branches absolutely do not.


The current Supreme Court does not.
 
2013-06-12 02:34:10 PM  

bongmiester: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 750x578]


yup
 
2013-06-12 06:27:19 PM  

devilEther: If my phone sex calls are ever leaked, I'll jump off a bridge


Just heard 'em, they were leaked.
 
2013-06-13 01:09:00 AM  

Shryke: The only good that will come out of this is the easily citable hypocracy of all the leftists defending this shiat.


HURRRDERP
 
Displayed 203 of 203 comments

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