Obama extends controversial Patriot Act provisions (1 Viewer)

[GroveDiesel]

Along with the Republican lead House and Democrat lead Senate of course.

And it's weird, I can't find a single article on the front page of the NYT talking about how it's a giant invasion of our liberties (which it is) and how it's outrageous that President Obama would extend this.

 

[sho nuff]

And you had Harry Reid basically calling Rand Paul a terrorist sympathizer for wanting to amend it a bit.

 

[jon_mx]

Thank goodness he did not make that a campaign issue.

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me

JANUARY 8, 2008 1:16 PM PST

by Anne Broache

HANOVER, N.H.--Barack Obama may be leading the Democratic presidential pack in every major poll here, but that didn't dissuade the Illinois senator from a final early-morning rally with the Facebook generation.

Clearly not content to leave their votes to the whims of online politicking, the Illinois senator stepped onto a stage fashioned in a Dartmouth College gymnasium, pulled an index card from his inside jacket pocket, and launched into a familiar set of talking points centered on what has become a familiar theme for his campaign: change and hope.

"My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack," he told a crowd of about 300 Ivy Leaguers--and, by the looks of it, a handful of locals who managed to gain access to what was supposed to be a students-only event.

For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, **** Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

In our own Technology Voters' Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: "No."

NOTE: The words in quotes are not mine. They are stolen from an article posted elsewhere on the internet. Any views or opinions expressed in the article should not be construed as an endorsement by me.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Thank goodness he did not make that a campaign issue.

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me

JANUARY 8, 2008 1:16 PM PST

by Anne Broache

HANOVER, N.H.--Barack Obama may be leading the Democratic presidential pack in every major poll here, but that didn't dissuade the Illinois senator from a final early-morning rally with the Facebook generation.

Clearly not content to leave their votes to the whims of online politicking, the Illinois senator stepped onto a stage fashioned in a Dartmouth College gymnasium, pulled an index card from his inside jacket pocket, and launched into a familiar set of talking points centered on what has become a familiar theme for his campaign: change and hope.

"My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack," he told a crowd of about 300 Ivy Leaguers--and, by the looks of it, a handful of locals who managed to gain access to what was supposed to be a students-only event.

Did he really say that? That reads like something from The Onion.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'm at least willing to give Obama some leeway on that it's possible once he became President, he saw exactly what they were being used for and thought it was necessary/useful. He's a huge pragmatist in a lot of ways, so I can see him doing whatever he believes is currenty most beneficial.

But the same can't be said for the NYT, Washington Post, Think Progress, MoveOn, Huffington, etc. They're just demonstrating that civil liberties don't really matter to them. They're just a talking point used to bash someone they see as a political opponent or support someone they see as a political ally.

 

[jon_mx]

Thank goodness he did not make that a campaign issue.

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me

JANUARY 8, 2008 1:16 PM PST

by Anne Broache

HANOVER, N.H.--Barack Obama may be leading the Democratic presidential pack in every major poll here, but that didn't dissuade the Illinois senator from a final early-morning rally with the Facebook generation.

Clearly not content to leave their votes to the whims of online politicking, the Illinois senator stepped onto a stage fashioned in a Dartmouth College gymnasium, pulled an index card from his inside jacket pocket, and launched into a familiar set of talking points centered on what has become a familiar theme for his campaign: change and hope.

"My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack," he told a crowd of about 300 Ivy Leaguers--and, by the looks of it, a handful of locals who managed to gain access to what was supposed to be a students-only event.

Did he really say that? That reads like something from The Onion.

Here is the story....thought I had the link included.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm at least willing to give Obama some leeway on that it's possible once he became President, he saw exactly what they were being used for and thought it was necessary/useful. He's a huge pragmatist in a lot of ways, so I can see him doing whatever he believes is currenty most beneficial.But the same can't be said for the NYT, Washington Post, Think Progress, MoveOn, Huffington, etc. They're just demonstrating that civil liberties don't really matter to them. They're just a talking point used to bash someone they see as a political opponent or support someone they see as a political ally.

You realize he was a Senator at the time. So irresponsible rhetoric is not really excusable.

 

[Chadstroma]

Damn Bush!!!

Oh... wait.... what? Er, I mean, Obama is such a great leader whom we can all admire and remember, if you attack him, you are a racist.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'm at least willing to give Obama some leeway on that it's possible once he became President, he saw exactly what they were being used for and thought it was necessary/useful. He's a huge pragmatist in a lot of ways, so I can see him doing whatever he believes is currenty most beneficial.But the same can't be said for the NYT, Washington Post, Think Progress, MoveOn, Huffington, etc. They're just demonstrating that civil liberties don't really matter to them. They're just a talking point used to bash someone they see as a political opponent or support someone they see as a political ally.

You realize he was a Senator at the time. So irresponsible rhetoric is not really excusable.

I'm not giving him a complete free pass because he was pretty clear cut and explicit in his statements and he's never once admitted that he was wrong despite obviously changing course from those very clear and very self righteous proclamations.But, I assume the info available to a Senator of his level is quite different than the info he is currently privy to as President. So I can see how a pragmatic person could change course and ditch any stated principles. It doesn't excuse him from pretending that he hasn't changed though and explaining why.

 

[ren hoek]

Yeah, sometime over the course of his campaign he went from being opposed to the Patriot Act to saying that he will "only keep the useful parts" of it. I guess civil liberties are only important on the campaign trail.

I'm sure it's fun for them to snoop people's emails and listen to their phone calls. Doesn't the Patriot Act also allow them to detain someone without any sort of due process if they're suspected of terrorism?

 

[Charlie Frown]

I admit I have not read the Patriot Act. Is there somewhere I can go to get a good look at what is actually in it (without reading the whole thing). Like a Cliffs Notes or something?

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

I admit I have not read the Patriot Act. Is there somewhere I can go to get a good look at what is actually in it (without reading the whole thing). Like a Cliffs Notes or something?

Spoiler

Clifton's Notes: The government can and will do whatever they want to, with no regard to privacy rights, and will excuse it under the guise of fighting terrorism.

 

[badmojo1006]

Nancy Pelosi voted not to extend the Patriot Act

 

[NCCommish]

 

[CBusAlex]

Yeah, sometime over the course of his campaign he went from being opposed to the Patriot Act to saying that he will "only keep the useful parts" of it. I guess civil liberties are only important on the campaign trail.

"Useful parts" apparently meaning the whole damn thing.

 

[Da Guru]

I have no problem with Geobama extending this act..and the coverage or lack of coverage is very predictable and consistant.

 

[jon_mx]

Yeah, sometime over the course of his campaign he went from being opposed to the Patriot Act to saying that he will "only keep the useful parts" of it. I guess civil liberties are only important on the campaign trail.

"Useful parts" apparently meaning the whole damn thing.

Just once I would like to hear Obama admit he was wrong and maybe Bush was right about this. Of course the media always hounded Bush to admit his mistakes, but for Obama's constant stream of 180's, especially concerning the war on terror, there is nothing. Obama can't pat himself on the back quick enough when things go right (every little economic uptick, OBL, Libya), but admitting serious mistakes, never. Oh yes, Obama will fess up to some tactical errors, but these are fundamental policy flips which he campaigned heavily on. Nothing.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yeah, sometime over the course of his campaign he went from being opposed to the Patriot Act to saying that he will "only keep the useful parts" of it. I guess civil liberties are only important on the campaign trail.

"Useful parts" apparently meaning the whole damn thing.

Just once I would like to hear Obama admit he was wrong and maybe Bush was right about this. Of course the media always hounded Bush to admit his mistakes, but for Obama's constant stream of 180's, especially concerning the war on terror, there is nothing. Obama can't pat himself on the back quick enough when things go right (every little economic uptick, OBL, Libya), but admitting serious mistakes, never. Oh yes, Obama will fess up to some tactical errors, but these are fundamental policy flips which he campaigned heavily on. Nothing.

Not related to Bush, but he also strongly opposed the individual mandate during the campaign and attacked Hillary over and over again for supporting it. That was another 180.

 

[NCCommish]

Yeah, sometime over the course of his campaign he went from being opposed to the Patriot Act to saying that he will "only keep the useful parts" of it. I guess civil liberties are only important on the campaign trail.

"Useful parts" apparently meaning the whole damn thing.

Just once I would like to hear Obama admit he was wrong and maybe Bush was right about this. Of course the media always hounded Bush to admit his mistakes, but for Obama's constant stream of 180's, especially concerning the war on terror, there is nothing. Obama can't pat himself on the back quick enough when things go right (every little economic uptick, OBL, Libya), but admitting serious mistakes, never. Oh yes, Obama will fess up to some tactical errors, but these are fundamental policy flips which he campaigned heavily on. Nothing.

Luckily he didn't make any, well according to him. And plenty of people are calling out Obama on the reversals. He will face a challenge from his left this cycle because of them.

 

[Dvorak]

But we killed Bin Laden? I thought it was all good now?

 

[ren hoek]

Or was last year's editorial, "Breaking a Promise on Surveilance" still too buddy-buddy, the Grey Lady is in Obama's back pocket for you?

Yeah, what was GroveDiesel thinking? Of course articles written 10 months ago cover current news.

 

[Sarnoff]

Further proof Bush was right all along. Really exposing all the Bush-hate as partisanship because he was a Republican, and nothing more substantive than that. Hope and Change my ###. Hack.

 

[Fennis]

ridiculous.

 

[Fennis]

Further proof Bush was right all along. Really exposing all the Bush-hate as partisanship because he was a Republican, and nothing more substantive than that. Hope and Change my ###. Hack.

further proof that both bush and obama were wrong all along.

 

[jon_mx]

His point was that the NYTimes is too pro-Obama to rebuke him on this topic. It has. Exactly in the way that he said it hadn't.

"But it didn't do it this time...... wahhhhhhhhhh..........."

Blouses.

When Bush was in office, negative articles concerning his policies were daily occurrences. Now with Obama, it is one and done. Oh that is just old news, let's move on.

 

[honky kong]

It's really weird how the most liberal senator in the history of the world became a president that decidedly isn't.

 

[Parrothead]

reminds me of the 80's song where Michael Jackson sang "I always feel like, somebody's waaatching meee.."

 

[whoknew]

This is such a huge disappointment from Obama. Getting rid of the Patriot Act was one of the few things I was looking forward to in Obama's Presidency.

I think he's done some good things as President - but this is clearly not one of them.

 

[NCCommish]

Further proof Bush was right all along. Really exposing all the Bush-hate as partisanship because he was a Republican, and nothing more substantive than that. Hope and Change my ###. Hack.

NCC obviously is against the reauthorization. I'm against the reauthorization. I was against it when it was first written, particularly given the open-ended nature of its justification.

Yeah it ain't about who is signing it for me. It is wrongheaded and bad for America IMO. No matter what party pushes it.

 

[Jewell]

reminds me of the 80's song where Michael Jackson sang "I always feel like, somebody's waaatching meee.."

You don't know your rock well.

 

[jon_mx]

reminds me of the 80's song where Michael Jackson sang "I always feel like, somebody's waaatching meee.."

You don't know your rock well.

Did you PM Parrothead that set up?

 

[Parrothead]

reminds me of the 80's song where Michael Jackson sang "I always feel like, somebody's waaatching meee.."

You don't know your rock well.

oh but I do-- Michael Jackson sang the chorus..

link

 

[GroveDiesel]

His point was that the NYTimes is too pro-Obama to rebuke him on this topic. It has. Exactly in the way that he said it hadn't.

"But it didn't do it this time...... wahhhhhhhhhh..........."

Blouses.

When Bush was in office, negative articles concerning his policies were daily occurrences. Now with Obama, it is one and done. Oh that is just old news, let's move on.

Yeah, pretty much this. Under Bush there were daily body count articles in CNN, NYT, etc and story after story after story about the Patriot Act. Now it's one token article or editorial and then a collective yawn.This won't even be a blip on the radar for Obama in the 2012 election. If Rand Paul runs against him and tries to make it a major issue, the NYT/MoveOn crowd won't blink an eye in dismissing it and moving on to another topic.

 

[ren hoek]

Or was last year's editorial, "Breaking a Promise on Surveilance" still too buddy-buddy, the Grey Lady is in Obama's back pocket for you?

Yeah, what was GroveDiesel thinking? Of course articles written 10 months ago cover current news.

His point was that the NYTimes is too pro-Obama to rebuke him on this topic. It has. Exactly in the way that he said it hadn't."But it didn't do it this time...... wahhhhhhhhhh..........."

Blouses.

What if that article were written 2 years ago? Should it still be considered a fit representation of that point of view? Since we're contending that 10-month old articles laying around in the NYT archives are still relevant and all. I don't personally care about editorial opinions one way or the other. But it's still extremely odd that there's nothing about this on the front page. I don't see why you'd defend the NYT on this one.

 

[HellToupee]

yes he was dealt a tough hand but for the most part O is making the right moves

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

This is such a huge disappointment from Obama. Getting rid of the Patriot Act was one of the few things I was looking forward to in Obama's Presidency.I think he's done some good things as President - but this is clearly not one of them.

I am very disappointed in Obama reaffirming this law. He has done some great things as president but this is one that is very questionable.

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

Not sure what the neo conservatives are mad about. Shouldn't you be happy?

 

[GroveDiesel]

Not sure what the neo conservatives are mad about. Shouldn't you be happy?

Link to the neo-conservatives in here that are unhappy?

 

[jon_mx]

Not sure what the neo conservatives are mad about. Shouldn't you be happy?

Certainly happy he is continuing virtually every Bush policy concerning the War on Terror. But the fact that he won the Presidency soley based upon rhetoric attacking Bush is terrible. That rhetoric enabled Obama to implement other stuff I can't stand.

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

Not sure what the neo conservatives are mad about. Shouldn't you be happy?

Link to the neo-conservatives in here that are unhappy?

Some of you are sweating newspapers, other blogs. Some of you are exposing your bitterness for the way Bush was treated. None of you congratulated Obama for making another great decision.

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

Not sure what the neo conservatives are mad about. Shouldn't you be happy?

Certainly happy he is continuing virtually every Bush policy concerning the War on Terror. But the fact that he won the Presidency soley based upon rhetoric attacking Bush is terrible. That rhetoric enabled Obama to implement other stuff I can't stand.

So do you think Obama is strong on Terrorism? Does he have your vote if that was the important issue for you?

 

[jon_mx]

Not sure what the neo conservatives are mad about. Shouldn't you be happy?

Certainly happy he is continuing virtually every Bush policy concerning the War on Terror. But the fact that he won the Presidency soley based upon rhetoric attacking Bush is terrible. That rhetoric enabled Obama to implement other stuff I can't stand.

So do you think Obama is strong on Terrorism? Does he have your vote if that was the important issue for you?

Obama showed there is not much difference between the two parties on this issue, so based on this issue it is a wash. Obama continued to do what needed to get done, with the major exception of appointing the idiot Holder to try to screw things up. Still couldn't vote for Obama based upon his Supreme Court nominations, his lack of real concern for spending, his tax the rich/business philosophy, his unwillingness to tap into US resources for energy, his attacks on states trying to deal with immigration problems to name a few.

 

[ren hoek]

And you had Harry Reid basically calling Rand Paul a terrorist sympathizer for wanting to amend it a bit.

This didn't get nearly enough mention either. Harry Reid is a disgrace.http://youtu.be/q4imruU6Zas

 

[Mr. PadresLakers]

Not sure what the neo conservatives are mad about. Shouldn't you be happy?

Certainly happy he is continuing virtually every Bush policy concerning the War on Terror. But the fact that he won the Presidency soley based upon rhetoric attacking Bush is terrible. That rhetoric enabled Obama to implement other stuff I can't stand.

So do you think Obama is strong on Terrorism? Does he have your vote if that was the important issue for you?

Obama showed there is not much difference between the two parties on this issue, so based on this issue it is a wash. Obama continued to do what needed to get done, with the major exception of appointing the idiot Holder to try to screw things up. Still couldn't vote for Obama based upon his Supreme Court nominations, his lack of real concern for spending, his tax the rich/business philosophy, his unwillingness to tap into US resources for energy, his attacks on states trying to deal with immigration problems to name a few.

I mentioned terrorism specifically. Is Obama strong on terrorism?

 

[tipsy mcstagger]

 

[Thunderlips]

Yeah, sometime over the course of his campaign he went from being opposed to the Patriot Act to saying that he will "only keep the useful parts" of it. I guess civil liberties are only important on the campaign trail.

"Useful parts" apparently meaning the whole damn thing.

Just once I would like to hear Obama admit he was wrong and maybe Bush was right about this. Of course the media always hounded Bush to admit his mistakes, but for Obama's constant stream of 180's, especially concerning the war on terror, there is nothing. Obama can't pat himself on the back quick enough when things go right (every little economic uptick, OBL, Libya), but admitting serious mistakes, never. Oh yes, Obama will fess up to some tactical errors, but these are fundamental policy flips which he campaigned heavily on. Nothing.

Luckily he didn't make any, well according to him. And plenty of people are calling out Obama on the reversals. He will face a challenge from his left this cycle because of them.

But that challenge should be tempered by the people on the Right who, when Bush was President, claimed how great the Patriot Act was...Right?

 

[jon_mx]

Not sure what the neo conservatives are mad about. Shouldn't you be happy?

Certainly happy he is continuing virtually every Bush policy concerning the War on Terror. But the fact that he won the Presidency soley based upon rhetoric attacking Bush is terrible. That rhetoric enabled Obama to implement other stuff I can't stand.

So do you think Obama is strong on Terrorism? Does he have your vote if that was the important issue for you?

Obama showed there is not much difference between the two parties on this issue, so based on this issue it is a wash. Obama continued to do what needed to get done, with the major exception of appointing the idiot Holder to try to screw things up. Still couldn't vote for Obama based upon his Supreme Court nominations, his lack of real concern for spending, his tax the rich/business philosophy, his unwillingness to tap into US resources for energy, his attacks on states trying to deal with immigration problems to name a few.

I mentioned terrorism specifically. Is Obama strong on terrorism?

With the exception of Holder and some nits about his refusal to specifically acknowledge the Islamic Terrorism threat, Obama has been good. Specifically on al Qaeda, Obama has been very strong. I can see once al Qaeda changes their name, Obama will declare the war on terror is over.

 

[Jewell]

reminds me of the 80's song where Michael Jackson sang "I always feel like, somebody's waaatching meee.."

You don't know your rock well.

oh but I do-- Michael Jackson sang the chorus..

link

 

[GroveDiesel]

Not sure what the neo conservatives are mad about. Shouldn't you be happy?

Link to the neo-conservatives in here that are unhappy?

Some of you are sweating newspapers, other blogs. Some of you are exposing your bitterness for the way Bush was treated. None of you congratulated Obama for making another great decision.

I'm confused about who your "you" is referring to as neo-conservatives.

 

[Sarnoff]

Not sure what the neo conservatives are mad about. Shouldn't you be happy?

Certainly happy he is continuing virtually every Bush policy concerning the War on Terror. But the fact that he won the Presidency soley based upon rhetoric attacking Bush is terrible. That rhetoric enabled Obama to implement other stuff I can't stand.

I'm happy Obama has chosen to mostly follow Bush's successful foreign policy. After all, it was Bush's "strategery" that caused the Arab Spring that has challenged the conventional power structures of the Middle East. I just wish we had someone smarter than Obama, like Bush, in the Oval Office today to better take advantage of the opportunity.I'm upset I had to sit through eight years of people comparing Bush to Hitler, and calling him an idiot, when it's obvious now that he was right all along and made all the best decisions, and those that challenged him before but support the Democrats now are clearly in it for partisan reasons. It's borderline treasonous the way Obama, Reid, and Pelosi played petty politics with foreign policy... the way they worked to ruin America as best they could for the sole reason of putting their own party in power. Just so they could carve out larger slices of the public treasury for themselves and their cronies.Oh, and everyone who fell for the "Hope and Change" is a sucker.