“It’s more fun talking politics with people who agree with you”

[Sir Stewart]

A claim most annoyingly manifested in this commonly seen bumpersticker from the Bush years: "That's OK, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway."

EDIT: Bah, gogo beat me to the punch with an actual example (probably). Curses!

[Good Old Neon]

It's really easy to say "what freedoms are people losing under Obama", but the fact of the matter is there was much hysterics in Bush's term over the loss of our personal freedoms, but can anyone point to me specifically where they personally lost freedom at the hands of Bush?

 

You can make an argument about our country's uses of torture and wire tapping as infringements on freedom, but if you're going to use the "What have you personally lost argument" against them it falls pretty flat.

 

For most people, they haven’t, but you might receive a different answer from, say, Jose Padilla - a US citizen.

 

Glenn Greenwald wrote about the case extensively:

 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006

The Bush administration's torture of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla

(updated below)

 

The Bush administration's May, 2002 lawless detention of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla -- on U.S. soil -- was, as I recounted in my book, the first incident which really prompted me to begin concluding that things were going terribly awry in our country. The administration declared Padilla an "enemy combatant," put him in a military prison, and refused to charge him with any crime or even allow him access to a lawyer or anyone else. He stayed in a black hole, kept by his own government, for the next three-a-half-years with no charges of any kind ever asserted against him and with the administration insisting on the right to detain him (and any other American citizen) indefinitely -- all based solely on the secret, unchallengeable say-so of the President that he was an "enemy combatant."

 

To this day, I have trouble believing that we have a Government that claims this power against American citizens and has exercised that power and aggressively defended it -- and even more trouble believing that there are so many blindly loyal followers of that government who defend that conduct. The outrage that it provokes when thinking about it has not diminished even a small amount and does not diminish no matter how many times one reads, writes or speaks about it. It is as profound a betrayal of the most core American political principles as one can fathom.

 

The Bush administration finally charged Padilla with a crime (after 3 1/2 years of detention) only because the U.S. Supreme Court was set to rule on the legality of their treatment of Padilla, and indicting Padilla enabled the administration to argue that his case was now "moot." The Government's indictment made no mention of the flamboyant allegation they originally trumpeted to justify his lawless incarceration -- that he was a "Dirty Bomber" attempting to detonate a radiological bomb in an American city (because the "evidence" for that accusation was itself procured by torture and was therefore unreliable and unusable). Instead, the indictment contained only the vaguest and most generic terrorism allegations. Since then, the federal judge presiding over Padilla's case (in the Southern District of Florida) has repeatedly expressed skepticism over the Government's case against him and has, on several occasions, admonished them to provide more specific information setting forth exactly what Padilla is alleged to have done.

 

Link - http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/bush-administrations-torture-of-us.html

 

Unfortunately, Obama’s administration has done very little to ensure these sorts of things do not occur, and in many ways, is following the exact same course as Bush – and that’s where he loses me.

[u2roolz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCfMgqnq2uo

[bobbob1313]

 

Unfortunately, Obama’s administration has done very little to ensure these sorts of things do not occur, and in many ways, is following the exact same course as Bush – and that’s where he loses me.

 

I meant to make this point.

 

I just don't see the huge different between either of the two.

 

And also, my original point was someone was asking what specific rights have been infringed upon by Obama for those specific people. The same can be asked of the innumerable people who said that about Bush. For 99.9% of our population, nothing has really changed with either as far as civil liberties are concerned.

[Moss]

It seems much easier to get medical marijuana now than when Bush was in office.

[bjorn_skurj]

This is a minor example, in some ways, but it's also an interesting glimpse into the way some administrations think:

 

http://en.wikipedia....miting_the_FOIA

 

Reagan limited the public's access to certain records under FOIA. When Clinton took office, he repealed many of those limitations on access.

 

After 9/11, Bush issued an executive order restricting access to the records of former presidents; Obama rescinded that order on his first day in office.

 

So in terms of the freedom of the public, and the media, to gain access to records which might let them see for themselves how their government operates (not to mention what records the government maintains on individuals), I'm giving the edge to Clinton and Obama on this one.

 

You might not think it's something that personally affects most of us, but I know that's one freedom I'd like to have available to me, just in case I ever feel the need to use it.

History is important. It can't be a free society without open inquiry.

[bobbob1313]

This is a minor example, in some ways, but it's also an interesting glimpse into the way some administrations think:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)#President_Reagan.27s_Executive_Order_limiting_the_FOIA

 

Reagan limited the public's access to certain records under FOIA. When Clinton took office, he repealed many of those limitations on access.

 

After 9/11, Bush issued an executive order restricting access to the records of former presidents; Obama rescinded that order on his first day in office.

 

So in terms of the freedom of the public, and the media, to gain access to records which might let them see for themselves how their government operates (not to mention what records the government maintains on individuals), I'm giving the edge to Clinton and Obama on this one.

 

You might not think it's something that personally affects most of us, but I know that's one freedom I'd like to have available to me, just in case I ever feel the need to use it.

 

Well, like I said, I was responding more to what I saw as the personal nature of the initial post.

[Good Old Neon]

I meant to make this point.

 

I just don't see the huge different between either of the two.

 

And also, my original point was someone was asking what specific rights have been infringed upon by Obama for those specific people. The same can be asked of the innumerable people who said that about Bush. For 99.9% of our population, nothing has really changed with either as far as civil liberties are concerned.

 

I think some of the overreaction during Bush’s tenure was related to the introduction of the Patriot Act, a piece of legislation most members of congress didn’t have time to even read, of if they did, couldn’t quite understand. So in that context, I can understand why some people overreacted. I would also be willing to wager a paycheck that Palin supporters now concerned about our loss of freedoms didn’t lose any sleep while Bush was in office.

 

Their newfound concern comes by way of right wing talking points, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the million other rightwing pundits who claim our freedoms are at stake – of course, they’re the same people who were silent on the issue of the suspension of habeas corpus, etc while Bush was in office – or if not silent, found it perfectly acceptable.

[bobbob1313]

I think some of the overreaction during Bush’s tenure was related to the introduction of the Patriot Act, a piece of legislation most members of congress didn’t have time to even read, of if they did, couldn’t quite understand. So in that context, I can understand why some people overreacted. I would also be willing to wager a paycheck that Palin supporters now concerned about our loss of freedoms didn’t lose any sleep while Bush was in office.

 

I have no doubts about this either.

 

But I also have very little doubt that if Obama was introducing some of the legislation that was introduced during Bush, a good majority of Democrats wouldn't blink. It's the nature of the beast that is partisan politics. Everyone's going to give their guy the benefit of the doubt that he'll do the right thing and everyone knows the other guy is evil and will abuse his power.

[Guest Speed Racer]

For 99.9% of our population, nothing has really changed with either as far as civil liberties are concerned.

 

I think it's incredibly important to a lot of people that those 0.1% of people still retain their civil liberties. What you're saying is like saying the health care system isn't broken because most people have insurance.

[IRememberDBoon]

I meant to make this point.

 

I just don't see the huge different between either of the two.

 

And also, my original point was someone was asking what specific rights have been infringed upon by Obama for those specific people. The same can be asked of the innumerable people who said that about Bush. For 99.9% of our population, nothing has really changed with either as far as civil liberties are concerned.

 

If you dont see a difference youre not paying attention. Especially in Justice Department happenings.

 

As far as 1/10th of one percent having civil liberties changes............is that really your argument??!!

[Good Old Neon]

I have no doubts about this either.

 

But I also have very little doubt that if Obama was introducing some of the legislation that was introduced during Bush, a good majority of Democrats wouldn't blink. It's the nature of the beast that is partisan politics. Everyone's going to give their guy the benefit of the doubt that he'll do the right thing and everyone knows the other guy is evil and will abuse his power.

 

True, but I think Bush set a negative tone early in his presidency. The tone being, essentially, “We’ll do whatever we goddamn well please, and we don’t give a fuckall about how you feel about it.” - which didn’t exactly engender feelings of trust and truthfulness. No doubt, some of that attitude was the result of what occurred on 9/11, but Bush, and to a greater extent, Cheney, have exhibited that sort of attitude for years.

 

You’ve said it before, and I agree with you, more now than in the past, of the two, Cheney was (and is) responsible for some of his administrations most reprehensible actions. And he has been rubbing lots of folks the wrong way for a long time – so, Bush entered office with very little good will.

 

Obama didn’t bring that sort of baggage to the White House, so, at first at least, people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt – with the exception of the right. If you go back and check the record, conservatives (and I hate using the word because most of them are not, or if they were, are no longer) were blaming Obama for the state of the economy while Bush was still in office. They’ve been playing the fear and smear card, successfully, for quite some time. The idea that Obama is trying to take away our freedoms, outside of following the Bush line, is based on little more than fabricated fear tactics – which is why, when asked, the people claiming we are losing our rights cannot answer the question – which ones?

 

Ok, after reading what I just wrote, I'm not quite sure I even addressed your point - sorry.

[bobbob1313]

I think it's incredibly important to a lot of people that those 0.1% of people still retain their civil liberties. What you're saying is like saying the health care system isn't broken because most people have insurance.

 

Once again, I keep going back to the fact that my original point was only in response to WMF asking the Palin people what specific personal rights have been infringed upon by Obama. Using that argument makes the people grumbling about Bush sound awfully hollow.

 

I'm not saying it's ok that the 0.1% have their liberties taken away. At all.

 

Just that in this discussion, when a lot of people (On this board and everywhere) were hysterical about Bush, you can't then turn around and ask what has affected these people when people who complained about Bush couldn't do the same.

 

I'm sorry if my posts don't make much sense right now, or if they are circular. I'm supposed to be sending out evites for my wedding and my fiance is giving me the evil eye because I'm on a message board instead

[Guest Speed Racer]

Just that in this discussion, when a lot of people (On this board and everywhere) were hysterical about Bush, you can't then turn around and ask what has affected these people when people who complained about Bush couldn't do the same.

 

No, I agree. But there's still a very different tone to, "He might make a constitutional amendment outlawing gay and lesbian marriage!!!" versus, "He might make me pay for $0.04 of my neighbor's appendectomy and my neighbor might have to foot $0.01 of my colonoscopy bill!!!"

[Calexico]

my colonoscopy

 

Thanks for sharing your internal problems with us.

[IRememberDBoon]

No, I agree. But there's still a very different tone to, "He might make a constitutional amendment outlawing gay and lesbian marriage!!!" versus, "He might make me pay for $0.04 of my neighbor's appendectomy and my neighbor might have to foot $0.01 of my colonoscopy bill!!!"

 

 

SOCIALIST!!!

[ikol]

No, I agree. But there's still a very different tone to, "He might make a constitutional amendment outlawing gay and lesbian marriage!!!" versus, "He might make me pay for $0.04 of my neighbor's appendectomy and my neighbor might have to foot $0.01 of my colonoscopy bill!!!"

 

This bill will only cost $0.05 apiece? Maybe I should reconsider my position!

[augurus]

sure they do. the thread title is "it's more fun talking politics with people who agree with you," not "I will only discuss politics with people who agree with me."

Yet her/their actions point to "I will only discuss politics with people who agree with me."

[Atticus]

Statements such as the subject title do not offer any opening for audiences who would like to discuss the future of this country.

 

this was your quote. if you'd like now to talk about what some group of people's actions "point to" that's fine, but don't pretend that discussion about the future of the country is entirely precluded just because someone has "more fun" talking politics with others who agree with one.

[Guest Jules]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5748813.shtml

 

This is a joke, right?

[Good Old Neon]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5748813.shtml

 

This is a joke, right?

 

Unfortunately, wars consume lots and lots and lots of capital, which is one reason why we shouldn't enter into them haphazardly - or if we do, we should probably just stick to one at a time - and we really, really shouldn't devote most of our military to waging a manufactured one, vs devoting our resources to the one that can maybe begin to be justified - while also cutting taxes, primarily for rich folk.

 

That shit will come back to bite you right on the ass, it will. Bush's legacy is the gift that just keeps on a'giv'n.

[Guest Jules]

So, these "rich folk" should just pay for everything? Base income tax increases, extra "war" tax, 5+% for the insurance bullshit. What else?

[Good Old Neon]

So, these "rich folk" should just pay for everything? Base income tax increases, extra "war" tax, 5+% for the insurance bullshit. What else?

 

Well, the middle to lower income folk are paying with their sons and daughters lives.

[Guest Jules]

Well, the lower income folk are paying with their sons and daughters.

oy vey

[Good Old Neon]

oy vey

 

Are they not? I'm not necessarily in favor of a tax, and if we must, it should be spread equitably, but the fact remains, lots of people are paying a much higher price than a few extra dollars.

 

And hey, you voted for Bush – so in that sense, you and the millions of other voters who put him, and then kept him in office share some responsibility for the mess we’re in.