Obama's plan to Improve Intelligence Capacity and Protect Civil Liberties

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Tall Bill is oncer again putting his own slant on what he THINKS is being said instead of what is actually being said!!

Savor it while you can.

I hear TallBill just signed a very lucrative contract with Fox News.

Actually I find it more disturbing that people aren't looking at Obama with some skepticism. While I believe that Obama has a different set of intentions than Bush, and I don't see it the same as he, at least Bill is looking at what's happening.

It's kind of funny, but over the last 8 years, I've been seen as largely liberal by some. That will probably change and I'll be one of "those" conservatives, because I'll be just as suspicious of people in power, and hold the new party in power to the same standards. No, I DO NOT trust politicians with my liberty. It is up to them to prove they are worthy of the position while in office, although I'll give them the benefit of the doubt before becoming overly critical.

What it comes down to me is that people religiously followed Bush and his policies, and heaven help you if you questioned or disagreed. I expect the same with Obams, and frankly I'm seeing it already.

There is only one word to describe those who trust their leaders without making damned sure that trust is well placed. That word is "fool"

You don't have to be cynical or overly skeptical all of the time. It really is ok to start off by having confidence and trust in your leaders while they are being given the chance to prove themselves.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I don't read it that way. In fact I get nothing from it at all. He's going to make changes, but what those changes are isn't clear. We ought to keep a close eye on legislation when it's proposed.

This has been my biggest problem with Obama from the start. He never actually says what his magical formula for change is - only that there will be big changes. I can't support it if I don't know what it is.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I don't read it that way. In fact I get nothing from it at all. He's going to make changes, but what those changes are isn't clear. We ought to keep a close eye on legislation when it's proposed.

This has been my biggest problem with Obama from the start. He never actually says what his magical formula for change is - only that there will be big changes. I can't support it if I don't know what it is.

The same could have been said about McCain had he won.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Tall Bill is oncer again putting his own slant on what he THINKS is being said instead of what is actually being said!!

Savor it while you can.

I hear TallBill just signed a very lucrative contract with Fox News.

Actually I find it more disturbing that people aren't looking at Obama with some skepticism. While I believe that Obama has a different set of intentions than Bush, and I don't see it the same as he, at least Bill is looking at what's happening.

It's kind of funny, but over the last 8 years, I've been seen as largely liberal by some. That will probably change and I'll be one of "those" conservatives, because I'll be just as suspicious of people in power, and hold the new party in power to the same standards. No, I DO NOT trust politicians with my liberty. It is up to them to prove they are worthy of the position while in office, although I'll give them the benefit of the doubt before becoming overly critical.

What it comes down to me is that people religiously followed Bush and his policies, and heaven help you if you questioned or disagreed. I expect the same with Obams, and frankly I'm seeing it already.

There is only one word to describe those who trust their leaders without making damned sure that trust is well placed. That word is "fool"

You don't have to be cynical or overly skeptical all of the time. It really is ok to start off by having confidence and trust in your leaders while they are being given the chance to prove themselves.

Perhaps, but I've had the chance to work for Uncle Sam in a few capacities. What I give is the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise. What I've found after long years is that the most appealing politicians will use people. It's the nature of the beast, in that if you cannot manipulate (persuade if you like) you cannot further your agenda.

I'll give you a concrete example.
During Vietnam, there was a fundamental misunderstanding as to why there was a war between N and S Vietnam. At that time, we were concerned about Communism, much like terrorism today.

Now at that time we believed that the Vietnam War was about Communists taking over SE Asia. If VN fell, so would the other countries just like dominoes. On the surface, it seemed completely reasonable. Communism was inherently expansionist, and we had concerns with Cuba and Russia. How could it be anything else but China and Russia driving it? It was a Truth. It was so right that it had to be so. The reality vs "Truth" is that there has been fighting in the region for one reason or another for a very long time. Communism was the excuse for the aggression, not the cause. We pulled out, and Thailand and other nations didn't fall. We were wrong, but we just couldn't get it.

So...
With Communism swallowing up the world, LBJ and his staff needed a way to convince the American public that we had to fight and win in SE Asia. The Truth of the situation demanded it. The problem was how to convince a people to sacrifice for such an important cause. The answer came with the Bay of Tonkin incident. It was an opportunity to present a truth larger than the facts. Someone actually called it that. Anyway, by misrepresenting what happened, it looked like VN directly attacked us and we trusted our leaders and had faith in their judgment. We went to full scale war. It's been called into question recently whether LBJ was an active participant in the deception or if the intel was "massaged" before he got to it. Notwithstanding, it was the government who did the wrong thing for all the right reasons, which in retrospect were incorrect to begin with.

So this isn't VN and Obama isn't LBJ. No, but the temptation to believe in something so much that it alters one's sense of moral imperatives always exists. With Presidents, that effect is like magic. Saddam is a threat? Yes he is, simply by the act of believing it. Like a wish, thought was translated into action. Bush went to war for all the right reasons, defined by himself, and enacted by the power of his Office.

Obama holds the same potential. He now holds the One Ring. He could use it for what he sees as Good, or Truth if you prefer. That being the case, what holds him in check? What provides a balance to this all? A rational, skeptical public. "Show me" citizens who may indeed believe correctly that whoever is in office is doing the right thing at the right time, but insist on more than faith.

Meh, went on too long, but maybe you'll get my point.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Xavier434
You don't have to be cynical or overly skeptical all of the time. It really is ok to start off by having confidence and trust in your leaders while they are being given the chance to prove themselves.

Perhaps, but I've had the chance to work for Uncle Sam in a few capacities. What I give is the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise. What I've found after long years is that the most appealing politicians will use people. It's the nature of the beast, in that if you cannot manipulate (persuade if you like) you cannot further your agenda.

*more*

It is not that what you say doesn't make sense. It is that there is no benefit towards judging a person or expressing lack of confidence and cynicism when it comes to newly elected Presidents of the US. Americans work better and harder when they are motivated and confident. That is the bottom line and that will help this country more than any government program can ever possibly hope to achieve. Obama knows that and that is why he has been trying to hard to rid this country of its confidence crisis. From there, he plans to see to it that the government does the rest. We need to do our part by remaining confident and motivated and responsible. He needs to do his part too.

Keep in mind that such a thing doesn't mean we should blindly follow or support anything and everything our president does, but we shouldn't negatively judge before he is given a chance to prove himself. Doing that can only harm us.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Really? I can name several issues that I'm not in lock-step with Republicans on. And I express those views here.

I'd be interested in how many issues in which you dont fit the "liberal" stereotype. How is that glass house holding up for you?

Just fine, thanks for asking. As jonks said, way to ignore the substance of my post.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Really? I can name several issues that I'm not in lock-step with Republicans on. And I express those views here.

I'd be interested in how many issues in which you dont fit the "liberal" stereotype. How is that glass house holding up for you?

Just fine, thanks for asking. As jonks said, way to ignore the substance of my post.

Like you just ignored mine

Lets hear it. On what issue do you have an opinion that isnt sheep-like? Im not saying you dont, I'm genuinely interested.

 

[StageLeft]

I like the civil libs thing. Bush has done a great job killing those as much as he can, torture, habeus corpus suspension, vast warrantless wiretapping. Fvck that monkey.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Really? I can name several issues that I'm not in lock-step with Republicans on. And I express those views here.

I'd be interested in how many issues in which you dont fit the "liberal" stereotype. How is that glass house holding up for you?

Just fine, thanks for asking. As jonks said, way to ignore the substance of my post.

Like you just ignored mine

Lets hear it. On what issue do you have an opinion that isnt sheep-like? Im not saying you dont, I'm genuinely interested.

I'm sure you are, get back on topic please.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I don't read it that way. In fact I get nothing from it at all. He's going to make changes, but what those changes are isn't clear. We ought to keep a close eye on legislation when it's proposed.

This has been my biggest problem with Obama from the start. He never actually says what his magical formula for change is - only that there will be big changes. I can't support it if I don't know what it is.

The same could have been said about McCain had he won.

On Obama's website there was a Blueprint for Change PDF. I think it was a 40-something page document with details of his plans for what change meant. I posted it at least twice during the campaign season. You can't go around saying "what does he mean by change" and then ignore his answer that he repeatedly referred people to as the best resource for detailed descriptions of his change proposals. It's not sexy, you actually have to read it, but the answers are there.

One more time:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf...BlueprintForChange.pdf

 

[Dufusyte]

If it is true that the gov itself orchestrates false flag events, then I guess the "thousands more state and local level intelligence analysts" will have nothing to do except spy on the unwitting victimized citizens.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I like the civil libs thing. Bush has done a great job killing those as much as he can, torture, habeus corpus suspension, vast warrantless wiretapping. Fvck that monkey.

You know you and Dave have the same avatar.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Are you guys reading the same passage as I am? You guys have to take off the crazy filter. He says he is going to hire thousands more intel analysts, etc. That sounds like a good idea to me, because we are always hearing about how we don't have enough. (my biggest question is where he's going to find the people) The whole second paragraph is about how he wants to create a new oversight board with subpoena power to check up on the intel agencies, to control them, and to protect civil liberties better.

How is this anything but an improvement over what we have now? Even if the crazy interpretation were totally correct, at least he would be working to change the law as opposed to ignoring the law with some broad assertion of executive power. So... either way a massive improvement over the Bush administration. Three cheers for Obama on this one.

well since many of the problems are in the muslum world, perhaps he will hire muslums from within his family to fill them.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Are you guys reading the same passage as I am? You guys have to take off the crazy filter. He says he is going to hire thousands more intel analysts, etc. That sounds like a good idea to me, because we are always hearing about how we don't have enough. (my biggest question is where he's going to find the people) The whole second paragraph is about how he wants to create a new oversight board with subpoena power to check up on the intel agencies, to control them, and to protect civil liberties better.

How is this anything but an improvement over what we have now? Even if the crazy interpretation were totally correct, at least he would be working to change the law as opposed to ignoring the law with some broad assertion of executive power. So... either way a massive improvement over the Bush administration. Three cheers for Obama on this one.

well since many of the problems are in the muslum world, perhaps he will hire muslums from within his family to fill them.

You need to upgrade to Wasilla Spellchecker 2.0

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
The same could have been said about McCain had he won.

I couldn't agree more, which is why I didn't vote for him either.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jonks
On Obama's website there was a Blueprint for Change PDF. I think it was a 40-something page document with details of his plans for what change meant. I posted it at least twice during the campaign season. You can't go around saying "what does he mean by change" and then ignore his answer that he repeatedly referred people to as the best resource for detailed descriptions of his change proposals. It's not sexy, you actually have to read it, but the answers are there.

One more time:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf...BlueprintForChange.pdf

I read that piece of garbage. It's a list of talking points - hardly a blueprint for anything. McCain had an equivalent piece of garbage, which was long on fluff and short on substance.

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Tall Bill is oncer again putting his own slant on what he THINKS is being said instead of what is actually being said!!

Savor it while you can.

I hear TallBill just signed a very lucrative contract with Fox News.

Actually I find it more disturbing that people aren't looking at Obama with some skepticism. While I believe that Obama has a different set of intentions than Bush, and I don't see it the same as he, at least Bill is looking at what's happening.

It's kind of funny, but over the last 8 years, I've been seen as largely liberal by some. That will probably change and I'll be one of "those" conservatives, because I'll be just as suspicious of people in power, and hold the new party in power to the same standards. No, I DO NOT trust politicians with my liberty. It is up to them to prove they are worthy of the position while in office, although I'll give them the benefit of the doubt before becoming overly critical.

What it comes down to me is that people religiously followed Bush and his policies, and heaven help you if you questioned or disagreed. I expect the same with Obams, and frankly I'm seeing it already.

There is only one word to describe those who trust their leaders without making damned sure that trust is well placed. That word is "fool"

Yeah some crap happens to me. When I opposed Bush, I was asked by my republican friends when did I become a liberal? When I opposed the Patriot Act, I was told, " We are at war man!!, we gotta make sacrifices to the constitution!!"
When I opposed Obama, I was told , "Welcome back to the republican party!"
Oh well...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
When I opposed the Patriot Act, I was told, " We are at war man!!, we gotta make sacrifices to the constitution!!"

that friend deserves an award, Patriot of the Year

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I don't read it that way. In fact I get nothing from it at all. He's going to make changes, but what those changes are isn't clear. We ought to keep a close eye on legislation when it's proposed.

This has been my biggest problem with Obama from the start. He never actually says what his magical formula for change is - only that there will be big changes. I can't support it if I don't know what it is.

The same could have been said about McCain had he won.

On Obama's website there was a Blueprint for Change PDF. I think it was a 40-something page document with details of his plans for what change meant. I posted it at least twice during the campaign season. You can't go around saying "what does he mean by change" and then ignore his answer that he repeatedly referred people to as the best resource for detailed descriptions of his change proposals. It's not sexy, you actually have to read it, but the answers are there.

One more time:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf...BlueprintForChange.pdf

Yes, Barack's plans were more available than McCain's plans and they were most certainly more available than every other candidate. I think CycloWizard wants rigorous detail that no candidate can offer during a campaign because it is not only up to them to make those kinds of decisions.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Xavier434
The same could have been said about McCain had he won.

I couldn't agree more, which is why I didn't vote for him either.

Libertopia is that way -->>>>>

Prepare for a really long walk.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

You don't have to be cynical or overly skeptical all of the time. It really is ok to start off by having confidence and trust in your leaders while they are being given the chance to prove themselves.

Yes, but unless you are a fool it is impossible to agree with any politician on every single issue. You will agree on some, disagree on others, and be not sure on others. It's like some posters here are afraid to disagree with him on anything. That either makes them a liar or a fool.

 

[Rainsford]

I like the mention of increased oversight powers. TALKING about oversight is easy, but how that will be achieved is often left out. Obama's plan, at the very least, seems to involve giving actual powers to the civil liberties watchdog organization, which means they might be able to do more than ineffectual whining if something bad is going on. Republicans and Democrats have been terrible when it comes to civil liberties, I'm impressed that Obama actually seems to want to do something about that record.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I like the mention of increased oversight powers. TALKING about oversight is easy, but how that will be achieved is often left out. Obama's plan, at the very least, seems to involve giving actual powers to the civil liberties watchdog organization, which means they might be able to do more than ineffectual whining if something bad is going on. Republicans and Democrats have been terrible when it comes to civil liberties, I'm impressed that Obama actually seems to want to do something about that record.

Hey Rainsford, I'd be interested to see what you might have to say on the portion of the text I quoted here:

Improve Information Sharing and Analysis: Barack Obama will improve our intelligence system by creating a senior position to coordinate domestic intelligence gathering

Wth does that mean!? Wouldn't that be the FBI's responsibility? Is he planning to replace the FBI's own Deputy Director for Intelligence? Exactly which member of the Intelligence community (IC) will this new "senior position" be a part of? And what exactly is he referring to by "domestic intelligence gathering"?

Beyond that, the oversight improvements sound great; but, given the verbiage of the quoted portion above, I'm a bit hesitant... what do you think he means?