Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Jaffer added that Feinstein's strident denials that secret warrantless eavesdropping poses any dangers "almost makes you nostalgic for Ashcroft's 'phantoms of lost liberty' speech" - referring to the infamous 2001 decree from Bush's Attorney General:

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends."

That is exactly the foul message which Dianne Feinstein, doing the bidding of the Obama White House, spewed at her liberal Senate colleagues (and a tiny handful of Republicans) for the crime of wanting to bring some marginal transparency and oversight to the warrantless eavesdropping powers with which Obama vested himself when voting in 2008 for that FISA law. As it turns out, Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin had it exactly right in mid-2008 when explaining - in the face of lots of progressive confusion and even anger - why Obama decided to support a FISA bill that vested the executive with massive unchecked eavesdroppoing power: namely, Obama "plans to be the executive", so "from Obama's perspective, what's not to like?"

Just four or five years ago, objections to warrantless eavesdropping were a prime grievance of Democrats against Bush. The controversies that arose from it were protracted, intense, and often ugly. Progressives loved to depict themselves as stalwartly opposing right-wing radicalism in defense of Our Values and the Constitution.

Fast forward to 2012 and all of that, literally, has changed. Now it's a Democratic President demanding reform-free renewal of his warrantless eavesdropping powers. He joins with the Republican Party to codify them. A beloved Democratic Senator from a solidly blue state leads the fear-mongering campaign and Terrorist-enabling slurs against anyone who opposes it. And it now all happens with virtually no media attention or controversy because the two parties collaborate so harmoniously to make it happen. And thus does a core guarantee of the founding - the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment - blissfully disappear into nothingness.

Here we find yet again a defining attribute of the Obama legacy: the transformation of what was until recently a symbol of right-wing radicalism - warrantless eavesdropping - into meekly accepted bipartisan consensus. But it's not just the policies that are so transformed but the mentality and rhetoric that accompanies them: anyone who stands in the way of the US Government's demands for unaccountable, secret power is helping the Terrorists. "The administration has decided the program should be classified", decreed Feinstein, and that is that.

Baldy wrote:Once Obama secures reelection, he brings this up now? How convenient...

Still funny watching them eat their own.

CitadelGrad wrote:Feinstein a a cunt. I think we've already established that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Obama is a wannabe banana republic dictator. This has also been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:Once Obama secures reelection, he brings this up now? How convenient...

Still funny watching them eat their own.

I doubt Greenwald is much of an Obama fan but it sounds like you've been reading him lately, so good on ya!

Cluck U wrote:Where's analjelly? Why isn't dback demanding freedom and equality for everyone's privacy?

Where is houndawg protecting the masses of mindless minions from big government, and big business, intrusion - 'cause you just know the big, bad rich guys are going to use this to spy on the working class?

Oh, that's right...those folks don't care about anything but their single issues.

Or wait, they just KNOW it would have been worse if the other guy had won.

Cluck U wrote:Where's analjelly? Why isn't dback demanding freedom and equality for everyone's privacy?

Where is houndawg protecting the masses of mindless minions from big government, and big business, intrusion - 'cause you just know the big, bad rich guys are going to use this to spy on the working class?

Oh, that's right...those folks don't care about anything but their single issues.

Or wait, they just KNOW it would have been worse if the other guy had won.

houndawg wrote:

Cluck U wrote:Where's analjelly? Why isn't dback demanding freedom and equality for everyone's privacy?

Where is houndawg protecting the masses of mindless minions from big government, and big business, intrusion - 'cause you just know the big, bad rich guys are going to use this to spy on the working class?

Oh, that's right...those folks don't care about anything but their single issues.

Or wait, they just KNOW it would have been worse if the other guy had won.

need a hug, bro?

So young, so bitter.

Cluck U wrote:

houndawg wrote:

need a hug, bro?

So young, so bitter.

Young?

Listen, pup...you are stupid if you think I am bitter...and I should have just left off the part after, "if". I live a very good life and I'm so full of giggles that strangers want me committed to the looney farm.

You get spanked in every thread...by many different people...on almost every topic imaginable...and there is a reason for that. But keep thinking other people are "bitter" (more of that Liberal tolerance), if you think it helps your cause.

Speaking of fun and giggles, I am looking like a porn star these days...more so than usual. Doc shaved me clean for the operation and the boys are swollen...and not from slapping around the CS Donks.

Now, get back to shilling for the overpaid, lazy, ticks of the world...well, at least most of them. You are known to pander to quantity, not quality.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Cluck U wrote:Where's analjelly? Why isn't dback demanding freedom and equality for everyone's privacy?

Where is houndawg protecting the masses of mindless minions from big government, and big business, intrusion - 'cause you just know the big, bad rich guys are going to use this to spy on the working class?

Oh, that's right...those folks don't care about anything but their single issues.

Or wait, they just KNOW it would have been worse if the other guy had won.

OWNED!

/endthread

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
I doubt Greenwald is much of an Obama fan but it sounds like you've been reading him lately, so good on ya!

And I doubt Greenwald voted for anyone besides Obama.

Why would I need to read Greenwald when we have you here to parrot everything he and Taibbi says?

kalm wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:
OWNED!

/endthread

Not a single conk willing to comment on the issue and Republican origination and continued support of it either. Yeah, should probably close the thread.

Cluck U wrote:

houndawg wrote:

need a hug, bro?

So young, so bitter.

Young?

Listen, pup...you are stupid if you think I am bitter...and I should have just left off the part after, "if". I live a very good life and I'm so full of giggles that strangers want me committed to the looney farm.

You get spanked in every thread...by many different people...on almost every topic imaginable...and there is a reason for that. But keep thinking other people are "bitter" (more of that Liberal tolerance ), if you think it helps your cause.

Speaking of fun and giggles, I am looking like a porn star these days...more so than usual. Doc shaved me clean for the operation and the boys are swollen...and not from slapping around the CS Donks.

Now, get back to shilling for the overpaid, lazy, ticks of the world...well, at least most of them. You are known to pander to quantity, not quality.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Not a single conk willing to comment on the issue and Republican origination and continued support of it either. Yeah, should probably close the thread.

What are you even talking about?

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Not a single conk willing to comment on the issue and Republican origination and continued support of it either. Yeah, should probably close the thread.

What are you even talking about?

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: And I doubt Greenwald voted for anyone besides Obama.

Why would I need to read Greenwald when we have you here to parrot everything he and Taibbi says?

I've literally two Greenwald and Taibbi articles over the last few months. Reality is depressing.

But since you admittedly read Greenwald enough to know who he voted for...please let us know why you think he voted for Obama.

(hint...not everyone is as partisan as you. )

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
I've literally two Greenwald and Taibbi articles over the last few months. Reality is depressing.

But since you admittedly read Greenwald enough to know who he voted for...please let us know why you think he voted for Obama.

(hint...not everyone is as partisan as you. )

Don't care what you've done for the past couple of months, but for quite a while you literally posted a link to almost every article both of them wrote. That is the reality...and the fact that you called Obama a "Centrist Republican" (a Greenwald catch phrase) in a post within the last few days.

Well, one thing is for certain...your man crush didn't vote for Romney, and he was one of the people advocating for people to vote for Obama if they lived in anything other than a "safe state".

pssst...you can think I'm partisan if you want, but there is no doubt that you are an ideologue of the highest order.

houndawg wrote:


Might want to have Doc adjust the dosage, little buddy....

houndawg wrote:

Cluck U wrote:Where's analjelly? Why isn't dback demanding freedom and equality for everyone's privacy?

Where is houndawg protecting the masses of mindless minions from big government, and big business, intrusion - 'cause you just know the big, bad rich guys are going to use this to spy on the working class?

Oh, that's right...those folks don't care about anything but their single issues.

Or wait, they just KNOW it would have been worse if the other guy had won.

need a hug, bro?

So young, so bitter.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Don't care what you've done for the past couple of months, but for quite a while you literally posted a link to almost every article both of them wrote. That is the reality...and the fact that you called Obama a "Centrist Republican" (a Greenwald catch phrase) in a post within the last few days.

Well, one thing is for certain...your man crush didn't vote for Romney, and he was one of the people advocating for people to vote for Obama if they lived in anything other than a "safe state".

pssst...you can think I'm partisan if you want, but there is no doubt that you are an ideologue of the highest order.

Well if Greenwald advocated for swing state voters to vote Obama, you know more on the subject than me. But I'm flattered you're keeping such close tabs.