PDA

View Full Version : Obama Promise to stop Wiretapping? Not so much...


revefsreleets
04-17-2009, 12:59 PM
More of the same here. Obama promised to end Bush's "Illegal and immoral wiretapping".

Not only is he not ending it, and not only is he extending it, he's EXPANDING IT!

Bear in mind, you are reading this (probably for the first time) here, on a football website, and this news is over a week old.

Where is MSNBC? CBS? CNN? Where is the outrage by the popular press here? I mean, isn't the wiretapping what made Bush evil? Didn't Obama solemnly promise to eliminate it?

This just gets worse and worse...

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush

Yes, this IS a blog, but there are other links at the bottom of the story to Salon and The Atlantic. This story is very real. This is legit. Obama is caught here in a HUGE lie. I cannot WAIT to see the left try to spin this one...

tony hipchest
04-17-2009, 02:07 PM
:chuckle: a HUGE lie? i'll just laugh at the melodrama.

i dont think theres some major media cover up. i read it a few days ago on NY times or usa today.

do you have a clip of baracks solemn promise? did he like, put his hand on a bible (or koran) or something?

ho hum. obama changed his mind. you ever stop to think that bush was privy to information barack had no clue about when he was spouting off about wiretapping, and now that he gets the security briefings, he might now better understand the rhyme and reason behind some of the things he so was critical of?

anyways another typical day in washington.

headlines- politicians lie.

FWIW- wiretapping is about as important to me as the mating habits of the dung bettle.

but if it will make you feel better.... :shout: OUTRAGE!!!!

SteelersinCA
04-17-2009, 02:13 PM
Wasn't this one of the things the Dems were beating on Bush and the Attorney General on?

I didn't like wiretapping when Bush did it and I don't like it if Obama continues it, but funny how the tables turn.

tony hipchest
04-17-2009, 02:19 PM
im pretty indifferent either way cause im pretty much on the fence with the issue and see the pros and cons of both sides. of course the democrats would beat on bush for items they dont agree with just like the republicans will beat on obama.

in this case he'll do something they do agree with and STILL beat on him.

SteelersinCA
04-17-2009, 02:24 PM
My point is the hypocrisy of politicians is astounding and we keep electing them.

I don't want constitutional rights trampled at all by wiretapping. There are pros to all sorts of illegal activity, but I like the quote by Thomas Jefferson, "It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape."

fansince'76
04-17-2009, 02:51 PM
Wasn't this one of the things the Dems were beating on Bush and the Attorney General on?

Nonstop and endlessly.

For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

But all of a sudden, I guess it's a good idea now. HOPE! CHANGE! BAAAAAA!

Vincent
04-17-2009, 02:53 PM
My point is the hypocrisy of politicians is astounding and we keep electing them.

I don't want constitutional rights trampled at all by wiretapping. There are pros to all sorts of illegal activity, but I like the quote by Thomas Jefferson, "It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape."

This is why the citizens need to bear arms.

They wouldn't be doing this @#$% if we all had nukes. :chuckle:

SteelersinCA
04-17-2009, 02:54 PM
This is why the citizens need to bear arms.

They wouldn't be doing this @#$% if we all had nukes. :chuckle:

Nice!!!:drink:

MACH1
04-17-2009, 08:19 PM
:chuckle: a HUGE lie? i'll just laugh at the melodrama.

i dont think theres some major media cover up. i read it a few days ago on NY times or usa today.
OUTRAGE!!!!


Come on man, you need to use a more creditable news source like msnbc. :chuckle:

PisnNapalm
04-17-2009, 08:38 PM
Why am I not surprised..... remember people... buy ammo.

Vincent
04-17-2009, 08:41 PM
remember people... buy ammo.

Its all gone.

MACH1
04-17-2009, 08:42 PM
Its all gone.

China bought it

Vincent
04-17-2009, 08:45 PM
China bought it

China made it. Its all bought up because of the dark clouds over Washington.

MACH1
04-17-2009, 08:47 PM
China made it. We bought it all up because of the dark clouds over Washington.

:doh: How could I forget.

Then we smuggled it all into mexico. :chuckle:

Vincent
04-17-2009, 08:51 PM
Then we smuggled it all into mexico. :chuckle:

Right?

BrandonCarr39
04-17-2009, 09:58 PM
Different President, Different Party, Same "status quo" - if memory serves, Obama made votes for the Patriot Act, Military Commission Act of 2006, FISA, and other bills that strip our freedoms while he was Senator.

BTW - the last President that went against this "establishment" was JFK...and y'all know what happened to him when all was said and done.

GBMelBlount
04-18-2009, 07:47 AM
im pretty indifferent either way cause im pretty much on the fence with the issue and see the pros and cons of both sides. of course the democrats would beat on bush for items they dont agree with just like the republicans will beat on obama.

in this case he'll do something they do agree with and STILL beat on him.

You're pretty much indifferent and on the fence? Why do you feel the cons of wiretapping are even remotely comparable to the benefits of the potential lives saved?

SteelersinCA
04-18-2009, 09:51 AM
You're pretty much indifferent and on the fence? Why do you feel the cons of wiretapping are even remotely comparable to the benefits of the potential lives saved?

That's a softball question GBMel, the argument is you are violating one of THE MOST sacred rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to privacy. The historical protection of this right in the law is almost unrivaled. Some would argue, myself included, it is never worth sacrificing your convictions and ideals to get guilty people.

I'm quite certain the founding fathers agreed with that concept, see my previous quote by Jefferson and the famous quote by Franklin that those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither.

I'd rather 1000 guilty terrorists go free than have your Constitutional rights violated.

GBMelBlount
04-18-2009, 10:26 AM
That's a softball question GBMel, the argument is you are violating one of THE MOST sacred rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to privacy. The historical protection of this right in the law is almost unrivaled. Some would argue, myself included, it is never worth sacrificing your convictions and ideals to get guilty people.

I'm quite certain the founding fathers agreed with that concept, see my previous quote by Jefferson and the famous quote by Franklin that those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither.

I'd rather 1000 guilty terrorists go free than have your Constitutional rights violated.

Thanks SteelersinCA, I appreciate AND understand your reasoning......but my question was directed specifically to Tony because I want to understand why he would have any problem with the government infringing on a persons privacy if it is in an attempt to save American lives.

SteelersinCA
04-18-2009, 03:14 PM
It only took a handful of terrorist to kill thousands, tank the economy and strip our freedoms away.

Well, they did kill thousands, but I think the economy was going to go into the shitter anyway. They didn't strip our freedoms, we did that all on our own.

SteelersinCA
04-18-2009, 03:15 PM
Thanks SteelersinCA, I appreciate AND understand your reasoning......but my question was directed specifically to Tony because I want to understand why he would have any problem with the government infringing on a persons privacy if it is in an attempt to save American lives.

Gotcha, my apologies.

tony hipchest
04-18-2009, 03:43 PM
Thanks SteelersinCA, I appreciate AND understand your reasoning......but my question was directed specifically to Tony because I want to understand why he would have any problem with the government infringing on a persons privacy if it is in an attempt to save American lives.:blah:

GBMelBlount
04-18-2009, 06:06 PM
Gotcha, my apologies.

Not to worry friend, I honestly wasn't expecting an answer from Tony as he does not tend to go on record questioning the integrity or ethics of the government or any of it's public servants. He generally reserves opinions of mistrust, corruptness, lack of ethics and greed ONLY for people who are successful in business in order to justify government control and healthy taxation.

I know it sounds funny but it is the honest truth. I was just having some fun as I imagine I would have found an his opinion both interesting and enlightening. :drink:

tony hipchest
04-18-2009, 06:32 PM
I know it sounds funny but it is the honest truth. :

:rofl:

no :link: = EXPOSED....

GBMelBlount
04-18-2009, 06:48 PM
Indeed.....Exposed a conservative who believes in the same principles as our founding fathers.

tony hipchest
04-18-2009, 07:36 PM
Indeed.....Exposed a conservative who believes in the same principles as our founding fathers.

:yawn:

according to you, our founding fathers would be "deeply saddened" by your eagerness to wiretap private citizens. talk about "big brother" at its finest. :thumbsup:

*exposed as liar AND double standard haver*

I want to understand why he would have any problem with the government infringing on a persons privacy if it is in an attempt to save American lives.

i see youve taken absolutely no interest in why your conservatives counterparts would have a problem with the government infringing on a persons right to bear arms (w/an assault weapons ban) in an attempt to save lives. :hunch:

then again, you fall in line lock step and are not allowed to be on the fence about anything the right wing doesnt approve.

= imperialistic hegemony

GBMelBlount
04-18-2009, 07:37 PM
tony hipchest

no = EXPOSED....



Exposed for what saying that you sound like a socialist to me? Well maybe you technically aren't a socialist Tony. Perhaps I was wrong.

Perhaps you are simply a person who constantly rails against the beliefs of our founding fathers and uses the same techniques as socialists and marxists to imply that the only successful people in a capitalist system are the greedy and corrupt who some how exploit the helpless workers in a free country and that somehow the government is full of loving, caring, ethical people that need to come in and regulate these free markets by force. wow.

If you feel that I am mischaracterizing your beliefs, please feel free to clarify what you believe, OK?

GBMelBlount
04-18-2009, 07:39 PM
tony hipchest

according to you, our founding fathers would be "deeply saddened" by your eagerness to wiretap private citizens. talk about "big brother" at its finest. :thumbsup:



That's not true. I didn't say I was for or against wiretapping. The truth is that i asked you a direct question that for some strange reason you didn't answer.....

Also, I have another question. Do you support Universal health care?

tony hipchest
04-18-2009, 07:44 PM
Perhaps you are simply a person who constantly rails against the beliefs of our founding fathers and uses the same techniques as socialists and marxists to imply that the only successful people in a capitalist systems are the greedy and corrupt who some how exploit the workers in a free country and that somehow the government is full of loving, caring, ethical people needs to come in and regulate these free markets with force.

mike tomlin and big ben are rich. theyre not corrupt. neither is john chamers, warren buffet, or bill gates. :hunch: again, you dont know wtf u are talkin about.


:link: exposed as a liar again. in the words of X-T it may be time to finally utilize the bozo bin....

tony hipchest
04-18-2009, 07:47 PM
That's not true. that is true. you constantly say it all the time. i wont provide a link cause i dont need too since nobody is gonna take the word of a liar anyways.

:wave:

GBMelBlount
04-18-2009, 07:48 PM
checkmate.

lilyoder6
04-18-2009, 09:05 PM
well i wouldn't go as far as saying that gates is not corrupt.. i mean he did steal his idea from mac... lol

i mean u had to have seen Pirates of Silicon Valley...

SteelersinCA
04-18-2009, 09:32 PM
well i wouldn't go as far as saying that gates is not corrupt.. i mean he did steal his idea from mac... lol

i mean u had to have seen Pirates of Silicon Valley...

Excellent point, everyone is susceptible to corruption, government and business alike. Difference for me is that the businesses make no bones about not representing the people.

GBMelBlount
04-18-2009, 10:38 PM
Excellent point, everyone is susceptible to corruption, government and business alike. Difference for me is that the businesses make no bones about not representing the people.

Exactly.

At least with capitalism you have more freedom.

And it is amazing how many liberals talk about capitalism and free markets as if that is the only cause of greed and corruption, as though government is somehow more ethical and moral.....

revefsreleets
04-20-2009, 10:06 AM
How did we once again get so far off-topic? Can we reel this back in?

A) Obama ran with a very specific promise that he would stop wiretapping. In fact, I believe he called it "Unlawful and immoral"
B) Obama not only failed to stop it, he is now expanding it.

And, if I'm reading this thread correctly (and I believe I am), the liberal response is pretty much "So what. It's just wiretapping and we don't care about that anymore"?

Really?

Vincent
04-20-2009, 10:18 AM
And, if I'm reading this thread correctly (and I believe I am), the liberal response is pretty much "So what. It's just wiretapping and we don't care about that anymore"?

Really?

See, when it was Boosh and Qlbermann was squawking about it, it was the worst crime against humanity, the greatest assault on our liberties. Now that its their boy, its all good. Yessiree Bob.

lilyoder6
04-20-2009, 10:34 AM
my take on the wiretapping is idc...

if no one came out about it now one would of known.

ppl want there privacy?? then y the eff do ppl go on facebook or myspace and blast it evrywhere..

doesn't make sense

revefsreleets
04-20-2009, 10:34 AM
That does seem to be the case...

Dino 6 Rings
04-20-2009, 12:26 PM
I don't have a cell phone, so they can try to wiretap me all they want. My land line is used to call family only.

But I'm not against tapping the phones of people here on Visas that are calling back to countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, or any other nation with a Crescent Moon on their national flag.

Yep, I'm not against that at all.

I am against them wasting time listening in on the phones of little old ladies from mid American who are exchanging Pie Recipies in the interest of "fairness".

Catch the Bad Guys, leave the Citizens and Good People of this Country Alone.

SteelersinCA
04-20-2009, 02:54 PM
es from mid American who are exchanging Pie Recipies in the interest of "fairness".

Catch the Bad Guys, leave the Citizens and Good People of this Country Alone.

Problem is we're all good people until we get caught saying something on a wiretap.