45 replies to this topic

[juslen]

Wiretapping Hypocrisy - It's Okay if Obama Does it?

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zFJ86j-Ttuk

"Well, not everything President Obama and the 112th Congress managed to achieve is so terrible. With scarcely any notice, much less controversy, they did at least preserve one of the country's most important post-9/11 antiterror tools.

That would be wiretapping, which you may recall liberals portrayed during the George W. Bush era as an illegal and unconstitutional license for co-President Dick Cheney and his spymasters to bug the bedrooms of all U.S. citizens. But now Washington has renewed the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that were due to expire at the end of 2012, with no substantive changes and none of the pseudo-apoplexy that prevailed during the Bush Presidency."*

Liberals were furious over warrant-less wiretapping introduced by George W. Bush. Then why is it okay if President Obama supports and implements it? Whose "team" are we all on? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

*Read more from Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.co...60927982.htm...

-----------------------------------------

I guess Democrats have bigger issues at stake, like raising taxes without spending cuts, aid for Sandy victims, gun control and blaming Republicans for everything.

As for the legitimate liberals and progressives, what should be done about the issue of warrantless wiretaps and lack of transparency within the Obama administration? And conservatives, are you happy to see Obama upholding the polices of George W. Bush and remaining strong on national security issues?

[Iscariot]

Savvy move on Obama's part.

[Golan 1st]

It is indeed hypocritical to oppose a certain action of the government when the wrong president is in office and accept it (at least quietly) when "your president" does it.
To the issue, though, it's matter of balance between conflicting values. I don't think that you will find anyone here who likes warrantless intrusive police action. In the actual world, though, we need to balance between freedom and the right for privacy to security and the right for life. I am not saying that the current policy is necessarily the best balance point, but in principle, violating one right to protect another is not always a bad thing.

Edited by Golan 1st, 04 January 2013 - 02:32 PM.

[juslen]

It is indeed hypocritical to oppose a certain action of the government when the wrong president is in office and accept it (at least quietly) when "your president" does it.
To the issue, though, it's matter of balance between conflicting values. I don't think that you will find anyone here who likes warrantless intrusive police action. In the actual world, though, we need to balance between freedom and the right for privacy to security and the right for life. I am not saying that the current policy is necessarily the best balance point, but in principle, violating one right to protect another is not always a bad thing.

And what right are they protecting?

[Golan 1st]

I have already said it in my previous post.
The right for life.

[juslen]

I have already said it in my previous post.
The right for life.

What if my right to life differs from yours?

[Golan 1st]

What if my right to life differs from yours?

Then we have a difficult problem which may require a difficult solution.
I am not sure that I understand what you mean, so if this does not answer your question, try to be more specific.
juslen, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the current policy in America is necessarily the best possible (I am not saying this for the sake of the argument. I really cannot make up my mind one way or the other). What I am more opposed to is what's implied in your OP (I am not sure if you meant it this way), the idea that the violation of a certain right (in this case, the right for privacy), is always wrong. Life is more complicated than that and very often we need to balance between different values and rights. This sometiems requires preferring one value/right over the other.

[juslen]

Then we have a difficult problem which may require a difficult solution.
I am not sure that I understand what you mean, so if this does not answer your question, try to be more specific.
juslen, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the current policy in America is necessarily the best possible (I am not saying this for the sake of the argument. I really cannot make up my mind one way or the other). What I am more opposed to is what's implied in your OP (I am not sure if you meant it this way), the idea that the violation of a certain right (in this case, the right for privacy), is always wrong. Life is more complicated than that and very often we need to balance between different values and rights. This sometiems requires preferring one value/right over the other.

I'm just saying that being in the majority doesn't make your position right and another persons position wrong. When you say a right to life, you mean that someone has the right to live at the expense of others. This opens up the government to do almost anything that the majority feels is necessary. Which is why you think peoples rights should be violated to save innocent lives. This does indeed mean that you and I have a problem with one another. Unfortunately, might makes right, and I have to take it because I'm in the minority. That is a very dangerous path to travel down, it means that sooner or later you may end up on the receiving end of having your rights violated because the government and perhaps even the people believe that it's justified.

[KainIIIC]

who said Obama was a liberal or progressive again?

[juslen]

who said Obama was a liberal or progressive again?

Someone didn't watch the video clip.

[Icewolf]

For those of us not wanting to disturb others with speakers and whose headphones are currently missing in action I don't suppose a cliff notes version would be possible?

[Iscariot]

For those of us not wanting to disturb others with speakers and whose headphones are currently missing in action I don't suppose a cliff notes version would be possible?

Liberal progressive calls out Obama for not being liberal or progressive.

[KainIIIC]

Believe it or not juslen, liberals and progressives don't have much of a distinct footprint in our media, and so you rarely hear about this in their publications. Democrats are well-represented, but they're first and foremost Democrats before liberals/progressives (especially since self-identified moderates and conservatives outnumber liberals among self-identified Democratic), so you won't hear them speak out against the Democratic party very often. If you wish to read liberal/progressive publications like The Nation or The Progressive, you'll find that they do not, in fact, support things like this. That guy you linked btw, Cenk Uygur, got demoted (and then quit) MSNBC for criticizing Obama too much.

Edited by KainIIIC, 04 January 2013 - 06:14 PM.

[Ogaden]

Obama isn't criticized much from the left openly because it just provides ammunition to the right. The last time lefties tried to be "tough" on Obama for not delivering and being too "George Bush's 3rd term", the 2010 midterms happened, and people learned a hard lesson.

[juslen]

Liberal progressive calls out Obama for not being liberal or progressive.

More specifically he calls out Obama supporters who claim to be liberals and progressives who remain virtually silent now that their political team is in power. That is the key, it's not simply about Obama. Eric Holder was outraged by warrant less wiretaps during the Bush administration but once he became Attorney general, the outrage completely evaporated. As for KainIIIC's question (which I should have answered), Cenk Uygur referred to Obama as a liberal. Perhaps he meant a pseudo liberal which I would agree Obama is. Kain would no doubt argue that Obama is more of a conservative, and I would agree that Obama has some close ties to Neo-Conservatism. But for all intents and purposes, Obama is no more conservative than Bill Clinton. Which means the Democratic Party is shifting right while the Republican Party is shifting left. They are both meeting in the center whereas libertarians and more traditional conservatives at least on economic issues remain firmly on the right. When it's all said and done, both parties are shifting away from their roots which is merely a reflection of their desire to be get reelected as the country shifts more to the center.

http://en.wikipedia....Neoconservatism

The key to Neo-Conservatism is spreading Democracy and military interventionism. Obama if it could be claimed that he is a conservative would fit well with neocons at least in regards to foreign policy. Obama while he isn't truly a liberal or progressive panders to these voters with his rhetoric, promoting higher taxes, more regulations, and social safety nets. Pseudo liberals and progressives like neo-conservatives pander to voters, they try to appeal to them by speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Which once again reflects the fact that voters have become increasingly resistant to minimizing the size and scope of government.

[juslen]

Believe it or not juslen, liberals and progressives don't have much of a distinct footprint in our media, and so you rarely hear about this in their publications. Democrats are well-represented, but they're first and foremost Democrats before liberals/progressives (especially since self-identified moderates and conservatives outnumber liberals among self-identified Democratic), so you won't hear them speak out against the Democratic party very often. If you wish to read liberal/progressive publications like The Nation or The Progressive, you'll find that they do not, in fact, support things like this. That guy you linked btw, Cenk Uygur, got demoted (and then quit) MSNBC for criticizing Obama too much.

Which is why I don't claim that Obama is a liberal or a progressive. He is a politician above all else, and politicians rarely label themselves out of fear of alienating voters. As such, George W. Bush had to proclaim himself as a "Compassionate Conservative" because he didn't want to be seen a conservative, which people on the left claim to be the harbingers of evil. In case people haven't noticed, I try not to use terms like "liberal or progressive" precisely because I realize that few people can agree upon what constitutes a true liberal or progressive. As I said, voters have become more centrist, in the sense that they have adopted views from both sides and can no longer be relied on to be merely one or the other. Obama is a liberal like Mitt Romney is a liberal. Mitt Romney is a conservative like Obama is a conservative. The terms becomes absolutely meaningless after a while.

I like to call them all hypocrites and criminals, and then label them by their team affiliation. You have the big government Democrats and the big government Republicans. You have the Neocon Republicans and the Neocon Democrats. You have the liberal Republicans and the Liberal Democrats. Its almost impossible to differentiate between both sides unless you look at who they are pandering at that moment. In fact, I think the best way to differentiate both sides is to look at who they are most desperate to convince that they are truly on their side. Obama for example, wanted everyone to think he was on the side of people who do not have health care. When in fact, he was really on the side of big pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies that lobby the government. Romney on the other hand wanted people to think that he was on the side of job creators without pandering too much to fiscal conservatives. The more you dig into politics the more you realize that meanings of words cease to matter, because we are dealing with politicians who will do and say anything to get elected. There hasn't been a liberal in the white House Since Carter or a conservative in the white house since Reagan. In the end, nothing matters. Progressives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, neoconservatatives are all enemies of freedom and the harbingers of destruction. They are akin to cancers, each cancer having different traits, some deadlier than others, some more easily treated than others but in the end they are still cancers.

Edited by juslen, 04 January 2013 - 06:33 PM.

[Golan 1st]

I'm just saying that being in the majority doesn't make your position right and another persons position wrong. When you say a right to life, you mean that someone has the right to live at the expense of others. This opens up the government to do almost anything that the majority feels is necessary. Which is why you think peoples rights should be violated to save innocent lives. This does indeed mean that you and I have a problem with one another. Unfortunately, might makes right, and I have to take it because I'm in the minority. That is a very dangerous path to travel down, it means that sooner or later you may end up on the receiving end of having your rights violated because the government and perhaps even the people believe that it's justified.

First, I don't think that the majority can make any decision. I think that protecting the rights of the minority is not less important for democracy to work than majority rule.
Second, I don't think that many of us disagree with the principle of live and let live. The difference is mostly a matter of what we are ready to consider as a justified reason to violate this rule. You set the bar very high and I set it lower. I definitely don't think the people, either individually or as a society (through the government or otherwise) may interfere in other people's business without a very good reason. Even you agree that it's the right thing to do this sometimes.
You are right that there is a risk of a a slippery slope, but in a functioning democracy, like the US, the risk of the government violating people's rights without restraint is small and remote. Regardless, by not actively violating people's rights, you don't necessarily guarantee freedom more than by carefully balancing between different rights.

[KainIIIC]

juslen, there ARE no liberal Republicans left, and moderates are an endangered species. Sure, 'conservatism' today is much further to the right than it was 20 years ago, and hell, even a majority self-identified conservatives don't agree with a lot of what the 'conservative movement' peddles these days; Reagan would be too 'liberal' for today's Republican Party. American liberalism though hasn't evolved much, nor do they subscribe to the "black and white" view of the world that you do (hell, that's what makes them liberals! - observing complexity).

Obama, despite running on a platform of "change", is really at heart a small c conservative in the sense that he does not want to do much to upset the status quo, and that problems can be solved by tinkering around the edges; thus he kept our awfully inefficient and ineffective insurance and fee-for-service system in health care and quickly abandoned the public option. He also decided that in order to get health reform through, he would need powerful special interest groups not to oppose it, from doctors, hospitals to pharma, so he cut them a deal to give up some in exchange for not upsetting the status quo (for example, having pharma pay for the closing up of the Donut Hole in Medicare Part D).

[Icewolf]

Whenever I see standard US discussion of "Liberals."

[commander thrawn]

Blah blah anything to the right of Stalin is conservative, Obama is bringing about the most right-religious revolution of the US ever, America's Republicans hate freedom and are the party of monarchy.