HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » How many times has he sai...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:19 PM

How many times has he said the word "constitution", does anyo know? Just curios. Flame away if you

Last edited Fri Aug 9, 2013, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)

must. But this whole speech sounds like the "one" where we as a nation are just supposed to accept the misdeeds of two administrations, imho. It's not enough to just say security, no matter how many time you say it. Unless it meets the constitution, it will never pass muster with those who are paying attention.

If this is how it's got to be, then we all have to write it into the constitution, because I just don't see it- never have, never will as it stands. Surely he knows that. He sounds like he's reading off a general description of "the mission", rather than the big legal issues that the most strident voices have been expressing, so I happen to be disappointed yet again. (Re: NSA)

35 replies, 1560 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply How many times has he said the word "constitution", does anyo know? Just curios. Flame away if you (Original post)
silvershadow Aug 2013 OP
JoePhilly Aug 2013 #1
TM99 Aug 2013 #2
JoePhilly Aug 2013 #5
TM99 Aug 2013 #20
JoePhilly Aug 2013 #21
TM99 Aug 2013 #34
silvershadow Aug 2013 #7
Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #31
silvershadow Aug 2013 #33
dkf Aug 2013 #4
JoePhilly Aug 2013 #6
dkf Aug 2013 #9
JoePhilly Aug 2013 #16
silvershadow Aug 2013 #8
JoePhilly Aug 2013 #11
silvershadow Aug 2013 #13
JoePhilly Aug 2013 #15
silvershadow Aug 2013 #22
phleshdef Aug 2013 #24
silvershadow Aug 2013 #27
phleshdef Aug 2013 #30
usGovOwesUs3Trillion Aug 2013 #35
millennialmax Aug 2013 #10
woo me with science Aug 2013 #18
Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #32
LittleBlue Aug 2013 #17
JoePhilly Aug 2013 #19
treestar Aug 2013 #29
boomer55 Aug 2013 #3
LiberalFighter Aug 2013 #12
silvershadow Aug 2013 #14
woo me with science Aug 2013 #23
Safetykitten Aug 2013 #25
99Forever Aug 2013 #26
treestar Aug 2013 #28

Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:23 PM

1. "Bully Pulpit", "Pretty Speech", "Bully Pulpit", "Pretty Speech" !!

The folks who have been demanding the President take some action on this topic won't care what he says today, or what actually happens afterwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:38 PM

2. Setting up a propaganda website

that talks about 'transparency' but really doesn't do a damned thing about privacy violations is 'pretty speech'.

It ain't no 'bully pulpit'. It ain't no 'action' either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:42 PM

5. Thanks for proving my point so quickly.

No matter what happens, the whining will continue.

The folks doing much of the screaming are not actually interested in any reforms.

They are interested in outrage for outrage sake.

That's the point of the endless over the top hyperbole. Take a discussion that should be focused on specific details of how surveillance programs do and should work, and ensure that the discussion never moves past the "America is a totalitarian police state" phase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #5)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 05:07 PM

20. Oh grow up.

I didn't whine.

I am not screaming or posting hyperbole.

Obama has broken so many campaign promises and even post-election promises. Why should I instantly take his word for it that he now suddenly wants complete transparency with the NSA?

How about he finally admits that the reason he is seeking Snowden IS because what Snowden revealed is truth. How about he admits that the surveillance state has gone too far in the 'War on Terror'. How about he discusses why he has persecuted and prosecuted more whistle-blowers during his administration than in several previous to his.

Is that serious enough for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #20)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 05:14 PM

21. "setting up a propoganda website" = hyperbole ...

... seriously.

And OMG, Obama has prosecuted 8 whistle blowers!!! Wait ... and he PERSECUTED them too!!!!

Nope, no hyperbole there ...



You should have said that he's almost tripled the number of those prosecuted by all other administrations combined (there had been 3). That would have sounded good too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #21)

Sat Aug 10, 2013, 02:42 AM

34. Obviously you are not

intelligent enough to know propaganda when you see it.

Sadly, there are so many American's like yourself.

Laugh all you want. I am not laughing at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:44 PM

7. I'm with you on that website he mentioned. It was my first thought. My next thought was I really am

getting outrage fatigue, I think, because I'm starting to give up hope for change. :/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:15 PM

31. I pretty much have lost my hope for change.

It needs to start at local levels. I am about done with national politics. At least that is how I feel today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #31)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:39 PM

33. I'm to the point where I guess I need to be the change by running for office. At least if I lost, I

could still at least get my message out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:42 PM

4. That is ridiculous. If he says he will stop this programs and does so we will be CHEERING!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:43 PM

6. No, you'll say he's lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:59 PM

9. Lol I wouldn't accuse him of lying yet. That's YOUR take on him.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 04:38 PM

16. Actually its my take on ...

what the perpetually disgruntled on DU will claim.

You can see it dominating every thread on today's press conference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:51 PM

8. Which topic? And did you notice, too, that he only touched on the phone records and moved on, as if

we aren't collecting emails, archiving the entirety of our records, compiling profiles, creating backdoors to the main parts, players, websites etc on the net (presumeably now and here ever after), on and on and on.) I forget all the names, you know the stuff, its all here. What about it all? What about the braoder issue that it's simply unconstitutional, as taught in every high school government class in the land, public and private, since the nation was founded?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 04:03 PM

11. Lot's of hyperbole in there ...

Lots of generalities.

Not much else.

And can you explain, specifically, what it is that's being done, that is unconstitutional?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 04:22 PM

13. Well, for starters, I can't wrap my head around the idea of secret courts, operating completely out

of view of public scrutiny, oversight and such. No matter the urgency of threats to our nation. Even if there is a legitimate threat (and there may be, I don't know- I'll touch on that in a moment), It's none of the government's business who I talk to, who I correspond with, whose number I dial. Not without an individual warrant, as part of an actual investigation. That is the way it has been for over 200 years. They are trying to pull a "shapeshifter" on the issue by focusing on the word "metadata" for example, so that we can all discuss and debate exactly what metadata is and isn't, for example, while ignoring the fact that it's still unconstitutional invasion of privacy, a breaking and entering, since my computer sits in my home, and a burglary (theft of my private communication). That's all just off the top of my head, based on what's in the public domain now. Mind you, I'm really tired, didn't sleep last night, and just got home from an MRI with contrast dye so my faculties are kinda weak today. My over-riding issue still is that we all, as Americans, left and right, are going to have to come together to fix this. My prediction: It will happen, eventually, one way or the other- either through and American Spring, or through eventual proper constitutional convention to fix it. I also say a lot will depend on the outcome of the next election cycle or two in particular, which might end up being the "American Spring" so to speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #13)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 04:36 PM

15. Ok, let's discuss the secret court ... do you know when it was created?

The FISA court that everyone is screaming about was created in 1978. It was proposed in a Bill by Ted Kennedy, and then signed into law by Jimmy Carter. Since its creation, the FISA court has been overseen by Congress. Specifically, two committees have direct oversight. The congress members who sit on those committees represent the public. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Ok, Phone metadata. The meta data associated with a call does not belong to you. The number you use was assigned to you by the phone company, it is theirs. Same for the number you call. And since they connect the ends, they collect data on how long each call lasts. All of that data belongs to them, not to you or I. This point of law was also settled in the 1970s. Its constitutional.

Next, computer metadata. The meta data associated with a computer connected to the internet does not belong to you. Your internet provider assigns you an IP address. It belongs to them, not to you or I. The internet provider uses the data to run their business, its theirs. And the government doesn't touch your computer. They don't need to. Its constitutional.

Snail Mail. The government scans an image of every piece of mail they deliver. They pick up the To address, and the From address. They use this information to track the mail and make sure it goes to the right place. Because they are responsible for managing the mail, once again, this data belongs to them, not to you or I. Its constitutional.

Now ... in any of these cases, if they want to listen to your call, see the content of your email, or get access to what's in you snail mail ... they need a warrant specific to you to get it.

I absolutely agree that the entire system needs more transparency and more limitations ... but to get anywhere, people have to understand the DETAILS of how the communications systems actually work and what the existing laws allow currently.

Broad claims about a "police state" or general statements of how "it" is a "violation of the Constitution" won't get us there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 05:33 PM

22. Well, then, apparently no one has yet brought a strong enough case, but I will be shocked if they

don't during my lifetime. The idea the government doesn't need a warrant to read my mail is ludicrous on it's face, no matter what they say, and if they have somehow done a circe-de-soliel act on this most basic tenet, as I'm sure they have, there will be a price to pay for us all.

The idea that just because technology allows such collection is a happy coincidence for those seeking the data, that's for sure, but that doesn't mean that because the providers choose to collect data in order to facilitate their private business interests solely for the purposes of delivery, that they "own" the data, as in they own the "knowledge/history" of my life, even if the like to think they do. Certainly not for purposes of storage or retrieval later for any other purpose except delivering the mail, as that is not what they are contracted to do. What do you really, honestly think the founders would think about such a notion, anyway? It's just a bizarre notion on it's face.

And as to "people need to understand the details of how the communications systems actually work", no they don't. They don't need to know anything other than the government wants to get in your business, outside of proper constitutional authority. They want to know about you. They want to know who you are. They want to know who you're talking to, and for how long. They want to know what circles you run in. They wan to know your politics, who you're sleeping with, where you shop, what you bought, how much you spend, how you pay your bills, who you owe, who your doctor is. They want to know how fast you drive, and where to. They want to know where you vacation. They want to know EVERYTHING. That's what that stupid bigger program is about, forget the name, is it Echelon maybe? or another one in the same discussion topic...anyway, that's what I'm talking about, and it's wrong on it's face, because that is tantamount to an investigation. Except, there is no crime. They aren't investigating you, as an individual suspect- they aren't developing leads, they aren't settling on you as a suspect and then getting a warrant. They are just doing a pre-investigation, where you are swept up with 300 million others, and put into something right out of Minority Report.

I'm steadily ridding my life of all discount cards, vitamin club cards, pharmacy rebate cards, grocery cards, etc. Industry will pay a heavy price indeed for this violation, monetarily, I can guarantee it, and so will all facets of our society. What could have been a real boon to our way of life with the advent of the internet will instead become an albatross around our necks. It is a stain on our nation that will last beyond my lifetime, guaranteed. That you don't see it is unfortunate, but I'm not mad. I shall keep trying until I find the words, because absolutely this one single issue has me thinking about law school, just out of absolute frustration. (I'm not kidding about that one, either, been looking lately). I know you think it all sounds like hyperbole, which is fine, but it's not. It's the way I see it, it's the way many other moderate folk see it, including the majority of Americans according to polling/news the other day, and it's not going away.

I also ask the larger question-what what 9/11 *really about, anyway? Exactly *what information do they have that is so freaking secret it had to be hidden away in a court that didn't even exist until 1978? And if it's about AQ or any other fool actor, so what? Are we so scared of terrorism that we throw the baby out with the bath water? I know I am not.

I would actually prefer to live free, as before, with the terrorism risk such as it is. People all over the world live every day with terrorism in their faces, we are just spoiled into thinking we are entitled to be free from it just because no politician wants to be caught with his or her pants down like Dumbya was when terrorism rears it's head. I'm sorry, but until that idiot took office, we lived in one kind of country, and in the course of just his administration we morphed into something entirely different. More importantly, his administration almost single-handedly set about creating terrorist recruitment camps in villages all over the middle east just by the way they over-reacted, over-reached, and more importantly set about gathering up some of the actors but ignoring completely the ties to the House of Saud, which everyone saw too from the get-go, but which has not been addressed to this day.

I know, I was there, living it, and I was one of the first ones on here fighting back. Been here ever since. Democrats co-opting Republican policies is like Republicans advancing their ball down the court. I welcome respectful dialogue all day long about it, until I understand it, but I'm pretty sure I'll never waiver unless new information comes out to lead me otherwise. You're welcome to try though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 05:40 PM

24. That doesn't mean "that they "own" the data"

Actually, a large numbers of providers have their terms of service and privacy agreements written in such a way that they do legally own a lot of the data and you agree to those terms when you become a customer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #24)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:07 PM

27. Yeah, I know. That's why I say they will pay a heavy price now. Because I don't care for that and

I will shed my smart phone, no problem. My contract is almost up, and when it is, I'm turning it in. Until I find another, whose terms of service are suitable, I won't have a phone. I don't much care for so-called "contracts", anyway...they are wholly one-sided, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's take it or leave it, which is how industry wants it. Of course, it a whole lot easier for them to take that attitude when the numbers of providers has shrunk, year after year for two decades now. Now, the post office I signed no contract with, so I presume they are among the hardest to get into from, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #27)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:14 PM

30. We just don't live in a society where complete privacy is a realistic option anymore.

For the moment its an unavoidable side effect of having and participating in the interconnected nature of the world today. I accept that because I want to be a participant. But that doesn't mean its an unsolvable problem. It will be an ongoing project to balance interconnectedness with privacy and the best answers for finding that balance don't yet exist, in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #30)

Sat Aug 10, 2013, 04:25 AM

35. lol

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 04:01 PM

10. They think he's supposed to kowtow to every demand.

 



That mic-dropping press conference was him swatting the pesty gnats at the proverbial picnic. I fucking loved it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to millennialmax (Reply #10)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 04:43 PM

18. Yes, that's exactly the attitude that reeks from this government now, both parties.

The Constitution is just a "goddamn piece of paper," and the people are annoying pests that they are working methodically to surveil, intimidate, and silence.

Pure contempt for all of us and our Bill of Rights. They, and their mouthpieces across the media and the internet, are barely pretending to give a damn about the American people or the Constitution anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #18)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:17 PM

32. + a gazillion. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 04:40 PM

17. Because we don't trust him

I don't want him to take action, he is too untrustworthy to be believed. How can a man police himself, anyway?

I want CONGRESS to take action and dismantle this spy state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #17)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 04:46 PM

19. You sound like one of the folks who thinks the President is

personally listening to their phone calls.

And you want CONGRESS to take action?

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:11 PM

29. It's becoming pretty clear all they want to do is grouse

If President Obama declared he was going to close up the NSA and CIA, it would be all about how it's not really going to happen (see DADT), how it wasn't soon enough, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:40 PM

3. Did you expect candidate Obama to show up at the podium?

cant even begin to describe how disappointed I am in President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 04:11 PM

12. Flame!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 04:24 PM

14. :( Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 05:37 PM

23. It's manipulative horseshit for public consumption.

"Obama: New Oversight But No Change To Spying Power" (Press Conference Today)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3435474

They don't want to stop the unconstitutional mass sweeping up and storage of this information. They merely want to redirect the sheep to focus on some tinkering of rules for accessing it *after the fact.*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 05:41 PM

25. I'm sorry, I was too busy crying and typing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 05:43 PM

26. Obama Weasle Words.

It's his strong suit. Talk a good game, but actual action for We the People?


Not so much.


Pablum for the weak minded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:10 PM

28. He thinks it is constitutional, so that is obvious to him

He did not know you needed a lecture on the subject.

The number of times a word is used, really?

No one was asking him about whether it is constitutional. Someone would have to have standing to challenge it in the courts. Otherwise it is still statute law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread