369
Remember when they were calling for regime change in China because of mass surveillance? This is the USA today (www.youtube.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 6 months ago (13 children)

Hypocrisy is a requirement in the US.

There. I fixed it for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [+] -20 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    Broadening the blame away from the worst offender only serves to help the worst offenders get away with it.

    Stop it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    When the constitutional lawyer Barack Obama ran for president, he said that the was against warrentless mass surveillance.

    When Snowden revealed the wide use of the PRSIM and Five Eyes agreements to enable mass surveillance of multiple countries without court order, Obama then had Snowden's passport revoked while he was looking for political asylum, and said:

    On June 19, 2013, U.S. president Barack Obama, during a visit to Germany, stated that the NSA's data gathering practices constitute "a circumscribed, narrow system directed at us being able to protect our people".[21]

    Obama didn't reel in the NSA when it was made public, as a constitutional lawyer because it was trying to stop terrorists. Like how Bush did. Like how Trump did. Like how Biden did. Like how Trump is now.

    They don't care about you. They want you to think they do. But if they did, they'd end the panopticon state. Obama didn't even close GitMo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago* (9 children)

    Broadening the blame away from the worst offender

    No one is doing that, liberal. Reds and Blues are the same face of the same fucking coin.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    You mean the two faces of the same fucking coin.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Nope, they're the same fucking party: the Capital's party, that is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    The phrase is "two sides of the same coin". Meaning exactly what you are saying. That they are both the capitalist party. As opposed to another proverbial coin, that of the socialists, anarchists, Monarchist, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Can't you guys get neologisms and irony? I KNOW what is the original idiom. HOWEVER, I'm deliberately changing it to mean there isn't even a simulacrum of difference between Democrats and Republicans. Ah, the eternal marvel of the English language: its breathtaking inability to stray from a pre-written script. No wonder it’s the language of contracts, with every clause so exquisitely, flawlessly delineated. Naturally, people then start behaving as if they’re perpetually executing contracts with one another, forever in hot pursuit of pecuniary advantage. And from that, of course, sprang Common Law, Capitalism, and Imperialism - what a coincidence. It’s just so delightfully easy to build colonies and murder on an industrial scale when the target is nothing more than a number. Precisely because they can’t think beyond greed and individualism, they end up so utterly, pathetically lost the moment they set foot in collectivist countries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -3 points 6 months ago (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    The other transforms these societal demands in woke-liberalism, erasing the class struggle component of feminism, anti-lgbtphobia, anti-rascism. Rendering these fights too individualized and inconsequential.

    The Democrats don't read Frantz Fanon and just skim through Angela Davis.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago*

    I would like to point out that Democrats consistently vote to increase the military budget, even when Trump is president. The most recent defense authorization act received 115 yes votes from Democrats to 94 no votes. On domestic issues you can make the argument that Democrats are a lesser evil, but when it comes to the empire the evil is bipartisan.

    The main difference between Republicans and Democrats on foreign policy is that Democrats are better at it.

    That's not good. Iran was in really bad shape before the war started, another few years of the maximum pressure sanctions campaign and they'd eventually be dealing with enough civil unrest that justifying a "humanitarian intervention" would be possible. Instead of the US and Israel attacking on their own, NATO would have helped topple the government like they did in Libya.

    Instead we got Republicans, who fumbled this so hard that Iran is winning and on the cusp of being a regional hegemon. The US empire is spiraling towards collapse at this rate and I am 100% here for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent