Rollo Tomasi
Member
I wonder if some of the secrecy behind the meetings he was having outside of the press' knowledge had something to do with security.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Report: Obama brings chilling effect on Journalism
- Thread starter Espresso
- Start date
- Status
Anticitizen One
Banned
The reason he keeps things secret is because its dangerous for high level information to leak out to the public, get misconstrued, and next thing you know you have half of white hick america going apeshit. Any time information is made public Obama gets blocked from doing anything by idiots.
BakedSardine
Banned
Every time I hear "post 9/11 world" I just think of Rudy Giuliani and his ridiculous presidential campaign "9/11, 9/11!!" It immediately negates the credibility of the person speaking as having no valid point and trying to scare the public into something.
On a side note, we now have the TSA outright threatening to (illegally) arrest people who make remarks or joke about security:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkWPMeLSk6M
On a side note, we now have the TSA outright threatening to (illegally) arrest people who make remarks or joke about security:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkWPMeLSk6M
timetokill
Banned
Holy shit at that Youtube link. Can this be verified anywhere else?
And he said his Presidency would be transparent too! It would be funny if it wasn't so damn saddening.
He is a terrible president for a lot of reasons. Whistleblowing, surveillance, ties to Wall Street and protection of these corrupt evil fucks, transparency promises, completely useless against Republicans and so on.
Let me clarify something though, in my previous post I was comparing him to Bush only regarding whistleblowing and intimidation of journalists. No way Obama is worse than Bush.
timetokill
Banned
Overall he's not worse, but he's still awful. And on some specific issues he's worse than Bush.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Well Bush made it so the TSA could pull anyone out of a line and literally do that, and do you think domestic surveillance could have been expanded under Obama, were it not for the Bush administration? Of course it expanded, blank checks were being printed for seven years prior Obama to "fight terror."
The president has put it on congress to curtail the powers of the Executive Office. alsso, from the OP:
The overreach was there to be abused and only Congress has the power to reign in those abilities. The Republicans whine about this and that but they have no problem with these authorities because they want their guy in the oval office. Its not just Obama enabling these overreaches, it seems like a part he's playing at the behest of just about everyone in government.
After Giuliani mayored his way through 9-11, he started a private security company and had profited greatly advising municipalities and various business entities on how they might be best prepared for a terrorist attack.
The NYPD has a global counter-terrorism unit. If they monitored phone calls, someone would blame Obama.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Yeah all he did was to kill a million innocent people in a foreign country. Definitely not as bad because they are not Americans, am I right?
Sirpopopop
Member
Using legislative tactics to uphold legislation in a Republican government for the purpose of a minority viewpoint is the exact opposite of how a "democracy" should run.
You are meant to protect minorities & minority viewpoints, not to see them upheld through utilization of loopholes in the system. If a minority viewpoint wishes to be pushed through, there is a way to do it - legislation.
You say the Patriot Act is bad, and a lot of people here agree with you. However, push come to shove, people prefer defense over an ephemeral sense of freedom. Welcome to most countries in the world.
timetokill
Banned
Yeah, Obama definitely isn't killing foreigners
Sirpopopop
Member
These posts ignore EPA Regs, reformation of civil rights department of DOJ, Credit Card Act, CFPB (the first useful new federal agency in ages) Volcker Rule, Lilly Ledbetter, etc.
I'm sure Gaimeguy can give you a list at some point.
Don't Laugh
Banned
did bush kill Americans without due process?
don't forget that Obama has ramped up the war on drugs more than bush ever did.
don't forget that Obama has ramped up the war on drugs more than bush ever did.
He did, and there's no excuse for that either. The scales are not comparable though.
The Democrats never possessed enough of a majority to steamroll whatever they wanted through, they still required Republican votes to accomplish anything. And Republicans literally sent marching orders to their party to not cooperate on anything.
That's the core difference between Dems and Repubs. Repubs are able to get things done because Dems can actually be wooed to the other side (or away from their own) on an issue if it makes sense or has the will of the public behind it. Dems aren't able to move anything because because whenever they try to make a case for their side, the Repubs' response is to place their fingers firmly in their ears and scream LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU.
I mean, in a way their obedience to the party line is admirable, but there's a line between being a good soldier and being an obstructionist asshole, and Repubs are sitting twelve feet past that line.
You don't remember the Occupy movement? There were huge throngs of protestors in every major city, a more coordinated outcry than the Tea Party's ever gathered. But Fox News and the Republican talk radio machine viciously and constantly worked to slander the movement and hand-wave any signifigance of their message with "They're just entitled kids living in their parents' basements, why are you too good for a job at McDonald's, college boy? Bootstraps, etc." And eventually that sustained attack won.
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
IpsoFacto
Member
You are under the assumption that Fox News and Talk Radio has that much power over the masses.
CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT among others are pretty much this Admin's PR bullsh***ers. Oh and trust me, Democrat's unwilling to fight has nothing to do with cowardice. Or rather, not by same point of view, mind you.
Could be wrong, though, the Democrat Party is the Barack Obama Party since 2008, there is not a single shred of dissent there, which means, either many Blue Dogs are keeping it to themselves or if there is indeed some discontent or criticisms to be made, are bottled up.
CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT among others are pretty much this Admin's PR bullsh***ers. Oh and trust me, Democrat's unwilling to fight has nothing to do with cowardice. Or rather, not by same point of view, mind you.
Could be wrong, though, the Democrat Party is the Barack Obama Party since 2008, there is not a single shred of dissent there, which means, either many Blue Dogs are keeping it to themselves or if there is indeed some discontent or criticisms to be made, are bottled up.
As much as I love to hate on Obama - I feel this is a Government trend which will continue in perpetuity until people actually stand up for themselves instead of fawning over every entitlement program as "they are doing such a good thing". I only bring entitlement programs into this as they are a means to an end. They create government dependency and strip individual liberties in an attempt to create a society that continuously trusts in government and looks to them for all answers since they become the hand that feeds. This destroys entrepreneurialism and individual thinking and liberty. We are slowly being conditioned and silencing the media is a critical part. There are many heads to the hydra that is the government but they are all working towards a common goal. Create a society dependent on government, silence anti-government speech, silence the media from any critical reactions to what the government does all in order to gain more control of its people. We would do well as a society to change laws to limit terms so the elite do not govern in perpetuity, disallow ANY family member to work in any part of government (in the private sector, I'm sure you've all heard radio contests and how people who work for that station and all family members cannot participate for fear of a stacked deck... How is the same not applied to people in power?) and get rid of all government ponzi schemes. Yes, the entitled might bitch about it but its illegal for the private sector to do it but the Govt appears it can without blowback.
All in all - a smaller, less overreaching government. Not anti-government, not an anarchist's dream, just a smaller more individual focused government. People have to remember these assholes work for US - not the other way around.
tinfoilhat.jpg
All in all - a smaller, less overreaching government. Not anti-government, not an anarchist's dream, just a smaller more individual focused government. People have to remember these assholes work for US - not the other way around.
tinfoilhat.jpg
Yes, but Obama has killed more.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
When news agencies and private ideals group encounter an issue that bleeds over to The Other Side in a shared concern, surprise! They don't do jack shit because they're the other team and that ain't kosher. And the next administration's funny business will come off the very same way unless this changes.
Why not? They rake everyone else over the coals in ratings. If not explicit power, they've got a pretty uncanny ability to guide the tone of debate.
They've got a liberal bias, sure, but they're much more objective in their presentation than their conservative counterparts. For instance, when the Tea Party rose to power, I saw plenty of pieces on these leftist pinko networks that examined the movement and what it was about in a detached, neutral, sometimes even downright favorable fashion, even if they clearly didn't agree with it. When the Occupy movement hit, Fox and friends launched into an unbroken volley of epithets and name-calling.
When CNN hosts a roundtable discussion, they fall over themselves to equally represent both viewpoints; When Fox hosts one, there's six inlays of talking heads and five of them are conservatives. And even the 'liberal' one has a strong whiff of someone who probably has a shrine of Gordon Gekko they masturbate to.
The proper counterpoint to a subtle bias is not an overt one.
Carnby
Member
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves (Gospel of Matthew 7:15"
No, he's using it correctly.
Partial Gamification
Banned
It is correct from a certain point-of-view. To say that Obama had made campaign promises that were intended to remain unfulfilled, in a malicious or devious manner, would be correct.
To consider that the campaign promises were also bundled with a pragmatic position of compromise; close GITMO: "not in my backyard," end drones has the program noticably reducing number of attacks, ACA took up over a year negotiating and creating the whole sequester leading to this shutdown. From this other point-of-view the saying is hyperbolic or even incorrect.
It is entirely subjective, truthiness. A standard poetic license covers the poster, it would make a decent political cartoon even if I don't agree.
njean777
Member
I disagree, secrecy leads to worse and bigger lies being told.
Don't Laugh
Banned
fisa court is such an affront to liberty
- Status