0
masterblaster72

Obama Pledges Greater Surveillance Transparency

Recommended Posts

WTF?

Quote

He has been defending the programmes since they were leaked in June.

At Friday's news conference, Mr Obama said: "It's not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programmes; the American people need to have confidence as well."



"Surveillance" and "tranparency" in the same pledge sounds like a load of BS and/or a major fail in the making. If anything I think this is an act to save a bit of face after his snub of Putin.

It's hard to imagine there's anyone who is not at least a little disappointed in this president.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The people get the government they deserve.
The US, and its voting populace, does not deserve any better!

P.S.: The people want to be lied at. "US is #1, leader in the world, the beacon of democracy." Bullshit...

normiss

I thought this was the guy with all the "government transparency".
What a load of shit.
Like ALL politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And those people who hate Republicans (really. It's what it's about. The people who defend him now hatesd Bush for doing the same thing. Just like those who loved when Bush did it hate it now) will talk about how swell the awesome and amazing Constitutional scholar who cares so much about us. You really have to love your people to protect us the way he is. Obama's a Peace Prize winner and can be trusted.

Obama is telling us that he doesn't want to snoop on you. It's everybody else, and, by golly by gee, isn't it worth just a little bit of inconvenience or lack of privacy if they prevent just one terrorist act? Just one? People, be afraid or terrorists. Not the government.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterrig

I have forgotten... why did Obama receive a Nobel Peace prize?



From the horse's mouth: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

Really the prize should have been given to "people who voted for what he said during his campaign" rather than given to him. But that would have been too abstract and ridiculous a thing to award a Nobel Prize to, and the Nobel committee was still three years away from jumping the shark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
champu

***I have forgotten... why did Obama receive a Nobel Peace prize?



From the horse's mouth: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

Really the prize should have been given to "people who voted for what he said during his campaign" rather than given to him. But that would have been too abstract and ridiculous a thing to award a Nobel Prize to, and the Nobel committee was still three years away from jumping the shark.

I thought they jumped the shark at the time. He was barely in office. Very convincing isn't he. :D:D


Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterrig


I thought they jumped the shark at the time. He was barely in office. Very convincing isn't he. :D:D


Chuck



I think they gave him the award just for not being Dubya.:|
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryoder

***
I thought they jumped the shark at the time. He was barely in office. Very convincing isn't he. :D:D


Chuck



I think they gave him the award just for not being Dubya.:|

Whatever their reasons they weren't very good. The guy hadn't done anything. The committee lost credibility on that one. But he's got it and we don't. :D:D


Chuck


Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterrig

******
I thought they jumped the shark at the time. He was barely in office. Very convincing isn't he. :D:D


Chuck



I think they gave him the award just for not being Dubya.:|

Whatever their reasons they weren't very good. The guy hadn't done anything. The committee lost credibility on that one. But he's got it and we don't. :D:D


I totally agree.
It was just silly.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
winsor

***I have forgotten... why did Obama receive a Nobel Peace prize?


Chuck



I think this rather covers it.

Oh, yes!:D
I miss Hitch.[:/]

At 6:10: "...we just like him for not being George Bush...":D:D:D
So I wasn't the only one thinking that.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryoder

***
I thought they jumped the shark at the time. He was barely in office. Very convincing isn't he. :D:D


Chuck



I think they gave him the award just for not being Dubya.:|

Seems like a pretty good reason, since Dubya started 2 wars.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Reply]Seems like a pretty good reason, since Dubya started 2 wars.



Versus Obama who hasn't started any wars but is killing people worldwide. So Obama is the opposite of Kissinger or Arafat - whereas Kissinger and Arafat were war criminals who won Peace Prizes because they took some time off from being war criminals (a terrorist on sabbatical from terror is cause for a Peace Prize), Obama won a Peace Prize and then BECAME a war criminal.

Bush dropped bombs on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. Obama has done all of those and added Yemen and Libya to it that I know of. And assassinated American citizens with drones. A drone war is a war. And committed another act of war in Pakistan when he got bin Laden.

To his credit, Obama has readily stated that all of his human rights abuses have so weakened Al Qaeda that it is basically powerless. Except for the 19 embassies that were closed, the US isn't worried about Al Qaeda.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gravitymaster

But..but.. Obama hasn't STARTED any wars. That's a big difference in the minds of some. It's the declaration that's important, not the acts.



Right. Libya. Yemen. The syria situation. Etc. If you just do it and say, "We didn't start it. We were asked to help" then it's a civil war that you are monitoring and providing "humanitarian assistance."

No. War is only war if a Republican starts it. Republicans start wars. Democrats merely "reset the peace process."


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Gravitymaster

But..but.. Obama hasn't STARTED any wars. That's a big difference in the minds of some. It's the declaration that's important, not the acts.



No matter what Obama does, he just can't win with some people. If he stopped the drone attacks and taking the offensive on extremist, he would be considered weak and a Muslim appeaser, and if he does what he is currently doing, he's now a reckless war monger.

Nobody on the right saw this coming while he was running for his first term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket

And those people who hate Republicans (really. It's what it's about. The people who defend him now hatesd Bush for doing the same thing. Just like those who loved when Bush did it hate it now) will talk about how swell the awesome and amazing Constitutional scholar who cares so much about us. You really have to love your people to protect us the way he is. Obama's a Peace Prize winner and can be trusted.

Obama is telling us that he doesn't want to snoop on you. It's everybody else, and, by golly by gee, isn't it worth just a little bit of inconvenience or lack of privacy if they prevent just one terrorist act? Just one? People, be afraid or terrorists. Not the government.



New leak: NSA can search US e-mail data but theoretically won’t
New Snowden leak says NSA needs to wait for an "effective oversight process."

Don’t worry, NSA says—we only “touch” 1.6% of daily global Internet traffic
New seven-page document from Ft. Meade defends agency's activities and policies.

I really can't understand people who trust "their guy" to use things responsibly and so think there is no problem with government assuming new, extra legal powers. Are they that short sighted? What do you expect will happen when some guy who is not "your guy" takes office again?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0