Justice Dpt. seizes AP Phone Records, then sends Subpoena

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:58 pm

The content of a phone conversation is still protected by Fourth Amendment and would require a warrant to obtain. Why the phone companies store the actual content of phone calls is unknown to me; this has been the subject of conspiracy theories ever since phone companies existed. In theory, though, the phone company shouldn't care about the content, only making sure that the content reaches its destination correctly and completely. This is essentially the same as a bank offering a safety deposit box--they don't care what is in the box (you can even keep illegal substances in one) only that you pay your box rent each month.

I cannot do anything about the content of my phone calls but I do have my encryption for text that can keep my e-mail messages secure and unreadable.

Post by **SerScot** » Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:15 pm

The Onion FTW:

www.theonion.com/articles/obama-adminis ... ord,32712/

From the article:

WASHINGTON—On the heels of reports that the National Security Agency has secretly been amassing the private telephone records of Verizon’s more than 120 million customers, President Barack Obama announced Thursday that his administration is releasing the entire country’s phone records to the public in an effort to handle the situation with complete transparency. “Honesty and openness have always been the hallmarks of my presidency, which is why I believe that everybody should have free access to this essential information,” the president said at a press conference, encouraging the public to visit a newly created online database containing the time, duration, and location of every wireless and landline phone call made by all 315 million Americans. “We—all of us—are laying our cards on the table here. Now, everyone in the country will know who’s calling whom, and when, and how often, and for how long. My administration doesn’t have any secrets, and from now on, neither will you.” Obama noted that, for the sake of national security, personal emails, consumer reports, and medical histories will remain the exclusive property of the federal government.

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:08 am

hrm.....PRISM. Let's see....

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

In a statement, Google said: "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data."

Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of PRISM or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a program. "If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge," one said.

An Apple spokesman said it had "never heard" of PRISM.

That is a good enough blurb to have the overall idea behind the article.

Just off the top of my head, one statement jumps out: the Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document. Exactly how did they verify its authenticity? Did they call the director of the NSA, who appears to be General Keith Alexander according to their website, and ask him about it? Or did they rely on an anonymous source? The problem with anonymous sources is that you cannot be certain that they are who they say they are or that their information is valid. This alone make me question the news story.

The other thing that makes me question it is this: if you were to imagine a worst-case scenario of intrusive government spying on domestic citizens this would be it. The problem with worst-case scenarios is that the probability of them actually occurring is really low; in fact, they are normally so low that we can discount them in many cases. In short, this seems "too good to be true" from a conspiracy theory point of view.
Still, I suppose we could always apply Pascal's Wager to it and see what results we get. We cannot determine if this program is real or not so that is the independent variable; the dependent variable is our response to it.
1) Suppose PRISM is real and we do nothing. Well, there really isn't a whole lot we can do--it doesn't matter for whom we vote because the program has been in operation under Republican and Democrat leadership so I suppose we could all start voting Libertarian (I would approve of this) in an effort to get it to stop. The NSA is essentially the military so we can't really fight against them unless all-out revolution takes place and I don't see that happening. At best, all we can do in this circumstance is what we have been doing--realize that someone is looking over our shoulder and hope that they don't come knocking on our door.
2) Suppose PRISM is real and we react. What kind of reaction would result in stopping the program? I already said that voting won't change it--is your Congressional representative willing to repeal the Patriot Act and all its associated other acts designed ostensibly to fight the War on Terror? I didn't think so. The only action that could be taken would result in widespread bloodshed and that isn't going to happen so we can clearly rule that out.
3) Suppose PRISM is fake and we do nothing. This is the status quo outcome--nothing to see here so carry on.
4) Suppose PRISM is fake and we react. This would be bad as it would end with people taking up arms against something that isn't happening. In fact, it would just as bad as option 2 because lots of deaths will occur and we should try to avoid this if at all possible.
It appears that the only viable option is "do nothing". On an individual basis the government can already collect any and all information it wants about it and the warrants used to do this may remain secret--you won't know they are targeting you until they kick in your door. You can't even really take a stand against the complicit corporate entities--imagine trying to conduct your life without Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, etc. You would have to be almost completely off the grid or at least make sure your computer never connects to the Internet.

It almost sounds like I am giving up, doesn't it? If the program is real and is that invasive and widespread there isn't anything that can be done about it. That certainly goes against my grain, though, to just be silent while the government manages to be this invasive, presuming the story is even true. For now, I will hope that it is being overstated but I will keep it on the back burner in my mind.

Goddamned Patriot Act. It started all this bullshit.

Post by **SerScot** » Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:13 am

The Patriot Act is a turdblossom planted by the Bush administration that is finally opening in its full glory.

Post by **Cail** » Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:07 pm

SerScot wrote:The Patriot Act is a turdblossom planted by the Bush administration that is finally opening in its full glory now.

The horror of this is bipartisan. There was enormous support from both parties for this abortion, and there continues to be during this administration.

Bush and Obama are cut from the same cloth, and are owned by the same people.

Post by **Avatar** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:12 am

Government...the more things change, the more they stay the same.

--A

Post by **wayfriend** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:50 pm

Oh, there's subtle differences between the GOP and the Democrats on this issue.

For one thing, the GOP has been holding the "weak on defense" knife to the throats of the Democrats for the last thirty, forty years. If the Democrats ever falter in their fervor to defend our country, the GOP will extract a huge advantage at election time. Dems know this, GOP knows they know this.

Hence you see the GOP play a very Janus-faced game: they rip the Democrats when they are very pro-defense, trying to alienate their base, while waiting for something anti-defense to nail them with.

So: you are never, never, ever going to see Demoncrats lead the effort to dismantle the Patriout Act. It's political suicide, and too many are waiting to eagerly help slit their wrists.

For the same reason, you will never, never, ever see a liberal President failing to persue every legal means available to stop terrorist attacks. As much as this headline would set the the Democrats up for destruction by Republicans:

President wants to dismantle programs for catching terrorists

The worst case scenario is much worse:

President admits he might have stopped terrorist attack that killed thousands:
"My liberal views demanded that I not utilize program authorized by Congress to defend this nation"

No, that's never, never, ever going to happen.

That being said, if the Republicans who built the Patriot Act would agree to dismantle the Patriot Act, you would probably find most Democrats willing to play ball. That is, if the Republicans put down the cleaver so that the Democrats could stick their neck out, we could see some action.

Post by **SerScot** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:53 pm

Wayfriend,

It is a pickle. That said I wish President Obama had stuck to his guns on Transparancy and the Survellience State.

Post by **ussusimiel** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:18 pm

wayfriend wrote:Oh, there's subtle differences between the GOP and the Democrats on this issue.

For one thing, the GOP has been holding the "weak on defense" knife to the throats of the Democrats for the last thirty, forty years. If the Democrats ever falter in their fervor to defend our country, the GOP will extract a huge advantage at election time. Dems know this, GOP knows they know this.

Hence you see the GOP play a very Janus-faced game: they rip the Democrats when they are very pro-defense, trying to alienate their base, while waiting for something anti-defense to nail them with.

So: you are never, never, ever going to see Demoncrats lead the effort to dismantle the Patriout Act. It's political suicide, and too many are waiting to eagerly help slit their wrists.

For the same reason, you will never, never, ever see a liberal President failing to persue every legal means available to stop terrorist attacks. As much as this headline would set the the Democrats up for destruction by Republicans:
President wants to dismantle programs for catching terrorists
The worst case scenario is much worse:
President admits he might have stopped terrorist attack that killed thousands:
"My liberal views demanded that I not utilize program authorized by Congress to defend this nation"
No, that's never, never, ever going to happen.

That being said, if the Republicans who built the Patriot Act would agree to dismantle the Patriot Act, you would probably find most Democrats willing to play ball. That is, if the Republicans put down the cleaver so that the Democrats could stick their neck out, we could see some action.

Just talking about this in the thread on phone records. This is one of the huge problems with a two party system. If there was a third party that could afford to stand by its principles (and hold the balance of power) then all the parties could be more principled without being paralysed by the fear of political backlash.

u.

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:30 pm

wayfriend wrote: That being said, if the Republicans who built the Patriot Act would agree to dismantle the Patriot Act, you would probably find most Democrats willing to play ball. That is, if the Republicans put down the cleaver so that the Democrats could stick their neck out, we could see some action.

I would still urge the Democrats to try and dismantle as much of the overly-intrusive WoT-based government surveillance as they can. The Republicans would then have to explain why they need to put all those measures back into place--"we really need to snoop through your e-mail and phone calls because you might be giving aid to the enemy".

The Republicans built the system; let them choke on it.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:56 pm

WF, your analysis doesn't take into account that Obama got elected on a platform that endorses doing the very things which you say would be political suicide for him to actually do. No matter how violent you try to make the opposition sound, they're not holding any kind of knife to the Dems' throats, or trying to help them slit their wrists. Obama openly, vocally, and emphatically decried Bush's War on Terror, including the techniques he's currently using himself, and he suffered ZERO political cost for such positions. In fact, he rode a wave of popular support for just those positions. The majority of the country was weary of war, wary of executive power abuse, outraged over "war crimes" and civil rights abuses, against the Patriot Act, wanted Gitmo closed, etc. It wasn't political suicide for him to endorse those positions then, and it wouldn't be now.

Also, if Obama is merely playing into the hands of the Reps due to political cowardice, as you make it seem, how does this explain his expansion of classified snooping into our phone calls, emails, etc.? There would be no political fallout of the kind you're suggesting if Obama refused to employ secret programs that no one had even heard of. So he's obviously going way beyond the "Republicans made me do it" argument. There was no "knife held to his throat" in order to force him to record the metadata of 100s of millions of U.S. citizens. We'd never even know about it if a concerned patriot hadn't blown the whistle.

This excuse for Obama's inaction and lack of leadership on his party's core issues makes him look pathetic, weak, and hypocritical ... but I suppose that's preferable (to Dems) than the alternative of Obama being a power-hungry lying fraud. However, I don't think following up on your campaign rhetoric and adhering to your principles is more politically damaging than caving to your oppoents because you're scared of political consequences.

I can't believe you'll blame even this on Republicans. The President's own failures to follow up on his core values is a mere publicity stunt forced on his by Reps? Come on, that's just sad. He's doing way more than merely failing to dismantle Bush-era WoT strategies. He's greatly expanding them on every front. At some point, you'll have to actually blame him for his own actions, and realize that he's not merely a puppet or victim of those dastardly Republicans. He's the most powerful man in the world, getting more powerful all the time.

[Edited to add from Wikipedia:

On Saturday, February 27, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law legislation that would temporarily extend for one year, three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that had been set to expire:[178] [179] [180]

He renewed the Patriot Act while his party still had control of both Houses of Congress. This is 100% his baby now. He didn't resist, he didn't try to sway public opinion, he didn't make dozens of speeches on the issue (like with Obamacare). Indeed, he and his party has shown with Obamacare that they don't actually care what the American people want or whether their legislation is unpopular. He has shown that he fights for what he believes in ... ergo, he never believed in suspending or resisting the Patriot Act. He never even tried.]

Post by **wayfriend** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:43 pm

Zarathustra wrote:WF, your analysis doesn't take into account that Obama got elected on a platform that endorses doing the very things which you say would be political suicide for him to actually do.

Please don't tell me what I am not taking into account. I assure you I am. (Didn't I say that the GOP position is Janus-faced, and that they try to alienate the Democratic base every time the president is pro-defense? Well, that's actually what your What-Obama-ran-on argument is, down to a T. So I think I took it into account excellently.)

If you don't think I'm taking it into account, please pick an action you think Obama should take that's different from the one he's taken. Then tell us how that plays out. Either you'll be forced to posit something divorced for all reality and claim it proves me wrong, or you will find Obama paying a price levied by Republicans. If you find a third outcome, I'd be happy to hear it and see what I left out of my account.

For example: "the President is the most powerful man in the world and the Republicans can't do anything about it" is in the "divorced from all reality" category.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:10 pm

wayfriend wrote:
Zarathustra wrote:WF, your analysis doesn't take into account that Obama got elected on a platform that endorses doing the very things which you say would be political suicide for him to actually do.
Please don't tell me what I am not taking into account.

No. I'll tell you what you've left out if I think it's relevant. There's absolutely nothing you can do to stop me, and I think it's ridiculous that you'd ask me in the first place. You might as well ask me not to make a rebuttal or criticize your points. We're debating. My point was fair, even if you think it was wrong.

wayfriend wrote:I assure you I am. (Didn't I say that the GOP position is Janus-faced, and that they try to alienate the Democratic base every time the president is pro-defense? Well, that's actually what your What-Obama-ran-on argument is, down to a T. So I think I took it into account excellently.)

No, that's not my argument down to a T. None of this acknowledges that the President's positions were popular enough to get him elected, but now you're saying those positions would be political suicide. That's my point, and it has nothing to do with a Janus-faced GOP, but rather a selective treatment of the facts within your own position.

wayfriend wrote:If you don't think I'm taking it into account, please pick an action you think Obama should take that's different from the one he's taken. Then tell us how that plays out. Either you'll be forced to posit something divorced for all reality and claim it proves me wrong, or you will find Obama paying a price levied by Republicans. If you find a third outcome, I'd be happy to hear it and see what I left out of my account.

I already picked an action: snooping on millions of Americans in a secret program. If he had refused to continue or expand that program, there would be no price levied by the Republicans, because the public wouldn't even know about it. Even if some Republican had leaked this information, I don't think there would be a political price to pay for Obama protecting millions of Americans' privacy. We certainly wouldn't have been pissed at Obama because he refrained from spying on us.

But you could pick lots of examples. For instance, killing American citizens with drones without a trial. When Rand Paul took a stand (literally) against this, he was applauded by liberals and conservatives alike. There was no political price levied. And Obama certainly wouldn't have had to pay a price if he had refrained from killing Americans without due process, especially when there has never been any evidence that the Americans killed by drones presented an imminent threat.

wayfriend wrote:For example: "the President is the most powerful man in the world and the Republicans can't do anything about it" is in the "divorced from all reality" category.

He's a lame duck President. What are they going to do to damage him politically? Not like him on Facebook? Say mean things about him to their friends? Go on talk shows and criticize him? Yawn.

Speaking of reality (instead of your imagined conspiracy theory), what about Syria? What price is being levied on Obama for backtracking on his line he drew in the sand over chemical weapons being used? Are we going to war with Syria? No. Are the Republicans exacting a price? No. Accusing me of being divorced from all reality when you're excusing the President's expansion of the WoT by blaming Republicans is the height of irony. You're not speaking of anything based in reality ... no evidence, no examples, just pure partisan-apologist speculation that not only makes little sense, but is easily disconfirmed by examples pulled from reality.

Post by **wayfriend** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:42 pm

Zarathustra wrote:
wayfriend wrote:
Zarathustra wrote:WF, your analysis doesn't take into account that Obama got elected on a platform that endorses doing the very things which you say would be political suicide for him to actually do.
Please don't tell me what I am not taking into account.
No. I'll tell you what you've left out if I think it's relevant. There's absolutely nothing you can do to stop me, and I think it's ridiculous that you'd ask me in the first place. You might as well ask me not to make a rebuttal or criticize your points. We're debating. My point was fair, even if you think it was wrong.

I am not asking you not to disagree with me. I am asking you to not state what I had thought about as if you are in a position to know what I had thought about. That's perfectly fair, and obvious, and even alarming that it needs saying, and even more alarming that it needs defending. Your rebuttal is a straw man argument - I never asked you to not post a rebuttal or to not disagree.

Zarathustra wrote:None of this acknowledges that the President's positions were popular enough to get him elected, but now you're saying those positions would be political suicide.

I acknowledged it. I am acknowleding it again. Look closely -- I ACKNOWLEDGE IT. Black and white. Now cease the waste of everyone's time.

Can a man running for president be attacked for how he performs as president? No. That's why your argument is irrelevant -- at best. I do suspect your trying to pass an orange off as an apple here, so at worst it's some sleight-of-hand.

That's not failing to acknowledge your point. That's acknowledging that it is wrong.

Zarathustra wrote:If he had refused to continue or expand that program, there would be no price levied by the Republicans, because the public wouldn't even know about it.

So your basing this on the theory that if Congress charges the president with taking action X, and the president refuses to take action X, there is no fallout? I'm calling that divorced-from-reality.

In a related point, you shouldn't accuse the president of doing what Congress did. No, not because I am asking you not to respond to my post. But because it is factually wrong.

Zarathustra wrote:I don't think there would be a political price to pay for Obama protecting millions of Americans' privacy.

Of course not. It is disingenious to pretend the Republicans would attack his administration for protecting privacy. And more so for suggesting anyone else suggested it.

They would attack him on failing to defend our country against terrorists. They would attack him for failing to do what he was charged by Congress to do. They would attack him for disobeying the law. They would attack him for worring more about terrorists privacy that citizens. Etc. Etc.

And that's if there is NOT a terrorist attack like Boston. Did you fail to notice the witch-hunters looking for a failure to hang on Obama? I sure didn't.

Divorced.

Zarathustra wrote:For instance, killing American citizens with drones without a trial.

Ditto all over. "killing Americans" is what they call it because he's doing it. "Stopping Terrorists" is what they would call it if he didn't do it.

It's called "Spin". Hence, Janus-faced: he's wrong either way, because the accusation morphs into whatever is needed. No principles are required.

Zarathustra wrote:He's a lame duck President. What are they going to do to damage him politically? Not like him on Facebook? Say mean things about him to their friends? Go on talk shows and criticize him? Yawn.

So now on top of this mountain of distorted truth, you are going to throw on the "fact" that the President isn't concerned about the next election because he won't be running himself?

I think it's fairly obvious at this point that this you're just throwing very bad arguments at this.

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:42 pm

Zarathustra wrote:I can't believe you'll blame even this on Republicans. The President's own failures to follow up on his core values is a mere publicity stunt forced on his by Reps? Come on, that's just sad. He's doing way more than merely failing to dismantle Bush-era WoT strategies. He's greatly expanding them on every front. At some point, you'll have to actually blame him for his own actions, and realize that he's not merely a puppet or victim of those dastardly Republicans. He's the most powerful man in the world, getting more powerful all the time.

This is a very fair and valid point--at some point all of Mr. Obama's supporters are going to have to hold him accountable for his actions rather than giving him a pass all the time because he is not Mr. Bush. No one has made his Administation do the things it is doing and a President's hands are not always tied by the choices of the previous Administration.
The Democrats had two years during which they could have dismantled anything they absolutely hated from the Bush years but they did not. No one made them fail to act; they chose it for themselves. Yes, everything has a cost (especially when in politics) but doing the right thing even if it means not being reelected is still the right thing to do. Mr. Snowden is the latest example of this and his courage should shame not only the Democrats but the Republicans, as well.

Over at the Democracy Now! site they have part of the interview with Mr. Snowden and this little tidbit kills the whole concept of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" forever:

EDWARD SNOWDEN: Because even if you’re not doing anything wrong, you’re being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently, by orders of magnitude, to where it’s getting to the point you don’t have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody, even by a wrong call, and then they can use the system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you’ve ever made, every friend you’ve ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis, to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer.

Once you get on their radar, even though a mistake, you are doomed.

Post by **wayfriend** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:43 pm

(Sorry for the double-post above. Communication Errors. Hashi replied before I could delete the duplicate.)

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:20 am

No worries, duplicate deleted. (I can delete these two if you want as well.)

--A

Post by **TheFallen** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:06 am

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:This is a very fair and valid point--at some point all of Mr. Obama's supporters are going to have to hold him accountable for his actions rather than giving him a pass all the time because he is not Mr. Bush. No one has made his Administation do the things it is doing and a President's hands are not always tied by the choices of the previous Administration.

The Democrats had two years during which they could have dismantled anything they absolutely hated from the Bush years but they did not. No one made them fail to act; they chose it for themselves.

Succinctly and cogently put, Hashi. I for one have frankly been amazed at some of the posts in this and other threads, where fervid Obama apologists make excuse after excuse for his decisions and actions, one minute blaming the previous Bush administration, next minute blaming the threat of providing Republican opposition with extra ammo (as if any more was needed, given this President's equally lamentable track record) and finally as a last-ditch effort trying to maintain that Obama actually has no choice in anything... his hands are apparently tied, and he's powerless to act otherwise. In all honesty, all those lines of argument are as groundless as they are irrelevant - they pathetically and entirely miss the point.

The way I see things, nobody's trying to say that Bush did a better job, or that the Republicans are any more able/less deceptive than the Democrats. The sole core issue is that Obama, despite numerous campaign pledges promising amongst other things far more transparency of government, has u-turned on so many of these. Just as a few examples and as has already been pointed out, Obama and his administration have so far:-

* Re-sanctioned and extended the odious and abusive Patriot Act.

* Pursued whistleblowers twice as vengefully as the previous administration.

* At least twice made incursions into other sovereign states in breach of international law.

* Sanctioned the execution of a US citizen without due process (and in so doing, accidentally killed at least two other US citizens).

* Deliberately and flagrantly misled the electorate regarding an attack on one of their embassies.

* At best, given their ongoing and enthusiastic blessing to one of the most intrusive snooping programs ever devised.

For the record, I am NOT making any party political point here and I am NOT indicting the Democratic Party. I'm simply making the blatantly obvious point that it provably doesn't seem to matter which party's in charge - they all seemingly pursue the same policies and and they all seemingly accelerate the rush to ride roughshod over the US Constitution. On that basis, the entire machine is fucked and the colour of the hat of the current driver is entirely irrelevant.

If that statement is as true as I believe it to be, then the best that Obama can be accused of is crushing naivity and ignorance while campaigning before his first term. However, come his vote-pandering before the 2012 election, this is clearly no longer a defence that he could viably use any more, because by then, he'd had four years' experience of Realpolitik.

And that is what smells the worst about Obama - it's the overwhelming stench of hypocrisy... the promise of change and transparency, only to be followed by the complete opposite.

I'll say it yet again. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss. And that looks entirely set to remain true for the foreseeable future, regardless of which party is elected to power. And that is my (and many others') central point.

In a final no doubt forlorn hope for total clarity, I'll restate things once more - I'm NOT attacking Obama and the current Democrat regime to make the banal point that Obama and the current Democrat regime are crap. I'm attacking Obama and the current Democrat regime to make the cogent point that they're provably no different, despite all the promises to the contrary.

Cail wrote:The horror of this is bipartisan. There was enormous support from both parties for this abortion, and there continues to be during this administration.

Bush and Obama are cut from the same cloth, and are owned by the same people.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Yes, everything has a cost (especially when in politics) but doing the right thing even if it means not being reelected is still the right thing to do. Mr. Snowden is the latest example of this and his courage should shame not only the Democrats but also the Republicans.

Politicians doing the right thing when it runs counter to their own self-serving agendas, Hashi? If only. However, and as my added emphasis above is intended to highlight, I find myself agreeing with both Cail and you that the core issue here is absolutely NOT party political - how could it be when there's nigh on no perceptible difference in practice/office/policy between the two? To pretend that there is on the basis of nothing more than blind party partisanship misses the point completely. Personally I see no value in getting stuck in a "My Dad's bigger than yours!" "No he's not!" "Yes he is!" pointless 3rd grade schoolyard-style loop ad infinitum - to do so is no more than shutting your eyes, jamming your fingers in your ears and yelling at the top of your voice. Now that's really "divorcing yourself from reality".

And now over to those who'll foam at the mouth, get uber-defensive and go off at a completely irrelevant partisan tangent in misinterpreting this post...

Post by **ussusimiel** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:30 am

TheFallen wrote:And that is what smells the worst about Obama - it's the overwhelming stench of hypocrisy... the promise of change and transparency, only to be followed by the complete opposite.

I'll say it yet again. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss. And that looks entirely set to remain true for the foreseeable future, regardless of which party is elected to power. And that is my (and many others') central point.

Just to note that if no one stood up for Obama here there would be no debate, as we'd all agree on these particular issues. (Not that I'm sticking up for Obama

) The reality is that a large section of the US electorate have supported and do support Obama (and the Democrats). While everyone in the 'Tank recognises the blatant hypocrisy of politicians in general, a few are quite clear on who they would prefer to see in power.

After Obama's re-election I was speaking with my brother who was a fervant Bush-hater (protested when he visited Ireland, went on anti-war marches before the Iraq war etc.) and I commented about Obama's broken promises (especially his drone program), and my brother's response was a vehement 'at least he's better than the other crowd!'. Now my brother is a very calm, thoughtful and considered person and I was shocked by the passion of his response (and he's living in Ireland

). My position has been formed here in the 'Tank where there is a very clear-eyed and idealistic view of American politics (we have a significant number of Libertarians here). The reality is much different.

The Democrats are still distinctly different from the Republicans on enough issues: welfare, immigration, deficit spending etc. for people to prefer them to 'the other crowd'. They will disregard a large amount of hypocrisy, u-turns etc. so long as their party is in power. That's the reality. We may wish it was otherwise, but, in the meantime IMO, it is more reflective of reality to have a discussion where Obama's actions are defended than to disappear into to the smoke of some hazy ideal where we pat each other on the backs about our admirable sagacity

u.

Post by **Cail** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:22 pm

Ussusimiel makes some good points re the tribalism in politics, but I think there's also a simpler explanation.....Buyer's remorse is somewhat embarrassing, and people don't like to admit that they were had. To believe that Obama did anything other than deliberately mislead people during the campaign(s) is to believe that he's a fragile, powerless babe in the woods.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Justice Dpt. seizes AP Phone Records, then sends Subpoena