Pew: Democrats Suddenly Cool With NSA Data-Diving Now That a Democrat Is President

PewPew

When the pollsters at Pew asked Democrats in January 2006 how they felt about the NSA's surveillance programs, 37 percent labeled the programs "acceptable," while 61 percent said they were unacceptable. Today, those numbers are exactly the opposite: 64 percent of Democrats now think the NSA's surveillance programs are acceptable, while only 34 percent say they're not. 

Republicans polled much the same way (in reverse, obviously). Back in 2006, 75 percent of Republicans supported the NSA "scrutiniz[ing] phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists." Today, only 52 percent of Republicans say such actions are acceptable. 

Could it be that sharing a party ID with whoever's in the White House is a better indicator of one's opinion on major civil liberties issues, than, say principle? I AM REALLY STARTING TO THINK SO. 

Whole damn poll--including the frightening statistic that only 12 percent of 18-29 year-olds are following the NSA story--right here

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Outlaw||

    There's a slight problem here. In 2006 few knew the extent of the programs. Now we do.

  • Hugh Akston||

    They axed slightly different questions in aughtsix versus aughtthirteen.

  • Outlaw||

    Fuckin' Kaiser stole the number 0 again, didn't he?

  • fish||

    Fuckin' Kaiser stole the number 0 again, didn't he?

    Yep....back in nineteen-dickety-two!

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    I told them they aught not do that.

  • Drake||

    Exactly - maybe I was naive, but in 2006 I assumed that the NSA wasn't aimed at American citizens.

    In 2013, I know better.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    You know what that makes you? A dirty, filthy whore. That's what.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The greater the distance from nine-eleven we get, the less enamored Americans in general should be with this kind of thing. And really, the party of the idiot in the White House may change, but the NSA spooks and their armed bureaucratic counterparts in Justice who actually watch and act against us will always pretty much be the same.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It's like nobody remembers J Edgar

  • AlmightyJB||

    Watched that movie last week. Wish I hadn't.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I was referring to the person. I haven't seen the film, thanks for the warning.

  • Helen||

    Jasmine. true that Alexander`s bl0g is unbelievable, I just received Bugatti Veyron after I been earnin $4638 thiss month and-also, ten-grand last-month. it's by-far the easiest-job Ive ever done. I started this 6 months ago and right away made at least $75 per-hour. I follow this website,,mojo55.COM

  • PapayaSF||

    I think distance from 9/11 is part of it. Having more people on Facebook etc. is part of it. Maybe even the sense that the surveillance might be misused (e.g. the IRS) or doesn't work (e.g. the Tsarnaev brothers) is a factor, too.

  • XM||

    I still support the government "scrutiniz[ing] phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists." Suspected terrorists, not random Verizon customers.

    I might even be down with the government mining metadata provided that they don't actually listen in on the conversation, but there has to some compelling reason for it.

    If the Russian government says their foreign national living here illegally is being radicalized, we should just deport the guy. Or at least stop giving him welfare.

  • Invisible Finger||

    What part of 300 million rubber stamps don't you understand?

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    If you really want to see this phenomenon in action, just check out some of the comments at HuffPoo. But if you'd rather not, I've summarized the sentiment for you (you're welcome):

    Snowden is a "Paulite"
    Greenwald is "angry" and gets upset too easily (not kidding!)
    Greenwald is pissed at America, because his husband can't join him legally in US.

    On that last one, just marvel at a supposedly liberal group of commenters ad-homineming Greenwald with thinly-veiled homophobia! Astonishing the degree to which team players will go to reinforce their side's position.

    But for a more representative take on what regular folks feel, go over to Yahoo News and check out some of the comments there. NOT ONE comment I observed was for this snooping, and all of them expressed outrage. Now there's a representative sample!

    And that makes me just a little bit optimistic that public opinion is turning against these spooks.

  • ||

    One of the mot hilarious features of TEAM BLUE is how fast they resort to homophobia and misogyny when insulting the other TEAM or a ranks-breaker on their own side. And they are completely self-unaware about it too.

  • Almanian!||

    they are completely self-unaware about it too

    That's because they're a bunch of bitch homos.

  • MJGreen||

    Hey, don't short change their racism. Damn Uncle Toms like Clarence Thomas and that fancy Tea Party neurosurgeon!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Liberal racism is especially appalling.

  • fish||

    Liberal racism is especially appalling.

    Liberal racism is especially appalling revealing.

    FTFY

  • Gorilla tactics||

    they don't seem to rip on thomas sowell that much...maybe they know he's smarter than them so they ignore him completely?

  • ||

    Don't forget racism. I remember the way they talked about Rubio after his water video.

  • PapayaSF||

    And don't forget sexism. Liberal attacks on Palin and Clinton's sexual assault victims were pretty ugly.

  • Inigo M.||

    Yeah, not to mention how denigrating women in general is fine with them when it's done by Muslims, which seem to be a politically-protected religious group.

    In any case, I concluded some time ago that concepts like racism, sexism, and homophobia miraculously don't apply to them. Only their enemies can be guilty of such things. Having a (D) after your name automatically excuses you.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Greenwald is pissed at America, because his husband can't join him legally in US.

    I saw that in a comment on TPM and laughed my ass off. I doubt Glenn's itching to return back to the US.

  • Bill Door||

    I didn't even know Glenn is gay, nor do I care. I just know that he is an honest liberal, and that's one of those things you don't find often.

  • PapayaSF||

  • Floating Weightless||

    You're a dumb cunt for spreading this kind garbage.

  • PapayaSF||

    Glenn, is that you?

  • section9||

    Yep. I was wondering how long they were going to go after Greenwald because he was gay, AND use it against him.

    I wonder if Bootlicker Andrew Sullivan will pile on? He's such an Administration Bitch that he's sure to do a "tut tut" article about Greenwald and Snowden.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...the frightening statistic that only 12 percent of 18-29 year-olds are following the NSA story...

    That age group already puts all their data out there for the world and NSA to see.

  • John Thacker||

    Nah, that's not it. If you read the story, you'll see that that age group claims to put a slightly higher value on privacy and preventing the gov't from reading their emails and Facebook posts. They just don't actually follow news stories, that's all.

  • Paul.||

    They just don't actually follow news stories, that's all.

    Who has time when you're busy plastering all of your personal data on Facebook?

  • hotsy totsy||

    They're too busy with esoteric "studies" about how GMOs are causing birth defects and cancer. And how the Koch brothers control the media. And everything else.

  • ||

    They're thoroughly authoritarian people. The problem was that a Republican was holding the Office of the President at that time, and they distrusted him with such powers -- they have no qualms whatsoever about granting the same powers to a likeminded troglodyte, a member of their own team, however, and Barack's a saint anyway.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Gee, I wonder which authoritarian party actually muscled the Patriot Act and Telecomm Immunity Act through?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I don't recall any muscling. There wasn't any real dissent at all on the Hill.

  • Almanian!||

    I think just a handful - maybe just one Sen. Feingold?

    Yeah - otherwise, "HELLZ YEAH LET'S GET 'EM!!!! WOOOOOO!!!"

  • Juice||

    Yup, only one senator voted against the USA PATRIOT Act.

  • ||

    "From widespread panic felt among Americans from both the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, Congress rushed to pass legislation to strengthen security controls. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month. The next day on October 24, 2001, the Act passed the House 357 to 66, with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The following day, on October 25, 2001, the Act passed the Senate by 98 to 1."

    That's what the obliteration of Constitutional law looks like. Fuck the PATRIOT Act and its proponents.

  • John Thacker||

    For a short while after it passed, Joe Biden was going around bragging that the PATRIOT Act was "his bill" that he proposed after the OKC bombing, that would have passed if it weren't for those horrible conspiracy minded Republicans in the '90s.

  • John Thacker||

    The New Republic even had an article about this, though it's not on their site (along with most of their archives) anymore.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995

    "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill,"

  • fish||

    Just say it shreeky


    CHRISTFAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • John Thacker||

    Both of them?

    Surely you noticed the procedural tricks that Reid pulled to prevent amendments from being voted on during the Patriot Act reauthorization just last year? Tricks that, naturally, had support from his caucus?

    Hell, he even got Leahy to vote *against letting Leahy's own amendment get to the floor for a vote.*

  • John Thacker||

    (Wrapped up in a procedural vote that wasn't technically "about" Leahy's amendment, but which set the terms of the debate and specified how many and which amendments would be given a vote.)

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Most of the Senate Dems voted against the FISA Telecomm Immunity Act of 2008 (around 30 iirc) - the act that made this spying retroactive legal and Bush retroactively innocent.

    Senator Obama voted with the GOP.

    I cite this often here to the peanut gallery.

    Those of us that pay attention are not surprised by any of this.

  • ||

    Man, those goalposts sure can move, can't they?

  • John Thacker||

    Yes, that was when Bush was President. I don't think that anyone will dispute that the Dems were better on civil liberties when Bush was President than now-- that's what this article is about.

    Are you trying to make a civil liberties argument for President Romney?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah, they were better then for sure.

    The Team hypocrisy is glaring now more than ever.

  • Dweebston||

    It is self-aware, after all.

  • grey||

    Suckered by a fascimile of self awareness, you'll be the first to buy your own Muffit and say you own a dog.

  • califernian||

    TEAM BIG MILITARY vs. TEAM BIG FOODSTAMPS.

    It's all a lie.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    sadly there is no TEAM BIG CHOICE or TEAM BIG ABUNDANCE

  • JWatts||

    Most of the Senate Dems voted against the FISA Telecomm Immunity Act of 2008

    Yeah, and how did the vote to extend the act in 2012 go?

    http://www.senate.gov/legislat.....6#position

    Democrats:
    For: 30
    Against: 19
    No: Vote 2

    So, what was your point again?

  • section9||

    Neither, Sunshine. Both parties wanted the power and used 9/11 to grant it to themselves.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 6.10.13 @ 5:37PM |#
    "Gee, I wonder which authoritarian party actually muscled the Patriot Act and Telecomm Immunity Act through?"

    Gee, I wonder how stupid you wish to appear.
    Seemingly, a WHOLE LOT!

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Cloo-less Palin Ass-tonguer have u heard of Diane Feinstein? Hillary Clinton? Why do you skip one of the two totalitarian parties?

  • Paul.||

    Gee, I wonder which authoritarian party actually muscled the Patriot Act and Telecomm Immunity Act through?

    Hillary Clinton as I recall.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I'm shocked, shocked! I tell you.

  • Lord Humungus||

    and a little sick to my stomach

  • wef||

    The wordings of the questions in 2006 and today is different. Now the question includes reference to court orders. Before, the question hinted at nefarious secrecy. Pew could have, of course, worded the questions exactly the same. But that would have been intellectually honest, and all reasonable people know that we live in the Age of Special Pleading.

  • Tony||

    Oh look another huge revelation everyone was already aware of. Congress could and should repeal the Patriot Act, but it's not going to, in part because as this poll shows, most Americans are perfectly happy having no privacy anymore if it means we think we're being protected from terrists.

    I see no reason we shouldn't apply the same 4th amendment standards to digital communication as we used to for privacy in general. But both the government and private corporations have done exactly what everyone should have expected them to do: attempt to gather as much information about everyone and everything as possible and legally permissible. This may be a Pandora's box, and rolling it back next to impossible, but it's within Congress's ability to try. The people just have to care enough, and they clearly don't. And I maintain that there is a difference between whistleblowing/leaks (which are essential for journalism) and wholesale dumping of government secrets because you don't like a program. There are few members of Congress I like but I'd rather elected representatives make national security policy than random unelected moral crusaders like Snowden, Manning, and Assange. And crimes should be punished. Nation of laws, justice is blind, and all that.

  • John Thacker||

    And I maintain that there is a difference between whistleblowing/leaks (which are essential for journalism) and wholesale dumping of government secrets because you don't like a program.

    Even granting that, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Quite difficult for the law to distinguish between these cases, particularly when it's things that the government itself is keeping secret. Combined with your next statement:

    And crimes should be punished. Nation of laws, justice is blind, and all that.

    Are you arguing that even in those cases that are "essential for journalism" the leakers should be punished? Because all those cases are and will be illegal as well, if the ones you don't like are illegal.

    Most people that make such a strong distinction between "good leaks" and "bad leaks" argue for discretion, saying that not all the "crimes should be punished."

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Tony follows the letter of the law all the time because he's a good foot-soldier. He's exactly what his masters want him to be, obedient.

  • Tony||

    There are laws in place to protect real whistle-blowing. If they aren't good enough, then I certainly advocate making them better.

    The whole point of our system of government is that checks and balances serve as the watchman. The executive isn't acting in a rogue manner; it's acting according to laws Congress passed and with oversight from both Congress and the judicial branch. Granted, a lot of that is rubber stamping, and there are certainly things that are secret that don't need to be. But I've never called our system perfect or even close to it (I think the US constitution is not up to the task of handling the modern world).

  • John Thacker||

    There are laws in place to protect real whistle-blowing. If they aren't good enough, then I certainly advocate making them better.

    No, there's not really. All the famous acts of "real whistleblowing" that you think are heroic all were technically illegal, and the government considered prosecution in several of them. Of course, it took Obama to actually prosecute more people under the Espionage Act than all other Presidential Administrations combined, but, hey, perhaps he just believes like you that "crimes should be punished," even with bad laws.

  • John Thacker||

    There are laws in place to protect real whistle-blowing. If they aren't good enough, then I certainly advocate making them better.

    And the reason that there isn't really cut and dried laws to protect "real whistle-blowing" is that it's quite difficult to distinguish between the "good" kind and the "bad" kind, and very difficult to enshrine that in law with a black and white test that won't be subject to the interpretations of the Executive Branch's prosecutors-- who tend to think that "bad" leaks are the ones that embarrass the Executive Branch.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    (I think the US constitution is not up to the task of handling the modern world).

    It is if you actually follow it rather than try to treat it as a buffet from which one can pick and choose.

    If you actually read the thing and act in accordance to the little things, it's actually quite effective in dealing with modern times. You know, the simple stuff like "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" and "shall not be violated." If you take it at face value rather than trying to force interpretations on plain English, it's the best defense against government encroachment ever devised.

    But people like you refuse to do that, hence the attitude that it isn't good enough.

  • Tony||

    I'm sorry but why do you guys constantly quote the halves of constitutional sentences that are unambiguous, ignoring the ambiguous, thus relevant, parts?

    The constitution allows whatever is happening now, until it doesn't because the supreme court says so.

  • Contrarian P||

    No, the constitution doesn't allow what is happening now, because it says what it says. The fact that those in power roundly ignore it doesn't change what it says. They took an oath to support and defend it and then ignore it.

    By the way, which ambiguous portion of sentences are we quoting? Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion? Abridging the freedom of the press? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? That one? Or how about the tenth amendment, which seems pretty damn clear? Your continuing willful ignorance of the express meaning of the constitution, when the framers wrote down in the Federalist Papers exactly what they meant it to mean, is quite astounding.

  • rhofulster||

    No, the constitution doesn't allow what is happening now, because it says what it says.

    Yup.

    The fact that those in power roundly ignore it doesn't change what it says.

    Yup.

    They took an oath to support and defend it and then ignore it.

    Yup.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except the "ambiguity" only arises from the precedents created by the willingness of the government to ignore its mandates in the past.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Sounds fine and dandy, Faux Puppet Tone Tone, but when the violent Executive branch, the corrupt Legislative branch and rubber-stamping Judicial branch conspire to expand and defend the police/surveillance/war/welfare state, all but the elite and their slavish servants are fucked.

  • ||

    I think the best ordering of these thoughts is this:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." -US Constitution, 4th Amendment

    "I think the US constitution is not up to the task of handling the modern world" - progressives

    "This may be a Pandora's box, and rolling it back next to impossible, but it's within Congress's ability to try." - progressives with buyer's remorse

  • Irish||

    And I maintain that there is a difference between whistleblowing/leaks (which are essential for journalism) and wholesale dumping of government secrets because you don't like a program.

    I think that people I like shouldn't be punished and people I don't like should...

    Nation of laws, justice is blind, and all that.

    ...but I'm still in favor of the rule of law!

    Do you really not see the conflict between the first and second statement.

  • Tony||

    The law protects whistle-blowing (the publishing of wrongdoing), but it doesn't, and shouldn't, protect the unveiling of any and all government secrets. This is an important conversation about the balancing act of privacy vs. security. I'm just not willing to take the anarchist side anymore than I'm willing to take the authoritarian side.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I'm just not willing to take the anarchist side anymore than I'm willing to take the authoritarian side.

    Now that's an understatement

  • fish||

    I'm willing to take the authoritarian side.....when I'm "catching"!

    /p h o n y

  • Irish||

    The law protects whistle-blowing (the publishing of wrongdoing), but it doesn't, and shouldn't, protect the unveiling of any and all government secrets.

    Hey, Tony. Let me spell this out for you. 'Wrongdoings' is entirely subjective. Was it wrong to tell the American public about this program? You'll get wildly different answers from different people.

    What you're really arguing is that people who publish things YOU consider to be wrongdoings should be protected from prosecution but people who publish things you don't think are wrongdoings should be punished.

    Which means you're completely opposed to the rule of law and believe that prosecution should be based wholly on your opinion of a certain situation.

  • c5c5||

    Irish,

    Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. It is all about whose ox is being gored.

  • John Thacker||

    "Wrongdoing" according to whom? It's an inevitable problem.

    But even given that, I can't see how you square your argument of "some leaks are good, others a bad," (definitely a statement that can be defended) with the blanket "and crimes should be punished."

    Given your first statement, you can't cop out here with a lame, "but it was illegal." So can I assume that you're saying that all of these leaks were "bad leaks," and not "real whistleblowing?"

  • Tony||

    Wrongdoing as in illegality. Surely there is such a thing as moral objection to legal activity. And if someone legally bound to keep secrets spills them, they often pay the price martyrs tend to pay.

  • yonemoto||

    so, you would have sent rosa parks to jail? What she did was illegal.

  • Tony||

    Rosa Parks did go to jail. It did not diminish her role in civil rights advances.

  • ||

    I'd take that as a "yes".

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "but it doesn't, and shouldn't, protect the unveiling of any and all government secrets."

    WARRANTY VOID IN EVENT OF REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION

  • Jerryskids||

    Those last few lines sound close to what I heard Clapper saying today - Snowden was wrong to have taken it upon himself to decide the government policy was wrong and needed to be exposed, there are laws and rules and procedures about how you go about handling concerns about government policies. And my first thought was that King George III had laws and rules and procedures about how you go about handling concerns about government policies, too. Sometimes following the rules don't get the job done.

  • Gray Ghost||

    And if Snowden had made his supervisor aware of his misgivings, the first thing that would have happened would have been his ass getting kicked out of his job, his company, and perhaps his clearance getting yanked. Nothing at all would have changed beyond that. The programs would have continued, and Snowden would be, if he was lucky, only broke and unheard.

  • Tony||

    I don't trust libertarians to make that judgment for me. Sorry, but you're kind of nuts.

  • califernian||

    hahahahah the beauty if you don't have too.

    You are the biggest useful idiot I have ever encountered on the internet. Yes, that covers a wide range and you are special.

  • Bryan C||

    Doesn't particularly matter who you trust, Tony ol' pal. People aren't asking for your permission.

  • Tony||

    Just as I suspected, you all are closet authoritarians.

  • ||

    Not being an authoritarian = asking for permission. From who? The authorities? Hilarity ensues.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Projecting his perpetual hard-on for totalitarianism onto people who demand limited government is literally the only argument the shitbag knows.

  • fish||

    C'mon...the Hugo Boss uniforms...you know T o n y was always a member of TEAM FASHION!

  • ||

    Libertarians don't want to make judgment calls for others Tony. Shit, it took me all of one thread to figure that out long ago. How deliberately obtuse are you?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 6.10.13 @ 5:34PM |#
    ..."Congress could and should repeal the Patriot Act"...

    Shithead, just in case you might accept a reasonable comment:
    NO ONE IS FORCING THAT LYING ASSHOLE TO USE THE PATRIOT ACT.
    Is that clear, shithead?

  • Tony||

    Or signing the reauthorization of it for that matter.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Just like the GOP is raising hell now that a Democrat is playing hardball security cop.

    When Bush did it a few years back (illegally then too) it was considered anti-American if you criticized him for it.

  • Lord Humungus||

    BBBOOOOOOSSSSHHHH

  • Juice||

    Well, to be fair, that IS the topic at hand.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Listen Sarah's Pet:

    Fuck Bush. Can you say, "Fuck Obama"? With spirit?

    Cultist Fake Puppet.

  • Ben the Duck||

    Malia's Buttplug would rather gargle a piping hot admixture of ground glass and his own vomit than blaspheme against his beloved boy-pharaoh.

  • Almanian!||

    Yeah, man - back when it was PATRIOTIC to oppose the government and stuff!

    Oh, wait...

  • Juice||

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Go stroke your boner somewhere else

  • ||

    Yeah, all those Republicans.... that weren't around during the Bush era. The ones that were? Seem to be siding with Obama here. How about that?

  • section9||

    Remember, in THOSE days, dissent was the highest form of patriotism.

    But now Howard Zinn is dead and a Democrat is in the White House.

    So the Ruling Party can sic the IRS on dissenters.

  • Alec Leamas||

    Please understand that those cocksuckers actually removed those bumper stickers in January of 2008.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "When Bush did it a few years back (illegally then too) it was considered anti-American if you criticized him for it."

    Yup, and they're all as big assholes and hypocrites as you and your ilk are for suddenly learning to stop worrying, and love the wiretap.

    Thanks for ascertaining that fact.

  • MissMalevolent||

    I don't really care about the Dims and Rethugs hypocrisy...what I find truly disheartening is the Independent approval numbers...

    What chance do the other Amendments have when most doesn't give a damn about the 4th?

  • Goldwyn Smith||

    Libertarian moment!

  • Juice||

    And when no search that is reasonable violates the 4th. It's one of those amendments that doesn't really protect anyone's rights.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Call me unreasonable

  • John Thacker||

    Could it be that sharing a party ID with whoever's in the White House is a better indicator of one's opinion on major civil liberties issues, than, say principle? I AM REALLY STARTING TO THINK SO.

    Hey, only like a quarter of people on both sides switched due to party loyalty. Principle is still slightly more important.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I was just driving home from a meeting and Fathead Hannity was having conniption fits over this surveillance. Hannity - that poster boy for the Bushpigs propaganda police state.

  • John Thacker||

    Indeed he is. Just like his mirror image on the other side, Barack Obama.

    Hannity's terrible. President Obama is no better, though.

  • Almanian!||

    Two people who - when they come on the TV o radio - I immediately turn the channel. Literally every time. Cannot listen to either of their voices any more - like fingernails on a chalkboard.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Newflash - Hannity is a thinly veiled shill for the GOP.

    HOLY FUCK! I DID NOT KNOW THAT!

  • SIV||

    Sean isn't toeing the Fox News "National Security"/traitor line on Snowden.

    I was kinda shocked.

  • SIV||

    Patriot Act author Sensenbrenner actually said both the Obama AND Bush administration were violating the law on Hannity's show today.

  • Floating Weightless||

    Fox News tonight -- Shep, Oreilly and Hannity -- was pleasantly supportive of Snowden. Unlike CNN's Jeffery Toobin and some ex CIA punk who probably uses his contacts in the agency for financial gain.

  • PapayaSF||

    Eh, I think he's more a conservative at home in the GOP but isn't a pure party-liner. Not that I find him terribly nuanced.

  • Lord Humungus||

    let me fix that for you:

    ...that poster boy for Obamapig's propaganda police state.

  • fish||

    I was just driving home from a meeting and Fathead Hannity.....?

    Ahhhh.... jerking off in traffic again?

    PS: BUSHPIG CHRISTFAG

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Yeah he is, why do you have to keep stating the obvious? Why would you even listen to someone like that? Hannity is Maddow's ass licking girlfriend.

  • califernian||

    WOW! You identified a weakminded partisan asshole! Good job!

    They're especially hard to see when you are one yourself.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "I was just driving home from a meeting"

    I wasn't aware they still held beerputsches in Munich.

  • sarcasmic||

    Democrats change their position on issues based upon principals, not principles?

    Look at my shocked face =-o

  • Almanian!||

    They're more prone to believe authoritah than even Team Red

  • Floating Weightless||

    We're officially fucked then cause Team Red Louisiana is fucking off the charts authoritah proned.

  • Almanian!||

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

    Also - no, fuck you, cut spending.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Guess which assfuck said this:

    “I’m on the Judiciary committee and the Judiciary committee has jurisdiction (over) N.S.A. and on (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) and the Patriot Act,” he said. “I availed myself of these briefings so nothing surprised me and the architecture of these programs I was very well aware of.”

    “I think there should be enough transparency that the American people understand what is happening…But I can assure you that this isn’t about spying on the American people.”

    Franken, chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, also said there are aspects of security programs that he should be aware of but the public should not.

    “There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that’s not appropriate for the bad guys to know,” he said. “Anything that quote the American people know, the bad guys know so there’s a line here, right? And there’s a balance that has to be struck between the responsibility of the federal government to protect the American people and then people’s right to privacy. We have safeguards in place …The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know.”

    He said that the data the security agency has collected have kept Americans safe.

    “I have a high level of confidence, that it is used…to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism,” he said.

  • Almanian!||

    TOP. Men.

  • From the Tundra||

    You know, I felt sick before this. Now you gotta go and quote Minnesota's shame. Thanks, dude.

    Oh, and fuck you Al Franken.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    "The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know."

    Sounds like Mr. Fucking Rogers.

  • Almanian!||

    You like Mr. Rogers? Sure you do. Can you say "fellate"? Sure you can.

  • From the Tundra||

    Oh, look! It's Mr. McFeeley!

    Truly the stuff of nightmares.

  • ||

    I think he's confused about who "the bad guys" are. Because he's one of them.

  • John Thacker||

    Nah, "bad guys" is very typical Intelligence Community speak. Sounds like a guy who's seen too many briefings.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The idea that they get the whole picture of what's really going on from a Congressional briefing is laughable. Who says the agencies don't flat out lie? Who's double-checking? I guarantee the agencies see politicians as temporary headaches while they're in place for the long-term.

  • John Thacker||

    Oh, absolutely. The contempt for the elected politicians in the IC is enormous.

    I'm less okay with it than with contempt from ordinary citizens about the elected.

  • Jerryskids||

    "We have safeguards in place".

    Would these be the same sorts of safeguards that keep employees of subcontractors from walking off with top secret documents and turning them over to newspaper reporters? The same sorts of safeguards that keep tax records and driver license records and police reports and sealed court records of celebrities and political opponents and the new boyfriends of ex-wives safe from unauthorized prying eyes?

  • Juice||

    Any reporter or interviewer should laugh in their face every time they say it.

  • PapayaSF||

    And wasn't Franken one of the Dems calling for the IRS to crack down on Tea Party groups? A clever opponent could make some pretty good ads out of those statements.

  • From the Tundra||

    Ah, the magic words - "a clever opponent". Not here, man. We don't get clever opponents. We get Frankens, Klobuchars and Ellisons. I am terrified to imagine what we're gonna cough up to replace Bachman.

  • ||

    OT:

    Chad Johnson is a clown, but I really hate the fact that the judge has the power to reject a plea deal because she feels personally offended by Johnson's innocuous jovial behavior.

    Sorry, but the government shouldn't have the power to lock a man in a cage because one of the King's Robed Priests feels slighted.

  • ||

    Link if you missed the story:

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_.....-days-jail

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    I agree. Fuck that judge.

  • Juice||

    Johnson, known as Chad Ochocinco for his jersey number in Spanish

    Eighty five is ochenta y cinco.

  • ||

    Speaking Mexican is utterly un-American. How many white children have you mutilated THIS week?

  • Juice||

    You mean like this:

    http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/l.....56681.html

    It's an infuriating story, but most people out there will defend the judge every time (invariably bringing up the word "respect" of which the judge had none).

  • ||

    Exact same type of shit.

    I deal with assholes every shift I work. I bring them food and drink and could easily ruin their day when they give me shit. People are snippy and give me attitude and pretend that they know more about my place of business than I do. People make the same tired jokes day after day that I've heard from a million other unoriginal blowhards.

    And you know what my daily response is?

    I deal with it. I deal with it cause I'm a goddamn professional. I may bitch and moan about it, but I sure as FUCK never retaliate.

    Now part of my motivation is that if I retaliated I would lose my job.

    If only our judges felt a little less secure in their position they might not be so quick to lord it over the rest of us.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fuck. Patriots are signing Tebow?

    Now I am really pissed off.

  • Goldwyn Smith||

    Bushfag Christpig!

  • fish||

    stop copying me.......

    /shreek

  • Almanian!||

    ...damn your quick fingers...

  • Almanian!||

    I know - a CHRISTFAG! Sheesh!

  • ||

    You know who else hated patriots?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Tories?

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Hey Sarah's Ninnyboy, would you rather go down on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Condoleeza Rice? Or Hillary Clinton? Or Bill? Or [god forbid] michelle?

    Be honest.

  • Juice||

    Actually, the take away from that poll is that a majority of those polled are OK with the surveillance.

  • Goldwyn Smith||

    And now independents are in favor.

  • John Thacker||

    Although independents shifted the other way on emails. In 2006, indies were anti tapping phone records, pro tapping emails. Now the reverse.

    *shrug*

  • wef||

    Although Pew deliberately muddies the waters, likely much of this so-called shift in independents can be explained by different wording of the questions in the two years. Today's question highlights court orders, and the older question suggests something sinister.

  • califernian||

    well now that we have our first half-white president it's okay, mmmmkay?

  • Jesse Christopherson||

    Other appropriate headlines for this data:

    1. Democrats more consistent than Republicans on civil liberties.

    2. Majority of Republicans consistently support NSA spying over last seven years.

  • John Thacker||

    I find it interesting that you used "consistent" in two entirely inconsistent ways in consecutive sentences.

  • From the Tundra||

    I wonder if he realizes where he is posting...

  • Irish||

    Uh...

    Republicans went from +52 to +5, a difference of 47 points. Democrats went from -24 to +30, a difference of 54 points.

    That means that the Democrats are less consistent than Republicans by approximately 7 percent.

  • ||

    A meaningless difference given the margin of error.

  • Irish||

    Yes, but his claim was that Democrats were more consistent. Which the data does not back up. Even if the margin of error swings the other way, at most they're equally hypocritical.

  • John Thacker||

    I think he was using "consistent" in the first sentence to mean "averages a higher level of support," hence what I said about inconsistent usages of the word.

  • Jordan||

    Hey, look over there! A squirrel!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    For some real cognitive dissonance check out the Democratic Underground site. The infighting is picking up some steam.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Democrats don't think in lockstep like conservatives do.

    1- Wave the flag
    2- Beat the Bible
    3- Hate science, immigrants, etc.

    GOP Club invitation is on the way.

  • fish||

    You do know that this is a libertarian site.....for the millionth fucking time shreektard?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Tell that to John, Sevo, suthenboy, and all the other faux libertarians.

  • fish||

    You read the title of the H and R thread? You can read can't you?

    "Democrats Suddenly Cool With NSA Data Diving Now That A Democrat is President".

    ....no lockstep there at all....nope nothing to see here.....!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Well, it is legal now.

    It was not in 2006 when the first poll was taken.

    (again, the FISA Immunity Act of 2008 made spying legal - at least till the SCOTUS gets it)

  • fish||

    LOCKSTEP TARD BOY....you started the subthread trying to gloss TEAM BLUE by saying that they didn't think in LOCKSTEP like conservatives.

    Alas...they do...don't they you fuckwit!

  • califernian||

    Well, it is legal now

    Holy.
    Shit.

    You'd have turned in Anne Frank to the "authorities", admit it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep and he would'a thought Jim Crow was just great since it was the law of the land and he defends FDR putting citizens in concentration camps, cuz SCOTUS said it was legal.

  • JWatts||

    You'd have turned in Anne Frank to the "authorities", admit it.

    Well, it is the law you know.

  • ||

    You progressives are so thick on the legalism. I think you'd give a slave holder a break, considering it was legal and all.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Well, it is legal now."

    See, folks, this is not "Lockstep", this is straight-up "Goosestep".

    Common mistake, but there is a difference.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 6.10.13 @ 6:33PM |#
    "Tell that to John, Sevo"

    You are a lying, slimy turd.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Oh what bullshit. Try checking out the Heritage Foundation. They're stumped on this one. Minimal coverage of a major event.

  • John Thacker||

    Which is the sort of thing that amplifies the hypocrisy (and impression therein.) Ds who were okay with the spying under Bush didn't speak up then; some who don't like it now stay quiet to avoid helping "them." And vice versa.

  • PapayaSF||

    Anyone who thinks conservatives think in lockstep doesn't have much experience with conservatives. I've seen plenty of disagreement on conservative sites.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Of course there is infighting on WHO should carry the GOP banner (and entertaining at that).

    But conservatism is pretty straightfoward these days as far as the issues stand.

  • Irish||

    Really? Because the conservative/libertarian divide in the Republican party shows far less lockstep thinking than exists in the Democratic party.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Libertarians in the GOP? All two of them?

    Keep em coming!

  • fish||

    Keep em coming!

    Dude...sorry about your screw up at the office today.

    http://www.france24.com/en/201.....s-millions

  • Irish||

    Libertarians in the GOP? All two of them?

    There's more than two GOP congressmen who are relatively libertarian. As a percentage of the GOP base it actually isn't uncommon at all.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Yeah about as many as genuine civil libertarians found in the Demoncratic Pahty.

  • section9||

    Jesus Christ, like everyone around here goes to a tent revival meeting or something?

    Don't you have anything better to do, like adjust your fucking armband or polish your jackboots? Seriously!

    Is it all "Fuhrer! Fuhrer! Fuhrer!" with you people? Don't you see where this leads?

    Oh, wait....

  • Lord Humungus||

    you've apparently never read NRO - there have been many heated debates about this, and other issues.

    But hey, go ahead and keep living in your mom's basement.

  • ant1sthenes||

    You mean that there's no infighting between, say, paleocons and neocons?

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Democrats don't think in lockstep like conservatives do.

    1- Wave the flag
    2- Beat the Bible
    3- Hate science, immigrants, etc."

    What a load of shit:

    1. Social Justice!
    2. Free Stuff!
    3. Hate science, immigrants, etc.

    The only damn difference with Democrats is that one must remember to supplant "God" for "Government". otherwise, NOTHING FUCKING CHANGES.

  • fish||

    The infighting is picking up some steam.

    The only good thing to come from this!

    Let's hope it becomes truly venomous!

  • section9||

    It's like "I don't give a fuck, I want my Student Loan check and my SOMA from His Oneness!"

    All that anger against Bush was all bullshit. These kids just wanted free stuff.

    Christ, if we had had to depend on the Obama kids to fight World War II, I shudder to think what would have become of the outcome of the war.

  • lap83||

    You should read some of George Orwell essays ranting about pacifists. There were actually quite a few Westerners, mainly intellectuals, who thought that the US and GB were the bad guys.

  • lap83||

    *during WW2

  • JWatts||

    actually quite a few Westerners, mainly intellectuals, who thought that the US and GB were the bad guys.

    Well yes they did. And they advocated heavily against the US joining the war to assist the Allies. Often they would clamor that the US shouldn't be dragged into another European conflict.

    And then Germany back stabbed the Soviet Union and suddenly those same intellectuals did a 180 degree turn on their position. Hmmm, I wonder why that was?

  • Tony||

    Your requirement that liberals treat Bush and Obama as equally bad is the equivalent of cheer leading for Bush. Bush got people killed on a massive scale through incompetence, mendacity, and a level of arrogance not befitting the inauspicious means of his achieving power. Bush was so bad he made PRISM something even liberals would tolerate if it meant he and his party of psychotic morons were out of power. Just another of his many contributions to making this country worse.

    In short, I don't like much of what the US intelligence community does (and it does a lot more than was recently brought it light). But I'm so scared of Republicans and their arrogant stupidity that I have no alternative but to put up with it because the Republicans are only gonna deploy these programs more arrogantly and more stupidly. Do you propose some alternative I haven't considered?

  • califernian||

    are you still in high school? That's your only excuse.

  • Contrarian P||

    Yes, we've been proposing alternatives for years and you've steadfastly refused to consider anything. You've consistently and mindlessly regurgitated the talking points of your party on this board. Now that your party's leadership is being outed as pretty much the same sort of authoritarians that you spent so much time railing against, insisting that your side was different, you're trying like hell to make it seem like you're reasonable and some sort of independent. By the way, I'd suggest you check with the people of Afghanistan (not to mention drone strike targets) how much better they feel about the death toll in their country since your team has been in power. Your consistent defense of unconscionable policy with "but the other side was worse" is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty.

  • Tony||

    There are only two sides, though I'd be very pleased if you unveiled a practical pathway out of that reality.

  • ||

    I think, based on what you believe about the system, that you're supposed to work within your own party, through the democratic process, to make sure your political masters' values reflect your own.

    Good luck with that.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Your requirement that liberals treat Bush and Obama as equally bad is the equivalent of cheer leading for Bush."

    When you think he can't possibly be any bigger a lying, hypocritical, authority-fellating weasel, he goes and changes the game.

    There is admittedly something admirable about that.

  • JWatts||

    Your requirement that liberals treat Bush and Obama as equally bad is the equivalent of cheer leading for Bush.

    That's a typical Progressive argument. If you compare Bush and Obama's actions and it's unfavorable to Obama then it's a false dichotomy. If it's unfavorable to Bush then the comparison is valid, of course.

    It's because, at heart, most Progressive arguments are exception based and not rule based. There's always a special reason that the rules should apply one way to their side and another way to the other side.

  • XM||

    Bush and Obama are the same politicians with a fancy degree. The mishandling of information by the government and the intelligence community also remains the same. Bush happened to declare war on faulty information, but let's not pretend that he just went to war on his daddy's whim. Plenty of other foreign agencies considered Hussein a threat.

    In Obama's time we witnessed the death of an ambassador, fast and furious, Obamacare, IRS targeting of political opponents, and now this scandal.

    You say Bush's crime was larger in scale. OK, then let me remind you that Vietnam and Korean War, and the Japanese internment camps all happened under Dem presidents. Clinton sowed some legacies of terror himself.

    Obama was supposed to be a REFORMER. He was supposed to be BETTER than the man he replaced. He had the presence and talent to make a real difference, and he didn't. "But Bush was worse" will fall on deaf ears.

  • XM||

    The Obama kids in WW 2 would have fled to Canada or joined the opposition forces because America is racist and had segregated places.

  • WomSom||

    This makes a lot of sens edude. Wow.

    www.AnonStuff.tk

  • lap83||

    I'm sure there are plenty of those conservatives who don't like the NSA now simply because a Democrat is in power. But, from what I have seen/heard, it's mainly because they think the motivation for spying has changed from anti-(radical Muslim) terrorists to anti- "tea party terrorists". They may be wrong, but at least it's a change in position based on principle rather than authority.

  • Binjelli||

    Ah, the joys of Facebook.

    I've posted this there and already the partisans are jumping on it. The progs are liking it because it shows that Team RED are hypocrites who were ok with the NSA when it was Bushitler but since now they oppose it it's because they're RACIS. Meanwhile, the conservatives are liking it because it shows that the Dems are hypocrites who don't care about civil liberties when Team BLUE is in charge.

    Unfortunately, the number of people who realize the faults of petty partisanship are few and far in-between.

  • John Galt||

    In reality, how does it demonstrate anything of the sort? Perhaps, I'm giving Team RED too much credit, however, the question they were polled on was whether or not they supported surveillance of only known, or suspected, foreign terrorists when at least one, or both, ends of the communications were not in the USA. Seems a far cry from the blanket surveillance of U.S. citizens, which is the issue in this case. Something tells me that if it was their own privacy that was at issue the favorable polling by Republicans would not have been so likely.

    Now, don't misunderstand, I don't necessarily believe what was going on under Bush was different. And I've opposed The Patriot Act from it's start. And still do. All the same, polls are polls, and the questions, how the questions are asked, and the wording of questions, have a great impact on results. Yet, it would be dishonest at best to say Democrat's present support today for blanket surveillance of all American's communications is the same thing as Republican's former support of known, or suspected, foreign terrorists who are not (at least on one end of the communications) within U.S. territory.

    Just sayin'

  • Tony||

    Congressional Republicans have come out in defense of the programs and congressional Democrats have come out against, and vice versa.

  • Len Bias||

    Wow, Bill Maher is all for this, at least when Obama's in power.

    My favorite is at the end, when he says since we threw out the 4th Amendment, let's go ahead and throw out the 2nd Amendment.

    http://www.infowars.com/maher-.....ance-grid/

  • John Galt||

    Bill Maher can always be depended on for an intelligent, unbiased opinion.

  • Len Bias||

    IDK, i'm not sure defending Obama at all costs even counts as an opinion.

    BTW, how do you do make that line through the words?

  • John Galt||

    It's the HTML strike tag.

  • Len Bias||

    Thanks.

  • Sevo||

    "It's the HTML strike tag."
    Uh, OK....

  • Len Bias||

    Actually, I didn't understand either, but I didn't want to bother JG any further because of my general computer illiteracy.

  • Redmanfms||

    Crib sheet on HTML.

    Though the strike tag isn't there, it's really just for symbols.

    For font changes it's usually something like < s insert text < / s (remove spaces) using the letter that corresponds to the action you wish to perform. Strike is s, bold is b, italics is i, and so on.

  • Redmanfms||

    Shit, should read: < s insert text < / s without spaces.

  • Redmanfms||

    Shit.

    I fucking hate symbols in HTML code. It's the fucking "greater than" symbol to close the box.

  • Redmanfms||

  • Redmanfms||

  • John Galt||

    Republicans polled much the same way (in reverse, obviously). Back in 2006, 75 percent of Republicans supported the NSA "scrutiniz[ing] phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists."

    Confusing, comparing surveillance of supposed communications with "suspected foreign terrorists" to blanket surveillance of all Americans. Isn't that a little like comparing rotten apples to fascist basketballs?

  • entropy||

    Confusing, comparing surveillance of supposed communications with "suspected foreign terrorists"

    SAYS THE GOVERNMENT.

    If you believe what Bush officials say they're doing, why don't you believe what Obama officials say they're doing?

    Bush said "only foreign terrorists", and Obama says it's a "balanced approach" that doesn't violate civil liberties.

    That's the issue. Partisans trust in the team. They would never use it for bad things, that's just the other side that does that.

  • Helen||

    Jasmine. true that Alexander`s bl0g is unbelievable, I just received Bugatti Veyron after I been earnin $4638 thiss month and-also, ten-grand last-month. it's by-far the easiest-job Ive ever done. I started this 6 months ago and right away made at least $75 per-hour. I follow this website,, mojo55.COM

  • space junk||

    The 18 to 29 year old 'utes' are too busy trying to figure out how to get laid. That is much more important than worrying about the future the country they live in. Besides, all of these politicians are the same. Presidents may come and go. But, the clandestine institutions are permanent.

    Just relax and take the blue pill. The pain will be gone soon...

  • Henry the Twooth||

    Anyone is surprised by this? I live in the Bay Area, and all the people that hated Bush for doing this stuff couldn't care less now.

    My guess is, if you live in a GOP area, your neighbors, friends, etc. are acting the exact opposite way - complaining when they didn't care before.

    If you are surprised, you haven't been paying attention.

    AND IT IS EXACTLY THESE BIASED SWINGS IN SENTIMENT THAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT - INCLUDING THIS TYPE OF SURVEILLANCE.

  • grey||

    Trying to find a quote I just barely remember, I think it was a founding father, listed totalitarian governments, oligarchy, monarchy, etc., and said something about history teaches us? Can't recall what those governments were supposed to teach us, but the quote...can't....recall.

    Anyone? Help.

  • perlhaqr||

    Could it be that sharing a party ID with whoever's in the White House is a better indicator of one's opinion on major civil liberties issues, than, say principle? I AM REALLY STARTING TO THINK SO.

    Please tell me this is not just now occurring to you...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement