• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Questions and answers about Obama’s new NSA rules

I never thought that EVER - I absolutely hated Bush after that...

The Patriot Act gave authorities to circumvent the constitution from the local police to the federal government - just like Obama is doing now but you see no problem with that.

The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush never could have imagined that any government body would use the Patriot Act for anything other than what it was intended to do - Bush never saw the slippery slope and highly underestimated those in government (or at least trusted them) that were liking their chops just waiting to use it to collect civilian domestic intelligence - just because the door was now open. Or those who saw the open door and figured they could use the cops as their own SS units.

I saw that from the beginning but it was Obama and the NSA, and bitches like Napolitano who get golf claps for lying and degrading and condemning guys like Edward Snowden that exposed the whole ****ing thing...

You don't want real transparency - you want talk of it - you want an authoritarian government that spies on you everyday just to make sure you're recycling and living a progressive lifestyle...

Those are individual choices people have to make NOT collective choices - then you're bewildered why I compare progressives to Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc....???

Essentially your saying Bush was too naive to know what the patriot act was opening up. You think he was unaware of the Church committee?
 
Progressives went bat**** over the Patriot Act and Obama is spying on everyone and the progressives don't give one **** about it.

It's amazing.

It really goes to show how far having an (R) or (D) after your name means to some people. If it's a (D) you can do whatever the **** you want and if it's an (R) you're a fascist warmongering pig rich white racist....

Both can do the same **** - some like Obama (D) can take it to the extreme but no progressive gives a **** about that.

At least constitutional republicans, libertarians and other patriot groups called bull**** with the Patriot Act - I don't see that happening with Obama supporters - they will love that mother****er no matter what he does. He could eat a baby and progressives wouldn't bat an eye at it just as long as Jay Carney spun it the right way - a way progressives could rationalize it.

This is all true Nick. Unfortunately, the very same criticisms would have applied to the righties when their man (Bush) was president. Such is the danger of partisans. The partisan who elevates his party position above his citizenship is what's a threat to me, not the president, for we Americans could stop this **** anytime we want. But no, the lefties protect the president when he's a democrat, and the righties protect their president when he's a republican. And you partisans spend thread after thread pointing your fingers at each other instead of at the president and DEMANDING! He follow constitutional law.
 
Maybe for once the left and right should stop pointing fingers long enough to fix what most on both sides agree is a huge problem. The intolerance that prevents you from even agreeing and working together for a mutually beneficial cause is exactly what they count on. Who cares who is more to blame? It seems apparent to me that the government is going to work against our best interests regardless of who the president is. Did it ever occur to you that maybe both sides are wrong, and that it will only get worse as long as we allow the government to do whatever it wants while we fight over petty bull****?

No matter how hard we try to get this point across, they won't have it. It's as though they prefer the arguing and finger pointing to our presidents actually following our constitution!
 
Who's defending him? If the wonderful, all good GOP is so against it, where's the bill? It should pass the House easily, don't you think?

You're derending him by deflecting. The NSA doesn't work directly for tye GOP. The NSA damn well works directly for the president and you're giving Marse Barack a free pass.
 
You're derending him by deflecting. The NSA doesn't work directly for tye GOP. The NSA damn well works directly for the president and you're giving Marse Barack a free pass.

And so has every president, but again, partisans are the problem.
 
Your comment is the pinnacle of irony.

You find it ironic that presidents aren't held to constitutional standards by their partisan supporters. Why is that?
 
I assure you it was not done intentionally and not intended to be humorous. :)

Of course it wasn't. What would be humorous about presidents acting contrary to our constitution with partisan support.
 
You find it ironic that presidents aren't held to constitutional standards by their partisan supporters. Why is that?

I find it ironic thst you're making the charge.
 
He does what he needs to do to gain the advantage. If that's playing aggressive by ignoring laws or bypassing laws that's fine with him. If it's getting caught with his pants down and then making obvious and fake steps to placate the people who are outraged to lower the heat, that's fine with him too. What I like is that you believe people can only act one way and it's the false choice method.

None of this changes the two-faced position many Republicans and even some Independents have taken where they've been quick to accuse President Obama for allegedly abusing his executive power one minute but then accuse him of playing politics the next when he shows an acute understanding of the limits of his powers, as well as, the process of governing - in this case, placing responsibility w/Congress to change the mechanics of a law they made given their Constitutional enumerated powers. You call it placating; I call it knowing the limits of your authority AND showing leadership by:

1) informing Congress what aspects of the NSA surveillance have worked and which ones threaten civil liberties;
2) suggesting ways to go about protecting privacy rights;
3) suggesting what legal and ethical aspects of the law to keep in place in order to continue protecting the country against terrorist threats; and,
4) Challenging Congress to do their job considering that he has now done his by listening to folks in the Intelligence Community and recommending changes.

Firstly, this isn't leadership. A lack of leadership has been consistent.

Again, I fully disagree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Second... what's a "special judge" - one with turrets syndrome perhaps?

Can't answer that, but let me ask you this: Considering that House and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman/Chairwoman, Rep. Mike Rogers and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, respectively, echoed the legal findings from Congressional NSA hearings stating, "the [NSA surveillance] program did not have abuses. This wasn't sinister. It wasn't a rogue agency. It was legal and proper," I wonder would you rather we go back to all the illegal activity that's took place since the FISA court was established in 1978 (1978-2005)?
 
Last edited:
It's actually a lot of hot air. What or who is the "special judge"? :lol:

Sounds like lip service to placate the masses. Leaving it up to Congress so when nothing or little is done, he has plausible deniability by saying "Well, I tried. It's all Congress fault."


Most likely a FISA judge of some sort.
 

Sorry, I deleted that post...realized I had already responded to his post earlier...forgot I had. lol

But seriously...get rid of the NSA? We sorta need it for other which might mean us harm countries.
 
Sorry, I deleted that post...realized I had already responded to his post earlier...forgot I had. lol

But seriously...get rid of the NSA? We sorta need it for other which might mean us harm countries.

don't we already have the CIA doing that?
 
But seriously...get rid of the NSA? We sorta need it for other which might mean us harm countries.
The NSA can't even provide one example of terrorist activity that it has caught and stopped. The fact that acts of terrorism have occurred multiple times over the last 15 years seems to indicate that the NSA is largely incompetent. The only thing they are good at is violating our rights and then desperately trying to lie about it when they get caught with their pants down. Getting rid of the NSA would not mean that all of our foreign intelligence would disappear.
 
don't we already have the CIA doing that?

:shrug: Does anyone really know what the CIA does?

The NSA can't even provide one example of terrorist activity that it has caught and stopped. The fact that acts of terrorism have occurred multiple times over the last 15 years seems to indicate that the NSA is largely incompetent. The only thing they are good at is violating our rights and then desperately trying to lie about it when they get caught with their pants down. Getting rid of the NSA would not mean that all of our foreign intelligence would disappear.

Bold: What was asked of them in showing the proof was in regards to the meta-data gathering of millions of American's data. That admission has nothing to do with any other form of information gathering and them having stopped terrorist attacks.
 
None of this changes the two-faced position many Republicans and even some Independents have taken where they've been quick to accuse President Obama for allegedly abusing his executive power one minute but then accuse him of playing politics the next when he shows an acute understanding of the limits of his powers, as well as, the process of governing - in this case, placing responsibility w/Congress to change the mechanics of a law they made given their Constitutional enumerated powers. You call it placating; I call it knowing the limits of your authority AND showing leadership by:
Placating and playing politics...

1) informing Congress what aspects of the NSA surveillance have worked and which ones threaten civil liberties;
2) suggesting ways to go about protecting privacy rights;
3) suggesting what legal and ethical aspects of the law to keep in place in order to continue protecting the country against terrorist threats; and,
4) Challenging Congress to do their job considering that he has now done his by listening to folks in the Intelligence Community and recommending changes.
I wouldn't describe these in any way as showing leadership. I'd call it limiting the blow back damage. His suggestions have no teeth and are fluffy meaningless drivel. Challenging congress? :lol That's a good one - when public opinion has Congress at what -- 9% or 12% approval? Throwing this back on Congress's shoulders will do exactly zero and he knows it.


Again, I fully disagree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion.
You're definition of what is and is not leadership is then quite different than mine. Were I to use your definition of it and try to apply it in the non Washington political world, would mean certain and swift disaster.

Can't answer that, but let me ask you this: Considering that House and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman/Chairwoman, Rep. Mike Rogers and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, respectively, echoed the legal findings from Congressional NSA hearings stating, "the [NSA surveillance] program did not have abuses. This wasn't sinister. It wasn't a rogue agency. It was legal and proper," I wonder would you rather we go back to all the illegal activity that's took place since the FISA court was established in 1978 (1978-2005)?
"Special judge" is meaningless... just more fluff to throw at the American people that means nothing and goes no where. The Rodgers Feinstein ... that's just more Washington CYA. Let's put it this way, Obama has a pen and a phone right? He could end this tomorrow but doesn't. Simple as that.
 
my concern is what will happen to the data the nsa collected if it ever gets shut down?

Good question. It should just be deleted/shredded/burned (computer or paper). If you're asking about the info regarding innocent American citizens. For the rest I'd say just shove it to the CIA?
 
Good question. It should just be deleted/shredded/burned (computer or paper). If you're asking about the info regarding innocent American citizens. For the rest I'd say just shove it to the CIA?

maybe the resistance on the part of rogers and feinstein has something to do with what information the NSA has already collected, and the pandoras box that would open if they released the information.
 
Back
Top Bottom