White House Pressures Legislators Into Gutting USA FREEDOM Act 284
The U.S. House of Representatives has substantially reduced the effectiveness of the USA FREEDOM Act, a surveillance reform bill that sought to end mass collection of U.S. citizens' data. House Leadership was pressured by the Obama Administration to weaken many of the bill's provisions. The EFF and the Center for Democracy & Technology had both given their backing to the bill earlier this month, but they've now withdrawn their support. CDT Senior Counsel Harley Geiger said, "The Leadership of the House is demonstrating that it wants to end the debate about surveillance, rather than end bulk collection. As amended, the bill may not prevent collection of data on a very large scale in a manner that infringes upon the privacy of Americans with no connection to a crime or terrorism. This is quite disappointing given the consensus by the public, Congress, the President, and two independent review groups that ending bulk collection is necessary."
Robyn Greene of the Open Technology Institute added, "We are especially disappointed by the weakening of the language intended to prohibit bulk collection of innocent Americans’ records. Although we are still hopeful that the bill’s language will end the bulk collection of telephone records and prevent indiscriminate collection of other types of records, it may still allow data collection on a dangerously massive scale. Put another way, it may ban ‘bulk’ collection of all records of a particular kind, but still allow for ‘bulky’ collection impacting the privacy of millions of people. Before this bill becomes law, Congress must make clear—either through amendments to the bill, through statements in the legislative record, or both—that mass collection of innocent people’s records isn’t allowed."
Robyn Greene of the Open Technology Institute added, "We are especially disappointed by the weakening of the language intended to prohibit bulk collection of innocent Americans’ records. Although we are still hopeful that the bill’s language will end the bulk collection of telephone records and prevent indiscriminate collection of other types of records, it may still allow data collection on a dangerously massive scale. Put another way, it may ban ‘bulk’ collection of all records of a particular kind, but still allow for ‘bulky’ collection impacting the privacy of millions of people. Before this bill becomes law, Congress must make clear—either through amendments to the bill, through statements in the legislative record, or both—that mass collection of innocent people’s records isn’t allowed."
Glimmer of hope, squashed (Score:3)
For a second I thought they were "gutting" it in a good way.
How naive of me :-(
Re: (Score:3)
The typical White House approach to any threat like this (and both GW and Obama have used this approach many times) is to call together all the parties involved (especially the politicians) and ask them "Do you really want us to have to blame you if there is another terrorist attack?" Scares the shit out of any politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is totally understandable. I sure wouldn't want to be the person who got a bunch of people killed by limiting surveillance. I'd have to be very, very sure that the surveillance was truly inappropriate, and it would be very easy to doubt yourself with that kind of pressure on.
Re:Glimmer of hope, squashed (Score:5, Funny)
I sure wouldn't want to be the person who got a bunch of people killed by limiting surveillance.
Wouldn't matter if you "got them killed" or not. The powers who want to stop your reforms would still blame you.
An attack *IS* coming, regardless. And they *WILL* blame you for it if you don't do what they tell you to. Now fall in line, bitch.
Re:Glimmer of hope, squashed (Score:4, Insightful)
"Do you really want us to have to blame you if there is another terrorist attack?" Scares the shit out of any politician.
Political squabbles aside, if Benghazi is any indication for how Washing treats information it receives about actual terror threats (as opposed to just imagined ones) then the NSA spying doesn't even serve its supposed purpose anyways. That is to say, they were well aware in advance that something was going to happen, and deliberately chose not to act on it. Meanwhile we have to have our domestic IT industry is being crushed (e.g. Cisco losing foreign customers) and businesses like Lavabit forced to close because we absolutely MUST have this spying program to gather information that we don't even bother to use correctly.
Ditto for the Boston bomber (another incident which we had intelligence on before the fact, but didn't act on, and we didn't even need a spying program to obtain this information.)
Though as a direct response to your question, if Benghazi is any indication, then instead of identifying incidents as a straight up terror attack for the politicians to be held accountable for, they'll simply find something innocuous to blame it on (in this case a poorly made movie that nobody gives a shit about.)
Re:Glimmer of hope, squashed (Score:4, Insightful)
Listen, Republican. President Dick Cheney's himbo proxy was bad. Barak "No Change" Obama is bad too. Fucking deal with it.
As for me, I don't vote for either party, and haven't for a long time. I despise them both. I also hate people like you, who think that everyone is bad except YOUR party. People like you are the problem. You're just the dumb asshole wearing the "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Kodos!" t-shirt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Glimmer of hope, squashed (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worth pointing out that McCain seems to be more critical of the NSA than Obama does. I don't doubt that if McCain got elected president, the roles would be reversed, but Obama IS standing up more for the NSA spying program than McCain is, that much is clear.
I agree with you that both parties are to blame, but I think "fuck them both" isn't the only way out of this situation. I personally think that if we all bothered to vote in the primaries, in EITHER primary, many political problems attributed to the two party system would vanish quickly. SEVENTEEN PERCENT [bipartisanpolicy.org] of eligible voters nominated the candidates last time. For some reason, it's only the whackos that bother voting in the primaries. The tea partiers are the only ones participating, and then the rest of us can't figure out why they're being taken seriously by washington. It's certainly not because they have such good ideas, it's because they vote in the primaries. The anti-NSA crowd could and should do the same thing. Vote in the primaries, nominate candidates to both parties who oppose the NSA. It's not genetically encoded into either party to be in favor of big brother.
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore, again, seventeen fucking percent turnout. Your assertion that the
Re: (Score:2)
You imply that the alternatives were any better....
Do you really think Mccain or Romney would do any differently?
Rupublican and Democrat are 2 sides of the same coin.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously with a statement like that you don't.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a choice?????
Re: (Score:2)
This is a choice?????
Well, no. But lots of people hoped it would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
liar.
Re:Glimmer of hope, squashed (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm an independent voter, and I voted for Obama, because the alternative was worse. I am not happy with his performance on this and several other important policy areas, but he has done a much better job than McCain/Palin would have, IMHO. What frustrates me is that my friends in both parties never seem to be interested in the primary elections (I will register democrat or republican as needed to sway the primary I think most needs swaying), and also seem to think that it's all on Obama. Note TFA, which puts at least half the blame on Congress, where it belongs. We elect Congress too. And yet so very few people bother to show up for mid-term elections, and we wind up with radical nutballs as a result.
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary. When you vote for someone who can't win, you have wasted your vote—essentially, you are voting for "either of the two bad choices". If you want to get a candidate who isn't a bad choice to win, you have to get that candidate to the point where they can win, not tilt at windmills after it's too late. It may allow you some smug satisfaction to say "I didn't vote for either of those bastards," but the reality is that if you didn't vote at all, you let them win, and if you didn't ch
Re: (Score:3)
When did we cross over into 1984?
December 31, 1983.
Re:Glimmer of hope, squashed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They did.
"First and foremost, the bill introduces a different conceptual approach to prohibiting mass spying under Section 215. Unlike the Senate version, which tries to stop the mass collection of calling records by mandating that the records sought "pertain to" an agent of a foreign power or their activities—an approach that we’ve worried about because “pertains to” and “relevant” are so similar—the House version mandates that a "specific selection term" (currentl
But, but, BUT! (Score:5, Funny)
Only the RIGHT is evil! OBAMA is our Lord and Savior! This must be a ploy by the right to make him look bad!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But, but, BUT! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it doesn't make any sense. When has Obama had any influence over the Republican controlled House?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, aren't we talking about the same house that voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act some 2,527 times now? (No wait, this just in: we're up to 2,528!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is kind of strange that the headline mentions the white house adding pressure, but the summary doesn't at all...
Would ye kindly RTFA
Today, House Leadership, acting through the Rules Committee and in cooperation with the Obama Administration, approved a manager’s amendment to USA FREEDOM that makes significant changes to the bill it comes to the House Floor for a vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But, but, BUT! (Score:4, Informative)
What does Obama know that we don't? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an apparent and obvious change between pre-Presidential Obama's and Presidential Obama's actions and opinions on surveillance. What's the cause? Is it:
1. Lobbying money from parties that gain from the intelligence industry?
2. Access to top secret data that still hasn't been released showing a compelling need for this information gathering?
3. Some sort of extortion/blackmail information on Obama possessed by someone in intelligence?
4. A realization that most Americans don't actually care about the scope of surveillance, so he wants to appear "tough on terror"?
5. Something else (fill in your own blank)
Recall that he stated strongly that he thought AT&T should pay a legal penalty for the NSA/San Francisco wiretapping mess, then reversed his position and supported immunity for AT&T almost immediately after taking office. That suggests he either learned whatever it was very quickly, or was deceiving us as a candidate.
Re:What does Obama know that we don't? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you listed them in ascending order of likelihood.
Maybe 5 is "he was just playing us for suckers on the campaign trail."
Re: (Score:3)
I think you listed them in ascending order of likelihood.
Maybe 5 is "he was just playing us for suckers on the campaign trail."
Isn't your suggestion what ALL politicians do? Obammers isn't any different.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of them. For example I think Newt Gingrich honestly believes the things he says :-P
He Knows Power (Score:5, Insightful)
Recall that he stated strongly
Recall that he states everything strongly, often against something he stated strongly before. Therefore only pay attention to what he does and you'll see the true picture.
Extensive surveillance is not just great for catching terrorists, but finding out who is a conservative and what they are doing you can use the keep them quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
Recall that he states everything strongly
Barry says "MAKE NO MISTAKE!" and libtards planet-wide get a tingle. He was doing it again this morning with the VA scandal, amped up so high he was clipping. They're so impressed with his political theater they bounce around the Internets with weasel words like "stated strongly" and are astonished when people point and laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Domestic surveillance is a great way to control who gets in office, and selective law enforcement when everyone is breaking the law is a great way to quell the public trying to change the status quo.
But we don't need domestic spying to uncover Conservatives and if making them quiet were the goal -- they've failed on both counts.
Re: (Score:2)
More Conservative than Reagan and Nixon.
You can provide a lot of links to support this notion -- but I'm fairly sure that SuperKendall has never researched anything before taking a strong stand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
he is a politician and lied like they all do. Nope to Change was the actual slogan, we just misread it.
Re: (Score:2)
No we misinterpreted it. he was looking for spare CHANGE.
Most of his funding came from "micro" donations. He was asking for Change as in small bills and coins.
Liberals 2008 vs. Liberals 2014 (Score:2, Insightful)
Liberals 2008: "Bush is a liar! Obama will tell the truth!"
Liberals 2014: "All politicians lie."
Re:What does Obama know that we don't? (Score:5, Informative)
5. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I apologize for the cliche, but I think the kind of narcissistic tendencies one needs to have in order to be a successful politician can't turn away from the ability to find out everything about your political enemies. Even from a practical standpoint, that kind of leverage is just too good to resist if you're owned lock/stock/barrel by your campaign contributors and you need to deliver legislation favoring X industry or Y company.
Re: (Score:3)
The meaning of the statement is that the more power someone has, the harder it can be to resist the urge to abuse that power. Suppose you could throw anyone you didn't like into jail without fear of reprisal. You don't like what someone says and they're in jail indefinitely. No chance of them suing you for false imprisonment at all. At the start, you might only your power for really bad people in cases with a lot of proof. "That murderer killed fifteen kids, everyone saw him do it, and there's a video
Re: (Score:3)
Try:
6. Like all politicians, he told people what they wanted to hear, so they would vote him into power, after which (again, like all politicians) he put his real agenda into action.
Re:What does Obama know that we don't? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's worse than that.
Obama never really said anything of substance. He said many things that led people to believe they heard what they wanted to hear; a classic move by a flim-flam man.
A friend of mine used to be in the stock market and people would ask him, "What's the market going to do tomorrow?"
His stock reply was, "A lot of people are going to be surprised."
The number of people who thought he actually told them something was shocking. Obama was the same. He said a lot of things were bad but never said what he would do instead. He used the ultimate echo-chamber, a biased media, to say things for him that he never said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What does Obama know that we don't? (Score:4, Informative)
Name one thing he said he would do that he didn't try to do, only to be shut down by the republicans.
You mean, aside from:
- Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year
- Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
- Cut the cost of a typical family's health insurance premium by up to $2,500 a year
- Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange.
- Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN
- No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."
- Recognize the Armenian genocide
- Give the White House's Privacy and Civil Liberties Board subpoena power
- Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009
- Sign the Freedom of Choice Act
- Devote federal resources to promote cellulosic ethanol
- Provide an annual report on "state of our energy future"
- Require energy conservation in use of transportation dollars
- Double federal program to help "reverse" commuters who go from city to suburbs
- Mandate flexible fuel vehicles by 2012
- Require more flex-fuel cars for the federal government
- Require new federal fleet purchases to be half plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles
- Require plug-in fleet at the White House
- Use revenue from cap and trade to support clean energy and environmental restoration
- Create cap and trade system with interim goals to reduce global warming
- Enact windfall profits tax for oil companies
- Require 25 percent renewable energy by 2025
- Establish a low carbon fuel standard
- Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels
- Give annual "State of the World" address
- Call for a consultative group of congressional leaders on national security
- Limit term of director of national intelligence
- Strengthen the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Give tax incentives to new farmers
- Strengthen anti-monopoly laws to favor independent farmers
- Limit subsidies for agribusiness
- Reduce the number of middle managers in the federal workforce
- Improve and prioritize student science assessments
- Encourage diversity in media ownership
- Seek treaty to control fissile materials
- Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit
- Expand service-learning in schools
- Establish a Global Energy Corps to promote green energy in developing countries
- Create a national catastrophe insurance reserve
- Direct revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling to increased coastal hurricane protection
- Support human mission to moon by 2020
- Re-establish the National Aeronautics and Space Council
- Support tax deduction for artists
- Fully fund the COPS program
- Restore Superfund program so that polluters pay for clean-ups
- Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour
- Increase the supply of affordable housing throughout metropolitan regions
- Allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage
- Ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies
- Eliminate caps on damages for discrimination cases
- Sign the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act into law
- Urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws
- Regulate pollution from major livestock operations
- Create scholarships to recruit new teachers
- Double funding for afterschool programs
- Double funding for Federal Charter School Program and require more accountability
- Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials
- Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
- Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny
- Create a public "Contracts and Influence" database
- Seek independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations
- Double the Peace Corps
- Reinstate special envoy for the Americas
- With the G-8, launch Health Infrastructure 2020
- Seek to nego
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If that were the case, he would only need to release some of that information to justify those actions. More than likely the bulk surveillance infrastructure is to maintain a political and economic advantage over other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
If that were the case, he would only need to release some of that information to justify those actions.
I think you missed the part about the information being classified "top secret". Most classified information becomes declassified after 10 years; 25 years is fairly rare, and 50 years is almost unheard of. But the President can't just declassify top secret information because he wants it released.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, actually he can.
He's the head of the Executive Branch, for God's sake! If he wants something unclassified, all he has to do is give the order, and it is so.
Do try to remember that last really good President we had, and the sign on his desk - "The Buck Stops Here"
Re: (Score:2)
6. He was lying
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering what seems to have been change, it's not 'Gutted' it's different. The term gutted is just being used for FUD. for example:
First and foremost, the bill introduces a different conceptual approach to prohibiting mass spying under Section 215. Unlike the Senate version, which tries to stop the mass collection of calling records by mandating that the records sought "pertain to" an agent of a foreign power or their activities—an approach that we’ve worried about because “pertains to
Re: (Score:2)
The day you become CIC, you get the 'book of secrets' (that is probably not an actual book, or one particular piece of information).
You finally have 'all' of the pieces (all that can most likely be had) and now you've got the JOB to take the course that will, for lack of better words fark up the nation in the least.
All the pieces that can most likely be had? Are you kidding? The CIA coined the phrase "plausible deniability" back in the 1960's for a reason, you know.
Get used to disappointment... (Score:2, Interesting)
...or rise up.
Normal channels aren't working, but things aren't 'bad enough' for a sufficient number of people to do anything (yet).
I hope I get to see a peaceful revolution in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say if you have another 10-15 years of life left in you, you will, no matter where you live.
Re:Get used to disappointment... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say if you have another 10-15 years of life left in you, you will, no matter where you live.
I have heard that statement made many times over the last 30 years. It has yet to happen and I dont think it will.
The truth is that Bush Sr, GW Bush, and Obama are all the same. There is no difference between Dem. and Rep. It all boils down to money and power, nether gives a S**T about the people.
I only hope that some day enough people wake up and say F*** IT, then vote third party. I would love to see a three way tie or even a race between three parties that comes down to less than 1% difference.
Re:Get used to disappointment... (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that now we have a whole generation that is unemployed on a massive scale, with inequality and automation sqeezing the populace ever tighter, and computer models telling us that the shit is indeed going to hit the fan:
http://www.wired.com/2013/04/c... [wired.com]
If you even skim defense news you'll also see that the US military is putting a lot of priority on "handling" unrest inside the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Addendum: Whoops I didn't notice the "peaceful" part...no guarantees on that.
99 Rise (Score:3)
I was in San Francisco a few months ago, and ran into a protest from 99 Rise [99rise.org]. As best I can figure out, they're what happened to Occupy San Francisco. (this was right after the supreme court decision that allowed corporate spending on elections)
I have no idea what the other Occupy groups are doing now, but they're still out there.
Pressure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pressured how? They sent lots of Emails with "RE:" in the subject title? Many phone calls were made? The people who took you to lunch chuckled at public "hysteria"? Somebody insinuated they might have the ability to strike a committee to consider, in the fullness of time, whether pork due to your constituency -- if any -- might be placed under a possible pending review?
Would the house leadership describe the "pressure" placed by the Administration as "Overwhelming", "Compelling", or merely "Gentle but Firm"? Which one of these do Legislators consider as an excuse to justify gutting the Act?
The story is BS, and pure optics. The house leadership had no intention of passing the bill ungutted.
Re:Pressure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the House cave to the White House?
How about because the President would veto the bill without the changes and there aren't enough votes to pass it with a 2/3 majority as-is?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. The president wont endorse you in the next election.
2. The president will veto all your bills
3. The president will blame future terrorist attacks on you.
4. The president will move future defense contracts out of your state.
5. The president wont invite you to the whitehouse for photo ops.
6. The president will show up in your home town next time you're supposed to give a speech before an election, stealing the show and making all your voters forget about you.
7. Maybe you'd like to see YOUR NSA file Mr Cong
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, the GP was in no way meant to be a defence of the Obama Administration, who are even more to blame for this and several other problems. I didn't feel the need to state this in the post because I presume by now everyone is more of less aware of the homogeneous nature of those in power in the US.
Never a better time to read "Liberal Fascism" (Score:4, Insightful)
Just in case you still thought the roots of fascism came from anything other than claiming to care about those they rule over - as the news about the freedom act being gutted shows.
Liberal Fascism [amazon.com]
Also think strongly on this the next time you do not vote Libertarian because it's a "wasted vote".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you not noticed how dishonest it all is?
He says in a story about how a liberal president is gutting improvements to a Freedom Act that actually bring freedom...
Read the book. It's not dishonest at all, its a revealing trip through history
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal Fascism [amazon.com]
Save your money. If you want it, you can probably pick up a cheap copy at your local thrift store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also fun to Play Conservatroll [uncyclopedia.co]
When the Hell Has the GOP Done What Obama Asked? (Score:5, Insightful)
The House Leadership is all GOP. They've claimed that their number one priority is stopping whatever Obama wants. Mostly they've done that -- except on this one single thing, namely freedom online, they decide to roll over. So this serves as a pretty good test for both parties as to what their true priorities are.
Obama's a pretty terrible President, but when push comes to shove it's a good check-in that the reason for that is that he really wants the same things as the GOP.
Re:When the Hell Has the GOP Done What Obama Asked (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, political-spectrum-wise, Obama sits right where Saint Reagan does, so this isn't all that surprising.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When the Hell Has the GOP Done What Obama Asked (Score:5, Interesting)
Oddly, many of the more conservative Republicans still claim to be the party of Lincoln, when really they're confederates who want to break up the US because our president isn't 100% white. They think they can take credit for Lincoln, as if the conservative takeover of the party didn't drive every progressive like Lincoln out.
Re:When the Hell Has the GOP Done What Obama Asked (Score:5, Informative)
By agreeing that Obama is like Reagan and claiming that Republicans used to be more sane, you seem to imply that Obama is sane too. You also claim that both parties have moved more "right" (i.e., "conservative").
Neither of these things is the case. What's actually occurred is that the President, the Republicans and the Democrats have all become much more authoritarian (and corrupt) than they used to be. They have not moved "right", they've moved up [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised how many people refuse to admit this...
Re:When the Hell Has the GOP Done What Obama Asked (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised how many people refuse to admit this...
Hmm...
Regan:
Reduced the number of tax brackets and substantially reduced the top marginal rate
Increased defense spending
Strongly opposed the USSR and 'damn commies' world wide
Used the cold-war arms race(including threats of the 'star wars' system) to bankrupt the USSR and remove them from 'World Power' status
Stood by Americas international allies and faced down potential threats, even if it meant American boots on the ground
Tried to unite the country with patriotism
Repeatedly took his case to the American people to get them to change the votes of their legislators(explaining his position and why it was the right thing to do)
Took a stagnant economy and promoted growth(mostly through lower taxes and consumer confidence)
Obama:
Tax increases on 'the wealthiest Americans' to pay for various programs(including ACA)
Is pumping money into the stock market(either to hide the state of the economy or pay-off contributors, not sure which)
Is standing by while Putin re-builds the USSR
Draws 'red lines' or promotes hash-tags whenever there is something bad happening, but does not back them up.
Puts American diplomats in harms way to prove terrorism is gone, then blames a video when the terrorists show they are not gone
Tries to divide the country with racism(Rev. Al Sharpton; New Black Panthers; Prof. Gates; etc)
Repeatedly changed laws passed by the house and senate by either refusing to enforce them(border/immigration; Black Panther voter intimidation) or delaying enforcement(ACA) under his own authority
Repeatedly lied about his signature legislation to protect it from being seen for what it is.
Took a growing economy and promoted stagnation(mostly through uncertainty and higher taxes intermingled with one time give-aways to buy votes)
Admittedly, they both promoted growth in the stock market, even if Regan did it through growth and Obama is doing it through government backed bonds.
Aside from that, I just do not see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama sits right where Saint Reagan does
Actually it's St. Reagan
Re:When the Hell Has the GOP Done What Obama Asked (Score:5, Informative)
How so? I've heard this claimed a few times, but there never seems to be any substance to back it up. Searching for "Obama Reagan policy comparison" just turns up a bunch of blog posts with obvious biases (of all types) and poor arguments backed up with cherry picked anecdotes and intentionally misleading data.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter who is president or who is in congress.
The real power is controlled by the lobbyists for those with the most money and power.
The charade of representative democracy is wearing quite thin indeed.
Republican or Democrat, they both kowtow to the 1% and their aims.
As November approaches... (Score:2)
Pressure (Score:2)
NSA understands NO only when you shout (Score:3)
Unless this law explicitly and forcefully disallows bulk warrantless data collection of the public, NSA's top creeps (like Clapper and Alexander) and unprincipled gov't lawyers (like John Yoo) most certainly will crush the Constitution underfoot at their earliest convenience.
Anything else is just rearranging deck chairs...
I'm very confused by this story (Score:5, Insightful)
The GOP has made it very, very clear that anything that Obama favors will automatically receive a negative from the House of Representatives that they control. They have done this multiple times. They have openly stated that their primary objective is to oppose Obama on everything.
Now I'm supposed to believe that Obama pressured the GOP to weaken the bill? That seems... laughable. The GOP would never bow to Obama's requests - they have their image to consider. It seems more likely that the GOP revised the bill because Obama said he supported it in its original form.
It's also strange that the mainstream press doesn't seem to have picked up on such a monumental achievement by Obama. I'd have expected that any such successful pressure from the White House on the GOP would be a major headline in most newspapers that cover US national politics. But the best we get is a press release from the Center for Democracy and Technology. The EFF also had a press release about the amendments to the bill but they don't suggest that the White House or Obama was generating any pressure for the changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:House != White House (Score:5, Informative)
Am I reading it wrong?
Yes. The White House (Obama's administration) convinced the House Leadership (legislative members of the House of [pseudo]Representatives) to gut the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any evidence supporting your assertion, apart from the summary?
Thanks,
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, isn't it just the title that is getting it wrong?
" This is quite disappointing given the consensus by the public, Congress, the President, and two independent review groups that ending bulk collection is necessary."
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did they listen to Mr. O? They generally try to do the opposite, often seemingly out of spite. They even turned down certain tax-cuts in a few cases!
Hmmm, maybe he's using reverse psychology now.
Re:Hope and change! (Score:5, Funny)
The slogan was "yes we CAN". Nobody said anything about DOING anything.
Besides, nobody who managed to rub two brain cells together expected any change for real. Why should the one side of The Party change what the other side implemented?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, considering there wasn't really a choice, what should people do? He still was the lesser evil.
Re: (Score:2)
we killed bin laden. ok thats great, and what has that done for us? Hell we couldnt even see the proof that it even happened! and we still got attacked in boston eventhough we were told about the bomber by other countries. Bin laden was a
Re: (Score:2)
Your insults and personal opinions about Obamacare belong to the far right, not to the people that voted for it. For example you talked about mandatory health insurance, rather than the many positive things like no refusals for being already sick.
We, the Americans that are in the far majority, LIKE 99% of Obamacare's provisions. So your personal dislike of the things we like do
Re: (Score:2)
1) RomneyCare is better than nothing. Besides the irony has been enjoyable. It won't be called ObamaCare for long some already are dodging the label now people are waking up. It still sucks but the free market anarchy we had was worse. Again, it still sucks!
2) Bush didn't care about Osama. Publicly said so. 2002. Then did more later; that is, more to STOP doing anything about it, even to the point it was a legitimate criticism in the 2004 election. Then after that, he retasked the CIA/etc away from the lit