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  
•       •       •

1947 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 203 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report