Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama to call for ending bulk collection of phone data by government (64 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Didn't he also promise to close (0+ / 0-)

    Guantanamo Bay? Or did he promise a study for a recommendation of a study? Or something.

    Health insurance is not health care.

    by Jarrayy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:34:20 AM PDT

    •  Remind me (10+ / 0-)

      How he's supposed to close it without Congress allowing removal or trial?

      http://jasonluthor.jelabeaux.com/

      by DAISHI on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:41:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Civics FAIL is a big part of this thread. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dougymi, freakofsociety, doroma

        Look at all of the comments asking why he's going to Congress to change the law.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:46:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please cite the federal statute which authorizes (0+ / 0-)

          bulk collection of domestic phone calls. While the cite of a specific statute won't mitigate the rudeness of dismissing other kossaks with the "civic fail" sneer, it might at least explain your bad manners on the issue.

          Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

          by davidincleveland on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:19:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Accurate regarding Guantanamo, though. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            freakofsociety, tarkangi, doroma

            Obama would love to close it and continues to try.  So far he's lost on this one, not refused.

          •  The USA PATRIOT ACT. (0+ / 0-)

            That was easy.

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 06:57:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is easier, and a teachable moment for all (0+ / 0-)

              Senator Leahy's response to the underlying obfuscation inherent in your original comment:

              In the meantime, the President could end bulk collection once and for all on Friday by not seeking reauthorization of this program
              LINK

              Your response to my comment was technically correct. It also neatly sidestepped both the intent of your original comment and the underlying focus of my reply to that comment.

              The lesson I derive from our exchange? Eschew both courtesy and subtlety when dealing with roxxers when they play defense.

              Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

              by davidincleveland on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:59:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I answered the question you asked. (0+ / 0-)

                If the correct answer to your question is "sidestepping" the issue, then the sidestepping comes from the question.

                Maybe you should make a habit of actually sticking your neck out enough to argue your point, so it's possible to understand what it is. I still can't even tell what "the obfuscation" in my answer is supposed to be.

                It's "obfuscation" to point out that he's going to Congress because he thinks that amending the Patriot Act is the right way to deal with the problem?

                OK, tell me: are all of the comments everyone on Daily Kos has written about the need to change the Patriot Act also obfuscation? Or is this one of those all-too-common situations in which Obama's critics describe a certain course of action in glowing terms right up until Barack Obama does it, at which point it becomes some underhanded trick?

                Art is the handmaid of human good.

                by joe from Lowell on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:07:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not only are your first three sentences correct, (0+ / 0-)
                  I answered the question you asked. If the correct answer to your question is "sidestepping" the issue, then the sidestepping comes from the question. Maybe you should make a habit of actually sticking your neck out enough to argue your point, so it's possible to understand what it is.

                  [Emphases added by me to illustrate joe from Lowell's accurate zings]
                  they are the reason for my reply; I gave you the space to sidestep. The rest of your comment is obfuscation-by-strawman.

                  You want plain speaking about my point? Here it is: I believe the quote below is one every member of this 'reality-based' blog should learn and pay heed to.
                  "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

                  "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
                  May 7, 1918

                  On a site dedicated to "electing more and better Democrats" it saddens me to have to resort to the words of a Republican president, albeit one to the left of our current Democratic president.

                  Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

                  by davidincleveland on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 11:12:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site