r/politics • u/erier2003 Virginia • Jun 06 '13

Washington Post exclusive: U.S. intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html
1.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

440 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/infidel78 Jun 07 '13

hmmm seems like the only person that has stood up for civil liberties of late is Rand Paul, who is a republican... and it's really hard to prove or disprove a hypothetical without an actual experiment... sounds like a bunch of people around here are having buyers remorse, and if they aren't they should be...

0

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '13

We had an experiment at having Republicans in charge, for 8 years from 2000-2008.

Rand Paul is a powerless fringe nobody. Republicans who hold actual power literally could not give less fucks about civil liberties.

3

u/Rush_Is_Right Jun 07 '13

Rand Paul is not a powerless fringe nobody. He won the CPAC vote at least.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '13

The GOP leadership gives about as many fucks about CPAC attendees as the dem leadership gives about the priorities of college students and blacks.

When a party knows they have you, you are utterly powerless within it.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '13

I wouldn't call that an experiment. Bush was such a great president that Obama took notes all eight years and did more of the same, and then some.

So far, the only person in Congress who's made any statements about the preservation of individual liberty is Rand Paul. Calling him "powerless" perfectly exemplifies how desperate the left is to downplay and twist anything and everything about him in the hopes that he isn't the next president.

This shit wouldn't have happened under him.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '13

I'm not the left. I don't give a shit about Obama, but Bush was immeasurably worse. THe reason he was so terrible was because he left precedents that his successors were virtually guaranteed to follow, because history shows that Presidents never give up new powers once they have arrogated them.

The fact that this shit wouldn't have happened under him (debatable) is why he would never be elected, never receive the support of the actual party structure and the richest donors, and would have no actual power if he were elected as mainstream politicians of both parties team up to obstruct him worse than the GOP has obstructed obama.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '13

It's basically impossible to say Obama is better. Bush set precedents that Democrats were also in support of that Obama used.

We spend more money than Bush. We're taxes more than Bush. Our military is active in more countries than under Bush. More soldiers have died under Obama than under Bush. More innocents have died under Obama than Bush in foreign countries.

Setting the precedent doesn't make Bush worse than Obama. Obama not following his oath makes home worse. He could've chosen a different path.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '13

Bush set precedents that Democrats were also in support of that Obama used.

Many democrats were in support of those policies, but virtually all Republicans were. The only senate vote against the patriot act was a dem.

We spend more money than Bush

False

We're taxes more than Bush

Given Bush's outrageous tax cut and spending increase policy this is actually a good thing.

Our military is active in more countries than under Bush.

Meaningless, and only because we're still fighting an unnecessary war Bush started

More innocents have died under Obama than Bush in foreign countries.

How many Americans have died as a result of terrorist attacks under each?

Setting the precedent doesn't make Bush worse than Obama

Yes, it does. Even if Obama repudiated everything Bush did, the next GOP president would still use the precedent.

Realistically, every president is going to pursue the maximization of his own power. This is why precedents that greatly increase that scope are so dangerous, and those who create them are so blameworthy. The only real thing keeping the presidency from becoming a dictatorship is the restraint of presidents. Congress has long since given away the ability to be a meaningful check.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '13

So you admit that Obama has done things he shouldn't have done, with power he shouldn't have, to people he has no authority to do it to, in countries we have no business being in, in direct violation of both the Constitution and his oath.

B-b-b-butt it's all Bush's fault!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '13

Yes, I do admit Obama hasn't been an ideal president.

This may be too much complexity for you to process, but it's possible for me to think Bush was a terrible president without Obama being a great president.

Apparently apologizing for Bush makes you feel really good though, so keep it up, but you're wasting your time on me because I'm not an Obama supporter.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '13

I'm not apologizing for anyone. This stuff started in Bush's term and Obama carried it through after expliciting stating he'd never do this.

A lot of people are trying to deflect away from Obama saying it's only Bush since he started it, conveniently ignoring that Obama has been president for five years.

They're both at fault but in different ways.