southsider2k5 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:28 PM) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090915/ap_on_.../us_patriot_act I didn't give this it's own thread because I think Obama has been pretty consistent that this was his position. Doesn't change the fact that I'm disappointed by it, though. Figures. The one time I would like Obama to act like a Democrat, he won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) Ok so my problem with people criticizing the Patriot Act is that most people who complain about it don't even know what's in it. In fact I'd say the number of people that say "Patriot Act" pejoratively without having a clue what they're saying is roughly equal to the ratio of people that do the same thing with "socialism." It's a target of uninformed populist outrage. There are parts of the original Patriot Act that are bulls***, but there are also parts of it, specifically relating to electronic surveillance etc. that are important updates to laws that were made in the 1970s when some of the technology didn't exist. Since I haven't given this lecture in a couple of years I can't recall the point-by-point explanation I used to give but let's say pre-Patriot Act there was a guy with prepaid cellphones who the government had authority to monitor. But he changes his number. Whoops, sorry. Got to start over. The Patriot Act closes one of those loopholes, you have the authority to conduct surveillance on the PERSON, not on their phone number(s); obviously there was no such thing as cellphones when the laws were made. In other words it doesn't add NEW authority to allow law enforcement to be invasive and oppressive, the laws already existed and were updated. Edited September 15, 2009 by lostfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 So...that article is written intelligently enough that it actually seems to focus on the issue of renewing/checking the most controversial parts of the act (i.e. the anti-terror librarians). They do specifically mention the changing-phones issue as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 04:36 PM) Or they could be doing research. I'd like to know more about the exact wording and span of these provisions, but in general, I tend to dislike a lot of the Patriot Act. I really, really didn't like that Obama flip-flopped and supported retro immunity to the telecoms, which I think set an awful precedent. Since I'm sure everyone knows what I do for a living I also have done college classes on it and I'm always doing searches for things like that, for Salafist Islam, for identities of terrorists, historic assassinations, potential terrorist targets and how to attack it, etc. Searching for those things in and of itself does not raise a red flag, in fact that would be a complete waste of the government's time. Something like this would only be "used against you" if there were other factors in play (people you know, places you've been, things you've said, and so on). The assumption from this is backwards. You'd have those kinds of records pulled if you were already under investigation, and the FBI agents or whoever was looking to see if there was a pattern, to see if the person actually had intent to do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 05:40 PM) So...that article is written intelligently enough that it actually seems to focus on the issue of renewing/checking the most controversial parts of the act (i.e. the anti-terror librarians). They do specifically mention the changing-phones issue as well. Yeah, but probably 3 out of 4 times I hear it mentioned the person talking is referring to the ENTIRE act, and how unconstitutional it is and it needs to go. That's simply not true. You know, it'd be better for everyone if Congress just repealed the damn thing to get the stench of the phrase "USA PATRIOT Act" out of circulation and pass a new law, with a different name, with the (still constitutional) parts included. Edited September 15, 2009 by lostfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 02:45 PM) Yeah, but probably 3 out of 4 times I hear it mentioned the person talking is referring to the ENTIRE act, and how unconstitutional it is and it needs to go. That's simply not true. You know, it'd be better for everyone if Congress just repealed the damn thing to get the stench of the phrase "USA PATRIOT Act" out of circulation and pass a new law, with a different name, with the (still constitutional) parts included. If they're talking about the unconstitutional parts, the library part is a real question (Has that ever been challenged in court?). The ACLU there also indicated they wanted to get more done to protect specific political or religious groups (i.e. the cases of police officers randomly infilitrating anti-war groups in 2003, or surveillance/rounding up of people from Mosques [see; the case currently pending against Ashcroft]). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Tonight's topic for discussion. When George W. Bush was President, more than a few celebrities embarrassed themselves. Britney Spears was even a "Singer" who did so. Why was George W. Bush not asked to comment on them, while Obama was asked (off the record of course) about his opinion on Kanye West? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Sensationalist bulls***. They assume people want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunk23 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I would imagine that other presidents were asked similar questions regularly, if anything just for making small talk. Difference was this being recorded. I also don't see it as a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 10:41 PM) I would imagine that other presidents were asked similar questions regularly, if anything just for making small talk. Difference was this being recorded. I also don't see it as a big deal. We do agree on something. Amazing. The thing is he knew he blew it, because he said immediately "give me a break on this"... or something very close to that effect. And honestly, this isn't news, or it shouldn't be, other then he expressed his opinion - which happens to coincide with 99.8% of America in this case. But, no one cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 probably because Obama seems younger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 10:34 PM) Tonight's topic for discussion. When George W. Bush was President, more than a few celebrities embarrassed themselves. Britney Spears was even a "Singer" who did so. Why was George W. Bush not asked to comment on them, while Obama was asked (off the record of course) about his opinion on Kanye West? "Because they're racist. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 10:34 PM) Tonight's topic for discussion. When George W. Bush was President, more than a few celebrities embarrassed themselves. Britney Spears was even a "Singer" who did so. Why was George W. Bush not asked to comment on them, while Obama was asked (off the record of course) about his opinion on Kanye West? I am guessing it was more like Bush had the sense to say no comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 07:43 AM) I am guessing it was more like Bush had the sense to say no comment. LOL, Bush having more sense about what to say or not to say? Both these guys are human, both make gaffes, but come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 07:43 AM) I am guessing it was more like Bush had the sense to say no comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 10:34 PM) Tonight's topic for discussion. When George W. Bush was President, more than a few celebrities embarrassed themselves. Britney Spears was even a "Singer" who did so. Why was George W. Bush not asked to comment on them, while Obama was asked (off the record of course) about his opinion on Kanye West? Probably because Bush was a stuffy, older conservative and Obama is younger and portrayed as "hip." Oh, and probably because he's black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 09:24 AM) Probably because Bush was a stuffy, older conservative and Obama is younger and portrayed as "hip." Well, we dont know what Bush said off the record because it was.. off the record. Obama's stuff got out because they tweeted an off the record comment.. and at that point the horse is our of the stable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 09:33 AM) Well, we dont know what Bush said off the record because it was.. off the record. Obama's stuff got out because they tweeted an off the record comment.. and at that point the horse is our of the stable. Because Bush never got reported for stuff he said off of the air... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 GUYS A GRADE A PRICK or something like that. REAL PRESIDENTIAL BUSH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/...acial-bott.html christ. no idea this is what's going on at home. What do you do with this guy? You ignore it and it festers. You confront it and you are an illegitimate source because his followers are so bats*** crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/...acial-bott.html christ. no idea this is what's going on at home. What do you do with this guy? You ignore it and it festers. You confront it and you are an illegitimate source because his followers are so bats*** crazy. Both sides of the aisle have their bat-s*** crazies. But the difference in the past decade, is two-fold. One, the crazies on the right (Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Buchanan) have a much bigger, much more fervent following than those on the left (Olbermann, not sure who else really qualifies). And two, the ones on the right are driven much more by anger and hate than the ones on the left. Its sad and desperate, and makes me cringe to watch it. The only good news is, the crazies in that right-wing mode are generally older, and will be fading from existence, as society matures and becomes more open-minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 01:20 PM) Both sides of the aisle have their bat-s*** crazies. But the difference in the past decade, is two-fold. One, the crazies on the right (Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Buchanan) have a much bigger, much more fervent following than those on the left (Olbermann, not sure who else really qualifies). And two, the ones on the right are driven much more by anger and hate than the ones on the left. Its sad and desperate, and makes me cringe to watch it. The only good news is, the crazies in that right-wing mode are generally older, and will be fading from existence, as society matures and becomes more open-minded. What makes Olbermann bat s*** crazy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 02:07 PM) What makes Olbermann bat s*** crazy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) I'm guessing your not a Olbermann fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 12:07 PM) What makes Olbermann bat s*** crazy? Even I'll say he has his crazy side. I'm always of the sort that thinks its interesting to compare the crazy side of each side of the aisle though. The crazy side of the left...damn dirty hippies. The crazy side of the right...thinks that carrying an AK-47 knockoff to a protest/bar is a good idea. Unless you lump in the really violent anarchists with the left (why would you?)...that always interested me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts