Secret Court Approves Continued NSA Spying

Lith1um said:
A government agency that grants itself powers, awesome.
Click to expand...

This was the first thing I picked up on. Surprised it wasn't noted earlier!! It's like politicians giving themselves raises, what could possibly go wrong. A court renewing itself... What could possibly go wrong. :D
 
gdonovan said:
Those who forget history are doomed to repete it.

I can think of the Trail of Tears just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

It's silly to forget that more than one person is involved in something too. Like insisting that Apple is Steve Jobs or Microsoft is Bill Gates/Steve Ballmer. There are more forces at work in most things that can be solely pinned upon the shoulders of one person. Doing so speaks of a view that has a narrow horizon (not you in specific, but probably that other guy who made random genocide accusations without understanding historical context).

Anyhow, that's way too serious for a forum. I don't use brain cells for serious discussions online so forget I said anything. :p
 
jpm100 said:
Like this President cares what congress thinks. For example, de facto implementing the dream act which didn't pass congress. I guess the apologist talking points are strong on these issues.
Click to expand...
What? There is only like one thing that he was able to implement from the DREAM Act (ie. stop deporting illegals who met proposed requirements from the failed DREAM Act) and that was completely within his power as President. He did not overstep his authority there at all.

Also you don't know anything about me if you think I'm a Obama apologist. The guy is a status quo pushing neoliberal on economic issues, just like both Bush's and Clinton and Regan were before him. But you have to be right about why he is a bad president otherwise you end up drawing the incorrect conclusions about what is wrong with his presidency and how to fix things politically and economically.

jpm100 said:
Oh and there's that whole the Democrats had both houses of congress for 2 years thing.
Click to expand...
Nooope. You don't even vaguely know what you're talking about. Just spouting off talking points from Rush/etc. like a robot.
 
mesyn191 said:
Also you don't know anything about me if you think I'm a Obama apologist. The guy is a status quo pushing neoliberal on economic issues, just like both Bush's and Clinton and Regan were before him.
Click to expand...

That made me laugh, Reagan was a "supply sider" that democrats derided at every opportunity. Reagan also would have let GM fold, read Lee Iacocca's book if you have any doubts on that score.

I suspect you are very much a democrat apologist just on the strength of the statement you just uttered.
 
dems-pelosi-gavel-mall-hillbuzz-photo.jpg


mesyn191 said:
You don't even vaguely know what you're talking about. Just spouting off talking points from Rush/etc. like a robot.
Click to expand...

Champ are you daft? Democrats had majority in both house and senate the first two years of Obama's first term.

Speaker of the house Pelosi ring any bells? Obamacare being jammed up where the sun doesn't shine must be effecting your memory.
 
I always imagine if Bush did this what would be happening? Usually I envision puppies dying, the news going ape and leftards screeching. Since its Capt Blacktastic in office we are all racist if we question what the hell they are doing.
 
gdonovan said:
That made me laugh, Reagan was a "supply sider" that democrats derided at every opportunity.
Click to expand...
Neoliberal economics has been called many things before. There is no effective difference.

gdonovan said:
Reagan also would have let GM fold, read Lee Iacocca's book if you have any doubts on that score.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But even if he did he would've also thrown a crap load money at the defense and oil industries and heaped some more social welfare program cuts on top of that. Guy was a corrupt scumbag.

gdonovan said:
I suspect you are very much a democrat apologist just on the strength of the statement you just uttered.
Click to expand...
I've said my thoughts on Obama multiple times in the past and it isn't at all hard to see someones post history here so if you want to keep performing mental gymnastics to twist whatever I say in your mind then fine but that just means talking to you is pointless.

gdonovan said:
Champ are you daft? Democrats had majority in both house and senate the first two years of Obama's first term.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn't read the article that I linked that spells everything out for you did you?

gdonovan said:
Speaker of the house Pelosi ring any bells? Obamacare being jammed up where the sun doesn't shine must be effecting your memory.
Click to expand...
You have no clue how the filibuster is being used in modern day Congress at all do you? A super majority is required to pass almost anything that remotely threatens the status quo. A super majority in the Senate requires 60 votes and the D's didn't have that many Senators for very long at all, effectively only a few months.

Also the PPACA is pretty much Gingrich's plan from the 90's, brought up as a alternative to Hillarycare, so its not too surprising that it is horrible. That Obama pushed it through just goes to show how far Right he is. Which makes any argument that he pushes Left/Socialist policies at best contradictory which the narratives/talking points you're cut n' pasting.
 
mesyn191 said:
I guess you didn't read the article that I linked that spells everything out for you did you?
Click to expand...

What part of "democrats had control for two years of the house and senate" is incorrect?

You can't refute it, post a few hundred of links to crackpot sites if you like.

The fact you are trying to state otherwise simply lays bare the fact you are nothing but a partisan hack.
 
gdonovan said:
What part of "democrats had control for two years of the house and senate" is incorrect?
Click to expand...
All of it. Read the linked article which explains everything in a simple clear cut manner.

gdonovan said:
You can't refute it, post a few hundred of links to crackpot sites if you like.
Click to expand...
Sure I can its easy, just look at the timeline of events:

President needed 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. Apparently no one remembers that Scott Brown was sworn into office in February of 2010. At that time, the President had only been in office for ONE year. Most folks remember that the election of Scott Brown reduced the number of Democratic senators to 59. So the President could not have possibly had Congressional control for two years.

January 20, 2009 – After suffering a seizure during Barack Obama’s inaugural luncheon, Senator Ted Kennedy’s health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts.
May 15, 2009- Senator Robert Byrd was admitted to the hospital.
July 7, 2009- Sen Al Franken was sworn in.
July 21, 2009 Senator Byrd returned to the Senate (59 votes)
August 25, 2009- Senator Kennedy died August 25, 2009
September 24, 2009- Paul G. Kirk was appointed to occupy his seat until the completion of a special election. (60)
Until September 2009 Democrats only had 59 votes at most and could not get nothing passed because of the Do Nothing Republicans! Republican filibustered every bill put on the floor and that’s a Fact. Most filibuster congress in History.
Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!!
Click to expand...

gdonovan said:
The fact you are trying to state otherwise simply lays bare the fact you are nothing but a partisan hack.
Click to expand...
Nope. Just means I know a thing or 2 more than you about how Congress works and the current political dynamics in Washington DC. That all you can do is robo cut n' paste talking points/meme's from Freep or Rush while calling me names shows you know you already lost the argument and have no facts or logic to stand on. Just deny deny deny.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
It's not really a secret court. Anyhow, it's good this got upheld. We need to make sure government agencies have the ability to keep people in the US safe from themselves. Just like we're starting to regulate cell phone use in cars because people are too dumb to not talk and drive, we need to keep an eye on what they're doing because they're too dumb not to do stuff that will kill other people.
Click to expand...

Ok, I don't know if this is sarcasm or what, but NO we do NOT need a nanny state. People just need more self accountability and personal responsibility.

Seriously...if people can't take responsibility for their own actions, the government invading every aspect of their lives isn't the answer. They just need to get an @$$ kicking and start self moderating.

People will always do dumb and idiotic things and you can't legislate that they be smart.. We need less government intrusion into our lives, not more.
 
...and all of the truly bad people (the real terrorists, etc.) adopt bitmessage, the only ones left using email will be the ones without anything to hide. Kinda ironic that if they would have done everything above board by getting proper warrants, etc. that the scope of their ability to monitor never would have been discovered and would still be useful today.

In a way, I hope some terrorist group that would have otherwise been caught uses new technology to avoid detection and kills off a couple million people. How ironic, that the group who was tasked with stopping terrorism would ultimately be the group that enabled it by infringing people's rights.
 
I think America has forgotten what it means to be an American.

Stop being scared. Stop being manipulated.
 
mesyn191 said:
That all you can do is robo cut n' paste talking points/meme's from Freep or Rush while calling me names shows you know you already lost the argument and have no facts or logic to stand on. Just deny deny deny.
Click to expand...

(Shakes head) talk about disconnected from reality.

You state I have no standing in facts yet will not admit dems were in control for 2 full years of both houses.

Keep talking so everyone can see how crazy that sounds.
 
hardwarephreak said:
Seriously...if people can't take responsibility for their own actions, the government invading every aspect of their lives isn't the answer. They just need to get an @$$ kicking and start self moderating.
Click to expand...

They will never self moderate, not when the have other peoples money to spend.
 
mesyn191 said:
Neoliberal economics has been called many things before. There is no effective difference.
Click to expand...
Wow. You have such an upsidedown distorted view of government trying to let Obama off the hook.

He doesn't not have the power to implement the Dream Act by dereliction of duty, but he's doing it anyway. And bombing Libya and usurping congress' roll in war by not calling it a war. Congress lacks the guts to confront Obama on their one check they have on the EXECUTIVE. The EXECUTIVE executes how businesss gets done. Oh, like going to courts to get their spy programs renewed. The congress' only power over the executive's conduct is derived from their control of budget. They get to say how big the expense and revenue will be. And during Reagan, the Democrats controlled the budget.

Since congress is so overpowered according to you, you should recognize that Reagan is absolutely not responsible for the budget during his tenure. And Bush II is completely off the hook for anything done during his tenure since congress completely runs the show.

Should be interesting to see the contradictory contortions you go through to get Obama off the hook and keep the republicans the bad guys.
 
gdonovan said:
(Shakes head) talk about disconnected from reality.

You state I have no standing in facts yet will not admit dems were in control for 2 full years of both houses.
Click to expand...
Actually I said you're flat out wrong and gave the reason why which you're flat out ignoring. Even a child knows how to google the dates and names I already posted. This is not hard to do. You're not even trying anymore, just deny deny deny.
 
jpm100 said:
Wow. You have such an upsidedown distorted view of government trying to let Obama off the hook.
Click to expand...
Explain the differences between Neoliberal economics and supply side economics. Bear in mind that many of the economics who espoused supply side economics now espouse neoliberal economics.

jpm100 said:
He doesn't not have the power to implement the Dream Act by dereliction of duty, but he's doing it anyway.
Click to expand...
Uh its not dereliction of duty for the President to give legal lawful orders or IOW give the border patrol a different set of criteria for deporting illegals. You might not like his decisions for various reasons but that doesn't really matter at all from a legal or even ethical standpoint.

jpm100 said:
Congress lacks the guts to confront Obama on their one check they have on the EXECUTIVE.
Click to expand...
Congress constantly filibusters whatever laws the President wants passed and even his court appointees. They're in constant confrontation with Obama. Stop spouting right wing meme's and use your brain.

jpm100 said:
<snip word salad>And during Reagan, the Democrats controlled the budget.
Click to expand...
Sure cuz' there is only one party in the US, the Neoliberal one. Repub and Democrat are just 2 different sides of the same coin. Most of the sound and fury over issues is just so much Kabuki Theater and when it comes to something big (ie. TBTF, failure to stop white collar crime, Afghan/Iraq Wars, Patriot Act, DMCA, etc.) they always vote lock step.

jpm100 said:
Since congress is so overpowered according to you
Click to expand...
I've said nothing even vaguely like this. It is simply a matter of fact laws have to pass both the Senate and House of Representatives. If one of either halves of Congress become locked up in filibuster hell due to politics then virtually nothing can get done. The only way to break filibuster hell is with a super majority but that is very hard to pull off. The Dems only had that super majority for about 4 months, not 2 years, therefore almost nothing they wanted got passed.

jpm100 said:
And Bush II is completely off the hook for anything done during his tenure since congress completely runs the show.
Click to expand...
Soooo you're saying you also won't blame Obama for anything he does wrong now either? Just Congress? That is some very strange "logic" you've got there.

jpm100 said:
Should be interesting to see the contradictory contortions you go through to get Obama off the hook and keep the republicans the bad guys.
Click to expand...
Obama is on the hook for many things, just not the things you're talking about. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Congress works so you're drawing incorrect conclusions. This is why right wing meme's are so terrible: you're so angry at Obama/Pelosi/Dem's/<insert hot button issue of the week> that you're not focusing on the policies these people all seem to push irregardless of who ever is in office or what the political make up of Congress is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top