Is it because he's black?

[Uzair]

SKIP AHEAD TO 26:40

I swear to God, I'm really starting to think that it's because Obama is black. I don't actually want to believe that, but it's getting really hard not to believe that. Skip ahead and watch the video. It lasts about 14 minutes. If you don't want to do that, here's a nutshell:


- NSA programs were set up after the 9/11 attacks. Bush illegally wiretapped people. Obama FIXED IT to add safeguards, checks and balances.

- If you are a U.S. Citizen, the NSA CAN NOT AND HAVE NOT listened to your phone calls or targeted your emails. It would be illegal for them to do so, unless they obtained a warrant and probable cause.

- The only data being collected involves telephone numbers, duration, and times. THERE IS NO CONTENT BEING COLLECTED OR STORED INTO THE DATABASE.

- The only way for the authorities to get the content is if there is a reasonable suspicion and, AGAIN, they have to get a Goddamn warrant from the FISA court.

- Congress is overseeing the program.

- Obama admits the potential for "abuse" of collecting meta data. Except that it would be illegal for the government to use that meta data without getting a warrant.

- Only foreign entities related to terrorism are subject to obtaining CONTENT. Got that? They may be "spying", but THEY ARE NOT SPYING ON U.S. CITIZENS.


Enough already. The facts are the facts are the facts are the facts are the facts. The facts will set you free. Enough with the stupid idiotic conspiracy theories. Enough with not trusting Obama's own fucking words. The government is not spying on you. You can post thread after thread after thread yelling and whining about it, but you're posting from a position of BULLSHIT. Every single thread in here - Every single one - talking about "government surveillance" is talking about something that is NOT HAPPENING.

You don't believe Obama? Fine. Tell me why. Tell me what it is about Obama that makes him so untrustworthy. Because I can't get over the fact that this man has had to overcome his skin color now for the umpteenth time. The man has to be PERFECT. And still he gets shat upon. It's all there, in the above video. Him saying, straight up, no mincing of words, no political doublespeak, no sidestepping, that you are not being spied on. Period. He explains it all fully and clearly. It was the White guy, the Texan, the Good Ol' Christian Boy who spied on his own citizens. The black guy? He put a stop to that.

You know what else I've noticed? The media isn't really giving this a whole hell of a lot of play. They're continuing on with the "debate" from the false premise that the government is spying on it's own citizens. And boy, are the people sure eating it up. I expect it from the Republicans, but how to explain all the Democrats falling for it? How do we explain the dozens of Democrats even repeating this nonsense on DU day in and day out? I have my hypothesis. You come up with yours.

[msongs]

1. "collected involves telephone numbers, duration, and times" is spying. and the white guy did it too

so your contention is erroneous nt

[jeff47]

7. How can it be spying on you when it's the phone company's data?

A 1979 SCOTUS ruling declared that the metadata belongs to the phone company, not the individual making the calls.

How can it be spying on the individual when it's not the individual's data?

(And if you'd prefer it to be the individual's data instead, that doesn't make it "spying" now. You have to get that change through first)

[Logical]

12. So any data any companies have on me you think the government...

Should be able to have also?

[jeff47]

27. When the data no longer belongs to you, you don't get a say in what happens to it*

*With the exception of a few kinds of data with explict data protection laws, such as medical records.

Why would AT&T have an obligation to keep your call metadata secret? What law creates that obligation?

And this is a "current-state-of-affairs" position. Not what we should be doing. We should probably have a lot more data privacy laws than we currently do.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. Or at least ...

you don't get to decide WHO gets it. And moreover, you don't get to blame government from getting it, while remaining mute about whoever else the company holding the information gives (sells) it to.

[Travis_0004]

280. We are allowed to have a say it what happens

If phone company A gives data willingly to the government, and phone company B doesn't, I'll drop service with phone company A, and let them know why.

Or if the NSA is collecting all this data by requiring phone companies to hand it over (or maybe getting the data themselves, then I thing congress should put a stop to it, and if it comes up for a vote, and my representative doesn't vote the way I want them to, then I can vote them out of office, and donate to whoever is running against them.

[Tx4obama]

38. Supreme Court has said meta-data isn't covered by the 4th amendment.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. The pen register was installed on telephone company property at the telephone company's central offices. In the Majority opinion, Justice Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen registry constitutes a violation of the "legitimate expectation of privacy" since the numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

Background
In Katz v. United States (1967), the United States Supreme Court established its "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. It overturned Olmstead v. United States and held that wiretaps were unconstitutional searches, because there was a reasonable expectation that the communication would be private. The government was then required to get a warrant to execute a wiretap.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

The Smith decision left pen registers completely outside constitutional protection. If there was to be any privacy protection, it would have to be enacted by Congress as statutory privacy law.

-snip-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

The Fourth Amendment only protects you against searches that violate your reasonable expectation of privacy. A reasonable expectation of privacy exists if 1) you actually expect privacy, and 2) your expectation is one that society as a whole would think is legitimate.

This rule comes from a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1967, Katz v. United States, holding that when a person enters a telephone booth, shuts the door, and makes a call, the government can not record what that person says on the phone without a warrant. Even though the recording device was stuck to the outside of the phone booth glass and did not physically invade Katz’s private space, the Supreme Court decided that when Katz shut the phone booth’s door, he justifiably expected that no one would hear his conversation, and that it was this expectation — rather than the inside of the phone booth itself — that was protected from government intrusion by the Fourth Amendment. This idea is generally phrased as "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."

A big question in determining whether your expectation of privacy is "reasonable" and protected by the Fourth Amendment arises when you have "knowingly exposed" something to another person or to the public at large. Although Katz did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the sound of his conversation, would he have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his appearance or actions while inside the glass phone booth? Probably not.

Thus, some Supreme Court cases have held that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information you have "knowingly exposed" to a third party — for example, bank records or records of telephone numbers you have dialed — even if you intended for that third party to keep the information secret. In other words, by engaging in transactions with your bank or communicating phone numbers to your phone company for the purpose of connecting a call, you’ve "assumed the risk" that they will share that information with the government.

-snip-

Full page here: https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy

[rhett o rick]

90. Then why did Clapper lie about collecting meta-data? He could have said that they

were collecting meta-data and that it was perfectly legal.

Meta-data was used to snare Gen Petraeus and I believe Gov Spitzer. Meta-data is very powerful.

[jeff47]

102. Because answering "yes" would reveal classified information.

His choices were to answer "yes" and go to jail for revealing classified information, or say "no" and 'clarify' his answer in a classified briefing.

Anything beyond "no", like "I can't answer that now" would be the same as "yes". That answer would also reveal a classified program - there's no reason to give it if there was no classified program.

[rhett o rick]

159. That's not what he said in the interview in the link below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023041642

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/james-clapper-nsa-surveillance_n_3424620.html

If collecting meta data is legal, then admitting such would not be classified.

[jeff47]

244. We're talking about classified or not. Not legal or not.

The program is still classified. As a result, he can't say "Yes" in public. Or anything that hints to a "yes".

If the program was illegal, he actually could say "Yes" - Illegal activities can not be classified by law. So if the program was illegal, he could say "Yes" and he'd have a built-in defense if he was charged with leaking classified information.

[rhett o rick]

250. Gen Alexander said today they are looking at stopping the collection of meta-data.

The fact that they were collecting meta-data isnt classified. Clapper himself said he misunderstood the question.

[Logical]

91. Do you not understand that because it is legal does not mean the fucking NSA needs to collect it? nt

[OrwellwasRight]

130. Let's quit confusing data with meta data.

They are not the same thing. Smith was not about collecting EVERYBODY's pen registers, cross referencing, and analyzing them and looking for patterns. It was about ONE person's phone calls--and at least that person had individualized suspicion. The Court has never held that all people can be surveilled at all times for no reason at all. Scalia and his gang probably WOULD so rule, but they have not yet.

You extrapolation is a bridge too far.

[graham4anything]

152. yup. It has already been decided and is LEGAL and the court in 1979 decided this.

but some don't want an inconvienient truth to spoil their hoping the party is fractured and BushPaulfamilyinc retakes office.

[leveymg]

222. The metadata focus is the shiny object and line of the day. The issue is email and profiling.

When you place a call, NSA runs the metadata through a data bank (PRISM - The 702 Program) that calculates a number of factors including the data taken in from other sources, including intercepted email, web search history, credit records, computer usage (The 2015 Program). The content of 2015 data -- emails, web seraches, etc. -- is collected pursuant to blanket FISA orders and stored by NSA in bulk. There are no protections even though federal case law states that individuals do have an expectation of privacy in the content of their email.

With respect to the content of an Internet communication (such as an e-mail), a computer user generally has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that content while it is in transmission over the Internet. The expectation of privacy of stored email held on a server is statutory.

The Stored Communications Act (SCA, codified at 18 U.S.C. Chapter 121 §§ 2701–2712) is a law that addresses voluntary and compelled disclosure of "stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records" held by third-party internet service providers (ISPs). It was enacted as Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA, Pub.L. 99–508, 100 Stat. 1848, enacted October 21, 1986).

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the people's right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…." However, when applied to information stored online, the Fourth Amendment's protections are potentially far weaker. In part, this is because the Fourth Amendment defines the "right to be secure" in spatial terms that do not directly apply to the "reasonable expectation of privacy" in an online context. In addition, society has not reached clear consensus over expectations of privacy in terms of more modern (and developing, future) forms of recorded and/or transmitted information.

Furthermore, users generally entrust the security of online information to a third party, an ISP. In many cases, Fourth Amendment doctrine has held that, in so doing, users relinquish any expectation of privacy. The "third party doctrine" holds "…that knowingly revealing information to a third party relinquishes Fourth Amendment protection in that information."[1] While a search warrant and probable cause are required to search one’s home, under the third party doctrine only a subpoena and prior notice (a much lower hurdle than probable cause) are needed to compel an ISP to disclose the contents of an email or of files stored on a server.[2] The SCA creates Fourth Amendment-like privacy protection for email and other digital communications stored on the internet. It limits the ability of the government to compel an ISP to turn over content information and noncontent information (such as logs and "envelope" information from email). In addition, it limits the ability of commercial ISPs to reveal content information to nongovernment entities.

[RC]

20. It is spying because the phone company gave it up under duress and because of the secrecy NSA

operates under. There is no way collecting all that information on EVERYONE regardless, and keeping it forever, is not spying on the American people. People really need to question just how this fits with the 4th Amendment.

[jeff47]

36. Then you need to get that opinion reflected in law.

Because right now, AT&T can hand your call records over to anyone at any time for any reason. Because it's their data.

People really need to question just how this fits with the 4th Amendment.

It fits because warrants are required to collect the data, and additional warrants are required to actually look at the data. That satisfies the 'due process' requirements of the 4th amendment.

[RC]

66. With all the secrecy, how do we know any warrants were issued?

And any that were, are on their say so. You are making the facts fit your opinion.

The AT&T data are business operating records. I'm sure Verizon, Sprint, etc., would like to see them too.
Just because they can, does not make it right. Just because it is legal, does not make it constitutional.

[jeff47]

104. Because the leaked documents say they were.

You are making the facts fit your opinion.

Nope. One of the warrants was leaked. That makes it rather factual. Even when it doesn't fit your worldview.

Just because it is legal, does not make it constitutional.

You should probably rethink that statement. Because you just declared "Up is down".

[RC]

290. I think I found the flaw in your thinking.

Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:08 AM - Edit history (1)

You should probably rethink that statement. Because you just declared "Up is down".

In answer to:

Just because it is legal, does not make it constitutional.

What you seem to be saying is, "If it is legal, it therefore must be Constitutional". In a rational world, you'd be correct, but with our current government, as it is, not necessarily. You really need to start reading those memos when they come out. It's the best way to keep up with the latest BS they are up to. Our government is spying on all its citizens, by collecting all this information in the first place. How is that Constitutional under the 4th Amendment?

How would you react, if the local police department started an investigation on you and the rest of the inhabitants of your city, without any probable cause, in case any of you might be planing some nefarious activities, maybe? Or have some connection to someone who was. And they could decide if there might be wrong doing?
Object to something the City Commission wanted to do? They could just drag out all the information they dug up on you. You were in the same bar that night a known criminal was? Why there has to be a connection. Here is a security picture of you standing next to him for proof of suspicion.
And all this was decided by a committee appointed by the city commission that was originally charged with finding ways to clean up crime in a poor neighborhood on the wrong side of the tracks. That is what our government is doing to us.
Also, how legal can it be when the NSA is interrupting the law as it sees fit the same way?

[hr]
Edited to add:
Check these out:
ANSWER: ....Because things like this don't happen by accident!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023043576

Secret Court Ruling Put Tech Companies in Data Bind #NSA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023046663

[okaawhatever]

48. The phone companies used to keep the records for 10 yrs. Storing it isn't new. nt

[RC]

70. The phone company storing their own records is not the point.

It is our own government obtaining those records and storing them forever that is the problem.

[Tx4obama]

94. The NSA does not keep it forever. The NSA deletes data after five years.

I have a question here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023042659

[muriel_volestrangler]

157. What proof do we have that the NSA deletes it after 5 years?

Remember, the DNI lied to Congress about collecting it in the the first place. You can't just take their word for it. Who actually audits what the NSA does with its old data, and what powers have they to inspect the NSA to check it's keeping to the law - and how often do they inspect it?

[leveymg]

214. Agreed. Maybe someone can tell us the E.O. number of the current Exec. Order that governs that?

It seems that there are some instant experts on this board on these matters, and they appear to be just batting around talking points. This unattributed claim that NSA deletes data after 5 years is one of them.

[Luminous Animal]

21. And I think that that decision should be revisited. There is too much information on an individual

that can be gathered with all the types of communication that we are using these days.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

100. Some of this discussion is about semantics.

Examples of analogous "metadata" would be the type of credit card and the issuing bank (but not account number or amount) you use for groceries or doctor's visits and the dates of those card uses.

Strictly speaking, were it not for doctor/patient confidentiality, the data in your file at your doctor's office is his. Your weight and list of medications would be metadata.

[jeff47]

120. And we created laws to explicitly protect those medical records

If someone thinks this metadata needs the same protection, then it's time to get a-legislating.

At the same time, thinking the data needs the same protection doesn't make the current program currently illegal.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

127. Illegal?? Maybe not...

...but also maybe not such a good idea. Often the worst injustices start with the best intentions.
IMHO, it's usually the best course to aim first to protect people's basic rights.

[OrwellwasRight]

141. One person's weight and list of medications is "data"

it is not "metadata."

Meta-data according to Merriam Webster means "data that provides information about other data." Meaning my phone calls only mean something to you after you have analyzed everybody else's phone calls too.

My weight is a data point. So is a list of my prescriptions. They have meanings unto themselves--they are not metadata. They only become part of "metadata" if you were to collect and analyze the prescriptions of every Californian or the weight of all women over 30 to gather information you could not and did not have before.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

160. In the strict scientific sense...

...metadata about a call from a cell phone, for example, would be the structure of the digital packets carrying the call data.

The phone number you call is a data point. It is distinct from other numbers and links to an individual, family or business. The protocol or encoding method used to transport the data, whether digital or analog is more properly metadata.

Even data (statistics) about groups is still data. However, taken as a collection without any personally identifiable information, those statistics aren't private.

[OrwellwasRight]

180. The Supreme Court never said that

meta data isn't private. Point me to a decision in which they said individualized suspicion isn't needed if you just collect enough of it.

The structure of the digital packets carrying the call has to do with the contents of the call -- not the history of all the numbers called. And supposedly that information isn't being collected.

Back to the point: one person's medical records aren't meta data.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

196. Again...

...this is semantics. The numbers I call are private. What I say is private whether I say it on the phone or on the steps at church or in my doctor's office. Who I talk to, especially if do it in private, for example on the phone or in my doctor's office, should be private.

[OrwellwasRight]

199. If the numbers you call are private

or so you think they should be, then you should be a little more concerned about your government collecting and analyzing those numbers without individualized suspicion against you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

218. I am.

[OrwellwasRight]

219. Okey Dokey

Me too.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

223. it's good...

...to have an ally.

[Tx4obama]

19. It is NOT spying. Making a backup of the meta-data that the telecoms delete is not spying...

So, if NSA didn't backup/store the data then when the telecoms delete the info after 30-90 days the data would not be available in the future.
It is not really any different than what we do when we have a phone book with tens of thousands of numbers in it sitting on the counter or in the cupboard and then looking up 'one' number when we need it.

One solution would be to force the telecoms to save their meta-data for five years - that would be a HUGE cost to the telecoms and that cost would be passed on to the customers. Maybe that should happen then all the folks could hoot and holler about their phone bills going way up

Btw, I said 'five years' above because that is how long NSA stores the meta-data before NSA deletes their old data.

[jeff47]

42. There's an even stronger argument against having the telecoms store the data

They've handed it over without a warrant in the past. If one is concerned about this data getting to the government without due process, they should not be trusting the telecoms to do so.

[HooptieWagon]

135. If they aren't recording and saving content...

then how do they produce the content to the govt when a rubber-stamp warrant is issued? What prevents any telcom employee, private contractor, or govt agent from listening to content without a warrant?

[Tx4obama]

177. There's no phone content. Once a judge issues a warrant to retrieve meta-data for an individual #

... the data that is collected from the meta-database is the WHO CALLED WHO and WHEN info.

Don't confuse that with a warrant issued by a judge to 'wiretap' a phone which is done by the FBI.

[HooptieWagon]

258. B.S.

According to former director Binney, who set the system up, they are saving content. If they were only saving metadata, they would only need a fraction of the memory space they have. The meta data can be accessed at any time by an analyst. Warrant required to obtain the content legally, but no physical constraints to prevent them from listening to content illegally.

[treestar]

266. +1

It is getting tiresome they keep calling it "spying" and insisting their telephone calls are being listened in on (as if anyone would care). It proves an agenda outside the issue.

[burnodo]

205. Nothing in the TOS I signed said "oh by the way...."

Nt

[thucythucy]

217. You may want to check that.

I've seen a number of people here post that they "never agreed to allow their information" to be shared with the government, or words to that effect. I'm assuming you mean to say that as well.

If that's the case, assuming then also that you checked "yes" to any of the standard telecom TOS's, you did in fact agree to allow your information to go to the NSA, if a warrant is produced.

For instance, Verizon's TOS says: "We collect personal information about you. We gather some information through our relationship with you, such as information about the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination and amount of your use of our telecommunications services.... By entering this Agreement, you consent to our data collection, use and sharing practices described in our Privacy Policy."

Okay, then about six mouse clicks later you come across the "Privacy Policy" page which tells you Verizon may share your account information "to comply with valid legal process including subpoenas, court orders or search warrants, and as otherwise authorized by law."

I think every telecom TOS you're likely to see includes some such statement, and the only way to get out of signing such an agreement is to not use ANY telecom service.

So yeah, there most likely was an "oh by the way" in whatever you agreed to. They just buried it in pages and pages of dense legalize and boilerplate the vast majority of people never bother to review before they click "yes."

[Luminous Animal]

2. Only if George Bush is black, too.

[Mojorabbit]

63. +100 nt

[treestar]

267. It was not a "scandal" at all during Bush years

And he did not get warrants for wiretapping. You just proved the point.

[femmocrat]

3. Thank you.

I watched most of that interview. All the tin-hatted alarmists should watch it, too. I thought he was very clear and you summarized it perfectly.

[Rex]

4. YES.

I know for a fact that is true...because of the area I live in and the fact that I've had grown adult tell me so. I never knew, I knew so many racists until Obama was elected. It is beyond depressing.

[DevonRex]

55. Yes it is. I've been brought to tears.

It's terrible to know that people you love are that way.

I always excused the older ones. They were taught that way. Well, so was I but times changed around me like they didn't around them, you know? Plus, I got to see that the older ones' hearts were actually good in a Driving Miss Daisy way, like my grandmother. Who would walk a mile with a pot of soup to take to her old black maid's house when she was sick and hadn't worked for years, when my grandmother was really old herself. And she'd do the cleaning for her before she left to walk back home, too. She'd take food over and do what she could every day. But she'd never admit it to her friends. That wasn't done, admit to being in a black home, much less cleaning up. Thing is, she went and did for her. Didn't mean she didn't still have a racist bone in her body, because she did. Just not nearly as many. For that, she earned forgiveness.

The ones my age who are worse racists than my grandmother was, despite the world changing around them? They're the ones who make me cry.

[Rex]

243. I was shocked to hear certain people

tell me in a much more vulgar way that they would 'never vote for a black man'. Grown adults that, for all my life seemed to be grounded in common sense. It put me in a very long depression.

I was fantasizing up until 2009 that we were becoming a more tolerant nation - young and old. I no longer believe that at all.

[Politicalboi]

5. I hate all this talk because we are losing time

To fix this country. If Obama were spying on us, do you think he could tell us the truth? I personally don't give a rats ass about any of this. I feel since we didn't thoroughly investigate 9/11, this is what WE get. We settled for incompetence as an excuse, now we are paying for it big time.

This is what happens when we move forward without looking back. Now even the war criminals have a say.

[redqueen]

6. K&R to the greatest

I've been thinking that all along.

[whatchamacallit]

8. Are saying DUers who don't find the president's word sufficient

are racists?

[premium]

23. That's the way it came across to me also,

if we criticize Pres. Obama on this NSA issue, then because he's AA, we're racists.

I hope OP clarifies his thread.

[whatchamacallit]

31. When it comes to programs cloaked in secrecy, I don't take any politician at his word alone

No matter what he/she looks like. Sorry.

[Skittles]

128. I'm beginning to think it is the swooners who are racist

[allin99]

183. the swooners who call others' racist most definitely.

[Puzzledtraveller]

283. The idea that race preoccupies the thinking, yes

This in turn can indicate a racist paradigm in the persons thought process. In which most people aren't even aware. It is why I object to playing a race card at all, if someone is truly racist their words, deeds and actions will reveal themselves. Plus it is the last line of deflection and implies we have lost the debate.

[cherokeeprogressive]

172. It's a tried and true method of stifling discussion.

If genital size had a place here it would have been used as well.

[treestar]

268. Possibly. Why don't you find it sufficient on this point?

Why are you SOOOO cynical about what he says? Are you this way about everyone? Then it should include Eddie and Glenn G. Why is Eddie's word sufficient? Why is Glenn's? Why weren't you this upset during Bushco, which didn't even get warrants?

[whatchamacallit]

293. Are you fucking serious?

Why am I cynical? Starting with the discrepancy between the words and positions of candidate Obama and president Obama on single payer, gitmo, TRANSPARENCY... moving on to his republican/corporate riddled cabinet... the duplicitous republican framing for entitlement reform, his crap, corporate friendly DOJ, his perverse drone wars and kill lists...

I don't auto-trust everything that comes from Greenwald or Snowden, but given the opaque and contradictory nature of the Obama Administration, I want to hear what whistleblowers have to say before I cast them as liars and crooks (something Obama Stalwarts do instantaneously).

AFA the absurd and baseless assertion that people gave Bush a free pass is concerned, much of the disappointment and cynicism I feel over Obama flows from my anger and outrage over Bush. For me, Obama's election was one of the proudest events in American history. I was ecstatic, not only because of our growth as a nation, but because things were going to change; we were going to reverse course and undo the damage done by BushCo! As it turned out, little has changed and much of the Bush agenda has been adopted and expanded.

Yeah I must be a racist...

[treestar]

311. How can you be serious that nothing has changed?

We have the ACA. There is no excuse for continuing to blame Obama about Gitmo. DADT is repealed. The war in Iraq is done. The Afghan war is drawing down. I don't see how you could possibly conclude that had McCain been President it would not have been different.

[whatchamacallit]

312. And the bullshit continues...

Who concluded anything would be different or better under McCain? Oh right, nobody. Trying to put words in someone's mouth is an indication of low you'll stoop to brand them. If you claim the only motivation for criticizing the president is race, you're either a fool or a liar.

[egduj]

9. Bush spied on Americans and trashed the constitution, and he's white.

So i don't think race has anything to do with it.

[Marrah_G]

10. Calling DUers who are against the infringement on our privacy,

just as we were aqainst it under Bush, racists, has crossed a line.

Frankly you have done nothing but stir the shit since you arrived here such a brief time ago.

[HangOnKids]

64. Thank You For Saying It!

Transparent as GLASS!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

99. It is clear that reinforcements have been called in.

"Message discipline", and all. Also noticed The BOGs numbers are swelling. Obvious as Durante's nose what's going on here. As obvious as some of the newbies with a hate-on for O -- just as transparent and obnoxious.

[Ms. Toad]

147. +1

[Uzair]

198. Did you watch the video? Did you read the OP?

Do you not believe Obama when he tells you straight up that they're NOT infringing on your privacy? If not, why not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

264. Because the entire American government has been covering this up for years

Are you saying that Obama can be trusted absolutely, even though he's been covering this up, along with everyone else, until it was revealed, simply because he's Obama?

[Skip Intro]

207. +1000! n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

303. +1!

[sibelian]

307. +1

[Cha]

11. Thank you, Uzair.. for posting the Charlie Rose Interview and

highlighting THE FACTS.

'Course it will be met with the usual closed minds and eyes squeezed shut by those who are speading the lies about NSA and the President.

[Logical]

17. Awe, the picture added so much! n-t

[KamaAina]

13. "they have to get a Goddamn warrant from the FISA court".

Number of times they have been denied by the FISA court:

Zero.

Nil, zilch, bupkis.

[okaawhatever]

61. That's not true. From EPIC: Electronic Privacy Info Center:

Numbers: Number of applications presented, Number approved, Number denied

2002
1228 1228 0

2003
1727 1724 4

2004
1758 1754 0

2005
2074 2072 0

2006
2181 2176 1

200713
2371 2370 4

2008
2082 2083 1

2009
1329 1320 1

2010
1579 1579 0

2011
1745 1745 0

2012
1856 1855 0

Not all are approved in the same year applied, also some have been sent back for additional info and were approved. The one in 2012 was withdrawn to add additional data per the judges request and hadn't been resubmitted by end of year.

[KamaAina]

68. I guess I was referring to the figures from the past year.

The past three years, in fact.

11 out of about 20,000 is not exactly confidence-inspiring, though.

Also note the steep dropoff from 2008 to 2009. That should give pause to those who have been yelling "OBAMA MONKEY BALLS BUSH WHARGARBLE!!1!11!1", though it has edged up past 2004 levels.

[okaawhatever]

109. Here is the link. It also shows how many "business records" were requested. Here's an

example of the footnotes for one year.

Eight FISA applications were withdrawn by the government prior to a decision. One FISA application was denied in whole, one FISA application was denied in part. Modifications were made to 14 FISA applications prior to approval

It made me feel better that a lot of back and forth seems to go one. In some years it looks like the nsa/fbi/cia modifies close to one hundred applications. So it doesn't appear that the fisa court "rubber stamps" like you read so often. If you have time, look at the notes for the audit from the Bush years. It appears their records as reported to Congress weren't ahem, accurate.



http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

[OrwellwasRight]

158. Business records requests DO NOT NEED WARRANTS

per the PATRIOT Act, and they never have to tell you they look at your stuff. Denying 1 of every 2,000 FISA warrant requests is not "a lot of back and forth." Your trust in the system is unwarranted.

[Ms. Toad]

154. Ok, so technically it wasn't bupkis

But fewer than 1%

no - wait -

fewer than 1/10 of 1%

approximately 6/100 of 1% were denied In other words around 1 out of every 1800 or so.

Close enough to bupkis to be meaningless.

[jeff47]

111. How many are denied by regular courts?

That 0 denied doesn't really mean anything without context.

First, the requirements for a warrant are well-documented. We should be pissed if our prosecutors can't follow them.

Second, we have nothing to compare that "zero" to. Do other courts also issue virtually every search warrant requested?

I know in movies and TV search warrants are routinely denied to advance the plot. But that doesn't mean the same thing happens in reality. Do you have any statistics on the rest of reality?

[KamaAina]

241. If other courts do issue search warrants like cash register receipts,

that hardly improves things.

[jeff47]

242. Again, that only applies if you think they're like TV.

And TV has prosecutors doing all sorts of terrible crap surrounding search warrants.

The rules to get one are quite well documented by now. As a result, I'd be surprised if more than a trivial number are denied, simply because the prosecutors should know when they can get one, and when they can't. Not because they're rubber-stamped.

[treestar]

275. Yes, a prosecutor knows the requirements

And does not waste time on cases without enough evidence.

[treestar]

269. They still had to get the warrant

Maybe they had the evidence each time. Just because they don't casually ask for warrants on these cases. Maybe they think it important enough only to ask in good cases. Do they have to deny some just for form's sake, even if the evidence is there? This is just really taking cynicism to a really high level. If you're not going to believe in the FISA court's bona fides now, why would you believe it if Feingold or Warren were president?

[FSogol]

14. K&R. It is because he's black AND because Rand Paul wants to be President. n/t

[jeff47]

15. I blame the media

And by that, I don't mean the morons in Washington doing a terrible job covering the story.

I blame the rest of the media - TV, movies, books, and so on.

Secretive organizations not abusing their position does not make for exciting TV, movies nor books.

So over and over again, the secretive organizations are depicted as being chock-full of people abusing the hell out of their power. As a result, the public at large expects these secretive organizations to actually be chock-full of such assholes, and quickly grab on to any story that backs that up.

(Does that mean these organizations never do or never have abused their power? Fuck no. We know abuses have happened. But it's nowhere near as wide-spread as the entertainment media would have you believe)

Couple this entertainment-created bias with the quote "A lie can circle the world before the truth has its shoes on", and you get scandals like this.

[KharmaTrain]

107. Perspective...Lost In The Shuffle...

...or agendas. Privacy ends at your door...it always has. Once you walk outside you're in the public domain and your deeds and actions can be tracked. Write a check, go past a public camera...we're leaving electronic footprints everywhere. Also let's not forget the census records, income taxes and other government forms (unemployment, medicare/medicaid) that the government has...plenty to mine from without having to sit and listen to what you need to pick up from the store or your latest email "joke of the day". When you go online or pick up a phone...it's an electronic "walk" outside your door and thus a lot of 4th Ammendment interpretation just doesn't stand muster (such as meta data).

I firmly believe there's a big issue with the corporate intrusion into our privacy. They are actively datamining on millions of Americans and their actions can mean the difference between getting a loan or not or a job.

Cheers...

[RobinA]

204. You Might Want

to blame history, as well. Any reader of history might get the idea that secret organizations with a lot of power usually don't end well.

[jeff47]

245. There's plenty of them that did "end well" or continue to operate well.

They just don't make compelling stories, so we don't talk about them.

[cali]

16. no and it's scurrilous to suggest the people like Bernie Sanders and Pat Leahy are bigot.

The ACLU? Yeah, racist pigs.

What you are doing actually is playing the race card and it is vile and disgusting.

Beneath fucking contempt.

[premium]

26. Expected nothing less of this OP. nt.

[BlueCheese]

32. Right.

The NYT editorial page, Ron Wyden, Mark Udall, Al Gore, among others. Are they all racists too?

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. 95% of the planet isn't American

and they probably object pretty strenuously to being spied on. The whole "it wasn't spying on Americans so it's okay" argument is getting really old.

[progressoid]

22. If you are a U.S. Citizen, the NSA CAN NOT AND HAVE NOT listened to your phone calls or targeted you

[premium]

34. It's hard to take anything the NSA says seriously

when their spokesperson is

[BlueCheese]

24. Bob Somerby put it best: Calling other people racists is our side's favorite sport.

It used to be we reserved it for Republicans. Now it turns out we also throw it at liberals who think the government shouldn't be scooping up all the data about every single phone call made in the United States.

[randome]

40. But there is no evidence the government is doing that.

I agree with you that throwing the 'racist' card out there is too easy but after a while, you start to wonder what's really going on in people's minds?

There is no evidence that the government is spying on everyone. Why would anyone take Snowden's word for this?

Obama has expanded and enhanced whistleblower protections.

He created a National Declassification Center that's due to issue its report in Dec. of this year.

He is blamed for prosecuting more leakers than previous administrations but that's because there are more leakers!

So I don't understand why it is so easy for some to think of him as some tyrant out to enslave us all.

I really don't get it.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[BlueCheese]

44. I thought there was no doubt the NSA is collecting records of all phone calls in the U.S.

I mean the records, not necessarily the contents.

I personally don't think Obama will abuse the information and power he has. I don't think most (liberal) opponents of the programs do. What really worries me is that the potential for abuse is there, for future presidents and other government officials. The idea of a government that knows so much about the daily habits of its citizens is really frightening to me.

[randome]

52. They're storing the metadata but it can't be viewed without a 2nd warrant.

I get what you mean about the next President but it's only metadata, encrypted phone numbers and date/timestamps. There really isn't a lot one can do with that except verify that so-and-so made a trans-Atlantic call to Al Quaeda Central or something like that.

The metadata says nothing about daily habits but if they get a warrant that allows them to get more information from the Internet providers, that would likely show a lot more detail.

I just don't see the metadata as a big deal. And for those who don't like it, I get that, but it's just not as intrusive as some have wanted to portray it.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[BlueCheese]

103. I don't think they need another warrant to look at the metadata.

See

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/06/surveillance_lockbox_why_can_the_nsa_search_your_phone_records_without_a.html

[jeff47]

116. You (and the author of that report) have an odd idea of confirmation.

Time after time, they get the answer "a warrant is required". When they ambush a senator in the hall, she doesn't say the same thing. So that ambush must be the truth!!! Even when the same senator has said a warrant is required.

Confirmation bias much?

[BlueCheese]

150. Please show me a citation that a warrant is required to look at metadata.

Feinstein said the opposite.

[jeff47]

246. Read the first 2/3rds of your own damn link.

You will find people saying it's required over and over again. Including Feinstein.

[BlueCheese]

253. Nothing in there says they require a warrant.

Everything is phrased in a way that makes it sound impressive, but doesn't say they need a warrant. To take one example, from James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence:

“By order of the FISC, the Government is prohibited from indiscriminately sifting through the telephony metadata acquired under the program. The court only allows the data to be queried when there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization.”

What this means is that the NSA and the FISA court have agreed that after the NSA has collected all the data, once the NSA has a "reasonable suspicion" that they're looking at a foreign terrorist organization, they can go ahead and query the data. It does not say that the FISA court has to agree the NSA has a "reasonable suspicion". The NSA determines that by itself.

To take another example, from Mike Rogers, chair of the House Intelligence Committee:

“The court said, 'Put all of that information in a box, and hold that information. And when you want to access that information, you have to use this very specific court-ordered approval process.' ”

Again, notice it is a court-ordered approval process. It's the approval process that is court-ordered, not the approval of a query itself. The approval process is the same thing as above-- the NSA decides on its own that it has a reasonable suspicion, and then goes ahead on its own.

From NSA Director Keith Alexander:

“What we create is a set of data, and we put it out here, and then only under specific times can we query that data. … So the methodology would be, ‘Let's put into a secure environment call detail records. … We won't search that unless we have some reasonable, articulable suspicion about terrorist-related organizations.’ If we see that, we have to prove that we have that. Then, given that, we can now look and say, ‘Who was this guy talking to in the United States and why?’”

Alexander doesn't even mention the FISA court. The NSA decides it has a "reasonable, articulable suspicion", and then acts on it. No court warrant is required.

Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee:

“can only look at that data after showing that there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a specific individual is involved in terrorism.”

Same thing as Alexander. No mention of the FISA court. The NSA determines whether there is a reasonable suspicion on its own.

The NSA does not need a warrant. What they have is an agreement with the FISA court that they (the NSA) will not go sifting through the data unless they (the NSA) decide themselves they have a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" about someone.

[Ms. Toad]

162. Not correct.

NSA Director Keith Alexander:

“What we create is a set of data, and we put it out here, and then only under specific times can we query that data. … So the methodology would be, ‘Let's put into a secure environment call detail records. … We won't search that unless we have some reasonable, articulable suspicion about terrorist-related organizations.’ If we see that, we have to prove that we have that. Then, given that, we can now look and say, ‘Who was this guy talking to in the United States and why?’”

Reasonable articulable suspiction - not a warrant
about terrorist-related organizations - not about specific people - the metadata crunching spits out people before there is any specific warrant related to those people.

Innocent people get caught in that trap all too often, and when they do - under the Patriot Act - they are often held under false names, without being told of the charges against them, and prohibited from communicating with family members, or legal counsel.

[randome]

288. The way I understand it is like this.

Yes, the NSA can query the data without a warrant for foreign-based numbers. Once they have that information, and likely American-based numbers that were part of the conversation, they hand the local numbers over to the FBI.

They cannot query the data for local numbers without a warrant.

So yes, if that's accurate, it's a loophole but I don't see that it's that big a deal, either.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Ms. Toad]

294. Tell Brandon Mayfield how insignificant that loophole is.

Kansas born attorney (I don't normally link to wikipedia, but it is well sourced, and I don't have the time at the moment to go to source documents.). Minding his own business. It wasn't his phone number that was spit out erroneously, but his fingerprint. But it was a query of a federal database which could identify him by its contents (in this case fingerprint, rather than phone number), and he wound up incarcerated for 19 days under a fake name. The US refused to tell him why he was arrested. Refused to let him contact his family or an attorney. It was only when Spain said, "'scuse me. We really don't thinks the Madrid bomber is someone who has been in Spain recently - and, oh, by the way the fingerprint isn't a match," that he was released.

The FBI swore it was a 100% match. It wasn't. They combined that partial match with his marriage to an Egyptian woman, and subsequent conversion to Islam and decided he was the Madrid bomber. Had his fingerprint not been in that database (and had it not been for the Patriot Act), he would not have been treated as a terrorist, and not have been at risk for being charged with a capital crime.

Dots just waiting to be connected, hanging out in databases are not innocent collections of data, especially when the order is issued - and any orders for the next steps will be issued - by a secret court with no opportunity for review, either for its decisions or for the law under which it operates.

The court orders the phone companies to turn over the data for two kinds of calls - wholly within the US and between the US and another country. You will notice that NONE of the data turned over is exclusively outside of the US. ALL of it must have at least one foot in the US. (So your entire premise that this only incidentally - and as the result of foreign information which traces back to the US - catches US information is flat out wrong). There are NO restrictions as to what the FBI does with that data once it receives it. (If they want MORE information, they must establish probable cause and get a specific warrant for, for example, the content of the calls - at least if they are following the law. But this information is free for the crunching - just as the was the fingerprint database which spit out Brandon Mayfield.)

[randome]

306. Well, the erroneous fingerprint match came from the FBI, not the NSA.

Not important if you want to illustrate that accidents happen. But...accidents happen. How could it ever be foolproof?

Even if you want to assign nefarious motives to the FBI, what's the solution? Throw them away?

I have no idea what restrictions the FBI has. Maybe that should be looked at. No problems here. It still doesn't make anything Snowden said right. He is wrong on so many things.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Ms. Toad]

313. The FBI is the entity which obtained the warrrant.

For all the telephone metadata. Did you bother to follow the link and look at it?

It is not an accident that:
Mayfield was held under a false name
Mayfield was prohibited from communicating with his family
Mayfield was prohibited from communicating with his attorney
Mayfield was targeted because his wife was Egyptian
Mayfield was targeted because he converted to Islam

BUT - Mayfield ONLY came to the attention of the authorities because of the same kind of algorithm based data crunching that is being done with our metadata. So it is not true that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Mayfield had nothing to hide, and his innocence and his belief that he had nothing to hide did not protect him the consequences of algorithms gone bad.

And there is nothing to protect any of us if the algorithms go bad, and point the finger in our direction, and we happen to be associated with a person or organization currently out of favor with the adminstration

Data collection and crunching of that data should be based on, at a minimum, an articulable suspicion about a specific person - it should not be used (as it is now) to create that suspicion in the first place.

[Cha]

50. It's the Facts that don't matter to anyone who is

hell bent on bringing down this President.. for whatever agenda.

I don't think about it in terms of Black and White.. but, then I'm not Black so I have no perspective on that.

[Union Scribe]

232. I like how you capitalize facts.

It totally makes your opinions sound more official.

[treestar]

274. Especially by people who claim to have voted for him

And he is black, so we could question that - racists never want to discuss it, of course. They're the first ones to complain about the issue being brought up.

[Android3.14]

25. Nope.

I tend to ignore folks who call Al Gore, Alan Grayson, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert bigots.
You have the mental agility of a dryer hose.

[Life Long Dem]

79. I'd want to be on the other side of Rush, Beck, Hannity, and the Teabaggers myself

Tea Party on NSA Snooping: We Told You Not to Trust Big Government!

But almost as outrageous to many Tea Partiers as the NSA snooping itself has been the lack of outrage by Republican leaders.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/13/tea-party-on-nsa-snooping-we-told-you-not-to-trust-big-government.html

[frylock]

187. Rush, Beck, Hannity, and the Teabaggers probably support oxygen to breathe as well..

you willing to put yourself on the other side them yourself in that regard?

[stevenleser]

248. So do the folks you disagree with. You want to be opposite on Oxygen to breathe too? nt

[rightsideout]

28. Yep, it's because he's black . . . and a Democrat

Let's start from the beginning. The SS has seen more logged-in threats against him than any other President. The Tea Party BS formed after Obama was in office. Where were they during the Bush Administration when he had two wars and tax cuts for the rich on the country's credit card? And listen to the vitriol coming from the right. It's filled with hate and anger.

The Birther/Kenyan stuff is an extension of this hate and anger.

Anyone who doesn't believe race plays a part is in total denial. Look at Yahoo comments when it comes to Obama. Also Facebook. They are filled with racist comments.

I didn't hear these right wingers complain when Bush enacted the Patriot Act. If you were against it you hated America. Now that Obama has carried it on the name calling against him begins.

[TheKentuckian]

95. You like to forget that many of us that aren't Reich Wingers NEVER, EVER supported this shit.

Not only didn't support but vehemently opposed and wanted Bush fucking impeached but Pelosi dishonorably took that "off the table" and the Obama gets elected and doubled down with the witless, irresponsible, and plausibly complicit "look forward" whitewash.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. Tripe. Digest this like an adult. I do not trust Obama's words because of the many

times he used his words to libel my family, to oppose our rights, to praise hate preachers and Republicans, to claim that not only does he oppose equality but so does God himself. Obama is a man who casually claims his kind are superior to minority groups he does not like, and says God agrees with him about 'those people'.
I don't trust those who espouse bigotry, and that is what Obama did for years. I will never trust him. Why would I?

[wandy]

30. I don't think our Teapublican friends have figured out what to do with all this.....

Spy vs. Spy scandal stuff yet.
They still seem all caught up in preserving the purity of the "American race"

Top Republican Unloads on Rubio: He Has Given Up Any Right to Be Trusted by the American People...

http://redflagnews.com/headlines/top-republican-unloads-on-rubio-he-has-given-up-any-right-to-be-trusted-by-the-american-people

Well, that and their favorite battle cry....... Benghazi

How much spin could a Rovechuck spin if a Rovechuck could spin spin.

[Buzz Clik]

46. You're kidding. They are feeding us this shit with a spoon, and we are eating it up.

[wandy]

60. I'm going to allow that "our" confusion is a natural result......

Snowden did what he did and had a predictable response.
That IS damage enough!
If you look at how they played the other 'scandals', I don't think they fully know how to use this.

Somehow, they have to figure out how to use this against Obama, without pissing off Booz Allen Hamilton, the Carlyle Group or the M.I.C in general.

The NRA is small fry. The M.I.C are major republican owners/stockholders.

In short, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[Buzz Clik]

82. They don't need to do anything while the vast majority on the left continues to blame Obama.

The just let it fester. If the debate changes course or begins to simmer down, then we'll see what Plan B entails.

[DevonRex]

110. My Tea Party relatives think NSA will target them "like the IRS has." Problem is

the IRS never did. As has been proven by the transcripts. They don't believe that because the transcripts were released by a black congressman and the chairman, Issa, is holding the rest up, and is a white guy of course.

[KG]

33. hilarious.

[Fire Walk With Me]

35. "you are not being spied on. Period."

Dissent or Terror: New Report Details How Counter Terrorism Apparatus Was Used to Monitor Occupy Movement Nationwide
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12527647

DHS spying on Peaceful Demonstrations and Activists 'daily' as a routine matter of policy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022930865

How FBI Monitored Occupy Movement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101651867

And the government's actions against the Occupy movement, in a period well over a year long, amounts to the "patriot act" and FBI's definition of "domestic terrorism":

www.thefreedictionary.com/domestic+terrorism‎
Noun, 1. domestic terrorism - terrorism practiced in your own country against your own people


Definitions of domestic terrorism

The statutory definition of domestic terrorism in the United States has changed many times over the years; also, it can be argued that acts of domestic terrorism have been occurring since long before any legal definition was set forth.

According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: &quot A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States#Definitions_of_domestic_terrorism

Here is video of Obama saying, regarding the Egyptian people, "attacks on peaceful protesters are unacceptable".

Yet when peaceful protest occurred in America:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002710303

Has Obama said a single word about what happened there, much less the brutalization and arrest of 7400 peaceful protesters against wall street's near destruction of the economy and the continued to this day massive bailouts via our taxpayer dollars?

Obama is at best a complete hypocrite; at worst, he is a practiced liar. You ARE aware of section 1021 of the NDAA, which he has twice signed, allowing for the indefinite detention of US citizens with neither trial nor representation? And that we've lost the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments under Obama's watch? Even if Bush enabled this, Obama is significantly strengthening it. Which is unacceptable.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. oh boy

hope I'm not too late

[bowens43]

39. Amazing that all these low count posters are in here defending the despicable actions

sanctioned by this administration.

Who is paying you to do this?


YES they ARE spying on Americans, on every fucking one of us........stick your head back in the sand if that gives you ciomfort.....

[Uzair]

200. They are? How so?

Did you even watch the video? Why don't you believe Obama when he says they're totally not spying on you at all?

[RILib]

41. In the interests of transparency -

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:04 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Is it because he's black?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023042330

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calling DUers who are against the infringement on our privacy, just as we were against it under Bush, racists, has crossed a line. Frankly, this poster has been stirring the crap from the moment he arrived.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:17 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No, it's not because he's black.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I've seen much worse than this in GD.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The poster is totally wrong. The NSA and its ilk are doing all the things he says they are not. However, he's entitled to his paranoia about race, both for free speech reasons and because there is a lot of racism in the world, so some people are probably takign advantage of this. But make no mistake: 1984 is here.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[okaawhatever]

43. People haven't taken into consideration that there are alot of people and outside groups

with vested interests in having us not trust our government. If other gov'ts, business interests, and those within our own country trying to advance a little-to-no government agenda can get us to distrust our government we will be weak and will lose our place in the world. I'm a believer that Snowden is a Chinese agent. It hasn't been lost on me that the timing of this took a lot of power from Obama's plan to confront China over their hacking during this visit. It was a HUGE deal. Obama was the first to name China as an aggressor and supporter of hacking against American military secrets, our power grids, our nuclear program, medical patents and trade secrets, and business patents. The estimated costs to businesses in the US are over 50 Billion a year. One article I saw said that hacking in health care computers adds 7 Billion to our health care costs each year. That doesn't even include the losses in research and medical device patents. China has used hacking to leap frog over other countries in advancement. Their new military aircraft is almost exactly like ours. Heck, it is ours. Ditto their new prototype of our F-35.
We finally had them, Obama's going to throw down the gauntlet and say we need to address this, and boom Snowden. I think if there is a China/Snowden connection, and I believe there is, it would be to first deflect attention away from their misdeeds, and to force the gov't to stop the program collecting all this info.
The reason that people are giving Obama such a hard time is because the gotp has been trying to discredit him since day one. They have made everyone question everything. It doesn't matter that there is no "there, there" the people were ripe for distrust. As to the black part, I believe that the gop want to make sure that any black and probably woman candidate is viewed negatively.
They want everyone to remember the "Black President" with negative emotion. Think about it, if you thought there were going to be a black President, but you also knew that no matter what they would fight everything he did and that no legislation would be passed, harming you and everyone else would you vote for him? If they send the message that any black or minority will not be tolerated and will be met with government stopping resistance, won't you think twice about the next one? It's the same thing they id with Clinton and Gov Seigelman. The message was that the South was the stronghold of the gop and any democrat in higher office wouldn't be tolerated. It may sound a little "tin-foil hat", but look at the history of Gov Siegelman and the unprecedented legal attacks on President Clinton and it isn't that crazy.

[OrwellwasRight]

171. Does nobody on the Board

remember J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthy, HUAC, the Red Scare, the illegal bombings in El Salvador & Nicaragua, the CIA's secret arming of Jonas Savimbi, the 1960s for fuck's sake, or any/every other fucking time our intelligence apparatus got out of control and we diminished the rights and freedoms of our own citizens or those of a foreign country where the citizens dared to consider communism?

The 1st and 4th Amendments are supposed to mean something: free speech without spying. They don't if we just allow to government to spy on everyone all the time in the name of trust. A good liberal trusts Medicare and Social Security. We don't and never should trust the military-intelligence-industrial complex.

Quit conflating the government we want more of (services) with the government we want less of (spies). They are not the same.

[RobinA]

210. Don't Forget

that quagmire of lies- Vietnam.

[Monkie]

45. are you saying i am a racist? provide proof or retract the claim!

you are smearing a lot of people with a very broad brush, provide any evidence of racism here or please retract this claim.
this goes beyond reasonable argument unless you have any evidence to back this up.

[CakeGrrl]

47. I definitely believe it is - for some.

And no, you won't get people to admit it. Only those who border on caricature like to just let it all hang out.

To paraphrase Myrlie Evers-Williams, it's no longer wearing a white hood, but a Brooks Brothers suit.

It's the subtle things, not the overt mailing of racist jokes and e-mails.

It's in the casual disrespect and condescension.

The assumption that he's naive, needs to be 'taught', or lacks awareness of the political game.

Casually calling him "Barry" to denigrate him and reduce his stature.

The demands that he do this or do that, or else, like he's a personal whipping boy.

The implicit attitude that he was done a favor by receiving a vote, and he'd better pay off for that risk. The other offshoot from this is referring to his election as a "social experiment".

Screaming and hollering about the perks that come with the office of POTUS while President Obama occupies it, but not saying a word about any other POTUS before.

Taking some people's pretty words at face value, so to speak, but the President is lying.

Since his run for the presidency, there have been all sorts of slights from all corners, and they will be labeled anything but THAT, but as I said, one can simply draw their own conclusions.

[allin99]

89. Barry to obama, Bubba to bill, what's the difference? you're the one reducing obama to his color...

it is much more likely that you are the racist than anyone else here. You don't even give him credit for his own policy, to you it must be color. Is that all you see when you see him? probably.

[Puzzledtraveller]

284. ^^this^^

[Bobbie Jo]

184. +1000

Holy crap, you nailed it.

[treestar]

273. The demands he do this and that and that he'd better pay for the vote

Nailed it with that! What other President got that attitude?

Taking Eddie's words as gospel but the POTUS is lying. Yep.

Claiming after all it's not about Eddie or Obama when Eddie was such a hero and Obama such a disappointment (one of the complaints of Eddie himself! )

[redqueen]

49. YES! And I wish this site had been around when Clinton was in office, then we'd have a comparison.

But seeing the way he is lauded by most... and Gore too (despite the way he riled progressives on issues like guns, media, NAFTA and even the environment!)... its hard to think this sudden outpouring of scorn, derision, and even outright hate could be explained any other way.

[CakeGrrl]

56. I've said the same.

Would have made for an interesting comparison.

On a tangent, I definitely think it played a part during the 2008 primaries, when he won the nomination and people who were happy to support Hillary couldn't bring themselves to support the nominee...after much debate about whether they were simply two sides of the same ideological coin.

Or those "lifelong" Democrats who suddenly decided not to vote Dem in 2008 for the first time ever.


This is getting away from the specific example at hand, but there's a history of issues where I think the race aspect is a factor where logical comparisons fail.

[redqueen]

59. I edited my post so you might want to as well...

I don't want to give anyone the impression that you agree with my answer.

I'm kinda disgusted with how different the treatment is. I have seen some serious criticism of Clinton, but not anywhere near what I see leveled at Obama.

[CakeGrrl]

67. I'm good. I still agree.

And it's interesting how nasty some of the responses are to the OP for even daring to ask the question.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

146. Nowhere near the disrespect, derision, and downright hatred. I've never seen anything like it.

Even Bill Clinton made the observation himself during the convention.

Never before has a president, his wife and children been mocked, ridiculed and disrespected to this degree.

Never before has a president not had at least a few supporters from the other side. Even Bill Clinton had some moderate Republicans who were willing to work with him. FDR, JFK both enjoyed support from liberal and moderate Republicans (which is why it is ridiculous to compare these presidents to Obama).

No president has ever had to deal with this many filibusters, from Day 1.

No president has ever had his very essence questioned, his citizenship under speculation, and demands to see his birth certificate.

No president has ever had to witness hatred to this degree FROM BOTH SIDES of the ideological spectrum.

No president has ever had to live up to all these impossible standards or has had to work this hard. (It's called "The Black Tax".)

Race has always been an issue when it comes to this president. There are many people who refuse to acknowledge this because they think they're not racist in their hearts. And if they're not racist, then it's not rationale to think that others could be as well.

Not all of the reactions against this president can be reduced to race, but I'd say that race explains a very large portion of it.

[redqueen]

281. It's expected from the other side these days. But this foaming-at-the-mouth invective from dems...

directed at Obama (and Dems who don't jump on the insult-slinging bandwagon, because simply disagreeing with him on some things apparently just isn't enough) is incredible.

It seems to me that Clinton - who was no better and arguably worse (imo much worse) - has never been subjected to this kind of shit.

There was a video I posted recently from a hidden camera show where they had a black man and a white man appear to he stealing a bike. People were MUCH more comfortable not just confronting but being aggressive with the black man. I can't help but be reminded of it.

[Beacool]

298. You're joking, right?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. Whoop, there it is!

[limpyhobbler]

51. No it's because his polices suck on this issue. Also your post full of untruths.

- NSA programs were set up after the 9/11 attacks. Bush illegally wiretapped people. Obama FIXED IT to add safeguards, checks and balances.

No he didn't "FIX" it. He gave it a legal face by getting FISA warrants to collect the private communications of virtually all Americans. Are all Americans suspected terrorists? No. So why is Obama collecting our all our data and using it to build a gigantic secret library of every communication.

- If you are a U.S. Citizen, the NSA CAN NOT AND HAVE NOT listened to your phone calls or targeted your emails.

This is completely untrue. They would only need to get a warrant. You said so yourself in your next sentence.

It would be illegal for them to do so, unless they obtained a warrant and probable cause.

So they just went and got warrants for everybody's communications records. That's no better. Also the FBI has said clearly that they have the authority to read anybody's email without a warrant.

New documents from the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ offices paint a troubling picture of the government’s email surveillance practices. Not only does the FBI claim it can read emails and other electronic communications without a warrant—even after a federal appeals court ruled that doing so violates the Fourth Amendment—but the documents strongly suggest that different U.S. Attorneys’ offices around the country are applying conflicting standards to access communications content (you can see the documents here).

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/fbi-documents-suggest-feds-read-emails-without-warrant

- The only data being collected involves telephone numbers, duration, and times. THERE IS NO CONTENT BEING COLLECTED OR STORED INTO THE DATABASE.

False. Untrue. They are recording all communication records of nearly all Americans and using it to build a gigantic secret library. Metadata includes telephone numbers, time, duration, GPS location, cell tower, IP addresses, email sender, email receiver, and subject line. The communication content are filed and can be accessed later. In the case of phone calls the government claims they need a second warrant to access the content. But they have not shown any proof that they have technological safeguards in place to enforce this second warrant requirement. In the case of emails, the FBI claims the authority to read them without a court warrant.

- The only way for the authorities to get the content is if there is a reasonable suspicion and, AGAIN, they have to get a Goddamn warrant from the FISA court.

They don't need a warrant for emails. In the case of phone calls, they claim to need a warrant. But they have not yet proven to have any technological safeguards in place tho prevent them from accessing the records without a warrant, once the call is stored in the gigantic library.

- Congress is overseeing the program.

The Intelligence Committees were briefed but muzzled by law from speaking about what they knew.

- Obama admits the potential for "abuse" of collecting meta data.

Building a gigantic secret library of everybody's communications records is abuse. He is correct in that it creates the potential for much worse abuses in the near future.

Except that it would be illegal for the government to use that meta data without getting a warrant.

This is false or at least indicates you are confused. The government collects, sorts, and monitors (uses) the metadata which they collect on everyone with their FISA warrants which cover everyone.

- Only foreign entities related to terrorism are subject to obtaining CONTENT.

False. They government says they do not need a warrant to read anybody's emails. For phone call content the government claims to need a warrant to listen to calls.

Got that? They may be "spying", but THEY ARE NOT SPYING ON U.S. CITIZENS.

False. They are certainly spying on US citizens.

[Hydra]

255. +1000

Thank you for refuting this a completely as I would have liked.

[MNBrewer]

53. So when the next Republican President comes along

and the DEMOCRATS start getting worried, will it be because he's NOT black?

[demmiblue]

54. I think that you have lost it. n/t

[HangOnKids]

69. A quick search of the Op's other "great" posts

Prove he didn't have it to begin with.

[CakeGrrl]

57. A very brave OP to post in this environment

if for no other reason than some think you're referring to them personally and cannot separate the perceived accusation from the possibility of the concept.

[Hissyspit]

65. Hmm, I wonder why people think it is directed at them personally?

Maybe the use of "you," and posting "thread after thread?"

[CakeGrrl]

76. Fair enough point. And at least

some responded reasonably, with basically a "No, and here's why" type response.

But the hostility and name-calling is becoming more commonplace, unfortunately.

[tritsofme]

78. Did you read the OP? His accusations are pointed at Democrats and DU posters.

Are we in bizzaro world where brave means ridiculous?

Some ideas are just stupid, this is one of them.

[Buzz Clik]

86. +1!! Ain't that the truth.

Lately, every poster at DU thinks every other poster is addressing them personally.

[cali]

87. oh it's clearly meant personally and to chill criticism. whatever else it is and it's many things

it's not brave. it's disgusting. Vile and anyone endorsing this game is, well, fill in the blank.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

148. It makes me question the race issue even more when people think they're being targeted.

If the OP's post doesn't apply, then there's no reason to be upset or defensive.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

175. Oh. So if one takes offense at being smeared as a racist

...then that tends to confirm they're racist? You worshiper a either don't understand or don't care about the effect you're having. Calling solid Democrats racists because they support the 4th Amendment is a dangerous game. And yes, I already know you don't care.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

185. Hmm... The OP didn't call you or anyone else racist. The OP is suggesting that the treatment of

President Obama has been largely explained by race. If the objection is over policy, that's fine. But much of the reaction against this president, at least coming from the right/Republicans (and yes, some liberals).

If it doesn't apply to you, then you shouldn't take offense.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

188. Don't play word games. He clearly implied racism toward DUers

And thanks for letting me know that if I haven't done anything wrong, I don't have anything to worry about. But you know, I'm sick of hearing shit like that, so you can have your advice back. Give it to someone who wants it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

192. You're welcome. My opinion stands: Racism against this president exists. It exists on ALL

sides of the political spectrum. If you want to take offense to that, it's your problem.

[Union Scribe]

225. That sounds a lot like Fox News "just asking questions"

[WorseBeforeBetter]

249. It smacks of RNC intern, trying to foment discord on DU.

Nothing brave about it. But it was effective.

And it's clear one of the poodles who followed doesn't care about race; s/he is here to bash "leftist media" (Scahill, Goodman, Hedges, et al.).

Nothing brave about that, either. Predictable, though.

[Downtown Hound]

58. Yes. I only voted for him twice and campaigned for him hard

but it's because he's black. You've figured me out.

P.S. You're stupid.

[BumRushDaShow]

62. " Is it because he's black?". Absolutely.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. You just said two mutually exclusive things in summary.

"- The only data being collected involves telephone numbers, duration, and times. THERE IS NO CONTENT BEING COLLECTED OR STORED INTO THE DATABASE.

- The only way for the authorities to get the content is if there is a reasonable suspicion and, AGAIN, they have to get a Goddamn warrant from the FISA court."

If the content isn't being collected, there is nothing to 'go get' with a warrant after the fact. You could only wiretap from that point of issuance of the warrant, forward.

Perhaps you didn't mean that, but that's how it reads.

[MisterP]

73. just like critics of Amin, Mugabe, Duvalier, Obote, Museveni, Savimbi, Mobutu!

heck, their supporters thought their ridiculous tyrants were gods too: they were okay with people being murdered in their cars 'coz white rule was finally over

[truebluegreen]

74. Where's tthe dang Un-Rec button when I need it. x1000

[The Link]

75. ...

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Nope, but nice distraction.

The back hoe is over there.

[MotherPetrie]

80. When all else fails trot out the racism card.

[Buzz Clik]

83. Interesting phrasing. Hardly ever seen on a leftwing board.

Care to elaborate?

[MotherPetrie]

167. Dangle your stinking bait in front of somebody else.

[Buzz Clik]

173. "Must ... be ... strong. Cannot ... risk ... being ... outed."

It's an interesting reversal that is being used at places totally unlike DU: accuse lefties of being racist whenever race is mentioned and regardless of the context.

Now, it's well known that the "race card" is being played far too frequently, and liberals are calling other liberals on it with increasing frequency. However, those who are secure in being, shall we say, "real liberals" never hesitate in backing up their claim. Hell, I do it all the time.

The difference here, however, is the phrasing. So, combine that with the unwillingness to back it up and, well, here we are.

I'm not the one dangling the bait -- I just cut your line. Sorry.

[allin99]

81. Yes, everything boils down to skin color. Except to those of us who think he is more than just...

his skin color.

[Bjorn Against]

84. I don't think you Obama "supporters" have any clue how much damage you are doing to Obama

When it is clear you don't have any clue as to what the hell you are talking about and you throw out baseless charges of racism it makes you look really bad, if anyone who was on the fence about Obama were to read the posts from his "supporters" on this site they would be instantly turned off. I wonder if any of you even realize how your "support" can actually be damaging, you just make Obama supporters look like idiots.

I voted for Obama twice but I don't think anyone working for a corrupt system is going to completely be able to seperate themselves from that corruption. The system has been corrupt for many years, Obama did not begin the corruption but he did not end it either. The point is, this is not about Obama, it is about a corrupt system and we should stop these stupid fights about Obama and start focusing on changing an institution that has been corrupt for years.

[allin99]

96. I campaigned in Phili for Michael Nutter (black mayor) before obama, i'm also black and...

my dad was a civil rights lawyer, but because i didn't vote for obama in the primary i was called a self-hating black. it really changed what i thought about obama supporters. i know they didn't all do it, but it was everywhere and it was one of the uglier things i've seen and i've been campaigning for people since 1991. quite disgusting.

this is definitely not the right board for me.

[Bjorn Against]

101. It is a sad thing to watch

Racism is a very real problem in this country, but to throw out baseless charges of racism trivializes real racism. There is plenty of real racism out there to call out, it frustrates me when people try to make up false allegations of racism because it only makes it more difficult to fight against real racism. Obama certainly has faced real racism, but most of the people opposing the NSA spying now opposed government spying long before Obama became President. Let's not forget that the government spied on Martin Luther King, if anything about this case is about racism it is the fact that government spying has been imposed in a racist manner in the past.

[allin99]

106. you bring up something i was going to mention...

not only does it trivialize racism, which is around us in many subtle ways (that i USED to talk to people about, and/or comment on, but now i don't b/c it just sounds like the type of idiotic ignoramus nutcase that i'm seeing here, [not all obviously, just referring to the ones who yell racist when they have nothing else to offer], and besides, no one listens anymore b/c of crap like this), but you can bet the vast majority of the people here calling people racist, are white. And so it's not they who will deal with the repercussions of race issues no longer being taken seriously, black people will.

[Bjorn Against]

114. Yes, you are right most racism is very subtle

I am white so I can't understand racism in a way that a minority can, but I do have a degree in Sociology so I have studied the issue of racism far more than most white people have and I can often see the very subtle racism that occurs constantly. It is a very real issue and subtle racism needs to be called out. This OP is not calling out real racism however, most of the people speaking against the NSA now also spoke out against them when Bush was in power. When someone tries to make racism charges stick to anything and everything it only makes it more difficult to challenge actual subtle forms of racism.

[allin99]

129. exactly. they mock racism...

and make it into a joke. They have no idea what they are doing/have done. Maybe in 20 years people will be able to talk about real racism (both soft/subtle and overt), and be taken seriously again, but i have my doubts about that.

i have other things to say, but maybe i'll just pm them, clearly a conversation about racism cannot take place in this type of environment.

[CakeGrrl]

108. It SHOULDN'T be about an individual,

but the OP is asking if, in some cases, it might be.

It may not be you or any number of others on this site.

But some people can't get past his color. It's irrational, it's illogical, but it IS out there.

And how does this harm the President? The reasoning that one can't be for him if someone with whom they disagree supports him? Then if their support is that variable and conditional, was it ever really there?

[Bjorn Against]

121. Focus on the real cases of racism, don't make up fake ones

Yes, Obama has faced racism, that does not mean people are racists if they don't support every last thing that he does. You may not think the absurd arguments that Obama "supporters" try to push on this site make Obama look bad, but if you succeed in making people think that Obama supporters are as dumb as this OP is it is not likely to help Obama's public approval. Besides this is not about Obama anyways, this is about the institution of the NSA, an organization that has operated in the shadows for far too long and needs to finally be exposed to sunlight.

[ucrdem]

136. It is about the individual, and it's about race.

A perfect example is Democracy Now, everyone's favorite fake "leftist" program, featuring racist pundits like Greenwald, Hedges, Jeremy Scahill, Stand-with-Rand Medea and an assortment of former Bushler apparatchicks who go on the air bright and early every day and dog whistle for an hour. And then loyal listeners come and dog whistle here, but they don't think it's racism because they heard it on Democracy Now.



Friends, I know you don't want to hear this, but Democracy Now is dog whistle central.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

178. PROVE Democracy Now is racist. You have nothing.

Your lack of any kind of rationale for this outlandish claim will serve as ample evidence that you have nothing to base this on. Tell lies elsewhere.

[suffragette]

220. You keep repeating these baseless and vile accusations about Democracy Now

It looks like you have an agenda against demonstrably progressive investigative reporting. I wonder why that is?
I'd put their credentials up against your screeds any day of the week:

http://www.democracynow.org/about/staff

[Egalitarian Thug]

233. With supporters like these, the republicans are safe. n/t

[yardwork]

292. This has been going on since 2007

Some of the meanest people on the Internet claim to be Obama's biggest fans. I wonder.

[ucrdem]

88. Wow! One of the best OPs I've ever read on DU.

Thanks for laying it all out in simple terms everyone can understand. Also thanks for posting the video as I wound up missing the interview last night.



Anyone who reads this and still either pretends or claims they don't get it is to put it politely not dealing from a full deck. Major K' n' R.

[cali]

105. up is down and down is up. Orwell is spinning revolutions in his grave.

j

[ucrdem]

153. Why? I don't see anything so Orwellian about the OP.

And the state of play re surveillance is exactly what I thought it was before all this blew up. In fact it's been reassuring to learn that my assumptions on the matter were, in fact, accurate.

[99Forever]

92. The smell of desperation...

... from the Authoritarian Propaganda Squad is in the air.

Smells remarkably like bull shit.

[DevonRex]

93. Since the word of a known liar has been taken as fact, lying ABOUT what he's "leaking"

and that the "news" is not news but has been known for a long time, I have to say yes. If people are so uninformed that they were not aware before, then I don't have much use for them. If they can't see the difference in the various statements that have been made that "journalists" attempt to say either contradict each other when they don't or that equate when they don't, then I suggest people learn to read more carefully. When they've done that and educated themselves on what's been going on for decades then I'll take their outrage seriously until then, yeah, you may be right.

Especially when the Tea Party types think they will be targeted by NSA just like they think the IRS "targeted" them. Not true about the IRS and not true about NSA.

As for Snowden? He's a slimy little narcissistic high school dropout trying to prove he's smart. Who the fuck cares? He crossed the line as soon as he broke the law, violated his oath, aided China, stuck his nose in our relationship with Russia (that's my area and it pisses me off personally) when we've got a mess going on between us in Syria. That gets people dead. If it's between our people, Russian people, Israelis, Syrians or Snowden - guess who's gonna get the short stick? The Syrians getting killed with chemical weapons don't even enter into the equation now. Yay Snowden. Wonder if he's proud of himself.

[JDPriestly]

97. What about those of us with friends and family overseas?

That covers a huge number of Americans especially on the coasts -- west and east.

Are we fair game?

And what about the news media?

You may be comforted by this news, but I am not. And what is more, Obama and the rest are using the term "can" erroneously I believe. Obama was talking about the legal limitations. Repeat, the legal limitations, not the physical ones. The fact is that if they order the private companies that receive and process our data to keep it, then a good hacker can go back and retrieve it.

In fact, people on DU have done something similar in a small way by somehow saving data on the internet from the past. I have no idea how it was done. So, if the internet providers are required to save the data, it can be mined by any hacker any time. The entire program is stupid because it can backfire on our government.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

98. This is really filthy, and you got by with it.

I see a jury has already voted 5-1 to keep your post accusing those who disagree with the President about spying of being racist. In the natural course of things, people would give you a piece of their mind and tell you where you could shove your accusations of racism. But those posts would be locked, and everyone knows it. So you got by with calling everyone who doesn't agree with you racist. It's an untrue statement, and you disgust me to the bone.




(edited to change 'your' to 'their')

[Earth_First]

112. ...and I'm going to put it as simply as I can: Go.Fuck.Yourself.

If you can get away with calling me a racist for opposing the surveillance state; you can go fuck yourself.

[ucrdem]

125. A jury just voted 4-2 to keep this.

Can anyone post the jury results? Thank you.

[Marrah_G]

151. Well urcdem... The OP was looking for a reaction and he got it.

The recent additions to DU posting thread after thread zealously defending the NSA it's pretty transparent.

[ucrdem]

156. We could say the same about the torch-and-pitchfork department, couldn't we?

But let's not go there.

[Marrah_G]

165. It's all very transparent

And sooner or later the Admins will take care of the problem.

[ucrdem]

170. Which "problem," Marrah_G? Can you tell me what you're insinuating, please?

Since you did after all initiate this dialogue. Thanks in advance.

[Marrah_G]

174. The problem of people joining just to stir up crap.

Those people usually don't last too long.

[ucrdem]

176. And who would that be? The people posting lies by racist Greenwald for example?

Or did you have someone else in mind?

[Marrah_G]

182. Goodnight urcdem

I am not stupid enough to be baited.

[ucrdem]

186. Likewise. nt

[Union Scribe]

226. Good.

If an OP can lob that kind of grenade at other DUers en masse and have a jury sanction it, then a proper "fuck you" response should be allowed too.

[Logical]

131. I would have voted to uphold your post! Calling DU members a racist is unbelievable! n-t

[ucrdem]

164. Were you on this jury? Before editing you said "I voted to uphold this post."

And if so can you post the jury results?

[Logical]

166. I was not. It was a typo. I left off 'would have'. Sorry!! n-t

[ucrdem]

168. Okay thanks. I hope someone can post the results.

I alerted but someone already had.

[OrwellwasRight]

132. +1

[frylock]

194. well stated

[Uzair]

195. Wow, aren't we defensive

Did you not watch the video? Did you not read the summary? What surveillance state? They need to get a warrant. You don't believe Obama. Tell me why.

[Earth_First]

201. I am not going to quantify an iota of my opinion to you...

You clearly laid it out that I am a racist.
That my opinion is entirely based on the singular fact that the President is black.

I will not engage you further beyond this response.

[MjolnirTime]

113. Most of those screaming aren't too stupid to understand what Obama says here.

But they hope the people they're preaching to will be.

They play on public ignorance.

People who know the truth aren't jumping around like Rumplestiltskin.

[Logical]

133. LOL, yes, most of the DU does not know the truth. Keep trying! n-t

[MjolnirTime]

137. Most of the public in general. Millions think Obama listens to them on the phone.

Thanks to those like you who were so quick to blow Greenwald's bullshit up into the stratosphere.

[Logical]

142. "Millions think Obama listens to them on the phone"...OK Einstein.....

point me to 5 links here where someone says that. Or shut up.

[smknz]

115. Black and White

Well I think now that just about every trick in the book has been played to support antisocial government action. Obama on almost every major issue since his election has barely differentiated himself from bush. The banks got bailed out. All of the draconian measures taken since 911 are still in place and in some cases strengthed. We're still fighting wars for the corporate elites and in fact are increasing such actions. Gitmo is still in action. Even health care reform is a fraud as it is actually a sell out to pharmaceutical companies as the single payer option got slam dunked by democrats, repubublicans and Obama.

You still don't get it. It's not black or white nor is it left or right. It's the filthy rich controlling and exploiting the rest of us. Stop being sucked in by their lackeys of all races on the left and the right.

[blkmusclmachine]

117. Nope. It's because he's just another slick politician who lied his way into office.

We know why you're trying to morph the topic of discussion away from this bad law onto silly Personality Politics. But that effort is a big fat FAIL

[dkf]

118. You are being distracted by this one program...

- The only data being collected involves telephone numbers, duration, and times. THERE IS NO CONTENT BEING COLLECTED OR STORED INTO THE DATABASE.

They have not yet disclosed the totality of their data collection. WAPO says they are tapping into the fiber optic cables meaning everything is getting swept up.

Until I see Obama state clearly that NO government program sweeps digital data period, this type of statement on just prism isn't worth a damn.

And that's not something I consider because he's black, but because I've seen other statements and frankly I have no idea the race of the people the WAPO is quoting.

[NaturalHigh]

119. No, and to suggest that is offensive.

[magellan]

122. What did I miss?

[magellan]

123. Well, it wouldn't be me without the occasional double post

[madokie]

124. Sure it is

I've been saying it for years now. If I've typed that its racism once I've done it a thousand times, on here since early on in Obama's Presidency.

[LWolf]

126. Okay.

What makes him untrustworthy is not the color of his skin. It's that he is a neoliberal. It's his appointments, his policies, and his willingness to play with Republicans while throwing the left, women, teachers, and so many others under the bus.

[Ms. Toad]

134. That is insulting.

The vast majority of us who oppose it now, opposed it when Bush did the same thing (and a FISA court rubber stamp, without the possibility for a review of the case or appeal of the constitutionality of the law makes it virtually indistinguishable as far as I'm concerned). And some of us, me among them, have a long history of opposing secret US government collection of data on its citizens. My own personal history (and I mean very personal) is 4 decades long, to the COINTELPRO days.

I don't care which party the president belongs to, I don't care what race the president is (or gender, or age, or whatever other characteristic you care to throw up as a smokescreen). Secret government collection of data on its citizens without individual probable cause is wrong. Period. It is a position I have maintained consistently for 4 decades - and I am sick and tired of being told I'm hypocritical or a racist merely because the president happens to be a Democrat or because the president happens to be black.

So I'm not falling for anything - and it is inexplicable to me how you can reconcile thinking something is so horrendous and evil when done by Bush, and hunky dory now.

[TexasTowelie]

138. No, it's because he is Irish. nt

[Marr]

139. I would honestly be embarrassed by this post, if I were on the OP's side of the debate.

Pitiful.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

140. Bush wasn't black and a lot of folks were upset with his wrong-doing, why would you expect different

responses to essentially the same issue?

And why is it so difficult to believe for some that many people don't like it when our leaders break the constitution?

The only logical reason I can come up with is partisanship.

[Uzair]

197. The SAME issue? Watch the video. Read the OP.

Then tell me why you don't believe Obama when he tells you you're NOT being spied on, at all.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

208. Yes, the same issue, have you heard of the FISA Amendments Act?

That was put in place, in 2008, to make "legal" the warrantless spying bush was doing, and was extended in 2012, to 2017, when it was set to expire, to carry on with their spying.

I don't believe Obama, just like a didn't believe Bush, when he told me not to worry my pretty little head, because now we have another whistle blower, with documentary evidence this time, that they are all lying, not to mention the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who said that he had given the “least untruthful” (LIED) answer possible when he told a congressional hearing (we the people) that the NSA does not collect information on millions of Americans.

Now, all that may not add up to lying to you, but please don't act surprised, or have a poutrage, when it does for others.

[Union Scribe]

227. Exactly.

And since then, the rate of refusal by the FISA court, which was already ridiculously low, has been cut by another 75% or so.

There is no legitimate warrant process for the spying going on, period.

[Ms. Toad]

215. Perhaps for similar reasons that it was challenging to believe

President Clinton when he repeatedly said I did not have sex with that woman.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is, or "sex" or, in this case, "spying." I don't care what he calls it.

Secretly collecting and mashing data about US citizens without any articulable or particularized suspicion, under order from a court whose work can't be disclosed or revealed, and pursuant to a law which the Supreme Court has previously said cannot be tested because all the secrecy makes the basis for standing purely speculative, is unacceptable. It was unacceptable when it was done to an organization I was part of in the 70s, again to the same organization ~ 2005, and now with respect to data about every call I make. It makes zero difference whether he calls it spying or jumping cows over the moon. He can use whatever definition of spying he wants - and I don't even care if that definition makes him technically honest. I would still condemn the activity. It still has nothing to do with him being black, or a democrat, or anything else. It is the activity I find reprehensible - and that he approves of it after running on a platform that it was wrong makes it more so.

And, unfortunately, this time it is about things I have a right to care about - not the private sex lives of people holding office.

[HardTimes99]

257. You have nailed it and I salute you! - nt

[treestar]

270. They were not

The media did not make a scandal of it. There was no DU outrage on it then.

[Coccydynia]

143. Is your uncritical support because he's black?

[Ms. Toad]

145. +1

[SammyWinstonJack]

304. heh.

[TRoN33]

144. Some scholars agreed that...

If Obama is white and Republican with exact same kinds of policies, the team of rock carvers would began work on Obama's face by right side of George Washington on Mount Rushmore.

[MNBrewer]

149. Which ones where those?

[Notafraidtoo]

155. Simple minded accusation don't you think?

On social issues i think Obama is a true Democrat,and deserves praise for moving the country forward,I love the man he is smart,charming and often wise.


BUT..

I don't support his views on Social security and his insistence to use frank luntz like wording calling it entitlement reform.

I don't support his views on public education and his moves to privatize large portions of it even though the best education system's in the world are not.

I don't support making legal the same things Bush did that was illegal at the time,its still wrong even if it is legal now. Thats what hes saying in this video just with talent.

I Don't see how that makes me a racist,i don't think i have ever agreed with anyone in my life 100% of the time does that mean i hate everyone?

I want the patriot act to end and i would like president Obama to come out publicly against it because i believe thats the right thing to do for the nation.

You know those that worry the party would suffer if we are assumed to be weak on terror by doing this Right thing i wonder how you felt about the Civil rights act because that did more damage to the party then anything we have ever done and the effects are still felt today and yet it was the right thing to do and i doubt any of you would want it reversed,think about that next time you worry about damage to the party.

[madrchsod]

161. "is it because he's black?".....yes.

[sagat]

163. Great post, +1.

Many here need a boogeyman to rage against, and if none exists they will invent one.

[stupidicus]

169. thanks for shedding light on your lack of quality thinking

On Monday evening, Barack Obama came on Charlie Rose and insisted that the NSA would never misuse the telephone records it collects on all Americans because it would be illegal and that there are safeguards against that sort of thing. Obama did not say why he thinks the government has a right to see your telephone records given that you haven’t done anything wrong and the 4th Amendment hasn’t been abrogated. For the first time in his presidency, I felt as though Obama were looking me in the eyes and lying to me a la Cheney. I don’t know what his ulterior motives are in this, but that he has some seems obvious.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/06/traitor-safeguards-ultimate.html

After spending better than a decade battling rightwing racists, along with their manufactured line of BS about how "all opposition to BHO is called racism by dems/lefties!", it's somewhat disappointing to see that they don't have a monopoly on that kinda flawed reasoning and/or dishonesty.

well done.

[DirkGently]

179. Wow. The apologist ammo bucket must be empty if shameful racial animus

is all that's left.

Are the ACLU racists? The Electronic Frontier Foundation? Chris Hayes? Please, explain the racist motivations of these people, given it's apparently easy to ascribe such motives to members of "Democratic Underground."

Facts facts facts? Have some facts.

A Google News search of "NSA scandal" pulls 259 million hits. 81 million for "NSA Obama." The media is giving it a little play.

Yes, the NSA does spy on Americans. Clapper's weasel wording about "wittingly" kind of gave that away. That is the problem that people have a possibly non-racist problem with. Who wouldn't?

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of NSA Phone Spying Program

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a constitutional challenge to a surveillance program under which the National Security Agency vacuums up information about every phone call placed within, from, or to the United States. The lawsuit argues that the program violates the First Amendment rights of free speech and association as well as the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The complaint also charges that the dragnet program exceeds the authority that Congress provided through the Patriot Act.

"This dragnet program is surely one of the largest surveillance efforts ever launched by a democratic government against its own citizens," said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. "It is the equivalent of requiring every American to file a daily report with the government of every location they visited, every person they talked to on the phone, the time of each call, and the length of every conversation. The program goes far beyond even the permissive limits set by the Patriot Act and represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association and the right to privacy."

The ACLU is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services, which was the recipient of a secret FISA Court order published by The Guardian last week. The order required the company to "turn over on 'an ongoing daily basis' phone call details" such as who calls are placed to and from, and when those calls are made. The lawsuit argues that the government's blanket seizure of and ability to search the ACLU's phone records compromises sensitive information about its work, undermining the organization's ability to engage in legitimate communications with clients, journalists, advocacy partners, and others.

"The crux of the government's justification for the program is the chilling logic that it can collect everyone's data now and ask questions later," said Alex Abdo, a staff attorney for the ACLU's National Security Project. "The Constitution does not permit the suspicionless surveillance of every person in the country."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program

What the NSA claims is that it aims for at least "51%" foreign surveillance. Supposedly. If that's even a reasonable standard to begin with. Which is verified by precisely nothing. Which is also what we know about what happens if it un"wittingly" gathers more than 49% domestic surveillance.

This is the same organization that batted not an eyelash when Bush ordered it to wiretap unconstitutionally. Then they listened to people's "sex calls" for fun.

So yeah, "trust" is kind of out the window here. Words are not going to be enough when we've already seen that "no, not wittingly" is the standard of truth we're working with.

As recently as 2011, this administration unconstitutionally violated the law on which PRISM is based. The precious FISA court said so. That means you are being spied on. Or were, within the past two years. We really don't know, because there is no transparency and no accountability and no public oversight of how the laws, including the despicable Patriot Act, are being interpreted.

Nor can we know how it's now interpreting things that supposedly fixes the unconstitutionally spying that we already know has occurred.

A 2011 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruling found the U.S. government had unconstitutionally overreached in its use of a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The National Security Agency uses the same section to justify its PRISM online data collection program. But that court opinion must remain secret, the Justice Department says, to avoid being "misleading to the public."

The DOJ was responding to a lawsuit filed last year by the Electronic Frontier Foundation seeking the release of a 2011 court opinion that found the government had violated the Constitution and circumvented FISA, the law that is supposed to protect Americans from surveillance aimed at foreigners.

The part of the FISA law addressed in the opinion in question, Section 702, is the same one the NSA is now using to scoop up email and social media records through its PRISM program.

But the court that released the opinion under dispute is no ordinary legal body. Made up of federal judges on loan from other courts, FISC conducts its highly classified business in secret. Its rulings, too, are classified -- which means Americans don't know how the law governing surveillance is being interpreted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/justice-department-prism_n_3405101.html

So, besides disgracefully accusing people who are concerned about a fundamental threat to the basic Constitutional protections of Americans of being racist, this "hypothesis" is just flat-out wrong.

[Skip Intro]

213. +100. n/t

[Puglover]

181. Whoop de doo!

30 whole recs for this dogshit piece of crap!

[bobduca]

189. 30 more authoritarians for the ignore list

when DU gives you lemons...

[Puglover]

190. Oh hell no.

To the ignore list. They crack me up.

And make delicious lemonade!

[bobduca]

191. When I want to laugh, and I have the right attittude...

I hit View All in an Incognito tab, in chrome otherwise i just get baited by the professional trolls.

[Egalitarian Thug]

259. I even got one sleeper that's been hiding since 2001.

Although I don't use ignore except to keep track for when they pop up, and note when they are gone.

[Progressive dog]

202. I think so

I have read so much crap comparing My President, the guy I voted for to that awful POS Cheney.
This guy is reasonable , intelligent, more honest than most politicians and this older white guy continues to support him. I have been mystified about why a supposed Democratic website would have so many prolific posters who appear to hate a Democratic President.
The deliberate ignorance of the President's powers when the issue is the closure of Guantanamo, the deliberate ignorance of the President's constitutional responsibilities to the people of the United States when the issue is NSA spying on the other 95% of the world, is incredible to see from a Democratic website.

"And boy, are the people sure eating it up. I expect it from the Republicans, but how to explain all the Democrats falling for it? How do we explain the dozens of Democrats even repeating this nonsense on DU day in and day out? I have my hypothesis. You come up with yours."
I think you are right.

[Bobbie Jo]

211. How is it

that the rest of the OP is completely ignored?

Completely. Ignored.

SKIP AHEAD TO 26:40

I swear to God, I'm really starting to think that it's because Obama is black. I don't actually want to believe that, but it's getting really hard not to believe that. Skip ahead and watch the video. It lasts about 14 minutes. If you don't want to do that, here's a nutshell:


- NSA programs were set up after the 9/11 attacks. Bush illegally wiretapped people. Obama FIXED IT to add safeguards, checks and balances.

- If you are a U.S. Citizen, the NSA CAN NOT AND HAVE NOT listened to your phone calls or targeted your emails. It would be illegal for them to do so, unless they obtained a warrant and probable cause.

- The only data being collected involves telephone numbers, duration, and times. THERE IS NO CONTENT BEING COLLECTED OR STORED INTO THE DATABASE.

- The only way for the authorities to get the content is if there is a reasonable suspicion and, AGAIN, they have to get a Goddamn warrant from the FISA court.

- Congress is overseeing the program.

- Obama admits the potential for "abuse" of collecting meta data. Except that it would be illegal for the government to use that meta data without getting a warrant.

- Only foreign entities related to terrorism are subject to obtaining CONTENT. Got that? They may be "spying", but THEY ARE NOT SPYING ON U.S. CITIZENS.


Enough already. The facts are the facts are the facts are the facts are the facts. The facts will set you free. Enough with the stupid idiotic conspiracy theories. Enough with not trusting Obama's own fucking words. The government is not spying on you. You can post thread after thread after thread yelling and whining about it, but you're posting from a position of BULLSHIT. Every single thread in here - Every single one - talking about "government surveillance" is talking about something that is NOT HAPPENING.

You don't believe Obama? Fine. Tell me why. Tell me what it is about Obama that makes him so untrustworthy. Because I can't get over the fact that this man has had to overcome his skin color now for the umpteenth time. The man has to be PERFECT. And still he gets shat upon. It's all there, in the above video. Him saying, straight up, no mincing of words, no political doublespeak, no sidestepping, that you are not being spied on. Period. He explains it all fully and clearly. It was the White guy, the Texan, the Good Ol' Christian Boy who spied on his own citizens. The black guy? He put a stop to that.

You know what else I've noticed? The media isn't really giving this a whole hell of a lot of play. They're continuing on with the "debate" from the false premise that the government is spying on it's own citizens. And boy, are the people sure eating it up. I expect it from the Republicans, but how to explain all the Democrats falling for it? How do we explain the dozens of Democrats even repeating this nonsense on DU day in and day out? I have my hypothesis. You come up with yours.

[Progressive dog]

230. Well I'm not ignoring it

I agree with it, what part didn't you understand?
Why is it so hard to understand that a President whom I respect, who has tried to do almost everything that he pledged to do, is being vilified for AMONG OTHER THINGS being a liar when he is accused by a man who fled the country. A man who has released a power point presentation to prove it.
A Democratic president on a Democratic website gets no benefit of any doubt.
I don't have to repeat the OP to agree with it.

[Bobbie Jo]

235. You misunderstood my post.

My fault....

The part I re-posted has been completely and repeatedly ignored by everyone who immediately jumped on this thread expressing their offense.

I am in agreement with you AND the OP.

[Progressive dog]

238. I''ll buy that Bobbie Jo, I wasn't sure what you meant

and I'm so sick of hearing President Obama attacked that I jumped on you.

[The Link]

203. Is he continuing Bush-Cheney policies because he is half white?

[Skip Intro]

206. No Americans caught up in that Verizon deal, you say?

The Verizon deal where Verizon continues to turn over all data on all calls?

It isn't because he's black (and nobody's going to be shamed as a racist for expressing outrage at some of the revelations that have come out in the last few weeks). It's a desperate move to try to make this about race.

Btw, Obama has been president for nearly five years. At some point, you just can't blame bush anymore.

[Uzair]

209. What the fuck is going on?

Like, seriously. Are you guys doing it on purpose? WATCH THE VIDEO. READ THE OP. THEY ARE NOT SPYING ON YOU. THEY NEED A WARRANT.

[Skip Intro]

216. You seem to be hinting that critics of Obama are racist.

That seems to be going on.

You're shocked that many of us aren't quite as gullible as you.

That seems to be going on too.

You did ask me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

212. no doubt - it is why Al Gore has spoken out against the surveillance program! No other reason I can

Last edited Tue Jun 18, 2013, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

can think of.

[liberal_at_heart]

221. this is going in the trash where it belongs.

[Union Scribe]

224. You consistently have the worst arguments I've ever seen on DU.

And regulars here have seen some of the most marvelous word salads ever tossed, so that's saying quite a bit.

[Uzair]

229. I deal in FACTS

Sorry, but I'm not the one who makes arguments based on wild paranoid hysteria that exists solely in some people's heads around here. The facts are the facts and you can't do anything about them. They're inconvenient, like that.

There is no spying. It's all on the up and up. They need to get warrants, there is congressional oversight, nobody is listening to any phone calls.

Obama deserves ZERO criticism on this. Zero. The fact that we have dozens upon dozens of threads bashing him over something the media has completely fabricated speaks to who has no ability to make any valid arguments whatsoever.

While I may suppose racism has something to do with it, I'll submit that it's also possible that many here are just mindless tank brains who are easily manipulated by the TV.

[Union Scribe]

231. Lol.

You can't call opinions facts while admitting they are nothing but opinions ("I have my hypothesis. You come up with yours" / "I suppose" / "I'll submit it's also possible&quot .

Earlier I named you the captain of the failboat. But no, sir, you are the fucking ADMIRAL.

[OrwellwasRight]

234. +1000

[The Link]

247. Admiral of the fail fleet.

[cali]

276. No, largely you do not deal in facts and when you do it's selective

and that's almost as bad.

there have been truckloads of evidence countering what you claim as facts and you ignore it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

228. In November 2008 I was ecstatic. Finally, a black President! Finally, we could get on track!

Then the transition team.
Then the appointments (the casual observer might think he was elected with the largest minority in a 3-way race).
Then the absolute submission to Wall Street.
Then the Goldman-Sachs administration.
Then the pharmaceutical industry's authorship of the "health care" bill.
Then the exclusion of anything and anyone that might even hint at the possibility of the suggestion of a hint of liberalism followed by seemingly endless capitulation to Reich-wing assholes that made it clear, to everyone but him, would never, ever, under any circumstances give him any support.
Then the adamant refusal to exert any control over any members of his own party as they simply walked all over him when they weren't ignoring him.
Then the downright insulting "That's the best we could hope for" campaign.

By the mid-terms he had shown himself to be whiter than I am. He squandered the best chance that the people of this nation have had in 80 years.

Disgusted barely begins to describe what I feel for him.

And you can save the check list of pathetic excuses, I've heard them all before, and they remain pathetic.

[southerncrone]

236. Yes.

It really is that simple. And that pathetic.

[scarletwoman]

239. So, you're agreeing with the OP that DUers who continue to object to NSA

surveillance are doing so because they're racists? Really? I just want to make sure I've got that right.

Because that's what the OP is saying:

Is it because he's black?

Enough with not trusting Obama's own fucking words. The government is not spying on you. You can post thread after thread after thread yelling and whining about it, but you're posting from a position of BULLSHIT.

<snip>

The media isn't really giving this a whole hell of a lot of play. They're continuing on with the "debate" from the false premise that the government is spying on it's own citizens. And boy, are the people sure eating it up. I expect it from the Republicans, but how to explain all the Democrats falling for it? How do we explain the dozens of Democrats even repeating this nonsense on DU day in and day out? I have my hypothesis.

He's talking about DUers. The OP is what's truly "pathetic".

[suffragette]

251. + 1,000

[southerncrone]

254. No, perhaps I should have said more.

I'm saying that ALL the attacks on Obama from every angle, not just this latest issue concerning NSA. That is why House won't work w/him & media is so critical of all his actions. THAT is what I'm saying.

[muriel_volestrangler]

265. You're saying that *all* attacks on Obama are because he's black?

So when the ACLU attacks him for this, it's because he's black? When Amnesty International attacks him because of the drone killings, it's because he's black? When Congressman Rangel attacks him over chained CPI, it's because Obama's black?

[cali]

271. well, that's a steaming pile. By your, er, lights, no one should ever criticize President Obama

for anything.

that's disturbing and ugly.

disgusting.

[treestar]

277. It is interesting there was less concern during Bushco

While it was actually worse. It can definitely be attributed to the media. There was no "scandal" or huge coverage of it during Buscho. There were no leakers then either.

[ozone_man]

237. No, and it's not even about Obama.

And it's not about Snowden. Three strikes, you're out!

[Skittles]

252. OZONE_MAN NAILS IT

[treestar]

272. Yes it is

They started with Eddie being a hero right after his name came out. They started with the sorry they voted for Obama crap, too. This one does not fly. What a dodge. So suddenly it is about the issues and not the people? Hello, look at the media, too.

[sibelian]

305. Who's this "they"?

I don't doubt you, I'm curious.

[treestar]

310. Look at DU for the day Eddie's name first came out

It was all about how he was a hero. Several posters declared him to be their hero.

Others, the same people, have blamed the President for almost everything, and including this, as you can see from the past few days.

Then there are doubtless a bunch of media pundits, though nobody has talked about them on DU, so I'm not sure if any of them have said much about it.

Others have backed off and said now it's about the issues, since Eddie went to China and has some other issues. So maybe they will back of the President too. Maybe. Some are probably inconsistent.

[quinnox]

240. No. But I can see why that would be a comforting explanation to the hardcore devoted fan club/BOG-er

types - "How can anyone not agree with the president/our glorious leader and ultimate super-hero/ regarding this issue?? They must be a horrible racist!"

The real answer is not so comforting and simple-minded. At least, not when it comes to DU. You see, Liberals have always opposed the spying/Patriot Act nonsense, and have been consistent in that ever since Bush started it.

Anyways, trust me, Liberals will continue to oppose this stuff, and it has everything to do with principles, and nothing to do with race.

Now, are there racists out there in the wider world (non-DU) who oppose Obama simply because he is black? Oh, hell yea. I don't think that is even in question.

[mick063]

256. Want to know what perpetuates racism, more than anything?

Crying foul because of race over every valid criticism. You will not "win over" white folks doing so.


I voted for our President twice. I donated a decent amount of money to his campaign. At one time, I believed he had a chance to be the greatest President of my lifetime.

I am truly appalled by issues such as "emergency management" in Michigan or "Stand your ground", racially motivated murders in Florida. A true racist would definitely not act or feel this way.

Now allow me to describe how bitterly disappointed I am in our President's second term without throwing the Presidents race in my face.

You do not benefit the black "cause" by doing so. I am inherently very sympathetic toward those that suffer from discrimination and just so that you should know, Blacks do not have a monopoly on discrimination.

[ucrdem]

260. A couple of things that make me go hmm...

Schahill's new Obama book - "Dirty Wars"

Savior whisteblower du jour - "Snowden":

Savior whistleblower déjà vu - James Blond:


Anyone else notice a pattern here?

[Hissyspit]

261. Oh, holy fuck...

Your posts are a parody, right?

[ucrdem]

262. They're just observations hissyspit . . .

I guess I have a suspicious mind. No offense intended.

[cali]

263. a suspicous mind? No that's not the phrase.

[Babel_17]

289. So, you're saying he's a bastard from the north?

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Bastard

[sibelian]

297. Well, well.

I do notice a pattern, yes. A pattern of very peculiar thoughts in your brain.

[Vanje]

309. Oh My GoD!

They're all MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RILib]

278. jury results

All you people asking for the jury results to be posted might try reading where I already posted them above.

[muriel_volestrangler]

279. Deputy head of NSA: queries of database can be authorised by any of 20 analysts and 2 managers

In addition, Alexander said that every query to the domestic phone log database was audited by supervisors, and that so far there had been no willful abuses or discipline carried out.

And his deputy, John C. Inglis, said that under court orders, “only 20 analysts at NSA and their two managers, for a total of 22 people, are authorized to approve numbers that may be used to query this database.”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/06/18/nsa-chief-says-surveillance-has-stopped-dozens-plots/nxlK6QyEIwRzBv4IaQjfUJ/story.html

So the official story is that "Except that it would be illegal for the government to use that meta data without getting a warrant" is wrong. I note that President Obama didn't claim a warrant was needed in the interview; that was just your claim.

This still leaves open the question of who the supervisors are, and why they should be trusted.

[Puzzledtraveller]

282. This thinking says more about the one thinking it

I have always rejected this line of thought, regardless of who the target is.

[el_bryanto]

285. This is just crap.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose President Obama's programs and to be suspicious of him without it being simple racism.

Bryant

[NorthCarolina]

286. What a pathetic post, the apologists are really grasping now,

even tapping new and back-up identities from which to fling their poo.

[Zorra]

287. Please...someone tell me this is satire.

Please. Even if you have to lie.

[Babel_17]

291. Yes, it is. First comes the satire "and then there will be cake".

"Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test."

[Zorra]

295. LOL! Bless you.

[Beacool]

296. Oh boy, here we go again.

People who oppose what the NSA is doing couldn't give a flying fig whether Obama is white, black or purple. Do you think that they wouldn't be so adamant in their opposition if he were 100% white?

Please do not play the race card. It is offensive, not just to the people you seem to accuse of racism, but to Obama himself. I'm sure that he's not seeing this the way you are. This is a legitimate issue and it calls for a national conversation. He is the president, accountability comes with the job or do you expect that Obama should be given a pass because he's biracial?

[LanternWaste]

299. Limbaugh consistently tells his listeners that his hatred for Pres. Obama is not racially motivated

Limbaugh consistently tells his listeners that his hatred for Pres. Obama is not racially motivated. And maybe it's not...

[sibelian]

300. No.

It's not because he's black.

[Zorra]

301. Tommy Chong couldn't possibly have ever smoked pot, because it is illegal.

[Deep13]

302. In this case, no. It's because he's disregarding the 4th Amendment. nt

[ZombieHorde]

308. Pfft. If you were really a liberal, you would know we hate white people, not black people.

The reason so many of us are mad at the President is because he is Irish, not because he is Kenyan.

(sarcasm)