New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Power Grab

Zam-Zam

Senator
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. -George Washington


I believe the USA Today has nailed it:


The common thread running through his scandals is an abuse of power.



"How ironic is that? We wanted a president that listens to all Americans -- now we have one." That was Jay Leno's take on the Obama administration's expanding NSA spying scandal, which has gone beyond Verizon phone records to include Google, Facebook, Yahoo and just about all the other major tech companies except, apparently, for Twitter.
The NSA spying scandal goes deep, and the Obama administration's only upside is that the furor over its poking into Americans' private business on a wholesale basis will distract people from the furor over the use of the IRS and other federal agencies to target political enemies -- and even donors to Republican causes -- and the furor over the Benghazi screwup and subsequent lies (scapegoated filmmaker Nakoula is still in jail), the furor over the "Fast And Furious" gunrunning scandal that left literally scores of Mexicans dead, the scandal over the DOJ's poking into phone records of journalists (and their parents), HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' shakedown of companies she regulates for "donations" to pay for ObamaCare implementation that Congress has refused to fund, the Pigford scandal where the Treasury Department's "Judgment Fund" appears to have been raided for political purposes -- well, it's getting to where you need a scorecard to keep up.
But, in fact, there's a common theme in all of these scandals: Abuse of power. And, what's more, that abuse-of-power theme is what makes the NSA snooping story bigger than it otherwise would be. It all comes down to trust.
The justification for giving the government a lot of snooping power hangs on two key arguments: That snooping will make us safer and that the snooping power won't be abused.
Has it made us safer? Anonymous government sources quoted in news reports say yes, but we know that all that snooping didn't catch the Tsarnaev brothers before they bombed the Boston Marathon -- even though they made extensive use of email and the Internet, and even though Russian security officials had warned us that they were a threat. The snooping didn't catch Major Nidal Hasan before he perpetrated the Fort Hood Massacre, though he should have been spotted easily enough. It didn't, apparently, warn us of the Benghazi attacks -- though perhaps it explains how administration flacks were able to find and scapegoat a YouTube filmmaker so quickly . But in terms of keeping us safe, the snooping doesn't look so great.
As for abuse, well, is it plausible to believe that a government that would abuse the powers of the IRS to attack political enemies, go after journalists who publish unflattering material or scapegoat a filmmaker in the hopes of providing political cover to an election-season claim that al-Qaeda was finished would have any qualms about misusing the massive power of government-run snooping and Big Data? What we've seen here is a pattern of abuse. There's little reason to think that pattern will change, absent a change of administration -- and, quite possibly, not even then. Sooner or later, power granted tends to become power abused. Then there's the risk that information gathered might leak, of course, as recent events demonstrate.
Most Americans generally think that politicians are untrustworthy. So why trust them with so much power? The evidence to date strongly suggests that they aren't worthy of it.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/10/nsa-spying-obama-column/2405991/



 
Also in the common thread?
Who thought the same were to their advantage when they had the political power?

Any lessons learned?

In a political football "game" of government vs. non-government. Abuses of power and action can come from both sides, some are offensive moves, some are defensive.

Objective people have to ask themselves not just whether their side was right and believe it because it's their side, but ask themselves in context of the full picture, what actions would their side have taken, why and why they would have been right or possibly have been just as wrong as those they accuse of wrong doing. In addition, the switching or reversal of "values" or "concerns" about the same issues when political "power" switches hands, negates them.

If one claims something is wrong when their opposition does it, but not wrong when they do it, that's hypocrisy, not consistent values. There are differences in circumstances that can still make the values consistent, but one has to be able to articulate those differences and defend why their values remain consistent or recognize and acknowledge their values have suddenly changed and why.

To simply express that one is all for something when they and their friends are engaged in it, but all against something when those they perceive to be their opposition are engaged in the same thing, is hypocrisy.

Since the government is never, at any one time, made up of people all of one political persuasion, who are the evil "they" referred to and how did they find their way to office?

Who do "the people" suggest should replace them and by what means should they be either chosen, elected or replaced? How is it some seem to think their current system does not allow them to replace those that abuse power? Is there a process for doing so or are the only things "the people" need to replace those in power is to pump huge sums of money into political media campaigns and point to a few telephone polls taken of several thousand people apiece?

Do Amercans think anymore or just react?
 
I believe the common thread is an abuse of Obama using but continuing the war on terror already used for over a decade even before he got in office.

I personally like it if it keeps pointy little tinfoil hats focused on a final term President.
 
I believe the common thread is an abuse of Obama using but continuing the war on terror already used for over a decade even before he got in office.

I personally like it if it keeps pointy little tinfoil hats focused on a final term President.



You may blindly trust this administration, and they'll thank you for it. The founding fathers were quite aware that government by nature is intrusive and untrustworthy, and that is why we have the Bill of Rights. It is folly to put faith in politicians, of any stripe.
 
Rush Limbaugh is no longer the titular leader of the Republican Party. That honor now goes to Alex Jones.

Congratulations on your shark jumping. ;)


You believe radio personalities run things. Like their liberal counterparts Ed Shultz and Rachel Maddow, they exert some influence, but really amount to no more than talking heads who cannot make policy. I do hope you will continue to dwell in your fantasy world, however. I hope you stay there the rest of your days.
 
Zam-Zam I don't blindly trust anything. I seek irony in this life. The irony in this so-called scandal is that this scandal has gone on since 2005 and was taken to court. I watched all that and it pleases me that Obama made it a little better by demanding phone calls not be listened in on unlike what the court allowed and Bush did in plain sight and in law (see secret SF rooms). The guy who cleaned up that reality has not overreached in this last issue, he has reversed what was by some small degree.

Only those who ignored the court in 2006 over 2005 do not understand.
 
You may blindly trust this administration, and they'll thank you for it. The founding fathers were quite aware that government by nature is intrusive and untrustworthy, and that is why we have the Bill of Rights. It is folly to put faith in politicians, of any stripe.

a3.bp.blogspot.com__NB2lAI4RIvw_TDiAc_s9BpI_AAAAAAAAA_A_W31xQ8bwmzE_s320_anarchy_symbol.jpg

Here's your sign...
 
You believe radio personalities run things. Like their liberal counterparts Ed Shultz and Rachel Maddow, they exert some influence, but really amount to no more than talking heads who cannot make policy. I do hope you will continue to dwell in your fantasy world, however. I hope you stay there the rest of your days.

What I believe is irrelevant. Young Republicans list TV and radio personalities as their chosen party's leaders. It's not my problem.
 
Zam-Zam I don't blindly trust anything. I seek irony in this life. The irony in this so-called scandal is that this scandal has gone on since 2005 and was taken to court. I watched all that and it pleases me that Obama made it a little better by demanding phone calls not be listened in on unlike what the court allowed and Bush did in plain sight and in law (see secret SF rooms). The guy who cleaned up that reality has not overreached in this last issue, he has reversed what was by some small degree.

Only those who ignored the court in 2006 over 2005 do not understand.



Whether it's Bush or Obama doing it really isn't the issue. Having said that, there are folks on both sides who believe it is the only issue.

Trusting any administration to not abuse power is foolish. They will, if they can. It's what they are. It is up to the rest of us to put the brakes on.
 
You may blindly trust this administration, and they'll thank you for it. The founding fathers were quite aware that government by nature is intrusive and untrustworthy, and that is why we have the Bill of Rights. It is folly to put faith in politicians, of any stripe.

You mean except when you use a government led by politicians to PROTECT you and ENFORCE the BILL of RIGHTs?

WHO elects politicians? WHO designed and established "the government"? WHO wrote and ratified the BILL of RIGHTs? WHO composed and voted on any of the AMENDMENTS?

How about putting your brain in gear?
 
You believe radio personalities run things. Like their liberal counterparts Ed Shultz and Rachel Maddow, they exert some influence, but really amount to no more than talking heads who cannot make policy. I do hope you will continue to dwell in your fantasy world, however. I hope you stay there the rest of your days.

It is HARDLY 'fantasy' to suggest that John McCain was FORCED to select Sarah Palin as his running mate, due to the influence of radio personalities such as, well, Rush Limbaugh.
 
Whether it's Bush or Obama doing it really isn't the issue. Having said that, there are folks on both sides who believe it is the only issue.

Trusting any administration to not abuse power is foolish. They will, if they can. It's what they are. It is up to the rest of us to put the brakes on.

It actually is the issue. What we tolerated in terms of the Patriot act, even celebrated, what application we allowed in terms of actual direct listening in, and what we fake when this administration removes that ability to listen in is very important.

The lesson to me is that a President can do it, be encouraged to do it, change laws so he can do it, test it in court when it is done, but never, never, ever, allow it to be done less intrusively by Obama. That kind of ironic reaction is PRICELESS!
 
Interesting also in light of what Dick Cheney was known for in his interest to expand the powers of the POTUS, perhaps in anticipation of his ascent to the office or maybe just perhaps in acknowledgement of the ascent of the PNAC puppet.
 
You mean except when you use a government led by politicians to PROTECT you and ENFORCE the BILL of RIGHTs?

WHO elects politicians? WHO designed and established "the government"? WHO wrote and ratified the BILL of RIGHTs? WHO composed and voted on any of the AMENDMENTS?

How about putting your brain in gear?


I'm inclined not to discuss things with you. If someone disagrees with you, you become a petulant child. There are others here who disagree with me frequently who are nonetheless civil and articulate. So let us part ways and ignore one another, shall we?
 
I'm inclined not to discuss things with you. If someone disagrees with you, you become a petulant child. There are others here who disagree with me frequently who are nonetheless civil and articulate. So let us part ways and ignore one another, shall we?

Have it your way, Mr. Mature. Please, by all means, take your ball and go home, us "kids" are playing too rough.
 
Back
Top