Sean Hannity Doesn`t Know What To Think About NSA

Submitted by: SmagBoy1 3 years ago in

...unless, of course, you tell him which president in in the Oval Office. Then he knows! Story in credits link below.
There are 29 comments:
Male 881
kangoala, what a moronic challenge. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments all contribute to how the Supreme Court has interpreted our right to privacy. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret those amendments. So while the words "right to privacy" do not appear in the Constitution, and to the best of my knowledge, in any Supreme Court decisions, you will find terms such as "zone of privacy". So if you want to argue that some aspect of our lives is not covered by our concept of "right to privacy", then make your argument. But don`t offer a ridiculous challenge as if we don`t really have a right to privacy.

The world is not black and white. If you want to know what rights Americans have, you`ll have to go far beyond the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
flying_ltj: That`s a "No Real Scotsman" fallacy. Google it.
0
Reply
Male 339
Real Americans dont get their news from 24hr propaganda channels, no matter what political affiliation they subscribe to.
0
Reply
Male 761
@onoffonoffon, you are 100% right.

@pazerlenis, ditto you are right. It`s the same way I feel when I hear of The Christian Coalition fighting for school prayers or creationism in public schools. My first thought is, "you do realize that by passing this all those Muslims, Hindus, etc... will want the same rights..." Which I know they don`t want:

In fact it`s already happened in my home state. Morons.
0
Reply
Male 1,380
What liberals and conservatives need to understand is the power you give your party when they are in office will likely become the opposing parties power in a few years. So if you don`t want the opposition doing it, don`t let your party do it. Simple.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
kangoala: The answer to your question would be in our 4th amendment rights.

"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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

the word "papers" would be inclusive to all our private information, because cell phones and computers hadn`t been invented yet.
0
Reply
Male 761
@AvatarJon, "The difference is, the Bush administration was only listening on calls to and from terrorist countries..."

If you`d like to believe that cool, but that`s not true. What Bush did with the Patriot act is allow situations like this to occur which is horrible.

So if you rightfully think it`s wrong what Obama is doing, you MUST acknowledge that it`s only possible because of legislation enacted by Bush.
0
Reply
Male 182
@kangoala

Supreme and other court interpretations have clearly outlined what the limits are to law enforcement`s peeking and prodding. Police need reasonable suspicion to search my car during a traffic stop, for example. Another it that, law enforcement needs, at the very least, a subpoena to get the contents of my text messages from my service provider and that subpoena has to be approved by a judge and therefore has to have reasonable suspicion.

President Nixon was impeached because he ordered illegal wiretapping.
0
Reply
Male 38,507

Anarchy OR tyranny.
You can`t have both.
0
Reply
Male 702
@AvatarJohn
Thanks for not answering my challenge. Zero cookies for you.
BTW, I was addressing the `Right to Privacy` bullet pointed by Hannity in the second half of the video. THAT`S my issue :D
Good day sir.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Fox News being partisan? What else is new?
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Avatar John, if you believe that the Bush Administration was *only* listening to the calls or tracking the Internet usage of terrorists, or that under Clinton, or Bush I, or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, or Nixon, etc., the intelligence community wasn`t spying on, collecting information on, using information of Americans, you`re mistaken. And woefully so.

Having someone point it out and then getting all angry about it, and at a single administration or political party isn`t just uninformed and naive, it`s dangerous. George Orwell was seeing this (not just predicting it) way back in the 1940s. This type of stuff is nothing new, and it`s by no means limited to our government or this administration.

I`m not saying that makes it right, I`m just a realist about what is and has been happening all along.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
Kangoala, the 4th amendment prohibits searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant. That`s the issue here.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
The difference is, the Bush administration was only listening on calls to and from terrorist countries (and it was reviewed by the FISA court, contrary to the opinion of Huffing and Puffington Post). Now, Obama is spying on every American`s phone call, email and text message with no probable cause and no links to any terrorist country or organization. It`s night and day.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
I didn`t support the Patriot Act then, and I don`t support the Patriot Act now. I didn`t support its proposal and usage then and I don`t support it now.

That said, I`m just a guy on the Internet. I have no sway in politics or on the national media stage. *That`s* why I bring this out. I`m not damning Hannity any more than I`m damning Obama for this. At the same time, I`m not blaming either of them for it more than the other.

In the end, I`d like for us to get out of the business of being world police. Entirely and completely. I`d like us to not be the lead on deciding which conflicts to get involved in, etc., and concentrate our national defense on one thing: national defense. Within our borders.

But if you can watch this and not admit that there is hypocrisy, in copious amounts, and on BOTH sides, then you`re wrong.
0
Reply
Male 702
I will award 10 internet cookies to anyone who can identify a logical argument based on the U.S. Constitution for a `Right to Privacy`...
Any takers?
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Just like ... Barack Obama. Who opposed surveillance under the authority of the President, then himself oversaw it.

Of course what Hannity did not know at the time of his earlier comments was how the Patriot Act was being used. That is not how it was sold to Congress or the public. Now he does know.
0
Reply
Male 1,983
This is why I laugh every time someone claims Fux News is "Fair and Balanced".
0
Reply
Male 14,835
Here`s a serious thought to consider: What if the the Government of China controlled the world`s servers, had drones overhead and randomly splatted weddings and schools whenever they felt like it, then recordings came out with Chinese drone operators laughing at the burning whiteys. How safe would you feel and what would you do about it?
0
Reply
Male 14,835
Land of the Free.

lol
0
Reply
Male 15,832
So, if you think it`s okay to monitor the communications of terrorists, but it`s NOT okay to monitor the communications of EVERYONE ELSE in the US, that makes you a hypocrite.

Media Matters = George Soros = Anti-American Nazi Bastard
0
Reply
Male 4,893

If you are in favor of the phone monitoring because you are willing to trade privacy for safety...you should still be pissed off that our government is doing it, because it is not the will of the people.
0
Reply
Male 4,893

Something we should all agree on...whether dem. or rep...left or right, or somewhere in between. Our media is retarded and super-duper, extremely, insanely biased. Our leaders are super-duper, extremely, insanely biased, corrupt, liars, and downright evil.

Our leaders do not do what we want them to...which means democracy is not working.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Politics is about power more than ideas.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Sean Hannity is one of my all-time LEAST favorite TV commentators. He`s a smug little no-nothing who bullies any guest who disagrees with him.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@FoolsPrussia
Amen. I don`t know who pisses me off more- former cheerleaders for the Patriot Act who are pissed at Obama for using the powers they bestowed upon his office, or former critics of Bush`s policy who are suddenly willing to give up their rights in the name of security.
0
Reply
Male 72
FoolsPrussia if more people understood this concept. There would be less arguing..
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Plenty of hypocrites on both sides of the aisle right now.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Link: Sean Hannity Doesn`t Know What To Think About NSA [Rate Link] - ...unless, of course, you tell him which president in in the Oval Office. Then he knows! Story in credits link below.
0
Reply