SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the dont-like-the-rules?-change-the-game dept.
An appeals court ruled the NSA's bulk collection was illegal. Rand Paul prevented the controversially named Patriot Act from being renewed, even if it was replaced a couple days later by the equally contentiously named "USA Freedom Act".
Mission accomplished? Not so fast:
The Obama administration has asked a secret surveillance court to ignore a federal court that found bulk surveillance illegal and to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records of millions of Americans for six months. The legal request, filed nearly four hours after Barack Obama vowed to sign a new law banning precisely the bulk collection he asks the secret court to approve, also suggests that the administration may not necessarily comply with any potential court order demanding that the collection stop.
Maybe some branches of the government are more equal than others?
Original Submission
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @12:53AM
The real about-face is that he won't veto that garbage, or fulfill most of the promises he made before being elected. Typical. But only people who didn't do their research or apply critical thinking were really fooled by that acting.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:39AM
The People voted for Black. They got what they wanted.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:47AM
They voted for hope and change. They got what they wanted.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by anubi on Wednesday June 10 2015, @03:00AM
Just remember that last election and who Obama was up against.
Nobody was voting for anyone they liked.
I sure did not. I voted, asking mercy from the Lord on what I was doing.
I had perceived what Obama was up against was just about the greediest, most self centered 0.01 percenter on the planet.
( The above line will probably earn me a troll mod, but for the sake of frankness and honesty, I have just got to say it. )
I believe everyone voted for who they thought would do the least damage.
The people got what they voted for.
I do not think what we got is what we had in mind.
I still believe the alternative would have been worse.
Maybe the American people-at-large will become motivated to put aside sports and Hollywood and address politics during the next election - ask the hard questions - and make it crystal clear those utterings do not come under "campaign promises"... no, those promises should be taken by the public as seriously as the government takes the tax code - and hold them to it.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 10 2015, @04:56AM
Nobody was voting for anyone they liked.
Incorrect. Not everyone is a short-sighted fool who votes only for the 'lesser of two evils'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:08AM
Attack the message? Ok. Attack the messenger? No.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:24AM
His statement was factually incorrect. He said that nobody voted for anyone they liked, which I know to be false, and it only takes a single counterexample to prove that statement wrong. Additionally, it's very shortsighted to vote for the 'lesser' evil, because you're just trying to stop the current greatest 'evil', and the candidates will keep getting more and more evil if you keep voting for evil. They have no real incentive to stop, as they get more power by being malicious. Then there are the excuses that these people usually trot out to try to justify their votes for bad candidates, not realizing (or not caring) that they're just creating self-fulfilling prophecies.
I have no problem calling out shortsighted behavior. I might attack the messenger in addition to responding to their message.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by black6host on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:54AM
I respect your opinions. And agree with many. I do get a bit riled up though when a person is attacked. Let's educate if we feel we have a good argument. I posted after moderating your comment because I thought that was the fair thing to do. If I've got a problem with something I'll discuss it. (Albeit one may look at it like "shoot first, ask questions later" :) )
And others are free to correct my moderation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:05AM
Who votes for Derepublicrats still though? After all this, it's insane to continue, stop it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:18AM
Thats the problem with you pedants, you fail to understand when the speaker's statement is understood to have certain implications. In this case, anubi's statement was based on the implication that he was only talking about the overwhelming majority - people who voted for Rs and Ds. There's also the fact that there are exceptions for every rule, so even the statement "All water is wet" could be proven factually false, because of a single counterexample, but everyone understands that when the word "all" is used the speaker is generally disregarding the rare exceptions because of the overwhelming number of cases where its true. You pedants always insist on making a big deal out of what are basically error bars or 'rounding errors'.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:46PM
Thats the problem with you pedants, you fail to understand when the speaker's statement is understood to have certain implications. In this case, anubi's statement was based on the implication that he was only talking about the overwhelming majority - people who voted for Rs and Ds.
Then simply use the word "most" or something such as that, instead of making incorrect statements.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:52PM
it only takes a single counterexample to prove that statement wrong
Allow me to do the honors!
I rather liked Gary Johnson, so I voted for him. I continue to like him and the work he is doing to end the drug war and to bring legitimacy to “3rd parties” in the media.
They have no real incentive to stop
Mod parent up more! A million times this!
I get so irritated with folks I know around election time who for some misguided reason believe that not voting at all is somehow showing dissent against the status quo. It isn't! The only wasted vote is no vote or a vote for somebody one does not actually want to be in office. I'll tell them, ok, maybe Libertarians are out in left field some times, so vote Green FFS! I would never want the Greens in power, but FFS, do something! Hell, even if the Greens won a major election, maybe they would push for actual reform that would allow us to have real political discourse.
I know the money, maths, and game theory is against us, but damn it, do something!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:46AM
Excuse me, but Obama is a 1%er too.
http://www.davemanuel.com/pols/barack-obama/ [davemanuel.com]
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx [bankrate.com]
Hemocyanin (different computer don't know my password by heart)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:22AM
He may be a 1%er, but prior to becoming president he was far more in touch with reality and the middle class than Romney. Romney is the very definition of ivory tower elitist.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:15PM
Speak for yourself. I'm still proud to say I voted for Rocky Anderson. I'm done voting for Republicrats.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @02:39AM
And only dipshits who think the president is some kind of fucking king that can enact whatever the fuck he wants whenever he wants go around bitching about how he didn't do everything he said he would. Maybe your ignorance can be excused if you are a foreigner, but if not, then you are too fucking stupid to know that there are two other branches of government, and at least one of them is pretty fucking hostile to everything that comes out of his mouth. It isn't like he can waive some kind of fucking fairy wand and make all your fucking wishes happen.
Too bad you aren't one of those who did any research nor have any critical thinking skills.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by anubi on Wednesday June 10 2015, @03:18AM
Although I think your language is kinda sour, the message is crystal clear, and I believe very accurate.
If it were not for those other two branches of government, I believe we would be in a helluva mess right now.
This has been a time when the best thing that could happen for the American people is to have their own government paralyzed with dissent.
Mark Twain said it quite aptly: "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @03:21AM
And only dipshits who think the president is some kind of fucking king that can enact whatever the fuck he wants whenever he wants go around bitching about how he didn't do everything he said he would.
You're a moron. The president has the power to veto. The president also has the power (as a human being) to make statements against mass surveillance, and they have a good chance of getting their voice heard, given their position. Instead, he has come out in support of mass surveillance multiple times, just like most of his other politician buddies on both 'sides'.
Here's what I said: "The real about-face is that he won't veto that garbage, or fulfill most of the promises he made before being elected." Now, tell me where I said that the president has absolute power or some other such nonsense. I didn't; that's just a straw man. I was just pointing out that Obama, like a grand majority of politicians, is just a corrupt lying scumbag.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday June 10 2015, @03:22AM
TFA: "Maybe some branches of the government are more equal than others?"
Isn't that the point? I think we are in the midst of a soft coup by the Executive branch. It starts with Congress being unwilling to exercise its powers because it doesn't want to have to take responsibility, especially for unpopular wars. So it simply cedes that to the Executive branch. Then the Executive branch just starts to ignore Congress -- see for example the war with Libya in which Obama set a precedent essentially gutting the War Powers Act (WPA at least nods to the fact that war _making_ power lies in Legislative branch and was designed to prevent future Vietnam type wars). Now we have the Executive branch saying it won't abide by orders of the Judicial branch. In other words, the Executive has assumed Legislative branch powers, and ignores the Judicial branch -- which suggests that one of the coequal branches of the Federal Government is now a little bit more equal than the others, a nice way of saying it has usurped powers that don't belong to it. Go through a few iterations of this and the Presidency will be the sole seat of power, just like a "fucking king" or dictator.
Secondly, you are doing the whole "None of this is Obama's fault, it's Congress' fault" --- which is a wet steaming pile of cat shit. Here are some of the things that Obama did as Executive, meaning no Republican twisted his arm and forced him to do them -- these were his ideas and his sole acts:
I'm sure there is a lot more to add to this list -- but everything there is a supremely-shitty policy that was Obama's and his alone. Nobody in the GOP had any say in any one of those policies. So as a liberal, I say fuck you Obama supporters (I can forgive your first vote (but the writing was on the wall for those who looked) -- but not your second). Second term Obama voters are just a gaggle of blue painted neo-con Republicans. If there was any karma in the word, you'd contract some extremely painful non-fatal life-prolonging cancer. You deserve the suffering. You've helped make the DNC, "The Other GOP." Thank's a million assholes.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:06AM
I know it's unpopular here to be at all practical about politics, but would voting for Romney really have been better? Oh right, I'm supposed to throw away my vote by voting for some fringe candidate I don't agree with (because they're nuts, that's why they're fringe) anyway when I can't get exactly what I want. Got it.
Anonymous because I'm not interested in getting into it with you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:31AM
I know it's unpopular here to be at all practical about politics, but would voting for Romney really have been better?
Both Romney and Obama are scumbags; voting for either is foolish.
Voting for someone you like isn't throwing away your vote; it's thinking in the long-term, rather than thinking about short-term consequences. Creating self-fulfilling prophecies where The One Party has no chance of ever being stopped or slowed down makes the situation far worse. Third parties don't even have to win; they just have to collect enough votes to scare The One Party candidates into accepting some of their policies to get votes back.
Oh right, I'm supposed to throw away my vote by voting for some fringe candidate I don't agree with
Why not vote for a third party candidate you do agree with? Surely intelligent people wouldn't agree with the status quo.
(because they're nuts, that's why they're fringe)
This just looks like a bandwagon fallacy. Furthermore, The One Party has brought us mass surveillance of numerous forms, endless war, the drug war, warrantless wiretapping, garbage like asset forfeiture, the TSA, and countless other things that violate our fundamental liberties and/or the constitution. How is that not nuts? Plenty of people are better than the scumbags from the main parties, which apparently you don't think are "nuts".
anyway when I can't get exactly what I want.
It's not about not getting exactly what you want. It's about not voting for candidates who violate our fundamental liberties, ignore the constitution, and engage in all sorts of corrupt behavior. Do you honestly believe this is simply a matter of disagreeing with the status quo slightly? If that is the case for you, then congratulations: You're an authoritarian, and part of the problem.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by HiThere on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:01AM
Sorry, but most "third party" candidates are crazy compared to the D&R candidates. They know they don't have a significant chance of winning, but they put the time and effort out anyway. Occasionally you actually get an idealist who isn't hopelessly disconnected from reality, and who know they don't have a chance, but want to raise the visibility of some issue or other. They will be ignored, but it can be reasonable to vote for them. Just don't expect to make any difference. (Sometimes I vote for a party strictly because the number of votes they get is used to calculate their funding during the next election cycle. Never because I expect it to make any difference. The law of large numbers mitigates against that.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:10AM
Sorry, but most "third party" candidates are crazy compared to the D&R candidates.
All of the things I said above are far more insane and evil than third party candidates trying to change their country for the better.
They know they don't have a significant chance of winning, but they put the time and effort out anyway.
Actually trying to improve your country is insane? If you give up, there is pretty much zero chance that things will improve. That's why I will keep trying, instead of creating self-fulfilling prophecies. Most big changes happen at a snail's pace; don't be short-sighted.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday June 10 2015, @01:32PM
I have voted for both Bob Barr [wikipedia.org] and Gary Johnson [wikipedia.org] for president.
How are either of these men crazy? They both have credible political experience.
While I don't agree with her, Jill Stein [wikipedia.org] also has credible political experience. Is this woman crazy as well?
Never because I expect it to make any difference. The law of large numbers mitigates against that.
Sad, but true. However, remember that the Republican party was once a 3rd party.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:47PM
Many important changes came from people who did things that seemed to have no significant chance of succeeding.
Do you think when the idea of America getting independent was first formulated, there were many people who would have given it a chance? If all people back then had thought like you do, America would still be British.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @05:34AM
Voting for Romney would have been just like voting for Obama, so it would be neither worse nor better. There is one gross irony however -- if Romney tried to do the things Obama does, Democrats would piss and moan about human rights, privacy, freedom and justice. As ridiculous as it sounds to those like me who were conditioned to think of Democrats as leaders in the fight for human rights, our rights and freedoms are probably better protected when the GOP has the presidency because then at least one party will pretend to care. When the DNC is in office though, all that protest is not just muted, it is scorned. You have people like Marty Lederman who used to excoriate the Bush administration for using secret legal memos to justify due process free detention, authoring secret legal memos while in Obama's cabinet justifying due process free execution. That's an amazing WTF.
Getting back to that gross irony, it is pretty obvious that we'd be better if the equally crappy candidate had won because the DNC might actually react in a way that is good for human rights -- even if disingenuous, it is important to have that pushback. It's so sad that the best a liberal can hope for, is that the a GOP might prod the DNC into fake outrage. Puke.
Hemocyanin -- posting anonymously because I'm at a different computer and I don't remember my password.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @09:58AM
A lot of your points are well made, but some are just stupid.
Increased troops in Afghanistan? So what? Unless we as a country decide to pull everyone (including the CIA) out, I'd rather have more troops there than less. You must have meant that we're still fighting there. The number of troops is irrelevant.
And I'm so sick of hearing "drone" every five minutes. Saying the drone program was designed to kill innocent people is hyperbolic bullshit. Bombs kill everyone in the area you drop them in. That doesn't change when a drone is involved, and the drone program has been more accurate than most manned bombing missions. (And explosives are always used in war. Get used to it.)
What you should be griping about is that we're fighting a war over the Afghan border into a supposedly neutral country, although the fact that their government is giving us the thumbs up behind their back takes a lot of the force out any complaint.
"he apparently likes it when years after a war ends, random people get body parts blown off" Could you descend any further into hyperbole? Yes, the US arms manufacturers own everyone in DC, and will continue to sell illegal weapons to other nations even when we stop our troops from using them.
Decided not to prosecute the torturers. Duh. No president ever prosecutes the previous administration, which they'd have to do if they were serious. But yeah, it sucks.
As for your last paragraph, fuck you for adding yourself to the asshole count with another unnecessary flame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:27AM
Exactly! Its a devious ploy - he's trying to get congress and all the right-wing fascists to tear down the surveillance state by 'supporting' it. If Obama supports something, you can bet your ass Faux News will immediately start going on rants about how evil and terrible that something is, so by publicly supporting surveillance he can ensure congress will shut it down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 10 2015, @10:40PM
And only dipshits who think the president is some kind of fucking king that can enact whatever the fuck he wants whenever he wants go around bitching about how he didn't do everything he said he would. Maybe your ignorance can be excused if you are a foreigner, but if not, then you are too fucking stupid to know that there are two other branches of government, and at least one of them is pretty fucking hostile to everything that comes out of his mouth. It isn't like he can waive some kind of fucking fairy wand and make all your fucking wishes happen.
Too bad you aren't one of those who did any research nor have any critical thinking skills.
Hmmm..... Then why did he promise to do that? Why hasn't he come out and stated exactly what the problems are with enacting meaningful reform, and name the name of the politicians which are obstructing his ability to run the Executive Branch?
Isn't it funny that the President has COMPLETE LATITUDE to direct the NSA to not ask the FISA court for the permission? More specifically, he could order the director of the NSA to stop such activity. And then, if Congress still wanted him to take that action they can write a law making such actions compulsory. (Unless, of course, you can cite a law which was passed which made such collections compulsory. Good luck.) But that would also then take Obama actually stand up and say, "Yep, the freedom of innocent Americans to not have their call data sucked up is more important than the intelligence value we get [or didn't get] from this program." It would also take his having the balls to admit that yes, even at the risk of another 9/11 our collective rights as Americans are more important. And he won't, of course.
But since we've traded in, "do the crime and do the time," for, "have your words misconstrued and be convicted of thought crimes," I doubt he'll grow that set.
Oh, and did you mean the Judicial branch is hostile to Obama? Because he did have two years where the Democrats had Presidency, Senate, and House. And a longer control of the Senate. And he used that ability to..... make the rich richer? Turn over control of healthcare to the insurance industry even more? So maybe you're the one who needs a recent history lesson along with a thorough mouth cleaning.