Republicans defending Big Government Surveillance, again....

Londoner

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
3,144
Reaction score
980
Points
285
George W Bush famously got caught spying on American citizens without a warrant. With his Patriot Act, he tried to do an end-run around the Constitution in order to formalize and legalize spying.

Obama, who lacks the moral courage to challenge Dick Chaney and his constant appearances on FOX News defending NSA Spying and the Patriot Act, has failed to destroy the Bush Surveillance State.

Recently, because of the Snowden leaks, it has come to light that Big Government (NSA) has been over-tracking phone, internet and consumer activity of free Americans - and creating huge data bases, stored in massive data silos in Utah. Information on nearly every American now exists so that future administrations could use it however they like, despite Government assurances that they would never, ever do anything wrong or un-Constitutional with this data. But who really knows what will happen once a particular form of Government Power exists? Maybe a president will come to office who wants to analyze gun purchases, and he will use these new concentrated data collection powers for unintended purposes. This is why Libertarians (and the Constitution) protect privacy, because once compromised at the institutional level, it can be used in ways that have unintended consequences. [Don't try explaining this to Republicans because they tend to trust Big Government, and they couldn't imagine how mistakes and abuses could take place once Bush awarded concentrated surveillance powers to big government. This is why Republicans never opposed the Bush Surveillance State, because they tend to be more obedient to their leaders than the Constitution].

Fast forward to the 12/22 episode of "This Week w/George Stephanopoulos", where, once again, the Republicans are defending the invasion of privacy.

House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich, was defending Big Government Surveillance Power against one of its harshest critics, Democratic Senator Mark Udall. And now Obama, because of mounting pressure from the Democrats, is considering taking legal actions to curb Big Government's power to spy on free Americans.

Of course, everybody anticipates that Dick Chaney will appear on FOX News to intimidate the President from curbing the Government Power that he (Chaney/Bush) put in place.

But a question remains.

Why do Republicans like giving Big Government so much power? We all want a perfect utopia of total safety where big brother protects us every second of every day from terrorism, but why do Republicans ALWAYS believe that giving Government more power will solve this and other problems? What if giving Government more power will actually make things worse? When Republicans destroy the Constitution to make us safe, they are actually putting us in more danger. Do they know this?

[Psst: the Republicans are coming back in 2016, when I predict they will defeat Billary and re-take the White House. When this happens they will re-kindle the War on terrorism, and shore up the Patriot Act and NSA Spying. Remember: their last president created these new government powers, and they just need one more homeland attack to create even greater surveillance powers. Meaning: you ain't seen nothing yet. If you thought Bush's warrantless wiretapping was a turning point in American History, than just wait... and see what happens once they re-kindle the War on Terrorism, with all its strategically used fear and terminal color coded warnings on every channel. The party that created the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security is coming back in 2016, and they always govern using a Big Enemy and National Security, always.]

[Psst 2: Attention Republicans, please follow this link and read about the Department of Homeland Security, which was created under Bush. This is what happens when you give government more power, despite your best intentions. Click me]
 
Last edited:

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
35,140
Reaction score
3,902
Points
1,130
I was against it when "W" and the gang did it and I'm against it now. "O" and the Dems are just as guilty.
Yep. When will we stop falling for the 'good cop, bad cop' schtick?
 

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,735
Reaction score
3,381
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
I was against it when "W" and the gang did it and I'm against it now. "O" and the Dems are just as guilty.
Yep. When will we stop falling for the 'good cop, bad cop' schtick?
Answer: As long as there is such a partisan divide. It's always the "other guys" who are the bad guys. So I guess it'll never end.
 

chikenwing

Guest
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
7,387
Reaction score
834
Points
190
How long has Obamma been the pres? how long have the Dems controlled 2/3 of the federal gov?.

Focus!!
 
OP
L

Londoner

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
3,144
Reaction score
980
Points
285
W didn't do it. The republican who wrote it pointed out that obama turned it into something it should never have been.

This abuse of the Patriot Act must end | Jim Sensenbrenner | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Don't you get it? This is why Libertarians didn't want this power to exist in the first place. Once you put an agency in place that is charged with collecting data on Americans, you open the door for abuse. Read the actual powers that Bush gave to government under the Patriot Act. He opened a door that allows Government to spy on American citizens. Once the power exists institutionally, it can be abused by future administrations, like with Obama, who, like Carter, seems powerless to control the trajectory of state power, despite his BS rhetoric.

There is a reason why Ashcroft finally told Bush he would not continue to certify the spying program.

There is a reason why Ashcroft told Bush that these new surveillance programs were in violation of the Constitution.

You should at least know why Bush's Attorney General warned him of these problems before you point a finger at Obama, who is guilty of not standing up to Chaney, who came after him very hard when he first tried to curb this power.
 
Last edited:

Katzndogz

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
65,656
Reaction score
7,473
Points
1,830
W didn't do it. The republican who wrote it pointed out that obama turned it into something it should never have been.

This abuse of the Patriot Act must end | Jim Sensenbrenner | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Don't you get it? This is why Libertarians didn't want this power to exist in the first place. Once you put an agency in place that is charged with collecting data on Americans, you open the door for abuse. Read the actual powers that Bush gave to government under the Patriot Act. He opened a door that allows Government to spy on American citizens. Once the power exists institutionally, it can be abused by future administrations, like Obama, who, like Carter, seems powerless to control the trajectory of the state.

There is a reason why Ashcroft finally told Bush he would not continue to certify the spying program.

There is a reason why Ashcroft told Bush that these new surveillance programs were in violation of the Constitution.

You should at least know why Bush's Attorney General warned him of these problems before you point a finger at Obama, who is guilty of not standing up to Chaney, who came after him very hard when he first tried to curb this power.
I get it. Data on AMERICANS was never supposed to happen. It was DATA on foreigners. Even foreigners in the United States. It was never intended to be used against Americans and certainly never intended to be used to tap the phones of foreign heads of state like Angela Merkle.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
The government always and only expands its power. Which is why so called conservatives should have known that such a program would later be ripe for abuse under different adminsitrations. They didn't care, or were too stupid to know this long standing reality. in truth, they were doing what good Statists do - Expanding government authority and reach into areas that it wasn't meant to be involved with. This has been the case all throughout US hisotry since the inception of the constitution. The expansion of federal control and authority. The consolidation of power and authority.

Republicans love it, and so do democrats.
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
While violating the Constitution is reprehensible, as weapons technology improves, we're going to find ourselves facing down weapons and attacks that'll make 9/11 seem like the good ol' days. Government surveillance may be illegal, but it may also become something we learn to live with since the alternative is much worse. And of course as the old counter-arguement goes, if not doing anything wrong, what do you care if the government knows about it?
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
While violating the Constitution is reprehensible, as weapons technology improves, we're going to find ourselves facing down weapons and attacks that'll make 9/11 seem like the good ol' days. Government surveillance may be illegal, but it may also become something we learn to live with since the alternative is much worse. And of course as the old counter-arguement goes, if not doing anything wrong, what do you care if the government knows about it?
Oh, please. That tired old hunk of shit wont stick to the wall anymore. And as far as doing nothing wrong is concerned, the government is the one who decides when someone is doing something "wrong" and can use such sweeping information in very Orwellian ways.

So, yes, it does matter whether or not I'm doing anything wrong. I have a RIGHT to privacy in my person and property.
 
OP
L

Londoner

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
3,144
Reaction score
980
Points
285
How long has Obamma been the pres? how long have the Dems controlled 2/3 of the federal gov?.

Focus!!
Son, we know the Democrats trust big government and have no problem giving Washington more power. This is actually one of their official platforms.

But your party is different, according to what you constantly tell us.

Your party opposes giving government more power because they don't trust Government to wield that power with tactical competence and moral acumen (despite the best intentions to keep us safe).

So why did your party's leaders - Bush and Chaney - put these privacy-shredding powers in place? And why did they become the fiercest advocates for these powers despite warnings from their own Attorney General that they were anti-Constitutional? [Again, we know the Democrats will always roll over for anyone who wants to give government more power]

Meaning: when your party - the party charged with curbing government power and protecting the Constitution - becomes the biggest violator of this ethic, we're fucked.

(And we're fucked even worse when your party's voters are reduced to cheerleaders at precisely the point when they should stand up for core principals).

The Democrats controlled the House during the Reagan years, and they are never credited for anything. You can do better. When good things happen under a Democratic President, it's because of the Republican House. When Good things happen under a Republican President, it's because of the Republican President. When bad thing happen under a Republican President, it's because of the Democrats. You've been crying about Jimmy Carter for 30 years, but nobody is allowed to mention Bush or policies that he put in place?

Bad form chap.

Focus!!!
 
Last edited:

OriginalShroom

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
4,950
Reaction score
1,041
Points
190
1 - I wasn't happy with the Patriot Act from the beginning. Didn't think there was enough protections for the Constitutionally protected rights of American Citizens.

2 - What ever excesses were done by President G.W. Bush has been eclipsed by the excesses of Obama.

3 - Where are the Democrats berating Obama for what has been done the past five years of his administration? I just don't see them.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
127,707
Reaction score
21,209
Points
2,180
George W Bush famously got caught spying on American citizens without a warrant. With his Patriot Act, he tried to do an end-run around the Constitution in order to formalize and legalize spying.

Obama, who lacks the moral courage to challenge Dick Chaney and his constant appearances on FOX News defending NSA Spying and the Patriot Act, has failed to destroy the Bush Surveillance State.

Recently, because of the Snowden leaks, it has come to light that Big Government (NSA) has been over-tracking phone, internet and consumer activity of free Americans - and creating huge data bases, stored in massive data silos in Utah. Information on nearly every American now exists so that future administrations could use it however they like, despite Government assurances that they would never, ever do anything wrong or un-Constitutional with this data. But who really knows what will happen once a particular form of Government Power exists? Maybe a president will come to office who wants to analyze gun purchases, and he will use these new concentrated data collection powers for unintended purposes. This is why Libertarians (and the Constitution) protect privacy, because once compromised at the institutional level, it can be used in ways that have unintended consequences. [Don't try explaining this to Republicans because they tend to trust Big Government, and they couldn't imagine how mistakes and abuses could take place once Bush awarded concentrated surveillance powers to big government. This is why Republicans never opposed the Bush Surveillance State, because they tend to be more obedient to their leaders than the Constitution].

Fast forward to the 12/22 episode of "This Week w/George Stephanopoulos", where, once again, the Republicans are defending the invasion of privacy.

House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich, was defending Big Government Surveillance Power against one of its harshest critics, Democratic Senator Mark Udall. And now Obama, because of mounting pressure from the Democrats, is considering taking legal actions to curb Big Government's power to spy on free Americans.

Of course, everybody anticipates that Dick Chaney will appear on FOX News to intimidate the President from curbing the Government Power that he (Chaney/Bush) put in place.

But a question remains.

Why do Republicans like giving Big Government so much power? We all want a perfect utopia of total safety where big brother protects us every second of every day from terrorism, but why do Republicans ALWAYS believe that giving Government more power will solve this and other problems? What if giving Government more power will actually make things worse? When Republicans destroy the Constitution to make us safe, they are actually putting us in more danger. Do they know this?

[Psst: the Republicans are coming back in 2016, when I predict they will defeat Billary and re-take the White House. When this happens they will re-kindle the War on terrorism, and shore up the Patriot Act and NSA Spying. Remember: their last president created these new government powers, and they just need one more homeland attack to create even greater surveillance powers. Meaning: you ain't seen nothing yet. If you thought Bush's warrantless wiretapping was a turning point in American History, than just wait... and see what happens once they re-kindle the War on Terrorism, with all its strategically used fear and terminal color coded warnings on every channel. The party that created the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security is coming back in 2016, and they always govern using a Big Enemy and National Security, always.]

[Psst 2: Attention Republicans, please follow this link and read about the Department of Homeland Security, which was created under Bush. This is what happens when you give government more power, despite your best intentions. Click me]
So three Republicans defend the NSA surveillance program, and one of them isn't even in office. You're forgetting that Obama defended it, and so have numerous Democrats. Most rank and file Republicans oppose it.
 

chikenwing

Guest
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
7,387
Reaction score
834
Points
190
How long has Obamma been the pres? how long have the Dems controlled 2/3 of the federal gov?.

Focus!!
Son, we know the Democrats trust big government and have no problem giving Washington more power. This is actually one of their official platforms.

But your party is different, according to what you constantly tell us.

Your party opposes giving government more power because they don't trust Government to wield that power with tactical competence and moral acumen (despite the best intentions to keep us safe).

So why did your party's leaders - Bush and Chaney - put these privacy-shredding powers in place? And why did they become the fiercest advocates for these powers despite warnings from their own Attorney General that they were anti-Constitutional? [Again, we know the Democrats will always roll over for anyone who wants to give government more power]

Meaning: when your party - the party charged with curbing government power and protecting the Constitution - becomes the biggest violator of this ethic, we're fucked.

(And we're fucked even worse when your party's voters are reduced to cheerleaders at precisely the point when they should stand up for core principals).

The Democrats controlled the House during the Reagan years, and they are never credited for anything. Your cherry picking like FOX News. When good things happen under a Democratic President, it's because of the Republican House. When Good things happen under a Republican President, it's because of the Republican President. When bad thing happen under a Republican President, it's because of the Democrats. You're been talking about and blaming Jimmy Carter for 30 years, but nobody is allowed to mention Bush or policies that he put in place.

Bad form chap.

Focus!!!
And after all of that,you excuse the Dems,the ones in power??!!

As a foot note ,the patriot act sucked then still sucks,but some how its still all W .

Focus!!
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
While violating the Constitution is reprehensible, as weapons technology improves, we're going to find ourselves facing down weapons and attacks that'll make 9/11 seem like the good ol' days. Government surveillance may be illegal, but it may also become something we learn to live with since the alternative is much worse. And of course as the old counter-arguement goes, if not doing anything wrong, what do you care if the government knows about it?
Oh, please. That tired old hunk of shit wont stick to the wall anymore. And as far as doing nothing wrong is concerned, the government is the one who decides when someone is doing something "wrong" and can use such sweeping information in very Orwellian ways.

So, yes, it does matter whether or not I'm doing anything wrong. I have a RIGHT to privacy in my person and property.
Other than knowing the word 'Owellian,' can you actually list any consequences of a law-abidding citizen being negatively impacted by government surveillance?
 

WelfareQueen

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
7,359
Points
1,065
Location
Uranus
I was against it when "W" and the gang did it and I'm against it now. "O" and the Dems are just as guilty.
I agree, but Obama has vastly expanded what Bush did. But your point remains...both are to blame.
 

WelfareQueen

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
7,359
Points
1,065
Location
Uranus
While violating the Constitution is reprehensible, as weapons technology improves, we're going to find ourselves facing down weapons and attacks that'll make 9/11 seem like the good ol' days. Government surveillance may be illegal, but it may also become something we learn to live with since the alternative is much worse. And of course as the old counter-arguement goes, if not doing anything wrong, what do you care if the government knows about it?
Oh, please. That tired old hunk of shit wont stick to the wall anymore. And as far as doing nothing wrong is concerned, the government is the one who decides when someone is doing something "wrong" and can use such sweeping information in very Orwellian ways.

So, yes, it does matter whether or not I'm doing anything wrong. I have a RIGHT to privacy in my person and property.

You also have the right under the 4th Amendment against illegal search and seizure, and any search or seizure must be secured with a warrant. Period.

The entire program is a massive infringement on all of our civil liberties.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,741
Points
245
While violating the Constitution is reprehensible, as weapons technology improves, we're going to find ourselves facing down weapons and attacks that'll make 9/11 seem like the good ol' days. Government surveillance may be illegal, but it may also become something we learn to live with since the alternative is much worse. And of course as the old counter-arguement goes, if not doing anything wrong, what do you care if the government knows about it?
Oh, please. That tired old hunk of shit wont stick to the wall anymore. And as far as doing nothing wrong is concerned, the government is the one who decides when someone is doing something "wrong" and can use such sweeping information in very Orwellian ways.

So, yes, it does matter whether or not I'm doing anything wrong. I have a RIGHT to privacy in my person and property.
Other than knowing the word 'Owellian,' can you actually list any consequences of a law-abidding citizen being negatively impacted by government surveillance?
Yes, the right to privacy in person and effects. It doesn't really make a damned bit of difference if one can prove a negative consequence BEFORE one presents itself (though im sure i can find some examples of such things already if inclined).
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top