Where Are They Now?

No, this is not a segment about obscure music artists or actors. It is a search for the liberals/progressives who had their panties in a wad over spying on citizens by the US government when George Bush was in charge. The left went bonkers over the Patriot Act and some of its provisions even though they were deemed legal and with merit. That did not stop the left from rising up and using its partner in the ACLU to demonize the practices of our government.

For what its worth, I find some parts of the Act troubling but there are other parts (those dealing with known terrorists outside our borders) that have merit and have been upheld by the courts.

The Obama Justice Department has gone even further and is tracking Americans via their credit use.

The document, obtained by security researcher Christopher Soghoian, explains how so-called “Hotwatch” orders allow for real-time tracking of individuals in a criminal investigation via credit card companies, rental car agencies, calling cards, and even grocery store loyalty programs. The revelation sheds a little more light on the Justice Department’s increasing power and willingness to surveil Americans with little to no judicial or Congressional oversight. Wired

The Obama Justice Department has increased its own power with little or no judicial or Congressional oversight.

Isn’t this what the left railed about with regard to Bush? Wasn’t the left upset about increasing power in the Executive Branch with no oversight?

Seems that as long as a Democrat is abusing power it is quite alright.

I have no problem tracking people who are under investigation but there are legal ways to do that and warrants are required to do things like listen to phone conversations and track credit cards. And what assurance do we have they are not tracking those who happen to disagree with their agenda?

So once again I ask, where are they now?

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

11 Responses to “Where Are They Now?”

  1. Eoj Trahneir says:

    Where are the liberals on this? Same place as usual; bumping their BF’s butte or aborting a baby. Driving a Prius, or making a movie that shows that, contrary to fact and logic, Bush brought down the WTC buildings, and that gays generally die from being stomped by homo-phobe cowboys, not AIDS. (a la Brokebutt Mountain)

    Hey, they have their man in the Big Chair! Don’t confuse them with facts or figures. That is all just rhetoric for them; they have a Man-date! With…The People!

    BD, it isn’t the intrussion that bothers them; it is who is intruding that makes all the difference. It’s like a pick-up line; when done by someone you hate, they get a harassment charge. When it’s someone you like, they get laid!
    Liberals just can’t separate their politics from their sexual organs.

  2. Adam says:

    I think the primary problem is the conversation has shifted from the subject of national security to issues related to jobs, deficits, health care, etc. We hardly talk about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan anymore but that doesn’t mean the left is now behind those things with Obama in charge.

    Because of this shift you have to search harder but if you do you will find vocal critics of Bush still being vocal critics of Obama and many liberal sources presenting critical viewpoints:

    * ACLU

    * Glenn Greenwald

    * Dan Froomkin

    * TPM

    * Daily KOS

    * Amy Goodman and Steven Goldberg

    * Huffington Post

    * Huffington Post (again)

    * Think Progress

    So again, I contend it’s not like the objections aren’t being raised. It’s simply that this is not part of the national conversation right now so these voices aren’t bubbling up to the national media the way opponents and proponents of tax cuts, unemployment extensions, deficit commissions, etc., are doing these days.

    • Big Dog says:

      Look, It is obvious that some disenchanted Socialists are raising hell because Obama is not far enough left for them. However, it is not unusual for the media and the left (but I repeat myself) to keep moaning about something when a Republican is in charge and ignore it when a Democrat is. When HW Bush was president all we heard about was the number of homeless. When Clinton beat him homelessness ended, at least in the media, as it was not reported upomn. When W became president we heard about the homeless again.

      Ever since the war started the left banged on the number of soldiers killed in it. Day in and day out we had news casts of the number of dead. Now that Obama is in we hear little even though more troops have been killed in Afghanistan on his watch. They do not talk about it so as not to draw attention to it and to help him save face. Sure, there will be leftists who complain because he did not end the war right away (like he originally said) but the media is able to focus on more than one thing and could certainly spell out the war dead, the economy and the violation of our privacy at the same time.

      The same people who whined about privacy are basically silent. You can claim that they are focused on the economy or some other thing but no matter what happened during Bush’s term they were able to focus on this no matter what else was going on. It is plain and simple.

      Besides, according to the liberal/progressive folks the economy was terrible the whole time Bush was in office (ignore his numbers that were the same as or bettere than Clinton’s). For 8 years I herd leftists talk about how bad the economy was under Bush and yet they had time to focus on all these other things.

      So either they are ignoring it under Obama (which is what they are actually doing) or they were lying when they talked about how bad it was under Bush.

  3. Adam says:

    I’ve got a moderated comment up there for posting too many links. When you get a free second please reveal it for me.

  4. Adam says:

    “However, it is not unusual for the media and the left (but I repeat myself) to keep moaning about something when a Republican is in charge and ignore it when a Democrat is.”

    That is true for certain things of course but in this case it’s hardly supported. I can keep searching if you want but my list already clearly shows the left has been vocal when Obama has engaged in the same policies as Bush on the subject of wiretaps and treatment of detainees.

    “The same people who whined about privacy are basically silent.”

    If my list isn’t good enough then who else are you looking for? Who else on the left needs to be vocal for it to count? Keith Olbermann?

    “For 8 years I heard leftists talk about how bad the economy was under Bush and yet they had time to focus on all these other things.”

    You can find plenty of leftists upset about the economy now as well so I don’t see your point there either. Under Bush recovery took a very long time and as soon as it reached Clinton level numbers that was the peak and we fell into a second and even bigger recession. I hardly see how you can defend the one quarter it was as good as Clinton while ignoring the other 31 quarters where things were terrible or a work in progress.

    • Big Dog says:

      31 quarters where it was terrible? He inherits a recession from Clinton and then gets 9-11 and we still had low unemployment numbers and good economic numbers and you call that bad?

      Keep in mind that Clinton had a Republican Congress and things were good. Bush had a Republican Congress and things were good. Bush got a Democrat Congress and all went downhill.

      We have ups and downs in the economic cycle all the time. It is impossible not to have bubbles or recessions. It happens as part of the cycle.

      Olberdouche? You mean the guy who called Bush all kinds of things for wanting to protect phone companies that released information to the government (and believed they were doing so in good faith and IAW law) but who then said Obama (then Senator) displayed courage for voting for the bill that gave that protection?

      Olberdouche is in the tank.

      You don’t see my point about the economy because plenty of Democrats are upset about it now? Well let me help you. I will type slower for you. The economy is actually in the dump right now so you should be upset. Back when they had all the faux outrage the economy was going along quite well.

      In fact, right now Obama would die for Bush like numbers.

      That is, pre-Democrat Congress Bush numbers…

      Fear not, the Republican House might make Obama look good.

      I am sorry, I can’t visit the sites to which you linked but suffice it to saythat a few people upset is not equal to libs marching in DC calling for the impeachment and prosecution of Bush and his administration for violating privacy. The ACLU has been relatively quiet compared to the daily rants of the Bush years. The left pounded IT DAILY. not so much now.

      Recovery from what Clinton left us and what 9-11 did was slow but even after all that the numbers were better than today and most of the time Bush had Clinton like (or better) numbers.

  5. Adam says:

    “…and most of the time Bush had Clinton like (or better) numbers.”

    Which numbers?

    • Big Dog says:

      Unemployment were very similar (some good and some bad for both guys) and jobs created depending on what part of the rpesidency and who was in control of Congress.

      • Adam says:

        Unemployment was subject to the same formula it is now. It still counts only those looking for work. That is why the unemployment under Bush is a bit misleading. It was good but was it as good as Clinton? Not so much.. It was a slow, jobless recovery just like we’re having right now.

        • Big Dog says:

          That is a nice little chart but the numbers from BLS show the UE numbers to be very close. That chart shows employment. The absolute number of those employed means nothing without knowing how many were employable.

        • Blake says:

          Unemployment ALSO DOESN’T COUNT the “sub-contract labor” force that make up the lion’s share of the trades, construction, stonemasonry, A/C, plumbers, etc.
          Since we, as “Subcontract labor” are looked upon as our own boss, we cannot apply for unemployment benefits (here’s a hint why, in the gubbmint’s view- we can’t fire ourselves, or lay ourselves off)- so you see, there’s a HUGE segment there, a gap that is more of an abyss.
          This is why I feel that the unemployment numbers are FAR higher than they seem.