June 6, 2013

Strangely...

... this is kind of why I voted for Obama!

311 comments:

1 – 200 of 311   Newer›   Newest»
John Lynch said...

Wasn't enough for them to endorse Romney, so who cares? I don't believe that all these scandals came out of nowhere. They were around before the election.

This way the staff of the Times gets to pretend they stand for something without having to pay any price.

Palladian said...

Strangely... this is kind of why I voted for Obama!

Because he's a lying, characterless asshole?

Marshal said...

Our penalty for your intellectual point is Obamacare, which establishes the government's right to control whatever it thinks is sufficiently important. Eventually that will include virtually everything.

Thanks.

Palladian said...

New York Times: The administration has now lost all credibility.

Their sighs of Obama is incredible! now have a very different meaning than they did in 2008.

Paul said...

Oh please. Obama isn't a fraction of the human being GWB is, and besides the lying sack of shit campaigned on undoing Bush's "overreaches".

El Pollo Raylan said...

...this is kind of why I voted for Obama!

The people conflating Obama with Bush are lefties at heart...which kind of explains why Althouse voted for Obama...

Xmas said...

You voted for Obama because he would continue some of the worst excesses of George W. Bush's administration?

Ouch...my head hurts now.

Although, the excesses of the Patriot act where just one more ratcheted step on the growing war on the government against it's own people. There was nothing in the Patriot Act that wasn't already asked for by law enforcement to fight the drug war over the last 50 years. The September 11th attacks just gave them another excuse to ask for these powers and actually get them.

AprilApple said...

I don't think George W Bush joked about the IRS targeting his political opponents and followed up with the IRS actually doing so....

Lem said...

...this is kind of why I voted for Obama!

MoveOn.org

Are those guys still around?

Robert Zaleski said...

Pretty sure she meant the first election it seemed he would follow up on some of this wiretapping and war-time stuff.

If she meant the second term, well shame on her. Really everyone should have known all of this. I sadly think most americans are either ignorant, covetous, racist and/or anti-mormon bigots. Hence the reason many people who voted to give Obama a second term.

Of course invalids carted into vote doesn't help either.

Chip Ahoy said...

... issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: [trust us]

That's why? Yeah, I can see that.

Left out bromides, and anodyne, that's my new temporary all-time favorite word, anodyne.

Ann Althouse said...

I thought that he would continue many of the policies that Bush had adopted in the war against terrorism, and that Democrats would no longer get away with carping from the sidelines. They'd have to face up to what needed to be done. Without a Republican to demonize, we'd experience an important reality check.

C Stanley said...

Wasn't enough for them to endorse Romney, so who cares? I don't believe that all these scandals came out of nowhere. They were around before the election.

This way the staff of the Times gets to pretend they stand for something without having to pay any price.


+ 1000.

When all of the scandals first started coming to light and the press was actually at least sorta kinda covering them, I found it refreshing at first. Very quickly that turned to anger when I realized that some of these people must have been sitting on this stuff, or at least willfully ignoring stuff.

Mogget said...

I have to say that I find your vote reckless. In order to get to those headlines, many people have been wronged and more undoubtedly will be. The American experience remains an experiment, to be sure, but an experimental event with the potential to end the experiment is not wise.

Ann Althouse said...

I didn't vote for Obama in 2012, however.

And I only voted for Bush once -- in 2004.

C Stanley said...

"Without a Republican to demonize"

Yeah, they haven't been able to find any of them to engage in that behavior for the past five years, now have they?

Rusty said...

Sucker!

Rusty said...

Ann Althouse said...
I thought that he would continue many of the policies that Bush had adopted in the war against terrorism, and that Democrats would no longer get away with carping from the sidelines. They'd have to face up to what needed to be done. Without a Republican to demonize, we'd experience an important reality check.

You are so fucking adorable.

chrisnavin.com said...

He's a law professor, he's young, a good family man, moderate, cautious, pragmatic.

In fact, he might even be a genius from the looks of his speeches. Besides, the Clintons are old hat. He will be the racial bridge this country needs.

Let's give him a few more years.

Titus said...

Intent of this posting was to piss off the inmates.

Well done Althouse.

Mogget said...

Your fellow Americans would like to thank you for making our civil liberties, economic opportunities, and national security into a teaching moment for liberals. Too bad this isn't classroom where you can say "class dismissed" and it's all over with but the reflection paper.

Paul said...

"I thought that he would continue many of the policies that Bush had adopted in the war against terrorism, and that Democrats would no longer get away with carping from the sidelines. They'd have to face up to what needed to be done. Without a Republican to demonize, we'd experience an important reality check.'

Unfortunately he's waged a much more earnest war against the American people, particularly the 50% who are his ideological "enemies".

And while the democrats may have stopped carping from the sidelines, they and their media cohorts have turned a blind eye while he and his Chicago thugs trample the Constitution and bankrupt the nation.

So it looks like you fumbled that one pretty good.

pm317 said...

So what will the lefty liberals who fell for this liar's non-existent anti-war speech of a lie do?

Chef Mojo said...

Without a Republican to demonize, we'd experience an important reality check.

Well, that sure worked out well!

Amartel said...

"Without a Republican to demonize"

Oh, please. After the last Republican dies, they'll dig him up out of his grave and demonize him. There is no reality check.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Ann Althouse said...
I thought that he would continue many of the policies that Bush had adopted in the war against terrorism, and that Democrats would no longer get away with carping from the sidelines. They'd have to face up to what needed to be done. Without a Republican to demonize, we'd experience an important reality check.

I'll take your word for it now that you were thinking that then in 2008, but my recollection is that you voted against McCain. You wrote a blogpost How McCain Lost Me which sets forth some of the reasons why you couldn't vote for McCain. You've augmented those reasons over the years, often referring to that post.

I've seen some of the ideas you express here before, but not as far back as 2008 when the election happened. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

AReasonableMan said...

The public seems to accept the loss of privacy because it doesn't really affect them, only the terrorists - the evil doers.

I am not sure how keen either Bush or Obama are on the surveillance state but there has been a low political cost whereas a successful terrorist attack had the potential for a high political cost, largely making it a no brainer for them.

It would be good to see libertarian senators like Rand Paul team up with the left wing libertarians to make this a bigger issue but I'm not holding my breath.

ricpic said...

You really can't parody the Left's attempt to pin the Obama scandals on Bush. Such naked panic to redirect the peasantry's (as they see us) gaze onto Bush and away from their vicious boy.

Mogget said...

What will be perfect is if Garage shows up and even he can't find a good word!

ricpic said...

...its vicious boy.

Darek from the Bible Belt said...

wow, you guys absolutely live in an alternate universe... Do you acknowledge: (a) that GWB inherited four consecutive budget surpluses and squandered it with tax cuts, (b) that the tax cut in 2003 was when we already had gone back into deficit and was THE FIRST TAX CUT DURING A WAR in American history? (c)that the second Iraq was both a mistake and a disaster (something now believed by most House Republicans, according to one of their own? (d) GWB expanded Medicare benefits in ways that have been bonanzas for big pharma and the insutrabnce industry? (e) that Obamacare is a conservative, private-sector program which liberals detest - the individual mandate came from the Heritage Foundation? (f) TARP was a Republican proposal from a Republican Secretary of the Ttreasury under GWB ?

Writ Small said...

By collecting phone records to hunt terrorists, hellfire vaporizing overseas terror targets, and force feeding Guantanamo inmates, Obama is not nearly as bad at fighting the war on terror as he promised to be.

R's shouldn’t make the same error the D's previously did and assume that just because the other side is doing it, it must be wrong.

Lem said...

Did The NYT wait until something that Bush started, to resurface, to impose their pretzel manners?

Or Am I (again) trying too hard?

Methadras said...

Because you like feckless, empty-suited leadership from behind and to assuage your sense of collective white guilt cruelly neutral tendencies? I mean, if you are a marxist 5th columnist agitprop for a president and you lose the NYT? Well, you are done for by god.

Nathan Alexander said...

"left wing libertarians"

There are no left-wing libertarians.

If there were, Obamacare would never have been passed.

There may have been a few that felt bad about it, but when push comes to shove, every Democrat falls in line.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Methadras wrote: Because you like feckless, empty-suited leadership from behind and to assuage your sense of collective white guilt cruelly neutral tendencies?

"White guilt" is something I've noticed does afflict Althouse, but I'm not sure it made her pull the lever.

Palladian said...

"Darek from the Bible Belt", George W. Bush hasn't been president for almost 5 years and, despite appearances to the contrary, Barack H. Obama has.

Own it!

AReasonableMan said...

Ann Althouse said...
I thought that he would continue many of the policies that Bush had adopted in the war against terrorism


It is genuinely difficult to understand how any person genuinely concerned about the erosion of our personal liberties could consider this a good idea.

The presumed calculus is:
less freedom = less likelihood of a successful terrorist attack

This is going to sound brutal but if the result of dismantling our current surveillance state is a few more attacks I can live with that. Much the same goes for the war on drugs.

Lem said...

Titus is right again.

elkh1 said...

You have been had.

Let's face it, W never did what the leftists accused him of doing: sic the IRS on potential political enemies, not even Nixon did that; prosecuted leakers; wiretapped, hacked journalists, the real ones, not the journolistas; drone killed American citizens without charges; gun walking killing more than two hundred Mexicans, then told the Mexicans that the guns came from the US illegally as if he wasn't the one sending them there; collected phone records of millions, wasted billions to reward his cronies: GM, Solyndra, to name a couple...

W never did that. In fact none of the presidents has ever been so corrupt, and none of them was propped up by the MSM propaganda machine.

The reason now the jounolistas call him George W Obama insinuate that Bush did what Obama did. It's another propaganda shit trump up by the MSM (Mass Shitting Machine).

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darek from the Bible Belt said...

From my friends, I think thoughtful people on the left ARE appalled by the AP, IRS, and NSA scandals. They're not getting much response because you guys have demonized and vilified Obama from the start, and with the absurd birther, closet Muslim stuff that you've been tuned out by everyone but yourselves as "true believers." Benghazi was tragic and incompetent but the effort to turn it into a scandal does not persuade the rest of us and since you've cried wolf so constantly and so repeatedly now that real scandals have emerged, you have no credibility. The guy is NOT evil. He's just someone you disagree with strongly on policy. Now that his administration clearly has committed outrageous, your five years of over-the-top outrage has exhausted the rest of us right when we could have been persuaded. I know you won't get this.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sigivald said...

Mogget said:

In fairness to the Profession, I don't think that Romney would have done any better on Civil Liberties, nor do I think McCain would have done better on damn near anything.

(This is not praise for Obama, but disdain for McCain and realizing that the "civil liberties" aspect is bipartisan in that neither party takes it as seriously as the internet commentariat.

Then again, I read the PATRIOT act and most of the complaints about it seemed to be coming from people who didn't.)

edutcher said...

You really thought that?

When he was asked about life beginning at conception and he said it was above his pay grade, when you looked at his background (or lack of one), when he double-crossed everybody on campaign financing, when you found out how much he had to do with the housing crash while Dubya was trying to get rid of subprime loans, when he betrayed all that Obambi nonsense with his, "Get in their faces", you thought he was just like Dubya?

Ann Althouse said...

I thought that he would continue many of the policies that Bush had adopted in the war against terrorism, and that Democrats would no longer get away with carping from the sidelines. They'd have to face up to what needed to be done. Without a Republican to demonize, we'd experience an important reality check.

We've had a reality check, to be sure.

You're a sweet lady and you believe in a lot of good, idealistic things about people, but you must get your herat broken a lot.

edutcher said...

heart, not herat.

MadisonMan said...

All those phone taps sure stopped the Boston Marathon bombing.

(Note that this is not a plea for ever more excessive Governmental snooping).

You cannot be perfectly safe in a free society.

AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander said...
"left wing libertarians"

There are no left-wing libertarians.


This is obvious BS, as evidenced by the recent high court decision.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Who is this Darek-from-the-Bible-Belt/account-created-in-June-2013-who-knows-what-we-think?

Edward Lunny said...

" reality check." Oh come on. From the party and administration that faces every problem by blaming anyone else ? The dems and the Obama admin wouldn't know reality if it bit them on the ass.

Leaders lead, take responsibility, for the bad and the good. Dems, Obama, pu**ies, blame others. That's not leadership, it's cowardice.

Palladian said...

Now that his administration clearly has committed outrageous, your five years of over-the-top outrage has exhausted the rest of us right when we could have been persuaded.

So, in other words, those of us who disliked and distrusted him from the beginning were right.

pm317 said...

your five years of over-the-top outrage has exhausted the rest of us right when we could have been persuaded

Looks like this is the talking point everybody received on the Obama bandwagon. This is the second time I am hearing it, that this poor black man and his nice family has been vilified by the R's outrageous overreach in the last 5 years.

But for you, we would be outraged at Obama!

AReasonableMan said...

MadisonMan said...

You cannot be perfectly safe in a free society.


It is amazing how few people understand this or can grasp the general concept of trade-offs.

AllenS said...

this is kind of why I voted for Obama!

Oh, fuck off.

C Stanley said...

Now that his administration clearly has committed outrageous, your five years of over-the-top outrage has exhausted the rest of us right when we could have been persuaded. I know you won't get this.

I get that it's nonsense dressed up as an excuse for failing to notice for five years that donkey dung stinks as bad as elephant dung does.

AllenS said...

Don't take this personally, Althouse, but all of that schooling that you have seems to have given you some wild idea that you're smart. You're not. You might be book smart, able to take a test and pass, but in all actuality, you're dumber than a box of rocks.

rhhardin said...

An anodyne is used to measure the speed of hot air.

rhhardin said...

It's not schooling, it's gender.

rhhardin said...

The woman's idea is always: he means well.

Darek from the Bible Belt said...

Why are so many of the comments just ad hominem attacks? Name-calling is not an argument, it's just venting and demonstrating 24/7 moral outrage. Do you guys ever discuss policy on this blog? And actual policy alternatives and why you consider some more desirable than others? How ironic that the commenters here don't seem to know that many on the left DISLIKE Obama and think Obamacare and the policies of Geithner to protect the large Wall Street banks are actually continuation of Republican policies, not Bolshevik reversals. You guys should get out mpre often, and maybe not just talk to people who agree with you and share your hatred...y'all sound a bit like a mob... wups, that would be ad hominem... I take it back, and apologize... ;-)

C Stanley said...

Well at least the adverb in the title of the post is apt.

"Foolishly" would have worked as well.

chrisnavin.com said...

There are liberaltarians, and deep liberal thinkers seeking to attach some of the products of reason to say, the Austrians, instead of the usual sources.

There are old school Northeastern Democrats and boomer liberals who may not be out and out Lefties and progressives.

There are liberal arts majors, postmoderns and various types who aren't necessarily on board with the ideology of real Leftists, and also the 'isms." despite the fact that large parts of our culture and pop culture seem to be headed into the multicultural fog.

Althouse is a former hippie-ish chick into Bob Dylan and the arts who went to law school with a writer husband, worked at a firm and did a lot of it on her own, and has the lawyer's shrewdness and analytical skills...

Experience has probably instilled a lot of the conservative considerations.

She may well be a feminist but is contrarian and tussles with the Temple Of The Seven Sisters and the keepers of the ideology.

She doesn't strike me as someone about to cozy up to the conservative establishment...

...even in response to the Obama crew.

JAL said...

So Darek -- you new to Althouse?

Any clue where BHO was the night of Benghazi?

AP? IRS? Sebelius's strong arming? Fast and Furious? GM Bondholders? Solyndra? Fisker? NSA? ACORN?? New Black Panthers? etc. etc. etc.

We didn't make this crap up and it has been going on since Day One. And almost no one on this list plays the birther / Muslim card.

You can pick your marbles and go home.

edutcher said...

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

This is obvious BS, as evidenced by the recent high court decision.

Care to explain that?

With a citation, por favor?

You cannot be perfectly safe in a free society.

It is amazing how few people understand this or can grasp the general concept of trade-offs.


The trade-offs aren't worth the loss of the freedoms we've enjoyed for 235 years for a bunch of promises that will all go flat with the New Year.

Amazing how some people can't understand that concept.

somefeller said...

Althouse says:I didn't vote for Obama in 2012, however.
And I only voted for Bush once -- in 2004.


Did you vote for Romney in 2012 after all, or did you go third party or no ballot cast? I don't recall seeing anything definitive on that, though I may have missed it.

And regarding your 2004 vote, I voted for Bush in 2000. We all make mistakes.

Mr. D said...

Nice of Darek to visit and to take the time to instruct everyone. We should be grateful for the wisdom and the attempt to shine a little light into this dank outpost of the internet. Clearly, Darek is a mensch.

Rabel said...

They're only recording the metadata which means that they're not looking an any truly personal information.

Oops.

somefeller said...

It's good to see the NY Times and the ACLU standing together against the Obama Administration on this one. I support them. But that's no surprise, because social liberals have been the intellectual and moral conscience of this country for decades and continue to be by criticizing the Administration here. Once again, thank God for the NY Times and the ACLU.

El Pollo Raylan said...

@Rabel: I guess we're all supposed to get scared and shut up now.

James said...

Didn't Obama sign at least THREE extensions to provisions of the USA Patriot Act? Including one that gave him the authority to conduct domestic spying operations like this unfolding Verizon scandal?

I suppose its not sporting to point out that when Obama had the opportunities to scale-back some of the alleged "excesses" of the Bush administration he did not; instead he supported efforts to expand them even further.

El Pollo Raylan said...

@somefehler wrote: Once again, thank God for the NY Times and the ACLU.

You can praise if and when they do the job they were supposed to do along but don't argue backwards in time.

somefeller said...

Also, Rand Paul's stock just shot up today. Too bad Intrade isn't still around to put some money on him. They did a great job predicting Obama's victory in 2012, after all, and helped a few people make a buck on that deal.

Lem said...

In the tragedy of Althouse's 2008 vote is an opportunity... to ask for things we wouldn't have asked before... or something.

Althouse could always write a coherent list of articles of impeachment...

Or Is that asking too much.

C Stanley said...

Darek, consider a flipped hypothetical.

Ever since Obama came on the scene, the accusations of racism have been attached to any criticism of him, even normal political disagreement.

So, should conservatives be justified in turning a blind eye to potentially authentic racism? If a birther, bigoted tea partier attempts assassination we should say, "Hey, it's the Democrats' fault for crying wolf about racism so much. How could we possibly have known?"

It is human nature to tune out when people are overdoing their criticism but that doesn't absove any of us from the responsibility of vigilqnce. The moral of Peter and the Wolf isn't just about not making false warnings, it's also about failing to listen just because there's a history of overreaction.

AReasonableMan said...

James said...

I suppose its not sporting to point out that when Obama had the opportunities to scale-back


The problem is there is no political upside for any politician to scale back the surveillance. Most people clearly don't give a fuck. Those that do are mainly left-wing hippies and Muslims, neither of whom have much of a political constituency.

Palladian said...

Why are so many of the comments just ad hominem attacks?

What about the comments that aren't ad hominem attacks? Care to answer any of them Dalek?

Lem said...

I remember something about Althouse liking lists.

Palladian said...

Err, Darek. Heh.

AprilApple said...

@hardin..
"The woman's idea is always: he means well."

No it isn't.

You live alone, don't you?

Gahrie said...

Darek:

President Bush also ran budget surpluses, when he had a Republican Congress.

The budget deficits didn't start when President Bush took over, they started when the Democrats took control of the Congress.

phx said...

I love how people take it personally who you vote for.

phx said...

I'm not saying who shouldn't be calling Althouse dummeren a box of rocks, not namin' any names, but I've seen their posts before and I don't think Althouse has to feel offended.

Lem said...

I love how people take it personally who you vote for.

You mean like How Obama said that voting was the best revenge?

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Palladian said...

So, in other words, those of us who disliked and distrusted him from the beginning were right.

What about the comments that aren't ad hominem attacks? Care to answer any of them Dalek?

Wow Palladian it's not a fair fight. Derek's debut is not going well. He'll have to create a new name and try again later.

jacksonjay said...


I call BULLSHIT!

JAL said...

Was that ad hominem enough Darek?

It sure seem BHO can sling the racist ad hominem around with a sly smile or a serious scowl. And the left eats it up.

The most racially divisive president in the last century? What a legacy.

We can list a rather large number of major, deliberate screw ups that trample on peoples' rights, if not reflecting disdain for the Constitution and the citizens. (And tell me how it is that one can one know so many people who are "well off," in responsible positions, who cheat on their income taxes and then appoint these people to be in positions of authority and responsibility -- and expect us to respect them?)

And you accuse the Althousians of over reacting and crying wolf?

THE WOLF WAS HERE!

And the MSM snuggled up real close and said "Oooohhh you're so special and oooohhh, and so are we."

phx said...

We should be grateful for the wisdom and the attempt to shine a little light into this dank outpost of the internet. Clearly, Darek is a mensch.

Someone's gotta show you knuckleheads what's what.

Paddy O said...

"That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the 9/11 attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers."

But, health care, they'll do that right!

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

It's good to see the NY Times and the ACLU standing together against the Obama Administration on this one. I support them. But that's no surprise, because social liberals have been the intellectual and moral conscience of this country for decades and continue to be by criticizing the Administration here.

Sure they have. Beginning with being co-opted by the campus radicals in the late 60s, the Liberals have ceased to exist.

And how hard either is going to press the case remains to be seen because they're sure last at the scene on this one.

Once again, thank God for the NY Times and the ACLU.

What would the Lefty lie machine do without them?

AReasonableMan said...

The problem is there is no political upside for any politician to scale back the surveillance. Most people clearly don't give a fuck. Those that do are mainly left-wing hippies and Muslims, neither of whom have much of a political constituency.

Really?

Since we haven't gotten too much polling feedback, it's a little hard to know, but Troll seems to be more engaged in "Nothing to see, move along".

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

AReasonableMan said...

The problem is there is no political upside for any politician to scale back the surveillance. Most people clearly don't give a fuck. Those that do are mainly left-wing hippies and Muslims, neither of whom have much of a political constituency.

Bullshit. Your going to see Obama and team really start to backtrack. There will be endless discussions about how things have gotten out ofwhack.

Just imagine how passed Obamas going to be when he reads this stuff in the papers.

Methadras said...

Mr. D said...

Nice of Darek to visit and to take the time to instruct everyone. We should be grateful for the wisdom and the attempt to shine a little light into this dank outpost of the internet. Clearly, Darek is a mensch.


Not sure who you or Darek are, but frankly Darek is another drech cloaked in his political exhaustion and would rather just roll over for the sake of looking like a nice, reasonable guy so as to not create any waves of discontent amongst those that have been calling out Obama for what he really is. And you think Darek is a mensch for this? Dare I ask what instructions he has laid upon us to follow in his mensch like wisdom? You seem like a nice sort, so I'll save you the trouble of lambasting your notions of obama fatigue, but you and Darek seem more than willing to think that Obama's singularly vectored warfare towards his enemies foreign and domestic is either a farce or if real somehow isn't as bad as you think it is. You would be wrong on both counts.

Barak Obama is clearly now at war with his political enemies republican and conservative and now he's broadened that war on the entire citizenry whether they like it or not. I'm not a sycophantic co-conspirator that is going to ignore the dear leader. You and Darek appear to be blaming the wrong people.

Pete said...

Oh, you did not, Althouse. You voted for Obama for other reasons.

Lem said...

Althouse 2008 vote is a recurring theme... or should I say, nightmare at this blog.

Perceived Offences, real or imagined, well written and poorly written (as in my case), directed towards the professor have ebbed and flowed, bottomed and toped come and gone... and forgotten only to be rehashed again.

At this point, it's an old family quarrel.

Methadras said...

Palladian said...

What about the comments that aren't ad hominem attacks? Care to answer any of them Dalek?


You fucking asshole. I just shot coke out of my nose and it hurts and made a mess.

Inga said...

I'm not saying who shouldn't be calling Althouse dummeren a box of rocks, not namin' any names, but I've seen their posts before and I don't think Althouse has to feel offended.

6/6/13, 6:05 PM

LOL! I was thinkin' the very same thing about that commenter.

Pete said...

Lem,

"At this point, it's an old family quarrel."

Althouse started it.

Seeing Red said...

She wanted the dems to own National Security, remember?

Kelly said...

Oh BS. Please refresh me on what made you think he was going to allow this stuff to continue and even expand on it?? The speeches? The slogan Hope and change? Tell me, what was it exactly?

garage mahal said...

Funny how major corporations can always defy the government's tax structure and enviro regulations but never its surveillance orders.

Lem said...

We even lost Vicki over it... if I remember correctly.

JAL said...

@somefeller

We all make mistakes.

Apply to:

social liberals have been the intellectual and moral conscience of this country for decades and continue to be by criticizing the Administration here. Once again, thank God for the NY Times and the ACLU.

"continue to be by criticizing the Administration here"

You been in a coma since 2008?

JAL said...

Spring has arrived in northern Wisconsin and AllenS is scraping his road again. And there are all these dumb rocks.

Maybe he knows a dumb rock when he sees one?

Lem said...

"Althouse started it."

I was new then, so I didn't see what the big deal was, but now, in the last election, if Althouse had said she was going to vote for Obama again... I think I'd lost it.

Rabel said...

The NYTimes modified its editorial after the Washington Post published its story on Prism.

It added a link to the Post story without noting the modification.

Original editorial

Current editorial

The fifth paragraph was added.

jr565 said...

I call bullshit on Althouse saying that is why she voted for Obama. Because that's not what Obama ran on. Which is why the Huffington Post has a plcture that looks like Obama is George Bush. Because clearly that's not what they assumed he was running on either.

Michael K said...

So you voted for Obama because Bush was bad ? The Patriot Act was actually pushed by Democrats after 9/11 so the Homeland Security Department would be made up of union members who vote D. Ditto for the airport screeners who were employees of private companies that paid taxes.

The first version of the Patriot Act was introduced into the House on October 2, 2001 as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October 12.[17] This was based on the afore-mentioned Anti-Terrorism Act, but had been changed after negotiations and work between Attorney General Ashcroft, Senators Leahy, Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Bob Graham, Trent Lott (R-MS) and Orrin Hatch. It was introduced into the Senate as the USA Act of 2001 (S. 1510) by Tom Daschle (D-SD)

This was by no means a Bush administration initiative although they wanted some modernization of existing law. They would have left the existing agencies in charge but the Democrats wanted to make the argument that Bush missed the chance to prevent the attack.

edutcher said...

Seeing Red said...

She wanted the dems to own National Security, remember?

Kind of like the way Bruce Ismay owned the Titanic.

ed said...

"I thought that he would continue many of the policies that Bush had adopted in the war against terrorism, and that Democrats would no longer get away with carping from the sidelines. They'd have to face up to what needed to be done. Without a Republican to demonize, we'd experience an important reality check. "

Well that certainly makes Benghazi, IRS, NSA, CIA, F&F, Reset button and Lord only knows what else all worthwhile then.

Rabel said...

That first link I posted had "Nigerian" in the title, but it is a Yahoo forum and seems safe.

Lem said...

Not to brag but I was wondering, after the tea party testimony I think, I was wondering when these editorials and stories were going to start.

At this point is just really embarrassing if they don't do them.

Freeman Hunt said...

George W. Obama is handsome.

Weird how Obama started doing all of this bad stuff only after the election. Or maybe it was impossible for the NYT and others to find out anything about any of these scandals before the election. Such incredible discipline in our government that not so much as a single thread indicating this behavior was available to any journalist beforehand.

Six dozen or so scandals coming to light right after an election; darn the luck!

Methadras said...

Darek from the Bible Belt said...

Why are so many of the comments just ad hominem attacks? Name-calling is not an argument, it's just venting and demonstrating 24/7 moral outrage. Do you guys ever discuss policy on this blog? And actual policy alternatives and why you consider some more desirable than others? How ironic that the commenters here don't seem to know that many on the left DISLIKE Obama and think Obamacare and the policies of Geithner to protect the large Wall Street banks are actually continuation of Republican policies, not Bolshevik reversals. You guys should get out mpre often, and maybe not just talk to people who agree with you and share your hatred...y'all sound a bit like a mob... wups, that would be ad hominem... I take it back, and apologize... ;-)


You make me laugh little man. Aside from this little screed being nearly non-sequitor, many of us do realize that the left detest Obama, but not for the reasons you think they do. They detest him because he doesn't go far enough left even for them. So while you go on talking about how ad hominem we are, drech from the Bible Belt, real things are happening out there that go beyond your need for wonk.

Strelnikov said...

Yeah, sure.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

garage mahal said... Funny how major corporations can always defy the government's tax structure and enviro regulations but never its surveillance orders.

6/6/13, 6:34 PM

Big corporations and big government need each other. It's not an adversarial relationship it is an incestuous relationship

Methadras said...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Palladian said...

So, in other words, those of us who disliked and distrusted him from the beginning were right.

What about the comments that aren't ad hominem attacks? Care to answer any of them Dalek?

Wow Palladian it's not a fair fight. Derek's debut is not going well. He'll have to create a new name and try again later.


It's not a fair fight because The Drech Girl hasn't grown any hair on her balls yet. Hell, I don't think they've fallen either.

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

Funny how major corporations can always defy the government's tax structure and enviro regulations but never its surveillance orders.


Really Fatty McBitch Tits? Which corporations? Any indictments of their defiance of the governments tax structure or violations of your precious mother earth?

Tim said...

Ann Althouse said...

"I thought that he would continue many of the policies that Bush had adopted in the war against terrorism, and that Democrats would no longer get away with carping from the sidelines. They'd have to face up to what needed to be done. Without a Republican to demonize, we'd experience an important reality check."

It only confirms A (Wo)Man's Got to Know (Her) Limitations.

Dante said...

Darek:

From my friends, I think thoughtful people on the left ARE appalled by the AP, IRS, and NSA scandals. They're not getting much response because you guys have demonized and vilified Obama from the start

Are you saying the MSM isn't looking at these scandals? Why do you need to look at conservatives to tell you what's wrong with the Obamao?

Tim said...

"Big corporations and big government need each other. It's not an adversarial relationship it is an incestuous relationship"

This is so obvious, even Robert Cook knows it.

Moobs Mahal?

Hahahaha hahahaha

You're kidding, right?

Matt said...

Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the vice chairman of the committee, said the surveillance has "proved meritorious, because we have gathered significant information on bad guys and only on bad guys over the years."

Oh these Democratic liberal senators are out of control! Wait.... Chambliss is a Republican? Nevermind.

dc said...

Maybe she didn't vote for Obama in 2012, but it was close.Romney almost lost her when Rush played the obamaphone lady one time too often.

Dante said...

I'm having a really difficult time understanding what they did to that picture.

Marshal said...

Darek from the Bible Belt said...
From my friends, I think thoughtful people on the left ARE appalled by the AP, IRS, and NSA scandals.


Both of them? Really?

They're not getting much response because you guys have demonized and vilified Obama from the start, and with the absurd birther, closet Muslim stuff that you've been tuned out by everyone but yourselves as "true believers."

Conservatives can't touch Obama himself much less the left generally in demonizing opponents. When Obama lied that Bush refused to help Katrina victims because they were predominantly black the left's approval showed their true level of concern over demonizing tactics.

And as a matter of fact there was one person on Althouse flogging the birther issue, and he was ignored and mocked. So not only has Darek proven his hypocrisy whining about demonizing opponents but he clearly has no idea what anyone thinks outside the cocoon. It's always fun watching those unable to deal with reality nevertheless condescend to everyone else.

bagoh20 said...

" The administration has now lost all credibility."

They even managed to destroy it for a bunch of reporters, pundits, professors, bloggers, and millions of regular dummies too. A near perfect game of sucker fishing.

Dante said...

I just had a realization. I have never trusted Obama with the interests of the country.

Obama stuck his neck out farther than Bush. Obama has killed Americans, to make the country safe. He has tried to stop the leaks he doesn't like, by going after journalists. He finished the war in Iraq. He has kept the war going in Afghanistan. He is droning terrorist organizations to death. He's even willing to snoop on intra-US calls (as opposed to calls terminating/originating outside the US).

The odd thing is, I still don't trust him with the interests of the US.

Dante said...

Freeman:

Six dozen or so scandals coming to light right after an election; darn the luck!

That does seem to defy belief. What's the simplest explanation?

I am aware, for instance, the issues with Tea party tax status was pretty well understood for a long time. But how do you keep a bunch of agents quiet?

And how did they keep the Benghazi folks quiet?

The reporting I think I understand. The MSM really wanted Obamacare, and there was some small chance it could have been avoided.

Cedarford said...

MadisonMan said...
All those phone taps sure stopped the Boston Marathon bombing.

(Note that this is not a plea for ever more excessive Governmental snooping).

You cannot be perfectly safe in a free society
=====================

I am quite fine if people like the Tsarnaevs, all the Chinese emigres here now working as spies have "less freedom". I am fine if they find some guy with 3 girls kidnapped and kept as sex slaves for 10 years if the government has a way to go back in preserved phone records to see who the perv shared his photos with,

I am fine with buildings and even streets having CCTV, even if that means less Freedom!! for muggers, flash gang looters, and pressure cooker bombers to do their thing undetected and undocumented.

Fuck absolute Freedom! Go live in Somalia, a land of true Freedom Lovers!

And don't spew the Ben Franklin crap. Fuck his 1759 platitude. 20 years later he was sending people to burn Loyalist printing presses, steaming open people's mail, using espionage to secretly snoop on citizens suspected of being Loyalists, detaining Loyalists without trial inc. his own son, and at wars end, confiscating Loyalist bank funds and property with no "judicial recourse" to help pay off the US debt.

edutcher said...

Dante said...

Six dozen or so scandals coming to light right after an election; darn the luck!

That does seem to defy belief. What's the simplest explanation?


They told the media to sit on it?

I am aware, for instance, the issues with Tea party tax status was pretty well understood for a long time. But how do you keep a bunch of agents quiet?

We'll prosecute your asses off and you'll never see a penny of those benefits and pension you sold your soul for.

And how did they keep the Benghazi folks quiet?

Three little words:

See Eye Ay.

Dante said...

"S*e*e E&y&e !A!y."

They'll figure that out soon too. You'll be put on a list.

Dante said...

Cedarford:

I am quite fine if people like the Tsarnaevs, all the Chinese emigres here now working as spies have "less freedom". I am fine if they find some guy with 3 girls kidnapped and kept as sex slaves for 10 years if the government has a way to go back in preserved phone records to see who the perv shared his photos with,

The issue is communism and its tenets. Would you be happy living in Russia, Cambodia, or China with tens of millions killed?

Come on, Think Big. Your a lefty, you can. Imagine a world with no religion, the brotherhood of man, and one big fat government.

Rusty said...

phx said...
I'm not saying who shouldn't be calling Althouse dummeren a box of rocks, not namin' any names, but I've seen their posts before and I don't think Althouse has to feel offended.

Don't look now........

Methadras said...

Dante said...

"S*e*e E&y&e !A!y."

They'll figure that out soon too. You'll be put on a list.


I see what you did right there.

Methadras said...

Obama truly is Urkle, "Did I do that?"

glenn said...

Another rube self identifies.

phx said...

phx said...

Just another of my fanbois. Can't hit off me, can't lay off me.

Chip Ahoy said...

Put down your Zinn right now, and I think you mean etc. not inc. but lets not quibble about abbreviations and their completely different meanings.

Nathan Alexander said...

At one point, someone said that someday in the future all the Leftist Progressives would realize what a train wreck Obama has been for the country and realize they had been wrong about it.

But someone else pointed out that, no, the Leftist Progressives would end up forgetting they had ever voted for him. Leftist Progressive mistakes go directly down the memory hole.

So the prediction was that Obama would be loved, revered and worshipped until/unless he screwed up enough to get thrown under the bus himself.

So, today, witness somafeller and AReasonableMan, two of the biggest "See no Progressive Evil, Hear no Progressive Evil" Obama apologists around, suddenly claiming that Leftist Progressives are leading the charge against Obama's scandals.

Nonsense on stilts.

The Leftist Progressive media and all Leftist Progressive pundits did everything they could to avoid reporting on Obama's misdeeds, and gave him as much rhetorical cover as possible when they were shamed into mentioning it.
American liberals did nothing at all to uncover any of the major scandals of the Obama administration. It was all foreign news organizations and conservatives.

I'm hoping you continue to prefer comfortable lies and self-righteousness to truth. That is the best way to eradicate your failed ideology for at least a generation, if not forever.

Kelly said...

Obama really was a blank canvas where people projected their hopes and their dreams onto him without any relationship to reality. It's crazy. I would never have thought someone voted for Obama because he was going to continue Bush's survellience policies times ten.

Actually, in hindsight I do believe it..

AReasonableMan said...

Cedarford said...

I am quite fine if people like the Tsarnaevs, all the Chinese emigres here now working as spies have "less freedom".


I doubt that you really believe it is as simple as this. The technologies in question are big data technologies, not traditional surveillance and spying.

AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander said...
So, today, witness somafeller and AReasonableMan, two of the biggest "See no Progressive Evil, Hear no Progressive Evil" Obama apologists around, suddenly claiming that Leftist Progressives are leading the charge against Obama's scandals.


Can you make an effort to get at least one fact right?

Who broke the story? Glenn fucking Greenwald. If there is a bigger lefty progressive than that guy I don't know who it would be.

Notably most of the Republican senators are just fine with how things are at the moment.

This pig won't fly and you know it.

exiledonmainst said...

"But that's no surprise, because social liberals have been the intellectual and moral conscience of this country for decades and continue to be by criticizing the Administration here."

This reminds me of the "South Park" episode which featured smug San Francisco liberals bending over every few seconds to smell their own farts.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

Althouse said: I thought that he would continue many of the policies that Bush had adopted in the war against terrorism, and that Democrats would no longer get away with carping from the sidelines. They'd have to face up to what needed to be done. Without a Republican to demonize, we'd experience an important reality check.

You thought Chicago community organizer, friend of Bill Ayres, no executive experience, minimal legislative experience (nearly null voting record), from a broken home, who spent many formative years outside the country, would/could do that??????

Say it ain't so, Ann. Say it ain't so!

Tim said...

The best comment on anyone voting for Obama is the one Jay posted on the thread regarding Reagan's "The Boys of Pointe du Hoc" speech:

Jay said...

"My God, how far America has fallen in electing the dumbass community organizer who spies on Americans."

So true.

And no Leftist, if they were honest, could possibly explain it without implicating their ideology.

AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander said...
I'm hoping you continue to prefer comfortable lies and self-righteousness to truth. That is the best way to eradicate your failed ideology for at least a generation, if not forever.


In very recent history the most spectacular failure in policy has been Republican economic policy with their foreign policy running a close second. You guys will never see the inside of the White House again if you don't change, and the smart guys on your side know it.

somefeller said...

American liberals did nothing at all to uncover any of the major scandals of the Obama administration. It was all foreign news organizations and conservatives.

Foreign news agencies and conservatives like Glenn Greenwald and Spencer Ackerman? They came up with the Verizon story. Perhaps if conservatives spent more time on real stories like this one rather than birth certificates and seekrit mooslims, they could actually address this Administration as credible critics.

But not to worry, the grownups at the big table (like the ACLU and NY Times) are on the case now. This way, these issues can be vetted by some people with real legitimacy and seriousness.

Nathan Alexander said...

ARM,
Glenn Greenwald's not American, is he?
The Guardian isn't an American news org, is it?

You have no room to criticize anyone else, you fairweather Obama apologist.

You and your kind are responsible for the spying. Don't try to avoid your responsibility, you spineless coward.

Obama stroked your smug self-congratulatory ego long enough to turn your votes into the biggest, most despicable power grab this nation has seen since Tammany Hall. You fought at every step to give his administration the freedom to inflict this on us.

I'd like to think that if you actually engaged your brain you'd make fewer stupid mistakes like that. But at this point, I guess it is too late for you.

Bryan C said...

Only AReasonableMan could look at the coverage of last two elections, recent events, the current situation, and the administration in control and see a civil liberties triumph for the left.

But, hey, if that level of self-deception is what it takes for you guys to wake up and face yourselves in the mirror, then do what you have to do.

phx said...

Perhaps if conservatives spent more time on real stories like this one rather than birth certificates and seekrit mooslims, they could actually address this Administration as credible critics.

But not to worry, the grownups at the big table (like the ACLU and NY Times) are on the case now. This way, these issues can be vetted by some people with real legitimacy and seriousness.


That's church right there.

phx said...

...look at the coverage of last two elections, recent events, the current situation, and the administration in control and see a civil liberties triumph for the left.

Yeah, that I don't see.

Phil 3:14 said...

Lem,
You're not getting a lot of love tonite. I appreciate you and I would agree that the professor is too smart by half.

AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander said...

Glenn Greenwald's not American, is he?


Apparently wikipedia doesn't work in your part of the country or maybe you just have no respect for the facts.

Greenwald was born on March 6, 1967, in Queens, New York City, the son of Arlene and Daniel Greenwald. Shortly after his birth Greenwald moved with his family to South Florida. He earned a B.A. from George Washington University in 1990 and a J.D. from New York University Law School in 1994.

Glenn Greenwald is an American political journalist, lawyer, columnist, blogger, and author. In August 2012, he left Salon.com, where he was a columnist, to become a columnist at the US edition of The Guardian newspaper,

Methadras said...

Kelly said...

Obama really was a blank canvas where people projected their hopes and their dreams onto him without any relationship to reality. It's crazy. I would never have thought someone voted for Obama because he was going to continue Bush's survellience policies times ten.

Actually, in hindsight I do believe it..


No, he became the cult of personality.

Dante said...

What guy could get away with saying:

"... this is kind of why I voted for Obama!"

A blatant, sexual appeal to men to give credit for the fickle nature of women. Shit, it might even work 'cause Althouse is a damn fine looking woman, with all due respect to Meade.

El Pollo Raylan said...

This way, these issues can be vetted by some people with real legitimacy and seriousness.

Somebody must pay somefeller to write stuff like that. Otherwise, it's unconscionable. It's like blatantly grabbing an inventor's or scientist's priority rights and reassigning them. The message is: "MSM: we discovered a problem"

Unfuckingbelievable. And yet, how else can the MSM save face? They must rewrite history or be cannibalized when the Big News cartel starts coming apart.

Methadras said...

exiledonmainst said...

"But that's no surprise, because social liberals have been the intellectual and moral conscience of this country for decades and continue to be by criticizing the Administration here."

This reminds me of the "South Park" episode which featured smug San Francisco liberals bending over every few seconds to smell their own farts.


Now you've made me laugh at both of these things.

bbkingfish said...

Obama is whatever the Right wants him to be.

Yesterday, he was a socialist/commie Frankenstein construct of Saul Alinsky and Rev. Wright. Today, he's the second coming of George W.

edutcher said...

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

I'm hoping you continue to prefer comfortable lies and self-righteousness to truth. That is the best way to eradicate your failed ideology for at least a generation, if not forever.

In very recent history the most spectacular failure in policy has been Republican economic policy with their foreign policy running a close second.


In very recent history, the subprime mortgage mess was the Demos' from day one and I don't recall anybody bombing anybody's Marathon while Dubya was in.

But, if we're talking a mess in foreign policy, lessee now, Benghazi, Arab Spring, the Russkies and the Red Chinese laughing at Lurch, and don't forget, A-stan. Dubya won Iraq, but Little Zero has had more casualties in "his" war in 5 years than Dubya had in 8, thanks largely to his announcing our withdrawl dates.

Brilliant.

You guys will never see the inside of the White House again if you don't change, and the smart guys on your side know it.

Who, Gramnesty, Rubio? If it weren't for vote fraud, you clowns couldn't win an election for dog catcher.

And even the idiots on Troll's side know that.

somefeller said...

American liberals did nothing at all to uncover any of the major scandals of the Obama administration. It was all foreign news organizations and conservatives.

Foreign news agencies and conservatives like Glenn Greenwald and Spencer Ackerman? They came up with the Verizon story. Perhaps if conservatives spent more time on real stories like this one rather than birth certificates and seekrit mooslims, they could actually address this Administration as credible critics.


I've often wondered if some phony folksy really believed the unsupported drivel he inflicts on us or if he's like the Communist Party in the Soviet Union during the 80s, where they'd obviously stopped believing in all the platitudes and were just out for anything they could get.

And the Verizon story's a little late to the game, sweetie.

By a few months and a lot of other stuff- Benghazi, the Tea Parties, AP and Fox News.

Nice try, but you obviously think everybody's as brain dead as you are.

But not to worry, the grownups at the big table (like the ACLU and NY Times) are on the case now. This way, these issues can be vetted by some people with real legitimacy and seriousness.

Sure.

You sound like your sockpuppet shilol again, or maybe America's Politico.

The Gray Lady's been sitting at the kiddie table since 9/11 and the ACLU has yet to even find a place in the room. This stuff isn't even bush league, it's so laughable. I guess bbkingfish took pity on him and gave some phony folksy all his B material.

edutcher said...

bbkingfish said...

Obama is whatever the Right wants him to be.

Yesterday, he was a socialist/commie Frankenstein construct of Saul Alinsky and Rev. Wright. Today, he's the second coming of George W.


The pot smoke must be nigh impenetrable at Troll Central.

El Pollo Raylan said...

No, he became the cult of personality.

That must go down the memory hole too. There was no singing; no Shepard Fairey poster pagan idolatry; no school children chanting; Lena Dunham's panties did not melt--none of that happened, do you hear me son?

El Pollo Raylan said...

bbkngfish flops: Yesterday, he was a socialist/commie Frankenstein construct of Saul Alinsky and Rev. Wright. Today, he's the second coming of George W.

Sorry Charlie, the folks spinning BHO = GWB are hard core lefties.

Why don't you try being consistent.

Palladian said...

This way, these issues can be vetted by some people with real legitimacy and seriousness.

Which federal agency grants "real legitimacy and seriousness" permits?

Palladian said...

"Real Legitimacy and Seriousness"

That sounds like something an NPR host would say during a pledge drive, to reassure herself.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I would point out that Greenwald was the only leftist who was consistent in his positions. He attacked Obama as strongly as he attacked Bush. He was drummed out of Slate and had to move to a foreign country to keep writing.

Yes the American left deserves the credit for breaking these scandals wide open.

edutcher said...

Ooooopppsss..

some phony folksy may want to revisit all his parsiflage about the Gray Lady sitting at the adults table.

Now we get word of a major data collection op by the FBI and NSA on 9 major Iinternet players (Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple) collecting data on just about every phone call made.

And it gets better - Choom's DNI told Congress they didn't do that stuff.

Dare we ask if he was under oath?

Marshal said...

somefeller said...

But not to worry, the grownups at the big table (like the ACLU and NY Times) are on the case now. This way, these issues can be vetted by some people with real legitimacy and seriousness.


Some parents think it's cute when children like somefeller play dressup. I think parents should teach them to think instead.

phx said...

That sounds like something an NPR host would say during a pledge drive, to reassure herself.

I basically agree with what somefeller said but this isn't totally untrue.

El Pollo Raylan: double-negative alert.

Marshal said...

AReasonableMan said...
In very recent history the most spectacular failure in policy has been Republican economic policy


It's hard to believe anyone could be this stupid and arrogant simultaneously, but that's what we get for allowing our education system to be subverted into a political indoctrination system.

Bryan C said...

"But not to worry, the grownups at the big table (like the ACLU and NY Times) are on the case now. This way, these issues can be vetted by some people with real legitimacy and seriousness."

Cool. We're really sorry we've been so distracting with our crazy whining about civil liberties and stuff. So, anyway, I figure that at this rate, the fearless American press and the serious grownups like you will catch up to today's actual events in, oh, about 2017. No, make that 2019 - this awesome level of legitimacy and professionalism simply can't be rushed. See you then!

somefeller said...

Now we get word of a major data collection op by the FBI and NSA on 9 major Iinternet players (Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple) collecting data on just about every phone call made.

The Washington Post broke a big story about the PRISM program? According to Nathan, only foreigners and conservatives do that stuff. Unpossible!

Wait, I forgot, the Washington Post is one of the grownups at the big table. It stands to reason that they'd break this story. Since they have some credibility (unlike Newsmax or someplace like that), this too is a story with some legs. And the ACLU will look into it also, I'm sure, so there are sharp lawyers on the case also.

Tom said...

I think it's better for America that Obama beat McCain for exactly the reasons Althouse mentions. After 5 years and 2 elections, he owns the entire thing. In that time, Bin Laden was killed (we hope that wasn't faked) and some detainee policies on torture were rewritten (do we believe it all ended?). But otherwise, it's a Cheney-esque surveillance-state on steriods. And the Democrats, those great protectors of Liberty, who own it. And the Republicans are mostly aiding in the journey to 1984. And what are we doing? We're complaining that this police state is making travel damn inconvenient.

I'll admit it's possible that the terror threat is far worse than what we know. If the terrorist have a Nuke and we know it and are looking for it, I see some of this as necessary. But if the terrorist are such a threat, why are there not more attacks? Are we that good at stopping them? If we were, wouldn't that be getting leaked too? Are the Russians or Chinese more threatening than we know? What justifies this level of government intrusion into our lives? We either need the truth about the threat or we need this nonsense to stop.

Sorry for typos - I'm ranting on an iPhone :-)

bagoh20 said...

"this is why I voted for" [the worst president in history].

That was a bait and switch. I was expecting to see some lady parts at the link.

phx said...

I figure that at this rate, the fearless American press and the serious grownups like you will catch up to today's actual events in, oh, about 2017.

If you're seriously feeling yourself really stressed out by all the oppression, buy yourself some ammunition. Take some time off, spend whatever it takes.

Go ahead, get in your truck and take a ride. The oppression is horrible. You should buy another truck.

It's hard on some of you guys. The press won't even see how terribly you've suffered until 2017.

somefeller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AReasonableMan said...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...
He was drummed out of Slate and had to move to a foreign country.


First of all he wasn't drummed out of Slate. Writing for the US edition of the Guardian is a step up career-wise.

Second, although he does live part time in a foreign country it is "due to the fact that American law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), bars the federal recognition of same-sex marriages and thus prevents his partner from obtaining immigration rights in the US." Those damn leftists ostracizing a good man again.

People just make shit up to fit a narrative, facts be damned. This is a classic example of epistemic closure by the right. Anyone with any actual interest in the politics surrounding surveillance would know who Glenn Greenwald is. He has had a bug up his ass on this topic for nearly a decade with several best selling books. I agree with much that he has to say but politically his ideas are non-starters because step one would be to dismantle the Patriot Act.

somefeller said...

He was drummed out of Slate and had to move to a foreign country to keep writing.

Actually, Greenwald lives out of the country because DOMA (another example of a craven act by an otherwise great Democratic President) bars the federal recognition of same-sex marriages and thus prevents his partner from obtaining immigration rights in the US. But hopefully that will change if social liberals can once again overcome the ignorance and prejudice of their adversaries and provide some positive change for America.

somefeller said...

Damn, ARM and I are like a tag team tonight! But he is a reasonable man while I am merely ... some feller.

Mark said...

If you're seriously feeling yourself really stressed out by all the oppression, buy yourself some ammunition. Take some time off, spend whatever it takes.

And this is the guy who thinks of himself as a thinker, a philosopher, whatever, but definitely not a spin-spitting hack.

Guess you checked you ethics at the voting booth curtain and haven't been able to find them since.

Mr. D said...

Not sure who you or Darek are, but frankly Darek is another drech cloaked in his political exhaustion and would rather just roll over for the sake of looking like a nice, reasonable guy so as to not create any waves of discontent amongst those that have been calling out Obama for what he really is. And you think Darek is a mensch for this?

Of course he's a mensch. All of our betters are mensches. Just ask them.

Marshal said...

Tom said...
I think it's better for America that Obama beat McCain for exactly the reasons Althouse mentions. After 5 years and 2 elections, he owns the entire thing.


This is a fantasy. As you can see from the leftists commenting there is literally nothing they don't rationalize to blame on
Republicans. Reality isn't an input in their worldview.

El Pollo Raylan said...

But hopefully that will change if social liberals can once again overcome the ignorance and prejudice of their adversaries and provide some positive change for America.

Social liberals always come married to fiscal liberals--why is that? Perhaps it's time for a messy divorce.

phx said...

Guess you checked you ethics

What? That teenie weenie little characterization of the fact that none of this in any will likely impact any of your lives (possibly maybe keep you safer) yet you still going to pretend you are suffering human rights abuses.

I checked my ethics. Here's a hanky.

AReasonableMan said...

Marshal said...

It's hard to believe anyone could be this stupid and arrogant simultaneously, but that's what we get for allowing our education system to be subverted into a political indoctrination system.


I have asked this question before and not gotten an answer. Policies are best judged by results. Bush/Greenspan led the country into the biggest recession since the great depression. How exactly does this result vindicate their economic policies in your mind?

phx said...

Squealing like Hugo Chavez got you in a corner, he's getting ready to drag you into hell.

You don't ever overreach.

Titus said...

It's hilarious in this pace when a moon stop bys and a wing's head explodes.

Can't we all get along?

We all pinch loafs...that is something we share and should "celebrate".

Wings pinch patriotic loafs.
Moons pinch commie loafs.

And they are all loafs, stinky, brown and requiring many wipings.

Embrace the commonalities and disregard the differences.

thanks and tits.

AReasonableMan said...

somefeller said...
Damn, ARM and I are like a tag team tonight! But he is a reasonable man while I am merely ... some feller.


I can be unreasonable at times, it usually involves Jay.

somefeller said...

Social liberals always come married to fiscal liberals--why is that? Perhaps it's time for a messy divorce.

Not always. There is no shortage socially liberal people with more conservative economic views. They are easy to find at America's better universities, corporations and nightclubs.

But maybe the GOP could make that messy divorce happen and pull in some new supporters. They'd need to jettison the more lumpen members of their coalition to do so, however, which is not an easy trick in electoral politics.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

Now we get word of a major data collection op by the FBI and NSA on 9 major Iinternet players (Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple) collecting data on just about every phone call made.

The Washington Post broke a big story about the PRISM program? According to Nathan, only foreigners and conservatives do that stuff. Unpossible!

Wait, I forgot, the Washington Post is one of the grownups at the big table.


They are? Or are they trying to cover their own complicity in hushing up this mess now that the cat is out of the bag?

Particularly since this has been going on for a while and now the WaPo conveniently decides to talk about it since it's been for over a year "the most prolific contributor to the President’s Daily Brief" and "in which President Obama presided over 'exponential growth'"

It stands to reason that they'd break this story. Since they have some credibility (unlike Newsmax or someplace like that), this too is a story with some legs.

Unlike the IRS violating Americans' rights of free speech, free religion, and free assembly?

Unlike the DOJ violating news organizations' right of protection against unreasonable search and seizure?

Unlike Benghazi where 4 americans were murdered because the entire Choom Gang screwed up? And that's a story that's got real legs - it's refused to go away since 9/11/12.

And the ACLU will look into it also, I'm sure, so there are sharp lawyers on the case also.

So sharp we haven't heard a peep from them yet.

Maybe they can get Sandra Fluck, assuming she ever got out of that parking lot in Reno.

Keep talking, sweetie, you're fast replacing America's Politico as the Baghdad Bob of Althouse.

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

It's hard to believe anyone could be this stupid and arrogant simultaneously, but that's what we get for allowing our education system to be subverted into a political indoctrination system.

I have asked this question before and not gotten an answer. Policies are best judged by results. Bush/Greenspan led the country into the biggest recession since the great depression. How exactly does this result vindicate their economic policies in your mind?


Do I have to beat Troll with the stick yet again?

Do I have to remind him how Dubya tried to stop the housing crash?

That subprime mortgages were Willie whitewater's brilliant idea?

Abetted by Andy Cuomo and Janet Reno?

Marshal said...

AReasonableMan said...
Policies are best judged by results. Bush/Greenspan led the country into the biggest recession since the great depression.


I agree it's clear your ability to understand economics is limited to "who was president when x occurred". That you believe others need to come up rather than down to this level is quite amusing.

Mark said...

Bush's use of the Patriot Act never came close to the scope of what Obama has done.

Obama has killed far more humans via drone than Bush, and AFAIK Bush didn't kill any American citizens that way.

Obama's handling of Afghanistan has killed more American soldiers than Bush's.

And Nixon must be pissed off in Hell that Obama's getting a pass for actually putting an enemies list to good use.

And the list goes on.

And the apologists are all "Ooooh, the conservatives' pussies hurt!" and call it deep thinking.

somefeller said...

So sharp we haven't heard a peep from them yet.

Psst, here's a hint. Go to www.aclu.org. You might see something.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

somefeller said...

Actually, Greenwald lives out of the country because DOMA

He lived in Rio when he wrote for Salon. Go back and read the vitriol that was aimed at Greenwald by the Obama supporters.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

Social liberals always come married to fiscal liberals--why is that? Perhaps it's time for a messy divorce.

Not always. There is no shortage socially liberal people with more conservative economic views. They are easy to find at America's better universities, corporations and nightclubs


Yes, they're the ruling class to which some phony folksy wishes he belonged.

They've done such a swell job being fiscally responsible we're how many trillion in debt?

But maybe the GOP could make that messy divorce happen and pull in some new supporters. They'd need to jettison the more lumpen members of their coalition to do so, however, which is not an easy trick in electoral politics.

The only messy divorce is the one coming when ObamaTax tanks the economy for real and the Silver Haired Angel of Death starts deciding who lives and who dies (as we saw yesterday) with a flick of her swagger stick.

El Pollo Raylan said...

But maybe the GOP could make that messy divorce happen and pull in some new supporters. They'd need to jettison the more lumpen members of their coalition to do so, however, which is not an easy trick in electoral politics.

The answer is always the same: the GOP must make this happen. There is never a thought given to reforming the party in power. Why is that? I'm not going to stop asking this question (going two years now) until I get a satisfactory answer. Call me a concern troll--much as I call you one for always trying to mend the GOP yet reliably defending (and perhaps voting for) Obama.

AReasonableMan said...

Marshal said...

I agree it's clear your ability to understand economics is limited to "who was president when x occurred". That you believe others need to come up rather than down to this level is quite amusing.


Just answer the fucking question.

Mark said...

Policies are best judged by results.

Excuse me, did I just hear the ultimate test of policy is whether the trains are running on time?

Pretty sure I did.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

So sharp we haven't heard a peep from them yet.

Psst, here's a hint. Go to www.aclu.org. You might see something.


Psst, go look at the news. So far it's all talk.

Mostly yours.

But, again, they've had 5 years to get off their asses, but we're supposed to be impressed because there's something on their website?

It is to laugh.

garage mahal said...

There is no shortage socially liberal people with more conservative economic views

The dreaded neoliberal Obama and Matt Yglesias types. Give me a beach clearing populist like a Brian Schweitzer who vetoes garbage with a branding iron. That doesn't seem to be where the New Democratic Party wants to go though.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Obama's handling of Afghanistan has killed more American soldiers than Bush's.

Largely due to (I've heard) his enemy-friendly rules of engagement.

This will come out in full one day.

somefeller said...

Call me a concern troll--much as I call you one for always trying to mend the GOP yet reliably defending (and perhaps voting for) Obama.

While I do want to help my brethren in the GOP to embrace the spirit of enlightenment, I wasn't trying to mend the GOP so much as I was providing some suggestions for how to make the messy divorce happen.

And as far as mending the Democrats and the GOP goes, the Dems are far from perfect, but that's like comparing someone with a bad cold with someone who has contracted the bubonic plague. One needs much more care and healing!

AReasonableMan said...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...
Go back and read the vitriol that was aimed at Greenwald by the Obama supporters.


A while back one of the right wing trolls tried to argue that leftists (his term) all speak with one voice. My interpretation was that he had in fact never listened to anything they had to say. Yes there have been arguments over Greenwald's ideas. And this means exactly what? As noted above there is a trade-off between the security state and personal freedom and reasonable people can differ on how to make that balance.

In my view we have veered too far in one direction, I have been heartened to see in recent days that Rand Paul and Antonin Scalia are coming around to our side.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 311   Newer› Newest»