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.

(Politifact)   Barack Obama: liar, liar, pants on fire   (politifact.com) divider line 120
    More: Obvious, Obama, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISA, Charlie Rose, public access, internet traffic, Dick Cheney  
•       •       •

3698 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2013 at 1:37 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-21 10:27:14 AM
Welp, I do hope the endgame here is that we see some serious efforts at making our government more accountable and transparent. It's about damn time... I can dream, can't I?
 
2013-06-21 10:39:38 AM
This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.
 
2013-06-21 10:41:39 AM
"Transparent" being a subjective term, PolitiFact is giving us a PolitOpinion on this one.
 
2013-06-21 10:44:24 AM

James!: This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.


The ones who know know, and the ones who know who knows, also know. What we don't know is what is known and what is not known.
 
2013-06-21 10:47:20 AM

make me some tea: James!: This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.

The ones who know know, and the ones who know who knows, also know. What we don't know is what is known and what is not known.


And you won't know. Knowing is nice, but knowing all makes the knowledge needless and gathering useless.
 
2013-06-21 10:50:58 AM

make me some tea: James!: This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.

The ones who know know, and the ones who know who knows, also know. What we don't know is what is known and what is not known.


Well, there are also the known unknowns. Those things we know that we don't know.
 
2013-06-21 10:53:58 AM
Well, we CAN see right through his lies.
 
2013-06-21 10:56:00 AM

dr_blasto: make me some tea: James!: This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.

The ones who know know, and the ones who know who knows, also know. What we don't know is what is known and what is not known.

Well, there are also the known unknowns. Those things we know that we don't know.


I know, right?
 
2013-06-21 10:59:23 AM

James!: Knowing is nice, but knowing all makes the knowledge needless and gathering useless.


I don't know about that. I'd rather be in the know than be working with unknowns, you know?
 
2013-06-21 11:03:11 AM

make me some tea: James!: Knowing is nice, but knowing all makes the knowledge needless and gathering useless.

I don't know about that. I'd rather be in the know than be working with unknowns, you know?


Then get security clearance.
 
2013-06-21 11:05:16 AM

James!: make me some tea: James!: Knowing is nice, but knowing all makes the knowledge needless and gathering useless.

I don't know about that. I'd rather be in the know than be working with unknowns, you know?

Then get security clearance.


With my online presence? That'll never happen.
 
2013-06-21 11:08:31 AM

James!: make me some tea: James!: Knowing is nice, but knowing all makes the knowledge needless and gathering useless.

I don't know about that. I'd rather be in the know than be working with unknowns, you know?

Then get security clearance.


Stop being so literal.  You're killing the wordplay here!
 
2013-06-21 11:10:25 AM

Elandriel: James!: make me some tea: James!: Knowing is nice, but knowing all makes the knowledge needless and gathering useless.

I don't know about that. I'd rather be in the know than be working with unknowns, you know?

Then get security clearance.

Stop being so literal.  You're killing the wordplay here!


I couldn't come up with a response in the theme.  I'm not brain good this morning.
 
2013-06-21 11:19:18 AM
lol
 
2013-06-21 11:31:54 AM
i can't believe that we're not allowed to know every single facet of a top-secret counterespionage program!
 
2013-06-21 11:48:57 AM

FlashHarry: i can't believe that we're not allowed to know every single facet of a top-secret counterespionage program!



FTFY, who exactly are they countering?
 
2013-06-21 12:41:43 PM
 
2013-06-21 12:49:34 PM

FlashHarry: i can't believe that we're not allowed to know every single facet of a top-secret counterespionage program!


I know, it's like they are hiding somehing!
 
2013-06-21 01:12:20 PM

James!: This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.


Except, if the terrorists are watching the news, then they already know they are being spied on.  Touche, checkmate, and Booyah!
 
2013-06-21 01:28:41 PM
You can clearly see the box of Saran Wrap.  It doesn't matter that you can't open the box.
 
2013-06-21 01:36:02 PM

kronicfeld: "Transparent" being a subjective term, PolitiFact is giving us a PolitOpinion on this one.


That's not opinion.  A secret court by definition is not transparent, regardless of whether its existence is justified.
 
2013-06-21 01:39:31 PM

FlashHarry: i can't believe that we're not allowed to know every single facet of a top-secret counterespionage program!


I am ENTITLED to know all national secrets! I PAY YOUR SALARIES!
 
2013-06-21 01:44:27 PM
Simply knowing of the existence of a secret court is not what I'd really call "transparency".
 
2013-06-21 01:45:42 PM

kronicfeld: "Transparent" being a subjective term, PolitiFact is giving us a PolitOpinion on this one.


Under what definition of transparent does this fall under?  I understand the need for national secrecy, but don't try to pretend that it's transparent when it's not.
 
2013-06-21 01:47:17 PM

Babwa Wawa: kronicfeld: "Transparent" being a subjective term, PolitiFact is giving us a PolitOpinion on this one.

That's not opinion.  A secret court by definition is not transparent, regardless of whether its existence is justified.


Yes, but we know the secret court exists. So that's something.

I will say that this article posted earlier actually made me feel better about the whole thing. I'm surprised it only has 6 comments on it.
 
2013-06-21 01:47:38 PM
It's already been said in so many words, but this is a semantic argument, and as such has nothing to do with facts, fact checking, or lying, so PolitiFart can kiss my shiny behind.
 
2013-06-21 01:48:03 PM

Thrag: Simply knowing of the existence of a secret court is not what I'd really call "transparency".


Everyone knew of the SS.  It didn't mean they liked it or knew exactly who they arrested.  Same with the Inquisition.
 
2013-06-21 01:48:27 PM

dr_blasto: make me some tea: James!: This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.

The ones who know know, and the ones who know who knows, also know. What we don't know is what is known and what is not known.

Well, there are also the known unknowns. Those things we know that we don't know.


We're getting dangerously close to Donald Rumsfeld's WMD explanation here.
 
2013-06-21 01:49:50 PM
Just went back to http://whosmorefullofshiat.com (filter may eff that up) and if you sort on 50 or more rulings, the top ten liars are all Republicans.
 
2013-06-21 01:51:45 PM
So, Obama goes on to say immediately afterwards:

So, on this telephone program you have a federal court with independent federal judges overseeing the entire program and you've got Congress overseeing the program. Not just the intelligence committee, not just the judiciary committee but all of Congress had available to it before the last reauthorization exactly how this program works.

So, it's not transparent to the average citizen, but it is transparent to their representatives in the other branches of government. The ones that supposedly provide checks and balances to the executive branch. I'm not saying I agree with it, but he does seem to have some logic behind his use of the word "transparent".
 
2013-06-21 01:52:18 PM

James!: This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.


So?

I'm being serious here.  Are we better off with a government with unlimited powers?
 
2013-06-21 01:55:35 PM

catpuncher: James!: This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.

So?

I'm being serious here.  Are we better off with a government with unlimited powers?


But they don't have those.
 
2013-06-21 01:56:17 PM

catpuncher: James!: This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.

So?

I'm being serious here.  Are we better off with a government with unlimited powers?


Your solution to "the government has the power to do x" cannot be that "since the government could use x power to do thing y, and y is oppressive/abusive, the government shall no longer have the power to do x."

Sometimes x needs to be done. Not doing x because you're afraid of y is senseless.
 
2013-06-21 01:57:35 PM
What he meant by "transparent" was that their are checks and balances not that the American people can see the secret information.
 
2013-06-21 01:59:27 PM

James!: This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.


FlashHarry: i can't believe that we're not allowed to know every single facet of a top-secret counterespionage program!


Both of these.

No one needs or wants to know what the government does on a daily basis to let your dumb ass sleep at night.  No, you don't.  And neither do you.  And you over there shaking your head yes, no you don't.

Jeebuz people, if they tell YOU, the might as well take out ads world wide and tell everyone.  Do you think that access to what the US government is doing isn't top priority for damn near every other country in the world?  Just like we watch them?

At what point did you lose grasp on freedom of information isn't good ALL THE FARKING TIME?
 
2013-06-21 01:59:40 PM

Car_Ramrod: catpuncher: James!: This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.

So?

I'm being serious here.  Are we better off with a government with unlimited powers?

But they don't have those.


The shock is that citizens believed that their representatives would never allow the government to put everyone under the microscope. Everyone. No exceptions. Even though the constitution is pretty clear about search and seizure, apparently it is reasonable to be suspicious of all citizens.
 
2013-06-21 02:00:59 PM

Car_Ramrod: So, Obama goes on to say immediately afterwards:

So, on this telephone program you have a federal court with independent federal judges overseeing the entire program and you've got Congress overseeing the program. Not just the intelligence committee, not just the judiciary committee but all of Congress had available to it before the last reauthorization exactly how this program works.

So, it's not transparent to the average citizen, but it is transparent to their representatives in the other branches of government. The ones that supposedly provide checks and balances to the executive branch. I'm not saying I agree with it, but he does seem to have some logic behind his use of the word "transparent".


Transparent does not mean the entire planet knows about a secret program designed to spy on terrorists.
 
2013-06-21 02:03:05 PM

Car_Ramrod: Babwa Wawa: kronicfeld: "Transparent" being a subjective term, PolitiFact is giving us a PolitOpinion on this one.

That's not opinion.  A secret court by definition is not transparent, regardless of whether its existence is justified.

Yes, but we know the secret court exists. So that's something.

I will say that this article posted earlier actually made me feel better about the whole thing. I'm surprised it only has 6 comments on it.


If I go to the doctor and he rams something up my ass, but doesn't tell me what he's ramming up my ass, he can claim to be transparent about anything except the fact that he's ramming something up my ass.
 
2013-06-21 02:04:23 PM

Babwa Wawa: Car_Ramrod: Babwa Wawa: kronicfeld: "Transparent" being a subjective term, PolitiFact is giving us a PolitOpinion on this one.

That's not opinion.  A secret court by definition is not transparent, regardless of whether its existence is justified.

Yes, but we know the secret court exists. So that's something.

I will say that this article posted earlier actually made me feel better about the whole thing. I'm surprised it only has 6 comments on it.

If I go to the doctor and he rams something up my ass, but doesn't tell me what he's ramming up my ass, he can claim to be transparent about anything except the fact that he's ramming something up my ass.


Why are Republicans always so concerned about things going up their asses?
 
2013-06-21 02:05:30 PM
It's silly to use the word "transparent" to describe FISA.  It's silly to expect that it would be transparent.  This is a silly article and you're all silly for posting in it.
 
2013-06-21 02:07:55 PM

Babwa Wawa: Car_Ramrod: Babwa Wawa: kronicfeld: "Transparent" being a subjective term, PolitiFact is giving us a PolitOpinion on this one.

That's not opinion.  A secret court by definition is not transparent, regardless of whether its existence is justified.

Yes, but we know the secret court exists. So that's something.

I will say that this article posted earlier actually made me feel better about the whole thing. I'm surprised it only has 6 comments on it.

If I go to the doctor and he rams something up my ass, but doesn't tell me what he's ramming up my ass, he can claim to be transparent about anything except the fact that he's ramming something up my ass.


If someone somewhere knows that he's ramming something up your ass, it's completely transparent.  Actually, they don't even need to know who you are or what he's ramming you with, as long as someone knows he exists.
 
2013-06-21 02:09:24 PM
Hello,
I'm not from the United States, or live in the United States, but could I see this secret info?

Because... uh... I have friends... and we made a bet... and we just wanted to.... you know, terrorist things.
 
2013-06-21 02:10:02 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Car_Ramrod: So, Obama goes on to say immediately afterwards:

So, on this telephone program you have a federal court with independent federal judges overseeing the entire program and you've got Congress overseeing the program. Not just the intelligence committee, not just the judiciary committee but all of Congress had available to it before the last reauthorization exactly how this program works.

So, it's not transparent to the average citizen, but it is transparent to their representatives in the other branches of government. The ones that supposedly provide checks and balances to the executive branch. I'm not saying I agree with it, but he does seem to have some logic behind his use of the word "transparent".

Transparent does not mean the entire planet knows about a secret program designed to spy on terrorists.


Ah, but to Cato and the FOI Foundation (the former being political enemies of Obama's, the latter being ALL DISCLOSURES ALL THE TIME), "transparent" means reporters attending FISA hearings.

PolitiFact's conclusion is essentially "The program is run with tripartite oversight, and some information is disclosed both regularly and upon request, but since it's not as 'transparent' as these chucklefarks would like, PANTS ON FIRE." It's not pure opinion on PF's part, but they're clearly angling for a specific conclusion with that setup.

// though I do think "transparent" was the wrong word to use - it does connote public disclosure, but errors of inference aren't always on the speaker
 
2013-06-21 02:11:55 PM

WippitGuud: Hello,
I'm not from the United States, or live in the United States, but could I see this secret info?

Because... uh... I have friends... and we made a bet... and we just wanted to.... you know, terrorist things.


No.  But if you need any archive copies of back e-mails or phone conversations, the NSA's got your back.
 
2013-06-21 02:11:57 PM
Lets just repeal the "Patriot Act".

That piece of crap should never have passed anyways.
 
2013-06-21 02:12:13 PM

lockers: Car_Ramrod: catpuncher: James!: This is honestly so farking stupid.  No, you will never know details about what the government is doing to spy on suspected terrorists.  If you know then the suspected terrorists will know as well.

So?

I'm being serious here.  Are we better off with a government with unlimited powers?

But they don't have those.

The shock is that citizens believed that their representatives would never allow the government to put everyone under the microscope. Everyone. No exceptions. Even though the constitution is pretty clear about search and seizure, apparently it is reasonable to be suspicious of all citizens.


But that's not what's happening either. In the link I posted, which is also in the politics tab for today, it says:

To prevent U.S. citizens and legal residents from being targeted, NSA keeps a database of phone numbers and e-mail addresses associated with people thought to be living in the country. New requests are compared to records on the list. Matches are signals to put the surveillance on hold.

The NSA then goes through a sequence of potential additional checks, according to the document. It may look at area codes and the ordinary data packets that accompany e-mails as they cross the Internet. And it may check contact lists associated with e-mail accounts, as well as massive "knowledge databases" that contain CIA intelligence reports.

After it begins intercepting calls or e-mails, the NSA is supposed to continue to look for signs that the person it is monitoring has entered the United States, which would prompt a halt in surveillance and possibly a notification to the FBI.

The document on "minimization" spells out rules for protecting privacy, some of which have been described publicly. The rules protect not just citizens, but foreigners in the United States.

If domestic communications lack significant foreign intelligence information, they must be promptly destroyed. Communications concerning Americans may not be kept more than five years.

If a target who was outside the United States enters the country, the monitoring must stop immediately.
 
2013-06-21 02:14:31 PM

kronicfeld: "Transparent" being a subjective term, PolitiFact is giving us a PolitOpinion on this one.


It would have to be a VERY subjective definition of 'transparent' for the statement to be true. I don't think this is any kind of big deal, but that was a pretty stupid thing to say.  He could have defended the court more eloquently than saying the process is transparent.
 
2013-06-21 02:15:10 PM

Heraclitus: Lets just repeal the "Patriot Act".

That piece of crap should never have passed anyways.


What?  And take away the GOP trump card?

GOP Admin:  "We're protecting you from dem Muzzies!"
Dem Admin: "They're taking away your liberties!"

With Fox News at their bedside, they can spin that sh*t sandwich any way they want.
 
2013-06-21 02:17:08 PM

Babwa Wawa: If I go to the doctor and he rams something up my ass, but doesn't tell me what he's ramming up my ass, he can claim to be transparent about anything except the fact that he's ramming something up my ass.


Ever gotten a flexible sigmoidoscopy (a "flex-sig")? Did you know exactly what it was that was shoved up your ass - did the doc show you the technical specs on the device? Did you get to see calibration reports (or run your own)? Did you examine circuit diagrams? Bug-test the software on it? Take it apart to see the entirety of the device?

If you said "no" to any/all of those, I'd say you didn't truly KNOW what was up there.
 
2013-06-21 02:23:52 PM
Yeah - it's pretty dumb to call it "transparent".  I can think of how HE might have meant it, in terms of being transparent to another branch of government in checks-and-balances, but that's not the context in which the question was asked.

/No, it SHOULDN'T be transparent to the public.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report