When election campaign advisers are making a "list of promises to make" they never considered with possibility of fulfillment, but focusing on a percentage of electorate which could be "taped" by such and such promise.))
Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)
51–60 of 321 posts
Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)
#52"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up,…
> I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. You are not solving the problem you just ignoring it. And I am not sure what's worse...
This is why you should actively abstain instead of staying home if you truly don't like any of the candidates.
Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)
#53Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain. Where is the balance?
This is one of the most important points in the wake of this scandal. Be pragmatic, and look at the incentive system. The truth is, not only will most citizens never find out mass spying programs like this, but a great number won't even care, because they have "nothing to hide". However, there is a massive negative reaction to acts of terrorism.
If we want this to change, we will first have to, as a people, seriously disincentives these actions from politicians—which is hard to do, considering neither major party has been the "better" one on this issue—but perhaps more importantly, we must understand that there is only so much government can do to keep you safe, if you want to keep your liberty. The sense of entitlement to both has to go.
I think this was a good write up on the issue: http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/06/06/the-security-state-...;
Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)
#54Chhi... Compare it with the words and deeds of Abraham Lincoln 250 years ago: "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." [1][2] There is a stark change in quality of leaders available today. There is so little correlation between words spoken and execution. [1] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt027.html [2] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ltoh1.jpg
There are very few people in the history of people who will look presentable standing next to Lincoln. His combination of moral strength and intellectual fortitude is unsurpassed, and probably unsurpassable. I was gullible enough to vote for Obama, who seems to enjoy making a sport out of seeing how many people he can disappoint as deeply as possible.
Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Quite simply, the freedom of hundreds of millions is worth a few terrorist attacks that kill a few dozens. If not, then you should definitely ban cars, as they kill a whopping 33k people a year. In other words, the balance is: let people die free rather than live unfree.
I honestly fail to see how monitoring telecommunication metadata is an infringement of rights. The government has not stopped you from taking any action. I agree that it COULD be used for evil, but that's not a very convincing argument. Many technologies we enjoy and rely on enable evil acts.
You merely have a failure of imagination. Try reading some books, like 1984, Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World, for your education.
Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)
#56politicians lie? nowai
Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)
#57Even someone on reddit pointed out that these phone taps aren't warrantless wiretaps. First, the FISA court has given a warrant for broad information gathering (whether you agree with it or not). Second, they're only taking metadata. In addition, it seems controversial whether these tactics were targeted to domestic calls at all. Just saying.
From: "We will fight the illegal enslaving of millions of black people across the country." To: "We have won the fight! Slavery is now legal. There is no more illegal slavery."
Slavery is still at least potentially legal. There is nothing really to stop Congress from giving people convicted of LWOP or death penalty crimes the option of choosing slavery as an alternative (at least for federal crimes). if you don't believe me, read the text of the 13th Amendment slowly.
Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not, but Obama was referring to a prior program that was basically equivalent. So by the definition that Obama himself was using at the time, these are wiretaps. Also, check out the news on PRISM, which comes much closer to the common definition of wiretaps. I'd say his administration has pretty thoroughly broken that particular promise. http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence...
You're missing the point. There are court orders behind these "wiretaps". "Warrantless wiretaps" refers to the program authorized by Bush in 2001 to do these wiretaps without ever notifying the FISA court. What Obama was campaigning against in 2008 was the executive branch deciding what it could and could not do in regards to surveillance in secret without any input from the legislative or judicial branches. What is…
The warrants seem rather broad though as they're receiving the information for everyone whereas warrants generally target specific individuals or organizations. This seems more like a technicality but still goes against the spirit of having warrants, kind of like a judge authorizing search and seizure of every American's home and the executives saying "well it's not warrantless because a judge said I could do this to anyone".
Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)
#59The problem is US started so many fights with other states (just to bring "their democracy") that now they are facing a big amount of guerrilla-not-centralized terrorism that they have to sacrifice freedom to have security. And for more time US keep this type of political, for more they will have to give up on a lot of rights his population have now. I already see new patriot acts-like caming.
Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)
#60Chhi... Compare it with the words and deeds of Abraham Lincoln 250 years ago: "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." [1][2] There is a stark change in quality of leaders available today. There is so little correlation between words spoken and execution. [1] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt027.html [2] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ltoh1.jpg
Lincoln personally abhorred slavery, but he was willing (and did) make accommodations to slavery in the name of saving the Union, acting as a politician in a purely political fashion. The most well-known is his replacing of an Army general, at the start of the Civil War, when he issued an order freeing the slaves in the border state of Missouri.
It is well-known that he personally abhorred slavery; I'm speaking of what he felt was his duty to do as President given conditions as they were.
He stated it like this (1862):
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. [...] I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."