OK, I disagree with Obama on FISA... but...

He made a tough call. Obama stood up against some of his own supporters to do what he thought was right in that situation. I can respect that. And I continue to believe that my civil liberties will be a lot safer under an Obama administration than they would be under a McCain regime.

McCain, on the other hand, didn't even vote on the bill. Wussy.

even if he wins he will not be President forever. I don't want to count on the goodwill of any politician to see that my rights are defended. There is no defense on not standing up and speaking out strongly against this bill.

And expect this issue to be revisited during his first term. We should throw out the crap in this FISA bill and keep the parts that are needed.

Then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Though if it was a political calculation, I'd like to know who he's appealing to.

It's a creation of the RW propaganda machine and a soundbite for simpletons.

Obama said he was totally against this, then he was somewhat for it, and now voted for it when he didn't need to.

Seems like he has trouble defining where he stands- funny when so many on DU said that he would stand for strong principles and new thinking when it was primary season.

There's nothing quite as impressive as someone who NEVER changes their mind, stubbornly clinging to a position no matter what new information has been presented. :eyes:

:spray:

So when a presidential hopeful is presented with the chance to make a mockery of the law, he should not hesitate to abandon all principle when presented with more evidence that it is a bad idea?

That sounds like SUCH a great idea!

Unless you are privy to top level advisory meetings, you do not.

This stuff is dead simple- Bush's program does NOT catch terrorists.

Obama promised to Filibuster the immunity. He voted to let the telecoms off the hook instead for their illegal actions.



http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html

I win.

Since you basically made a direct quote of something they would say to justify your point:



This was just for fun. I've had people all night trying to tell me how this is somehow a strategically good idea. They were all as talented you at it.

:kick:

That would somehow justify immunizing the telecoms?

I'll be waiting patiently.

Yes, I'm a crass political hack and right now I'm more concerned about defeating John McCain than I am about adhering to some wholesome principle.

BTW, the "Constitution is dead" ship sailed already. That happened when the USA Patriot Act was passed.

Then I really have problems supporting him. What other things will he do that he "thinks is right" that mirror republican intrests and favor corporations.

I, just as much as anybody else, think that the worst thing which can happen in this election is for McCain to win. But why should acts such as this be rewarded? To pick the "lessor of two evils"? I am sick to death of picking the lessor of two evils. Doing so only insures all futures elections will be a choice between "the lessor of two evils".

If he's willing to do this before he's elected, what else is he capable of after he's elected? This brings up some very serious concerns I think I cannot over look.

For anybody who believes "this will be revisited" after he's elected and then he'll change what he already voted for. Keep dreaming.

And see how that works for you, OK? It is your right as an American.

You wanna know why people are crying about spineless representatives such as Nancy Pelosi? Nancy Pelosi and ilk do what they do because they know there's plenty of sheeple who'll vote for them anyway simply because they wear a (D) next to their name or because they're the "lessor of two evils".

Also, you sound just like George Bush when he says "you're either with us or you're against us". So go ahead then LuckyTheDog, keep rewarding folks who assault our constitution and vote for the lessor of two evils and see how that works for you, OK? It is your right as an American.

n/t

that no Democrat would ever please you.

I really don't care whether or not the phone companies can be sued.

If you have a problem supporting Obama, you might be on the wrong message board.

you might be in the wrong country. n/t

Yup.

But, will this be on the news? Or will it be more missing white girl?

Where is the coverage about Bush's third term?

If people are planning making bombs and killing people then I think law enforcement should know. I'm against other forms of privacy violation, such as urine tests and background examinations on people who want basic needs like a job or a home. Those issues are much more important to our civil liberties and barely get a peep out of folks.

self delete

n/t

of constitutional scholars think differently but hey, whatever gets you through the day.

Of course, I'm crippled by my lack of social acumen, and a habit of saying what I really think, not latching onto the latest craze that people feel will earn them point in their elite circle of friends.

that it does not violate the constitution. It is the opinion of a boatload of constitutional scholars that it does. Forgive me if I go with my reading of the bill and the opinions of the experts.

They are after all experts, which according to you are much better than us common folk at determining what that sentence actually says.

The ACLU will make their best arguments, which is also made up of experts who know much more than us about what that sentence says.

Please understand, I am ripped off day in and day out. I want criminals to be caught. They are everywhere and find any crevasse like telecommunications to plot their crimes, and they WILL use it. This is my opinion, a simple no for good U.S. citizen, who's life's purpose obviously is to be the victim of crimes that assholes are able to commit because nobody cares to do anything about it.

We'll see what the SC has to say.

but I will leave you with this, every time you give up a bit of your privacy more will be taken. This country has a rich history of abuses in this area. Remember when the FBI recently was caught abusing their ability to use their security letters? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031302277.html and even after promising to curb these abuses continued to do it?
They will not only be looking for terrorists, it will expand to political opponents, people who criticize the govt, etc. This leads to a stifling of free speech due to fear. For an illusion of safety we as a society will give up any semblance of privacy and the protection from govt that privacy brings. There was a good reason the founding fathers put the fourth amendment into the constitution.

Ever wonder why impeachment is off the table?

Why its okay to flip the bird to congressional subpoena's?

Ever think that maybe some blackmail is going on under the cover of national security?

That theory seem tangential at best. Yes I think GWB should be in prison, but not for FISA.

He's responsible for the deaths of thousands and the ruining the lives of millions.

The FISA craze distracts from the real issues.

I seem to recall lots of people were mad at Nixon for the same thing.

(this also applies to another thread downstream along the same line of thought)

I know you're being rhetorical, but it's not like Bush is personally spying on us. Say it enough time and some weak minded people start believing it. Why do that? A lot of people simply think it makes sense to prevent electronic communications from being an easy way to plot terrorist attacks.

Just like to good old days, if a police officer walks by a group of people and hears them planning a crime, it could be jotted down in his notebook and someone would be assigned the task of keeping an eye on them. For criminals these days, it would be much easier without FISA, they would be able to plot all they want for destruction because they would be absolutely protected simply since the communications are electronic.

FISA makes such incredibly good sense that the reaction on the DU totally dumbfounds me. It would be so easy to commit horrendous crimes without it. Yet people here want to be without it, and just let the internet and phones be a conduit for any type of crime whatsoever.

I find this totally unbelievable.

Then they bring up these totally tangential topics like, "oh it's Bush" or "oh it's a conspiracy", well it's just plain common sense. Even an asshole like Bush did not shit down FISA, just like he did not shut down the DOE, because they are THAT necessary. And it does not violate the 4th Amendment which applies to militia invading people homes and taking their physical property. You really think they were thinking about telecommunications, like someone talking to another person was considered sacrosanct? Catching criminals before the crime involves investigation, unless you think that police should only document crimes after they happen. By then it's a little too late.

I can point out people everywhere who will not be affected much when horrendous crimes occur. I, nor most others, are not in such a privileged position. The reason criminals get away with crimes is because of all the damn loopholes.

How about people getting their property seized in the War on Brown PeopleDrugs? How about racial profiling? How about the fact that companies can sell your personal information to other companies?

I was listening to a woman call in to Jeff Farias on NovaM earlier. She talked about how African American have had their civil liberties violated for decades and no one really cares. She said that people who are that upset about FISA must lead very privileged lives. I agree.

I hate to say it but I picture a lot of these people sitting around eating cheese and drinking expensive bottles of wine, out of touch with the real issues that effect the majority of people's lives.

More concerned with their own social advancement than anything else.

I'm not paranoid about another terrorist attack, but I know that it will affect people from the bottom up. The elite who own homes and have comfortable savings will prosper because everyone else will be desperate to serve them.

That FISA trumps health care, education, foreign policy, and the myriad other areas that will fare SO MUCH WORSE under a McCain presidency.

Oh boy.

The whole purpose of FISA back in 1978 was so that the government would need a bona fide national security reason to tap phones.

...calling Bush a CREEP will not just automatically win every argument.

and although I disagree with this vote Obama is our best change to fix things once he is in office.

or any position, no matter how honest and sincere the first receiving person be, that power will eventually be abused to advantage of the abuser and the disadvantage of the abused. Any power without checks will certainly be abused.

I am sure that Obama (who has more classified information than we do) felt that some aspects of the program should be preserved for now. And given that this vote was an all-or-nothing thing, he held his nose and voted for it.

He disagrees with himself apparently. Now that's hard to do.

It was the WRONG call.

And he lied.

In October 2007, he publically stated he was against the bill.

In July 2008 he voted FOR the bill.

I can not stand liars.

There was no constituency for this vote, so why did he cast it? Perhaps the emergency shute that inflated inside the back of his plane was a signal. "Mechanic: Obama's Plane Could Have 'Lost Control' in Anomaly" http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/168906 . The CIA likes to operate in the shadows, we need to shine the light of day on this one.

It's as though the rogue uncle living over the garage has taken over. The open takeover was Bush's illegal selection. The declaration was Cheney's FU to Leahy.