Biden "Debates" Obama Over NSA Phone Surveillance

[BTR1701]

The folks over at the EFF have put together a nice "debate" video, showing
a clip of then-Senator Joe Biden angrily denouncing warrantless wiretapping
by the NSA, spliced with President Obama defending the latest NSA
surveillance leaks to show a "debate" between the two. I think Biden wins,
hands down, but one suspects his position on this issue has likely
undergone a mysterious but significant shift to the point where he couldn't
even win a debate with himself on this issue anymore. Much like Obama
himself, Biden only seems outraged with pervasive government electronic
surveillance when it was the Bush folks doing it. The moment they took
over, suddenly a massive government panopticon became perfectly acceptable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4SRCOouw5I&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[RichA]

Yet, if you showed it to him, and asked him to his face why he
changed, he'd just pretend nothing had happened.

[trotsky]

On 6/16/13 2:00 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> The folks over at the EFF have put together a nice "debate" video, showing
> a clip of then-Senator Joe Biden angrily denouncing warrantless wiretapping
> by the NSA, spliced with President Obama defending the latest NSA
> surveillance leaks to show a "debate" between the two. I think Biden wins,
> hands down, but one suspects his position on this issue has likely
> undergone a mysterious but significant shift to the point where he couldn't
> even win a debate with himself on this issue anymore. Much like Obama
> himself, Biden only seems outraged with pervasive government electronic
> surveillance when it was the Bush folks doing it.

Dude, you *really* need to stop sucking at the teat of the teabaggers.
When Bush did it it was warrantless (no pun intended). With Obama,
everything mandated by Congress is being done. Thus you're either
stupid, lying or both. Trying dealing in facts for a change.


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[thinbluemime]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:00:02 +0100, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> On 6/16/13 2:00 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> The folks over at the EFF have put together a nice "debate" video,
>> showing
>> a clip of then-Senator Joe Biden angrily denouncing warrantless
>> wiretapping
>> by the NSA, spliced with President Obama defending the latest NSA
>> surveillance leaks to show a "debate" between the two. I think Biden
>> wins,
>> hands down, but one suspects his position on this issue has likely
>> undergone a mysterious but significant shift to the point where he
>> couldn't
>> even win a debate with himself on this issue anymore. Much like Obama
>> himself, Biden only seems outraged with pervasive government electronic
>> surveillance when it was the Bush folks doing it.
>
>
> Dude, you *really* need to stop sucking at the teat of the teabaggers.
> When Bush did it it was warrantless (no pun intended). With Obama,
> everything mandated by Congress is being done. Thus you're either
> stupid, lying or both. Trying dealing in facts for a change.

EFF, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the organization that put
together the Obama vs Biden video, sued the government in early 2008 "to
stop the illegal unconstitutional and ongoing dragnet surveillance of
their communications and communications records."

In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic
dragnet, Jewel v. NSA also targets the individuals responsible for
creating, authorizing, and implementing the illegal program including
former

President George W. Bush,

former Vice President Dick Cheney,

Cheney’s former chief of staff David Addington,

former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales,

and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless
domestic surveillance.


EFF also teamed up with the ACLU and 86 civil liberties organization to
demand an end to NSA spying
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/86-civil-liberties-groups-and-internet-companies-demand-end-nsa-spying


EFF's suit against Bush administration officials and EFF's alliance with
the ACLU hardly qualifies it as an organization with a teabagger agenda.





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

Jewel v. NSA
https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel

In Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the NSA and other government agencies on
behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal unconstitutional and ongoing
dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.

Filed in 2008, Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet
surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the
government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case
includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications
technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic
to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA. It also includes
declarations from three NSA whistleblowers along with a mountain of other
evidence.

In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic
dragnet, Jewel v. NSA also targets the individuals responsible for
creating authorizing and implementing the illegal program including former
President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney’s
former chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White
House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, and other individuals who ordered or
participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance.

The Obama administration moved to dismiss Jewel in 2009, claiming that
litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to
disclose privileged “state secrets” and that it was immune from suit. The
court instead ruled that the case should be dismissed on standing
grounds. Fortunately, in December of 2011, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that Jewel could proceed in district court. In July, 2012,
EFF moved to have the court declare that the FISA law applies instead of
the state secrets privilege; in September, 2012 the government renewed its
"state secrets" claims and the matter was heard by the federal district
court in San Francisco on December 14, 2012.

For the full complaint in Jewel v. NSA and the RECAP archive of the full
Jewel case docket at the District Court.

[BTR1701]

thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:00:02 +0100, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/13 2:00 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> The folks over at the EFF have put together a nice "debate" video,
>>> showing
>>> a clip of then-Senator Joe Biden angrily denouncing warrantless
>>> wiretapping
>>> by the NSA, spliced with President Obama defending the latest NSA
>>> surveillance leaks to show a "debate" between the two. I think Biden
>>> wins,
>>> hands down, but one suspects his position on this issue has likely
>>> undergone a mysterious but significant shift to the point where he
>>> couldn't
>>> even win a debate with himself on this issue anymore. Much like Obama
>>> himself, Biden only seems outraged with pervasive government electronic
>>> surveillance when it was the Bush folks doing it.
>>
>> Dude, you *really* need to stop sucking at the teat of the teabaggers.

> EFF's suit against Bush administration officials and EFF's alliance with
> the ACLU hardly qualifies it as an organization with a teabagger agenda.

Of course it doesn't, but that's the only arrow Trotsky the Hutt has in his
quiver, and it's how he reflexively responds to everything, whether it
makes the least bit of sense or not.

[trotsky]

In case you haven't noticed, these kinds of things get complaints from
both the extreme right and extreme left. Thanny the shithead, who lacks
the balls to even own up to his teabagging, more than likely got this
from his teabagger newsletter, not because he's a close follower of the
EFF. In fact, most of his cites are from organizations affiliated or
paid for by the Kock bros. And to REPEAT you need to make a distinction
between warrantless wiretaps and surveillance done after approval of
FISA, the current law of the land. The constitutional argument is a
different one, obviously.

[trotsky]

Interesting. You'd probably fuck your own mother if you thought it
would help your case. Hint: a left wing agenda has nothing to do with
how you got this information. You do have the stones to admit this,
right teabagger?

[thinbluemime]

Complaints about the abusive government privacy intrusion is coming from
every camp that believes the Constitution is not just a piece of paper,
but is a document that represents the highest law in the United States.
Any law that pretends to supersede that law is unconstitutional and
illegal.

> Thanny the shithead, who lacks the balls to even own up to his
> teabagging, more than likely got this from his teabagger newsletter, not
> because he's a close follower of the EFF. In fact, most of his cites
> are from organizations affiliated or paid for by the Kock bros.

Before my original post, I did a google search for the exact URL top
posted in this thread and received only five hits, none appeared from
teabag sites. I did do a google search, because I am always curious about
the original source. My brief research, does not support your statement.

> And to REPEAT you need to make a distinction between warrantless
> wiretaps and surveillance done after approval of FISA, the current law
> of the land. The constitutional argument is a different one, obviously.

Everything about this NSA surveillance program is secret, but one retired
Federal Judge has spoken out and her comments may surprise you. She
suggests the FISA judges aren't what we normally think of as a judge. "As
a former Article III judge, I can tell you that your faith in the FISA
Court is dramatically misplaced... To suggest that there is meaningful
review it seems to me is an illusion."

Here is a link to her comments.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/14/2163441/retired-federal-judge-your-faith-in-secret-surveillance-court-is-dramatically-misplaced/?mobile=nc

[Adam H. Kerman]

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>On 6/16/13 2:00 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>The folks over at the EFF have put together a nice "debate" video, showing
>>a clip of then-Senator Joe Biden angrily denouncing warrantless wiretapping
>>by the NSA, spliced with President Obama defending the latest NSA
>>surveillance leaks to show a "debate" between the two. I think Biden wins,
>>hands down, but one suspects his position on this issue has likely
>>undergone a mysterious but significant shift to the point where he couldn't
>>even win a debate with himself on this issue anymore. Much like Obama
>>himself, Biden only seems outraged with pervasive government electronic
>>surveillance when it was the Bush folks doing it.

>Dude, you *really* need to stop sucking at the teat of the teabaggers.
>When Bush did it it was warrantless (no pun intended). With Obama,
>everything mandated by Congress is being done. Thus you're either
>stupid, lying or both. Trying dealing in facts for a change.

What facts would those be?

1) The warrant, if any was obtained, was secret.

2) The information obtained by NSA was secret.

3) NSA's actual capabilities are secret.

[thinbluemime]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 10:22:24 +0100, thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

http://nation.time.com/2013/06/15/potential-blind-spots-in-clearance-process-that-gave-snowden-top-secret-access/#ixzz2WZLrxpjT

"In a photograph posted online after Snowden revealed himself, his laptop
displays a sticker touting the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a
longstanding advocate for online rights and staunch opponent of government
surveillance. That would have been enough of a warning sign to make it
into his file, Smith says, but investigators wouldn’t have come across it
because clearance interviews aren’t performed at their homes"



the NSA chief in an EFF t-shirt
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BM1DwmGCMAA4Cc0.png:large

[Mason Barge]

The center is always what protects rights, in our case Constitutional
rights. Suppression of free speech, etc., is the province of
extremists. Nazis or Commies, you pick 'em.

I don't know what else you expect to hear from a guy whose Usenet
handle was one of the great champions of the suppression of personal
liberty and mass murder in world history.

[BTR1701]

In article <WJSdnZPtQJ9eNSDM...@mchsi.com>,

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> On 6/16/13 2:00 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > The folks over at the EFF have put together a nice "debate" video, showing
> > a clip of then-Senator Joe Biden angrily denouncing warrantless wiretapping
> > by the NSA, spliced with President Obama defending the latest NSA
> > surveillance leaks to show a "debate" between the two. I think Biden wins,
> > hands down, but one suspects his position on this issue has likely
> > undergone a mysterious but significant shift to the point where he couldn't
> > even win a debate with himself on this issue anymore. Much like Obama
> > himself, Biden only seems outraged with pervasive government electronic
> > surveillance when it was the Bush folks doing it.

> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4SRCOouw5I&feature=youtube_gdata_player

> When Bush did it it was warrantless (no pun intended). With Obama,
> everything mandated by Congress is being done.

How does any of that refute the points Biden made in the video, Hutt?

[trotsky]

What part of

> Joe Biden angrily denouncing warrantless wiretapping

is confusing for you, you scrotum sucking dickhead?

Your teabagger newsletter needs better material. Since when does anyone
give a fuck what Biden says? Don't you have the latest quotes from
Cheney and Palin to make you look even more stupid?

[BTR1701]

In article <P72dnXBm0JrGvF7M...@mchsi.com>,

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> On 6/19/13 7:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <WJSdnZPtQJ9eNSDM...@mchsi.com>,
> > trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/16/13 2:00 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> The folks over at the EFF have put together a nice "debate" video,
> >>> showing
> >>> a clip of then-Senator Joe Biden angrily denouncing warrantless
> >>> wiretapping
> >>> by the NSA, spliced with President Obama defending the latest NSA
> >>> surveillance leaks to show a "debate" between the two. I think Biden
> >>> wins,
> >>> hands down, but one suspects his position on this issue has likely
> >>> undergone a mysterious but significant shift to the point where he
> >>> couldn't
> >>> even win a debate with himself on this issue anymore. Much like Obama
> >>> himself, Biden only seems outraged with pervasive government electronic
> >>> surveillance when it was the Bush folks doing it.
> >
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4SRCOouw5I&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> >
> >> When Bush did it it was warrantless (no pun intended). With Obama,
> >> everything mandated by Congress is being done.
> >
> > How does any of that refute the points Biden made in the video, Hutt?

> Since when does anyone give a fuck what Biden says?

Obama apparently gave enough of a fuck to make him his VP. If Biden is
talking nonsense, what does that say of Obama's judgment?

[trotsky]

Interesting--so you're a teabagger that gives credence to what Obama
says. Or you're a filthy fucking liar and a troll who would fuck his
own mother if he thought it would "win an argument". I can't decide!

[BTR1701]

In article <X4-dnXibV_fOr1nM...@mchsi.com>,

Not hardly. I'm pointing out the exact opposite, actually. How they
can't be trusted when they say one thing and then do another. So let's
try this again:

[trotsky]

Then re-read the transcript, idiot.

I'm pointing out the exact opposite, actually. How they
> can't be trusted when they say one thing and then do another. So let's
> try this again:

How does this compare to the lack of WMD in Iraq, exactly? The Obama
administration has always been on the up and up, and the Cheney
administration was a bunch of proven liars. Care to revise your
bullshit statement?

> Obama apparently gave enough of a fuck to make him his VP. If Biden is
> talking nonsense, what does that say of Obama's judgment?

That it's a Googol times better than having Sarah Palin as a running mate?

She's a teabagger--you approved of her, right?

[Bill Steele]

In article <2OydnTof34qQ1lnM...@mchsi.com>,

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> --
> Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
> reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

Like if you post in a TV group and there's no reference to a TV show...?

[BTR1701]

What transcript? That was a video, not a written document, Hutt.

>> I'm pointing out the exact opposite, actually. How they
>> can't be trusted when they say one thing and then do another. So let's
>> try this again:
>
> How does this compare to the lack of WMD in Iraq, exactly?

Well, that's a completely disingenuous attempt to change the subject to
cover for your inability to defend the issue at hand. But since you brought
it up, according to the Obama Administration, there were oodles of WMDs in
Iraq. They claimed and have charged the surviving Tsarnaev brother with
possession and use of a WMD-- his little pressure cooker bomb. If that's
the U.S. government's definition of WMD, then the entire country of Iraq
was full of WMDs (and still is).

> The Obama administration has always been on the up and up

Not according to Al Gore and the New York Times. Or maybe they're just
teabaggers, too...

[trotsky]

The transcript of what you said.

>>> I'm pointing out the exact opposite, actually. How they
>>> can't be trusted when they say one thing and then do another. So let's
>>> try this again:
>>
>> How does this compare to the lack of WMD in Iraq, exactly?
>
> Well, that's a completely disingenuous attempt to change the subject to
> cover for your inability to defend the issue at hand.

Irony alert. The king of straw men is complaining--that's a hoot. The
Bush cabal are liars, Obama and his people are not. I suppose you think
Daryl Issa isn't fucked in the head, either. Oops! There I go bringing
up a comparable situation again!!

But since you brought
> it up, according to the Obama Administration, there were oodles of WMDs in
> Iraq.

Bullshit.

They claimed and have charged the surviving Tsarnaev brother with
> possession and use of a WMD-- his little pressure cooker bomb.

Oh, cool, and at least you're illustrating *how* what you said is
bullshit. Hah!

If that's
> the U.S. government's definition of WMD,

I think we knew what the fuck they were talking about at the time. Quit
with the straw man arguments you stupid shit. Let me know when you get
out of intellectual bankruptcy you stupid piece of crap. Did I mention
how stupid you are?

[BTR1701]

In article <UuydnQQunKwBU1nM...@mchsi.com>,

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> On 6/21/13 1:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/21/13 6:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > How does any of that refute the points Biden made in the video, Hutt?

> Since when does anyone give a fuck what Biden says?

Hey, if you want to dismiss Biden as an addled fool to whom no one pays
serious attention, great. But here's an even better video of Obama
debating himself on this issue. It shows Presidential Candidate Obama in
2008 vs. President Obama in 2013 and the difference is stark and
undeniable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7BmdovYztH8#at=28

Not only is there a massive difference in what's being said, but also in
*how* it's being said. Candidate Obama spoke clearly, directly strongly
and without equivocation about protecting civil liberties and not giving
up our freedoms. President Obama's speech, on the other hand, sounds
weak, vague and unpresidential in comparison. Candidate Obama seems to
really believe what he's saying, whereas President Obama is sheepish and
unsure-- as though he's deeply aware of his own hypocrisy.

In the first speech, he makes these clear, declarative announcements:

This [Bush] administration puts forth a false choice between
the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.

But as president, he says (while rolling his eyes -- the video is
incredible):

You can't have 100% security... and then also have 100% privacy
and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices.

As a candidate:

I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the
tools they need to take out the terrorists without undermining
our Constitution and our freedoms. That means no more illegal
wiretapping of American citizens. That means no more national
security letters to spy on Americans who are not suspected of
committing a crime. No more tracking citizens who do no more than
protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is
inconvenient. That is not who we are. That's not what is necessary
to defeat the terrorists.

As president, he talks vaguely about how his team made an "assessment"
and that these programs keep people safe, and "in the abstract" people
might claim these programs are "Big Brother" but he thinks there's a
"balance" to be struck.

It's funny how different dictatorial surveillance powers look when
you're the guy in charge of them.

> >> How does this compare to the lack of WMD in Iraq, exactly?
> >
> > Well, that's a completely disingenuous attempt to change the subject to
> > cover for your inability to defend the issue at hand.

> > But since you brought it up, according to the Obama Administration,
> > there were oodles of WMDs in Iraq.

> > They claimed and have charged the surviving Tsarnaev brother with
> > possession and use of a WMD-- his little pressure cooker bomb.

> > If that's the U.S. government's definition of WMD,

> I think we knew what the fuck they were talking about at the time.

Ah, so the definition of WMD changes based on the political designs of
whoever currently occupies the big chair.

Gotcha.

[trotsky]

On 6/24/13 5:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <UuydnQQunKwBU1nM...@mchsi.com>,
> trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/21/13 1:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/13 6:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> How does any of that refute the points Biden made in the video, Hutt?
>
>> Since when does anyone give a fuck what Biden says?
>
> Hey, if you want to dismiss Biden as an addled fool

You can't say anything without being intellectually dishonest, Thanny.
That's probably why you couldn't make it as an attorney. You fall into
the same logical fallacies over and over and over. I think you have
some kind of personality disorder that makes you do so. Here, maybe
this will help:

You can't belong to a party that says Biden is a total loser and say
that he suddenly has credibility if he contradicts Obama. You and your
ilk are the losers if you attempt to do this.

Can we at least agree that you're a loser? TIA.

[BTR1701]

In article <TZedncFhhop8CVTM...@mchsi.com>,

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> On 6/24/13 5:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <UuydnQQunKwBU1nM...@mchsi.com>,
> > trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/21/13 1:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/21/13 6:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>> How does any of that refute the points Biden made in the video, Hutt?
> >
> >> Since when does anyone give a fuck what Biden says?
> >
> > Hey, if you want to dismiss Biden as an addled fool
>
>
> You can't say anything without being intellectually dishonest, Thanny.
> That's probably why you couldn't make it as an attorney. You fall into
> the same logical fallacies over and over and over. I think you have
> some kind of personality disorder that makes you do so. Here, maybe
> this will help:
>
> You can't belong to a party that says Biden is a total loser and say
> that he suddenly has credibility if he contradicts Obama. You and your
> ilk are the losers if you attempt to do this.

I'd use your own 'failure to respond to the gist' cliche against you,
but what's the point? You'd deny that water is wet if I said it was
because that's just what Hutt does.

[trotsky]

I made a valid point which you're attempting to deflect, but nice try
anyway.

[Bill Steele]

>
>
> I made a valid point which you're attempting to deflect, but nice try
> anyway.

Totally successful try. Trolls are experts at maintaining flame wars to
keep the thread going.

[BTR1701]

You wouldn't know a valid point if it ran up to you, twisted your nipple,
and called you Sally.

[trotsky]

QED

[trotsky]

Wow, good thing you were able to take the scrotum out of your mouth long
enough to come up with, teabagger!

You do admit to being a Tea Party member and/or supporter, right?