I'm going to give this BS one week, Then I'll rip my Obama bumber sticker off

[panader0]

I can't belive this BS. My buddy kept telling me "they're all the same" and I would argue with him. Now I have to agree. Please Barack, come to your senses.

[tekisui]

1. What could be done in one week to change you mind?

Is this in regards to something in particular? The protection of the wiretappers?

[panader0]

5. prosecute, not protect, the wiretaps

According to KO, Obama has gone further than bush.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. How so? I'm not by the tv.

[Dinger]

24. Keith???

WTF??? I didn't see it. I'll have to tune in later.

[TankLV]

39. But - what if he's first using that power to INVESTIGATE THE CRMINIAL REPUKES

who engineered the current disasters we are trying to fix?

I would wholeheartedly support that - get all the evidence to do a PROPER WAR CRIMES & CRIMINAL TRIAL!!!

[bigwillq]

2. What BS?

:shrug:

Just want to see where you're coming from.

[natrat]

17. ability to close the internet,support for domestic spying,

administration actively working to subvert any congressionally passed bank regulation, 70k troops to afghanistan---that is one weeks worth of complete BS

[bigwillq]

18. Ok. You have legitimate concerns.

Just wanted to see what issues you disagreed with. Good list. :thumbsup:

[ecstatic]

3. well... that was an informative read

Thanks!

[Cha]

4. Nice to know ya..

see ya.

[vaberella]

41. Ain't that the truth. n/t

[Abq_Sarah]

6. Oh, come on!

I would like a clarification from the administration and a position statement but I do understand that once the government either assumes or is given a specific "power", the government will go to great lengths to protect what it sees as its "rights".

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Rip it off right now

Do it!!!!

[grytpype]

9. bumper

[Skittles]

10. honestly, I am impressed

I figured it would take much, much longer for the eyes to open

[Cali_Democrat]

11. So who are you voting for in 2012?

Surely not Obama, apparently he's the same as Bush.

So who will you vote for?

[vaberella]

42. I'm getting the feeling it's...."Any Repub FTW!!!" n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

56. PUMA ROAR!!!!! Write in HIllary!!!

[dionysus]

50. you never could stand obama anyway, oh bitter and jaded one...

:eyes:

[Joe the Revelator]

55. You are insufferable.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. I'm going to post context free poutrage!

[Thrill]

13. Rip it off. The Election is over. Why do you still have it up there?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

14. The dick has been whispering in their ears, come to the dark

side... all the while trying to whitewash his record for the past 8.

[TankLV]

40. If the dick is near, let alone IN their ears, they're DOING IT WRONG!!!

But maybe it's a new position I haven't experienced yet?!!!

What do you call nuts on a wall?

Wallnuts!

What do you call nuts on your chest?

Chestnuts!

What do you call nuts on your chin?













































A Blow Job!

[Ocracoker16]

15. just curious, what bumper sticker is under the Obama one?

Who was the last politician you gave a week before deciding that you couldn't stand him or her?

[MannyGoldstein]

16. But Please Give Him *Some* Credit

He *is* giving bankers trillions more... doesn't that count for anything?

[natrat]

19. it's insane you are a complete moron or brain dead not to be worried now

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. Bumber?

[Pisces]

21. rip it off now and put your Palin/Jindal sticker up.

[Jennicut]

22. I have a DU sticker on my car...not sure when its ever coming off.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. That damned sticker is stuck tight.

Must be super glue. Skinner is way too cheap for magnets.

[Jennicut]

29. LOL. Its stayin put. I kind of like it.

[FrenchieCat]

23. I'm sure that this headline helps you deal with your anger......

Me, I wrote 2 letters (so far) in reference to this case and emailed them to the White House. I asked if the DOJ were including ridiculous justification in order to purposely have the judge rule against the case, and have the Obama administration lose. There are also other reason I asked about....like whether they were stalling while the CIA was being cleaned out, or surveying for any Assassination plots, etc... all in all, some things I wondered about.

But go ahead with expressing your anger. Different things works for different folks.
I'm just more into petitions and letters and shit, I guess. :shrug:

[stillcool]

34. I'm not getting wrapped up in this one...

too much for me to learn to get to a point where I have any kind of knowledgeable opinion. I tried to read the PDF, and I'm useless. I do want to grab a hold of something though and make it a project. Would you be interested in collaborating on something? Torture? EFCA? Something?

[Raine]

26. Yeah cause McInsane

would've been so much better. :eyes:

[Runcible Spoon]

27. Points off for lack of originality and poor straw man construction.

Feel free to try again.

[Raine]

28. Uh gee

I'm going to have to give that some thought, didn't know we were using points. :yoiks:

[Runcible Spoon]

58. You can try.

[frylock]

33. guess we'll just have to take your word for it

[Raine]

57. Don't take my word for it

observation of McINSANE shows he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

[MzShellG]

30. Let it rip....who cares. I'm keeping mine. nt

[HughMoran]

31. Thanks for being specific about what's pissing you off

1) this was posted yesterday and was on the Greatest Page
2) 2 hours after KO is over, your post just looks "stupid" (well, it is kind of stupid either way.)

[stillcool]

32. Rip it off now!!

and proclaim you will not vote for him 'next' time. "We the People" my ass.

[JohnnyLib2]

35. Dang, you're feeding my DU addiction again.

Uproar! Drama! Good guys/bad guys. We've got it all, right here. :evilgrin:

[Avalux]

36. Might as well rip it off NOW. Why wait a week?

Because the only thing that's going to happen during the next week is a new puppy. That will only make you more disillusioned.

[marimour]

37. might as well end the dramatics and rip it off now.

because obviously it would take too much effort to actually do something productive like writing to the White House.

[firedupdem]

38. Go for it! That should help! n/t

[Caretha]

43. Where did you go?

Are you under a rock....just post & rabbit run?

[medeak]

44. just now ordered my new bumper sticker

God Bless The World...No Exceptions

http://www.stickergiant.com/Bless-the-World_b5643.html

[Mithreal]

45. I was starting to feel that way about removing my Obama garden sign

My wife was ready to take it down, but I explained why it must stand. I don't know when I will take it down but not yet. I am not ready to give in to my doubts but I am not afraid to express them to friends in hope.

[babylonsister]

46. Wow. PS:They are not all the same. nt

[uppityperson]

47. Being upset with some of his policies = "the same" as McCain?

good grief

[Ed76638]

48. I now understand why other countries have a parliamentry government.

Because the "cult of personality" tends to dominate our thinking on political matters. Its bad when Bush does it, but we must make up excuses when Pres. Obama does it. Its bullshit.

[Two Americas]

49. some views on the issue

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

Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence. It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten. Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes. This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush

New and worse secrecy and immunity claims from the Obama DOJ
Glenn Greenwald

But late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government's first response to EFF's lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush's NSA program. But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration -- that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.

...

Every defining attribute of Bush's radical secrecy powers -- every one -- is found here, and in exactly the same tone and with the exact same mindset. Thus: how the U.S. government eavesdrops on its citizens is too secret to allow a court to determine its legality. We must just blindly accept the claims from the President's DNI that we will all be endangered if we allow courts to determine the legality of the President's actions. Even confirming or denying already publicly known facts -- such as the involvement of the telecoms and the massive data-mining programs -- would be too damaging to national security. Why? Because the DNI says so. It is not merely specific documents, but entire lawsuits, that must be dismissed in advance as soon as the privilege is asserted because "its very subject matter would inherently risk or require the disclosure of state secrets."

What's being asserted here by the Obama DOJ is the virtually absolute power of presidential secrecy, the right to break the law with no consequences, and immunity from surveillance lawsuits so sweeping that one can hardly believe that it's being claimed with a straight face. It is simply inexcusable for those who spent the last several years screaming when the Bush administration did exactly this to remain silent now or, worse, to search for excuses to justify this behavior.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

Shut Up: It's Still A Secret

Yesterday, the Justice Department embraced the argument that the state secrets privilege - a fancy phrase denoting the executive branch's common law prerogative to protect classified information - should shut down any litigation against the National Security Agency for its arguably illegal warrantless surveillance program.

The case, Jewel v. NSA, is one part of a complex web of cases brought by civil libertarians against the government. They're challenging the program itself, Congress's grant to telecommunication companies of retroactive immunity, and even the rights of state governments to issue subpoenas relating to NSA activities. Jewel is perhaps the simplest to litigate; its five plaintiffs are regular folks who contend that their telecom carrier, AT&T, illegally transmitted information about their phone habits to the NSA. Defendants include the NSA and various government official who sanctioned the program. Pull one strand and the whole weave of surveillance activities will unwind. That's essentially what the government is arguing. Although, thanks to journalists, much is already known about the NSA's domestic surveillance program before it was reauthorized and rewritten, very little is known about the program today. It still exists, albeit in some neutered form.

Reports indicate that domestic communications are monitored holistically, with computers searching for patterns among the metadata - think of subject lines in e-mails. The NSA continues to work with telephone companies; it has enlisted the cooperation of companies that operate major internet hubs, as a good chunk of foreign internet traffic flows through routers controlled by American companies. NSA whistleblowers and anonymous officials have spoken of "thousands" of American citizens whose calls were monitored, although the NSA and CIA will not cop to those numbers. The program expires at the end of 2009, at which point the Obama administration is expected to mount a vigorous fight to reauthorize it in full.

The government, in a filing yesterday, argues that the Jewel will disclose state secrets if it proceeds, and that if such secrets are needed for the case to be litigated - i.e, to be argued on its merits -- it cannot be litigated. There is ample precedent for this argument. As I've written before, the state secrets privilege is one of the most powerful instruments of executive power. There are no uniform standards for judges to use in order to determine whether the government is simply asserting the privilege because they're embarrassed, or whether the privilege's assertion really protects vital secrets. Obama has criticized this lack of accountability, but his Justice Department has not figured out how to retract the privilege in a bevy of Bush-era cases without damaging the privilege itself - something they don't want to do.

The government also makes a complex argument about sovereign immunity; it argues that the case against particular persons performing their government jobs can't proceed unless Congress waives immunity. Such immunity is being challenged elsewhere, but only, in this understanding, can a basic case asking for injunctive relief from the government proceed.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/shut_up_its_still_a_secret.php

[scheming daemons]

51. Oh Noes!!!!11!!! Not THAT!!11!! Please spare the bumper sticker!!!11!!!!!

Another GDP drama queen.

[LittleBlue]

52. People here are dense as Freeptards. Bumper sticker = symbol of support

If his hardcore supporters are leaving him, good luck to him winning in 2012.

Freeperism is definitely infecting this forum.

[treestar]

53. One week is nothing in the legal system

This is not an area where one should jump at the headlines. Read the legal documents to see what is really going on.

The M$M does nothing whatsoever to report legal issues. They just jump to conclusions. They will not take the time to understand it and it does not lend itself to sound bites.

[grantcart]

54. Yeah and if the bastard gets rid of nuclear weapons mine will go off too

then I will repaint my entire car with the Obama logo