Quick! Take something that has happened continuously for 7 years and blame it on Obama on 6/6/13!

[FSogol]

Make sure to exaggerate the charges and claim you have been personally aggrieved!

The 2014 midterms aren't going to suppress themselves!

[villager]

1. "White House Defends NSA Collection of Phone Records"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014501742

[AlbertCat]

58. "White House Defends NSA Collection of Phone Records"

Well, Repugs should be pleased as punch the WH is implementing their ideas and laws.... right?

[Laelth]

67. It makes good sense to pay attention.

We may not now live in Nazi Germany, but what harm does it do to think about it? What harm does it do to consider the possibility, trace the progression, and pay attention as the rights of Americans slowly erode? Isn't paying attention a good idea? Isn't speaking out a good idea? Is that not what the founders intended? Is that not the purpose of the 1st Amendment?

I admire the President's loyal defenders. They generally mean well. I defend the President, myself, from time to time (not like he needs my help in any way), but the anger and vitriol being spewed by his defenders over this phone record collection database seems over-the-top to me. A very sensitive nerve has been struck.

-Laelth

[JDPriestly]

118. Collecting all those numbers is so absurd as to be indefensible.

They aren't fooling anyone. Our national security apparatus had gone to an absurd extreme. The long lines and intrusive shakedown in airports is silly enough especially for someone like me, an obvious grandmother, but keeping a tally of who I call, when and who calls me back -- just beyond wasteful and dumb.

For what purpose do they collect this kind of information?

They were collecting it, I presume, prior to the terrorist acts at the Boston Marathon. What good did it do? Absolutely none. None at all.

What a big, stupid waste of money and people's time.

[MineralMan]

2. There you go. Next week, it will be some other outrage.

2014 is approaching quickly.

GOTV 2014!

[morningfog]

4. If only the Administration quit giving reasons to be outraged.

[MineralMan]

12. Ah. There you go, too.

President Obama is continuing something that has gone on for a good long time...longer than most people realize, and longer than just 7 years.

Are you surprised? Who do you think would not have done this, as the elected President? What person would you have chosen in, say 2008, who would not carry on that policy?

I'm sorry, but the outrage is misplaced if it is directed at President Obama. Badly misplaced. The reality is that anyone who could possibly have been elected would do exactly the same thing. I don't expect that to change, either. Do you?

[morningfog]

18. Not surprised. None of the history makes it right, either.

Any president who continues such data mining is in the wrong and should be challenged on it. Obama deserves the current blame as the current president.

[MineralMan]

20. OK. I guess you'll need to start looking for

a candidate who will take your position for 2016. Let me know who you find.

[morningfog]

23. Or just raise awareness and accountability for the current president.

[MineralMan]

25. OK. That's a good idea. There are many

paths for doing that. That's always a good thing to do.

[Daemonaquila]

43. If they don't they won't get my vote.

I really don't care who's running. I'm done with this crap from "our" guy. When our side pulls the same illegal crap as the other side, there's no point in continuing to support them just for the sake of supporting "our" candidate.

[MineralMan]

53. OK.

[AlbertCat]

60. When our side pulls the same illegal crap as the other side

It's not illegal.... even if it should be.

[Tarheel_Dem]

128. You keep saying things like "illegal" and "warrantless". Can you elaborate, or are you too outraged?

It would be great to get a grip on what you think the illegalities are. It would be great if you could back up your assertions.

[Webster Green]

84. In other words, we're fucked no matter what.

Sigh.

[MineralMan]

92. Not at all. If the only thing you care about is whether cell phone call

records are in the hands of the NSA, then OK. I care about a lot of issues. That one's way down on my list, really. So far, I've not seen a single presidential candidate in my lifetime who I agreed with on all issues. Not one, and I remember them all from Eisenhower through today. And yet, I've voted for a candidate in every election since I turned 21. Every election. Even local elections and special elections. Even when I was out of the country. Since 1964, I've campaigned for candidates in one way or another.

We're not fucked, unless we don't bother to vote for the best candidate who can win in any election. We may not get everything we want, and sometimes we don't get anything much, especially when a Republican wins. But, that's how we do it in this country. We go and we vote.

The only way to be fucked is not to bother or to throw a vote away on a candidate who cannot possibly gain a majority. Then we fuck ourselves, and that's always painful.

[Maedhros]

99. Civil rights are not usually "way down on the list"

for liberals.

[frylock]

103. you're not replying to a liberal..

he's a democrat. huge difference.

[Art_from_Ark]

145. And a former freeper at that

I often have my doubts about the "former" part.

[frylock]

146. izzat right?

had no idea.

[Art_from_Ark]

148. Just do a Google search of the poster's name

and the name of That Other Site, and you can see for yourself.

[MineralMan]

107. Here's the thing:

If the government knows who I call, they simply know something my phone company has recorded for decades. If they're not listening to what I say on that call, then my civil rights haven't really been violated. I don't care who knows who I call. It's useless information, and puts nothing about me at risk. I make and receive very few phone calls, and most are to family members or the local Chinese restaurant when I'm peckish.

So, that's way down on my list, really. Lots of things are way higher on my list. Lots of things.

[Maedhros]

113. I'm a security professional.

Cell phone metadata is FAR from "useless" data. It can tell authorities where you are, where you have been, who you have been communicating with, where THEY have been, etc. In my experience police have always been required to get a warrant to use cell phone metadata to track criminals.

Apparently, not to track political dissidents:

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/security_expert_all_occupiers_phones_were_logged/

The government is using this metadata to target peaceful political movements for investigation, which has very definite First and Fourth Amendment implications.

[MineralMan]

114. Good for you.

There was a court order for this data collection, you know. Kinda like a warrant, but broader. Due process. Now, whether you think the data collection is justified or useful, I don't know. It was collected legally, though, based on a law that has been on the books for many years. A signed court order exists for this particular data collection.

As a "security professional" you must know about court-ordered investigations, right?

[Maedhros]

117. Legal

does not mean "right."

[MineralMan]

121. That is true, of course.

If your phone was part of that data capture, you have standing to bring suit in federal court. So does Verizon. Perhaps that is the path to take, since otherwise it will take an act of Congress to change the law, plus a signature by the President.

One thing's certain, nobody on DU can change the law at all. All we can do is chatter about it. We do that well, though.

[JDPriestly]

125. I'm backing Elizabeth Warren. Seriously.

I talked about her with a Hillary fan the other day. My Hillary-fan friend objects to Elizabeth Warren because she doesn't have money. I am hoping we can get a grassroots movement going. I'm serious.

Elizabeth Warren may not have a lot of money, but she has issues that appeal across party lines -- the trouble with the banks and with the fraud against consumers. I think she could have a chance. Having a lot of support from voters can get a politician enough money to run a good campaign. I'm willing to work for Elizabeth Warren.

One thing I especially like about Warren is that she thinks very clearly and understands the law very well since she taught it for years.

I know we heard about how Obama was a law professor. I think that, considering his claimed experience as a law professor, he has demonstrated a great lack of respect for our Constitution and aspects of the law -- especially with collecting the phone records of masses of people without any suspicion of wrongdoing by most of them. That a professor of constitutional law would do that baffles me. I realize that the Supreme Court may permit it, but it so obviously chills freedom of association that I can't fathom the professor of constitutional law who would actually do it. I think Elizabeth Warren would have better judgment.

[treestar]

120. They are not wrong where the law allows it

The government is not wrong to do what you don't agree with. Until the law is held unconstitutional, it stays.

[enlightenment]

21. Well, you've just

clarified your position on politics. I've wondered about it, so thanks.

The reality is that anyone who could possibly have been elected would do exactly the same thing. I don't expect that to change, either. Do you?

By your lights, no president can possibly be expected to do anything differently than the president before them.

Then why on earth do we bother with elections every four years? Mass delusion? Political theatre designed to placate the masses?

Interesting, as I wouldn't have taken you for such a fatalist - you're so peppy about elections.

[MineralMan]

24. We bother with elections for many issues.

I do not campaign for candidates based on any single issue. I'm not a naive person. I deal with realities and viable choices.

I expect incremental changes only. I've not seen evidence that leads me to expect anything else. We vote in popular elections, so it is the trend that changes in elections, not any particular issue, really.

I'm not a fatalist. I'm a realist.

[enlightenment]

123. MM,

I appreciate the added nuance to your comment; I was, however, responding to the comment you made, not this more nuanced take on the situation.

When you use absolutes (anyone/exactly the same thing/etc) - which you did - it's reasonable for someone to respond to those, rather than assuming you actually meant something quite different (incremental/trends of change/etc).

[Jack Rabbit]

56. Good point. It's been going on for seven years

I voted for Obama so he would cut out this steer manure and I am still waiting for him to cut out this steer manure. As one who who was outraged when this was started by Mr. Bush, why should I not be outraged when an elected President does it, too? It's an outrageous violation of the fourth amendment. Why should I, or even you, expect it to continue?

Supporting something like fascism because the something-like-a-fascist is a Democrat instead of a Republican is a rather poor excuse.

[MineralMan]

59. I don't want it to continue. I expect it to.

There is a difference.

[Jack Rabbit]

61. Oh, really? That's the first hint you've given on this threat that you're not OK with it

I guess we should be thankful for that, although your acquiescence to the state of affairs makes you as guilty as Senator Graham.

Now excuse me. I have to get my pitchfork. The rest of us have a job to do.

[MineralMan]

62. Pitchforks and torches, eh.

I can think of other forms of communication that might be superior, but someone might be tracking those.

Despite all efforts, I suspect all this will continue.

There are many things that I oppose that will continue. I'm not, nor have I ever been, a idealist as a voter. Personally, yes. When it comes to voting, I vote for the best candidate who can win, knowing that I will not agree with some of the positions that candidate will take. I'm a realist.

I don't take up pitchforks, either. Instead, I use my writing skills to communicate with elected officials. It seems to me to be more likely to be effective.

[theaocp]

72. Lots have written

and all you're showing for it is EXPECTATION of shit. You're doing great. Keep at it.

[MineralMan]

76. Thanks, I will.

One of the things I wrote about to President Obama and many other elected officials in my own state was marriage equality. Now, marriage equality is the law in Minnesota, and President Obama is now in favor of it. It wasn't my writings alone that made that happen. It was the aggregate of people writing that made it happen.

Lots have written about lots of things. The effect is often getting what was written done. Sometimes that doesn't happen. Should we stop communicating, do you think?

When I write to elected officials, I don't EXPECT action. I'm hopeful for action. Sometimes it happens. Other times it does not. Progress comes in small increments.

[treestar]

122. If it violates the Fourth Amendment, it can be challenged in court

And if a true violation, the Courts will strike it down. That's how it has worked for 213 years or so.

[frylock]

102. Dennis fucking Kucinich, that's who

yay team!!!

[MineralMan]

112. OK. He ran. Did he win even a single primary?

Never mind, then.

You have to win elections to become President, frylock. That's the first order of business. If you can't do that, you won't be President.

[frylock]

124. that wasn't the question you asked..

you should've have asked "which corporate friendly centrist dem chosen by the establishment would not have done this?" but of course you're going to move the goalposts.

[MineralMan]

126. No, I asked about a candidate who had a chance to win the election.

You conveniently left that out to name a candidate who won nothing in any Presidential race at all. I like him very much, and wish he were still in the House. Sadly, he lost to another Democrat after redistricting. Kucinich could not possible have won election as President in 2008, or in any other year. He peaked as a House Representative.

Are you surprised? Who do you think would not have done this, as the elected President? What person would you have chosen in, say 2008, who would not carry on that policy?

I'm sorry, but the outrage is misplaced if it is directed at President Obama. Badly misplaced. The reality is that anyone who could possibly have been elected would do exactly the same thing. I don't expect that to change, either. Do you?

[frylock]

129. and i quote..

Who do you think would not have done this, as the elected President? What person would you have chosen in, say 2008, who would not carry on that policy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2957799

no qualifiers, no filler. all beef. you can put away the Acme Goalpost Mover Overer.

[FSogol]

7. There must be a schedule somewhere:

1. Benghazi
2. IRS
3. NSA
4. Fluoride
5. Acorn

[MineralMan]

14. Could be. Although there's always something.

I wouldn't venture to guess what the next thing will be, and haven't a clue what it will be a year from now. Something will come up, though. I'm certain of that.

[krispos42]

41. You forgot 6....

1. Benghazi
2. IRS
3. NSA
4. Fluoride
5. Acorn
6. GOTO 1




Oops, looks like the GOP programmer forgot to put in a way to end the loop.

Surprise surprise.

[yodermon]

136. lol awesome. BASIC flashbacks!! n/t

[krispos42]

137. I have no idea what you're talking about...

[Dragonfli]

147. An Early programming language called "BASIC"

Example of a "closed loop" program AKA uncontrolled recursion.

100 PRINT "hello, I'm stuck"
110 '
120 GOTO 110

The computer would appear "frozen' but would actually be frantically going from program line 110 to 120 to 110 in an infinite loop with no way in the program to break the cycle. You can only stop it from means outside the basic program itself.

[villager]

91. You forgot the "again." Then it would be a perfect Reagan quote!

[MineralMan]

93. Clever. I didn't forget it, though.

I would never write that, because I don't forget it.

[villager]

97. Ah, you had it mind anyway!

[MineralMan]

100. I didn't say that, now did I.

"There you go" is a common phrase. "There you go again" is a Reaganism. I don't use Reaganisms in my writing. I hope that's clarified things for you. I'll try to spell it out for you more clearly in the future, since you seem to have trouble comprehending my simple posts.

[villager]

108. Well you can take comfort in that it was very Reagan-esque reply!

(Even putting aside the implications of support for pervasive spying and data-gathering on US citizens...)

You're in noteworthy historical company!

[morningfog]

3. The length of time does not excuse it.

It does not make it right, nor does it absolve the current administration.

[spanone]

6. the investigating committees of the house are lining up......

[leftstreet]

8. Er...like no jobs, shit wages, no access to healthcare, no EFCA?

I guess you could blame Bush Clinton Bush Obama equally, but Obama IS the current CEO...

[hobbit709]

9. 1-20-09 to today is 4 1/2 of those 7 years.

so yes I'm upset that it is still going on.

[Dreamer Tatum]

82. Greater than half, for those not versed in division. nt

[OnyxCollie]

10. Defending the indefensible.

I remember when then Senator Obama promised to filibuster any bill that would give retroactive immunity to telecoms, and then turned around and voted to give retroactive immunity to telecoms.

Obama's wiretapping flip-flop? Yes
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jul/14/obamas-wiretapping-flip-flop-yes/

In October 2007, Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued this unequivocal statement to the liberal blog TPM Election Central: "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

~snip~

Obama supported an amendment that would have stripped telecom immunity from the measure. But after that amendment failed, Obama declined to filibuster the bill. In fact, he voted for it. It passed the Senate, 69-28, on July 9. The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon. (McCain missed the vote because he was campaigning in Ohio, but he has consistently supported the immunity plan.)

In a message to supporters, Obama defended his position, citing a phrase Democrats fought to include that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the "exclusive" means of wiretapping for intelligence. The bill "is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year... (because it) makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court."

[Puzzledtraveller]

28. They don't care, they are fans

just fans. That's most of what the parties are anymore. They just have opposing idols.

[pmorlan1]

86. Sadly, you are correct

They are just fans with opposing idols. There is no critical thinking which is why we have gotten to where we are today. Anyone that criticizes their idol or their tribe must be a member of the other tribe. It couldn't possibly be that they would criticize their own tribe's leader. What mindlessness.

[boilerbabe]

32. to say nobody complained about this until Obama is a LIE.nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Quick! Take something that has happened continuously for 7 years and exonerate Bush on 6/6/13!

Make sure to underplay the charges and claim you are comfortable with your new masters!

The 2014 midterms aren't going to become irrelevant all by themselves!

[FSogol]

15. Unlike Bush they have warrants for the metadata now. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. Yes, because that's just what the American citizen deserves.

[FSogol]

17. I have no problem with law enforcement getting warrants to collect info.

It is how our system works.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Our system works on "probable cause."

If a person has done nothing illegal then there is no amount of evidence of probable cause to justify granting a warrant.

[TommyCelt]

78. Wrong...

Our system is SUPPOSED to work on "probable cause". We're starting to get away from that pesky caveat.

[Bjorn Against]

26. A warrant needs to describe the places to be searched

A blanket warrant allowing the search of all Americans without probable cause clearly violates the fourth amendment.

[Daemonaquila]

48. So sorry you don't care about the constitution.

Secret evidence. Secret courts. Secret orders. Secret snooping. Laws that prevent disclosure that any of it is happening. Laws that bar any challenge of that secret system for "national security" reasons. But hey, it's ok to have your head in the sand as long as it's your team doing it right now, right?

[Fearless]

13. Continuity is no excuse for something he should have stopped

Not defended.

[disidoro01]

19. We

voted change, not more of the same. Why do people here have such a problem with those who are upset that the current administration is a continuation of the previous administration. Nobody would try an give Bush a pass that's such a false and weak argument.

[wandy]

27. Just wondering. If you were GOP co. If you had nothing positive to offer......

If the people you represent demanded that you change nothing about you're polices. If you're base demanded you change nothing about you're ideologies. How would you go about changing you're "Image" to attract the popular vote.
Sure you're rank and file will respond to Benghazi, IRS misdoings and on and on into the night.
They know the other side is evil, you just have to throw them some red meat once in a while.
But how do you convenience the un-decideds of liberal misuse of power?
Worse yet, how do you dishearten liberals so that many will believe that both parties are the same and just stay home in 2014.

No, the Democratic party is by no way pure as the driven snow.
But go ahead and ask you're self. If you were Karl Rove, how would you win in 2014.
Remember, you have nothing positive to offer.

[markiv]

29. Clinton's WTO, NAFTA, MFN-China, H-1b visas were Bush Sr's idea

but it would be quite a stretch to say Clinton had nothing to do with it

much of what we've seen since 1989. was a george bush idea

[Proud Public Servant]

30. Nice try, but it's more like this:

"Quick! Take something Obama promised to rein in five years ago, when he campaigned for president and you voted for him, but is still going on now even though he could have ended it with a stroke of a pen!"

Get it yet?

[phleshdef]

31. The only problem I EVER had with the Bush admin (on this) was the surveillance was "warrantless"...

...as long as they are getting the warrants now and reporting to other branches of government on the whole thing, then I'm ok with it.

Its not like the phone companies having been collecting/saving your phone call records for years and years anyway.

[Buzz Clik]

33. My dog peed on the floor last week. Damn you, Obama!

Oh, and f*ck you, Monsanto!

[SidDithers]

34. Yup. Another outrage widget from the usual suspects...nt

Sid

[LondonReign2]

50. And another "nothing to see here, move on" from the other usual suspects

[Dragonfli]

64. He's the one

who likes all our pretty songs
and he likes to sing along
and he likes to shoot his guns, but he
don't know what it means...he don't know what it means...

[lpbk2713]

35. Precisely.

SSDD

[life long demo]

36. I am so sick of these breaking (my word) stories of

things that have been going on since Bush was President but are being used against Pres. Obama. I'm sick of the faux indignation of the gop. I'm sick of the phony self righteousness. I'm sick of it all.

[FSogol]

55. Amen.

[freshwest]

37. Best (or worst) one yet. Stumbled on this satire of 'It's all Obama's fault' yesterday:

Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2013, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Goodness knows, that is how I looked during the Bush years. Almost every day, an unending nightmare. Since the GOP media created the Tea Party and have not stopped insulting the 'have nots' and women and minorities, the media picture is more bleak. Real life, no.

Personally, my life has changed very much for the better since Obama has been in office. Most people like myself, do have less money but we are being treated with more respect. No longer do we bear the stigma of not being wealthy or called losers, shamed by those with more.

Things are freer in all the ways that affect our lives and we welcome the changes we've seen take place. Those who may not struggle day by day to make ends meet, may have the luxury of being angry about things that don't affect them. But what we with less have dealt with, made us despair in the Bush years.

Life isn't easy, but we are no longer treated like criminals for the crime of being less well off or different. The greater diversity, being treated as equals with respect and sharing hope make us feel more valued.

[Whisp]

45. +++

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. +1

[laundry_queen]

38. I keep wondering

if everyone here has a lack of long term memory. I remember HUGE outrage here at DU when it happened under Bush. This is not something new. Bush was blamed then and it's perfectly normal for Obama to take heat for not ending it. Not overly complicated, really, and not some mass conspiracy to undermine the '14 elections.

[frylock]

119. many of obama's most ardent supporters weren't here during bush's reign of terror..

they talk out of their ass like they've been long timers.

[bhikkhu]

139. And some of his detractors seem to forget the 8 years prior as well

But I'd go farther anyway; domestic spying goes back at least to WWII, and has been continuous since then. New technologies have come along, but the basics haven't changed much as far as I can see.

I probably would have complained back in the 70's if I thought about it then...but for the most part I've gone on the assumption for decades since that anything I do or say in public may become public knowledge, and that that's fine and normal.

The internet is a public place, open to all, surveilled by many. Always has been. Telephones are generally a public utility as well, not so open, but I don't own the transmission lines or towers, or the satellites. I can't imagine assuming privacy, so I can't get to worked up over not being guaranteed privacy. I just treat it like another public place.

[msongs]

39. of course something that was started 7 years ago could be STOPPED nt

[Daemonaquila]

40. Oh, please. He's had 4.5 years to stop it and hasn't.

Apologize for this all you want, but the majority of this snooping has been on his watch. This one isn't going away, and it shouldn't. It's bad, no matter who is doing it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. "Going Away"? Who cares? Were any laws broken? Why would he stop something that's legal?

Afterall, you and the outrage junkies won't be the ones on the hotseat when the next Boston style bombing happens. If you're plotting and planning to blow people up in this country, I want the government to know about it, before that happens.

[theaocp]

79. I'll be waiting for your outrage

when this power is abused by someone you don't like.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. I'm ever so glad he cancelled it. Oh....wait.

[Android3.14]

44. Baaaaaaaaaah!

Yo, FSogol, if you buy a house that's burning, you know it's burning, you have the power to stop it and you make no attempt to put it out, who is responsible?
Sometimes at night, when I cannot sleep, I just count the sheep.

[krispos42]

46. Tides.

His massive ego, supercharged by his Kenyan birth certificate, is causing the ocean to bulge in such a manner that it causes tides.

[craigmatic]

49. It's Obama's fault hip hop sucks based on republicans' logic.

[KansDem]

51. Well, I've got this itch...(nt)

[brett_jv]

52. It is possible to simultaneously NOT like that this is being done ...

While at the same time ALSO not liking the way this is being framed in many articles about it.

The consistent 'framing' that we've been seeing is that this is a brand-new Order from the Obama Administration, something that had NEEEEEEVER been done before, almost as if it was part and parcel of same scandal as the AP/Rosen stuff. Like "ZOMG Obama is really 'ratcheting up' the spying!" ... when that's actually total BS.

The fact that this has been going on a long time DOES exonerate Obama in the sense it being contrary to the WRONG way this activity has been framed in the Media. The fact that this is by no means NEW ... MATTERS in the overarching 'storyline' that people are being fed about it. And I'm glad that it's being pointed out by people like DiFi.

I may be mad at Obama for continuing this activity, but not to the point that I want to give Issa ammunition for yet another round of his stupid investigations, and Fox News more fodder for their nutbag brigage.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. That sums it up for me

It seems like this is just another log being thrown to the keep the fires of "scandal" going while it's convenient for everybody who doesn't like President Obama- right or left- to join in the pile on. Never mind that it is technically legal (which I'm not saying it should be but it is).

[BlueCheese]

63. The policy was wrong under Bush and it's wrong under Obama.

We expected that Obama would put an end to this kind of thing. It's disappointing, to say the least, that not only has it continued, it's expanded.

I also find it disappointing that the first reaction of so many people is to make this gigantic invasion of privacy about a politician. This is a travesty that goes beyond politics.

[G_j]

65. the buck stops...

Ummm....somewhere else....

[JoeyT]

66. Quick! Take something that was a horrible violation of our privacy

when the other guy did it and claim everyone that didn't completely reverse their position when our guy does it is overreacting!

Someone should start collecting links to all this horseshit and just post a huge metadump in the next thread whining about Republican hypocrisy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Did you agree with the policy when BushCo ran it?

If so, why?

If not, why is it OK when Obama does it?

[FSogol]

98. It was wrong when BushCo did it because they were warrantless wiretaps.

See the difference?

[BlueCheese]

111. A warrant that covers everyone isn't really a warrant.

It is at best a flimsy and insulting fig leaf for massive government overreach.

This is a gutting of the Fourth Amendment, and it's not any more okay because our team is in office right now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

116. So, they issued warrants to every individual who was spied on?

How did I miss that?

[Dragonfli]

69. I only blame Obama for the 4 1/2 years he has been continuously doing it

I blame Bush for the 2 1/2 years he was doing it.

You must remember how Democrats hated Bush's blanket spying policies.
I guess it turns out many of you were insincere about it and are angry at those of us that were sincere about it and still are.

Did you defend Bush on this as well or are you just another hypocrite with a spinning moral compass?

[pam4water]

77. +1

[pmorlan1]

96. Lies and the lying liars that tell them

I vote they are just another hypocrite with a broken moral compass. They don't know how to view any piece of news without first putting it through their tribal filter. How will this help the Republicans? How will this hurt the President? They don't care about what it does to the country. It's only about political games for them and they want to win at all costs.

[LondonReign2]

109. But but but but-- he has a D after his name

IOKIYAD you know

[LondonReign2]

106. +2

[sense]

70. Since 2001

http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/world/2013/06/06/nsa-presses-on-with-bush-era-phone-monitoring?service=print

Under former president George W. Bush, the NSA, as part of a program secretly authorized by Bush in October 2001, implemented a bulk collection of US telephone, Internet and email records.

In 2006, USA Today sent many jaws dropping when it reported that the NSA had "been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth".

[AndyA]

71. Obama could have put a stop to it.

But he didn't. He's just as guilty as everyone else involved.

[pam4water]

75. +1

[TommyCelt]

73. Oh balls....

The Bush administration started it up, the Obama administration re-authorized.

Two wings, same f**king bird.

[pam4water]

74. What is the point of this thread?

[ZombieHorde]

80. I'm not as thin as I was seven years ago.

Fucking Obamas make me fat!

[MotherPetrie]

81. We know, we know. It wasn't OK when Bush did it but IT'S OK WHEN OBAMA DOES IT.

SO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.

Happy now?

[pam4water]

88. +1

[pmorlan1]

83. Wow

I knew once the talking points were issued to defend the administration that we would see posts using them here on DU. But even knowing that it would happen it's just stunning to see.

[pam4water]

87. +1

[JoePhilly]

85. I'm pretty sure Michelle Obama is listening in on my phone calls.

But only when I'm at the Olive Garden.

[randome]

90. And while you're at the Olive Garden, your pit bull is reporting to NSA!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[JoePhilly]

94. Well naturally ...

because my pit-bull changed the CIA talking points about Benghazi, removing all references to the woman breast feeding in public who started the whole thing.

[freshwest]

130. Breastfeeding and toilet training your child and eating fried chicken made with (banned word)...

Hey, at least I didn't say that word! But I'd watch it if I was you. Just sayin'



Doh, it's wireless. Anyone with the know out can hack it, don't worry about the government. Worry about the weirdo next door.

[joeybee12]

89. Apparently when it was wrong under Bush it's now ok under Obama...

[JVS]

95. The point of electing Obama in 2008 was to end such abuses

[limpyhobbler]

104. unrec. Lame excuses for garbage policies. nt

nt

[Savannahmann]

105. Sorry, you thought I liked it before.

You're wrong. And with this post, I have to wonder if you're a troll for the DNC telling us to get back in line and shut up.

[FSogol]

133. LOL. You think calling me a Democrat is an insult?

And bonus points for using the "telling us to shut up" meme.

Double

[Egalitarian Thug]

110. Quick! Pretend that no one notices that more than half of that time it was happening under

under this President's administration.

Ooo look, it's all shiny!

[woo me with science]

143. The DEMOCRATIC Police State comes with milk!

And the plus of the surveillance is that they will know in advance when you're out!

[ProSense]

115. Here:

What You Should Know About The Government’s Massive Domestic Surveillance Program

By Igor Volsky

<...>

Warrantless surveillance began shortly after the September 2001 terrorist attacks. The Bush administration began a secret surveillance program in 2001, asking AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth to turn over communications records to the National Security Agency (NSA). The agency’s goal was “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, the USA Today reported in 2006.

Program fell under court supervision in 2007. Following public uproar, administration placed the program under the surveillance of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In 2008, Congress expanded the Act to allow both foreign and domestic surveillance “as long as the intent is to gather foreign intelligence.” The measure also provided “retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that assisted the Bush administration.”

Congress extended the law through 2017. In December of 2012, Congress voted to reauthorize The FISA Amendments Act until 2017. The Act “allows federal agencies to eavesdrop on communications and review email” with a warrant from the secret FISA court. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), a critic of the program, offered an amendment during floor debate that would have required the NSA disclose an estimate of how often information on Americans was collected and require authorities to obtain a warrant if they wish to search for private information in the NSA databases. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Wyden, along with Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), wrote, “We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act.” Wyden and Udall also noted that the administration promised August 2009 to establish “a regular process for reviewing, redacting and releasing significant opinions” of the court, though “not a single redacted opinion has been released.”

What the Verizon order says. The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ordered Verizon — which has 121 million customers — to turn over metadata “on an ongoing daily basis” for a three-month period between April 25, 2013 and July 19, 2013. The order does not require the government to turn over the content of the calls, but it must share information about the numbers dialed and received, length of call, and customers’ name and address or financial information.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/06/06/2111741/what-you-should-know-about-the-governments-massive-domestic-surveillance-program/

[Tarheel_Dem]

127. Thanks for that synopsis.

[FSogol]

131. Please repost as an OP. n/t

[WinkyDink]

132. We didn't elect a Democrat to CONTINUE Bush policies.

[FSogol]

134. Take it up with Congress. It became law in 2007.

No reason for the hysterical Obama bashing/suppress-left-wing-voting-in-2014 that is occurring here.

[WinkyDink]

135. No reason for a misuse of the word "hysterical," either.

[neverforget]

138. I want to know what business it is of the government who and when I call someone?

[brett_jv]

140. Frankly I find the invasion of privacy just voted on by the Supremes to be 100x worse ...

Yet, for some reason, there's nary a peep of outrage, esp. not from the wingnut brigade ... presumably that's because 4 of the 5 Conservative Justices voted for the outrageous travesty of allowing DNA collection from everyone who's been arrested (even if they're not convicted).

That should be a 10x bigger story if you ask me, as it's a far, far egregious violation of privacy than looking at our phone records.

But hey what do I know ...

[Cha]

141. Yeah! Dive right in.. Be sure and give

Greedwad more Clicks.. hell donate to him. He obviously needs it.

bush could do wrong but of course Pres Obama doesn't do anything to suit his arrogant assholeness.


Stupid

[woo me with science]

142. I know! It's just like those priests molesting kids.

We knew all about that *years* ago, and other priests started it! So why does everyone get so upset when the new priests keep doing it *now*?????


........

[woo me with science]

144. This is the best apologia you can do?

Seriously?