We're against this. We were against domestic spying when George W. Bush was president. We haven't changed our position.The over-stepping of executive powers, especially those that threaten to unleash even more "investigative freedom" for the executive branch, should concern every American. Unfortunately, certain Republicans only find their outrage when a Democrat is in office. They applauded all the Patriot Act nonsense when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were seizing unconstitutional power to spy domestically. Now those same Republican voices, joined by tea baggers, are going ape-shit over this new proposed internet snoop-ability. Just check out some of the comments posted to the Times article linked above.
I told you so well before Barack Obama was elected: "...Republicans who claim to love the Constitution and who profess themselves giddy that they've gotten the congressional Democrats to cave on FISA [in June 2008] might want to consider these extraordinary spying powers in the hands of a president of the other party. We don't want them in the hands of a president of EITHER party."
The lust of the government for more ways to spy on us, once the Bush administration had thrown open that door, is pretty understandable and pretty awful. But the situational ethics of Republicans just pisses me off.
21 comments:
Gee, wonder how much scrutiny this hate site of yours will get JW.
JW, hate to bust your "Us against Them" bubble, but the COICA Bill was introduced by Patrick Leahy, who, last time I checked, is a Democrat.
Hate to tell you! But Obama is own lock stock and barrel by Goldman Sachs like the Republicans.....
I checked out some of the comments. Contrary to what JW claims, they were all against the idea of monitoring the internet.
Wow! Look how the vultures have come to dine here. And it serves as proof of your post,JW. Where were these bastions of richeousness when Bush
/Cheney developed these spying powers of the President? They were cheering Bush/Cheney on, and gloating.
Hypothesis PROVED! Good job, Jerry!
BB, with a Democrat prez. AND a Dem. house and senate, the Dems could have, if they had wanted too, declared some of the Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional and eliminated them. Did they? Hell no!
BTW, did you even read the article or the comments. My guess is that you didn't and are just talking out your ass.
I watched an Obama speech on T.V. yesterday, and it seems to me that as fewer and fewer people find themselves agreeing with Obama's ideas, he is becoming increasingly forcefully demanding that we all agree with him. Watching him, it was as though I was in trouble, and being lectured by the assistant principal.
My natural reaction to Obama's insistence that we must see the world as he does was... "dude, how about you shut your mouth, and instead of forcing us to believe as you do, listen to what we believe, and do your best to make our wishes become policy."
If there is any hope that the tyrant will become a good President, he needs to have his power checked. November should help, and thank goodness the Supreme Court is not in Obama's back pocket.
My shock at his audacity is starting to wear off, and behind my shock, and I suspect the same may be the case in the majority of my fellow Americans, is a sense of resolve to clip Obama's wings and reduce the power he wields.
Don't tell me what I have to believe, Mr. Obama. How dare you!
Kennedy - " Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your county."
Mike D. - " Humph, don't tell me what to ask."
MLK - " I have a dream that....sons of former slaves will sit down to eat with sons of former slave owners..."
Mike D.- " Who cares what your dream is?"
FDR-" Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money, it lies in the joy of achievement...."
Mike D.- "Phooey. Who are you to tell me what makes me happy."
W.Churchill - " You ask what is our aim?... It is victory. Victory at all costs....."
Mike D.- How dare you tell us what our aim is?"
I'm pretty sure that if Obama were more conciliatory you would deride him as a wimp. Face it. Nothing he says or does will ever please you or the rest of the mindless "tea partiers" so he shouldn't even waste his time on you. He should worry about the overwhelming majority of us who elected him to be a strong progressive liberal voice for us.
No Comp:
Then put your face REAL CLOSE to where you think I'm talking and wait for my next message! LOL!
Brushfire,
Your lack of willingness to understand the beliefs, the desires, the wishes of others is not my problem. It is yours. You said:
"I'm pretty sure that if Obama were more conciliatory you would deride him as a wimp."
Not only have I repeatedly praised Bill Clinton for the job he did once he was working with a Republican Congress, but I even demonstrated to you, in the very post you responded to, an answer which proves the exact opposite of your accusation. I said:
"If there is any hope that the tyrant will become a good President, he needs to have his power checked."
This is exactly what happened to Bill Clinton, and it led to a balanced budget, prosperity, good foreign relations, and other signs of good times for the country.
I realize that the thought of losing near absolute power for the supremacy of your ideology would be a great tragedy to you, and I wonder if you would support violence to maintain and expand that power. At one time, I would not have believed such a thing possible, but then I read your aggressive reaction to the sales tax referendum, and now I'm not so sure anymore. The unbridled (pardon the pun) intolerance you showed toward those who disagreed with your tax increase was... unsettling.
You, like Obama, seem to be getting more and more forceful and aggressive as our society develops a broader and stronger rejection of your plans for us all. At this point, violent oppression of the will of the people may be your only option. Too bad the people are so well armed, eh?
Bikerbard, can't you control yourself?
Maybe those people were right about the Bard's sexual proclivities. He certainly makes weird posts.
Mike - " I wonder if you would support violence to maintain and expand that power."
You are projecting. Not once have I advocated overturning the will of the people duly expressed in a fair election. But I damn sure will tell those selfish idiots what I think of them when they fall prey to the vicious distorted mindset of the "tea party" line.
On the other hand you are the one who said "Too bad the people are so well armed, eh?"
Which one of us is advocating violence?
Brushfire,
I was not projecting, I was pondering.
The overwhelming majority, near 100% of those people I refer to as well armed, are extremely responsible, peaceful, and consider their weapons, very conscientiously, as a last line of defense against tyranny, not as a tool of violent intimidation. The same cannot be said of those on your side who cover their faces with bandanas and hurl whatever piece of stone they can get their hands on at their perceived enemies.
Brushfire, I read that an armed man is a citizen and an unarmed man is a subject, serf, or slave. I guess you must fall into the second category.
Mike - Your last statement was totally and absolutely un-provable. Therefore it is meaningless. And I don't know what the heck you are talking about when you say my "side" has bandana's and is throwing stones?
It appears you are resorting to blather because you are feeling defensive or something.
I don't like everything Obama has done. But I think he has truly tried to reach out to the Republicans. And they have consistently and explicitly attempted to sabotage every attempt Obama has made to make things in this country better. Clearly they want to see him fail, even if we suffer more. Like Virginia Foxx who claimed that the stimulus bill did not put people to work. Then when signs went up advertising all the projects funded by the stimulus bill, she whined about how much the signs cost! The Republicans' game is heads they win, tails we lose. And suckers like you fall for it.
Anon - If you read it somewhere, it MUST be true. (irony alert).
No Comp stepped in his OWN sh*t and Anon immediately goes to his defense. Hmmmmm? I wonder...?
I'm sorry for sinking down to your levels.
BB, and how is stating two true facts: that Leahy introduced the COICA Bill (which he did), and that Leahy is a Democrat (which he is), stepping in my own sh*t?
Barb, my man, your defensive post reminds me of the punch line of an old joke: "If the foo sh*ts, wear it!"
If you do not want others to quote what they read, Bard, why do you bore us with out of context Shakespeare quotes?
What is the matter, did No Compromise hit you with a fact to hard. I was not defending him, I was defending the concept of an armed citizen from communists such as you and Brushfire.
Post a Comment