Obama's tweet in response to Charlottesville violence is the most liked ever

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

[JimandChristy 1,689]

15 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

Terrible meme.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

20 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

29 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

12 hours ago, IAMX said:

Moral equivalency was done throughout the last 8 years. It's pretty clear that:

 

- The fanatics of the party in power love moral equivalencies

- The fanatics of the party not in power love to embellish the things the party in power does

 

That being said, Obama had a chance to actually be useful.. he made his name as an IL/US Senator lambasting Bush's spying. 

 

However, as soon as his prospects of becoming President became very realistic (at the 2008 DNC), he parties with the AT&T execs who contributed countless dollars to the Dems, helped financially fund their 2008 DNC in Denver Colorado, and Obama conveniently and completely flips on his stances on spying -- he declares he might actually need this, he defends Bush's spying in court, then he signs a revised FISA bill giving retroactive immunity to the telcos (AT&T, Verizon, and at the time I believe one was called Qwest) regarding the lawsuits filed against them to unmask the spying that they participated in with the NSA by real-time relaying all data from their trunks over to the NSA to sift through -- effectively nullifying all lawsuits against the companies and even against the NSA itself. The left's roar regarding spying during the Bush administration had turned into a mere peep under Obama, even though countless leaks occurring show that spying was only ramped up, even more broad and clandestine, under Obama. Moral equivalence is clearly the status quo as shown over the last 8 years.

 

That's why I'm an independent and not a Democrat or Republican.

 

The left right now are howling about things they themselves did under Obama. Their memory is just conveniently piss poor.

 

A few corrections :

AT&T
> Total contributions (2012-ongoing): $2,504,219
> Donations to Democratic Party: 35%
> Donations to Republican Party: 65%
> Spending on lobbying (2012-ongoing): $7,050,000
> Industry: Telecom Services

Obama passed the revised bill with both republicans and democrats with a 73 to 23 vote, it was bipartisan. Get off the lefty hate wagon.

 

I didn't like Obama's flip on the ATT/NSA issue either but it was not due to any donor money.
We have no idea what changed his mind once he got into the intelligence briefings and sat behind that desk.
Speculations and assumptions don't make it so.
I am very much against the email/phone harvesting, the broad sweeping of USC's data, that's why I wasn't one bit upset about Snowden.
There was no transparency and that was wrong and still is and reminds me of the former East German Stasi mass surveillance.
What is Trump doing about it since he is the one sitting there now ?
Haven't heard a beep from him about it either.

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, Ebunoluwa said:

 

A few corrections :

AT&T
> Total contributions (2012-ongoing): $2,504,219
> Donations to Democratic Party: 35%
> Donations to Republican Party: 65%
> Spending on lobbying (2012-ongoing): $7,050,000
> Industry: Telecom Services

Obama passed the revised bill with both republicans and democrats with a 73 to 23 vote, it was bipartisan. Get off the lefty hate wagon.

 

I didn't like Obama's flip on the ATT/NSA issue either but it was not due to any donor money.
We have no idea what changed his mind once he got into the intelligence briefings and sat behind that desk.
Speculations and assumptions don't make it so.
I am very much against the email/phone harvesting, the broad sweeping of USC's data, that's why I wasn't one bit upset about Snowden.
There was no transparency and that was wrong and still is and reminds me of the former East German Stasi mass surveillance.
What is Trump doing about it since he is the one sitting there now ?
Haven't heard a beep from him about it either.

 

 

You cite me something from 2012.. lol. Clearly you have no clue of what I'm talking about.

 

How about:

 

 

Quote

 

AT&T Throws Party to Support Dems Who Voted to Grant Telecoms Immunity for Illegal Domestic Wiretapping

AUGUST 25, 2008

And I expected, quite naturally, that the press passes would enable access to the party. I mean, here is a meeting between the nation’s — one of the nation’s most influential corporations and probably the single most influential faction in the United States Congress, which is the Blue Dog Coalition, meeting at this lavish party with hundreds of people present near where Barack Obama will speak. The last thing that occurred to me was that it would be closed to the press, given the public significance, the fact that members of the United States Congress are meeting. 

 

 

Quote

 

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, one of the most significant political controversies, of course, of the past several years is the fact that not just that the Bush administration was illegally spying on Americans, that they were, but that they were doing so with the active cooperation of the telecommunication giants, led by AT&T. And it wasn’t just illegal for the Bush administration to do it, it was clearly illegal for the private telecoms to do it. It’s a felony for them to allow government access to the communications of their customers without the warrants required by law. So it wasn’t just the President who got caught committing felonies; these corporations, AT&T, Verizon and others, got caught committing felonies, as well. 

And for several years, they vigorously lobbied Congress, and the Congress, just recently, led by the Blue Dogs, the very Blue Dogs whom they were thanking, enacted legislation that had little purpose other than to immunize these corporations from the consequences of their lawbreaking, to force the lawsuits that had been brought by customers based on these privacy infringements to be dismissed, and to put an end, a permanent end, to this scandal or any prospect for accountability. It was an enormous and extraordinary gift that Congress gave to the private telecommunications agencies. And of course, at the same time and immediately after, the private telecoms were funding, to the tune of many, many, many millions of dollars, funding this very convention. 

AMY GOODMAN: Obama’s role?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, clearly Obama was — ended up being a prime enabler of that legislation, by announcing in the midst of it that he supported it. He had promised back in December, when he was seeking the Democratic primary, that he would filibuster any bill, as he put it, that contained retroactive telecom immunity. That was an emphatic commitment that he made, in fact, in response to bloggers and readers demanding to know his position. And six months later, when that very bill came before the Senate that clearly contained retroactive immunity, not only didn’t he filibuster it, he led the effort to support it and enact it. 

 

https://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/at_t_throws_party_to_support

 

 

 

Quote

 

DENVER — AT&T is not just a phone call away at the Democratic National Convention.

The telecommunications giant is virtually everywhere, wining and feeding delegates and members of Congress with a relentless schedule of luncheons and evening celebrations.

"They get goodwill, they get access and they build relationships," said Nancy Watzman, director of the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation's "Party Time" effort that is tracking spending at the conventions. "They're covering all bases, they're making sure they have input with whoever wins."

AT&T is just one example of how political conventions have become a virtual bazaar where corporations and other special interests can peddle their wares, showcase their products and make a case for their favorite (or least favorite) piece of pending legislation.

The Texas-based company has the most high-profile corporate presence in Denver. It is a major sponsor at the convention, it is holding daily lunches for state delegations at the Pinnacle Club, with its startling views of the Rocky Mountain range, and co-hosting hip parties for the likes of the Screen Actors' Guild and the New Democratic Coalition.

 

On Monday, AT&T threw an exclusive party for the Blue Dogs, the House's moderate and conservative Democrats, at the historic Mile High Station in downtown Denver. Among the guests was House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who in June led Blue Dogs in crafting a compromise bill that shielded telecommunications companies from lawsuits arising from the government's terrorism-era warrantless eavesdropping.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-08-26-3207224096_x.htm

 

Lastly:

 

- Obama defended Bush's wiretaps in court (didn't have to do this)

- Signed FISA retroactive immunity bill (regardless of what Congress did, he still could have vetoed)

 

I wouldn't attempt to debate on this matter, I researched this highly as I was seriously considering Obama until this happened. You're in way over your head on this one.

 

It was a valiant effort you made though.

 

 

^ Republicans fault! 

 

Just look at that speech, so articulate, so forceful.. yet, utterly lying out his ###. 

Edited August 19, 2017 by IAMX

[JimandChristy 1,689]

14 hours ago, IAMX said:

You cite me something from 2012.. lol. Clearly you have no clue of what I'm talking about.

 

How about:

 

 

 

https://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/at_t_throws_party_to_support

 

 

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-08-26-3207224096_x.htm

 

Lastly:

 

- Obama defended Bush's wiretaps in court (didn't have to do this)

- Signed FISA retroactive immunity bill (regardless of what Congress did, he still could have vetoed)

 

I wouldn't attempt to debate on this matter, I researched this highly as I was seriously considering Obama until this happened. You're in way over your head on this one.

 

It was a valiant effort you made though.

 

 

^ Republicans fault! 

It

Just look at that speech, so articulate, so forceful.. yet, utterly lying out his ###. 

Yes he lied like most Presidents have done in history. However Donnie has lied so much, so much he's broken every polygraph that has ever existed.

[IAMX 3,055]

39 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

Yes he lied like most Presidents have done in history. However Donnie has lied so much, so much he's broken every polygraph that has ever existed.

- Every President has lied

- But this lying President's lies are so much worse!

 

Well we're sure sounding logical now. 

 

I have no idea what you mean by broken every polygraph, I doubt Trump has taken any polygraphs, and even then, they aren't admissible in court for the very reason that they aren't something that can tell truth from fiction.

 

So basically, awful ways of trying to bs one's self that their tantrums are logical. 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

14 hours ago, IAMX said:

You cite me something from 2012.. lol. Clearly you have no clue of what I'm talking about.

 

How about:

 

 

 

https://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/at_t_throws_party_to_support

 

 

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-08-26-3207224096_x.htm

 

Lastly:

 

- Obama defended Bush's wiretaps in court (didn't have to do this)

- Signed FISA retroactive immunity bill (regardless of what Congress did, he still could have vetoed)

 

I wouldn't attempt to debate on this matter, I researched this highly as I was seriously considering Obama until this happened. You're in way over your head on this one.

 

It was a valiant effort you made though.

 

 

^ Republicans fault! 

 

Just look at that speech, so articulate, so forceful.. yet, utterly lying out his ###. 

 

That was bipartisan and the republicans wanted it as much as the dems. Period.
Obama flipped on it, he could have left it alone but championed it in the end and I agreed with you on that so what's up with the " you are way in over your head" comment ?
Do you think you are the only one who researched this ? It happened to be very important to me also.
Are you so stuck in auto pilot ranting and raving about the "left"  that even when I agree with you on that issue you still have to throw a 'I hate the left fit' 
and close your eyes to the republicans being in on it ?

Take some oil and lube the stuck gear and read slowly.
I agree, did not like his flip flop and have also researched on NSA wire tapping.
I had simply stated it was a bipartisan issue and you are in denial about it.
Now I would like to hear what you think the current man in the WH said about it ? Just talk and has done absolutely nothing to change it but you constantly

defend that clown, he is way too busy admiring himself than care about that issue.
He lies 24/7 but you defend him. Why do you give him a huge pass in everything but not Obama ?
At least be honest and not so narrow minded.

 

[IAMX 3,055]

8 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

 

That was bipartisan and the republicans wanted it as much as the dems. Period.
Obama flipped on it, he could have left it alone but championed it in the end and I agreed with you on that so what's up with the " you are way in over your head" comment ?
Do you think you are the only one who researched this ? It happened to be very important to me also.
Are you so stuck in auto pilot ranting and raving about the "left"  that even when I agree with you on that issue you still have to throw a 'I hate the left fit' 
and close your eyes to the republicans being in on it ?

Take some oil and lube the stuck gear and read slowly.
I agree, did not like his flip flop and have also researched on NSA wire tapping.
I had simply stated it was a bipartisan issue and you are in denial about it.
Now I would like to hear what you think the current man in the WH said about it ? Just talk and has done absolutely nothing to change it but you constantly

defend that clown, he is way too busy admiring himself than care about that issue.
He lies 24/7 but you defend him. Why do you give him a huge pass in everything but not Obama ?
At least be honest and not so narrow minded.

 

I don't see where I discussed the Republican Congress. But your deflection attempts are noted.

 

Obama's action on the bill are on par with his flop on what made him popular -- his opposition to Bush on issues like spying on Americans. Did you bother watching the video of his speech? He sure acted like he was getting upset by it. Then the prospects of becoming President are much higher, and he decides he'd rather have that unauthorized power. By partying with telcom execs that are involved in lawsuits for the spying issue he championed, then when he's President defending the spying programs in court, then signing a retroactive immunity bill, he showed he was an utter hypocrite, and a sleazebag. 

 

I stated on this very forum in 2008 his flop on spying was one of the reasons why I nixed Obama from my short list of people I'm voting for. The Republicans in Congress were not even people on any ballot for me to vote for, so they're irrelevant. And besides, as far as McCain/Palin were concerned, they were never even on my radar as people who could get my vote, Obama was. Lube it up and read carefully.

 

No, he's done absolutely nothing to change it, and people would be right to criticize him. Not sure what the point of this is. Are you presuming I'm defending Trump? You'd be manufacturing yet another argument, because I haven't. 

 

Speaking of narrow minded. Good lord, the thick is rife.  It's like I'm trying to have a political discussion with my 5 year old in the midst of a fit.

Edited August 19, 2017 by IAMX

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

I don't see where I discussed the Republican Congress. But your deflection attempts are noted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>see here ^ Republicans fault!  

 

Obama's action on the bill are on par with his flop on what made him popular -- his opposition to Bush on issues like spying on Americans. Did you bother watching the video of his speech? Yes, I have and I watched it live on TV when he said it and I was happy as a lark to hear it only to be disappointed later when he flopped.
I think you can't get it through your head that I agree and am just as ticked at his flop as you were. Duh !

He sure acted like he was getting upset by it. Then the prospects of becoming President are much higher, and he decides he'd rather have that unauthorized power. By partying with telcom execs that are involved in lawsuits for the spying issue he championed, then when he's President defending the spying programs in court, then signing a retroactive immunity bill, he showed he was an utter hypocrite, and a sleazebag. Or had a reason through intel that he thought he needed to rethink it. I don't get
intel briefings so I don't know why he changed his mind. Whatever it was, I did not like it.

 

I stated on this very forum in 2008 his flop on spying was one of the reasons why I nixed Obama from my short list of people I'm voting for. The Republicans in Congress were not even people on any ballot for me to vote for, so they're irrelevant. And besides, as far as McCain/Palin were concerned, they were never even on my radar as people who could get my vote, Obama was. Lube it up and read carefully. Throwing the lube back at ya because you don't get so again read slowly.

 

No, he's done absolutely nothing to change it, and people would be right to criticize him. Not sure what the point of this is. The point is to balance your left hatred with some repub reality. Are you presuming I'm defending Trump? You'd be manufacturing yet another argument, because I haven't. 

 

Speaking of narrow minded. Good lord, the thick is rife.  It's like I'm trying to have a political discussion with my 5 year old in the midst of a fit. I feel the same way,
I can say I agree several times and you are still trying to explain to me what I already told you I agree with. I know.....you are in shock that I agree as a moderate left
and you don't know how to act due to the stuck gear but it may be literally the only time this will happen in this century that we agree on anything so lube up or don't
it doesn't matter. I said I agree and you purposely don't want to hear that because it upsets your apple cart and doesn't fit your narrative

of generalizations that the left is indeed diverse with individual thinking that you can't acknowledge that, you prefer to demonize the "left".
Childish.
 

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Ebunoluwa

[IAMX 3,055]

5 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

 

"Moderate left"

 

AHAHAHAHA

 

Stop.  No more. 

Edited August 19, 2017 by IAMX

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

2 minutes ago, IAMX said:

"Moderate left"

 

AHAHAHAHA

 

Stop.  No more. 

As you wish, I know you can't handle it.

You can stop throwing a tantrum on the floor now and think about how to build on common ground,

of course that throws your whole purpose of wanting to push people's buttons out the window and the kicks would fade.

[IAMX 3,055]

11 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

As you wish, I know you can't handle it.

You can stop throwing a tantrum on the floor now and think about how to build on common ground,

of course that throws your whole purpose of wanting to push people's buttons out the window and the kicks would fade.

Where did I talk about building common ground? Common ground is for people who show promise in thinking with at least some rationality. I've seen your posts back through the beginning of last year. You've never showed anything except NeverTrumper tantrums. It's only because you know some things about immigration (and me wanting to be prepared as possible in case I go the CR-1 route for my wife) as to why I haven't blocked you yet.