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  
•       •       •

1944 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2013 at 1:19 PM (44 weeks 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 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 203 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report