Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

In a letter to lawmakers, the Justice Department said the Obama administration supports extending three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, although it is willing to consider additional privacy protections as long as they don't weaken the effectiveness of the law.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

LIVE_OR_DIE

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"the administration is willing to consider stronger civil rights protections in the new law 'provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important (provisions).'"
---Quote from the AP article linked above

What? I thought the Patriot Act was a tool of the devil (ie Bush and Cheney) used to circumvent the rights of normal law abiding US citizens! Now we hear that the Patriot Act is effective and being extended? From the Obama Administration? Interesting...

Oh, and how about that FISA?

I expect to hear a lot of...chirping... on this thread

Bart you should know the zero can do no wrong. This story will carry with NO negative COMMENTS by the usual suspects!

Except it won't be the same Patriot Act. They are modifying the provisions and only extending three of them (others die out). Please read the story before posting.

Proof from the story:
"Michelle Richardson of the American Civil Liberties Union called the administration's position "a mixed bag," and said that the group hopes the next version of the Patriot Act will have important safeguards on other issues, particularly the collecting of international communications, and a specific bar on surveillance of protected First Amendment activities like peaceful protests or religious assembly."

"'We're heartened they're saying they're willing to work with Congress," Richardson said, adding that is "definitely a sea change from what we've seen in the past.'"

Bart you should know the zero can do no wrong. This story will carry with NO negative COMMENTS by the usual suspects!
#2 | Posted by DavetheWave

The zero can do no wrong and the Republicans can do no reading. Literacy, details and facts are so beneath you, I know.

Bart, you should know that the Patriot Act is a large piece of legislation with all kinds of provisions in it - some good, some bad. Stop being such a simpleton - if that is possible for you.

Figures that this neo-communist regime would support the odious and Orwellian-named "Patriot" Act.

Today the Justice Department revealed that the administration will seek to extend Patriot Act provisions for roving wiretaps, monitoring "lone wolf terrorists," and snooping on your business and library records.

What an ass. Sighhhhhhh

Larry

#5 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-09-15 05:53 PM | Reply

So you agree with the 3 provisions being extended?

1) Lone wolf provision - conducting surveillence on people with no known links to terrorism

2) Roving wiretaps

3) Accessing business records

I'm sure you looked at all the nuances of the Patriot Act when it was passed by Bush back in the day, correct?

I also thought it interesting that civil rights will be protected only as long as they do not interfere with the effectiveness of the law. In other words, safety before liberty, correct?

#8 | Posted by LarryMohr

Thanks for your consistency Larry -- I wonder if the others that routinely criticized the Patriot Act will be nearly as consistent.

Today the Justice Department revealed that the administration will seek to extend Patriot Act provisions for roving wiretaps, monitoring "lone wolf terrorists," and snooping on your business and library records.

THIS COUNTRY IS FINISHED!!!!!!


-All lefties prior to 1/09

I realize this might be too complex for most rightwingers to grasp. We liberals support the government in it's fight against terror. However, we do not support our government taking actions which unnecessarily infringe upon our civil rights as American citizens under the guise of "fighting terrorism". If there are law enforcement methods that have proven effective in gathering needed information, and there are no less intrusive means of gathering the needed information, we support the continued legal use of those means by law enforcement. It is the gratuitous, unnecessary, ineffective and morally offensive infringement on our rights to privacy (something I used to believe was important to rightwingers also) which we thoroughly object to.

"It is the gratuitous, unnecessary, ineffective and morally offensive infringement on our rights to privacy (something I used to believe was important to rightwingers also) which we thoroughly object to."

Then prove that accessing library records is a "necessary" and "effective" method of fighting terrorism (since that provision is being extended by Obama).

It is the gratuitous, unnecessary, ineffective and morally offensive infringement on our rights to privacy (something I used to believe was important to rightwingers also) which we thoroughly object to.

whatever.

POS

ANY search without a warrant was unacceptable to the dr left, prior to 1/09. ANY.

The dr left, talk out of both sides of their mouths, daily!

Davethewave speaks as if the dr left is a monolithic body with just one point of view. Yeah, right. LOL.


ANY search without a warrant was unacceptable to the dr left, prior to 1/09. ANY.


The dr left, talk out of both sides of their mouths, daily!

to be fair, I agreed with the criticism of not following the law (obtaining warrants related to wiretaps) but we heard tons of other criticisms of the Patriot Act that we won't hear again.

Davethewave speaks as if the dr left is a monolithic body with just one point of view. Yeah, right. LOL.

maybe they aren't but he was definately talking about pussies like you.

The beauty of an abusive Eberly post is that it is so clearly offensive that I don't even have to flag it. Somebody else will.

#19 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-09-15 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag: my way of admitting I flagged it like the pussy I am.

Any response to #13, Moder8?

Thgat should light you libs on fire.

Joe, at some point there has to be some level of trust between the governed and the government. GWB was a proven liar and incompetent. His representations as to what was needed (such as an invasion of Iraq) and what was not needed (corporate oversight) were entirely untrustworthy. Now we a leader in the White House who I consider almost completely trustworthy. If he says something is necessary I believe him and give him the benefit of the doubt. I will continue to do so until evidence of credible nature accumulates indicating he is lying or incompetent on areas of general concern.

meet the new boss, same as the old...


" The NSS [National Security State] represents and serves the interests of a tiny elite. Its economic policies of "trickling-up", enforced by the machine gun, are rationalized on the ground that growth in the long run will trickle down to the lower orders. This is a self-serving ideology designed mainly to allow the western public to think well of themselves and their own country."-- Edward S. Herman, economist, author, and US media and foreign policy critic

Now we a leader in the White House who I consider almost completely trustworthy. If he says something is necessary I believe him and give him the benefit of the doubt

no shit sherlock8.

at least you admit that you have nothing except your subjective opinion and that you didn't really give a shit what was in the Patriot Act. What was significant was YOUR IDEOLOGY.

NOW the Patriot act is a good thing?

Look retard, I was willing to give GWB the benefit of the doubt and I will give the same to Obama.

The dr left, talk out of both sides of their mouths, daily!

#15 | Posted by DavetheWave

Well, we do have a lot of mouths to talk out of...so it may seem that way.

#23 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-09-15 06:55 PM

In other words, the Patriot Act was bad under Bush, but is okay under Obama. No need to use paragraphs and paragraphs in this thread when that is all you are saying.

Here is a question. Does a President ANY President disgrace the sacrifices made by the Military Personnell when He goes against the very ideals and freedoms that those MP's are supposedly fighting to preserve and protect?? Just curious.

Larry

In other words, the Patriot Act was bad under Bush, but is okay under Obama.

The wrong "other" words but do try again. There is a big difference in the way the two administrations approach this. Are you stupid or are you not aware of this.

The Bush Administration was the most secretive in history. Makes a big difference in how we react don't you think.


"We're heartened they're saying they're willing to work with Congress," Richardson said, adding that is "definitely a sea change from what we've seen in the past."

Makes a big difference in how we react don't you think.

No. It just illustrates your blind ideology.

nothing more.

It's a law that, prior to 1/09, you shit your pants over and now it's fine. nothing to worry about now.

"We're heartened they're saying they're willing to work with Congress," Richardson said, adding that is "definitely a sea change from what we've seen in the past

so? somebody from the ACLU now appreciates the promise that there might be some better communication

beat still my heart!

"The wrong "other" words but do try again. There is a big difference in the way the two administrations approach this. Are you stupid or are you not aware of this."


Absolutely which is why it was Woodrow Wilson ~ a wonderful man ~ who got us into WW1 & signed the FED Reserve Act in 1913...

It's a law that, prior to 1/09, you shit your pants over and now it's fine. nothing to worry about now.

#30 | Posted by eberly

What makes you think we are not worried? Oh that's right we are not freaking out at town hall meetings and acting like you do and blame the Socialistas or the Mooslims. We were concerned then and I am sure that a lot of us are concerned now. But, as you may remember we also told you that once you get these things in place it is much harder to remove them then to stop them initially. I particularly don't like the business records provision and I think that one needs to go.

Absolutely which is why it was Woodrow Wilson ~ a wonderful man ~ who got us into WW1 & signed the FED Reserve Act in 1913...

#32 | Posted by Bani

oh it is true Bani it is quite possible we have been fooled again. Only time will tell... or should I say,

"The true history of (this) administration will be written 50 years from now."

If Obama was a leftist/Marxist/neo-communist, he would ask for repeal of the Patriot Act.This just proves he's a centrist weasel.

Poll: Most Americans support US aid to Israel if attacked


A Rasmussen poll published Monday shows that 59% of American citizens would be in favor of granting US support to Israel if the latter were attacked from abroad.
www.ynetnews.com

Webmaster's Commentary:

"That's going to be interpreted as a "green light" by the Israeli military to create some "false flag" attack to blame on either Iran or Lebanon"

911 redux lol

Oh that's right we are not freaking out at town hall meetings and acting like you do and blame the Socialistas or the Mooslims.

sure. I have mentioned socialists and muslims lots of time.

lets see........try NEVER.

and I haven't supported the bullshit at town hall meetings once.

what else do you have stuffed up your cunt you are trying to dump on me?

If Obama was a leftist/Marxist/neo-communist, he would ask for repeal of the Patriot Act.This just proves he's a centrist weasel.

#35 | Posted by nullifidian

but as long as grass gets legalised, what do u care:>)

"The true history of (this) administration will be written 50 years from now."

#34 | Posted by donnerboy

by Howard Zinns reincarnated?

"The wrong "other" words but do try again. There is a big difference in the way the two administrations approach this. Are you stupid or are you not aware of this."

Read the post I was responding to. Moder8's justification for his position is that he did not trust Bush but that he trusts Obama.

If Obama was a leftist/Marxist/neo-communist, he would ask for repeal of the Patriot Act.This just proves he's a centrist weasel.

Nulli is right.

what else do you have stuffed up your cunt you are trying to dump on me?

#37 | Posted by eberly

hmm I dunno keep painting us with YER "broad brush" and I will see what I can dig up on you "Rethugs" AS A GROUP.

hmm I dunno keep painting us with YER "broad brush"

this coming from a retard who just wrongly accused me of shit I have never done.

LOL

Obama: Giving Bagram Detainees Access to US Courts a Threat to National Security


Though the Department of Defense has made a big deal about the major changes being made in the detention procedures at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, and the notion that for the first time detainees will have something resembling rights while in US custody, the Obama Administration has made it clear today that those "rights" don't extend very far.

Today the administration made a filing with the US Court of Appeals in Washington challenging a previous determination by a judge that some Bagram detainees actually had legal rights to challenge their detention.

news.antiwar.com

meet the new boss...lol

...the Obama Administration has made it clear today that those "rights" don't extend very far.

I'm sure this "worries" donnerboy.

LOL

"but as long as grass gets legalised, what do u care:>)"

Legalize everything, then we'll talk.

Read the post I was responding to. Moder8's justification for his position is that he did not trust Bush but that he trusts Obama.

#40 | Posted by JOE

JOE

I read it. The fact is Obama IS way more trustworthy then Bush or his cohorts. AS trustworthy as any Politician can be!

That is to say we don't agree with everything Obama says just because he says it or does it as you all somehow like to think. But, it does mean that at least at this stage of the game Obama has the benefit of the doubt. He did say he was willing to look into strengthening privacy protections. I believe the Bush/Cheny respond would be along the lines of "Go Fcuk Yourself." Bush lost all his cred when he decided to go for the BIG LIE then spend the rest of his Presidency trying to cover his ass.

BTW -does that kind of thinking (that we automatically gush over every Obama decision) come from you guys having your heads so far up Bush's ass you could not see how the whole Iraq debacle would turn out like we did? By definition WE don't think that way... after all we are NOT DITTOHEADS or Republican.

Legalize everything, then we'll talk.

#46 | Posted by nullifidian

yea...the checks in the mail...

Srrybut our civil liberties are way too valuabe in ANYONES hands. I don't care if it's in fact President Jesus Christ Himself. Of course He would know everything already so no need to break Civil Liberties.

Larry

We liberals support the government in it's fight against terror.

----------

The only terrorists that i see are the corporate ones.
----------

However, we do not support our government taking actions which unnecessarily infringe upon our civil rights as American citizens under the guise of "fighting terrorism". If there are law enforcement methods that have proven effective in gathering needed information, and there are no less intrusive means of gathering the needed information, we support the continued legal use of those means by law enforcement. It is the gratuitous, unnecessary, ineffective and morally offensive infringement on our rights to privacy (something I used to believe was important to rightwingers also) which we thoroughly object to.
-------------

State secrecy is the enemy of the populace. Period.

Donnerdouche is so weak

me no like patriot act. never have, never will. didn't vote for Obama. i would've supported him not supporting these patriot act provisions. i'm disappointed at this result, to say the least.

I think this pretty much shows that Obama is not much better then Bush on moral issues and rights to privacy. I read something else that I consider very disturbing yesterday. The US went into a sovereign nation with Obamas blessing (Somalia) and using a helicopter, executed a couple of bad guys. I have no real remorse for the bad guys who most likely were guilty of terrorism, but what this demonstrates that like Bush, Obama also believes execution of foreign dictators and other bad guys is acceptable policy. Until Bush came into office this kind of action was always prohibited by the United States on moral grounds. I can't help but wonder just how far Obama will go in future crises that may have been resolved differently. It's a policy I still think is immoral and could damage America's reputation even more then Bush has, if this policy become commonplace.

news.yahoo.com

Welcome to George W Bush's 3rd term on steroids folks (and that includes the Sacrosanct One and his Democrat allies reckless record deficit increasing pork barrel spending)


I love how Barry's usual sycophantic DR groupies whimper how his continuation of Bush's policies is somehow "different"

"If Obama was a leftist/Marxist/neo-communist, he would ask for repeal of the Patriot Act.This just proves he's a centrist weasel."

Funny, and pretty good. I was going to say to the DR righties that this should help lay to rest the myth that Obama is a far left kinda guy. The far left in America wants the PATRIOT Act GONE.

My friend who has read the act in detail (sounds like the opening to an urban legend), is a constitutional scholar, and who is both to the left of me (at heart) and more pragmatic (in reality) suggests that there are good and bad things in the Act. He says that much of it is valuable security stuff that doesn't interfere with civil liberties (I believe he means there are checks, like FISA has checks). I haven't read all of it, and I trust this friend. So I think I have to wait and see. If the Obama admin is really going to take a serious look and explore issues with Congress, well, good. It's not that the whole thing needs to go, but stuff like the library records issue make me _very_ uncomfortable. It's a slippery slope. We don't have search-and-seizure rules because we don't want drug dealers caught; we have them because we don't want those in power to be able to do whatever they want (founding fathers, totalitarian monarchy, etc.) to us whenever they want. If probable cause is built in and enforced, I have little difficulty with records checks.

Oh, and btw, my understanding of the FISA controversy is that it's not wiretapping that people take issue with; it's _warrantless_ wiretapping. That Bush didn't follow the provisions and protocols. Clinton was good at blowing it off, then sending lawyers down to argue it the next day? A nuance, right, but a good point. If you can use the system, game it a little, and get what you need but within the law, that's different from saying "Fuck you" to the whole process and to accountability. Isn't it? (I dunno for sure. Just kickin' the idea around.)

And of course, rightwingers, you were warned. This doesn't make abuses by this leader acceptable, if there are abuses, but Jesus, there was this common argument: If you let Bush and this rightwing administration do it, when the power shifts, as it will, the new president will be unlikely to give up that power... And now look.

Of course, if I go all the way with that, I get more pissed at the guy I voted for. But as I say, now I get to watch. (Damn, but I wish I had more time to read and follow this stuff! Maybe I need to live down at the liberry.)

is it surprising that any executive would willingly give up power? That is the danger of precedent.

wonder what the repubes will be saying when/if obama abuses this power for political purposes.

wonder what the repubes will be saying when/if obama abuses this power for political purposes.

whatever they want.

because dimwits like you will be silent.

I have to say I am disappointed with this and other policies being enacted by obama, continuing detentions, not clearly stopping torture, not accellerating our leaving iraq, attacking sovereign nations, etc.

unfortunately precedent has been set, the executive can do contralegal things. It will not willingly give it up.

I am being silent?

I refute the invasion of privacy and am not happy that obama is not cancelling the patriot acts more reprehensible provisions.

"The only terrorists that i see are the corporate ones." PRECISELY!

And the only Fascist/Socialist I see in the White House is that wimpy centrist we elected to try to erase the disaster of the Cheney-Bush years. herm

Just wonderful....same shit; different administration. Same old politics.

TruthHurts I have become so cynical on politics on the whole. It's just a crapshoot in reality.

Larry

You know the pisser about the whole thing is I fell in love with Obama. Not in the Romantic sense but in the admiration and respect for such a Man who came from a broken home to rise above so much negativity. He was like a self made Man that He took Himself places that He wanted to go and achieved it. Who would ever dream of someone with Kansas deep seated roots becoming President of the United States. It's like falling in love romantically with someone who betrays that trust that bond. Even if that bond was only one sided. I was overjoyed when I voted for Obama on that dreary October morn. That Joy has been erased and disapointment and genuine hurt has replaced it. I feel that He cheated on Me.

Larry

#63

I know I'M taking his poster off my wall!

Hey libtards, how is that hope and CHANGE working out for you?! Dumbasses.

"Hey libtards, how is that hope and CHANGE working out for you?! "

Well, I'm not a "libtard" but I'm going THROUGH the change and I HOPE it's almost over.

Does that count?

Hey libtards, how is that hope and CHANGE working out for you?! Dumbasses.

#65 | Posted by utastaff

That's really master debating there, shortstaff.

Hey libtards, how is that hope and CHANGE working out for you?! Dumbasses.

So far, a hell of a lot better then the crap we put up with from your mentors utastaff. It's far too early in the game to call Obama a failure or a liar, but he needs to be reminded why the smart people voted him in. The real dumb asses are resorting to bully tactics, pissing matches and obstructionism instead of licking their wounds and getting on with the business of governing a country half full of ignorant rednecks, hillbillies and Christian dogooders. Real change is not possible if half the country won't even listen the speakers at a town hall meeting, much less address the issues that are screwing us all everyday of our lives.

Strangely enough, the tea-baggers and sore-losers keep whining about Obama all while saying that 'nothing has changed'.

If nothing has changed, and all you tea-baggers loved Bush so much, then why are you so upset with Obama (besides that fact that he's a black man)?

"Common Sense" flag possible? Way too logical a question. Heads are on the verge of exploding...

If nothing has changed, and all you tea-baggers loved Bush so much, then why are you so upset with Obama (besides that fact that he's a black man)?

#69 | Posted by COMMONSENSE


Nope NOSENSE see post #54 first paragraph for the answer to your question

Wow - our civil rights fare no better under Obama? Imagine that. Who do you think they will be spying on under this administration?

I don't know how many do you think they could put in Glenn Becks parking lot and Fox studios???

"Well, I'm not a "libtard" but I'm going THROUGH the change and I HOPE it's almost over."

That was some funny shit, Lisa.

"If nothing has changed, and all you tea-baggers loved Bush so much, then why are you so upset with Obama (besides that fact that he's a black man)?"

So Gimme, your answer to Sense's question is the "on steroids" bit? It's that it's worse? Were you OK with these things under Bush's rule? Or did it always bug you? If it always bugged you, then the question wasn't directed at you. It was meant for the Bush supporters. And I have wondered this too. There are those who point out that Obama is not living up to his hopeychangey persona, and that argument I get. But I too would suggest that if you're talking policies, you supported Bush in his behaviors, and Obama does the same stuff but you whine about it, then you're a hypocrite, pure and simple. (Not you, I think.)

Pragmatist,

Conservatives felt burned by Bush.

His reckless spending and expansion of government is a complete anethema to conservative philosophy.

Obama and the DNC have taken the worst of Bush's violations and have magnified them 5-fold.

THAT is the crux of what the 'tea-baggers' are protesting against.

Erectile dysfunction 'stimulus'.
Cap and trade utter bullshit
Public "option" bullshit
Deficit projections that make Bush look like a piker
A stimulus package that 'promised' to cap unemployment at 8%
Omnibus
Proposal to increase the debt-ceiling
Calling opposition 'Un-American' and 'Evil-mongers' and this comes from party leadership, not pundits.

And, I am only scratching the surface.

Are you surprised that people are reacting to all of this shit?

Or am I a racist for having the temerity to point this out?

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

--> Lord Ashton, 1887

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"

--> William Pitt, 1770


"Surprise, surprise, surprise"

--> Gomer Pyle, 1960s

#76 DaProf ... minor correction, your first quote is from Lord Acton (real name: John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton). It's a great quote and as timeless today as it was when he expressed it in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton.

It's amazing how far the libbies have come in such a short time. Who wudda thot a year ago, that they would sit still while their taxes go up for the next twenty years, to fund bailouts of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup? But if O's tax-dodgin' Treasury Chief says it's a good idea, they'll line up with the pom poms.

Patriot Act? Out of Iraq by spring? Pay as you go? If Obama changes his mind, so will they. Very sheep-like, these libbies today. Come a long way since the 1970's.

Obama on that dreary October morn

Larry you voted for Obama on a dreary October morn?

The libbies are in an amusing position. They've painted any non-supporter of the Obama regime as a racist. Therefore, if someone isn't kowtowing the Obama line, even if their libtard credentials are impeccable, they're mauled. Hillary Clinton was a perfect example of this, but her desire to be close to the levers of power trumped any sense of self-respect she once had, thus her willingness to take a neutered job at State.

Now, Obama's changing his mind on just about everything he ran for, and the libbies have a dilemma. It's funny to watch the Moder8's and the CorkforthUnity's of the world scurry around to post in favor of the Patriot Act, just as it's funny to watch DanniNorthCore tell us about the virtues of bailing out Wall Street banks. For tomorrow's talking points, be sure to tune in to Air America, from 10 to 3, Eastern Standard Time.

FTA: From 2004 to 2007, the business records provision was used 220 times, officials said. Most often, the business records were requested in combination with requests for phone records.

The lone wolf provision was created to conduct surveillance on suspects with no known link to foreign governments or terrorist groups. It has never been used, but the administration says it should still be available for future investigations.

The roving wiretaps provision was designed to allow investigators to quickly monitor the communications of a suspects who change their cell phone or communication device, without investigators having to go back to court for a new court authorization. That provision has been used an average of 22 times a year, officials said.

If the numbers cited here can be believed then this isn't as bad a story as it might initially appear.

The worst aspects of the so-called Patriot Act are being phased out and only a few seldomly used provisos are being kept.

Meh, no BFD.

Be Well.

Or am I a racist for having the temerity to point this out?

#75 | Posted by JeffJ
* * *

Yes. Try to keep up.

They've painted any non-supporter of the Obama regime as a racist

Wrong.

Only Rtards like yerself are saying that "Lefties say all criticism of Obama is racist"

Legitimate criticism of Obama's policies is one thing.

The left have quite a few legitimate criticisms of his policies and actions to date.

Some on the right do too.

That noted, to not be able to see or acknowledge the thinly veiled racism behind the Socialist/ Marxist/ Muslim/ Kenyan/ Not American/ Terrorist lover rhetoric is to be willfully (or just woefully) ignorant.

Be Well.

Funny to see O'tards suddenly support roving wiretaps and government spying on citizens' library records.

The worst aspects of the so-called Patriot Act are being phased out and only a few seldomly used provisos are being kept.

Come on Spud...that's totally weak.

I would hope that the "lone wolf" provision is seldom used...because it is an egregious, over the top assault of the Constitution. However, it might not be seldom used...and they don't have to tell you otherwise.

"Bart you should know the zero can do no wrong. This story will carry with NO negative COMMENTS by the usual suspects!"
#2 | Posted by DavetheWave

Here is another story on what the "" is doing with no complaints from the left:

"W.H. collects Web users' data without notice"
"The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet."
www.washingtontimes.com

""

#86 | Posted by KBM at 2009-09-16 10:47 AM
Put up a story. I love these threads where O'tards come out supporting stuff they used to protest again.

st.

"However, it might not be seldom used...and they don't have to tell you otherwise."

While I want to believe spud, this is what really bothers me.

I told you conservatives that one day a democratic President was going to look at all the ridiculous powers you gave to the Office with open hands and say... Thanks, suckers.

You blasted the lid off the box and then criticize Obama for not closing it? The huevos on you people...

All the same
We take our chances
Laughed at by time
Tricked by circumstances
Plus a change
Plus cest la mme chose
The more that things change
The more they stay the same

"The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet."

Grasp at straws much? They're saving stuff that users post to the Whitehouse networking pages. They aren't going to users pages and lifting the material.

For god's sake, como se dice... papitos?

You blasted the lid off the box and then criticize Obama for not closing it? The huevos on you people...

I know you're not talking about me. I was in lockstep with the rest of the part-time freedom fighters...then some around January, everyone left and told me to shut the lights off when I left. Well, I haven't left.

I was in lockstep with the rest of the part-time freedom fighters


If a "Crimefighter" fights Crime, and a "Firefighter" fights fires, what do you think a "Freedom fighter" fights?- George Carlin

"I know you're not talking about me."

Because you have the ability to see a generalization that doesn't apply to you and not treat it as a universalization which does.

You bust the curve for your peer group, because the rest of your compatriots lag way behind in this respect.

You blasted the lid off the box and then criticize Obama for not closing it?

#90 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-09-16 11:09 AM

That goes both ways. If Obama keeps the box open, the right will get it back some day.

For what it's worth, I didn't oppose the Patriot Act initially, when it was passed, but changed my mind on it years before Obama was even a serious contender for the presidency (ie. during republican rule).

#76 DaProf ... minor correction, your first quote is from Lord Acton (real name: John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton). It's a great quote and as timeless today as it was when he expressed it in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton.
-----

Thanks for the correction....will keep it handy for the next one :)

The worst aspects of the so-called Patriot Act are being phased out and only a few seldomly used provisos are being kept.

Meh, no BFD.

Be Well.

#81 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-09-16 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Spoken like a true cool aid drinker. With a tangy flavor of "Obama" piss.

Strangely enough, the tea-baggers and sore-losers keep whining about Obama all while saying that 'nothing has changed'.

#69 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

You just cant get the idea out of your head of some guy sitting on your face.

just cant get the idea out of your head of some guy sitting on your face.

#99 | Posted by Sniper | Flag: Answer to Therapist's Question: "So, Tell Me, Son, What's Bothering You?"

Spoken like a true cool aid drinker. With a tangy flavor of "Obama" piss.

#98 | Posted by slicksterWilly at 2009-09-16 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag: had to wipe the "brown stuff" from Bush's butt off his nose first

Obama's "Change" & Legitimacy of Afghan Oil War?

Going to court would also challenge the "Legitimacy" of the US Govt's (i.e.Corporate America's) "OIL WAR" in Afghanistan and that "Change" cannot be allowed!!!

You just cant get the idea out of your head of some guy sitting on your face.

#99 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-09-16 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:


???

Sorry, but I wasn't at the tea-bagging group grope.

BTW, where was Glenn Beck for his own party?


Joe, at some point there has to be some level of trust between the governed and the government. GWB was a proven liar and incompetent. His representations as to what was needed (such as an invasion of Iraq) and what was not needed (corporate oversight) were entirely untrustworthy. Now we a leader in the White House who I consider almost completely trustworthy. If he says something is necessary I believe him and give him the benefit of the doubt. I will continue to do so until evidence of credible nature accumulates indicating he is lying or incompetent on areas of general concern.

#23 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-09-15 06:55 PM | Reply |

I disagree in full. Obama has a great speech, but hes far from proven himself to be on the level of Christ. And in the years since the acts passage there is a growing laundry list of instances where the law was used needlessly, or in ways not in line with the intention of the bill.

The problems with the Patriot Act, have been of overreach, and little to no consideration for the ramifications, and no consideration to the rights and liberty it infringes and how to protect them. Combine that with a president who could be called out on easily refuted lies daily did not help.

Much like healthcare, Obama is shooting way far short of where I think many of us would of liked to see him go.

I am really starting to wonder what the righties don't like about this guy, aside from him being black. If this guy keeps going as he does, hes going to be the best conservative president this country has ever seen. Leave it to the righties to finally get they're guy in the house, and then shoot him in the face.

This is going to be a really funny show to watch if Republicans gain control of the house and senate again.

I am really starting to wonder what the righties don't like about this guy, aside from him being black. If this guy keeps going as he does, hes going to be the best conservative president this country has ever seen. Leave it to the righties to finally get they're guy in the house, and then shoot him in the face.

#104 | Posted by KnightHawk at 2009-09-16 05:03 PM

You jumped the shark here. I've never accepted the "leftist," "liberal," or "socialist" labels for Obama; he's a left leaning centrist. But his policy of significantly increasing the government's role in large sectors of the economy is hardly "conservative." You're just trying to move the ideological goal posts, kinda like your average repub.

"Going to court would also challenge the "Legitimacy" of the US Govt's (i.e.Corporate America's) "OIL WAR" in Afghanistan and that "Change" cannot be allowed!!!"

Huh? Oil war in Afghanistan? Did I miss something?

But his policy of significantly increasing the government's role in large sectors of the economy is hardly "conservative." You're just trying to move the ideological goal posts, kinda like your average repub.

#105 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-09-16 05:24 PM | Reply |

The posts need to be moved. Or flipped. We have a socilist president not being a socialist, and conservatives not being conservative.

Traditional family values and the sanctity of marriage
A small, non-invasive government
A strong national defense focused on protection and the fight against terrorism
A commitment to faith and religion
The right to life for every human being

If you take those principles as the basics of conservatism, Obama is a shining example for everyone one, sans the small non-invasive government. And neither party has a watershed of hope in that ring. Talk about a new government program and the conservatives go apeshit. But before this healthcare business is over, it would not surprise me for those same conservatives to create a new government bureaucracy that ensures illegals don't get healthcare. Like the guy that blasts Obama for propping up the financial sector, and then blasts him for lack of jobs.



The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube...

Of course, they know where all the cyber fools hang out.

The worst aspects of the so-called Patriot Act are being phased out and only a few seldom used provisos are being kept.

Spud, you are right on more then most here, but you missed the implications of accepting the Patriot Act as 'little used' and 'provisos are being well kept'. You can't possible know this unless you work for the NSA. At any rate those laws were passed to prevent any kind of revolution like the one that created The United States of America. I am not convinced that the future will never necessitate that kind of change. It would be in the peoples best interest to keep politics out of our personal lives and let the bill die.

Now, if there really was any great threat 'that was neutered by the act', then it bears taking a good look at it again, but so far I think all it has harvested is government waste on the highest order and mistrust from the the general public that negates any gains.


eal change is not possible if half the country won't even listen the speakers at a town hall meeting, much less address the issues that are screwing us all everyday of our lives.

#68 | Posted by RingMaster


which certainly isn't Global Warming in Minnesota

"Patriotism is the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers."-- Leo Tolstoy

which certainly isn't Global Warming in Minnesota

Huh? You mean all that hot air the Tea Parties are releasing?

I read it. The fact is Obama IS way more trustworthy then Bush or his cohorts. AS trustworthy as any Politician can be!

LOL!

Name one major promise that obama has kept or even tried to keep. Just one.

obama has fallen and now doesn't want to release the governmental power back to our laws....hmmm, wonder why.

Imagine that. When Ooooooobama does it it's all good. When anyone BUT Oooooooooobama does it it's crap. Gee. Imagine that. Fucking idiot hypocrite libs. Who'd have thunk it. And yuip, the rights the same with the exception that the right can at least fuckin admit it. So, hows it feel to be following the next Obamabush.... Well, nah, Bush wouldn't appologize for this country or remove defense sheilds bc he cares about THIS country.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable