PDA

View Full Version : NSA Leaks Mucking Up Partisan Divisions


Rohirrim
06-11-2013, 12:40 PM
Democrats, owing partly to the simple fact that they control the levers of executive power, are more likely to back the extensive use of that authority. Two recent surveys differed in how respondents reacted to the NSA's surveillance programs, but they found similar patterns of partisanship.

In a HuffPost/YouGov poll, Republicans and independents were most likely to say that collecting Americans' phone records is unnecessarily intrusive, by a 65 percent to 17 percent margin for Republicans and by a 62 percent to 17 percent margin for independents. But Democrats in the poll were more divided, with 39 percent saying collecting phone records is unnecessarily intrusive and 33 percent saying it is justified to combat terrorism.

In a Pew Research Center/Washington Post poll, majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents all supported the NSA monitoring, but Democrats were by far the most likely to do so. Sixty-four percent of Democrats called the surveillance acceptable, compared with 53 percent of independents and 52 percent of Republicans.

That wasn't the case when former President George W. Bush was in office. A similar ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in 2006 during the Bush administration -- after similar revelations that the government was collecting Americans' phone and email data -- found that 75 percent of Republicans and just 37 percent of Democrats said it was acceptable for the NSA to "secretly [listen] in on phone calls and [read] emails without court approval."

Republicans who were then on the receiving end of Democratic criticism, particularly that dished out by then-candidate Barack Obama, are piqued to see so many now standing up for the national security state. "This so similar to the Cheney doctrine, it's not even funny, and nobody's talking about that," a former Republican leadership aide said on background. "At least Republicans are consistent. The left should be enraged. He promised something better than this. And it's ****ing the same, it's the same arrogance."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/nsa-leak_n_3421415.html

cutthemdown
06-11-2013, 12:51 PM
Obama could **** on the flag, spark up a crack pipe and admit he is from Kenya and 97% of black people and 65% of democrats would still like him.

TonyR
06-11-2013, 01:15 PM
One interesting aspect of these poll results is the partisan hypocrisy: Having a Democratic president has made Democrats more inclined toward surveillance and Republicans less so. But the more important finding is simply that public support for intrusive surveillance is high, under both Republican and Democratic presidents. http://www.businessinsider.com/america-to-nsa-read-my-emails-please-2013-6?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider%2Fpolitics+%2 8Business+Insider+-+Politix%29

TonyR
06-11-2013, 01:24 PM
Nate Silver chimes in on this very topic:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/domestic-surveillance-could-create-a-divide-in-the-2016-primaries/

cutthemdown
06-11-2013, 01:47 PM
Govt is out of control its time to reel them in a bit. Obviously this poll shows how when your party in power you are a lot more forgiving then when they aren't.

BroncoBeavis
06-11-2013, 01:58 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/america-to-nsa-read-my-emails-please-2013-6?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider%2Fpolitics+%2 8Business+Insider+-+Politix%29

Ah, the old reliable "everything's ok so long as it polls ok angle"

Looks like a small majority opposes email monitoring though. So doesn't that mean it's still possible for that to be a criminal overreach?

Or does that majority-morality rule only apply when the small majority is comprised of mostly Democrats?

B-Large
06-11-2013, 02:13 PM
Obama could **** on the flag, spark up a crack pipe and admit he is from Kenya and 97% of black people and 65% of democrats would still like him.

oh, you drama queen :flower:

BroncoBeavis
06-11-2013, 02:42 PM
ACLU files suit over the Government confiscating those "public record" phone logs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/aclu-files-suit-over-phone-surveillance-program.html?_r=0

Meanwhile, CivilLib Tony's counting electoral votes. LOL

TonyR
06-11-2013, 04:26 PM
Ah, the old reliable "everything's ok so long as it polls ok angle"


That's not exactly the point here, but feel free to read it that way if that helps you keep playing the victim card or whatever flag it is you're flying.

BroncoBeavis
06-11-2013, 04:55 PM
That's not exactly the point here, but feel free to read it that way if that helps you keep playing the victim card or whatever flag it is you're flying.

I'm not the victim. Our grandkids will be the real victims.

mhgaffney
06-11-2013, 07:26 PM
What a load of BS.

I keep telling you -- Wall Street (the 1%) controls BOTH parties. They do not have serious divisions about whistleblowers.

Here is what Mike Rogers (R - Michigan) the chair of the House Intelligence Committee said about the latest leak.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/house-intelligence-committee-chair-rips-greenwald-he-doesnt

Obviously Rogers is talking out of his A-hole. The one who should be overseeing it -- does not understand it.

Here is what Diane Feinstein (D -CA) the chair of the Senate Intelligence committee said:
http://www.11alive.com/news/article/295639/166/Senate-Intelligence-Committee-chair-calls-leak-act-of-treason

Feinstein called Snowden's witness an "act of treason"

Obviously BOTH parties are equivalent parties to tyranny. The hero is Snowden.

MHG

Dr. Broncenstein
06-11-2013, 08:41 PM
Best example is 2007 Obama vs 2013 Obama. Lol.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-11-2013, 08:50 PM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5ylVOdriEyA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is too easy.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-11-2013, 08:53 PM
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vX6DrWVzyNY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Holy balls.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-11-2013, 09:06 PM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7BmdovYztH8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Oops. I did it again.

houghtam
06-11-2013, 09:28 PM
What a load of BS.

I keep telling you -- Wall Street (the 1%) controls BOTH parties. They do not have serious divisions about whistleblowers.

Here is what Mike Rogers (R - Michigan) the chair of the House Intelligence Committee said about the latest leak.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/house-intelligence-committee-chair-rips-greenwald-he-doesnt

Obviously Rogers is talking out of his A-hole. The one who should be overseeing it -- does not understand it.

Here is what Diane Feinstein (D -CA) the chair of the Senate Intelligence committee said:
http://www.11alive.com/news/article/295639/166/Senate-Intelligence-Committee-chair-calls-leak-act-of-treason

Feinstein called Snowden's witness an "act of treason"

Obviously BOTH parties are equivalent parties to tyranny. The hero is Snowden.

MHG

Don't bother bringing up who is the chair of what committee to this crowd. They already made it abundantly clear in an earlier thread that they don't care what the qualifications of committee members are, nor do they care whether or not the positions are handed out as a result of being a loyal Party member.

And then they complain when nobody who is "supposed" to knows anything actually knows anything.

cutthemdown
06-11-2013, 11:14 PM
Liberals are avoiding the fact Obama has been proven to be full of ****. We actually have no idea how he sits on an issue until it breaks like this one. Had you went by Obamas speaches you would have figured no way his admin this intrusive. FRAUD! hes a ****ing FRAUD!

TonyR
06-12-2013, 07:20 AM
So what do you suggest, cut? Dismantle the intelligence apparatus that's trying to avoid another 9/11? What's funny is that if Obama had done that all you same people who are calling this a "scandal" would be banging out threads and posts bashing him for harming the security of the country and not being tough on terror. In other words, you're also frauds.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 07:59 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LMfhC4CwUnM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Joe Biden sums it up perfectly in 2006.

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 08:14 AM
So what do you suggest, cut? Dismantle the intelligence apparatus that's trying to avoid another 9/11? What's funny is that if Obama had done that all you same people who are calling this a "scandal" would be banging out threads and posts bashing him for harming the security of the country and not being tough on terror. In other words, you're also frauds.

Almost everything we've done since 9/11 does almost nothing to prevent the next 9/11. Do you really think with how many people have been known to slip things on planes (accidentally or intentionally) without being caught that a jihadi couldn't slip something as threatening as a box cutter on a plane again?

The biggest reason 9/11 couldn't happen again (the way it happened) is because people are wise enough to no longer allow a jihadi or two with box cutters to hijack a plane. Most of that was psychological that day. The old model was hijack a plane. Fly around and make demands. People didn't understand they were being hijacked by suicidal crazies. Now they do. The whole dynamic changed.

What does TSA's security theater do to improve that? Nothing.

What does all this surveillance do to improve that? Next to nothing. The really serious threats know how to avoid this. And they're not using gmail or ****ing facebook. You might catch a kook or two doing that. But they're not the kind of kooks who are going to bring down skyscrapers.

One of the best things I've read since this whole CF came out.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/10/living-in-an-era-of-unprecedented-bull****/

Living in an Era of Unprecedented Bull****

Let’s begin at the top: Our president (who once boasted of having taught Constitutional law), decried, way back in 2007 when he was contemplating a run for the White House, what he correctly labeled the Bush-Cheney administration’s “false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.” Fast forward to the president today, after his all-encompassing monitoring of all the phone and internet communications of all Americans, and here’s what he’s saying now (speaking last Friday in San Jose) after the humongous pervasiveness and intrusiveness of the spying was exposed in the U.K Guardian newspaper and the Washington Post:

“I think it’s important for everybody to understand … that there are some trade-off’s involved. You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”

Jacob, quick! The bull**** repellent!

Where to start? A security-for-liberty trade-off, he says? Where’s the security? We just had a bombing in Boston that would have been spotted in a minute if the FBI were monitoring the Tsarnaev brothers‘ websites (assuming they are the guilty parties). But the FBI claims it “stopped” monitoring Tamerlan Tsarnaev after interviewing him several times, and “closed” his case, despite his having travelled to Dagestan, a former Soviet struggling with separatist Islamic rebels, and despite warnings from Russian intelligence. This is the kind of “100 percent security” we get in return for handing over 100% of our privacy on the phone and online? What incredible BS!

Most ironic thing is that the PC police in charge of Big Brother will work day and night to ensure that only the liberties of the most possibly suspect are protected. Every warning sign with guys like this and a guy like Hasan was completely ignored. Why? Because it tweaks some people's sense of political correctness when suspects line up with stereotypes. In essence, they're only reinforcing it in the negative. But they don't care.

Because when they miss the most obvious of obvious cases, they'll hide behind "Well we have to respect their civil liberties! Innocent until proven guilty after all!" Then you ask them why they're reading your email? "Oh, for your protection of course."

Bull****. All this Bull**** buys us nothing, yet costs us everything.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 08:18 AM
^ So, then, why do you think they're "reading your email" (which they're not going, by the way, but I know you like to say that to make your argument seem better than it is). And what's your concern with it if they are? What's the conspiracy that so terrifies you? What's the "cost"?

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 08:24 AM
^ So, then, why do you think they're "reading your email" (which they're not going, by the way, but I know you like to say that to make your argument seem better than it is). And what's your concern with it if they are? What's the conspiracy that so terrifies you? What's the "cost"?

"I'm able to determine every single person you talk to. I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive. And the real question here is: what do they do with this information that they collect?" -- Joe Biden, 2006

For one, they might use the IRS as means to punish you and your associates for supporting the political opposition. Just a thought.

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 08:36 AM
"I'm able to determine every single person you talk to. I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive. And the real question here is: what do they do with this information that they collect?" -- Joe Biden, 2006

For one, they might use the IRS as means to punish you and your associates for supporting the political opposition. Just a thought.

No. You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the IRS Commissioner had Tea with The President every Thursday afternoon. Therefore that kind of thing does not happen. :)

TonyR
06-12-2013, 08:51 AM
For one, they might use the IRS as means to punish you and your associates for supporting the political opposition. Just a thought.

So you're worried about this, personally? Come on, doc. I know you think you're very big and important but in reality you're below insignificant. I know that's hard for your bloated ego to absorb but them are just the facts. "They" don't care about you any more than I do. Which is almost not at all.

Requiem
06-12-2013, 08:52 AM
So you're worried about this, personally? Come on, doc. I know you think you're very big and important but in reality you're below insignificant. I know that's hard for your bloated ego to absorb but them are just the facts. "They" don't care about you any more than I do. Which is almost not at all.


Rep. Hilarious!

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 08:56 AM
So you're worried about this, personally? Come on, doc. I know you think you're very big and important but in reality you're below insignificant. I know that's hard for your bloated ego to absorb but them are just the facts. "They" don't care about you any more than I do. Which is almost not at all.

A little light reading for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Requiem
06-12-2013, 08:56 AM
I do not even see how this can be a partisan issue. It is more than likely that the NSA is obtaining things other than "metadata" which would render what they are doing illegal. (As far as I interpret things.) Can't really worry about it though. Most people shouldn't have to be worried.

Requiem
06-12-2013, 08:57 AM
A little light reading for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Doesn't really apply here. I am sad you misused such a wonderful work in respect to this matter.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 08:59 AM
So you're worried about this, personally? Come on, doc. I know you think you're very big and important but in reality you're below insignificant. I know that's hard for your bloated ego to absorb but them are just the facts. "They" don't care about you any more than I do. Which is almost not at all.

You keep licking that 2013 Obama boot. Pay no attention to what he and Biden said before taking office. Hearts and minds are there for the taking if only you pound out enough takes on a football forum.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 09:00 AM
A little light reading for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

So this is your concern? Seriously? No, seriously? You're personally concerned that this is where this is headed?

This is worthy of discussion. "Concern" is understandable, to a point. But I've yet to see any of you make a salient point about your personal concerns about this.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 09:02 AM
You keep licking that 2013 Obama boot.

This discussion has nothing to do with Obama.

Oh, and you still haven't even tried to answer the question. Tell us some more jokes, doc! Make a funny! See if you can get the cool kids to laugh! (at you or with you, it really doesn't matter, does it?!?)

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 09:03 AM
So this is your concern? Seriously? No, seriously? You're personally concerned that this is where this is headed?

This is worthy of discussion. "Concern" is understandable, to a point. But I've yet to see any of you make a salient point about your personal concerns about this.

Think back, Tony... What were your concerns (when The Repug was doing it?) LOL

Requiem
06-12-2013, 09:04 AM
Lighten up, citzen. The more serious you are, the more serious we will be about coming for you.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 09:06 AM
This discussion has nothing to do with Obama.

Oh, and you still haven't even tried to answer the question. Tell us some more jokes, doc! Make a funny! See if you can get the cool kids to laugh! (at you or with you, it really doesn't matter, does it?!?)

Hangs on to my every word like the NSA. Hold your breath Tony.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 10:38 AM
Think back, Tony... What were your concerns (when The Repug was doing it?) LOL

Still haven't answered the question. Are you so concerned that you'll stop using email? Telephone? Are you going to get a bunker and hide out in it?

The only reasonable conclusion here is that Beavis and Doc aren't really concerned about anything. They're just using this as a tool to do some partisan bashing and use some aggressive humor. If they are concerned we should probably expect them to stop posting here because the NSA might read it.

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 10:42 AM
Still haven't answered the question. Are you so concerned that you'll stop using email? Telephone? Are you going to get a bunker and hide out in it?

The only reasonable conclusion here is that Beavis and Doc aren't really concerned about anything. They're just using this as a tool to do some partisan bashing and use some aggressive humor. If they are concerned we should probably expect them to stop posting here because the NSA might read it.

Do you support gay marriage, Tony?

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 10:52 AM
Don't answer that. I found the answer.

Can we go ahead and assume from your very vocal past on this that despite your avatar, you'd really like to Bag and Bone a dude (with State Sanctification)?

If not, is that whole debate just a shameless partisan stunt you enjoy engaging in? LOL

TonyR
06-12-2013, 11:08 AM
So, Beavis, you don't support gay marriage? Unlike you with me, I don't care enough about you to search your posting history. Also, what does this have to do with anything we're discussing here?

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 11:23 AM
So, Beavis, you don't support gay marriage? Unlike you with me, I don't care enough about you to search your posting history. Also, what does this have to do with anything we're discussing here?

I support separation of marriage and state :)

Anyway, since I have to connect the dots for you... supporting something in principle (or opposing it) does not imply that it directly impacts you.

"You have nothing to fear so long as you have nothing to hide" should be declared war on, even by those who really don't have anything to hide.

It is EXACTLY why the 4th Amendment exists. It's a key difference between being a free man and a subject.

Dr. Broncenstein
06-12-2013, 11:25 AM
It says right there in the Constitution how your rights are exchangeable for government provided security. My bad.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 12:00 PM
Anyway, since I have to connect the dots for you... supporting something in principle (or opposing it) does not imply that it directly impacts you.


Well I should think you'd have to "connect the dots" since that's a pretty terrible comparison. No, gay marriage doesn't impact me directly and neither does this NSA issue. But the former potentially directly impacts gay people. Who does the latter potentially directly impact?

Let me help you out here since you can't seem to come up with a reasonable concern. Here's somebody actually stating a valid concern:

I find it quite likely that NSA isn’t currently abusing the phone surveillance program … but someday there will be a different president in the White House, there will be a different head of NSA, and there will be different professionals running the program. What will they do with all that data the next time something happens that makes America crazy for a few years? I don’t know, but I do know that if they don’t have the data in the first place they can’t abuse it. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/nsa-debate-we-should-focus-future-not-present

See how that works? He has a position and he actually makes a specific case for it that makes sense, and doesn't have to use humor or sarcasm or personal attacks to do it.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 12:03 PM
Here's another:

http://prospect.org/article/when-bushies-return

LOL I have to help Beavis make a coherent argument!

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 12:26 PM
See how that works? He has a position and he actually makes a specific case for it that makes sense, and doesn't have to use humor or sarcasm or personal attacks to do it.

It's more just a case of you being unable to connect other glaringly obvious points.

You've more or less already conceded that other abuses regularly occur in this government. And that the government is just to big and unwieldy for our elected officials to even really do or even know anything about it. (AKA the Axelrod Doctrine)

But now you leap to the "well it's probably just safe to assume nobody's abusing this incredibly powerful information gathering system"

And regardless, having a system in place does not make that system Constitutional. The Constitution was built under the premise that government could not be trusted by default.

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 12:31 PM
Motherjones would not be so forgiving if it wasn't a liberal in office. I doubt then he would give the benefit of the doubt.

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 12:43 PM
Motherjones would not be so forgiving if it wasn't a liberal in office. I doubt then he would give the benefit of the doubt.

MJ and Tony like to give themselves credit for being members of a more tasteful Presidential Fan Club than those of the past. :)

TonyR
06-12-2013, 12:48 PM
But now you leap to the "well it's probably just safe to assume nobody's abusing this incredibly powerful information gathering system"

Just as you're assuming somebody is... (all part of Obama's sinister plan to take over the world, no doubt!)

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 12:53 PM
Well had the govt not just gotten caught using their power to attack certain groups with the IRS I would be more forgiving. But since this administration has proven over and over they will even lie to Congress its hard to believe them on the NSA monitoring.

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 12:54 PM
Tony is the guy who unless he see's the dudes cock in his woman maybe she didn't actually cheat on him. Regardless of the used condoms on the floor and the strange man who you saw run from your house.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 01:01 PM
cut, given your concerns and paranoia, i would suggest you ditch your cell phone; stop using the internet, in particular social networking sites and shopping; tear up your credit cards, debit cards, and atm cards; and never use store club/rewards cards. Then you'll be safe.

Smiling Assassin27
06-12-2013, 01:04 PM
Why one would grant presumption to the government that they are not abusing the data is beyond me. Either there is an ulterior motive that someone one presume this, or they are one of the 8% who believe Congress is doing a good job and are fully capable of overseeing this program EVEN with a significant number of those in Congress openly admitting they know nothing about it.

The fact that the President made sure this program was secret, and simultaneously tells us he 'welcomes' debate on this program, is a clue that debate was not welcome or it wouldn't have been secret and he would not have campaigned against it while trying to become President.

Presumption should be that the data is being abused, since the overreach on what data is to be mined is so obvious.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 01:08 PM
The most Popular Person in the World is Santa Claus.
He gives gifts to all the good boys.
And lumps of coal to the bad boys.
Santa knows when you have been good or bad.
Of course he has an extensive 24/7 surveillance system with millions of ninja spying elves deployed worldwide in children's bedrooms.
As every child knows, Santa always had TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS.
_________________________
The American government gave valuable gifts as well that has made globalization, international travel, international business, the Information Age and the Social Media Twitterverse possible:
-Telegraph Technology
-Voice Telephone
-Long Distance Intercontinental Calling
-Modern Computers
-The Internet
-eMail
-Global Positioning System
-Commercial Global Passenger Airline System
-Worldwide Commercial Jet Service
-Cloud Storage of Data
-Mobile Phone Technology
-The Smart Phone
And like Santa Claus, it monitors bad boys from a northern fortress of solitude.
It doesn't read your thoughts....Just your Facebook.
_________________________
It is a reciprocal relationship.
In Love and War and Life: Nothing is for free.
It is the Santa Claus Effect.
All good boys and girls have nothing to fear.
You will continue to get amazing technology toys.
Keep your nose clean. ;)
_______________________
The greatest Pride of Men, is that they are held responsible for their Success.
The greatest Fear of Men, is that they are held responsible for their Crime.
Yes, we are responsible for our own actions.
Some will fear this. Others will feel vindicated.
Act as if all your actions will be observed, questioned, and judged.
Even if they aren't.
It is called being an 'adult'. Being responsible.
_________________________
Re Santa Claus:
***Hindus call him Vishnu
*** Catholics know him as an vengeful Archangel Angel
***Muslims may call him the angry Prophet Muhummad
***Agnostics may call him blind Justice with a scale and a sword
***Gamblers call him Lady Luck
***John Lennon called him Instant Karma
This is the basis for universal morality: Do good. Don't do evil.
Any way you call it, Santa Claus is Coming to Town.
Be good.

Borrowed from here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/06/technology-and-freedom (reader comment)

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 01:09 PM
cut, given your concerns and paranoia, i would suggest you ditch your cell phone; stop using the internet, in particular social networking sites and shopping; tear up your credit cards, debit cards, and atm cards; and never use store club/rewards cards. Then you'll be safe.

Why should I have to do that? You're saying you agree people should accept it?

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 01:12 PM
Just as you're assuming somebody is... (all part of Obama's sinister plan to take over the world, no doubt!)

Never said anything like that. That said, once your liberty is splayed out in front of you, it matters little whether it was ad hoc or via conspiracy. Regardless, the key is to not give anyone powers the Constitution didn't trust them with.

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 01:12 PM
It's time to push back on data collection and its not a partisan issue. We should all get behind it. We wanted to be safe, the govt went off on terrorism blah blah but at some point we have to think about the future and what it will be like if the govt knows every little thing about us. Not blaming Obama he's such a weak figure no way he could stop it even if he wanted to. I'm talking about the NSA stuff. The IRS, and Benghazzi is all on him and how he runs things.

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 01:15 PM
Why should I have to do that? You're saying you agree people should accept it?

Under Bush? False Choice™
Under Obama? Necessary Sacrifice to the Needs of the Many (even if they don't know it yet)

TonyR
06-12-2013, 01:18 PM
You're saying you agree people should accept it?

No, I'm saying you're overly concerned. And you really don't even know what it is you're concerned about. You've been willingly giving your info to corporations for years. Common sense suggested the government was in the game. But now you're surprised and outraged?

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 01:25 PM
No, I'm saying you're overly concerned. And you really don't even know what it is you're concerned about. You've been willingly giving your info to corporations for years. Common sense suggested the government was in the game. But now you're surprised and outraged?

I'm not outraged because i don't get upset. Surpised? no I am not surprised. Still though i think we as the voters should push back a bit to make sure it doesn't get out of control.

Cmon though Obama has totally flip flopped on all this BS. You admit that right? That Obama is totally full of **** when it comes to being different or transparent. Will you admit that was all a bs campaign marketing tool?

BroncoBeavis
06-12-2013, 01:27 PM
No, I'm saying you're overly concerned. And you really don't even know what it is you're concerned about. You've been willingly giving your info to corporations for years. Common sense suggested the government was in the game. But now you're surprised and outraged?

Do you think the federal government would ever open up its email databases to keyword search by the public?

If not, why not? I mean it's not like anyone has time to physically read all their emails. LOL

cutthemdown
06-12-2013, 01:31 PM
No, I'm saying you're overly concerned. And you really don't even know what it is you're concerned about. You've been willingly giving your info to corporations for years. Common sense suggested the government was in the game. But now you're surprised and outraged?

I'll be honest the using the IRS to target groups you don't like is more disturbing. I believe Obama and Congress that they are doing the NSA stuff to try and keep us safe and catch terrorists. in fact the NSA probably overlooks things that would upset people if they knew. You know just to protect the real reason they are doing something.

Whats funny though is if this was a repub admin you all would be going ape****. We are more pointing out what two faced BS artists liberals are now. They don't even protest war if a dem is in office. You all are a joke now.

Smiling Assassin27
06-12-2013, 01:35 PM
No, I'm saying you're overly concerned. And you really don't even know what it is you're concerned about. You've been willingly giving your info to corporations for years. Common sense suggested the government was in the game. But now you're surprised and outraged?


The government is the entity noted in the Constitution, not corporations, so there's no similarity. If you want to collect my data without my knowing, you'd better have probable cause and then a warrant. But you and I don't even get that option, but instead a SECRET court tries and convicts us without our knowing it.

The probability of this data, as the amount the gov't has about you will inevitably and incrementally grow, being hacked or deliberately/accidentally leaked poses a real problem. Do you really think the gov't will hold itself to the standards of privacy it holds corporations to? Fat chance.

Finally, we have the ability to opt out of large swaths of data we give to corporations. We do not have the same luxury when a monolithic government demands it of us. apples to oranges.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 01:50 PM
Cmon though Obama has totally flip flopped on all this BS. You admit that right? That Obama is totally full of **** when it comes to being different or transparent. Will you admit that was all a bs campaign marketing tool?

Yes.

houghtam
06-12-2013, 01:51 PM
The government is the entity noted in the Constitution, not corporations, so there's no similarity. If you want to collect my data without my knowing, you'd better have probable cause and then a warrant. But you and I don't even get that option, but instead a SECRET court tries and convicts us without our knowing it.

The probability of this data, as the amount the gov't has about you will inevitably and incrementally grow, being hacked or deliberately/accidentally leaked poses a real problem. Do you really think the gov't will hold itself to the standards of privacy it holds corporations to? Fat chance.

Finally, we have the ability to opt out of large swaths of data we give to corporations. We do not have the same luxury when a monolithic government demands it of us. apples to oranges.

You've taken a grave misstep in trying to separate corporations and government. That ship sailed long ago.

The first incremental step we need to take as citizens is to demand the disintegration of the secret court system. This goes for monitoring, this goes for drones, this goes for everything.

I will vote for any candidate who campaigns on the premise of dissolving all secret judicial processes that determine our guilt or need for invasive monitoring, provided their views on other things don't destroy other civil liberties in the process.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 01:56 PM
Good post SA. Well put and hard to disagree with any of it. My feeling has been that this "invasion of privacy" seems a small price to pay for security (to the extent any is provided or enhanced), particularly when I don't personally have anything to be concerned about. But fully agree that the Consitutional aspects as well as the potential slippery slope are troubling.

TonyR
06-12-2013, 01:58 PM
The first incremental step we need to take as citizens is to demand the disintegration of the secret court system. This goes for monitoring, this goes for drones, this goes for everything.

Perhaps this is progress in that direction?

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/11/senators-proposal-would-force-secret-surveillance-into-open/

houghtam
06-12-2013, 02:15 PM
Perhaps this is progress in that direction?

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/11/senators-proposal-would-force-secret-surveillance-into-open/

LOL no. That link is from msnbc and therefore could not POSSIBLY do anything to subvert the Obama regime.

But seriously though, after I have a chance to read it over and if the language jives with what I'm saying like I hope, I will be writing every sponsor of that bill as well as my own congressmen and women to voice my support.

Smiling Assassin27
06-12-2013, 02:58 PM
And here's the kicker. The data they are mining may not even be doing what they hope/say it is doing--preventing terror strikes. Don't you think that a policy debate on this really should place the burden to show the solvency of the policy on the government?

...court documents lodged in the US and UK, as well as interviews with involved parties, suggest that data-mining through Prism and other NSA programmes played a relatively minor role in the interception of the two plots. Conventional surveillance techniques, in both cases including old-fashioned tip-offs from intelligence services in Britain, appear to have initiated the investigations.

Major infringements for 'relatively minor' results? Where I come from, that is not justification to implement a policy, let alone one that is fraught with abuse, both current and potential.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/nsa-surveillance-data-terror-attack?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20aux-1%20top-stories-1:Bento%20box%208%20col:Position1:sublinks

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 06:52 AM
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/biden-bush-surveillance/2013/06/15/id/510122?promo_code=F470-1&utm_source=Fox_Politics&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase2


What Biden used to think about this crap. Hell you can't believe one thing out of a Obamas or Bidens mouth.

BroncoBeavis
06-16-2013, 07:12 AM
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

Obama lied. They are listening to your phone calls.

Tony in to talk about how thrilled he is that the President takes his security so seriously in 3...2...1...

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 07:16 AM
Wow what a surprise Obama lies again. This **** is getting ridiculous. How can liberals support this guy? It's scary how we all just support the party now and not the actions. Not pointing just at dems we all do it.

Rigs11
06-16-2013, 12:43 PM
Darth Cheney says that wiretapping could have prevented 911.hmmm.what do the eighties do now.their party is split mote than we thought:)

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 02:07 PM
Of course Cheney agrees with listening in on us. We won't deny he is that type of person. But now you have to admit Obama is just like Cheney, the man you hate and said should go to prison.

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 02:08 PM
Obama ran on being different, on hope and change, so he gets called on that now period. Especially since duck duck goose hit with him not having a chair.

TonyR
06-16-2013, 02:22 PM
But now you have to admit Obama is just like Cheney...

So, then, is Obama "just like Cheney" or he is he the liberal/socialist/leftist you and your fellow small c conservatives usually portray/accuse him of being?

mhgaffney
06-16-2013, 03:01 PM
Yoose guys never learn.

Obama picked Larry Summers and Tim Geithner -- the same crew who melted down the economy in 2008.

Obama is a Wall Street puppet -- just like Bush. A new face but the same old shyte.

The divide is not between R and D. It's between the 1% and 99%.

MHG

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 03:07 PM
So, then, is Obama "just like Cheney" or he is he the liberal/socialist/leftist you and your fellow small c conservatives usually portray/accuse him of being?

Dude thats what i am saying we have no idea what he is. He believes in a big govt that you have no idea what its doing. Big govt can take on many forms and obviously when it comes to our rights he is a lot like Cheney. He's an ends justify the means sort of person IMO.

So just because I say he is very liberal when it comes to spending and how involved govt should be in the markets, I can't say man this guy is just like Stalin when it comes to using the govt to attack his enemies? Hell no he can and is both of thost people.

Really liberals should be the most upset. You finally got who you thought would be this great liberal reformer and instead you got a mixture of super liberal and authoritarian dictator. Congrats.

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 03:14 PM
We need a whole new label for Obama.

1-socially liberal

2-Fiscally liberal spender/taxer

3-hawk- not afraid to breach other countries soverignty if he thinks its in our interests. Kept most of the Bush war on terror going. Keeps wanting bigger and better weapons. Might just be getting his own war here in Syria.

4-liberal constitutional beliefs- NSA spying, killing of americans with no trial, investigating reporters.

5- hip - He is all up in social media and how young people get down.

7- then last what i guess they all are A BIG HUGE FAT LIAR THAT IF ANYTHING IS WORST. Change and Hope? Get the **** out!

Rigs11
06-17-2013, 09:45 AM
Dude thats what i am saying we have no idea what he is. He believes in a big govt that you have no idea what its doing. Big govt can take on many forms and obviously when it comes to our rights he is a lot like Cheney. He's an ends justify the means sort of person IMO.

So just because I say he is very liberal when it comes to spending and how involved govt should be in the markets, I can't say man this guy is just like Stalin when it comes to using the govt to attack his enemies? Hell no he can and is both of thost people.

Really liberals should be the most upset. You finally got who you thought would be this great liberal reformer and instead you got a mixture of super liberal and authoritarian dictator. Congrats.

What a load of crap.we've admitted long ago that Obama is more centrist .it's you righties that label him a liberal socialist Muslim lover.the problem is that your candidates are so far right that that is why they keep losing.

BroncoBeavis
06-17-2013, 10:46 AM
What a load of crap.we've admitted long ago that Obama is more centrist .it's you righties that label him a liberal socialist Muslim lover.the problem is that your candidates are so far right that that is why they keep losing.

Quick question. Was Reagan a 'centrist?'

houghtam
06-17-2013, 11:11 AM
Quick question. Was Reagan a 'centrist?'

No. And he would be entirely rejected by your party today, which is why everyone says the Republicans continually stake out positions further and further to the right, and then demand to be met in the "middle".

Remember when the ACA was a conservative idea?

BroncoBeavis
06-17-2013, 11:20 AM
No. And he would be entirely rejected by your party today, which is why everyone says the Republicans continually stake out positions further and further to the right, and then demand to be met in the "middle".

Remember when the ACA was a conservative idea?

Remember when Tax Cuts were a liberal one?

Try harder. Finding something said by someone calling themselves a 'conservative' does not make their idea a conservative idea. Using that standard I could make virtually any idea a Liberal idea at one point or another.

It's all about the details.

Rigs11
06-17-2013, 11:24 AM
Quick question. Was Reagan a 'centrist?'

He raised the deficit.was he a liberal socialist commie pinko?

BroncoBeavis
06-17-2013, 11:31 AM
He raised the deficit.was he a liberal socialist commie pinko?

Ok, don't answer the question.

houghtam
06-17-2013, 11:32 AM
Ok, don't answer the question.

Sucks when you get a taste of your own medicine, doesn't it.

BroncoBeavis
06-17-2013, 11:35 AM
Sucks when you get a taste of your own medicine, doesn't it.

Whatever floats your boat dude.

TonyR
06-17-2013, 11:41 AM
While GWB was in office most "conservatives" called him a "conservative". And then when he was out of office most "conservatives" said they didn't vote for him and he wasn't a "coservative". Most "conservatives" are clearly very confused about this "conservatism" thing.

BroncoBeavis
06-17-2013, 12:01 PM
While GWB was in office most "conservatives" called him a "conservative". And then when he was out of office most "conservatives" said they didn't vote for him and he wasn't a "coservative". Most "conservatives" are clearly very confused about this "conservatism" thing.

Voting for him and considering him a conservative are two different animals.

Regardless, at least he considers himself one. Does John Kerry? :)

cutthemdown
06-17-2013, 03:59 PM
What a load of crap.we've admitted long ago that Obama is more centrist .it's you righties that label him a liberal socialist Muslim lover.the problem is that your candidates are so far right that that is why they keep losing.

Umm so you admit something and it makes it a fact huh? Sorry you don't get to define Obama it will be his actions. Facts are he is big govt, big spending, big taxer and an authoritarian take away freedoms type of President. He's the worst thing we have ever had and a total nightmare.

When historians write about his admin it will be nothing good you watch.

houghtam
06-17-2013, 05:22 PM
Umm so you admit something and it makes it a fact huh? Sorry you don't get to define Obama it will be his actions. Facts are he is big govt, big spending, big taxer and an authoritarian take away freedoms type of President. He's the worst thing we have ever had and a total nightmare.

When historians write about his admin it will be nothing good you watch.

LOLLOLLOL

Cut, the Queen of Hyperbole.

cutthemdown
06-18-2013, 05:03 AM
Obama has went against all that he said he stood for.

cutthemdown
06-18-2013, 05:05 AM
LOLLOLLOL

Cut, the Queen of Hyperbole.

wow 3 lol? you are in a good mood tonight. Too bad your hope and change President will go down in the books as a huge failure. When he is done Bush will be more popular them him. LOLLOLLOL!

Rohirrim
06-18-2013, 12:06 PM
The modern "conservative" (in American terms anyway), has nothing to do with conservatism. They are radicals. They espouse a radical ideology that is totally opposed to the previous 100 years of American political evolution. They dismantled the progressive tax system initiated under TR. They dismantled the regulation apparatus built after the hard lessons of the Depression. They have attacked some of the primary foundations of this republic, like separation of church and state, for thirty years. They have effectively neutered every hard fought environmental protection instituted since the 60s, and now they are going after the progress we made in racial equality. Their policies have created a corporate-centric state with an almost feudalistic disparity of income to show for it.

The country bequeathed to us by the Greatest Generation after WWII has been entirely dismantled and left in smoking ruin by these "conservatives." And they're not done yet. Now they're going after government itself. They simply throw sand in the gears and bring the entire apparatus to a halt, pushing the government into sequester and killing whatever meager recovery was beginning to happen.

By any political definition, that is a radical agenda. Perhaps you could argue that they are reactionary radicals, but the utopia of a no-government world they envision has never existed, so I don't know what fetid nightmare they intend to drag this country back to.

Rohirrim
06-18-2013, 12:19 PM
“No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered, not gambling in stocks, but service rendered."
Teddy Roosevelt

That's what the Republican Party sounded like a hundred years ago.

cutthemdown
06-18-2013, 01:01 PM
And today the democratic party sounds like this.

2008 Obama - GWB surviellance of Americans is illegal and must stop!
2013 obama - You can't have security and privacy too!

Rohirrim
06-18-2013, 01:44 PM
And today the democratic party sounds like this.

2008 Obama - GWB surviellance of Americans is illegal and must stop!
2013 obama - You can't have security and privacy too!

Clumsy deflection.

cutthemdown
06-18-2013, 01:49 PM
Err radicals, and um the corp influence and err wall street. Meanwhile the real radical is Obama and he's a trainwreck.

cutthemdown
06-18-2013, 01:50 PM
LOL so no man should make money off stocks or the repub party is radical. Yeah and I am the one that is clumsy. Say it ain't so Rho!

TonyR
06-18-2013, 02:07 PM
Meanwhile the real radical is Obama...

Wait, just a couple of days ago you said we can't tell what he is, and that's he's "just like Cheney". Now he's a radical? When are you going to make up your mind on this? You're either confused, or stupid, or both.

Rohirrim
06-18-2013, 02:14 PM
Err radicals, and um the corp influence and err wall street. Meanwhile the real radical is Obama and he's a trainwreck.

Obama is too much of a centrist and an incrementalist for my tastes, but a large percentage of his failures as a president lie at the doorstep of a radical Republican movement intent from day one on destroying his presidency and stalling any and all rightful government operation.

Rohirrim
06-18-2013, 02:15 PM
LOL so no man should make money off stocks or the repub party is radical. Yeah and I am the one that is clumsy. Say it ain't so Rho!

To be consciously obtuse is to risk being seen as an idiot.

cutthemdown
06-18-2013, 04:27 PM
Oh I get it Rho. It's the repubs fault again. If repubs in power its the repubs fault. If repubs not in power its still the repubs fault.

Rohirrim
06-19-2013, 08:07 AM
Oh I get it Rho. It's the repubs fault again. If repubs in power its the repubs fault. If repubs not in power its still the repubs fault.

Keep your head firmly planted in the sand, puppet. That's where they want you.