TGHusker Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Wow, a New York Times OpEd that criticizes Pres Obama. I guess Hell has frozen over and Pigs are flying. The oped states Obama has lost all credibility on the NSA's overstep of the Patriot act - securing the phone info of millions of Verizon subscribers. I agree that the Patriot Act has been taken to the extremes - beyond its intent (so says the bill's author at the end of the story) As one poster at the end of the story says - we are in the Bush-Obama Era - can't separate the 2 on this issue. In our rightful fight against terror, are we building a KGB style surveillance society? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0 Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 The oped states Obama has lost all credibility on the NSA's overstep of the Patriot act - securing the phone info of millions of Verizon subscribers. I agree that the Patriot Act has been taken to the extremes - beyond its intent (so says the bill's author at the end of the story) What do you mean by NSA overstep of the Patriot Act? As one poster at the end of the story says - we are in the Bush-Obama Era - can't separate the 2 on this issue. In our rightful fight against terror, are we building a KGB style surveillance society? This surveillance is unacceptable. It was unacceptable when Bush was exercising power unilaterally and it's unacceptable now that Obama has codified the policies supposedly overseen by secret courts and by Congress. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 As one poster at the end of the story says - we are in the Bush-Obama Era - can't separate the 2 on this issue. In our rightful fight against terror, are we building a KGB style surveillance society? This surveillance is unacceptable. It was unacceptable when Bush was exercising power unilaterally and it's unacceptable now that Obama has codified the policies supposedly overseen by secret courts and by Congress. this is the real problem. democrats were revolted by bush's surveillance, but now obama does it and it becomes standard operating procedure. he just normalized it, which is worse than bush acting unilaterally. Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 What you mentioned isn't even the best part of aura surrounding this article. The NYT actually edited the article after it had been released to make it LESS damning. Check it out The NYT is such a clown newspaper, I don't see why people even bother reading it. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 What you mentioned isn't even the best part of aura surrounding this article. The NYT actually edited the article after it had been released to make it LESS damning. Check it out The NYT is such a clown newspaper, I don't see why people even bother reading it. Ah, yes. Because I remember the conservative media heaping all sorts of criticism on George W. Bush. This editorial seems to indicate that at least the NYT has intellectual honesty. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 this is the real problem. democrats were revolted by bush's surveillance, but now obama does it and it becomes standard operating procedure. he just normalized it, which is worse than bush acting unilaterally. Agreed. Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 What you mentioned isn't even the best part of aura surrounding this article. The NYT actually edited the article after it had been released to make it LESS damning. Check it out The NYT is such a clown newspaper, I don't see why people even bother reading it. Ah, yes. Because I remember the conservative media heaping all sorts of criticism on George W. Bush. This editorial seems to indicate that at least the NYT has intellectual honesty. This has nothing to do with "conservative media" (which is usualy even more laughable). It has to do with the NYT modifying an article as to appear less critical on an issue in an attempt to maintain its audiance/readership. (Later I will go back and edit this post to add "on this issue") Link to comment
sd'sker Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 What you mentioned isn't even the best part of aura surrounding this article. The NYT actually edited the article after it had been released to make it LESS damning. Check it out The NYT is such a clown newspaper, I don't see why people even bother reading it. Ah, yes. Because I remember the conservative media heaping all sorts of criticism on George W. Bush. This editorial seems to indicate that at least the NYT has intellectual honesty. This has nothing to do with "conservative media" (which is usualy even more laughable). It has to do with the NYT modifying an article as to appear less critical on an issue in an attempt to maintain its audiance/readership. (Later I will go back and edit this post to add "on this issue") are you sure they did not edit the piece because they worried their hyperbole would lose them credibility? 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 What you mentioned isn't even the best part of aura surrounding this article. The NYT actually edited the article after it had been released to make it LESS damning. Check it out The NYT is such a clown newspaper, I don't see why people even bother reading it. Ah, yes. Because I remember the conservative media heaping all sorts of criticism on George W. Bush. This editorial seems to indicate that at least the NYT has intellectual honesty. This has nothing to do with "conservative media" (which is usualy even more laughable). It has to do with the NYT modifying an article as to appear less critical on an issue in an attempt to maintain its audiance/readership. (Later I will go back and edit this post to add "on this issue") ^^^^what sd'sker said. Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 What you mentioned isn't even the best part of aura surrounding this article. The NYT actually edited the article after it had been released to make it LESS damning. Check it out The NYT is such a clown newspaper, I don't see why people even bother reading it. Ah, yes. Because I remember the conservative media heaping all sorts of criticism on George W. Bush. This editorial seems to indicate that at least the NYT has intellectual honesty. This has nothing to do with "conservative media" (which is usualy even more laughable). It has to do with the NYT modifying an article as to appear less critical on an issue in an attempt to maintain its audiance/readership. (Later I will go back and edit this post to add "on this issue") are you sure they did not edit the piece because they worried their hyperbole would lose them credibility? Yes. 100 percent sure. Link to comment
The Dude Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Now I understand the meaning of my share everything plan. 4 Link to comment
Recommended Posts