The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[cartman]

Buried in the leaked documents, is a yearly cost for the PRISM system: $20 million.

KEEP CALM and Carry On: PRISM itself is not a big deal • The Register

[molson]

Maybe my views are a little slanted from hanging out at reddit too much but I have to take back anything I've ever said about this not as being a big deal under Obama as it was under Bush. People are completely losing their mind, right down the Nazi regime comparisons. Obama doesn't see to be as much a personal target as Bush was, but people are not happy and they're preparing for the inevitable totalitarian state this will inevitability lead to. Anything that goes wrong in this country in the next 3 years will be viewed by a disturbingly large number of people as just part of a conspiracy to justify additional domestic surveillance. Who knows what false flag terrorist attack Obama is planning as we speak.

I see it kind of like the Occupy Wall Street thing, some valid concerns that got very quickly got overwhelmed by the loudest, craziest voices. And to these voices, pretty much everything the government does is evil and wrong.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe my views are a little slanted from hanging out at reddit too much but I have to take back anything I've ever said about this not as being a big deal under Obama as it was under Bush. People are completely losing their mind, right down the Nazi regime comparisons. Obama doesn't see to be as much a personal target as Bush was, but people are not happy and they're preparing for the inevitable totalitarian state this will inevitability lead to. Anything that goes wrong in this country in the next 3 years will be viewed by a disturbingly large number of people as just part of a conspiracy to justify additional domestic surveillance. Who knows what false flag terrorist attack Obama is planning as we speak.

I see it kind of like the Occupy Wall Street thing, some valid concerns that got very quickly got overwhelmed by the loudest, craziest voices. And to these voices, pretty much everything the government does is evil and wrong.

There is also a pretty big gap between what people think happened and what actually happened. It is amazing how many people think that this latest revelation was that the government is listening to and recording every call in the US.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by cartman

It is amazing how many people think that this latest revelation was that the government is listening to and recording every call in the US.

I wonder just how many people it would take to actually listen to everyone's phone calls, read everyone's text messages and to monitor their internet activity.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I wonder just how many people it would take to actually listen to everyone's phone calls, read everyone's text messages and to monitor their internet activity.

Rough guess, but probably about 80% of the number of people making phone calls, sending text messages and using the internet.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

It is amazing how many people think that this latest revelation was that the government is listening to and recording every call in the US.

I'm not sure if the people on my facebook feed are joking or not when they keep talking about the government doing this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure if the people on my facebook feed are joking or not when they keep talking about the government doing this.

That's probably more serious than kidding.

The notion that the calls have been "listened to" en masse has been around for quite a few years now IIRC. Where people tend to lose the finer point of the claim is that "listened to" in conventional terms is pretty much impossible. Being scanned electronically for keywords on the other hand ...

[molson]

There's a reason Tony Soprano would never use email.

[rowech]

Sam Seaborn(1999) -- It's not just about abortion, it's about the next 20 years. In the '20s and '30s it was the role of government. '50s and '60s it was civil rights. The next two decades are going to be privacy. I'm talking about the Internet. I'm talking about cell phones. I'm talking about health records and who's gay and who's not. And moreover, in a country born on the will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this?

[molson]

Originally Posted by rowech

Sam Seaborn(1999) -- It's not just about abortion, it's about the next 20 years. In the '20s and '30s it was the role of government. '50s and '60s it was civil rights. The next two decades are going to be privacy. I'm talking about the Internet. I'm talking about cell phones. I'm talking about health records and who's gay and who's not. And moreover, in a country born on the will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this?

I'm interested to see if the push for privacy withstands domestic security issues as well. Like, with mental health records and gun control. We are super-connected and in touch with gun violence but I think we see terrorism as this thing that's done with and will never happen again. That could change.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I wonder just how many people it would take to actually listen to everyone's phone calls, read everyone's text messages and to monitor their internet activity.

Thats the main thing to consider with any 'monitoring' - the amount of data which each individual generates and sends each day is practically impossible to fully monitor.

(if you doubt this consider I transmit several Gb of data individually myself - if the NSA want to try and decrypt and analyse it then they're more than welcome to .... heck if they want to help write the game then they should just drop me an email )

[cartman]

That's what my ex-NSA uncle mentioned. They have always had a problem with the volume of data coming in. They never had the manpower to really analyze it properly, in a manner they would like. That is why there has been an explosion of consultants brought in to help separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. And Snowden was apparently one of these consultants brought in to help.

[Galaxy]

Slightly different topic, but Turkey will be an interesting situation to watch.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Where people tend to lose the finer point of the claim is that "listened to" in conventional terms is pretty much impossible. Being scanned electronically for keywords on the other hand ...

Thats exactly right. There is no need to have a human "listen" to every call just as no human is needed to physically press play to record a call.

I have no idea whether any of that is going and I've seen no legitimate reports or evidence suggesting this (en masse anyway) but its certainly not a far-fetched concept. We have text to speech, speech to text, and all kinds of intelligent (and dare I say it doesnt require very much intelligence) applications to quickly parse & glean data. The idea that it would take a lot of effort to parse through phone calls because somebody needs to sit down & listen to them is utterly archaic though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

The idea that it would take a lot of effort to parse through phone calls because somebody needs to sit down & listen to them is utterly archaic though.

The last estimate I saw (probably a few years back now) was that literally doing every electronic communication in the U.S. would have strained existing resources & capabilities.

Right or wrong, that's the last thing I remember seeing try to analyze it.

[SirFozzie]

United States have confirmed that the Syrian government has used sarin nerve gas on multiple occasions and are authorizing limited military support to the rebel groups.

Cue the Kos-Kiddies screaming "Wag the Dog" and "Impeach Obama".

[molson]

I admire the administration for acknowledging the nerve gas attacks (I assumed they'd look the other way to avoid the "red line" stuff), and I admire liberals who reacts to the timing of this the same way they would if Bush was in power. At least they're consistent. But sometimes timing just sucks. You can't decide to blow off your word and act differently in important situations just because of the way it might be perceived with the timing. That takes some courage.

[SirFozzie]

I agree, and not to sound too much like Jon The Hun Jr, I'm not sure there's any good way to deal with it.

Both sides are scum and assisting either of them is likely inimical to American interests,but leaving the Syrian public to deal with both of them seems heartless and a failure as well

[lungs]

If Assad is using chemical weapons on the Al-Nusra Front, more power to him.

I hate to say it, but I think we're putting our weight behind the losing side here. Assad's recent success seems to come on the heels ofstories of rebel atrocities (mainly related to Islamists). I don't know the makeup of the rebels but it makes me hard to think there are any good guys in this fight. Which begs the question... was Assad all that bad in the first place?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Bad guys killing bad guys ... yeeeaah. Let's jump right in there.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Bad guys killing bad guys ... yeeeaah. Let's jump right in there.

Supply nukes to both sides?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

Supply nukes to both sides?

It's an idea ... but I don't much trust their aim

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's an idea ... but I don't much trust their aim

I was going to come up with some hare brained thing about locking the aim but in the end I just figured you'd say we may as well do it ourselves.

[finketr]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's an idea ... but I don't much trust their aim

Sure, you do. You know they'll aim to the southwest.

[molson]

Originally Posted by finketr

Sure, you do. You know they'll aim to the southwest.

Some of your stereotypes might apply to John but I'm pretty sure from stuff he's said that this one doesn't. I think he likes the way Israel stands up for itself except he probably thinks they're too restrained.

[finketr]

Originally Posted by molson

Some of your stereotypes might apply to John but I'm pretty sure from stuff he's said that this one doesn't. I think he likes the way Israel stands up for itself except he probably thinks they're too restrained.

referring to if we give nukes to both sides you don't think they'd aim/fire them at Israel?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Some of your stereotypes might apply to John but I'm pretty sure from stuff he's said that this one doesn't. I think he likes the way Israel stands up for itself except he probably thinks they're too restrained.

There's pretty much no nation on Earth I respect more than Israel.

But I think that (knowing who both sides would target) was kinda what he meant there anyway; i.e. that would actually kill the appeal for me.

[Edward64]

Good to see some momentum and resignation/acceptance.

Arizona Medicaid Expansion Advances After Jan Brewer Forces Lawmakers' Hands

Arizona will expand Medicaid to cover nearly 300,000 poor residents next year after a bipartisan coalition passed a measure backed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) through the state legislature on Thursday.

Brewer, a conservative and avowed foe of President Barack Obama's health care reform law, announced her support for the Medicaid expansion in January, but faced stiff resistance from fellow Republicans in Arizona's House and Senate. During a marathon session that began Wednesday afternoon and stretched into the wee hours of Thursday morning before culminating in a final vote late Thursday afternoon, a handful of Republicans joined Democrats in the House and Senate to pass the Medicaid expansion.

Although Obama's health care law continues to divide elected officials and the public along starkly partisan lines, Brewer is one of nine Republican governors who have bucked their party and embraced the Medicaid expansion.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I agree, and not to sound too much like Jon The Hun Jr, I'm not sure there's any good way to deal with it.

Both sides are scum and assisting either of them is likely inimical to American interests,but leaving the Syrian public to deal with both of them seems heartless and a failure as well

I think what makes this really complicated is that you have Iran and Hezbollah in the mix as well.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

United States have confirmed that the Syrian government has used sarin nerve gas on multiple occasions and are authorizing limited military support to the rebel groups.

Cue the Kos-Kiddies screaming "Wag the Dog" and "Impeach Obama".

Just make sure that we program some sort of deactivate device on all this hardware when our soldiers end up fighting against it in either Syria or some other part of the Middle East down the road.

[Edward64]

Looks as if are getting into a war by proxy. Tricky to have essentially 3 sides and each have to fight the other 2.

Decision to arm Syrian rebels was reached weeks ago, U.S. officials say - The Washington Post

The CIA is preparing to deliver arms to rebel groups in Syria through clandestine bases in Turkey and Jordan that were expanded over the past year in an effort to establish reliable supply routes into the country for nonlethal material, U.S. officials said.
:
:
Syria experts cautioned that the opposition to Assad remains a chaotic mix of secular and Islamist elements, highlighting the risk that some American-provided munitions may be diverted from their intended recipients.

But U.S. officials involved in the planning of the new policy of increased military support announced by the Obama administration Thursday said that the CIA has developed a clearer understanding of the composition of rebel forces, which have begun to coalesce in recent months. Within the past year, the CIA also created a new office at its headquarters in Langley to oversee its expanding operational role in Syria.

“We have relationships today in Syria that we didn’t have six months ago,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said during a White House briefing Friday. The United States is capable of delivering material “not only into the country,” Rhodes said, but “into the right hands.”

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The last estimate I saw (probably a few years back now) was that literally doing every electronic communication in the U.S. would have strained existing resources & capabilities.

Right or wrong, that's the last thing I remember seeing try to analyze it.

I wouldn't dispute that (nor am I in any position to qualify that kind of bulk analysis) but would point out that I don't think you would need to analyze every call anyway.

Just a small algorithm to find calls made/received by people that match a database of people they want to keep an eye (or an ear as it were) on.

I have no idea whether there is anything like this going on behind the scenes, and even if it were, thats not evidence of a concerted effort of "government" trying to spy on its people for the purpose of controlling them. But the unintended consequences of such a thing is a bit scary. Where do video calls fall in this? Why not video chat then? I dont need the session hosted on a US server to capture this....just need to be ordered by a government entity to capture & provide the capture.

Just saying that technology is moving faster than our politicians can even comprehend. Not that they can't get the basic idea, but they have no intuitive grasp of the very real potential repercussions of it (and the repercussions of poorly thought out legislation as well).

Instead, they would rather talk about a-la-carte which is a waste of time to pursue for consumers as it will either happen organically or not at all. Side track item but just saying...they really don't know what they don't know.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Looks as if are getting into a war by proxy. Tricky to have essentially 3 sides and each have to fight the other 2.

Decision to arm Syrian rebels was reached weeks ago, U.S. officials say - The Washington Post

This is such a horrible mistake to get involved with.

[SirFozzie]

well, looks like a moderate won the elections in Iran. I'm hopeful that this means a bit of thawing in the relationship, but I'm doubtful that the Ruling council will back down.

[Edward64]

Not sure I understand why he is so vocal about this and why try to get involved?

Egypt Cuts Ties With Syria: Mohamed Morsi Orders Closing Of Damascus Embassy In Cairo, Urges Hezbollah To Stay Out

CAIRO, June 15 (Reuters) - Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi said he had cut all diplomatic ties with Damascus on Saturday and called for a no-fly zone over Syria, pitching the most populous Arab state firmly against President Bashar al-Assad.

Addressing a rally called by Sunni Muslim clerics in Cairo, the Sunni Islamist head of state said: "We decided today to entirely break off relations with Syria and with the current Syrian regime."

He also warned Assad's allies in the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi'ite militia Hezbollah to pull back from fighting in Syria.

"We stand against Hezbollah in its aggression against the Syrian people," Mursi said. "Hezbollah must leave Syria - these are serious words. There is no space or place for Hezbollah in Syria."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not sure I understand why he is so vocal about this and why try to get involved?

Sunni vs Shi'i thing seems most likely.

[JPhillips]

From CNET:

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA’s formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler’s disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

They may not listen to everything, but they can and do listen to whatever they want.

[cartman]

Or maybe not.

CNET Says NSA "Admits" Listening to US Phone Calls - But That's Not What the Video Shows - Little Green Footballs

It appears this is another instance of someone equating metadata with the actual content of a call.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They may not listen to everything, but they can and do listen to whatever they want.

This is where we prefer to go with things in this country...the CYA culture of our masters. This isn't just the NSA, its businesses as well. We don't believe in the concept of high ranking officials/executives putting their personal approval on things under the guise that it would bottleneck the process. So instead of saying "Gee, perhaps we need smaller, leaner organizations & businesses" we simply ignore it (as a decision to do or not do would also be taking ownership of the outcome) until a problem comes up like this & blame the low ranking analyst.

Thats the real story I see in this whole thing.

[panerd]

Sounds more likely to me than the junk we are being fed from Obama and Congress.

Obama’s Syria Policy Looks a Lot Like Bush’s Iraq Policy



President Obama announced late last week that the US intelligence community had just determined that the Syrian government had used poison gas on a small scale, killing some 100 people in a civil conflict that has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. Because of this use of gas, the president claimed, Syria had crossed his “red line” and the US must begin to arm the rebels fighting to overthrow the Syrian government.

Setting aside the question of why 100 killed by gas is somehow more important than 99,900 killed by other means, the fact is his above explanation is full of holes. The Washington Post reported this week that the decision to overtly arm the Syrian rebels was made “weeks ago” – in other words, it was made at a time when the intelligence community did not believe “with high confidence” that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons.

Further, this plan to transfer weapons to the Syrian rebels had become policy much earlier than that, as the Washington Post reported that the CIA had expanded over the past year its secret bases in Jordan to prepare for the transfer of weapons to the rebels in Syria.

The process was identical to the massive deception campaign that led us into the Iraq war. Remember the famous quote from the leaked “Downing Street Memo,” where representatives of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration discussed Washington’s push for war on Iraq?

Here the head of British intelligence was reporting back to his government after a trip to Washington in the summer of 2002:

“Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

That is exactly what the Obama Administration is doing with Syria: fixing the intelligence and facts around the already determined policy. And Congress just goes along, just as they did the last time.

We found out shortly after the Iraq war started that the facts and intelligence being fixed around the policy were nothing but lies put forth by the neo-con warmongers and the paid informants, like the infamous and admitted liar known as “Curveball.” But we seem to have learned nothing from being fooled before.

So Obama now plans to send even more weapons to the Syrian rebels even though his administration is aware that the main rebel factions have pledged their loyalty to al-Qaeda. Does anyone else see the irony? After 12 years of the “war on terror” and the struggle against al-Qaeda, the US decided to provide weapons to the allies of al-Qaeda. Does anyone really think this is a good idea?

The Obama administration promises us that this is to be a very limited operation, providing small arms only, with no plans for a no-fly zone or American boots on the ground. That sounds an awful lot like how Vietnam started. Just a few advisors. When these few small arms do not achieve the pre-determined US policy of regime change in Syria what is the administration going to do? Admit failure and pull the troops out, or escalate? History suggests the answer and it now appears to be repeating itself once again.

The president has opened a can of worms that will destroy his presidency and possibly destroy this country. Another multi-billion dollar war has begun.
.

Ron Paul

[JonInMiddleGA]

That Ron Paul, always good for a laugh.

Even on the odd occasion when he's right ('cause this IS a horrible idea) he manages to be so absurd that he's reduced to comic relief.

"destroy his presidency"? {giggle} Has this damnable fool failed to notice that nothing Saint Barry does moves the needle on his approval?

[JPhillips]

I think the plan is to supply the rebels to the extent that they will keep fighting. I don't think the U.S. gains from either side, but there are a lot of our enemies killing each other rather than us.

I still don't like it, but it's very Kissinger/realpolitik.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That Ron Paul, always good for a laugh.

Even on the odd occasion when he's right ('cause this IS a horrible idea) he manages to be so absurd that he's reduced to comic relief.

"destroy his presidency"? {giggle} Has this damnable fool failed to notice that nothing Saint Barry does moves the needle on his approval?

JiMGa's response to any Ron Paul post I make, always good for a laugh.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think the plan is to supply the rebels to the extent that they will keep fighting. I don't think the U.S. gains from either side, but there are a lot of our enemies killing each other rather than us.

I still don't like it, but it's very Kissinger/realpolitik.

At least it isn't costing the United States any money or causing any tension with major world powers and definitely has no chance of escalating any more to involving US soldiers and US lives. I guess the 50% praise/50% scorn from you though is about as rough as you will get on Obama so obviously you agree this is a terrible idea.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

JiMGa's response to any Ron Paul post I make, always good for a laugh.

Fine ... but show me even the slightest shred of evidence to the moronic statement he makes at the end. I mean, hell, if anybody would love to believe there was even the tiniest glint of hope to be found for that assertion, you'd figure it'd be me.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Fine ... but show me even the slightest shred of evidence to the moronic statement he makes at the end. I mean, hell, if anybody would love to believe there was even the tiniest glint of hope to be found for that assertion, you'd figure it'd be me.

Yeah I felt like the Obama line was not a great conclusion and out of place but he knows the audience he is playing to. I agree 100% though with Ron Paul that another multi-billion dollar war has begun.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

At least it isn't costing the United States any money or causing any tension with major world powers and definitely has no chance of escalating any more to involving US soldiers and US lives. I guess the 50% praise/50% scorn from you though is about as rough as you will get on Obama so obviously you agree this is a terrible idea.

Ah yes, the I've never criticized Obama or Democrats line.

Keep fucking that chicken.

[molson]

There HAVE been smaller scale participation in international conflicts before. Not everything has turned into Vietnam. There's no analysis or reason in anything Ron Paul says. His stated opinions on any issue are automatically generated and extreme. He's just a robot spouting the same stuff no matter the situation. Broken clocks are right once in a while I guess, but Ron Paul is fruit loop and his confidence that this will "destroy our country" should tip people off of that fact.

Who knows what the real motives are and what the outcome will be, but is the claimed purpose here so preposterous that it just must necessarily be a lie - that using chemical weapons is kind of a big deal and that the government wants heads of state to know that if you use them, your chances of winning your conflict go down because international intervention becomes more possible. Everybody has their own "red line." After conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, it makes sense that more people's red lines are a lot further along the spectrum than what they were pre-wars. I mean geez, pre-war, just the fact that Iraq had these weapons was enough for the majority of Americans to want to full-scale invade them. There has to be some point where limited intervention is appropriate. Ron Paul wouldn't have intervened in WWII, but there has to be some closer point where a more reasonable view might justify limited intervention. Maybe Obama's judgment won't turn out to be the best, but I'm at least open to the idea he isn't pumping his fist over this, excited about having the opportunity to do war stuff (to help out his "Haliburton buddies" or whatever), and making up this whole lie to justify it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

There HAVE been smaller scale participation in international conflicts before. Not everything has turned into Vietnam. There's no analysis or reason in anything Ron Paul says. His stated opinions on any issue are automatically generated and extreme. He's just a robot spouting the same stuff no matter the situation. Broken clocks are right once in a while I guess, but Ron Paul is fruit loop and his confidence that this will "destroy our country" should tip people off of that fact.

Who knows what the real motives are and what the outcome will be, but is the claimed purpose here so preposterous that it just must necessarily be a lie - that using chemical weapons is kind of a big deal and that the government wants heads of state to know that if you use them, your chances of winning your conflict go down because international intervention becomes more possible. Everybody has their own "red line." After conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, it makes sense that more people's red lines are a lot further along the spectrum than what they were pre-wars. I mean geez, pre-war, just the fact that Iraq had these weapons was enough for the majority of Americans to want to full-scale invade them. There has to be some point where limited intervention is appropriate. Ron Paul wouldn't have intervened in WWII, but there has to be some closer point where a more reasonable view might justify limited intervention. Maybe Obama's judgment won't turn out to be the best, but I'm at least open to the idea he isn't pumping his fist over this, excited about having the opportunity to do war stuff (to help out his "Haliburton buddies" or whatever), and making up this whole lie to justify it.

Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda

I guess I have a short memory... who was the war on terror's #1 enemy organization?

No analysis or reason? Just quotes from new organizations about how the run up to this war has been in making long before the "weapons of mass destruction" were used. I know... just facts.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Ah yes, the I've never criticized Obama or Democrats line.

Keep fucking that chicken.

Yes. Usually scathing...

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think the plan is to supply the rebels to the extent that they will keep fighting. I don't think the U.S. gains from either side, but there are a lot of our enemies killing each other rather than us.

I still don't like it, but it's very Kissinger/realpolitik.

1) Here is the reason Obama is smarter than everyone else (different than Bush who was an idiot)
2) I guess I don't like it
3) Let me compare him to somebody who is an iconic figure in foreign policy. (This Syria thing will probably be remember like Nixon's handling of China)

Ouch, almost has me thinking you will vote GOP next election.