Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: CUT THE CRAP! Your Month in Review from the most "progressive" administration ever. [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)186. But
"a lot of blue links to other DU posts"
...they seem so ebil!!!
White House colluded with House Republicans *against* Democrats to WEAKEN surveillance bill.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024984920
Whatever happened to the Sensenbrenner love? I mean, I more suprised that a bill made it through the House.
House Passes NSA Bill
WASHINGTON The House today passed the USA Freedom Act, a bill on NSA spying.
Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, had this reaction:
While far from perfect, this bill is an unambiguous statement of congressional intent to rein in the out-of-control NSA. While we share the concerns of many including members of both parties who rightly believe the bill does not go far enough without it we would be left with no reform at all, or worse, a House Intelligence Committee bill that would have cemented bulk collection of Americans communications into law. We will fight to secure additional improvements in the Senate.
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/house-passes-nsa-bill
WASHINGTON The House today passed the USA Freedom Act, a bill on NSA spying.
Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, had this reaction:
While far from perfect, this bill is an unambiguous statement of congressional intent to rein in the out-of-control NSA. While we share the concerns of many including members of both parties who rightly believe the bill does not go far enough without it we would be left with no reform at all, or worse, a House Intelligence Committee bill that would have cemented bulk collection of Americans communications into law. We will fight to secure additional improvements in the Senate.
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/house-passes-nsa-bill
EFF Dismayed by House's Gutted USA FREEDOM Act
EFF and Other Civil Liberties Organizations Call on Congress to Support Uncompromising Reform
Since the introduction of the USA FREEDOM Act, a bill that has over 140 cosponsors, Congress has been clear about its intent: ending the mass collection of Americans' calling records. Many members of Congress, the President's own review group on NSA activities, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board all agree that the use of Section 215 to collect Americans' calling records must stop. Earlier today, House Leadership reached an agreement to amend the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act in ways that severely weaken the bill, potentially allowing bulk surveillance of records to continue. The Electronic Frontier Foundation cannot support a bill that doesn't achieve the goal of ending mass spying. We urge Congress to support uncompromising NSA reform and we look forward to working on the Senate's bipartisan version of the USA FREEDOM Act.
Passing the bill out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote on the House floor is an important sign that Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, and other leaders of the House are engaging in a conversation over NSA reform. We are glad that the House added a clause to the bill clarifying the content of communications cannot be obtained with Section 215. Unfortunately, the bill's changed definitions, the lack of substantial reform to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act, and the inability to introduce a special advocate in the FISA Court severely weakens the bill.
In particular, we are concerned with the new definition of "specific selection term," which describes and limits who or what the NSA is allowed to surveil. The new definition is incredibly more expansive than previous definitions. Less than a week ago, the definition was simply "a term used to uniquely describe a person, entity, or account. While that definition was imperfect, the new version is far broader.1 The new version not only adds the undefined words "address" and "device," but makes the list of potential selection terms open-ended by using the term "such as." Congress has been clear that it wishes to end bulk collection, but given the government's history of twisted legal interpretations, this language can't be relied on to protect our freedoms.
Further, the bill does not sufficiently address Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act. We are specifically concerned that the new language references "about" searches, which collect and review messages of users who do not even communicate with surveillance targets.Congress must include reforming Section 702 in any NSA reform. This includes stopping the NSA from searching illegally collected Americans' communications, stopping the suspicionless "about" surveillance, and ensuring companies can report on the exact number of orders they receive and the number of users affected.
We are encouraged by Senator Leahy's commitment to continue with the more comprehensive version of the USA FREEDOM Act over the summer and look forward to working towards NSA reform in the Senate.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/eff-dismayed-houses-gutted-usa-freedom-act
EFF and Other Civil Liberties Organizations Call on Congress to Support Uncompromising Reform
Since the introduction of the USA FREEDOM Act, a bill that has over 140 cosponsors, Congress has been clear about its intent: ending the mass collection of Americans' calling records. Many members of Congress, the President's own review group on NSA activities, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board all agree that the use of Section 215 to collect Americans' calling records must stop. Earlier today, House Leadership reached an agreement to amend the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act in ways that severely weaken the bill, potentially allowing bulk surveillance of records to continue. The Electronic Frontier Foundation cannot support a bill that doesn't achieve the goal of ending mass spying. We urge Congress to support uncompromising NSA reform and we look forward to working on the Senate's bipartisan version of the USA FREEDOM Act.
Passing the bill out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote on the House floor is an important sign that Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, and other leaders of the House are engaging in a conversation over NSA reform. We are glad that the House added a clause to the bill clarifying the content of communications cannot be obtained with Section 215. Unfortunately, the bill's changed definitions, the lack of substantial reform to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act, and the inability to introduce a special advocate in the FISA Court severely weakens the bill.
In particular, we are concerned with the new definition of "specific selection term," which describes and limits who or what the NSA is allowed to surveil. The new definition is incredibly more expansive than previous definitions. Less than a week ago, the definition was simply "a term used to uniquely describe a person, entity, or account. While that definition was imperfect, the new version is far broader.1 The new version not only adds the undefined words "address" and "device," but makes the list of potential selection terms open-ended by using the term "such as." Congress has been clear that it wishes to end bulk collection, but given the government's history of twisted legal interpretations, this language can't be relied on to protect our freedoms.
Further, the bill does not sufficiently address Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act. We are specifically concerned that the new language references "about" searches, which collect and review messages of users who do not even communicate with surveillance targets.Congress must include reforming Section 702 in any NSA reform. This includes stopping the NSA from searching illegally collected Americans' communications, stopping the suspicionless "about" surveillance, and ensuring companies can report on the exact number of orders they receive and the number of users affected.
We are encouraged by Senator Leahy's commitment to continue with the more comprehensive version of the USA FREEDOM Act over the summer and look forward to working towards NSA reform in the Senate.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/eff-dismayed-houses-gutted-usa-freedom-act
Obama Administration To Reveal Justification For Drone Strikes On U.S. Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024979665
Horrible, this should not happen...wait, isn't this good?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
410 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
CUT THE CRAP! Your Month in Review from the most "progressive" administration ever. [View all]
woo me with science
May 2014
OP
you are contributing to the meh attitude that has the president worried about Nov
Doctor_J
May 2014
#2
I would say the President is contributing to the "meh" attitude, not the poster.
CaliforniaPeggy
May 2014
#4
And yet, you cannot refute anything in the OP. Or maybe you can, so I'll wait, before deciding
sabrina 1
May 2014
#370
So are you saying that the OP is making it all up? Or that some or all of the complaints arent
rhett o rick
May 2014
#89
Why dont you simplify your responses here to, "None of it's the fault of the President."? nm
rhett o rick
May 2014
#299
What debate? Those that support the president are never seen in any of the threads
rhett o rick
May 2014
#310
That's about the only item on the list that is not Obama's responsibility, sole responsibility.
JDPriestly
May 2014
#116
Is there such a thing as Executive Orders anymore? I know Bush used them 'liberally'.
sabrina 1
May 2014
#165
So you think Reid is ignoring the President then? You want a Democratic President to be powerless?
sabrina 1
May 2014
#324
Exactly! He should arrestt those that commit war crimes, and Constitutional crimes!
grahamhgreen
May 2014
#372
I guess you missed all the items that begin, "The White House," "The Administration" "Obama" or
merrily
May 2014
#354
Do you ever post anything other than this kind of shite? How do you feel about the
rhett o rick
May 2014
#236
If he posts anything besides ad homs and smilies, I've been missing all the posts
merrily
May 2014
#357
Wow, the old right wing attack on the perceived 'boomer', translation 'liberal'. Why would any
sabrina 1
May 2014
#371
It says a lot about the routine level of Third Way engagement here that you took the post as serious
woo me with science
May 2014
#15
Yes - so helpless that he can decapitate the Libyan government with air strikes
Maedhros
May 2014
#53
that's why I never liked Poes: de facto they only redouble the amount of fundie nonsense
MisterP
May 2014
#210
So true, 'they are left with attempts to smear the messenger and ludicrous protests that the
sabrina 1
May 2014
#358
Totally agree. Like so many others (!) I was snookered by the wonderful Obama rhetoric in 2007.
Peregrine Took
May 2014
#315
Obama has made terrible decisions in his appointments. This is a big country.
JDPriestly
May 2014
#99
He's not a king! But....which US Presidents were kings? Yet, they got big things done.
merrily
May 2014
#381
Sorry. I thought the veterans and especially the old school Dems were all familiar with my politics
Doctor_J
May 2014
#297
Any guess what that "D" stands for??? I know he hangs around with Christian Dominionists, but that'd
blkmusclmachine
May 2014
#225
With one exception, every item listed in the OP is the result of one of Obama's appointments
JDPriestly
May 2014
#124
Baloney. No asked him to reverse 200 years of problems. And it's a meme that a liberal cant get to
merrily
May 2014
#363
Because the other would have been worse, the worst shit from our guy is the new norm.
Ed Suspicious
May 2014
#66
Nope. Pushing to fast-track TPP is not a failing of 200 year old policy. TPP is a today policy and
Ed Suspicious
May 2014
#88
Was the existence of Blue Dogs and filibusters a surprise to Senator/Candidate Obama?
merrily
May 2014
#379
Just keep taking everything he says and everything that happens in D.C. at face value.
merrily
May 2014
#384
We have too many parties, not too few. I think we have at least 23 parties to the left of Democrats,
merrily
May 2014
#366
That's really a desperate argument. You seem to intimate that we should accept anything
rhett o rick
May 2014
#90
Nonsense, I criticize Obama all the time, you are not looking at the big picture i am afraid
randys1
May 2014
#159
Yes, and the OP is going to cause the death of all that's good on earth and in heaven, too.
merrily
May 2014
#386
That is conjecture. We don't know what would have happened if Romney had won.
JDPriestly
May 2014
#121
Except I think woome actually put the OP list together herself, rather than copying and pasting.
merrily
May 2014
#377
So how about offering -- in a civil way -- some of those differing interpretations?
Armstead
May 2014
#86
Pick one. How about seeking immunity for telecom companies that hand over data?
randome
May 2014
#101
It's a slippery slope when you say corporations can ignore legal warrants, though.
randome
May 2014
#120
So, Immunity was needed because some prosecutor was going to charge the corporations with
merrily
May 2014
#378
Could you please elaborate on just what the "different light" might be on each point?
JDPriestly
May 2014
#130
Greenwald Effect? Do you mean Greenwald's being against cutting Social Security?
MannyGoldstein
May 2014
#196
I'm thinking that some of S&G's diehard supporters are starting to come to grips...
randome
May 2014
#219
It certainly signals a problem when lists of the President's own policies have that effect. nt
woo me with science
May 2014
#17
If he sits back and lets Comcast take over the Internet, and he'll be ahead of Clinton
Armstead
May 2014
#87
True -- Except the Kid Gloves and the Gifts to Big Banks and Wall St. since 2008 come close
Armstead
May 2014
#100
No one ever expects Democratic Presidents to be in that kind of competition. Also,
merrily
May 2014
#364
So true. But these young'uns can't remember Eisenhower and did not learn about him
JDPriestly
May 2014
#134
Source? I wouldn't be surprised by this news, but I need to see a link to the source
Maedhros
May 2014
#59
You forgot the Walmart photo-op. Also another one popped up today. in Geithner's new book
Doctor_J
May 2014
#21
Thank you for one of the few posts on this thread that shows knowledge of civics. I see the OP
msanthrope
May 2014
#49
It was actually Leahy who returned to teh practice of blue slipping nominees, not Reid.
MohRokTah
May 2014
#80
The President sends the budget to Congress, though. Yes, they say yea or nay, but
merrily
May 2014
#361
I don't agree. The very first budget he sent to Congress cut fuel subsidies for the poor.
merrily
May 2014
#368
absolutely... considering that jeff47's excellent post upthread remains unchallenged
msanthrope
May 2014
#115
Well, it could be subjective & misleading. I know I left out a lot of important stories you posted.
woo me with science
May 2014
#47
oh, man! you are wound up! I wasn't trying to reargue all of the old news you posted
bigtree
May 2014
#162
Lots of negative adjectives there, but you still haven't supported your contention
woo me with science
May 2014
#164
Bill Clinton will never be held responsible. Only the black dude in the WH will.
Liberal_Stalwart71
May 2014
#51
We should have more DU meetups so maybe you wouldn't have such a poor opinion of your fellows.
randome
May 2014
#160
Yes. Simply amazing. Such a prediction. I'm going to ask for some lottery numbers.
Enthusiast
May 2014
#137
Who was called a racist? Is someone guilty of something? The fact that you thought
Liberal_Stalwart71
May 2014
#182
Yeah because I called people racist! Yeah, that's what I did. Yeah, o.k.
Liberal_Stalwart71
May 2014
#228
Nah. What I've seen are excuses from the Left. I've seen double standards all around.
Liberal_Stalwart71
May 2014
#227
We are still reaping the effects of those horrible Bush-Clinton-Bush policies, but I
Liberal_Stalwart71
May 2014
#406
To bad we have to spend so much effort watching and fighting the guy we voted for twice.
pa28
May 2014
#62
That's the approach, ad hominem attacks. I think it's a "politically liberal" trait if not
rhett o rick
May 2014
#92
I think it's odd behavior for posters that call themselves "politically liberal" to
rhett o rick
May 2014
#122
nope just surprised because I have never seen her support a democratic nominee. nr
arely staircase
May 2014
#409
Yeah. Pukes would be angry with President Obama for pushing a right wing agenda.
Enthusiast
May 2014
#140
What I'm saying, is that we shouldn't be this hard on President Obama.
Rhymes With Orange
May 2014
#161
Pukes wanted a public option and stricter bank regulation? In what alternate universe? n/t
eridani
May 2014
#248
I was responding to the poster who thought the OP sounded just like a Republican opinion piece
eridani
May 2014
#367
The fundamental flaw in the so-called reasoning of Administration apologists is this:
Maedhros
May 2014
#113
Yep. And we're stuck with it; more reason to make sure another Third Way corporatist does not
Zorra
May 2014
#145
What good does it do to elect Democrats if they don't legislate in our favor?
Maedhros
May 2014
#179
I can't express how offensive and dishonest I find that argument, too.
woo me with science
May 2014
#240
I am supporting progressive Democrats and letting the Blue Dogs go sit with their Republican
rhett o rick
May 2014
#172
People that arent liberal enough are Republicans. Some of them pretend to be Democrats, but vote
rhett o rick
May 2014
#204
So you are claiming to be liberal (or progressive) but you favor "free trade", the TPP and NAFTA?
rhett o rick
May 2014
#304
So you are saying that the TPP, unlike NAFTA and the other "Free" trade agreements, wont
rhett o rick
May 2014
#333
In Massachusetts, I am okay with Warren and Markey, as well as with Lynch (seems to have
merrily
May 2014
#360
But, but, but you wouldnt not vote or vote in a manner that would allow a repub
randys1
May 2014
#401
It looks to me like we are being manipulated. The wealthy oligarchs use their
rhett o rick
May 2014
#403
he had a democratic Congress for the first couple years..we saw how that worked out..nt
xiamiam
May 2014
#202
If it's any consolation, I agree with that, even though I was mocked by people
merrily
May 2014
#352
First of all I originaly wasn't talking to you and I can't help it that you don't get the sarcasm...
L0oniX
May 2014
#329
+1,000. Truly, Inconvenient Truths about this foul legislating. The GOP must be doing cartwheels,
blkmusclmachine
May 2014
#220
That is no doubt true of some. But some of the the exchanges I read here are so incredible
merrily
May 2014
#385
I've seen DUers say that he is the most liberal President in their lifetime.
progressoid
May 2014
#271
If one is 60 years old, then they have lived through the administrations of
Art_from_Ark
May 2014
#369
Even President Obama openly admits his policies are 1980s Moderate Republican (Reagan Era).
bvar22
May 2014
#321
Nope. Not even a little backwards. Your posted that you were directing your comments to
merrily
May 2014
#395
Libertarian alert. No thanks, You Libertarians can have your, both parties are the same lie.
Todays_Illusion
May 2014
#278
That's the new critique of criticism from the left here: you don't agree with everything Obama
neverforget
May 2014
#346
The campaign to conquer and divide liberals is now full blown. However, I will support
mfcorey1
May 2014
#336
Well over 100,000 mercenaries being paid by tax dollars in Afghanistan
woo me with science
May 2014
#337
You know, the very first time someone tried to label me as a "Right Winger" at DU,
woo me with science
May 2014
#344
Funny how trying to keep Obama's feet to the fire is now a right wing or libertarian criticism
neverforget
May 2014
#347