Scary stuff on the right

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

robotic controlled dogs on the left who give up their freedom for security, or free loving love your neighbor types that would rather have death if they can't have liberty?

lol wut:

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

lol wut:

Funny cartoon but in spite of all the bashing the Patriot act has recieved at the hands of the liberals they haven't repealed it yet even though they have been in power for almost three years now.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by August

Funny cartoon but in spite of all the bashing the Patriot act has recieved at the hands of the liberals they haven't repealed it yet even though they have been in power for almost three years now.

Most of the controversial parts of it expired, didn't they?

Either way, the Patriot Act alone wasn't that bad. It had channels in it for complains about civil liberties violations, and as far as I'm aware they were never used. Unfortunately it wasn't the only intrusion on our liberties (wiretapping springs to mind).

But that stuff's not really relevant for this thread. Neither major political party is about to quash Americans' liberties.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Max2147

Most of the controversial parts of it expired, didn't they?

Either way, the Patriot Act alone wasn't that bad. It had channels in it for complains about civil liberties violations, and as far as I'm aware they were never used. Unfortunately it wasn't the only intrusion on our liberties (wiretapping springs to mind).

But that stuff's not really relevant for this thread. Neither major political party is about to quash Americans' liberties.

I agree with this assessment.

But the thing I find funny (and ironic) about the left is the complete about face the party has taken as soon as it achieved power. The left is heavily comprised of "anti-establishment" types - even Obama, in his earlier years, somewhat subscribed to this philosophy.

Now that they've been put in power, can anyone here HONESTLY remember ANY political movement that has been MORE pro-establishment than the Democratic Party? This administration and congress has unashamedly moved in on the banks, the auto-industry, and now Obama doesn't "think" he'll have to raise taxes on the middle-class (quite different from a promise, I think).

[Max2147]

The 'dirty little secret' about Obama is that his pragmatic streak is a lot stronger than a lot of people think. It comes across very strongly when you read his books and listen to his more substantive speeches.

It's one of the main reasons I supported him, but they had to hide it during the election to keep the left-wing ideologues onboard. Now that he's in power, they don't have to keep it under wraps anymore. I have a feeling that a lot of the left wing dreamers are going to be pretty disappointed in 4 years.

The real irony is that the left is always stereotypically wrapped up in ideology, with its head in the clouds, while the right is supposed to be more practical. But Bush was one of the most ideological presidents we've ever had, and I think Obama will end up being very pragmatic by comparison.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Max2147

Most of the controversial parts of it expired, didn't they?...

No they didn't. The Democrats expanded on it and renewed it. Obama expanded the wire tapping too. EFF is in my Inbox daily because of it. Weird having a liberal political organization bashing heads with liberals. Anyway, here is the latest on the wiretapping:

In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's

Commentary by Tim Jones
We had hoped this would go differently.
Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.

This isn't change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.
For further reading, we suggest Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald and The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder.

American intelligence agencies have been accused of spying on the emails of millions of Americans, including those of former president Bill Clinton...

"Ordinary Americans' most private emails have been and still are being intercepted in bulk and then stored in secret NSA databases, without probable cause," said Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with the campaign group Electronic Frontier Foundation.

How many you want? EFF is full of this crap lately.

That is change we can believe in! Oh... Maybe another Obama said that? This Obama isn't doing any of it.

-S

[sunvalleyslim]

My take has always been.........If you ain't doing anything wrong, you never have to worry.........

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by sunvalleyslim

My take has always been.........If you ain't doing anything wrong, you never have to worry.........

But that's the statement first uttered by anyone who wants more intrusive government. The side or political philosophy doesn't matter, if they want to check your home, office or beliefs the first answer to any objection is "What are you afraid of?"