DescentBB

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenbe ... [quote]The National Security Agency has long justified its spying powers by arguing that its charter allows surveillance on those outside of the United States, while avoiding intrusions into the private communications of American citizens. But the latest revelation of the extent of the NSA’s surveillance shows that it has focused specifically on Americans, to the degree that its data collection has in at least one major spying incident explicitly excluded those outside the United States[/quote]


Move along, nothing to see here

Fast and furious
Benghazi
IRS
spying on reporters
Spying on it citizens
Ignoring congressional subpoenas
Contempt of congress

Nope everything is hunky dory

Now?? Ever known anyone who worked for NSA? They've been doing so for years.........

CUDA wrote:Fast and furious
Benghazi
IRS
spying on reporters
Spying on it citizens
Ignoring congressional subpoenas
Contempt of congress

you post this list of incidents, agencies and time honored traditions (latter refers to ignoring Congress/contempt threats)as if they relate to one another somehow. Care to clarify?

This will be the most transparent presidency and the Rule of Law will be its touchstone.

woodchip wrote:This will be the most transparent presidency and the Rule of Law will be its touchstone.

Well come on! That is coming from a guy who got elected by offering no more substance than his ability to teach the dumb masses to chant 'Hope and Change'.
He's the freaking Wizard of Oz and Toto (the media) wasn't cast in this mummers farce so the curtain he hides behind is secure!

as if they relate to one another somehow. Care to clarify?

seriously??? Did you just ask that question?? This is how they relate to one another. Who is in charge of the government

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interac ... ourt-order

Your taxes at work.

Nothing new tho: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/c ... -americans

CUDA wrote:

as if they relate to one another somehow. Care to clarify?

seriously??? Did you just ask that question?? This is how they relate to one another. Who is in charge of the government

really? One example on your list predates to the Patriot Act itself(as noted by Grendel). The sour relationship between administrations and the House of Representatives is pretty much constant since before the Civil War, unless the House and White House are in the hands of the same party. Fast and Furious spanned two administrations, and was largely a non-affiliated bureaucracy going wild. Benghazi was a tragic example of the futility of trying to control the world via superpower diplomacy. On and on, and all you come up with is fingerpointing at this administration, as if there is something truly uniquely wrong.
Now, all this said, perhaps my greatest disappointment with the Obama administration is that they didn't reign WAYYYY back on the excesses allowed by the Patriot Act, and the historical rise in Presidential power over the past 40 years. Now, maybe 100 years from now, there might be a known, logical reason for acting in this fashion. Perhaps it truly WAS essential for the safety of our populace(Lindsay Graham suggested as much today). Still, I expected the overreach to end, and it clearly didn't.

callmeslick wrote:...I expected the overreach to end...

Really? Despite my tendency toward optimism, I've always expected it to continue unabated. That kind of power isn't willingly given up.

(CNN) -- U.S. intelligence agencies operated a broad data-mining program that extracted e-mail, photos and other private communications from some of the biggest Internet companies, American and British newspapers reported Thursday.

The New York Times editorial board, which twice endorsed President Obama and has championed many planks of his agenda, on Thursday turned on the president over the government's mass collection of phone data -- saying the administration has "lost all credibility."

seems like they are starting to lose their allies. one by one the press is turning on this administration.

and slick everyone of those incident I stated happened on this watch. saying they "started" in the other administration doesn't excuse the lying by the current administration on F+F in the cover-up and the contempt of congress charges against the current AG and so on and so on.

to Foil: a very good point.

to Cuda: you clearly dance around my assertion that little that you cite is unique in any way.

callmeslick wrote: to Cuda: you clearly dance around my assertion that little that you cite is unique in any way.

well since you danced around my original post by trying to deflect from the growing scandals of this administration, It seems like its only fair that I chose not to go down your Texas two-step road

Hope and Change

Anyone noticed how many TV appearances Romney has been making lately?

Anyone notice the NYT's has said that Obama has lost all credibility?

I know it says "EnC" in the link but it feels more like I just opened a copy of the Globe.

Ferno wrote:I know it says "EnC" in the link but it feels more like I just opened a copy of the Globe.

Yea, it's scary when the reality of our leadership starts to parallel wack-fiction isn't it?

So this is new huh? In your dreams. Whenever sweeping power is given to a president, it probably will never be given back willingly, even by the next president (Obama). It can't be taken back by Congress either, because it givens them more power. So NOW the people of this country suddenly wake up from their fear and psychosis stupor left over from 9/11 and realize they've lost their freedoms and privacy? Idiots. People fail to realize that all governments, even ours, like to use the tried and true power grab through FUD, and 9/11 gave the previous president plenty of FUD to use as leverage to get that new sweeping power. We should have NEVER given the previous administration such sweeping powers, EVER. Now we'll NEVER, EVER be able to take it back. Pandora's Box is now open. Despite all the hoopla and empty promises in Obama's campaign, he's now been seduced to keep and add to that power all because of the ever present boogey man that freaks out Americans, terrorism. We're the enablers. Sad. He's lost all respect. However, I'm betting that if this story had broke right after the Boston Bombings, you would have heard nary a beep in dissent at the time. Psychosis is so stupid, and yet useful to those we give power to.

But CUDA, your list didn't include the "illegal" crap Bushie, Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card tried to pull on a very sick John Ashcroft while he was sick in the hospital. This is the genesis, the beginning, of what we have in place now. They wanted a no-warrant wiretapping program and John Ashcroft had serious "reservations" as to it's legality. So what does Bush's crew do? Actually go the hospital and TRY and pry a signature out of the very sick hands of a delirious and very ill Ashcroft. What putzes! This power was so sweeping, even Ashcroft balked. So who stopped this nonsense at the time? Why James P. Comey, who happened to be the "temporary" replacement for Ashcroft while he was hospitalized and who sat by his bedside protecting him from Bush's minions. Comey stood his ground and refused to sign on the dotted line. This is the same guy that Obama just named the Director of the FBI. I hope he retains some of those wise scruples he had back then, even if he is a Republican and a former Hedge Fund operator.

If any of you have 20 minutes, just listen to Comey's testimony on what transpired the night Bush's goon squad tried to go around the law of the land any way they could.

[youtube]hxHjWYA50Ds[/youtube]

tunnelcat wrote:So this is new huh? In your dreams. Whenever sweeping power is given to a president, it probably will never be given back willingly, even by the next president (Obama). It can't be taken back by Congress either, because it givens them more power. ....
Snip\excuses and deflections......end\snip......

But TC, when Obama first ran for the office of President he said he was going to bring us Hope and deliver Change he implied that he was not Bush....he was going to fix the mess Bush made....that he would run a transparent administration, etc.

Was he lying then or is he lying now?

He was lying, or deluded. Neither is charitable. I don't have an argument against you there. That's why this power should have never been given in the first place. No one can be trusted, not even a hopey, changey spouting politician running for office on a platform of reform. People need to learn that there are never take backs with giving more power to any politician, from any party, in any government. So the American people need to take a lesson from this and learn to be careful how much power they dole out in the first place, even in a time of fear and war. Freedom is so much harder to get back when you willingly allow it to to be taken from you in the first place. They just may not like the next guy that uses and abuses that very same power they thought was so useful when their guy had it.

Maybe I'm just too pragmatic and hard core but I never thought any communications I ever made electronically was free from the governments eyes and ears. Regardless of whether or not, as a citizen, I deserve a right to any privacy from government in those areas I certainly never believed I had any.

The only part of this latest 'revelation' that bothers me is the government claiming to have a right to snoop electronically through our files (if they are doing that). If I have data that I'm not transmitting, broadcasting, etc. in some way, then just because it is in a digital format, I don't think they should be able to access it without a warrant any more than if they wanted to come to my house and read my paper documents. That is the only thing that surprised me.
Of course I'd prefer they can't access my phone and email etc. as well but I just don't think they have ever resisted that kind of snooping since the invention of the postman and telegraph I believe they helped themselves to it.

Yeah, the ARPANET was originally designed to be an open system anyway, so I can't gripe about IP Address sniffing. It open for anyone to see. But when the government starts sifting through my letters and data files on my own system, that's personal and I draw the line. It'd be no different than the government intercepting my snail mail or going through my filing cabinets without a warrant. I'm not sure about cloud storage sniffing however. Once you put something personal on someone else's server, like Google or Facebook, things get murky. I still consider email personal, even though it's stored in the cloud. Our laws haven't caught up to using the net yet, and Congress is still living in the stone age. It's rife for abuse by the powers that be, either corporate or governmental.

I'll preface this wordy post(warning!!) with this bit of personal history. I've been posting stuff about politics on another forum, which CUDA also posts to, for about 11 years now(CUDA less, but not that much). I state this because I hope CUDA at least backs me on the facts that I have spoken about these topics consistently. Anyhow, a few themes have been long-term staples of mine, such as, universal healthcare, sensible gun sales processes, religious intolerance, etc. These sorts of things have spanned, on that forum, over two very different Presidencies, but my positions remain consistent. Where that is relevent is on two that have been in my mind this week: Privacy in America, and The Presidency.

First off, privacy, and government intrusion. I have been warning of the vast overreach entailed in the Patriot act since it came out. What strikes me, though, this week is the cries from the right, expressing fear that the dreaded Obama White House will intrude on the privacy of the people and punish the people through such information as they glean through those intrusions. The fearful right-wingers of course mean that they fear the intrusions on 'their people' by and large, but that is human nature. However, I seem to recall stating that exact same fear from the outset, on a more general note. In other words, once such extreme power is given to the government, subsequent governments of any variety can use those powers, domestically, for their own reasons. Sure, there are checks via the judiciary, and sure, such powers might be the ONLY WAY to truly safeguard against terrorist acts on a regular basis, but to me, the potential for excess outweighs the infrequent violent act. I've said this during Bush, and will say it during the Obama terms. If, by galvanizing the right, along with the left, which has always been very alarmist over the Patriot Act, we get momentum toward a fresh look at what has happened to our most essential right, that of privacy, I am all for it.

Secondly, though, I have be pondering the brutal responsibilties of being POTUS. When Bush was in office, I felt his policies were often wrongheaded, that he was out of touch and not too bright, and thus easily led by a truly evil man in the VP. However, I ALWAYS(here's where CUDA should back me up) tossed the guy this bone: being POTUS is the most difficult, stressful, demanding job on the planet......bar none. Think about it, in the current moment. Every morning, these constants make up the International scene: Syria, and the involvement of Iran, Lebanon, Israel, other players; China and India wish to be great powers, both have the resources(both human and natural) to pull it off, Africa is a mess, Europe is weak and fractured, Russia has the same aspirations as China and India, but without the resources(a desperate situation);North Korea.. On and on, I am sure I've overlooked several other major issues. On the domestic side, you have economic recovery, underemployment,immigration, modernization, a host of hot-button social issues, inner city violence, rural poverty,long-term debt planning. And this list is merely the constants to which Obama awakes every morning, not to overlook the unforseen events, and highly classified threats of which we may never be privvy. Like I say, I always used to try and give Bush the benefit of trying to manage the unmanagable on a daily basis, and it sure would be nice to see the anti-Obama camp do likewise from time to time. All things considered, Obama could have done far worse......Romney couldn't have done half as well, no matter what anyone's wishful thinking tells them,

callmeslick wrote:First off, privacy, and government intrusion. I have been warning of the vast overreach entailed in the Patriot act since it came out. What strikes me, though, this week is the cries from the right, expressing fear that the dreaded Obama White House will intrude on the privacy of the people and punish the people through such information as they glean through those intrusions. The fearful right-wingers of course mean that they fear the intrusions on 'their people' by and large, but that is human nature. However, I seem to recall stating that exact same fear from the outset, on a more general note. In other words, once such extreme power is given to the government, subsequent governments of any variety can use those powers, domestically, for their own reasons. Sure, there are checks via the judiciary, and sure, such powers might be the ONLY WAY to truly safeguard against terrorist acts on a regular basis, but to me, the potential for excess outweighs the infrequent violent act. I've said this during Bush, and will say it during the Obama terms. If, by galvanizing the right, along with the left, which has always been very alarmist over the Patriot Act, we get momentum toward a fresh look at what has happened to our most essential right, that of privacy, I am all for it.

Yeah, I noticed that little bit of hypocrisy with quite a few right wingers, it was OK when Bush did it, but not when Obama does it, although some like Lindsey Graham stayed their usual warmongering course. What I don't accept is who's yelling about it now, when people gave the previous president those very same powers, especially quite a few conservatives. Now they don't like it because it's Obama's fault? Uh huh. And to be fair, shame on all those liberals who are now defending this BS because their boss is now sanctioning it, especially when they railed against it during Bush's term. They're all unprincipled hypocrites, like Harry Reid.

callmeslick wrote:Secondly, though, I have be pondering the brutal responsibilties of being POTUS. When Bush was in office, I felt his policies were often wrongheaded, that he was out of touch and not too bright, and thus easily led by a truly evil man in the VP. However, I ALWAYS(here's where CUDA should back me up) tossed the guy this bone: being POTUS is the most difficult, stressful, demanding job on the planet......bar none. Think about it, in the current moment. Every morning, these constants make up the International scene: Syria, and the involvement of Iran, Lebanon, Israel, other players; China and India wish to be great powers, both have the resources(both human and natural) to pull it off, Africa is a mess, Europe is weak and fractured, Russia has the same aspirations as China and India, but without the resources(a desperate situation);North Korea.. On and on, I am sure I've overlooked several other major issues. On the domestic side, you have economic recovery, underemployment,immigration, modernization, a host of hot-button social issues, inner city violence, rural poverty,long-term debt planning. And this list is merely the constants to which Obama awakes every morning, not to overlook the unforseen events, and highly classified threats of which we may never be privvy. Like I say, I always used to try and give Bush the benefit of trying to manage the unmanagable on a daily basis, and it sure would be nice to see the anti-Obama camp do likewise from time to time. All things considered, Obama could have done far worse......Romney couldn't have done half as well, no matter what anyone's wishful thinking tells them,

Yes, it's a tough job. I wouldn't want it. And I accept that things change because of the push and shove of the 2 parties, all the departments in government, and the world's constant troubles. The whole thing is a massive Hydra that Obama is trying to lasso. But a promise is a promise. If you're the going to promise to fix the system when you campaign against it, at least make an effort instead of wussing out and going with the flow. And yes, Romney would have face planted by now.

Will Robinson wrote:

Ferno wrote:I know it says "EnC" in the link but it feels more like I just opened a copy of the Globe.

Yea, it's scary when the reality of our leadership starts to parallel wack-fiction isn't it?

What's even scarier is when people start to think the reality is parallel to wack-fiction.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Ferno wrote:I know it says "EnC" in the link but it feels more like I just opened a copy of the Globe.

Yea, it's scary when the reality of our leadership starts to parallel wack-fiction isn't it?

What's even scarier is when people start to think the reality is parallel to wack-fiction.

Some of the things we have discovered our leaders do these days is right out of the wacko-sphere....hense the reality of it. I know that isn't what you indeed us to draw from your initial comment but it is th truth.

When I was a kid if I had told my history teacher that in another 35 years the Speaker of the House would say "we have to pass the Bill before we can tell you what is in it"..and she was serious...and they did in fact pass it before much of the content was ever even sketched out....

If I had told him that the democrat party was going to refuse to enforce immigration law on certain people who come sneaking in to the US because they will vote predominantly for the democrat party....

If I had told him that the press would turn into a blatantly partisan cheer leader squad for one Party over the other...

He would have laughed his as off and told me I read too many comic books!

Will Robinson wrote:

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Ferno wrote:I know it says "EnC" in the link but it feels more like I just opened a copy of the Globe.

Yea, it's scary when the reality of our leadership starts to parallel wack-fiction isn't it?

What's even scarier is when people start to think the reality is parallel to wack-fiction.

Some of the things we have discovered our leaders do these days is right out of the wacko-sphere....hense the reality of it. I know that isn't what you indeed us to draw from your initial comment but it is th truth.

When I was a kid if I had told my history teacher that in another 35 years the Speaker of the House would say "we have to pass the Bill before we can tell you what is in it"..and she was serious...and they did in fact pass it before much of the content was ever even sketched out....

If I had told him that the democrat party was going to refuse to enforce immigration law on certain people who come sneaking in to the US because they will vote predominantly for the democrat party....

If I had told him that the press would turn into a blatantly partisan cheer leader squad for one Party over the other...

He would have laughed his as off and told me I read too many comic books!

LOL, yup

Will Robinson wrote:When I was a kid if I had told my history teacher that in another 35 years the Speaker of the House would say "we have to pass the Bill before we can tell you what is in it"..and she was serious...and they did in fact pass it before much of the content was ever even sketched out...

he might have pointed out that most of the bill had been online in pdf form for weeks.

If I had told him that the democrat party was going to refuse to enforce immigration law on certain people who come sneaking in to the US because they will vote predominantly for the democrat party....

he might have pointed out that a Democratic administration enforced those rules FAR more vigorously than the preceding Republican one

If I had told him that the press would turn into a blatantly partisan cheer leader squad for one Party over the other...

he might have informed you that the press DICTATED U.S. policy for much of the 19th and early 20th century....let along pick the candidates with impunity. Further, he might have noted that at no other time in our history have there been such a wide range of news sources from all sides of the political spectrum. Likely, he also would have warned you to no believe everything you read in those sources and to double check what gets called 'fact'.

He would have laughed his as off and told me I read too many comic books!

more likely he would have laughed, and told you to go back and study American History, and pay closer attention to the facts around current events.

flips agreement with the bunkum I just refuted shows a core problem in the US, which can be seen as directly responsible for the governance we get, at times. The population, or great chunks of it, simply believe notions that are CLEARLY and PROVABLY false. They have little knowledge of history, little awareness of the true facts around current events, and little interest in anyone pointing out the errors in their viewpoint. Thus, you get a populace which is increasingly difficult to lead anywhere productive.

Hehe, Slick is so used to the fight he doesn't even recognize when someone agrees with him
Everything that has happened and the way things are now, I was pointing out starting around the time I was 15. At that time it was pure craziness .

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:When I was a kid if I had told my history teacher that in another 35 years the Speaker of the House would say "we have to pass the Bill before we can tell you what is in it"..and she was serious...and they did in fact pass it before much of the content was ever even sketched out...

he might have pointed out that most of the bill had been online in pdf form for weeks.

"Most of the Bill" means some of the Bill wasn't created yet. The parts they purposely left as fill in the blank are the important parts proved the ACA was unsustainable and full of crap that my teacher would have thought could never be passed let alone passed as a blank check placeholder for politicians to fill in after the Bill became law!!!

So once again you declare having debunked something by merely parsing words and ignoring the meat of the point.

[

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:If I had told him that the democrat party was going to refuse to enforce immigration law on certain people who come sneaking in to the US because they will vote predominantly for the democrat party....

he might have pointed out that a Democratic administration enforced those rules FAR more vigorously than the preceding Republican one

Ok, I'll concede there is an exception to the rule....Bush was an amnesty guy...
But for you to say democrats enforced immigration in the last 35 years more vigorously is a pathetic bunch of political crap! It is democrats in local authority who create 'sanctuary cities' where the democrats refuse to enforce the immigration law! It is democrat presidential administrations that tell the INS to catch and release...or catch and give a nebulous court date and release with no means for apprehending if they dont show.
It is liberals at the state level that provide countless exemptions from law for illegal immigrants from south of the border like in state tuition for someone who breaks the law and sneaks into the country but charge higher out of state tuition for law abiding tax paying citizens who cross a state line to attend a university....

You are so full of it, as usual, trying to say democrats are more inclined to enforce the law and then proclaim you have debunked the point.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:If I had told him that the press would turn into a blatantly partisan cheer leader squad for one Party over the other...

he might have informed you that the press DICTATED U.S. policy for much of the 19th and early 20th century....let along pick the candidates with impunity. Further, he might have noted that at no other time in our history have there been such a wide range of news sources from all sides of the political spectrum. Likely, he also would have warned you to no believe everything you read in those sources and to double check what gets called 'fact'.

He would have laughed his as off and told me I read too many comic books!

more likely he would have laughed, and told you to go back and study American History, and pay closer attention to the facts around current events.

No, because he knows when I say "the last 35 years" I'm not talking about 18th and early 19th century and he wouldn't find the kind of blatant partisan support and blind eye journalism that is present in today's media. For all the imperfection and influences that have been in American press in the early years it is nothing compared to the way the modern mainstream media has enabled the left wing to act with impunity today.

You make declaration after declaration on this board but when they involve holding your perception or desire for leftwing superiority over the rightwing they are almost always full of crap slick.

sorry, Will, but making goofy declarations with no regard to history isn't right or left, it's wrong. And, that is what you just engaged in.

and flip, I am still trying to say a lot of folks here need to bone up on the history of the nation. You haven't seen crass, political gamesmanship recently that could approach the days of Hearst, Rockafeller, et al.

callmeslick wrote:sorry, Will, but making goofy declarations with no regard to history isn't right or left, it's wrong. And, that is what you just engaged in.

You are the one who has ignored the specific substance of my examples and has once again tried to move the goal posts back far enough to squeeze in centuries of time that are not relevant to the point hoping it will somehow buttress your vague assertions that are no doubt based on nothing but your own desire to be right!

Of course you could prove your claims, like show us how democrats have enforced immigration so vigorously compared to conservatives in the last 35 years instead of pompously claiming history is your proof without giving any examples
Well, you want people to think you could anyway but you and I both know you can't!

All hat and no cattle, huh 'Cowboy'?

What I'm getting from Will here is that reality clearly has a liberal bias.

That's true I guess Slick, but the difference now is that those kind of politics are not confined logistically anymore

not quite sure what you're getting at, Flip, but I guess what I see is the (quite normal) tendency to limit the scope of one's perspective to one's own lifetime, and looking at the whole of American history(or in many cases human history) gives a broader view that tempers matters. Sometimes, such a view leads to optimism, on my part, sometimes not......

All I'm saying is that a strong, centralized Federal Government has a lot more resources at hand to enforce it's will. More so than at any other time in history. 50 years ago, small towns across America could care less, it rarely changed local politics, but in this day and age all are susceptible.

flip wrote:All I'm saying is that a strong, centralized Federal Government has a lot more resources at hand to enforce it's will. More so than at any other time in history. 50 years ago, small towns across America could care less, it rarely changed local politics, but in this day and age all are susceptible.

I could debate this, but probably neither side would be provable......so, I'll let it go at that.

I’m not sure which is worse, a press that could be bought off with money, or a press that thinks it has a right to let its own ideals drive the news.