Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?

[AUChizad]

Bump.

If you recall, this thread was about how Obama is not the most liberal president of all time, as is often purported by those on the right, and rather, is very similar to Bush in more ways than not.

I mentioned how many of his foreign policies, such as continuing to wage war, dropping dictators like flies, and generally speaking, being somewhat of a warhawk supported this. That he extended the Bush Tax cuts, and has left Gitmo open for business. Etc. Etc.

I mentioned that it was insane to me that suddenly the same left that was shitting itself over Bush's war mongering, all of the sudden was completely cool with Obama doing essentially the same thing. The flip side of that is also true, which is that Republicans are no longer the "Rah-rah! USA!" cheerleaders they once were.

To update this with all of the recent scandals, my point is proven even further.

Now that Obama is using drones to kill US citizens, suddenly the left are the ones rationalizing that "Well, I mean, they're only going after the bad guys, and if it's effective, the ends justify the means" while the right is outraged by the belligerent war tactic.

Under Bush, the left thought the Patriot Act was the most despicable violation of civil liberties of all time. Welcome to 1984. The right rationalized that "they're not tapping my phones because I've got nothing to hide. If they're monitoring a suspected terrorist, then GOOD, that will help keep us safe."

Now, once again, it's completely flipped. The right is cuddled up with the ACLU. Our civil liberties are under attack. Outrage. The left, meanwhile, rationalizes that "They're just collecting meta-data. No one's listening in on YOUR personal phone calls. If it keeps us safer, it's all worth it."

This is why partisan politics drive me fucking insane. It's all one big hypocrisy. It's about your team more than it is about any principle or ideal. I watched Bill Maher this weekend, who flat out said that he didn't think this was a big deal because he "trusts" Obama, but giving a Republican this power would scare the shit out of him. At least he's honest, but this is irrational and wildly hypocritical. It's team sports.

My opinion, for the record? Which has not changed since the Patriot Act was first enacted? It's one of those 50-50 issues, where both sides have a valid argument. Most issues fall into this category for me, really. I know they're not interested in my phone calls. They're not trying to put me in jail (even for copyright violations). I appreciate it as a tool for keeping us generally safe. However, the idea that the government has the authority to monitor its citizens is very Orwellian, and while I don't think we're in communist China yet, that's a slippery slope precedent that we're setting if we leave this sort of thing unchecked.

Democrats: If you were shitting your pants outraged at the Patriot Act, you'd better be shitting your pants outraged over this.

Republicans: If you didn't give a shit about the Patriot Act, and thought the ends justified the means, you'd better feel the same way about it today.

[AUownsU]

I use to bitch like a MFer about W. passing the Patriot Act, establishing the Homeland Security, and pretty much deciding that the best way to protect Americans is to just spy on everyone. Of course after 9/11, I was constantly told by my not so liberal friends that I needed to support our president in times of war and that the Patriot Act was necessary to fight the "new" kind of threat. Now those same people throw shit fits everyday about Obama and how he is attacking our freedoms.

 

To quote Saul Silver, "Pandora can't go back into the box, he only comes out."

[CCTAU]

I use to bitch like a MFer about W. passing the Patriot Act, establishing the Homeland Security, and pretty much deciding that the best way to protect Americans is to just spy on everyone. Of course after 9/11, I was constantly told by my not so liberal friends that I needed to support our president in times of war and that the Patriot Act was necessary to fight the "new" kind of threat. Now those same people throw shit fits everyday about Obama and how he is attacking our freedoms.

 

To quote Saul Silver, "Pandora can't go back into the box, he only comes out."

I was cautiously optimistic when it passed. I didn't like the far reaching powers it gave, but I agreed with the need to be able to followup on terroristic activities. The theme then was that the government would not use it on you and I, just suspected terrorists.

And as usual, the old mantra of NEVER trust your government has come true.

[GH2001]

I use to bitch like a MFer about W. passing the Patriot Act, establishing the Homeland Security, and pretty much deciding that the best way to protect Americans is to just spy on everyone. Of course after 9/11, I was constantly told by my not so liberal friends that I needed to support our president in times of war and that the Patriot Act was necessary to fight the "new" kind of threat. Now those same people throw shit fits everyday about Obama and how he is attacking our freedoms.

 

To quote Saul Silver, "Pandora can't go back into the box, he only comes out."

I have critiqued them both. Patriot Act was a bad idea the way it's written. No matter who wrote it or who is enforcing it.

So by your logic, since some were ok with it under Bush, people have no right to criticize it under Obama? How's about they are both wrong and that's it.

[AUChizad]

So by your logic, since some were ok with it under Bush, people have no right to criticize it under Obama? How's about they are both wrong and that's it.

Um...yeah...

And the reverse is also true. If you rationalized it then, why is it a complete and total outrage now? Because it's not your guy in office, obviously. Howard Dean said yesterday that he supports surveillance if it keeps Al Qaeda out of the country. When he was running for President, he said the Patriot Act was a "reckless disregard for our civil liberties."

And if you take the exact opposite opinion? That you supported the Patriot Act because it kept us safe from Al Qaeda, but Obama has demonstrated a "reckless disregard for our civil liberties"? Then you're just as wildly hypocritical.

It sounds like many here had the same opinion as me on the Patriot Act. It was uncomfortable, and you were not necessarily ok with it, but I didn't see you protesting. What changed besides the (R) next to the President's name is now a (D)?

Personally, I'm more outraged by the hypocrisy on both sides than the surveillance itself. Like I said, my personal opinion is unchanged. I see a little of both of the argument, but not outrage or blanket support in either direction. I do think some of these tactics are necessary in keeping us safe, the ends justify the means, and I don't believe anyone who is not an Al-Qaeda operative has anything to worry about. That being said, the 4th Amendment is at risk here, and that is unacceptable. That and it's just creepy.

I liked the way they put it here

    They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.
    They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.
    They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed.
    They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.
    They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.

[Vandy Vol]

So by your logic, since some were ok with it under Bush, people have no right to criticize it under Obama? How's about they are both wrong and that's it.

I don't think he's saying that if some people were alright with it under Bush, then no one has a right to criticize it under Obama.

Rather, I think he's saying that those who were alright with it under Bush should be alright with it under Obama, and those who hated it under Bush should hate it under Obama.  No one should be flipping sides just because "their team" is now doing it, yet they were flipping their shit when "their opponent" was doing it.

I liked the way they put it here

Your phone company also knows that information.  Not necessarily defending the government's intrusion here, but just pointing out that these things that people think are private aren't actually all that private.  We're probably watched and tracked by private companies as much as we are by the government.  Phone records, medical records, internet records (cache files, cookies, browser apps, social media), etc.

Maybe it's very rare that someone at Verizon actually sits down and noses through my phone calls, but I would imagine the same could be said for the government.  I haven't called an Afghanistan number in at least a year or two...

[AUChizad]

I don't think he's saying that if some people were alright with it under Bush, then no one has a right to criticize it under Obama.

Rather, I think he's saying that those who were alright with it under Bush should be alright with it under Obama, and those who hated it under Bush should hate it under Obama.  No one should be flipping sides just because "their team" is now doing it, yet they were flipping their shit when "their opponent" was doing it.

The first argument didn't even register, because it makes no sense. Obviously, SOME people are for or against anything at any point in time.

My point is that even if you now claim to have been opposed to the Patriot Act, you sure didn't make the stink out of it that you're making now.

[GH2001]

Um...yeah...

And the reverse is also true. If you rationalized it then, why is it a complete and total outrage now? Because it's not your guy in office, obviously. Howard Dean said yesterday that he supports surveillance if it keeps Al Qaeda out of the country. When he was running for President, he said the Patriot Act was a "reckless disregard for our civil liberties."

And if you take the exact opposite opinion? That you supported the Patriot Act because it kept us safe from Al Qaeda, but Obama has demonstrated a "reckless disregard for our civil liberties"? Then you're just as wildly hypocritical.

It sounds like many here had the same opinion as me on the Patriot Act. It was uncomfortable, and you were not necessarily ok with it, but I didn't see you protesting. What changed besides the (R) next to the President's name is now a (D)?

Personally, I'm more outraged by the hypocrisy on both sides than the surveillance itself. Like I said, my personal opinion is unchanged. I see a little of both of the argument, but not outrage or blanket support in either direction. I do think some of these tactics are necessary in keeping us safe, the ends justify the means, and I don't believe anyone who is not an Al-Qaeda operative has anything to worry about. That being said, the 4th Amendment is at risk here, and that is unacceptable. That and it's just creepy.

I liked the way they put it here

I suggest you go back and read my previous posts the last 4 years or so criticizing Bush in re to the Patriot Act....long before anyone knew Obama was abusing it. I've never liked it. Same with Prescription Drug Plan, Auto Bailouts (also Bush) or no child left behind. Wasn't a big fan of Iraq either. Yeah we're still over in the middle east fighting this same war 12 years later. Maybe I'm just war weary but in hindsight it doesn't look like a well thought out operation. And that's no disrespect to the troops. More of a jab to Bush/Cheney/Haliburton and Obama for campaigning to end it quickly and doing nothing of the sort.

[AUownsU]

I think we all can agree that we don't need a government that spies on us 24/7 regaurdless of who the fuck is in charge.

[AUChizad]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/11/why-we-get-the-police-state-we-deserve-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-that.html

Why We Get the Police State We Deserve—and What We Can Do to Fix That
by Nick Gillespie Jun 11, 2013 12:46 PM EDT

Just look at the polls: everyone loves Big Brother when he’s got the right party affiliation. Nick Gillespie on how rank partisanship has trumped principles—and how to change that.
       
In the first flush of stories about how the National Security Agency is surveilling American citizens, one stomach-turning revelation hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves: we get the surveillance state we deserve because rank political partisanship trumps bedrock principle every goddamn time on just about every goddamn issue.

The journalist Glenn Greenwald, who jump-started this overdue conversation on civil liberties and the war on terrorism, has promised that the revelations are just getting started. But nothing that comes out can be more dispiriting than the simple truth that Democrats and Republicans are both happy to love Big Brother as long as he’s got the right party affiliation.

In late 2005, The New York Times and others exposed broad-based, constitutionally dubious NSA surveillance programs of American citizens. If memory serves, there was a Republican in the White House, and the GOP held both houses of Congress too.

In January 2006, Pew Research asked whether it was OK to collect info on “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading emails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so.” A slim majority of all respondents—51 percent—said yes while 47 percent said no.

The partisan breakdown, however, was vastly different, with 75 percent of Republicans finding it acceptable and just 23 percent dissenting. When it came the Democrats, only 37 percent of Democrats signed off on NSA snooping, with a whopping 61 percent saying screw off.

It’s totally different, don’t you see, when my guy is running the show!

Fast-forward to June 2013, when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office after an easy reelection and his party controls the Senate. Pew asked respondents whether it’s OK that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism.” This time around, it’s Democrats who overwhelmingly support collecting collecting yottabytes and exabytes of metadata on us all, with 64 percent saying they are totally fine with NSA surveillance programs and a measly 34 percent disagreeing. Among Republicans, enthusiasm for eye-in-the-sky surveillance has taken a major hit, with only 52 percent agreeing and 47 percent saying no.

(Don’t let the constitutional fig leaf about “secret court orders” in the newer version of Pew’s question fool you. To the extent that anyone knows anything about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, they know it’s a freaky hybrid of a kangaroo and a rubber stamp that even Dr. Moreau couldn’t have conceived at his most demented. In roughly 34,000 requests spanning 33 years, FISA courts have turned down applicants for surveillance orders a total of 11 times.)

 The same predictable, partisan-fueled march of the lemmings shows up in questions about monitoring email. In 2002, when wisps of smoke still rose silently from the World Trade Center’s wreckage like lost souls in search of some beggared form of heaven and Attorney General John Ashcroft still attacked anyone who “would scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty,” Pew asked, “Should the government be able to monitor everyone’s email and other online activities if officials say this might prevent future terrorist attacks?” To our credit as the Land of the Free, more Americans said no (47 percent) than yes (45 percent). In the latest tally, the nos have increased by 5 points, to 52 percent while the yeses have stayed at the same level.

Among Republicans and Democrats, however, situational ethics runs the show. Fifty-three percent of Republicans said yes and 38 percent said no. Now, 45 percent say yes and 51 percent say no. Democrats present a mirror image. Back in 2002, just 41 percent said yes and 51 percent said no. Now, the corresponding figures are 53 percent and 43 percent.

Such inarguably party-fueled reversals are nothing new—go Google the ideological contortions related to changing views of pols and pundits on whether Bush’s predilection for indefinite detention is worse than Obama’s fondness for presidential kill lists if you’ve got enough Prevacid in your medicine cabinet.

To be fair, sometimes partisans really do have a Damascus Road experience and change their ways of thinking. By all accounts, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), who grabbed headlines a decade ago by rechristening Congress's spuds as "freedom fries," really has scrapped his interventionist positions despite a strongly negative effect on his electability. But for the most part, reboots are little more than cynical ploys that are hard to take seriously even when they are as entertaining as postcoital pressers by fallen ministers. That includes the recent and largely unconvincing repudiation of the Patriot Act by its original sponsor, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).

More to the point, though, the virtually unyielding preference for partisanship over principle explains why regardless of which party controls the government, the surveillance state continues to grow. It’s totally different, don’t you see, when my guy is running the show!

That same dynamic also helps to explain what is arguably the single-most important political trend over the past 40, 50, or even 70 years: the rise in the percentage of voters who flatly refuse to identify with either the Republican or Democratic Party. In 2012, more voters—38 percent—called themselves independent than admitted to being Democrat (32 percent) or Republican (24 percent).

And it points to the only place from where actual relief from an ever-bigger, ever-more-intrusive surveillance state is going to come: oddball, ad hoc coalitions formed not by party apparatchiks but by rogue elements that somehow sneak into power and are buoyed by the plurality of Americans who refuse to be cowed by party politics. It is characters such as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rand Paul (R-KY.), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Mark Udall (D-CO.) and Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI.), Thomas Massie (R-KY.), and Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) who are lobbying for more government transparency, accountability, and restraint.

This crew has virtually nothing in common other than an inspiring streak of ideological independence that mirrors the plurality of American voters. (Paul, who has co-sponsored legislation with Wyden, did not even thank the Republican Party on election night in 2012, choosing instead to thank the “Tea Party.”) They will doubtless find themselves on different sides of the barricades when it comes to questions of taxes, regulation, and spending. But it is impossible to imagine any of them shifting their positions on ubiquitous surveillance of Americans or kill lists or torture simply based on which party controls the White House or Congress. Which, sad to say, is a relief in the current political climate. And the reason their efforts deserve not just our sincere thanks but our vocal support.

[Saniflush]

They are all 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag.