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.

(Guardian)   President Obama's assault on the First Amendment continues   (theguardian.com) divider line 337
    More: Obvious, Obama administration, 1st amendment, shield laws, press freedom, First Amendment Center, Espionage Act, duty of care  
•       •       •

5434 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Aug 2013 at 11:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-12 12:32:04 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Aristocles: Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

Awww, did someone forget he was logged into his troll account?

When will this "forget what account you logged onto" meme end?

It's been established that tenpoundsofcheese is, in fact, the libbiest lib who has ever held liberal beliefs.

Deal with it.

There are so many odd memes here:
-  must be a paid troll
-  he disagrees with me, so the person is a troll
-  there is more than one person who disagrees with me, so that must be an alt.

I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week and I don't think there are that many 8.0s or above.


C'mon man... I know you can't resist....

57 states!

You didn't build that!

/No nukes! No nukes!
 
2013-08-12 12:32:19 PM

Marcus Aurelius: tenpoundsofcheese: I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week

That's a whale of a story [cetacean needed].


i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-12 12:33:49 PM
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN !
 
2013-08-12 12:36:17 PM

sprgrss: Obama's Reptiloid Master: sprgrss: SphericalTime: WTF?  Why is a New York Times reporter not being given "reporter's privilege" under the 1st Amendment?

Because there is no such thing.

It's like people are pig-ignorant about the law and get all their legal facts from half-remembered stoned conversations with their buddies from college. "Nah man, the cops totally have to tell you if they're an undercover cop! Or else it's entrapment."

I don't know who is worse, the idiots in jail who read Busted By the Feds or the Farkers with Legal GEDs.


Yeah, go ahead and report about all of our trade secrets or whatever. We'll totally protect you, and stuff.
 
2013-08-12 12:42:00 PM

qorkfiend: firefly212: vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term  aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place.  These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a real and se ...


I didn't miss it, the Vietnam Papers were also classified... frankly, misclassified... times when the government breaks the law or violates the constitution and public trust, then classifies it not because it is sensitive to national security, but because they know that it's embarassing and probably illegal. Mishandling classified information is a separate charge under the law with good reason, not every classified disclosure is an attempt to overthrow, wage war against, or otherwise harm the government, to the contrary, as Snowden, the Vietnam Papers, and numerous other leaks of classified information to the press (not so much disclosure to just adversaries) have shown, these leaks are often made in the efforts of securing a constitutional government, not bringing one down.

I'm farking tired of people like you purposely conflating disclosure of classified information like.. say giving nuclear missile plans to an enemy with something like disclosing unethical acts on the part of our government. These are not interchangeable concepts, and the differentiation is the reason different charges exist under the law. Even as aggressive as AG Holder and President Obama are, they have not accused, in a court, Mr. Snowden of Treason, nor is the guy named in this case accused of Treason... yet you farkers just throw the damned word around like its nothing at all... they did something you don't like, er go, Treason. It's a spurious line of reasoning that devalues actual treason and just makes the people who throw the word around lightly look like hyperbolic morons at best, and trolls at worst.
 
2013-08-12 12:45:28 PM
President Obama's assault on the First Amendment America continues
 
2013-08-12 12:52:31 PM
This Administration has a terrible track record on transparency and going after whistleblowers.  This and other holdover policies from the Bush years are going to be the worst part of Obama's legacy.
 
2013-08-12 12:52:50 PM

Brick-House: President Obama's assault on the First Amendment America continues


As a patriotic American, maybe you should 'stand your ground' since you are being assaulted and all.
 
2013-08-12 12:53:17 PM

Headso: ['you can't publish that because of the national security risk'] when you write a story. And then they can never back it up. They say that about everything.

I remember when the wikileaks stuff all came out, classified information included conversations about the fact that Gaddafi had a blonde nurse with big tits. If that is even top secret info then you have no credibility to claim anything is.


The secret is that we had such info. If you give out what info you know, you end up giving out that you have the ability to gather such info, and the ways you gathered them.
 
2013-08-12 12:55:10 PM

imontheinternet: This Administration has a terrible track record on transparency and going after whistleblowers.  This and other holdover policies from the Bush years are going to be the worst part of Obama's legacy.


It's like you try to go out of your way to be uninformed.
 
2013-08-12 12:56:55 PM

SlothB77: Given its significance, it is shocking how little publicity the Risen/Sterling case has yet received from major media outlets with a direct interest in its outcome.


The media is more interested in propping up Obama than it is in protecting their own craft.  This isn't surprising at all.


Yeah, the way the media's been scrutinizing and criticizing every single move President Obama makes under a microscope has been really flagrantly in his favor.
 
2013-08-12 12:59:47 PM
If the government can't keep its secrets from its citizens, what makes it think it can keep secrets from our enemies? If anything, these people are patriots for exposing the holes in our intelligence-gathering.

We're just trying to help Uncle Sam build a better intel-gathering regime.
 
2013-08-12 01:02:01 PM

firefly212: I'm farking tired of people like you purposely conflating disclosure of classified information like.. say giving nuclear missile plans to an enemy with something like disclosing unethical acts on the part of our government. These are not interchangeable concepts, and the differentiation is the reason different charges exist under the law. Even as aggressive as AG Holder and President Obama are, they have not accused, in a court, Mr. Snowden of Treason, nor is the guy named in this case accused of Treason... yet you farkers just throw the damned word around like its nothing at all... they did something you don't like, er go, Treason. It's a spurious line of reasoning that devalues actual treason and just makes the people who throw the word around lightly look like hyperbolic morons at best, and trolls at worst.


Okay, thank you for clarifying. I'm not a lawyer.
 
2013-08-12 01:02:55 PM

Aristocles: Obama.


Thank you, sir, for your brilliant and illuminating post.  I daresay the scales have been lifted from my eyes.
 
2013-08-12 01:03:51 PM

fluffy2097: CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN !


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-12 01:04:15 PM

vpb: I don't have a problem with prosecuting leakers, but it might be a bit much to go after the reporter who receives the leak.  There are laws to protect actual whistle blowers (as opposed to leakers) so it makes sense to have something similar for reporters.


The Obama administrations considers reporters who publish information it doesn't want published and leakers to be the exact same thing.
 
2013-08-12 01:05:09 PM

LasersHurt: imontheinternet: This Administration has a terrible track record on transparency and going after whistleblowers.  This and other holdover policies from the Bush years are going to be the worst part of Obama's legacy.

It's like you try to go out of your way to be uninformed.


Obama has failed to keep his promises on a host of transparency issues, like no bid contracts, having public negotiations of bills, keeping logs of meetings with White House staff, disclosure of lobbying information for federal contractor, etc.  Likewise, the pursuit of and PR war against Snowden and the treatment of Bradley Manning are very telling on the treatment of whistleblowers.

You can support a party or a side without sucking the president's dick on every single issue.  He promised the most transparent administration in history.  He hasn't delivered, not even close.
 
2013-08-12 01:11:09 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: imontheinternet: This Administration has a terrible track record on transparency and going after whistleblowers.  This and other holdover policies from the Bush years are going to be the worst part of Obama's legacy.

It's like you try to go out of your way to be uninformed.

Obama has failed to keep his promises on a host of transparency issues, like no bid contracts, having public negotiations of bills, keeping logs of meetings with White House staff, disclosure of lobbying information for federal contractor, etc.  Likewise, the pursuit of and PR war against Snowden and the treatment of Bradley Manning are very telling on the treatment of whistleblowers.

You can support a party or a side without sucking the president's dick on every single issue.  He promised the most transparent administration in history.  He hasn't delivered, not even close.


I supported him (voted for him twice)... to say that he failed to keep his promises is... a massive understatement in this particular topic... he didn't just not keep his promise, or delay implementation, he outright deleted the promises from his website at the start of the Snowden saga.

4.bp.blogspot.com

/the internet doesn't forget.
 
2013-08-12 01:11:37 PM

nmrsnr: How is this new?

Reporter Held in Contempt in Anthrax Case
New York Times reporter jailed

There is no privilege to keep your sources secret. You don't tell the court, you go to jail. It's been that way for quite a while. There's even a handy list going back to 1984.


Came here to say this. "That sets a dangerous precedent..." must've been written by an editorial staff, no one else is both capable of forming sentences while being that profoundly ignorant at the same time.
 
2013-08-12 01:12:10 PM

imontheinternet: He hasn't delivered, not even close.


But he HAS. He just hasn't made transparent specifically everything YOU WANT. That doesn't mean he hasn't made an enormous amount of information available, historically more than ever before.

Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

I think you confuse "most transparent" with "completely transparent," and "whistleblower protections" with "complete protection of any and all leakers."

Granted you couldn't go a single post without making a dick-sucking joke so I doubt you're evaluating things rationally.
 
182
2013-08-12 01:12:45 PM

unlikely: nmrsnr: There's even a handy list going back to 1984.

Odds of folks clicking: Very low. So here's the copypasta:

1984, Richard Hargraves, Belleville, Ill. Newspaper reporter jailed over a weekend in connection with libel case. Released when source came forward.

1985, Chris Van Ness, California. Free-lancer subpoenaed in connection with John Belushi murder. Jailed for several hours; revealed source; released.

1986, Brad Stone, Detroit. TV reporter refused to reveal identities of gang members interviewed several weeks prior to cop killing. Jailed for one day; released pending appeal. Grand jury then dismissed.

1987, Roxana Kopetman, Los Angeles. Newspaper reporter jailed for six hours for resisting prosecution subpoena seeking eye witness testimony. Appealed; court ruled against her, but criminal case was long over.

1990, Brian Karem, San Antonio. TV reporter subpoenaed by defense and prosecution; refused to reveal name of individuals who arranged jailhouse interview. Jailed for 13 days. Released when sources came forward.

1990, Libby Averyt, Corpus Christi, Texas. Newspaper reporter subpoenaed for info about jailhouse interview. Jailed over a weekend; released when judge convinced she would never turn over the unpublished information sought.

1990, Tim Roche, Stuart, Fla. Newspaper reporter subpoenaed to reveal source for leaked court order supposed to have been sealed. Jailed briefly, released pending appeal. Later sentenced to 30 days for criminal contempt. Served 18 days in 1993, and was released.

1991, Sid Gaulden, Schuyler Kropf, Cindi Scoppe, Andrew Shain; Columbia, South Carolina. Jailed for eight hours; released for appeal, which they lost, but trial was over. Prosecutors sought unpublished conversations with state senator on trial for corruption.

1991, Felix Sanchez and James Campbell, Houston. Newspaper reporters locked in judges chambers for several hours; had refused to stand in the back of courtroom and identify possible eyewitnesses to crime. A ...


/thread over
 
2013-08-12 01:12:47 PM

firefly212: /the internet doesn't forget.


Nor does it differentiate shades of grey, apparently.
 
2013-08-12 01:12:52 PM

Brick-House: President Obama's assault on the First Amendment America continues


Did you copy that from a Fisher-Price "My First Blog" headline?
 
2013-08-12 01:15:41 PM

firefly212: vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term  aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place.  These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a real and serious crime. ...


You are aware that the word "treason" has a meaning outside of U.S. law. "Traitor: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" according to definition 1 of Merriam-Webster. Not definition 2 or 3 but 1. That word goes back to the 13th century.

When people call him a traitor, they're not farking wrong.
 
2013-08-12 01:16:45 PM
Meh, I am actually a libby-mc liberson but I think it's completely fair to say Obama has been disappointing on the transparency/whistleblower issue.  The Derpers jumping up and down on this thread are pretty hilarious though, considering that the Republicans have pretty much said that his most recent modest attempts at transparency are going to far and may endanger national security.

Source:  http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFraW5nbmV3cy13d3ctaHJkcg0L E gRTZWVkGLCCpBMM/2013/08/09/house-speaker-john-boehner-on-obamas-nsa-an nounce

So yeah, Obama is shiatty on the NSA issue, the Republicans are still worse.  Watching ten pounds of derp try to make a charge from the left has been pretty darn amusing though.  Shine on you crazy diamond!
 
2013-08-12 01:17:12 PM

firefly212: I supported him (voted for him twice)... to say that he failed to keep his promises is... a massive understatement in this particular topic... he didn't just not keep his promise, or delay implementation, he outright deleted the promises from his website at the start of the Snowden saga.

4.bp.blogspot.com

/the internet doesn't forget.


Not sure if serious.
 
2013-08-12 01:21:17 PM

LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.


Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?
 
2013-08-12 01:21:37 PM
LasersHurt, if I were Obama I'd name you WH press secretary. You make Jay Carney look like Rush Limbaugh.
 
2013-08-12 01:21:38 PM

vygramul: firefly212:

vernonFL: You are aware that the word "treason" has a meaning outside of U.S. law. "Traitor: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" according to definition 1 of Merriam-Webster. Not definition 2 or 3 but 1. That word goes back to the 13th century.

When people call him a traitor, they're not farking wrong.


The people who fight for a government that operates within the constraints of the constitution, who fight for a government that operates in an honest manner with the citizenry... calling them "traitors" would be a sort of wrong of the highest order. I cannot think of a superlative version of wrong, but that's what it is.

Then again, I suppose Washington, Jefferson, and the lot were a bunch of treasonous traitors, and the differentiation between whether you think someone is a traitor or someone working to improve government depends on whether or not you side with the Nobles or the bourgeois and serfs.
 
2013-08-12 01:24:31 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?


That's not the DOJ position, that's the law.  Reporter's privilege is a myth, reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources per Branzburg v Hayes:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invo l=665">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol= 408&invo l=665
 
2013-08-12 01:24:42 PM
Greg Brock is unavailable for comment....
 
2013-08-12 01:25:27 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?


I fail to see how rejecting one specific thing is "reversing" his position when other protections he's passed remain, but okay.

As far as the second part, read this thread. Look at history. Duh. That's not getting into good or bad, but its nothing new or unusual.

1derful: LasersHurt, if I were Obama I'd name you WH press secretary. You make Jay Carney look like Rush Limbaugh.


Why, for knowing what words mean?
 
2013-08-12 01:27:12 PM

amiable: imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?

That's not the DOJ position, that's the law.  Reporter's privilege is a myth, reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources per Branzburg v Hayes:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invo l=665">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol= 408&invo l=665


I don't disagree that it is the current law... I disagree that the administration is enforcing this clearly bad idea instead of working to change the law. The guy got elected on a platform of change, yet he's been excessively pragmatic to the point that progress isn't just moving glacially, it isn't moving at all. He isn't changing things in the right direction, or any discernible direction at all, as best I can tell.
 
2013-08-12 01:27:45 PM

firefly212: vygramul: firefly212: vernonFL: You are aware that the word "treason" has a meaning outside of U.S. law. "Traitor: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" according to definition 1 of Merriam-Webster. Not definition 2 or 3 but 1. That word goes back to the 13th century.

When people call him a traitor, they're not farking wrong.

The people who fight for a government that operates within the constraints of the constitution, who fight for a government that operates in an honest manner with the citizenry... calling them "traitors" would be a sort of wrong of the highest order. I cannot think of a superlative version of wrong, but that's what it is.

Then again, I suppose Washington, Jefferson, and the lot were a bunch of treasonous traitors, and the differentiation between whether you think someone is a traitor or someone working to improve government depends on whether or not you side with the Nobles or the bourgeois and serfs.


In the minds of the British they were traitors.  While Snowden is not a traitor, he is still a criminal and far from a hero.
 
2013-08-12 01:28:01 PM

LasersHurt: i

1derful: LasersHurt, if I were Obama I'd name you WH press secretary. You make Jay Carney look like Rush Limbaugh.

Why, for knowing what words mean?


Because you don't repeatedly and vociferously state that obama is an evil, Muslim dictator who is destroying america, duh.  You know, being fair and balanced.
 
2013-08-12 01:28:24 PM

firefly212: The guy got elected on a platform of change, yet


Whenever someone says this, they always follow it with "but here's one thing I still have a problem with."

There will never, ever, ever, ever be a chance when you can't make that argument. It's silly, and meaningless.
 
2013-08-12 01:28:58 PM

firefly212: amiable: imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?

That's not the DOJ position, that's the law.  Reporter's privilege is a myth, reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources per Branzburg v Hayes:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invo l=665">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol= 408&invo l=665

I don't disagree that it is the current law... I disagree that the administration is enforcing this clearly bad idea instead of working to change the law. The guy got elected on a platform of change, yet he's been excessively pragmatic to the point that progress isn't just moving glacially, it isn't moving at all. He isn't changing things in the right direction, or any discernible direction at all, as best I can tell.


Why should reporters and journalists get special protections under the law that I do not have?
 
2013-08-12 01:30:25 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I got a 7.9 on the fark libiest lib evaluation last week and I don't think there are that many 8.0s or above.


This is a thing? When/where did this happen?
 
2013-08-12 01:32:01 PM

amiable: imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?

That's not the DOJ position, that's the law.  Reporter's privilege is a myth, reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources per Branzburg v Hayes:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invo l=665">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol= 408&invo l=665


... and money is speech and corporations are people.  Courts get things wrong.  The freedom of the press is one of the key provisions of the First Amendment.
 
2013-08-12 01:33:58 PM

imontheinternet: amiable: imontheinternet: LasersHurt: Likewise, he's expanded Whistleblower's rights.

Then, he issued a signing statement against them, reversing his position.

The DOJ's official position is that reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources.  You realize that the DOJ is part of the Administration, right?

That's not the DOJ position, that's the law.  Reporter's privilege is a myth, reporters have no constitutional right to protect their sources per Branzburg v Hayes:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invo l=665">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol= 408&invo l=665

... and money is speech and corporations are people.  Courts get things wrong.  The freedom of the press is one of the key provisions of the First Amendment.


sweet, someone opinion on why something is wrong when that person clearly doesn't understand what he is opining about.
 
2013-08-12 01:35:09 PM
imontheinternet:

... and money is speech and corporations are people.  Courts get things wrong.  The freedom of the press is one of the key provisions of the First Amendment.

I think the incorporation of the Second amendment as a fundamental right was wrong.  Even though I disagree with the decision I understand that once the Supreme Court rules on it, that's the law of the land, like it or lump it.  I don't yell at the administration about it, I understand that to change it will require an act of the law making body, Congress.
 
2013-08-12 01:35:45 PM

SlothB77: The media is more interested in propping up Obama pandering to the current administration, whomever that is, than it is in protecting their own craft. This isn't surprising at all.


FTFY

Recall the slavish reporting of Bush's drumbeat for war in Iraq? Sitting on the NSA story for a year? They don't want to risk a loss of access.
 
2013-08-12 01:35:51 PM
I think it's cute that the early Monday trolls are once again thinking that Obama has all the power of the gods to do whatever he wants.

Some House of Representatives and Senate Democrats would like a word (hopefully you can hear it over the creaking moan of "filibuster" leaking from Mitch's mouthhole).
 
2013-08-12 01:37:10 PM

LasersHurt: firefly212: The guy got elected on a platform of change, yet

Whenever someone says this, they always follow it with "but here's one thing I still have a problem with."

There will never, ever, ever, ever be a chance when you can't make that argument. It's silly, and meaningless.


I voted for the guy when he was for a public option, when he was pro-whistleblower, when he said he was going to go toe-to-toe with Chiina when they violated our trade agreements, when he said he was against free speech zones conceptually because the whole country was supposed to be one...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU0m6Rxm9vU">http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=CU0m6Rxm9vU
... That guy... so tell me... he said he was going to change it, that the government would be more transparent, that he was going to have a government that could stand up to sunlight... yet he's prosecuted far more people for leaking, and run a far more information-controlled government than even Bush... so... I guess it's silly and meaningless to say that on the stuff that mattered to me, on the reasons I voted for him, he's been woefully ineffective.
 
2013-08-12 01:37:30 PM

LasersHurt: I fail to see how rejecting one specific thing is "reversing" his position when other protections he's passed remain, but okay.


I like how you completely ignore that the Administration has admittedly reversed its position on this issue.

LasersHurt: As far as the second part, read this thread. Look at history. Duh. That's not getting into good or bad, but its nothing new or unusual.


My point is that continuing Bush policies will be the worst part of Obama's legacy.  Your counter is that this was a Bush policy that Obama is continuing.
 
2013-08-12 01:38:12 PM

MisterRonbo: SlothB77: The media is more interested in propping up Obama pandering to the current administration, whomever that is, than it is in protecting their own craft. This isn't surprising at all.

FTFY

Recall the slavish reporting of Bush's drumbeat for war in Iraq? Sitting on the NSA story for a year? They don't want to risk a loss of access.


This has been one of the subplots of the first 4 episodes of The Newsroom this season.  You press too hard and you get booted from the playing field.
 
2013-08-12 01:38:18 PM

firefly212: vygramul: firefly212: vernonFL: You are aware that the word "treason" has a meaning outside of U.S. law. "Traitor: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" according to definition 1 of Merriam-Webster. Not definition 2 or 3 but 1. That word goes back to the 13th century.

When people call him a traitor, they're not farking wrong.

The people who fight for a government that operates within the constraints of the constitution, who fight for a government that operates in an honest manner with the citizenry... calling them "traitors" would be a sort of wrong of the highest order. I cannot think of a superlative version of wrong, but that's what it is.


That would make sense if that's what's going on here. But there's a shiatload of confirmation bias based on a guy whose statements are contradictory and aren't supported by the documentation he's released. I don't grab my torch and pitchfork without farking evidence, and the word of a liar doesn't qualify.

But beyond that, even were we to stipulate it, that doesn't then enable Snowden to do things that aren't defensible. For example, letting the Russians know we tried to bug Medvedev's cell phone during the G-8 has absolutely no legitimate defense. Even if one believes he did the public a big favor on the domestic spying front, he then followed it up by betraying the public on the foreign spying front. Not to mention his hostage-taking of information. He has more that he THREATENS to release. Oh, really? So either that info is HELPFUL to the people and he's a dickbag for withholding it from us, or it's NOT helpful but it is DAMAGING, in which case, he's a dickbag for threatening us with harm.

No, the guy's a farktard who took-in the entire farking country because he "confirmed" what everyone already thought and because he got so far as getting an NSA gig for three months, and that keeps all the knee-jerk people from looking too closely at him because they already know the truth anyway.

Then again, I suppose Washington, Jefferson, and the lot were a bunch of treasonous traitors, and the differentiation between whether you think someone is a traitor or someone working to improve government depends on whether or not you side with the Nobles or the bourgeois and serfs.

You must think Timothy McVeigh is a patriot, then. Or are you siding with the government? Because, as you point out, those are the only two possibilities, right?
 
2013-08-12 01:40:04 PM

amiable: imontheinternet:

... and money is speech and corporations are people.  Courts get things wrong.  The freedom of the press is one of the key provisions of the First Amendment.

I think the incorporation of the Second amendment as a fundamental right was wrong.  Even though I disagree with the decision I understand that once the Supreme Court rules on it, that's the law of the land, like it or lump it.  I don't yell at the administration about it, I understand that to change it will require an act of the law making body, Congress.


Why is incorporation of the 2nd Amendment wrong, whilst incorporation of elements of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th  Amendments are not wrong?
 
2013-08-12 01:40:40 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: I fail to see how rejecting one specific thing is "reversing" his position when other protections he's passed remain, but okay.

I like how you completely ignore that the Administration has admittedly reversed its position on this issue.

LasersHurt: As far as the second part, read this thread. Look at history. Duh. That's not getting into good or bad, but its nothing new or unusual.

My point is that continuing Bush policies will be the worst part of Obama's legacy.  Your counter is that this was a Bush policy that Obama is continuing.


And are you saying that because of a few things we don't like about Obama, we should long for the days of Bush or yearn for the clusterf*ckery of a Romney presidency (which would have had nearly all Bush advisers)?  What would be your point?  That Obama isn't perfect?  No sh*t.  That we're white-knighting him because we still throw Bush under the bus? African-American, please.
 
2013-08-12 01:41:11 PM

imontheinternet: LasersHurt: I fail to see how rejecting one specific thing is "reversing" his position when other protections he's passed remain, but okay.

I like how you completely ignore that the Administration has admittedly reversed its position on this issue.

LasersHurt: As far as the second part, read this thread. Look at history. Duh. That's not getting into good or bad, but its nothing new or unusual.

My point is that continuing Bush policies will be the worst part of Obama's legacy.  Your counter is that this was a Bush policy that Obama is continuing.


Are you not capable of reading? It's not a Bush Policy. It well predates Bush.

And no, again, he didn't  "reverse his position" on the issue. Many NEW whistleblower protections still exist, he just took issue with that one particular thing (for whatever reason). Unless you mean he "reversed his position" on specifically that one issue, in which case you need to SAY that instead of saying he reversed his position on whistleblowing altogether.

I'm not arguing the guy's infallible or perfect, just that you should know what you're talking about and hold him accountable for reality, not your feverish dreams.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report