4 ms·

Why would he, when he authorized it? Not only did he strengthen Bush's anti-constitutional policies, he enacted new ones, like the NDAA which spits in the face

Why would he, when he authorized it? Not only did he strengthen Bush's anti-constitutional policies, he enacted new ones, like the NDAA which spits in the face of the constitution.

opt4altruism 10y ago
Because he has a new perspective on what unbridled data collection can render, not only with the hindsight of the Snowden debacle, but also because I am around 100% sure he didn't posit Mr. Trump as the future Head of State. Maybe we should remember the words written in the founding document that precluded our noble country's separation from the English State: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men/women (language added by me) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men/Women (same semantic addition), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness If one's right to privacy is being infringed upon, we are bound by this document to remind the powers that be that they are beyond their right to govern. I think the initial thought is incredibly prescient, as Trump seems far more laissez-faire when it comes to moral governance than President Obama is and has been. Let's not put the cart before the horse, but let's also make sure the toys are all child proof before we hand them down, n'est-ce pas?
- bsg75 10y ago
  Hubris: Now that his term is over, mass surveillance is suddenly bad?
  - opt4altruism 10y ago
    Suddenly? Where do you draw word that from? I referenced the fourth amendment, which seems not-so-sudden to my naive (read: full of hubris) self. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
    - bsg75 10y ago
      > Suddenly? Where do you draw word that from? He as two months of an 8 year term remaining. The program was in place before the current administration, and if there was a problem to solve from their perspective, it should have been solved long ago.
      - opt4altruism 10y ago
        I mean to say why do you assign that adjective to my comment? It isn't like I've been commenting every day on your blog or something and today decided to voice my opinion on the wiretapping, stingrays, etc.
        bsg75 10y ago
        Not to you or your comment, but to the President that if he shuts down NSA programs in the final hour, then it would be arrogant indeed to have let them run for 8 years.
- quirkafleeg 10y ago
  > Maybe we should remember the words written in the founding document that precluded our noble country's separation from the English State: > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men/women (language added by me) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Maybe we should also remember that most of the people who signed this document owned slaves.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    And that is relevant because...?
    - quirkafleeg 10y ago
      Why is it irrelevant?
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Whataboutism. Ironically Soviet, incidentally.
    - quirkafleeg 10y ago
      It's whataboutism to remember - in response to a post about the "freedom" of the nascent and noble USA (that politicians these days of course just walk all over) - the historical reality that even some of the people who signed the Declaration Of Independence did not live by or rule by the ideals within the document? It's pretty laughable, actually, that some people here are so thin skinned as to take issue with or dismiss actual facts, because they fly in the face of the fantasy version of history they want to believe.
    - opt4altruism 10y ago
      How so? I am simply saying while the chef who has been cooking with gas for the last eight years is still on the clock, why not ask him to write the prep list for the next shift? I never defended mass surveillance, or advocated for any defense of it other than to cite how we are protected by the 4th amendment and our "unalienable" right to liberty as defined by the Dec. Would you care to elaborate or are you simply trolling? edit: I presume from the downvote that the latter is true. Oh well, so much for spirited debate.
- employee8000 10y ago
  Congnitive dissonance at its finest. Thank you for this.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
snowwrestler 10y ago
The NDAA is the bill that funds the military; it is passed every year. I guess you might be referring to a particular provision from a particular year? You're going to have to be more specific.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Why would he, when he authorized it? Not only did he strengthen Bush's anti-constitutional policies, he enacted new ones, like the NDAA which spits in the face of the constitution.

opt4altruism 10y ago

Because he has a new perspective on what unbridled data collection can render, not only with the hindsight of the Snowden debacle, but also because I am around 100% sure he didn't posit Mr. Trump as the future Head of State. Maybe we should remember the words written in the founding document that precluded our noble country's separation from the English State: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men/women (language added by me) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men/Women (same semantic addition), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness If one's right to privacy is being infringed upon, we are bound by this document to remind the powers that be that they are beyond their right to govern. I think the initial thought is incredibly prescient, as Trump seems far more laissez-faire when it comes to moral governance than President Obama is and has been. Let's not put the cart before the horse, but let's also make sure the toys are all child proof before we hand them down, n'est-ce pas?

bsg75 10y ago
Hubris: Now that his term is over, mass surveillance is suddenly bad?
- opt4altruism 10y ago
  Suddenly? Where do you draw word that from? I referenced the fourth amendment, which seems not-so-sudden to my naive (read: full of hubris) self. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
  - bsg75 10y ago
    > Suddenly? Where do you draw word that from? He as two months of an 8 year term remaining. The program was in place before the current administration, and if there was a problem to solve from their perspective, it should have been solved long ago.
    - opt4altruism 10y ago
      I mean to say why do you assign that adjective to my comment? It isn't like I've been commenting every day on your blog or something and today decided to voice my opinion on the wiretapping, stingrays, etc.
      - bsg75 10y ago
        Not to you or your comment, but to the President that if he shuts down NSA programs in the final hour, then it would be arrogant indeed to have let them run for 8 years.
quirkafleeg 10y ago
> Maybe we should remember the words written in the founding document that precluded our noble country's separation from the English State: > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men/women (language added by me) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Maybe we should also remember that most of the people who signed this document owned slaves.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  And that is relevant because...?
  - quirkafleeg 10y ago
    Why is it irrelevant?
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Whataboutism. Ironically Soviet, incidentally.
  - quirkafleeg 10y ago
    It's whataboutism to remember - in response to a post about the "freedom" of the nascent and noble USA (that politicians these days of course just walk all over) - the historical reality that even some of the people who signed the Declaration Of Independence did not live by or rule by the ideals within the document? It's pretty laughable, actually, that some people here are so thin skinned as to take issue with or dismiss actual facts, because they fly in the face of the fantasy version of history they want to believe.
  - opt4altruism 10y ago
    How so? I am simply saying while the chef who has been cooking with gas for the last eight years is still on the clock, why not ask him to write the prep list for the next shift? I never defended mass surveillance, or advocated for any defense of it other than to cite how we are protected by the 4th amendment and our "unalienable" right to liberty as defined by the Dec. Would you care to elaborate or are you simply trolling? edit: I presume from the downvote that the latter is true. Oh well, so much for spirited debate.
employee8000 10y ago
Congnitive dissonance at its finest. Thank you for this.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

snowwrestler 10y ago

The NDAA is the bill that funds the military; it is passed every year. I guess you might be referring to a particular provision from a particular year? You're going to have to be more specific.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]