Court: Uncle Sam Must Hand Over Immunity Lobbying Docs - Judge denies Uncle Sam's third stalling attempt...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: New Topic
Forums »
Steve B @ 14th Oct 09:13AM:
Enough Already
Can't the judge just say enough is enough with stalling, hand them over and deny any future stalling tactics on this?
reply
Harddrive @ 14th Oct 09:17AM:
Obama = Bush?
its the same old Government, just with a different look.
Remember the campaign trail? what did he say?
Yes We Can.
sad to see its changed to...
No We Won't.
Wake up America. Even the CEO of the USA is getting 'something' from the Telcos.
I love my Country, but i hate my Government.
reply
apollo80 @ 14th Oct 09:23AM:
Not surprised
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
reply
Z80 @ 14th Oct 09:27AM:
Transparency? Accountability?
No we can't.
Meanwhile it was just announced that Obama has won Motor Trend Car of the Year.
reply
SLD @ 14th Oct 09:29AM:
Re: Transparency? Accountability?
Was the Nobel Prize for best pretender?
reply
anon @ 14th Oct 09:33AM:
Re: Transparency? Accountability?
"current administration's pointed directive on transparency in government"
This was a campaign lie.
reply
Van @ 14th Oct 09:34AM:
Man, these documents must
really have some juicy information in it
reply
Z80 @ 14th Oct 09:50AM:
Re: Transparency? Accountability?
One of many. Liar and politician go hand in hand, no matter what party they are in.
reply
knightmb @ 14th Oct 10:16AM:
Re: Not surprised
said by apollo80 :
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
LOL, it's no surprise to me. Did anyone really think that 8 years of Bush could be undone in less than a year, less than 2 years? Plug-in McCain for Obama and you would have the same result, but in the opposite direction.
It always cracks me up that those that voted against Obama in the last election have higher (sometimes unrealistic) expectations than the very people that did vote for him. Good thing we have online forums such as this to vent out people's feelings. ;)
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data
reply
Time @ 14th Oct 10:26AM:
Re: Not surprised
said by knightmb :said by apollo80 :
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
LOL, it's no surprise to me. Did anyone really think that 8 years of Bush could be undone in less than a year, less than 2 years? Plug-in McCain for Obama and you would have the same result, but in the opposite direction.
It always cracks me up that those that voted against Obama in the last election have higher (sometimes unrealistic) expectations than the very people that did vote for him. Good thing we have online forums such as this to vent out people's feelings. ;)
PST - Bush is long gone, this is your saviors time now. You can only blame the previous administration for so long. "It always cracks me up" how those who voted for Obama still pull the Bush card. You'll likely be doing that 3 1/2 years down the road when the elections come up again.
--
"If it can't be done with brains, it can't be done with hours" - Clarence "Kelly" Johnson
reply
davoice @ 14th Oct 10:33AM:
Re: Man, these documents must
Doubtful. Otherwise they would have pulled the "national security" card and buried it.
They just have info that the telcos don't want released and have paid big money to ensure never reaches the light of day.
This is a money game. Not a disclosure game.
}Davoice
reply
Van @ 14th Oct 10:37AM:
Re: Not surprised
It's funny you say that because Republicans still are crying about Bill Clinton to this day.
Couldn't go a week in the last 8 years without a bashing Clinton, blaming Clinton, crying about Clinton article or TV segment on FakeNews.
Yet not even a year into Obama's term....and they want us to stop even remotely talking about George Bush.
It's like....huh?
reply
footballdude @ 14th Oct 10:37AM:
Read that again
"current administration's pointed directive on transparency in government, and the public's renewed interest in the question of legal immunity for the telecommunications companies that participated in the warrantless wiretapping program while considering currently pending legislation repealing the amendments to FISA, the Court finds that the public interest lies in favor of disclosure."
Nowhere in there do I see any discussion about the relevant LAW pertaining to this case. The judge is making a decision based on an Obama campaign promise and the fact that people are watching him.
--
The goggles! They do nothing! - McBain
reply
Transmaster @ 14th Oct 10:37AM:
Re: Man, these documents must
Talk about a witch hunt. If you are a terrorist out to bomb subway trains, or are a blind cleric you will have left wing lawyers out declaring you have all the rights the world but if you are doing something to protect the United States the American Communist Liberal Unit will drag you through the courts. It is amazing the only calls that where monitored where specific calls to overseas phone numbers known to be used by Islamic Terrorist organizations had been forgotten in order for the ACLU and company to go after the holy grail of these organizations, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, and a wet dream fantasy George Bush up on charges of whatever. I wonder is the ACLU would change their tune if these same Islamic terrorist groups started to bomb ACLU offices, but that would never happen These terrorists know which side butters their bread.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption
reply
nasadude @ 14th Oct 10:38AM:
Re: Not surprised
said by apollo80 :
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
seems to be absolutely no difference between this admin and last admin on security, constitutional issues and kowtowing to big business.
I voted for Obama once, won't do it again.
reply
Rob @ 14th Oct 10:38AM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Van :
It's funny you say that because Republicans still are crying about Bill Clinton to this day.
Couldn't go a week in the last 8 years without a bashing Clinton, blaming Clinton, crying about Clinton article or TV segment on FakeNews.
Yet not even a year into Obama's term....and they want us to stop even remotely talking about George Bush.
It's like....huh?
What happened, happened. We can't change it, so there's no point in getting upset over it.
When Bush was in office, the Democrats always said "Bush is in office, not Clinton, so stop bringing up what Clinton did", yet the Democrats continue to bring up Bush.
It'll be like this forever - both sides will never stop.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us
reply
nasadude @ 14th Oct 10:47AM:
Re: Man, these documents must
dam Transmaster, you sound awful scared of the big, bad terists. do you spend a lot of your time hiding under the bed?
me? I'm much more worried about my constitutional liberties. You know that saying by Ben Franklin?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
you may be too scared to care about your liberties, but I'm not.
reply
morbo @ 14th Oct 10:55AM:
Re: Not surprised
said by nasadude :
I voted for Obama once, won't do it again.
I'm in that same boat. Here's what I tell folks that ask me why I voted for him to begin with:
It's like you're in an abusive relationship. Your partner's been beating the crap out of you for 6 of the last 8 years. When given an option between going with someone new who says that the beatings will stop within 1 year vs. an extension of your partner who says that the beatings are fine! if anything, we need more beatings! ...for your own safety of course. then the choice was obvious. VOTE AGAINST THE BEATINGS. otherwise, you're like one of those sad women that always goes back to her abusive husband despite everyone telling her to get the hell out of there.
however, now it's clear that the beatings have changed only on the surface and probably won't stop. so, now we know and will move forward knowing this for the next time.
reply
Transmaster @ 14th Oct 11:01AM:
Re: Man, these documents must
I was out defending My country in the United States Navy so you can post this sacastic whine, what my I ask did you do to protect and defend the United States of America. No I don't hide under my bed, I helped make these terrorists hide under theirs.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption
reply
knightmb @ 14th Oct 11:02AM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Time :said by knightmb :said by apollo80 :
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
LOL, it's no surprise to me. Did anyone really think that 8 years of Bush could be undone in less than a year, less than 2 years? Plug-in McCain for Obama and you would have the same result, but in the opposite direction.
It always cracks me up that those that voted against Obama in the last election have higher (sometimes unrealistic) expectations than the very people that did vote for him. Good thing we have online forums such as this to vent out people's feelings. ;)
PST - Bush is long gone, this is your saviors time now. You can only blame the previous administration for so long. "It always cracks me up" how those who voted for Obama still pull the Bush card. You'll likely be doing that 3 1/2 years down the road when the elections come up again.
If Obama was the only member of the Executive Branch of our government, then I would agree. There is no Bush card, there is only people that are still sore about the election results and anything that goes on within the "US Government" which is made up of us, the people living here, not "just" Obama; turns into another conspiracy theory of how one man is doing the job of thousands.
Newsflash, he doesn't/can't/won't do every thing. If the story had some details about how Obama called up the Judge and gave an order to 'Delay Everything'; this might carry a teaspoon of water in an argument.
Obama might sit at the top of the Executive Pyramid, but he sure doesn't micro-manage every single person or issue that takes place within that part of the US Government.
To claim otherwise shows a great lack of understanding for how our government works. So yes, I will continue to laugh at how naive people are with the comments they post. :D No one thinks of Obama as the savior or messiah; that was just all Republican spin from the last election. Not including the loonies anyway.
Carry on though, the comments are hilarious. It's good to poke fun at your leader, keeps them grounded so all of those 'Obama Worshippers' out there will finally realize that he isn't a deity like the nice man in the red hat shirt told last year.
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data
reply
Van @ 14th Oct 11:04AM:
Re: Not surprised
I agree. So why would one side tell the other to stop bringing the other up? No matter who is in office, the minute something bad happens, the previous admin will be blamed by the new ones fans.
Clinton was blamed for everything under the sun that went down during Bush's terrible 2 terms. Bush will be blamed for everything under the sun that goes down during Obama's....well, we will see what his term or terms bring.
reply
Van @ 14th Oct 11:06AM:
Re: Man, these documents must
I don't get it.
What is wrong with dragging them through the courts. That is now made out to be a bad thing. If we have enough proof, they will be found guilty.
If not, they are freed like we did to NUMEROUS PEOPLE AT GITMO WHICH NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT.
reply
Rob @ 14th Oct 11:07AM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Van :
I agree. So why would one side tell the other to stop bringing the other up? No matter who is in office, the minute something bad happens, the previous admin will be blamed by the new ones fans.
Clinton was blamed for everything under the sun that went down during Bush's terrible 2 terms. Bush will be blamed for everything under the sun that goes down during Obama's....well, we will see what his term or terms bring.
I just feel bad for the very last person who will be President of the U.S. - he'll get blamed for everything! :D
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us
reply
openbox9 @ 14th Oct 11:09AM:
Re: Read that again
Read the ruling. My take is that the court is denying the temporary stay because it doesn't believe the Defendants intend to pursue their appeal and that the Defendants haven't presented any new arguments. Additionally, the judge does reference legal precedences on what's required to prevail in a motion to stay a pending appeal.In order to prevail on a motion to stay pending appeal, Defendants would have to address the following factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). In ruling on a motion for a stay pending appeal, courts employ “‘two interrelated legal tests’ that ‘represent the outer reaches of a single continuum.’” Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983)). “At one end of the continuum, the moving party is required to show both a probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury.” Lopez, 713 F.2d at 1435. “At the other end of the continuum, the moving party must demonstrate that serious legal questions are raised and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.” Id.
reply
eugenegill @ 14th Oct 11:14AM:
Let's Try Something New
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
Keep voting for the RepubliCrats and expect a different result.
»www.lp.org
reply
deadzoned @ 14th Oct 11:36AM:
Re: Man, these documents must
Transmaster - Let me just say that I respect, admire, and appreciate your military service in protection of our United States of America and the freedoms that we enjoy.
Our country appears to be on the brink right now and all of the things that make our country so great are being dismantled little by little. It's not us though - it's them. None of these people that we elect to represent us seem to be interested in doing anything other than what benefits them personally - and it's been like this for a long, long time.
So, in reality, at least to me, it's no longer about them and what side they happen to be on. It's about us and making sure that we DEMAND a return to the true democratic principles and ideals that have made us great.
The first step in this process is holding them accountable. I truly believe that releasing this information is a start to this long and painful process that we must go through. In the end, it's not really about Obama's or Bush's or Clinton's or Democrat or Republican. It's about the rule of law. It must be re-established and we must hold them accountable and make them start living by it.
reply
Van @ 14th Oct 11:43AM:
Re: Man, these documents must
Rank? Where did you serve? How did you get there?
Recently had some claiming to serve in an argument yet we found out he hadn't....he had been stating such because we had cornered him into an argument and that was his only way out...to claim he served and thus we should shut up....just because
Didn't really understand that one
reply
Time @ 14th Oct 12:03PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Van :
It's funny you say that because Republicans still are crying about Bill Clinton to this day.
Couldn't go a week in the last 8 years without a bashing Clinton, blaming Clinton, crying about Clinton article or TV segment on FakeNews.
Yet not even a year into Obama's term....and they want us to stop even remotely talking about George Bush.
It's like....huh?
Except for the fact that I'm not a Republican, and I don't like Republicans, so I really could care less what that party does. I've no clue what they are blaming Clinton for, but it is probably moronic.
I'm just pointing out the fact that you can only blame Bush and his Administration for so long, and it's past that time. You have to start taking responsibility for whom you elected, and he has to start taking responsibility for his actions/administration's actions and the very obvious lies throughout the campaign. I hate saying "I told you so", but anyone who bought that "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN" garbage deserves it. All politicians are the same crooks with different letters by their names.
Frankly, the whole "FauxNews" and "FakeNews" thing isn't really surprising. Fox News is just as biased as MSNBC, Matthews is to O'Reilly, as Hannity is to Olbermann, as Beck is to Maddow. They're both the same, just on different sides of the political spectrum, so I hope for your sake that you don't view MSNBC as a "real" source of news while criticizing "FauxNews".
--
"If it can't be done with brains, it can't be done with hours" - Clarence "Kelly" Johnson
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 14th Oct 12:08PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by knightmb :
LOL, it's no surprise to me. Did anyone really think that 8 years of Bush could be undone in less than a year, less than 2 years?
According to The Almighty One, it could. Or has everybody forgotten about the "promises" he made on the campaign trail about transparency, accountability, and responsibility?
What have we gotten? I doubt I need to go into details, as it's all been said in various places before.
said by knightmb :
Plug-in McCain for Obama and you would have the same result
I pretty much agree with this. McCain has since proven that he's a RINO (Republican in Name Only) by caving in and supporting Obama instead of standing up for what is right and leading the charge against ideas that threaten the democracy and unity of this nation.
said by knightmb :
It always cracks me up that those that voted against Obama in the last election have higher (sometimes unrealistic) expectations than the very people that did vote for him.
Hmm... I'm not sure about this, at least in my case. Due to various things (lack of experience, selection of advisers, foreign policy missteps, etc.) I've expected him to fail. So far it seems like we have Jimmy Carter Junior in office, so he's pretty much lived down to my expectations.
--
Nobel peace prize for Obammer... Now he's got one more thing in common with Arafat besides hating America. And he's just as succesful as Jimmy "the failure" Carter.
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 14th Oct 12:11PM:
Re: Not surprised
There's one big difference between Bush and Clinton: Bush went after Bin Laden. Clinton had the chance to kill him, and let him get away.
As far as I'm concerned, some of the blood that was shed on 9/11 is on Clinton's hands.
--
Nobel peace prize for Obammer... Now he's got one more thing in common with Arafat besides hating America. And he's just as succesful as Jimmy "the failure" Carter.
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 14th Oct 12:17PM:
Re: Transparency? Accountability?
said by Z80 :
Meanwhile it was just announced that Obama has won Motor Trend Car of the Year.
The OBAMA: all the luxury of your favorite Gremlin, with the price tag of a new BMW M-series. Now available in GM and Chrysler showrooms everywhere. :) :)
I've said it before and will likely say it again... The Obama administration is about as transparent as my grandmother's flannel nightgown.
--
Nobel peace prize for Obammer... Now he's got one more thing in common with Arafat besides hating America. And he's just as succesful as Jimmy "the failure" Carter.
reply
Van @ 14th Oct 12:25PM:
Re: Not surprised
He has not even been President for 1 freakin year. Let me repeat that....not 1 freakin year.
The fact that some are already calling him a failure, etc....shows they have motives that reach far behind what he actually does.
It's comical....2 years in? Sure....not even 1 year? Could people show their bias any more?
I DID NOT EVEN VOTE FOR THE DAMN MAN
reply
Van @ 14th Oct 12:27PM:
Re: Not surprised
Clinton went after him...and failed
Much like Bush
People want to give Bush credit for "trying" which is odd to me as a more calculated approach to Iraq's situation may have in fact netted Bin Laden
Instead, we went in guns blazing and screwed it all up from the start.
reply
firephoto @ 14th Oct 12:53PM:
Re: Man, these documents must
said by Transmaster :
I was out defending My country in the United States Navy so you can post this sacastic whine, what my I ask did you do to protect and defend the United States of America. No I don't hide under my bed, I helped make these terrorists hide under theirs.
So you mean the terroriests hiding in their countries or homelands that are how many thousands of miles away from the US? Maybe if the fact of protecting our country would include a little more of that protection thing then rants like yours wouldn't be dismissed so easily.
How about the people that are IN this country that are truely protecting it from the things that happen everyday HERE... are they not good enough for you because they didn't sail the seas?
Maybe if the governement wasn't handing out billions of dollars like candy OUTSIDE of the country the people that live and stay in this country wouldn't be so pissed off at some of these dumb wars. I know lots of people serving this country in this country and saving lives and getting injured doing it that can surely use some of this out of country wasted money and making good with it.
--
Say no to JAMS!
reply
digitalfreak @ 14th Oct 01:19PM:
Re: Let's Try Something New
said by eugenegill :“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
Keep voting for the RepubliCrats and expect a different result.
»
www.lp.org I don't see it ever happening. In general, people are unwilling to think for themselves (hence the term "sheeple"). They fall for the same old song and dance every election year, being more concerned about who's going to win Survivor than who's running the country.
I'm not advocating the Libertarian party or any other. In fact, we'd probably be better off with someone who's not affiliated with any party.
reply
nasadude @ 14th Oct 01:24PM:
Re: Man, these documents must
said by Transmaster :
I was out defending My country ...
not only were you defending our country, you were defending the U.S. CONSTITUTION.
Given that part of your service was to defend the U.S. CONSTITUTION, doesn't it bother you that our elected officials are either actively aiding or standing silently by while parts of the CONSTITUTION are shredded?
although your original post seems to imply "no, you don't care", I find that hard to believe. If we are at the point where the citizens of the United States are too afraid (or pissed off or whatever) to want to protect their constitutional rights, the terrorists have already won.
reply
Neyland @ 14th Oct 01:32PM:
Re: Not surprised
Personally I find Beck more libertarian.
reply
Neyland @ 14th Oct 01:45PM:
Re: Let's Try Something New
said by eugenegill :“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
Keep voting for the RepubliCrats and expect a different result.
»
www.lp.org Until you get the lobby money out of Washington and do real campaign finance reform that would limit donations to caps from individuals from their districts only, it doesn't matter if it's Rep, Dem, OR Lib... the song will remain the same.
reply
lesopp @ 14th Oct 02:02PM:
Re: Not surprised
Its no longer about the previous moron, it about the current moron.
reply
lesopp @ 14th Oct 02:06PM:
Re: Not surprised
Do you really expect a community organizer or his lemmings to take responsibility?
reply
eugenegill @ 14th Oct 02:07PM:
Re: Let's Try Something New
said by Neyland :
Until you get the lobby money out of Washington and do real campaign finance reform that would limit donations to caps from individuals from their districts only, it doesn't matter if it's Rep, Dem, OR Lib... the song will remain the same.
We are veering off topic here, but let me add this: All campaign finance "reform", donations caps, etc. legislation should be completely repealed. At the same time, the power of congress to grant special favors should be removed. All laws should apply to all people. Lobbyists can never be legislated away, you can only remove the reason for their existence.
reply
lesopp @ 14th Oct 02:10PM:
Re: Not surprised
Appearantly that was long enough to surpass Bush's deficiet by a factor of three.
And he did it in less than 1 freakin year. Let me repeat that....in less than 1 freakin year.
reply
S_engineer @ 14th Oct 02:19PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by morbo :said by nasadude :
I voted for Obama once, won't do it again.
however, now it's clear that the beatings have changed only on the surface and probably won't stop. so, now we know and will move forward knowing this for the next time.
We should be paid for the trauma that looking at the candidates on a ballot causes us....
I understand what your saying Morbo, but how was this election any different than any of the others...or...when was the last time you got what you paid for?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!
reply
joebarnhart @ 14th Oct 02:36PM:
We have a two-party system in the U.S.... BUT!
The problem is, the two parties are the Incumbents and the Challengers. Everytime we elect the latter, the no-good sumbtch switches sides when he gets to office!
reply
Neyland @ 14th Oct 02:56PM:
Re: Let's Try Something New
I feel that if you only allow politicians to receive money from individuals (and only individuals not groups or companies) who's primary residence is in the district (or state) the politician is to represent, you would remove the largest power a lobbyist has... money. Then, cap the amount each individual person can give. To me that would make politicians actually more like representatives than politicians.
But yea.. off topic.
reply
morbo @ 14th Oct 02:56PM:
Re: Not surprised
that's my take home lesson: be very wary of politicians, even the well-spoken ones.
reply
Time @ 14th Oct 03:14PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Van :
He has not even been President for 1 freakin year. Let me repeat that....not 1 freakin year.
The fact that some are already calling him a failure, etc....shows they have motives that reach far behind what he actually does.
It's comical....2 years in? Sure....not even 1 year? Could people show their bias any more?
I DID NOT EVEN VOTE FOR THE DAMN MAN
1. You rush to the defense of a man you didn't vote for.
2. You criticize "FauxNews" every chance you can in this thread.
Do you really expect anyone to buy that you didn't vote for this guy?
It doesn't matter if it hasn't been one year yet, we were promised change and transparency, and none of that has happened. Actually, I should say that we weren't promised anything, those who chose to "VOTE FOR CHANGE" were, thus they are the ones that are actually being shafted. He's no different than Bush & Co., sorry to say. As the saying goes; same shit, different day.
--
"If it can't be done with brains, it can't be done with hours" - Clarence "Kelly" Johnson
reply
anon @ 14th Oct 03:15PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 14th Oct 03:18PM:
Re: We have a two-party system in the U.S.... BUT!
I'd say the two parties are more like us and them.
Isn't it interesting how we always seem to wind up with bigger government and more people doing more things we don't need them to do-- no matter what party is in charge? With Bush (the RINO... true conservative Republicans don't support the needless creation of large government agencies), it was DHS (TSA, for the most part). With Obama, it looks like it will be this whole health care debacle. Who knows what it will be the next time around...
--
Nobel peace prize for Obammer... Now he's got one more thing in common with Arafat besides hating America. And he's just as succesful as Jimmy "the failure" Carter.
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 14th Oct 03:22PM:
Re: Not surprised
What I recall most is Clinton electing to not expend significant resources going after him after he tried to bring down the WTC the first time. We knew where he was, and could have killed him much quicker and easier than now.
But Clinton didn't have the balls to deal with him in that manner, much like Carter couldn't deal with hostage takers. So far it seems like Obama is shaping up to be from the same mold-- he seems to care more about getting the world to like us than doing the tasks of a man charged with acting in the best interests of the United States. We don't need to win popularity contests among the nations of the world, and we shouldn't have a president who acts as though we do.
--
Nobel peace prize for Obammer... Now he's got one more thing in common with Arafat besides hating America. And he's just as succesful as Jimmy "the failure" Carter.
reply
amigo_boy @ 14th Oct 03:33PM:
Re: Man, these documents must
said by nasadude :
Given that part of your service was to defend the U.S. CONSTITUTION, doesn't it bother you that our elected officials are either actively aiding or standing silently by while parts of the CONSTITUTION are shredded?
I can understand people who prefer privacy and greater controls on surveillance. But, it doesn't promote rational discussion to overstate the problem.
The Constitution separates powers between three branches of government. The Legislative branch has the power to legislate how surveillance is conducted. The Executive has the power to conduct surveillance outside the Legislative's provisions in times of emergency, war, etc.
18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) is a reflection of the Legislative branch's recognition of the Executive's power. The Legislative branch defined the circumstances under which telcos could be immune from civil suit, when the Executive branch certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. This law is entirely independent of FISA. The Congressional debates show legislators were concerned that their regulation of surveillance could be unconstitutional if it bound the Legislative branch. (See Attorney General Gonzalez's paper describing the legislative history. Particularly page 23.).
That law was the basis for so-called "immunity." (See the bill, Page 88, SEC. 802 (a)(2).). This effectively strengthened congressional intent, and how the law should be interpreted.
The only thing "immunity" did was fast-track the judicial determination that 2511 was complied with. That's not immunity. Just eliminating the time-consuming (punishment) of civil court (discovery, appeals, etc.) where litigants have a political motivation (to expose details about the program, punish corporations for cooperating with the opposing political party.).
It takes some kind of arrogance to suggest any military person defended "the shredding of our constitution." All of the above was conducted within the Constitution's framework. You have had constitutional avenues available to you, personally, to oppose 2511.
Yet, I bet you were remarkably silent about 2511 all the years it was on the books. How many letters did you write about the presence of 2511? How many groups did you organize to agitate specifically for its repeal?
Or, were you sitting at home enjoying your latest computer/video games? Goofing off? Expecting someone else to do it?
Mark
reply
chronoss2009 @ 14th Oct 03:43PM:
they cant hand it over
they destroyed evidence YOU WILL SEE
reply
amigo_boy @ 14th Oct 03:45PM:
Re: Man, these documents must
said by Van :
What is wrong with dragging them through the courts.
I consider myself a moderate. I support Obama (didn't like Bush).
However, I believe it's as much an abuse of the system to put telcos through a long and expensive civil trial just to accomplish what you can't politically.
- You couldn't get impeachment (which is what we expect to happen when a President "breaks the law.").
- You couldn't get Congressional hearings.
- You couldn't get 18 USC 2511 repealed. (Instead, the congressional intent behind that law was strengthened by it being the basis of so-called "immunity.").
- FISA was actually expanded (instead of contracted) to accommodate the President's claimed needs. (That's why so-called "immunity" only applied to the period between 9/11 and enactment of the Patriot Act.).
- In fact, laws concerning telco liability for releasing customer data were loosened by the Patriot Act. 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3)&(c) was amended from "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to "good faith" belief of ordinary "danger."
Civil suits were just a way to accomplish a political goal which couldn't be accomplished through normal political channels. On the telcos' dime.
Mark
reply
Van @ 14th Oct 03:53PM:
Re: Not surprised
1. I rush to fight stupidity.
2. Well no, I mocked them 3 times in this thread. Is that the best people have now? 3 times = Vote for Obama? Pass on the book detailing the exact number of times needed.
As for me not voting for Obama, I didn't. I wouldn't have the slightest problem saying otherwise. The fact that you are stuck on it tells me you have nothing else to say. It's a common attack online when people are faced with their idiotic arguments.
Again, you want to cry about Obama after less than 1 year tells me you have little to no actual interest in anything he has to do. You are the type who gets to work (if you work) and first thing first goes to some extreme blog and finds the bashing article of the day. You read how much Obama sucks and think to yourself, "Yea, that will teach him"
It's sad, It's pathetic, and it's why so many people are running away from both parties.
reply
Van @ 14th Oct 03:54PM:
Re: Man, these documents must
Amigo, I was talking about Terrorists, not the companies
reply
amigo_boy @ 14th Oct 03:56PM:
Re: Let's Try Something New
said by digitalfreak :»
www.lp.orgI don't see it ever happening. In general, people are unwilling to think for themselves (hence the term "sheeple").
No political party which calls its potential constituents "sheeple" will gain relevance. That's the reason the Libertarian Party consistently garners the same 2% of the vote for the past *37 years* since its formation.
Libertarianism isn't realistic because it uses hyperbolic, principle-laden terms to claim a moral high ground over others, while ignoring the practical application of those principles to real social issues.
Libertarians like to invoke the "goose bumply" feeling among potential converts (and I call them "converts" because it's more like a religion than a political party), but avoid "rubber-meets-the-road" topics because Libertarians recognize they'll either 1) undermine their own principle-laden rhetoric (revealing they're as realistic/pragmatic as anyone else, and it's just a matter of degrees). Or, 2) corner themselves into irrelevancy with unpopular/unrealistic positions -- continuing to receive 2% of the vote.
That's why Libertarianism seems more like a religion (cult) than a political movement.
1. They try to obscure the true meaning to prospective converts.
2. They constantly undergo internal schism as pragmatists come out of the closet and battle with purists (instead of other political parties). I.e., Ideology is more important than practical application.
3. A strong sense of "in group" versus "out group." Terms like "sheeple," etc. to crisply identify the "out group" and maintain control over the "in group." (No balanced view, nor middle ground.).
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 14th Oct 04:07PM:
Re: they cant hand it over
said by chronoss2009 :
they destroyed evidence YOU WILL SEE
That's a possibility. I think the more realistic reason they're stalling is that the records show that the surveillance wasn't "certified" by the AG (as required by 18 USC 2511) between the year-long period when Ashcroft objected and was replaced by Gonzalez.
Remember Comey's testimony? Ashcroft refused to certify something for about a year. Comey said he was told it was certified anyway.
I suspect they want to avoid the constitutional question of whether 2511 strictly requires the AG to certify. Or, if it is a broader recognition of the Executive's power to surveill, and because the AG is a function of the Executive office, the Executive can certify.
Personally, I think that's what the civil-suit activists are after. They know something went awry for a year.
Mark
reply
neowulf @ 14th Oct 04:15PM:
Re: Not surprised
Huh, really? Like throughout Bush's term not one republican blamed everything on Clinton? I mean 9/11 was all Clinton's fault I thought because Bush had only been in office such a short time that there was no way he was able to read memos put on his desk warning him about impending attacks against the US by terrorist groups? In fact wasn't Bush on vacation 90% of the time before 9/11? Obama goes on a weekend break with the family and that is huge news.
Heck republicans still preach about their savior Regan. The very President who laid out the ground work for economic collapse. Reaganomics the very notion of removing regulations and removing corporate taxes, it maybe a great idea in theory, but only if greed wasn't a motivating factor in corporate America.
I have no great love for Obama going back on what he campaigned for as a open government and transparency. This is going to hurt him bad in the next election as even many who believed in him will have trouble distinguishing him from policies made during the Bush administration that now that he as President is not willing to let go.
Then again I do not like two party systems at all, too much room for corruption, too much room for back room deals. Just the whole notion of a two party system plays out as they can just always blame the other side, while actually never doing or accomplishing much of anything. It's always the other party that is to blame.
As they say, how can you trust a senator who will spend 10's of millions running for a seat that pays $174k a year. Politicians spend more time in office looking for money for their next campaign rather then actually doing the job they were elected to do.
I guess I am just tired of watching politics ruin this country, all in the name of a buck, which is losing value every day.
reply
Neyland @ 14th Oct 04:27PM:
Re: Let's Try Something New
I think people don't vote Libertarian because they have a tendency to rate choices on a scale of how much I agree with them. They feel there isn't enough people voting for their favorite to win so they pick one of the major party candidates because they don't want least favorite to win.
reply
jimness000 @ 14th Oct 04:28PM:
Re: Not surprised
"No one thinks of Obama as the savior or messiah"
You must have missed the rally at Grant Park in Chicago on election night. The tears, the ecstatic smiles, the hugs.
People DID think he was the messiah, and thought they'd been saved. Hallelujah!
Reality is setting in. Nobody can turn this ship quickly, there is just too much inertia. It takes a lot of effort, with people working together. Are there enough to make a difference?
I think he had good intentions, and willingly accepted the adoration and unrealistic expectations, but now's the time his hair will turn completely gray, trying to balance all of the energies.
Anyone with a long-term perspective realized that the political pendulum had swung to the extreme left with tax-and-spend about to occur. And, here we are. The pendulum will swing back the other way in a few years, and we can fight about that when it happens.
reply
Neyland @ 14th Oct 04:33PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by neowulf :
I guess I am just tired of watching politics ruin this country, all in the name of a buck, which is losing value every day.
The current debt.. that I will place at Obama's feet. (I'll kick some to Bush since he did the first bailout too).
reply
neowulf @ 14th Oct 04:40PM:
Re: Not surprised
Bush had the chance to go after him too, he received a memo prior to the attacks warning him about impending attacks by terrorist organizations, he chose to do nothing before the attacks as with Clinton, neither of them was any better at dealing with Bin Laden. Bush also had a second chance at Bin Laden in Afghanistan, he gave up to go after Iraq because Iraq was no longer going to use the US dollar for oil trading. The whole use of that Iraq supports terrorist, and them having weapons of mass destruction was found out to be a farce put on by the Bush administration. Even if it was true, well we have known for years that Saudi Arabia does support terrorist activities, almost every person who took part on the attacks on 9/11 on the planes held Saudi citizenship, but we don't do anything there. I wonder why, maybe because they still accept the US dollar for oil trading?
Hey look Iran started talking about scrapping the dollar in favor of the Euro and Yen about two years ago, hmmm about the same time the whole Iran has weapons of mass destruction stories started to pop up in the news, coincidence? I think in that case Americans took to the Bush notion of, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
reply
amigo_boy @ 14th Oct 04:46PM:
Re: Let's Try Something New
said by Neyland :
I think people don't vote Libertarian because they have a tendency to rate choices on a scale of how much I agree with them.
There's definitely a human tendency that you describe, exemplified by West Coast voters not going to polls based upon what they hear during election eve news.
However, I don't believe that explains all of Libertarianism's problem, nor why its election results (and party membership) haven't improved in *37 years.*.
Libertarians propose vague social policy because they don't want to commit themselves to specifics. It's always "the government shouldn't be involved in that." But, if you take their principle-laden rhetoric literally, government shouldn't be involved in anything except national defense, criminal prosecution, etc. No public roads. No libraries. No regulation of banks and the stock market.
That's why they like to use principle-laden rhetoric while avoiding specifics. If a pragmatic Libertarian steps forward and says "public roads are justified", the purists will attack him for endorsing "coercion" (forcing individuals to pay for roads which they didn't "consent" to.).
I'm talking about Big-L Libertarians (the Libertarian party). Small-l libertarians are the pragmatists who use the heady, principle-laden rhetoric without taking it seriously. They like the goose-bumply feeling you get from talking big. But, they recognize the irrelevancy that comes with actually taking that rhetoric seriously.
I tend to have more respect for Big-Ls because at least they're consistent (even if consistently irrelevant). I don't have much respect for people who claim a moral high-ground they don't deserve. Who act like they have "principle" on their side, but really just compromise differently than everyone else (but can't articulate why, thus requiring "principle" to hide behind).
That's why I think both Big Ls and small will never gain much traction. Most people have a built-in BS detector. Both flavors of libertarianism set it off like crazy.
Again, who in their right mind would believe you can attract support by calling potential supporters (who prefer more individual freedom) "sheeple" just because they aren't absolutists (or pretend to be, like small Ls)?
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 14th Oct 04:49PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by jimness000 :
You must have missed the rally at Grant Park in Chicago on election night. The tears, the ecstatic smiles, the hugs.
C'mon. That was a reaction to the national milestone of electing a Black president. They didn't believe he was going to walk on water, or heal the lame.
People cried when civil rights legislation passed in the '60s (or slavery was abolished in the 1860s). They didn't believe Congress was the Messiah.
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 14th Oct 04:52PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Neyland :said by neowulf :
I guess I am just tired of watching politics ruin this country, all in the name of a buck, which is losing value every day.
The current debt.. that I will place at Obama's feet. (I'll kick some to Bush since he did the first bailout too).
Some? See this article: »www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/busin···tml?_r=1
Also see the sidebar graphic which depicts Clinton's, Bush's and Obama's contributions: »www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009···hic.html
What I think is funny is how Conservatives portray President Obama as too liberal. But, when he merely continued President Bush's stimulus, bailout and war spending, he's suddenly responsible for the current debt, and Bush only responsible for "some."
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 14th Oct 04:58PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by neowulf :
Bush had the chance to go after him too, ...
I always find it amusing when Clinton opponents claim that Clinton is the cause of 9/11 because it was obvious what Bin Laden was plotting, and Clinton didn't give it sufficient priority.
President Bush had nine months. What did he do? If it was supposed to be so obvious, why didn't he make it his singular priority?
Mark
reply
sporkme @ 14th Oct 05:09PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Neyland :
Personally I find Beck more libertarian.
Sure, if libertarian = rapid-cycling bipolar.
--
with every mistake we must surely be learning
reply
gorehound @ 14th Oct 05:25PM:
Re: Not surprised
i m not surprised either.i voted for obama so i wouldn't have to see more years of replubicans after 8 years of bush and his cronies.
it would be great if a working man not a rich man won the presidency.most folks in the country are not rich and are just working class.
reply
amigo_boy @ 14th Oct 05:29PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by sporkme :said by Neyland :
Personally I find Beck more libertarian.
Sure, if libertarian = rapid-cycling bipolar.
Beck probably leans small-L libertarian. I'm sure if pinned down on consistent application of his principle-based rhetoric, he'd squirm and begin talking about how big-L Libertarians are irrelevant. (That's how it always works.).
I remember in the mid- to late-'90s after the so-called "Republican Revolution" began to fade due to public backlash, Limbaugh began backbeddling from his libertarian positions. His audience felt betrayed by Rs who they felt had been elected with a huge mandate, and were now "caving." They were increasingly discontent with Limbaugh not speaking out. They were talking in modern "teabagger" terms, and Limbaugh wasn't joining in.
I'll never forget the night that Limbaugh (on his TV show) drew the line in the sand, and went through his "kook test." He began, "you're a kook if you believe...." There were 10-12 things, each describing the people who had taken his small-l libertarianism seriously over the past 3-4 years.
His audience sat in awkward silence. Forced to decide if they were Limbaugh fans, or ideologues.
I forget what the "kook" definitions were. I recall one was "if you believe the UN is part of a one-world conspiracy, you're a kook."
It was really something to see. It whipped his audience in line. Let them know where they needed to be in order to be "good Rs." Gone was a large dose of principle-ladden rhetoric.
I think the difference between Beck and Limbaugh is that Beck hasn't been forced (yet) to define himself like that.
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 14th Oct 05:47PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by gorehound :
it would be great if a working man not a rich man won the presidency.most folks in the country are not rich and are just working class.
IMO, a large part of the problem is that the number of Representatives hasn't increased with the population, diminishing each individual's representation.
The constitution says there should be no than "one for every thirty Thousand." (Article I, Section 2.). It doesn't say there should be that level of representation. But, it gives an idea of the level of representation they had in mind.
In 1911, Congress fixed the number of Representatives to 435. Since then, we just reapportion that number among a growing population.
For example, the number of Representatives at the founding until 100 years later (1st Congress starting: 1789, 50th Congress ending: 1889):
1st. Congress: 59-65
2nd Congress: 69-73
5th Congress: 106
10th Congress: 142
20th Congress: 213
30th Congress: 230
40th Congress: 226 (fewer due to southern states removed from the union during Reconstruction).
50th Congress: 325
I think this is a problem. I haven't taken the time to examine national population (and the ratio of representation, which was skewed by Blacks counting as 3/5 of a person, and women not voting). Obviously we have much less representation as an individual.
The same problem exists with the Senate. It was changed from senators appointed by state legislatures around 1912 due to corruption (Senators owing favors to state power brokers). But, it's remained 2 per state since then. Which means the population in 1912 had greater representation than future generations.
Then consider how state legislative bodies have suffered the same diminution of representation as populations have grown.
Mark
reply
Time @ 14th Oct 05:49PM:
Re: Not surprised
If I work? I'm serving active duty in the USAF as a 62EX.
I don't read blogs, but I'm sure you read garbage like the Daily Kos and formulate your opinions around the dribble that is posted.
You're right, I don't have an interest in anything he has to do. Everything is a publicity stunt - like running to grab the Olympics for Chicago, but giving General McChrystal only thirty minutes of his time to discuss Afghanistan on Air Force One. Since when is it "one year" that defines how long I have to be able to criticize a President? Things aren't going to be any different in January. He's not going to magically change everything in January. It is you, who needs a reality check away from your ignorance.
It doesn't matter in the end, he built up too much inertia and too many broken promises to recover from. He will be a one term President - just like Jimmy Carter. I think he has good intentions, but when you make promises, you need to own up to them if they cannot be met.
--
"If it can't be done with brains, it can't be done with hours" - Clarence "Kelly" Johnson
reply
amigo_boy @ 14th Oct 05:58PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Time :
He will be a one term President - just like Jimmy Carter.
Depends on who Rs run against him. Remember how bad Clinton looked after Whitewater, Monica, cigars, etc? And the Rs ran Dole? And Clinton won? (OMG!).
Right now, extremist Rs are hoping for a "Republican Revolution" revival in the 2010 mid-term elections. They're threatening moderate Rs, etc. I don't think they have the popular support for that kind of political overreaction.
Clinton was elected to his first term with 38% of the vote (thanks to Perot). He (and Democrats generally) governed like they received a huge mandate. Obama received a relative landslide compared to Clinton (especially when you consider the electoral college), yet he's been profusely timid compared to Clinton's first two years. He's continued Bush's spending programs. He's alienating those who believed he was really going to do something different. That the election was a "referendum."
So, I don't see a "Republican Revolution" in the near future. Rs will probably run a moderate like they did in the last election. In that case, liberals still win because it will demonstrate (like the last election) that the population is more moderate than Radical (irrational) Republicans (teabaggers, etc.).
Mark
reply
KrK @ 14th Oct 07:48PM:
Sorry Obama... you've been on the wrong side of this issue
... since the start. Time to give it up.
reply
digitalfreak @ 14th Oct 08:01PM:
Re: Let's Try Something New
said by amigo_boy :said by digitalfreak :»
www.lp.orgI don't see it ever happening. In general, people are unwilling to think for themselves (hence the term "sheeple").
No political party which calls its potential constituents "sheeple" will gain relevance. That's the reason the Libertarian Party consistently garners the same 2% of the vote for the past *37 years* since its formation.
Libertarianism isn't realistic because it uses hyperbolic, principle-laden terms to claim a moral high ground over others, while ignoring the practical application of those principles to real social issues.
Libertarians like to invoke the "goose bumply" feeling among potential converts (and I call them "converts" because it's more like a religion than a political party), but avoid "rubber-meets-the-road" topics because Libertarians recognize they'll either 1) undermine their own principle-laden rhetoric (revealing they're as realistic/pragmatic as anyone else, and it's just a matter of degrees). Or, 2) corner themselves into irrelevancy with unpopular/unrealistic positions -- continuing to receive 2% of the vote.
That's why Libertarianism seems more like a religion (cult) than a political movement.
1. They try to obscure the true meaning to prospective converts.
2. They constantly undergo internal schism as pragmatists come out of the closet and battle with purists (instead of other political parties). I.e., Ideology is more important than practical application.
3. A strong sense of "in group" versus "out group." Terms like "sheeple," etc. to crisply identify the "out group" and maintain control over the "in group." (No balanced view, nor middle ground.).
Mark
Don't quote me if you're not going to do it in context. I specifically said "I'm not advocating the Libertarian party or any other. In fact, we'd probably be better off with someone who's not affiliated with any party."
reply
Noah Vail @ 14th Oct 08:08PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by knightmb :
LOL, it's no surprise to me. Did anyone really think that 8 years of Bush could be undone in less than a year, less than 2 years?
EFF:The FoIA says we're entitled, under federal law, to see telco lobbying documents. May we have them please?
O'Bama:NO!
So, where was the Bush involvement in that little drama?
said by knightmb :
Plug-in McCain for Obama and you would have the same result, but in the opposite direction.
Um, so it would play like this?
EFF:The FoIA says we're entitled, under federal law, to see telco lobbying documents. May we have them please?
McCain:Sure boys, anything you say. I've some juicy NSA files over here, would you like a peek?
I'm not so sure...
I think McCain would refuse, exactly as O'Bama did and for the same reasons. It wouldn't serve his political purposes to release them.
said by knightmb :
It always cracks me up that those that voted against Obama in the last election have higher (sometimes unrealistic) expectations than the very people that did vote for him.
I agree. O'Bama voters have low expectations on average. Their near universal inability to meaningfully explain why they were voting for him is a reflection of that.
I voted for Bush back when, and against O'Bama more recently. I have the same anger now for O'Bama now that I did for Bush then. It's about each of them making the same bad decisions on the same critical issues.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture.
reply
Noah Vail @ 14th Oct 08:20PM:
Re: Sorry Obama... you've been on the wrong side of this issue
said by KrK :
... since the start. Time to give it up.
I wholeheartedly agree. It bothers me that O'Bama didn't/doesn't/won't have the courage to openly speak of the core issue.
Chris Dodd is the only name I have, inside the beltway, who decided to have a spine about the NSA tapping all our traffic.
I'm no fan of Dodd, but I'd 'single issue' vote for him if he openly maintained this position.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture.
reply
Neyland @ 14th Oct 09:19PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by amigo_boy :said by Neyland :said by neowulf :
I guess I am just tired of watching politics ruin this country, all in the name of a buck, which is losing value every day.
The current debt.. that I will place at Obama's feet. (I'll kick some to Bush since he did the first bailout too).
Some? See this article: »
www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/busin···tml?_r=1Also see the sidebar graphic which depicts Clinton's, Bush's and Obama's contributions: »
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009···hic.htmlWhat I think is funny is how Conservatives portray President Obama as too liberal. But, when he merely continued President Bush's stimulus, bailout and war spending, he's suddenly responsible for the current debt, and Bush only responsible for "some."
Mark
Bush was a free spender himself there's no doubt, but Obama took Bush's lead and added some juice. We're looking at a deficit not equaled since World War II.
I'm wondering, with the devaluation of the dollar oversees, the current debt and running deficits... how are we planning on fixing Social Security... you know that elephant's still in the room.
Obama needs to reverse the spending spree, not pile on.
reply
amigo_boy @ 14th Oct 09:32PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Neyland :
We're looking at a deficit not equaled since World War II.
We're looking at an economic collapse not equaled since the Depression, which generated the deficit going into WWII.
said by Neyland :
I'm wondering, with the devaluation of the dollar oversees, the current debt and running deficits... how are we planning on fixing Social Security... you know that elephant's still in the room.
Obama needs to reverse the spending spree, not pile on.
The drop in the dollar's value (relative to foreign currencies) reduces the import deficit and helps US industry by making US products more affordable to other countries.
Other countries are contemplating intervention in their currencies to reduce this effect. They're looking at devaluing their own currencies to preserve their own export markets.
Re Soc. Sec. That's a two-edged sword. An incentive exists to stimulate the economy and get more workers paying taxes. The alternative to running up a debt (in the process of stimulating) isn't that good either.
Mark
reply
KrK @ 14th Oct 09:51PM:
Re: Sorry Obama... you've been on the wrong side of this issue
Obama has been for the wiretapping and the immunity all along. That's what's irked me. If it wasn't for the EFF being incredibly persistent about this issue we'd never find out.
I thought it was done last round, but apparently now the tides are changing.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
ross @ 14th Oct 09:52PM:
Re: Not surprised
The LAST president will no doubt have earned the title, and be blamed befittingly for ending our system of government.
reply
ross @ 14th Oct 09:59PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by sporkme: Sure, if libertarian = rapid-cycling bipolar.
You nailed it!
reply
Eat Me @ 14th Oct 11:52PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Van :
He has not even been President for 1 freakin year. Let me repeat that....not 1 freakin year.
The fact that some are already calling him a failure, etc....shows they have motives that reach far behind what he actually does.
It's comical....2 years in? Sure....not even 1 year? Could people show their bias any more?
I DID NOT EVEN VOTE FOR THE DAMN MAN
The left blamed Bush for 9/11 despite it happening 8 months into his Presidency, and called him a failure all throughout the 8 years of his Presidency.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
reply
doc69 @ 15th Oct 12:40AM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Time :said by knightmb :said by apollo80 :
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
LOL, it's no surprise to me. Did anyone really think that 8 years of Bush could be undone in less than a year, less than 2 years? Plug-in McCain for Obama and you would have the same result, but in the opposite direction.
It always cracks me up that those that voted against Obama in the last election have higher (sometimes unrealistic) expectations than the very people that did vote for him. Good thing we have online forums such as this to vent out people's feelings. ;)
PST - Bush is long gone, this is your saviors time now. You can only blame the previous administration for so long. "It always cracks me up" how those who voted for Obama still pull the Bush card. You'll likely be doing that 3 1/2 years down the road when the elections come up again.
It will be a lot longer that 3 or 4 years to ever undue the shit that bush & cheney dumped on this country. And no obama is not the savior of this country. But bush is gone so we can work our way up from the bottom now. It will be 2 or 3 presidents before his mess even starts to look like it's going away. Right now i feel sorry for this country. These idiots are fighting with each other over bullshit to see who looks good when they come out on the other side.
Just do what is needed to get this country back on its feet & move on. Then we can lock these assholes in a room & let them fight it out amongst themselves.
--
I'll keep my God, my freedom, my guns, and my money. You can keep "THE CHANGE."
reply
Noah Vail @ 15th Oct 04:47AM:
Re: Not surprised
Look who has a cute little star.
YOU do!
NV
reply
Van @ 15th Oct 08:38AM:
Re: Not surprised
People called him a failure throughout his 8 years because he failed at everything he did.
reply
Van @ 15th Oct 08:48AM:
Re: Not surprised
Right, I bet you don't read them. I am sure you never have heard Rush or watched Hannity. As for the Daily Kos, I have never read them. Only time I ever hear about them is when the right starts crying about something written on their site....only to wonder why anyone cares about blogs when someone points out a racist post on WorldDaily. Funny how that works?
It's funny to hear you speak about publicity stunts when we are just coming off a President who spent more time on vacations or a man who spoke behind a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner....but hey, don't let facts get in the way.
You are the reason why this country continues to go down the toilet. You're too stupid to form any objective opinion and would rather hear the extreme side rather than actually understand the issue.
You're a bit mad at General McChrystal getting 30 minutes, huh? Why are you not mad about the past 5 years in Afghanistan? Of course you don't need to answer that because we know your answer....you would prefer to just ignore anything pre-8 months ago and choose to just stick your fingers in your ear and scream, 'OBAMA!OBAMA!OBAMA!' like most Republicans.
Yes, your ending was brilliant. 8 months in and everything is finished. Just got through the worst 8 year stretch in American modern history and Republicans are crying about not even 1 year.
reply
matrix3D @ 15th Oct 09:20AM:
Re: Not surprised
So now going into Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and al-Qaida was a BAD idea? Please explain.
And maybe you're the one too stupid to form your own opinion. Why should it take more than a year to provide the "government transparency" that was a cornerstone for your entire f***ing campaign?
EDIT: And please clue us in to ONE SINGLE THING that Obama has crossed off his to-do list? You act like a year is no time at all... bullshit. He should have been able to get SOMETHING done in a year. Either that, or he's just going to milk everything for the next three years, acting like he's doing something, and then when re-election time comes he'll pull the same old "there's more work to do" line that every President does.
reply
Time @ 15th Oct 09:36AM:
Re: Not surprised
Upon reflection, I do not wish to post. Take me back!
reply
Time @ 15th Oct 09:45AM:
Re: Not surprised
I told you, I didn't agree with Bush on 90% of his policies. That includes going into Iraq and leaving Afghanistan to become infested. But in Obama's case, he is just neglecting his military - and the only people who give a shit when one of our boys dies over there are people in the military and their families. Meanwhile, he's parading around like some King from the new world. You certainly don't give a shit because it has no effect on you. Afghanistan is in control of the current President, this is his strategy, and he will be the reason that many of my brothers do not return home. So go straight to hell with your shortsighted antics, YOU are the reason that this country is going down the toilet.
--
"If it can't be done with brains, it can't be done with hours" - Clarence "Kelly" Johnson
reply
dentman42 @ 15th Oct 04:29PM:
Re: Not surprised
said by morbo :
that's my take home lesson: be very wary of politicians, even the well-spoken ones.
ESPECIALLY the well-spoken ones.
reply
anon @ 16th Oct 09:02AM:
Re: Enough Already
said by Steve B :
Can't the judge just say enough is enough with stalling, hand them over and deny any future stalling tactics on this?
Basically, he just did. Now we get to see whether Obama thinks he's above the law as Bush/Cheney and Nixon did. My money is on yes.
reply
vinnie97 @ 16th Oct 04:28AM:
Re: Not surprised
Teabaggers are only irrational to someone who is fiscally blind.
And continued Bush's spending programs? C'mon, he's expanded them tendfold and then some.
reply
vinnie97 @ 16th Oct 04:36AM:
Re: Not surprised
You were duped, nearly half of us weren't.
reply
morbo @ 16th Oct 07:08AM:
Re: Not surprised
said by vinnie97 :
You were duped, nearly half of us weren't.
except you were duped in the 2000 and 2004 elections. thanks for the horrible disaster that is Iraq 2 and Afghanistan, by the way.
reply
Desdinova @ 16th Oct 07:59AM:
Re: Let's Try Something New
"No political party which calls its potential constituents "sheeple" will gain relevance. That's the reason the Libertarian Party consistently garners the same 2% of the vote for the past *37 years* since its formation."
I'm not sure the labeling is the problem with the Libertarian Party's level of acceptance (or non-acceptance). For your argument to hold true, it implies that the remaining 98% of the country (or at least a significant portion) needs to be following the LP's positions and comparing and contrasting those positions with other political choices, and sadly, I don't think the typical American is informed enough or cares enough to do so.
I tend to support Libertarian IDEALS (but not always their practices) and in casual conversations with many folks, the majority are either a.) completely unaware of the party or b.) know vaguely of its existence but nothing more than that.
reply
Van @ 16th Oct 09:52AM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Time :
Meanwhile, he's parading around like some King from the new world.
In your eyes, I am sure he is....it must be painful for you to see him as our President. Got to find something new to mock him about....now it has just gotten to the point of hating him because of how he walks around....brilliant.
You certainly don't give a shit because it has no effect on you.
Judging by the amount of money it takes to fund the operations, it seems to effect us all. But, I know what you are getting at with the "You aren't in the military so you don't care"....excuse me while I roll my eyes. You can play up that card all you want, you have not the SLIGHTEST clue who I am, where I have been, or what I have done. Unlike you, I don't flaunt my card at every chance I get. That's the difference between us.
YOU are the reason that this country is going down the toilet.
Right, well while I give someone a chance to prove his worth, have fun crying like a girl at every chance you get. Seems to be a staple of your type.
reply
Shamayim @ 16th Oct 10:11AM:
Re: Not surprised
said by Time :
I think he has good intentions
I was with you until that.
--
Who is Jesus? and Why it matters (to YOU).
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC
