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)   The most transparent administration in history shows the public what it is all about   (theguardian.com) divider line 169
    More: Followup, establishments, extrajudicial killings, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, hypocrites  
•       •       •

3206 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Apr 2014 at 4:27 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-26 02:40:16 PM  
Isn't it fairly standard for large organizations to have one spokesperson and not allow their employees to represent them to the press?
 
2014-04-26 02:58:10 PM  

Kimothy: Isn't it fairly standard for large organizations to have one spokesperson and not allow their employees to represent them to the press?


Only since 2009

Thanks, 0bama!
 
2014-04-26 03:04:14 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Kimothy: Isn't it fairly standard for large organizations to have one spokesperson and not allow their employees to represent them to the press?

Only since 2009

Thanks, 0bama!


Oh, so George Bush and Co. allowed that? I'm sure Valerie Plame would disagree.
 
2014-04-26 04:31:21 PM  
It's called OPSEC and it's been been standard practice for a very, very long time
 
2014-04-26 04:39:49 PM  
Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.
 
2014-04-26 04:42:32 PM  

Kimothy: Isn't it fairly standard for large organizations to have one spokesperson and not allow their employees to represent them to the press?


My company does.

But it wouldn't bar me from blowing the whistle if they were doing something illegal.
 
2014-04-26 04:44:18 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.


Let us recall this post should you cry later that no one wants to take you seriously.
 
2014-04-26 04:45:07 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-26 04:51:22 PM  

Kimothy: Lionel Mandrake: Kimothy: Isn't it fairly standard for large organizations to have one spokesperson and not allow their employees to represent them to the press?

Only since 2009

Thanks, 0bama!

Oh, so George Bush and Co. allowed that? I'm sure Valerie Plame would disagree.


That's the joke.
 
2014-04-26 04:53:48 PM  

Summoner101: It's called OPSEC and it's been been standard practice for a very, very long time


But it's wrong when the Blah guy does it, for reasons such as.
 
2014-04-26 04:56:37 PM  
We get it, he's black(ed out all the interesting stuff)
 
2014-04-26 05:05:13 PM  
TL; DR, is it the Hokey Pokey?
 
2014-04-26 05:09:31 PM  

NeverDrunk23: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

Let us recall this post should you cry later that no one wants to take you seriously.


I'd say it's the other 99% of his posts that are the reason no-one takes him seriously. This is definitely a thread for the apologists.
 
2014-04-26 05:10:22 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.


Well, the puppy probably had it coming.
 
2014-04-26 05:12:45 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.


You can't wait until someone kills a puppy?! Christ, what an asshole.
 
2014-04-26 05:14:11 PM  
I'd like to hear more about Deep Throat.
 
2014-04-26 05:15:47 PM  
I've been involved in the guts of government on and off since about 1968, and I can tell you that if you assume the worst, you won't be far off the mark when it comes to black budgets.
 
2014-04-26 05:15:57 PM  

The Numbers: NeverDrunk23: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

Let us recall this post should you cry later that no one wants to take you seriously.

I'd say it's the other 99% of his posts that are the reason no-one takes him seriously. This is definitely a thread for the apologists.


A historically inaccurate editorial written with inflammatory language isn't really an awesome thing to base a thread criticising the Obama's administration's public transparency on.
 
2014-04-26 05:17:33 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.


Puppy killing seems a bit extreme for a Chicago machine politician.  I'd be much more concerned if he was a deregulator, like Clinton.  And I'm talking about Hillary.
 
2014-04-26 05:19:47 PM  

ReverendJynxed: I'd like to hear more about Deep Throat.


kikiandtea.com
 
2014-04-26 05:20:14 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.


I'm actually kind of curious here. I don't recall any bills from the GOP dominated House that seek to curb the power and secrecy of US intellegence agencies, though that could merely be the product of ignorance on my part. Has there been even a single proposed (and written) piece of legislation from the GOP since 2009 that seeks to address the issue?

My postulation (should there not actually be any track record of the GOP House seeking to address the issue) is that perhaps they still too busy holding hearings on IRS actions that targeted progressives and holding votes to strip away health insurance from millions of Americans instead of seeking to address the overreach of a security state that began roughly a decade ago (amidst great protest). Perhaps they shall get around to it after another dozen Benghazi hearings of so.
 
2014-04-26 05:22:19 PM  
Good.  Now they just need to do the same with politicians who make 'off the record' comments and LEOs who 'remain anonymous because they were not given permission to speak with the press'.
 
2014-04-26 05:29:22 PM  

clowncar on fire: ReverendJynxed: I'd like to hear more about Deep Throat.

[kikiandtea.com image 300x370]


Nothing wrong with being nerdy.

i.imgur.com
Erecto!
 
2014-04-26 05:34:46 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: The Numbers: NeverDrunk23: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

Let us recall this post should you cry later that no one wants to take you seriously.

I'd say it's the other 99% of his posts that are the reason no-one takes him seriously. This is definitely a thread for the apologists.

A historically inaccurate editorial written with inflammatory language isn't really an awesome thing to base a thread criticising the Obama's administration's public transparency on.


You're quite right, it provides too much scope for deflecting away from the real issues and onto 'your blog sucks' style trivialities.
 
2014-04-26 05:34:49 PM  

DeArmondVI: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

I'm actually kind of curious here. I don't recall any bills from the GOP dominated House that seek to curb the power and secrecy of US intellegence agencies, though that could merely be the product of ignorance on my part. Has there been even a single proposed (and written) piece of legislation from the GOP since 2009 that seeks to address the issue?

My postulation (should there not actually be any track record of the GOP House seeking to address the issue) is that perhaps they still too busy holding hearings on IRS actions that targeted progressives and holding votes to strip away health insurance from millions of Americans instead of seeking to address the overreach of a security state that began roughly a decade ago (amidst great protest). Perhaps they shall get around to it after another dozen Benghazi hearings of so.


Since you asked I will answer.  Bush 2 was a terrible president.  He hit my hot button issue "freedom" and "privacy" hard and often.  From the patriot act to the department of homeland security.  Although I did not vote for Obama one of my sincere hopes was that he would stop the trend toward an increasingly secretive and intrusive government.  He has only followed in Bushes path.  Accelerating everything I personally hate about modern America.  Things that Democrats used to be against.  Because Obama is their man they do mental gymnastics to say everything he has done is AWESOME!!!!  I say it is not awesome and defenders of him are hypocrites.   Hence the puppy nonsense. It has zero to do with the GOP and everything to do with hypocrisy.
 
2014-04-26 05:38:21 PM  

The Numbers: Crotchrocket Slim: The Numbers: NeverDrunk23: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

Let us recall this post should you cry later that no one wants to take you seriously.

I'd say it's the other 99% of his posts that are the reason no-one takes him seriously. This is definitely a thread for the apologists.

A historically inaccurate editorial written with inflammatory language isn't really an awesome thing to base a thread criticising the Obama's administration's public transparency on.

You're quite right, it provides too much scope for deflecting away from the real issues and onto 'your blog sucks' style trivialities.


It was like a discussion I was having in another thread last night- just because the Obama administration has its warts doesn't mean every flimsy "criticism" put out by the media is worth taking seriously.
 
2014-04-26 05:40:31 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Because Obama is their man they do mental gymnastics to say everything he has done is AWESOME!!!!


Every single liberal/democrat I know (and I know many) complains about Obama all the time.

Liberals on FARK complain about him all the time (they just don't make up "scandals" like conservatives do, so they complain about different things than the ODS crowd)

IOW, what you say is bullshiat
 
2014-04-26 05:41:11 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: DeArmondVI: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

I'm actually kind of curious here. I don't recall any bills from the GOP dominated House that seek to curb the power and secrecy of US intellegence agencies, though that could merely be the product of ignorance on my part. Has there been even a single proposed (and written) piece of legislation from the GOP since 2009 that seeks to address the issue?

My postulation (should there not actually be any track record of the GOP House seeking to address the issue) is that perhaps they still too busy holding hearings on IRS actions that targeted progressives and holding votes to strip away health insurance from millions of Americans instead of seeking to address the overreach of a security state that began roughly a decade ago (amidst great protest). Perhaps they shall get around to it after another dozen Benghazi hearings of so.

Since you asked I will answer.  Bush 2 was a terrible president.  He hit my hot button issue "freedom" and "privacy" hard and often.  From the patriot act to the department of homeland security.  Although I did not vote for Obama one of my sincere hopes was that he would stop the trend toward an increasingly secretive and intrusive government.  He has only followed in Bushes path.  Accelerating everything I personally hate about modern America.  Things that Democrats used to be against.  Because Obama is their man they do mental gymnastics to say everything he has done is AWESOME!!!!  I say it is not awesome and defenders of him are hypocrites.   Hence the puppy nonsense. It has zero to do with the GOP and everything to do with hypocrisy.


As I asked another poster in another thread, cite one surveillance program Obama expanded by Presidential mandate, agencies where Congress has repeatedly blocked appointments for directors (and thus they start acting rogue) do not count.
 
2014-04-26 05:43:05 PM  

ReverendJynxed: I'd like to hear more about Deep Throat.


Uhhh. It was a dude.
 
2014-04-26 05:45:23 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: DeArmondVI: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

I'm actually kind of curious here. I don't recall any bills from the GOP dominated House that seek to curb the power and secrecy of US intellegence agencies, though that could merely be the product of ignorance on my part. Has there been even a single proposed (and written) piece of legislation from the GOP since 2009 that seeks to address the issue?

My postulation (should there not actually be any track record of the GOP House seeking to address the issue) is that perhaps they still too busy holding hearings on IRS actions that targeted progressives and holding votes to strip away health insurance from millions of Americans instead of seeking to address the overreach of a security state that began roughly a decade ago (amidst great protest). Perhaps they shall get around to it after another dozen Benghazi hearings of so.

Since you asked I will answer.  Bush 2 was a terrible president.  He hit my hot button issue "freedom" and "privacy" hard and often.  From the patriot act to the department of homeland security.  Although I did not vote for Obama one of my sincere hopes was that he would stop the trend toward an increasingly secretive and intrusive government.  He has only followed in Bushes path.  Accelerating everything I personally hate about modern America.  Things that Democrats used to be against.  Because Obama is their man they do mental gymnastics to say everything he has done is AWESOME!!!!  I say it is not awesome and defenders of him are hypocrites.   Hence the puppy nonsense. It has zero to do with the GOP and everything to do with hypocrisy.

As I asked another poster in another thread, cite one surveillance program Obama expanded by Presidential mandate, agencies where Congress has repeatedly blocked appointments for directors (and thus they start ac ...


The enhanced patriot act.  wow that was hard.
 
2014-04-26 05:51:43 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: The Numbers: Crotchrocket Slim: The Numbers: NeverDrunk23: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

Let us recall this post should you cry later that no one wants to take you seriously.

I'd say it's the other 99% of his posts that are the reason no-one takes him seriously. This is definitely a thread for the apologists.

A historically inaccurate editorial written with inflammatory language isn't really an awesome thing to base a thread criticising the Obama's administration's public transparency on.

You're quite right, it provides too much scope for deflecting away from the real issues and onto 'your blog sucks' style trivialities.

It was like a discussion I was having in another thread last night- just because the Obama administration has its warts doesn't mean every flimsy "criticism" put out by the media is worth taking seriously.


If something like the Cliven Bundy thing gets the level of attention it has; then this is definitely worth paying attention to. What's sad is the number of people who don't want to keep the government under scrutiny because they don't want to see things that might reflect badly on their 'team'.
 
2014-04-26 05:52:49 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: bigsteve3OOO: Because Obama is their man they do mental gymnastics to say everything he has done is AWESOME!!!!

Every single liberal/democrat I know (and I know many) complains about Obama all the time.

Liberals on FARK complain about him all the time (they just don't make up "scandals" like conservatives do, so they complain about different things than the ODS crowd)

IOW, what you say is bullshiat


So in this particular thing; this transparency issue, you are saying that you personally disagree with Obama and that he is wrong?  Please state that without weasel like language.  I'll give you an example:  I think Obama is wrong on this issue.
/bet you cant say that
 
2014-04-26 05:58:18 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: DeArmondVI: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

I'm actually kind of curious here. I don't recall any bills from the GOP dominated House that seek to curb the power and secrecy of US intellegence agencies, though that could merely be the product of ignorance on my part. Has there been even a single proposed (and written) piece of legislation from the GOP since 2009 that seeks to address the issue?

My postulation (should there not actually be any track record of the GOP House seeking to address the issue) is that perhaps they still too busy holding hearings on IRS actions that targeted progressives and holding votes to strip away health insurance from millions of Americans instead of seeking to address the overreach of a security state that began roughly a decade ago (amidst great protest). Perhaps they shall get around to it after another dozen Benghazi hearings of so.

Since you asked I will answer.  Bush 2 was a terrible president.  He hit my hot button issue "freedom" and "privacy" hard and often.  From the patriot act to the department of homeland security.  Although I did not vote for Obama one of my sincere hopes was that he would stop the trend toward an increasingly secretive and intrusive government.  He has only followed in Bushes path.  Accelerating everything I personally hate about modern America.  Things that Democrats used to be against.  Because Obama is their man they do mental gymnastics to say everything he has done is AWESOME!!!!  I say it is not awesome and defenders of him are hypocrites.   Hence the puppy nonsense. It has zero to do with the GOP and everything to do with hypocrisy.

As I asked another poster in another thread, cite one surveillance program Obama expanded by Presidential mandate, agencies where Congress has repeatedly blocked appointments for directors (and ...


Congress had a veto-proof majority when that was passed, and that's not a surveillance program, that's a law that enables further programs- which Obama has stated several times he does not intend to take advantage of. But, seeing as you're floundering as always, I'll give you another chance to cite one actual program he ordered started or expanded directly. We're waiting....
 
2014-04-26 05:59:52 PM  

The Numbers: Crotchrocket Slim: The Numbers: Crotchrocket Slim: The Numbers: NeverDrunk23: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

Let us recall this post should you cry later that no one wants to take you seriously.

I'd say it's the other 99% of his posts that are the reason no-one takes him seriously. This is definitely a thread for the apologists.

A historically inaccurate editorial written with inflammatory language isn't really an awesome thing to base a thread criticising the Obama's administration's public transparency on.

You're quite right, it provides too much scope for deflecting away from the real issues and onto 'your blog sucks' style trivialities.

It was like a discussion I was having in another thread last night- just because the Obama administration has its warts doesn't mean every flimsy "criticism" put out by the media is worth taking seriously.

If something like the Cliven Bundy thing gets the level of attention it has; then this is definitely worth paying attention to. What's sad is the number of people who don't want to keep the government under scrutiny because they don't want to see things that might reflect badly on their 'team'.


Just because the media obsesses on stupid bullshiat for ratings doesn't mean a story or criticism deserves such attention, come on here.
 
2014-04-26 06:02:25 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Lionel Mandrake: bigsteve3OOO: Because Obama is their man they do mental gymnastics to say everything he has done is AWESOME!!!!

Every single liberal/democrat I know (and I know many) complains about Obama all the time.

Liberals on FARK complain about him all the time (they just don't make up "scandals" like conservatives do, so they complain about different things than the ODS crowd)

IOW, what you say is bullshiat

So in this particular thing; this transparency issue, you are saying that you personally disagree with Obama and that he is wrong?  Please state that without weasel like language.  I'll give you an example:  I think Obama is wrong on this issue.
/bet you cant say that


And the only reason you think that is because he primaried with the other guys, you can't actually cite something he ordered into law or practice.

I'd agree he hasn't done enough on this issue but it doesn't mean you aren't bringing nothing but uninformed reactionary derp to the convo.
 
2014-04-26 06:06:09 PM  
Just because people want to hear stuff that they agree with....
 
2014-04-26 06:06:09 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: DeArmondVI: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

I'm actually kind of curious here. I don't recall any bills from the GOP dominated House that seek to curb the power and secrecy of US intellegence agencies, though that could merely be the product of ignorance on my part. Has there been even a single proposed (and written) piece of legislation from the GOP since 2009 that seeks to address the issue?

My postulation (should there not actually be any track record of the GOP House seeking to address the issue) is that perhaps they still too busy holding hearings on IRS actions that targeted progressives and holding votes to strip away health insurance from millions of Americans instead of seeking to address the overreach of a security state that began roughly a decade ago (amidst great protest). Perhaps they shall get around to it after another dozen Benghazi hearings of so.

Since you asked I will answer.  Bush 2 was a terrible president.  He hit my hot button issue "freedom" and "privacy" hard and often.  From the patriot act to the department of homeland security.  Although I did not vote for Obama one of my sincere hopes was that he would stop the trend toward an increasingly secretive and intrusive government.  He has only followed in Bushes path.  Accelerating everything I personally hate about modern America.  Things that Democrats used to be against.  Because Obama is their man they do mental gymnastics to say everything he has done is AWESOME!!!!  I say it is not awesome and defenders of him are hypocrites.   Hence the puppy nonsense. It has zero to do with the GOP and everything to do with hypocrisy.

As I asked another poster in another thread, cite one surveillance program Obama expanded by Presidential mandate, agencies where Congress has repeatedly blocked appointments for ...


If I move the goal posts like you I can claim that no one can refute my claim also.  I assume you are trolling or a moron.  good day sir.
 
2014-04-26 06:06:56 PM  
WHAT IS FARTBOOGER HIDING?

WHAR FREEDOM FARTBINGO WHAR?
 
2014-04-26 06:07:49 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: DeArmondVI: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

I'm actually kind of curious here. I don't recall any bills from the GOP dominated House that seek to curb the power and secrecy of US intellegence agencies, though that could merely be the product of ignorance on my part. Has there been even a single proposed (and written) piece of legislation from the GOP since 2009 that seeks to address the issue?

My postulation (should there not actually be any track record of the GOP House seeking to address the issue) is that perhaps they still too busy holding hearings on IRS actions that targeted progressives and holding votes to strip away health insurance from millions of Americans instead of seeking to address the overreach of a security state that began roughly a decade ago (amidst great protest). Perhaps they shall get around to it after another dozen Benghazi hearings of so.

Since you asked I will answer.  Bush 2 was a terrible president.  He hit my hot button issue "freedom" and "privacy" hard and often.  From the patriot act to the department of homeland security.  Although I did not vote for Obama one of my sincere hopes was that he would stop the trend toward an increasingly secretive and intrusive government.  He has only followed in Bushes path.  Accelerating everything I personally hate about modern America.  Things that Democrats used to be against.  Because Obama is their man they do mental gymnastics to say everything he has done is AWESOME!!!!  I say it is not awesome and defenders of him are hypocrites.   Hence the puppy nonsense. It has zero to do with the GOP and everything to do with hypocrisy.

As I asked another poster in another thread, cite one surveillance program Obama expanded by Presidential mandate, agencies where Congress has repeatedly blocke ...


I asked you to cite an actual program he expanded and your clownshoes ass cited a law he was politically forced to sign into law. Your reading comprehension sucks
 
2014-04-26 06:09:26 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: DeArmondVI: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

I'm actually kind of curious here. I don't recall any bills from the GOP dominated House that seek to curb the power and secrecy of US intellegence agencies, though that could merely be the product of ignorance on my part. Has there been even a single proposed (and written) piece of legislation from the GOP since 2009 that seeks to address the issue?

My postulation (should there not actually be any track record of the GOP House seeking to address the issue) is that perhaps they still too busy holding hearings on IRS actions that targeted progressives and holding votes to strip away health insurance from millions of Americans instead of seeking to address the overreach of a security state that began roughly a decade ago (amidst great protest). Perhaps they shall get around to it after another dozen Benghazi hearings of so.

Since you asked I will answer.  Bush 2 was a terrible president.  He hit my hot button issue "freedom" and "privacy" hard and often.  From the patriot act to the department of homeland security.  Although I did not vote for Obama one of my sincere hopes was that he would stop the trend toward an increasingly secretive and intrusive government.  He has only followed in Bushes path.  Accelerating everything I personally hate about modern America.  Things that Democrats used to be against.  Because Obama is their man they do mental gymnastics to say everything he has done is AWESOME!!!!  I say it is not awesome and defenders of him are hypocrites.   Hence the puppy nonsense. It has zero to do with the GOP and everything to do with hypocrisy.


I agree as well that Bush the Second was a terrible president and with your dissapointment in Obama's unwillingness to dismantle the security state framework established during those years. However, I voted for Obama in both elections and do not regret either vote. It is laughable to consider either McCain or Romney dismantling powerful new federal powers that make our now permanent "war" on terror easier to conduct. However, the trend of power (generally) is to constantly expand and I was under no pretense that Obama would end the abuses that begun under his predecessor.

After all, Obama made it very clear that he wanted to "look forward, not backward" from the very beginning, despite the fact that war crimes had occured. Even after winning the House in 2006, Pelosi made it unambiguously clear that impeachment was "off the table" despite the fact that aggression (the same war crime that Hitler committed against Poland) had occurred.

In addition to the aforementioned, the GOP isn't really interested in reigning in the now expanded powers of the intelligence agencies because its members are drooling at the chin in anticipation at the prospect of getting to be at the helm of those powers.

From what I've seen (from the left) is that nobody is very happy with the expanded powers, but they hold back making too much of a public fuss over it for fear that the GOP will capitalize on such efforts and regain power.

And round and around we keep going.
 
2014-04-26 06:15:34 PM  
Bush 2 gave us almost 3 weeks of peace with no travel and peaceful nights. No one since the 60"s had that accomplishment
 
2014-04-26 06:20:53 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: DeArmondVI: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

I'm actually kind of curious here. I don't recall any bills from the GOP dominated House that seek to curb the power and secrecy of US intellegence agencies, though that could merely be the product of ignorance on my part. Has there been even a single proposed (and written) piece of legislation from the GOP since 2009 that seeks to address the issue?


As I asked another poster in another thread, cite one surveillance program Obama expanded by Presidential mandate, agencies where Congress has rep ...
I asked you to cite an actual program he expanded and your clownshoes ass cited a law he was politically forced to sign into law. Your reading comprehension sucks


It's never his fault huh.  He owns that and everything else over the past 6 years.  Thanks for making my point better that I could without your help.
 
2014-04-26 06:27:35 PM  
bigsteve3OOO:
It's never his fault huh.  He owns that and everything else over the past 6 years.  Thanks for making my point better that I could without your help.

You really don't know one basic thing about how Congress passes laws and that it can override Presidential veto, making that veto pointless and drawing things out longer. He owns all the GOP obstructionism WRT budgets, shutting down the Federal government, blocking director appointments of the various agencies conducting surveillance on US citizens how? Should he be kidnapping intransigent GOP representatives and hanging them off of buildings Batman-style until they stop intentionally putting monkey wrenches in the political process?
 
2014-04-26 06:31:02 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO:
It's never his fault huh.  He owns that and everything else over the past 6 years.  Thanks for making my point better that I could without your help.

You really don't know one basic thing about how Congress passes laws and that it can override Presidential veto, making that veto pointless and drawing things out longer. He owns all the GOP obstructionism WRT budgets, shutting down the Federal government, blocking director appointments of the various agencies conducting surveillance on US citizens how? Should he be kidnapping intransigent GOP representatives and hanging them off of buildings Batman-style until they stop intentionally putting monkey wrenches in the political process?


So not Obamas fault again.  I see.  Thanks you really cleared things up.  If he did however kill a puppy on national TV would that be his fault?  or the puppy's?
 
2014-04-26 06:34:40 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: DeArmondVI: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

I'm actually kind of curious here. I don't recall any bills from the GOP dominated House that seek to curb the power and secrecy of US intellegence agencies, though that could merely be the product of ignorance on my part. Has there been even a single proposed (and written) piece of legislation from the GOP since 2009 that seeks to address the issue?


As I asked another poster in another thread, cite one surveillance program Obama expanded by Presidential mandate, agencies where Congress has rep ...
I asked you to cite an actual program he expanded and your clownshoes ass cited a law he was politically forced to sign into law. Your reading comprehension sucks

It's never his fault huh.  He owns that and everything else over the past 6 years.  Thanks for making my point better that I could without your help.


That made me laugh too.

A veto is a powerful gesture, and it's an even more powerful gesture for congress to override it. The fact that neither occurred was quite telling.

The most transparent administration in history, ladies and gentlemen:
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-26 06:34:49 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO:
It's never his fault huh.  He owns that and everything else over the past 6 years.  Thanks for making my point better that I could without your help.

You really don't know one basic thing about how Congress passes laws and that it can override Presidential veto, making that veto pointless and drawing things out longer. He owns all the GOP obstructionism WRT budgets, shutting down the Federal government, blocking director appointments of the various agencies conducting surveillance on US citizens how? Should he be kidnapping intransigent GOP representatives and hanging them off of buildings Batman-style until they stop intentionally putting monkey wrenches in the political process?

So not Obamas fault again.  I see.  Thanks you really cleared things up.  If he did however kill a puppy on national TV would that be his fault?  or the puppy's?


Strawman and absolutely no ideas on just how the President is supposed to override Congressional authority. "He should do better!" How without engaging in behavior that's in contravention of the Constitution? "blargle blargle you'd love it if he'd do some heinous shiat I just pulled out of my ass!"

And you said I was the one being unreasonable before? I even agreed that government transparency is a legit issue to be worried about, all the more reason your derp and woo clouding the conversation is such a stupid thing.
 
2014-04-26 06:37:36 PM  

SpacePirate: bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: DeArmondVI: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

I'm actually kind of curious here. I don't recall any bills from the GOP dominated House that seek to curb the power and secrecy of US intellegence agencies, though that could merely be the product of ignorance on my part. Has there been even a single proposed (and written) piece of legislation from the GOP since 2009 that seeks to address the issue?


As I asked another poster in another thread, cite one surveillance program Obama expanded by Presidential mandate, agencies where Congress has rep ...
I asked you to cite an actual program he expanded and your clownshoes ass cited a law he was politically forced to sign into law. Your reading comprehension sucks

It's never his fault huh.  He owns that and everything else over the past 6 years.  Thanks for making my point better that I could without your help.

That made me laugh too.

A veto is a powerful gesture, and it's an even more powerful gesture for congress to override it. The fact that neither occurred was quite telling.

The most transparent administration in history, ladies and gentlemen:
[img.fark.net image 411x480]


Veto proof majority dude who has no clue about what he's talking about. A veto would have been pointless.

I'll bet you can't cite one instance of Obama actually expanding surveillance of US citizens either. And posting Darrell "Car thief whose Benghazi obsession has cost the US government millions of dollars and turned up absolutely no wrong doing" Issa? You really think that makes you look like anything other than a hyperpartisan clown?
 
2014-04-26 06:45:05 PM  
*crickets*
 
2014-04-26 06:46:14 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: SpacePirate: bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: Crotchrocket Slim: bigsteve3OOO: DeArmondVI: bigsteve3OOO: Defenders came out early and often.  I cant wait till the day Obama kills a puppy on national tv and you folks blame the puppy.  Delusional libs are delusional.

I'm actually kind of curious here. I don't recall any bills from the GOP dominated House that seek to curb the power and secrecy of US intellegence agencies, though that could merely be the product of ignorance on my part. Has there been even a single proposed (and written) piece of legislation from the GOP since 2009 that seeks to address the issue?


As I asked another poster in another thread, cite one surveillance program Obama expanded by Presidential mandate, agencies where Congress has rep ...
I asked you to cite an actual program he expanded and your clownshoes ass cited a law he was politically forced to sign into law. Your reading comprehension sucks

It's never his fault huh.  He owns that and everything else over the past 6 years.  Thanks for making my point better that I could without your help.

That made me laugh too.

A veto is a powerful gesture, and it's an even more powerful gesture for congress to override it. The fact that neither occurred was quite telling.

The most transparent administration in history, ladies and gentlemen:
[img.fark.net image 411x480]

Veto proof majority dude who has no clue about what he's talking about. A veto would have been pointless.

I'll bet you can't cite one instance of Obama actually expanding surveillance of US citizens either. And posting Darrell "Car thief whose Benghazi obsession has cost the US government millions of dollars and turned up absolutely no wrong doing" Issa? You really think that makes you look like anything other than a hyperpartisan clown?


Man, you are in trolling overdrive, and calling me partisan. LULZ!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/19/obama-a dm inistration-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches /?print=1 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR20 10 072806141.html?hpid=topnews 

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/217531/obamas-nsa-reform-leaves-out- em ail-text-and-social-media/ 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/25/obamas-new-nsa-proposa l- democratic-partisan-hackery/
 
2014-04-26 07:05:15 PM  

SpacePirate: Man, you are in trolling overdrive, and calling me partisan. LULZ!


When you take an asshat like Issa seriously, you're the very definition of partisan jackass. Also, your "counterpoints" suck, allow me to dismantle them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/19/obama-a dm inistration-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches /?print=1

This refers to a policy started under the Bush administration, and the Obama administration is asking for the Supreme court to rule on this one way or another (granted I'm not crazy about the way they were hoping the SC would rule). Not an expansion on programs, policies, or practices that weren't already in place by the time he took office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR20 10 072806141.html?hpid=topnews

This refers to granting the FBI access to data already being legally collected by the NSA and not an expansion on the surveillance itself. Again not an expansion on programs, policies, or practices that weren't already in place by the time he took office.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/217531/obamas-nsa-reform-leaves-out- em ail-text-and-social-media/

Here Obama is doing the right thing by actually having the NSA ratchet back on how much metadata collection of US citizens it is allowed to engage in, even if it doesn't go as far as I'd like either. By definition an actual reduction of programs, policies, and practices already in place by the time he took office. Did you even read this link asshole?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/03/25/obamas-new-nsa-proposa l- democratic-partisan-hackery/

The first half of that isn't even about government surveillance of US citizens, and the second half details a proposal to take the metadata collection out of government hands, and make it the obligation of ISPs/telecoms/etc. Not much better but your porn streaming history won't be sitting in a NSA database anymore. Again not an expansion on programs, policies, or practices that weren't already in place by the time he took office, and indeed better than what existed before.

I've been saying in this entire thread that he's been disappointing in how little he's done to increase public transparency and reduce government surveillance of US citizens, but the claim I originally was responding to and the assertion both of you tools have failed to support- the claim that such sketchy behavior has actually increased since Obama took office- is demonstrably false.

Let's not forget it was the GOP that greenlit most of these laws when they had power, not sure how supporting them wouldn't make things worse. Of course anyone posting images of Issa is a hypocrite who only has a negative opinion of this as it's Obama's government doing this, if it were Romney's you'd be cheerleading it just like I recall during the Bush years.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report