Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Reminder: Obama Told Us To Judge Him, and Pressure Him
huffingtonpost.com — I want to point out that Barack Obama told me that progressive activists should judge him explicitly by what he does - and not come up with wild theories that absolve him. Those who think they are being Obama loyalists by either concocting apologist rationales about his behavior or telling everyone to shut up are harming the progressive movement.
MakiMaki- 1185 diggs
- digg it
- hamobu, on 06/29/2008, -51/+108I just realized that Obama has a same vague answer on every issue:
While *insert downside* it is important that *insert upside*- Raphae1, on 06/29/2008, -26/+45Some people call that responsible consideration.
- hamobu, on 06/29/2008, -16/+48Responsible consideration does not preclude Obama to stake out position and does not account for ambiguity. There is very little that Obama actually committed to.
Obama, for example, has stated that he is for Nuclear energy as a part of broad energy portfolio. He has recently attacked McCain for proposing 40 new nuclear power plants before 2030 by pointing out problem with nuclear waste. McCain of course cannot attack Obama since Obama has not committed to anything other than feel good generalities. - dinot, on 06/30/2008, -33/+7"Responsible consideration does not preclude Obama to stake out position and does not account for ambiguity. There is very little that Obama actually committed to."
Riiiigghhhhtt. Because this whole "stay the course" mentality has worked so well over the past 7 years. - Gryffydd, on 06/30/2008, -2/+21The fact that another mentality has not worked is not an argument *for* any other mentality.
- noahhoward, on 06/30/2008, -19/+9"Obama, for example, has stated that he is for Nuclear energy as a part of broad energy portfolio. He has recently attacked McCain for proposing 40 new nuclear power plants before 2030 by pointing out problem with nuclear waste. McCain of course cannot attack Obama since Obama has not committed to anything other than feel good generalities."
That is called sense. You can't go off an build 40 plants without a plan. You can be committed to nuclear without going off half-cocked. - noahhoward, on 06/30/2008, -11/+8Wow... so we really believe that building 40 nuclear plant with no plan to manage the waste is a better idea than devloping a plan to store the waste first????
- gn0stik, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6"The fact that another mentality has not worked is not an argument *for* any other mentality."
I don't think anybody is saying that it is, just an argument AGAINST non committal politicking.
He's saying that we can't form an opinion on someone who has no opinions of their own. - Xenologer, on 06/30/2008, -6/+2No way, Raph! We want to be told precisely what's right and what's wrong and what we need to do instead of some elitist professor of Constitutional law laying out research for us. We want conclusions, not facts! If we could think for ourselves we wouldn't need a President! [/sarcasm]
In all seriousness, though. Thank you for mentioning that. I get annoyed when people think that because Obama mentions both sides of an issue he "isn't saying anything." Sorry, but politics and culture ARE complicated things, and there are going to be downsides and upsides to anything. To do any LESS is irresponsible. - hamobu, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5Xenologer: In all seriousness, though. Thank you for mentioning that. I get annoyed when people think that because Obama mentions both sides of an issue he "isn't saying anything."
OK, what is he saying then? Complexity aside, at some point you have to make a decision and take an action. Obama is like a guy that sits on the fence all day, doing nothing and criticizing everyone else how they are "doing it wrong" - Xenologer, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1If you find his public statements so confusing, perhaps you should check what he's actually done.
Some info about his legislative stances: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/10/10532/ ...
Or you could always just go check his voting record.
- hamobu, on 06/29/2008, -16/+48Responsible consideration does not preclude Obama to stake out position and does not account for ambiguity. There is very little that Obama actually committed to.
- richnojutsu, on 06/30/2008, -5/+44Congratulations, you've just discovered politics.
- Kolbeck10, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1But Obama isn't a regular politician?
- nedzeve, on 06/30/2008, -11/+4The world is a simple place, really. The problems we face can usually be summed up in simple sentences.
- diggduggDOOM, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1TL;DNR
- kewidogg, on 06/30/2008, -2/+11It's called "following a negative with a positive" or "ending on a positive note". Not to be confused with the compliment sandwich (compliment / criticism / compliment).
- zombies187, on 06/30/2008, -8/+13I've just noticed that every sentence he says contains a subject AND a verb! Coincidence? I think not.
- WallyAnti, on 06/30/2008, -3/+12So that's a reason to dismiss him or...? What's your point is what I am curious about.
I find it somewhat comforting when a politician doesn't just tell me what to think, but instead goes through his thought process. It's more like we're working together... you know... democracy.
That said I'm pretty disappointed in some of Obama's recent policy changes.- hamobu, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8What is my point? My point is: What is Obama's point!
Point is that obama talks out of both ends. Point is that Obama is vague, evasive and takes stakes claim in both positions in case political winds charge.
DC handgun ban is a good example. Obama was for DC handgun ban, when that got overturned by Supreme court, it turned out that Obama was always for second amendments.
There is always some statement that Obama can point to in the past to imply that he was for this, that or the other issue. - airwalke, on 06/30/2008, -5/+3You're right, we do not need politicians that can change their minds or question their own beliefs. This has served Bush greatly over the past 8 years, and to indicate anything less than a solid position would indicate weakness.
[/end sarcasm] - hamobu, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5airwalke:You're right, we do not need politicians that can change their minds or question their own beliefs.
Obama changes his mind? You need to have a clear position in order to change your mind. When Obama does have a position and then does change his mind, it seems to be a calculated self-serving move to get more votes. - WallyAnti, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2@hamobu
I think his point is that sometimes it will be one way and sometimes it'll be the other and it's up to you to make that distinction, decide, and act accordingly. It's not like what we are used to where politicians lay out one side of the story. The one they are already convicted to. Perhaps Obama is really trying to get us to think so he can see the results and act in accordance with the will of the people.
It's not black and white, but we've had enough of that with ol' Bush and his absolute thoughts on good and evil. In that wake I find this kind of speech refreshing.
I think his point is that too often people start applying the Bertrand Russel argument. The one that goes "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail". - hamobu, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3@wallyAnti
Perhaps Obama is trying to get us to think, or perhaps Obama is to not lay out a position that could be political liability for him. Personally I am more cynical. My cynicism is already paying off since Obama went back on FISA and public funding, started courting AIPAC, and did other things that moved him away from the position that got him democratic nomination.
Ask you self, are just making excuses for this guy? Why aren't you cynical? - WallyAnti, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Oh, I'm very cynical. And this does frustrate me. But I'm waiting for the vote before I make up my mind completely He is doing some things differently, but admittedly those things are mostly superficial and having to do more with psychology than politics. Sorry, haven't completely given up hope... but wait for me, I'll probably be there soon.
- hamobu, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8What is my point? My point is: What is Obama's point!
- JettaMan, on 06/30/2008, -5/+13I've never heard him talk about concrete, *specific* issues. I've never heard him say *specifically* what he would do to enact this change that he talks about so much. But from what I heard he is all for expanding government, which is the last thing America needs right now.
- ryan850, on 06/30/2008, -0/+9Seems our choice might be to expand the gov't domestically or militarily... I still choose domestically if I have to chose between the two... I'm still writing in Ron Paul though.
- Xenologer, on 06/30/2008, -4/+6"From what I heard" is not a responsible foundation for a vote. Sorry. Check his website if you really want to know, but if you don't care enough even to do that, I marvel that you care enough to vote in the first place...
- hakz, on 06/30/2008, -4/+6You've JUST noticed this?
- nickymouse, on 06/30/2008, -6/+12Blah blah CHANGE blah blah HOPE Blah FUTURE blah blah WE CAN DO IT blah blah
- radiofrequency, on 06/30/2008, -3/+7Let's talk about his total lack of accomplishments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGru2CPC4E- SoulDrift404, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Let's talk about why "accomplishments" aren't the sole deciding factor in choosing a President.
- Raphae1, on 06/29/2008, -26/+45Some people call that responsible consideration.
- jond, on 06/29/2008, -29/+19If I've learned anything, it's that the media controls the elections.
They've picked Obama. The election is basically over at this point.- hamobu, on 06/29/2008, -12/+14I actually believe that Media picked Hillary. Obama gave great deal of scrutiny to every person even tangentially associated with Obama, while numerous Clinton scandals never once got mentioned.
- 2reflective, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6I agree. Even with all the help she got from the MSM, the public still hated her.
So now the corporations are forced to run with their second choice.
Doesn't really matter to them. They always win no matter which mainstream candidate gets in.
- 2reflective, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6I agree. Even with all the help she got from the MSM, the public still hated her.
- shaherazad, on 06/30/2008, -9/+14I'm gonna laugh at you when McCain wins.
Nothing is set in stone, and certainly not in politics.- TopherT, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4I'm going to riot if McCain wins. Then I'm going to TP your house :)
- smoothdogg00, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5Dugg you because you're right about the media, but its not true that the election is over.
- hamobu, on 06/29/2008, -12/+14I actually believe that Media picked Hillary. Obama gave great deal of scrutiny to every person even tangentially associated with Obama, while numerous Clinton scandals never once got mentioned.
- FrankHope, on 06/29/2008, -39/+145- Obama 2 years ago: "You should always assume that when I cast a vote or make a statement it is because it is what I believe in."
- Obama this past week stated that he supports a FISA bill that strips you of your 4th Amendment rights.
- Conclusion: Obama doesn't give a damn about your Civil Liberties.
I think it's alarming that some people are forming a Cult of Personality around Obama. Especially given the extraordinary powers that the President and the Executive Branch have been granted in post 9/11 America.- SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -18/+68Mr. Obama also voted to re-authorize the "Patriot Act" via HR 3199. A "YES" vote to adopt a "conference report" that extends the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct "roving wiretaps" and 'access "certain business records" through December 31, 2009, and makes the remaining 14 provisions of the "Patriot Act" *permanent*. What *****. America has a ***** CONSTITUTION we don't need a fascist "Patriot Act" for the elite. Obama voted "YES" on HR 2360: the "Homeland Security Department FY 2006 Appropriations Act", a funding bill that appropriates **$34.55 billion** for the unconstitutional, Nazi-esque "Department of Homeland Security." For what? Get rid of this taxpayer funded waste already it's not doing us a single bit of good. Meanwhile, Americas borders and ports remain WIDE OPEN, unsecured and completely unprotected. Obama also voted "YES" on S 2248: "FISA Amendments Act of 2007" an amendment that states that the so-called 'Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" is the exclusive means by which surveillance can be conducted on **domestic** wire, oral, or electronic communications. Warrant-less spying on American citizens by the government is now LEGAL.
Does this sound like a man who is concerned about respecting our individual freedoms? Is this a president who will defend Americas precious Constitution? Is he the one to protect our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution as Americans? Is this a person who will fight to protect our Bill of Rights, fight for our privacy rights as American citizens?
Doh.
Obama initially promised to support repealing the "Patriot Act", then voted to extend it. WTF kind of BULL ***** is that. Some consistency. Obama is no different from Clinton, McCain or any of the other bought-out self-serving OWNED by greater masters and "special interests" lobbyist puppets in this regard. They all lie thru their teeth and sell us out just the same. Republic-rat, Demo-crap makes ZERO difference anymore. Both MSM-promoted false paradigm parties are 2 wings of the same bird. They completely fail to represent the people they are elected to serve.
Not since the infamous, wrongly named "Patriot Act" of 2001 has any bill so threatened the constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens. This anti-constitutional farce has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans. Now the "powers that be" got their FISA bull ***** approved they're all set to do whatever they please with ZERO accountability to existing laws they're above it all. And accomplice-Telco corporations are immune from lawsuits and court proceedings. How convenient.
The Bush administration and a spineless congress - Republicrat and Democrap members alike - have been chipping away at hard-won U.S. civil liberties ever since the "surprise" "we never saw it coming!" 9/11 events. First, came the draconian "USA Patriot Act" of October 2001, which was rushed though congress with no protest, no outcry and virtually no debate whatsoever. Only one member of the senate spoke out against it (guess). His was a lone voice that was drowned by a shrill chorus of pro-Act voices in congress, as the Bush administration used every pressure-tactic and intimidation in the book to ensure its quick passage.
Next, along came the even more draconian “Homeland (in)Security Act” which, among other things, lumped together more than a score of US federal agencies under the umbrella of a new "Department of Homeland (in)Security" - a bureaucratic billion-dollar taxpayer funded behemoth outranked in size only by the Department of Defense.
Passed on January 23, 2002, the Hitlerian wet dream "Homeland (in)Security" Act' is arguably the most draconian, unAmerican piece of legislation in the history of the United States. Clause (a)(1) of Section 202 (Access to information”) states: “Except as otherwise directed by the President, the Secretary (of the newly created Department of Homeland Security) shall have such access as the Secretary considers necessary to all information, including reports, assessments, analyses and unevaluated intelligence relating to threats of terrorism against the United States and to other areas of responsibility assigned to the Secretary, and to all information concerning infrastructure or other vulnerabilities of the United States to terrorism, whether or not such information has been analysed , that may be collected, possessed, or prepared by any agency of the Federal Government.”
Under this blanket provision, the 'Secretary of the "Homeland (in)Security Department" has the authority to obtain just about any and every type of information relating to any individual, including information of the most personal nature.
Privacy no longer exists in America. It is a thing of the past, and the country is well on its way to becoming a fascist police state. The puppet candidates Obama + McCain who are OWNED by "special interests" and greater masters will only further the plan. They will not defend our Constitutional rights as American citizens. They don't represent us. WTF is wrong with Americans that they continue to be deceived and fooled by these OBVIOUS sold out, con artist slick talking wolves in sheeps clothing and keep voting the same double-talker charlatan trickster-puppets into power??- Nemisys, on 06/30/2008, -5/+13Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwich
who will you choose? - revjustin2, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8So....who will you be voting for this year?
- br0ck, on 06/30/2008, -10/+191. Obama didn't vote on S2248 (but supports FISA court supervision of surveillance and opposes telecom immunity and has worked hard to eliminate 'roving wiretaps'): http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
2. HR2360 passed unanimously. The 30.8 billion cost of the act is equal to 42 days of the Iraq war and covers the cost of the secret service, coast guard, immigration and customs: http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=lb-109- ...
3. Regarding roving wiretaps and the Patriot act, actually, Obama acted more than almost anyone in the Senate or the House to combat civil rights issues in the Patriot Act! Obama voted against the original re-authorization: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
Obama then helped write and co-sponsored the SAFE act which the EFF said would fix the most troublesome of problems with the Patriot Act including ROVING WIRETAPS, limit sneak & peek, and numerous other things that you can read about at the EFF site: http://w2.eff.org/patriot/safe_act_analysis.php
Obama joined a senate group to demand fixes to all Patriot act civil rights violations (listed at the following link), and they did fix as many of the problems as they could in a 50-50 senate: http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/060106patr ...
Russ Feingold then proposed a bill to restore more rights. --- "A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes." --- Obama voted to keep it alive for Senate floor debate while Clinton voted to kill it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
Since the House had killed all the fixes, the Republican senators decided to try pushing through a much worse Patriot Act reauthorization which was guaranteed to make it through the House. The Democrats in the Senate decided to try a diluted version of their fixes (which included several of Obama's SAFE provisions) in the form of a hobbled Patriot reauthorization compromise that could make it through the Republican House. Obama then gave an impassioned plea to fix all the problems, but was ultimately forced to go with the hobbled version or the nation would end up with the much worse version with no fixes. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statem ... - elipabst, on 06/30/2008, -8/+6The re-authorization of the PATRIOT specifically *added* congressional oversight to a number of programs that were essentially operating Carte Blanche.
The administration also claimed that failing to reauthorize it would significantly jeopardize ongoing intelligence operations. I don't know how true that is, but the Senate intelligence committee (which consisted of both Republicans and Democrats) had access to a lot of classified programs and agreed with that language. So essentially anyone who voted against would come off as "weak" on terrorism and security. It would be political suicide for a Presidential candidate to vote against it. You can rattle on about how you or Ron Paul would take a stand but the fact is you would immediately get pigeonholed as a wackjob and become irrelevant in the race. - AmaDaden, on 06/30/2008, -6/+6@SickOfGovtLIES
You clearly know a lot about what is going on, and i commend you for that. However it is clear from the way you speak you are not looking for any solutions or explanations. If Obama did something you don't agree with FIND OUT WHY. Do not jump to conclusions about what is what. I have not kept up with things nearly as much as you have but I do remember hearing something along the lines of the renewal of the Patriot act, while it kept several nasty things going, stopped several others.
Politics is not black and white. Never has been never will be. The goal is not to fix everything right this second, it is to head in the right direction. Like the issue of slavery. Many of the FF wanted to get rid of it but they could not. In the end they allowed it so that progress could be made in forming the US. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United ...
In 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter that with slavery:
We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.
This is how things work. You are ALWAYS fighting in politics. A gain is a gain and a loss is a loss. Just because what you got is not perfect is no reason to call it a loss. Obama is the right direction even if he is lying about half of what he has said. He said things that people need to believe so that we can reach that perfect world where we have privacy. Sitting there and telling people hopeless things like "the country is well on its way to becoming a fascist police state" is the perfect thing to do to help the country to become a fascist police state. - ryan850, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3People please this is Digg. No digger is going to read such long posts.. start a blog or something.
- Pittance, on 06/30/2008, -4/+2I agree with AmaDaden. Fear mongering is always bad. It just riles people up and lets them vote with emotion instead of reason and rational. That is what happened after 9/11 and why the original patriot act went through no more than 2mos after the attack.
Kudos to Brock for all the citations. I didn't check a one of them, but the fact that you add in all that research really shows that you are trying to give evidence and strength to your argument, which fortifies your case immensely. - SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5@ AmaDaden
"You clearly know a lot about what is going on, and i commend you for that."
Thank you...
"However it is clear from the way you speak you are not looking for any solutions or explanations."
Are you kidding me? Stating facts has become 'not looking for solutions or explanations." Go figure. What is there to 'explain', exactly ?
It is clear the only REAL solution to our hi-jacked government and country and bought, sold & paid for politicians who unanimously sell us out across the board to greater masters and fail to represent us is -=revolution=-. We can 'explain' and talk and yammer about this that & the other thing 'till we're blue in the face. We can type and send letters emails and faxes. Not gonna change *****. We need to take real action. These sold out puppets don't hear our voices. They continue to shut us out, the American people they are 'elected' to serve (so the story goes) They serve much greater masters. They are OWNED by corporations. Ultra wealthy foreign lobbyists. AIPAC. Secret organizations and societies. Goofy "Bilderberg Group" and 'CFR' agenda. Not our agenda. Not a Constitutional agenda. They sold us all out a long time ago and continue to do so while we write our letters, send our emails, and call our "representatives." Elections are rigged. "Computerized voting" was the final nail in the coffin. The controlled, treasonous television and print media decide the candidates, not American citizens.
Revolution is needed. It's time. Tear the ***** down and start over. Rise up and take our country back from the traitors who hi-jacked it. Enough ***** talking and explaining everything away. Revolt already. Get off the blogs and take to the streets.
This is a great step in the right direction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lxcq8fGY9w
"Do not jump to conclusions about what is what."
What you call "jumping to conclusions" I call basing such conclusions on plenty of experience and facts, not merely "jumping" to them out of convenience.
"the renewal of the Patriot act, while it kept several nasty things going, stopped several others."
The correct vote was a "***NO***." Screw "renewing" it. We don't need no ***** wrongly-named mockery of real patriotism so-called "Patriot Act" sham if these agencies would simply DO THEIR JOBS. The "Patriot Act" is the most un-patriotic thing about America. We have a -Constitution- for a reason. America is great because of it's Constitution.
The changes Obama made to the "Patriot Act" were menial at best. It did little for us in the way of protecting our rights, but much for him in the way of political cover. The right vote was a 'NO' vote. Period.
"Obama is the right direction even if he is lying about half of what he has said."
I believe we deserve much better than lying politicians. We as Americans certainly deserve FAR more than the deceitful, double-talking, self-serving status quo. Why settle for less? Why on earth would people settle for liars? I don't understand it. No wonder the political traitors get away with what they do, break laws, eviscerate our Bill of Rights with no accountability and continue to sell us out, sell our freedoms and country out, and further dismantle our Constitution under guise of "protecting" us and "doing the right thing" for who, exactly? What a damn travesty. What has this nation become a country of apathetic, gutless ninnies that enjoy being lied and deceived to by finely-clothed carefully scripted 'elected officials' and the 'powers that be'.
Obama is a loyal servant of AIPAC. That alone is cause for concern. What is a war promoting ultra rich lobby like that doing in America, buying out our presidents for their self-serving benefit? And why has Obama pledged so much support to this lobby. Why not pledge support to Americas Constitution? Why not pledge unshakable support for the Bill of Rights, here at home? to the American people. Is he running for president of Israel or America? You can't have it both ways. We've got plenty of issues that need attention right here in this country FIRST before we go handing out 5 billion dollars per year to prop up governments overseas, for starters.
Obama's not going to solve the nation's problems. He's on the same side as everyone running for president who was given 24/7 media attention, free airtime and TV promotion 24/7. Mike Gravel, Robert Barr, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul are true candidates who have been given little to zero mainstream media attention and were instead pettily 'ridiculed', smeared, censored and actually OMITTED from debates and coverage. This is a planned, fraudulent election. The media chooses your president, not you. Realize this.
"Sitting there and telling people hopeless things like "the country is well on its way to becoming a fascist police state" is the perfect thing to do to help the country to become a fascist police state."
"Hopeless"? I believe in honesty, not blowing smoke up people ass and lying, sugar coating things just to please them in effort to be "popular" and socially accepted. That ***** for the birds. America IS well on its way to becoming a fascist police state. It doesn't make it any more "hopeless" to tell the truth. Just look at what our country faces: "Patriot Act." Warrantless wiretaps and searches. "Homeland (in)Security." FISA. 'Real Id act' ( aka: national ID cards) NSPD-51. 'Military Commissions Act.' Secret prisons where torture is committed. Countless 'secret laws.' Signing Statements. HR1955 freedom of speech "thought crimes" legislation. And on and on. Open your eyes. Telling the truth about the reality of a given situation does not 'further a police state' along or promote a state of 'hopelessness" the truth is empowering. Truth awakens consciousness, expands the mind, makes one aware of what's really going on beyond the lies, massive manipulations and smoke & mirrors-deceit we're continually being sold on steady diet by a hi-jacked government, political figureheads, 2-faced self-serving career politicians and a complicit, controlled media. Knowledge is power. They don't want an awake, aware populace that is capable of critical thinking. We've become conditioned to being lied to and sold out. We have been sold out as sheep a little at a time, just like the frog in boiling water.
Sitting there and telling people what they want to hear with pretty speeches, soundbite slogans, "feel-good" verbiage, outright lying and PC political doublespeak, about SERIOUS, important issues while in turn doing the exact opposite come voting time, doing an 'about face' when it comes time to act and the cameras are off, is the ultimate sellout. Which is the current state of American politics today. That's called deception. Why not be honest about the issues instead of an empty suited phony. That's the problem with Americans nowadays. It has become "American" to be LIED to. They are pleased to have liars in office. This doesn't bother them. They are "OK" with it. As if that's all there is. And we somehow "deserve" this, to be lied to and tricked by sellout traitors who fail to represent us. They want a slick talker who tells them what they want to hear so they can feel "comfortable" and go back to drinking beer and watching 'Dancing With the Stars" and "Survivor" re-runs. The politicians and "leaders" know this and take FULL advantage of the complacent apathy. That's why we have ZERO accountability anymore. The politicians will vote however they please with no real representation or respect what voters and citizenry truly want.
In my opinion, the correct direction for America is putting a Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader in office as President of the United States. A real, honest truth-speaking human being who cares about Americas future and respects the Bill of Rights, who votes in accordance with our Constitution which is the law of the land that ALL politicians must abide by, but do not. A straight, direct speaker, not one who drowns us in mind-numbing double speak and cheap phrases like "change candidate" and "a new hope" while saying nothing. We need REAL visionary leadership, REAL planning and strategy, not double-talking sellouts to foreign lobbyists, secret society members war mongers and loyal, devout servants of some "AIPAC" farce. We need a real leader who will work on issues facing our country today, not a world policeman who prefers to "liberate" and "democratize" foreign nations instead. We need a real president of America here at home, not a president of overseas. We need a servant of 'we the people', not an obedient slave to wealthy lobbyist groups and "special interests." We need a president who will fight to protect our Constitutional rights, who will work to secure our privacy rights and freedoms as American citizens. That's what this country is about, and what it was founded upon. Not someone who votes to destroy them while smiling and telling us "it's the right direction" and other cheap rhetoric. McCain, Obama, the Clinton's don't even come close.
When you break it down:
McCain is CFR, & has the backing of Skull & Bones member Bush. He is also endorsed by Kissinger from the Bilderberg group, & the Rothschild family. (Let's call him Team Rothschild)
Obama though has a wife who is a chair of the CFR, & has been endorsed by Brzezinski, (globalist, CFR, Trilateral Commission past Bilderberger), Skull & Bonesman Kerry, and the Rockefellers. (Let's call him Team Rockefeller).
So it's Rothschild vs Rockefeller
as we move to sudden death.
When will Americans learn that candidates promoted by an OWNED, controlled, censorious media are the candidate NOT to vote for if you want REAL change for the better in this country. When are Americans going to wake up to realize that the candidates promoted by the controlled, government sanctioned television and print media on a free airtime blitz, are the ones NOT to vote for ? America has but one voice, and its name is MEDIA. Why else would they be given so much free airtime and promotion 24/7. They will only give us more of the same and further the plan. Business as usual. You'd think after 50 years we'd have learned this most basic fact by now...
"Americans like to talk about or be told about 'democracy' but, when put to the test, usually find it to be an 'inconvenience.' We have opted instead for an authoritarian system disguised as a democracy. We pay through the nose for an enormous joke-of-a-government, let it push us around, and then wonder how all those assholes got in there.." --Frank Zappa
FZ on Crossfire 21 years ago "We are heading toward a fascist theocracy"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc
Zappa was way ahead of his time. Ahead of our time and yet standing up to these mind controlled shills. - GovernmentSp00k, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4Preach it sister!! You rock! Everything you said is so right on the money. Great Zappa clip BTW. Always been a big FZ fan here. There's plenty more on YouTube. Hard to believe this was from over 20 years ago! Fast forward to today. Everything he predicted has materialized, unfortunately. But Frank saw it coming even back than and tried to warn us. He definitely knew the score. What a unique vision to see through the BS and media manipulation like nobodys business.
- br0ck, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2""Computerized voting" was the final nail in the coffin. "
"Introduced just before the Memorial Day recess, Feinstein's bill is co-sponsored by 10 Democrats--including presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Christopher Dodd--and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders. Clinton made a brief appearance on Wednesday to make a pitch for "21st century reforms" to the nation's voting system. In her view, that action includes requiring the use of voter-verified paper records that would serve as the official ballot of record, banning undisclosed e-voting software source code, and prohibiting wireless communications devices in voting systems." http://news.cnet.com/Senators-to-abandon-08-e-voti ...
"The changes Obama made to the "Patriot Act" were menial at best. It did little for us in the way of protecting our rights, but much for him in the way of political cover. The right vote was a 'NO' vote. Period."
A no vote would have unacceptable because it would have allowed the Republican house to reinstate the OLD patriot act, and you're right that the patriot act is horrible. Read Obama's speech I linked to at the end and you'll see he agrees with us.
"Obama though has a wife who is a chair of the CFR, & has been endorsed by Brzezinski, (globalist, CFR, Trilateral Commission past Bilderberger), Skull & Bonesman Kerry, and the Rockefellers. (Let's call him Team Rockefeller)."
Obama's wife is a member of the open membership, open meetings, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, not the CFR. Who cares that people that endorsed him are members of some spooky club.. it's his membership and beliefs that matter.
If you want a candidate who is trying harder than the others to ditch corporate ownership of the government, who isn't already beholden to the lobbies and special interest groups, who will work harder than the others to restore people's constitutional rights to privacy and who want to create a completely transparent executive branch, then Obama is your guy. - AmaDaden, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2@br0ck Man you're good. Thanks for all clarifications.
@SickOfGovtLIES Trust me, If the Revolution comes I will be on the front lines with you. But I still think we can save this country. Not only that I think that a lot of this “OMG CFR!” stuff is tilting at windmills, what br0ck has found only helps to confirm this.
I do agree with what you value, we need to get back to basics and make it wrong for anyone to go ageist the constitution. But that can not be done over night. We need ALL of America behind that. We need to take some time and undo the fear that at any moment a terrorist can break in to your house and blow up your children(yes there are idiots who think that). We need to heal a bit so that we can TALK and change things. The anger and rage you have over this just shows how bad it is. You need to calm down, you're pushing too hard on people who are already informed. The only people who like to hear such anger are the other people who are angry. To EVERYONE else it only invalidates you and your argument. You are acting like a crazy street preacher. Why do you think that RP has fallen out of favor with the main Digg crowd? They are sick of hearing this kind of fear mongering.
If Obama came out swinging just like RP and Kusinich did he would not have gotten this far in the election. It's sad but true. There are two ways to change things. 1) beat the crap out of everyone until they do what you want (Revolution) 2) Play their game until you can get to a point where you can change the game. That is what Obama is doing. It does not all ways look like it but that's because it's become such a complicated game. Could he be lying and everything he is is a sham? Yeah might be and if it is think about how many people that will piss off. THAT will be the call for revolution. I say give him a chance. Personally I think he can get things working correctly again. - SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2@ GovernmentSp00k
Thank you for your positive comments. You definitely "get it". Of course I say that because you agree with me ; ) ha ha. Nice to see another female here! I thought we were extinct on Digg. Totally agree with you on FZ. I was first introduced to him back in the 80's by several close friends. He saw the sham we were being sold WAY before it materialized. His Crossfire appearances were legendary back in the day. Direct, straight up, clear truth. Without all the bull crap fluffery. Never imagined video clips would show up on youtube 30 years later, *****. Where does the time go? He really did put it to the robotic mind controlled shills and their double talking minced words in their place. Another one of the good guys who is sorely missed. With that I leave you:
"This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...
It is my responsibility to enforce all the laws that haven't been passed yet.
It is also my responsibility to alert each and every one of you to the potential consequences of various ordinary everyday activities you might be
performing which could eventually lead to The Death Penalty
(or affect your parents credit rating).
Our criminal institutions are full of little creeps like you who do wrong things... and many of them were driven to these crimes by a horrible force called MUSIC!
Our studies have shown that this horrible force is so dangerous to society at large that laws are being drawn up at this very moment to stop it forever!
Cruel and inhuman punishments are being carefully described in tiny paragraphs so they won't conflict with the Constitution
(which, itself, is being modified in order to accommodate THE FUTURE).
I bring you now a special presentation to show what can happen to you if you choose a career in MUSIC . . .
The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only. . . if you have to load or unload, go to the WHITE ZONE... you 'll love it... it 's a way of life . . .
This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only..." (etc.)
: )
- Nemisys, on 06/30/2008, -5/+13Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwich
- JNudda, on 06/30/2008, -21/+16Please do your research. The bill does not take away your 4th amendment rights. It says right in the bill that it must follow the fourth amendment.
- pintomp3, on 06/30/2008, -9/+19is mccain a better alternative?
- jabberwolf, on 06/30/2008, -16/+12When you look at the issues and what each has done -
That Obama is far left and Mccain is more centered ( to the point of pissing off most of the Republicans)
Being pro-choice
Not wanting to drill in Alaska
Wanting to close Guitmo
Then yes!
BTW - Try listening to almost any business news show about economic forecasts if either is president (even on MSNBC). They are all scared about Obama's taxation and the result of the economy because of it. - FredFredrickson, on 06/30/2008, -8/+12Absolutely not.
- jmdisme, on 06/30/2008, -10/+6How convenient jabber leaves out the plethora of hurtful intentions, ignorant statements, false beliefs, and countless flip flops that have spewed out of McCains facehole. Then again, that's jabber for ya!
Grade A douche. - itsthebrod, on 06/30/2008, -1/+14Nope, which is why the two party system ***** sucks. We should NEVER have to resort to a "lesser of two evils" voting scheme in a democracy.
- jabberwolf, on 06/30/2008, -16/+12When you look at the issues and what each has done -
- nedzeve, on 06/30/2008, -17/+19Ron Paul would stand up for our liberties and vote against FISA.
- dezholling, on 06/30/2008, -8/+14Too bad he didn't.
- Disfnord, on 06/30/2008, -5/+11Then why didn't he?
- Tenbatsu404, on 06/30/2008, -1/+14Statement on HR 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments
20 June 2008
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.
Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.
The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.
- FredFredrickson, on 06/30/2008, -14/+12As with each presidential election in the US, it's always a choice between the lesser of the two evils. John McCain is not a better choice. That's all there is to it.
Hate it all you want, but in this two party system, that's just the way it is. I'm not throwing away my vote on a third party. More power to you if that's what you choose to do.- mycatsasha, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3If the Green Party gets a certain percentage of votes, we'll have a three party system. The lesser of three evils might be better than that of two.
- radiofrequency, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6I disagree. McCain is a far better choice.
- TRScheel, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6Can I point out that voting for a third party is not 'throwing your vote away.'
- crweaks23, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4True, but the problem is that the Green Party (and other small parties) and their ideologies are not and never will be embraced by a majority. Green Party voters waste their votes, because even if every single person who sided with them made it to the polls, it still wouldn't be anywhere near enough support.
No matter how much you believe in something, you can't make any political headway without compromising on issues in order to gain a broader range of support. This, by the way, is also the problem that Ron Paul has. His followers are extremely passionate, but he fails to hit mainstream levels of support because of controversial ideas that he and his followers are unwilling to compromise on. It is certainly commendable that he is willing to stick so strongly to his beliefs, but if you intend on making it to the White House, you have to get support from a broad range of people. No matter how passionate you are about your candidate, how much money you raise, or how stupid you think your opposition is, your vote only counts once. - TRScheel, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2@crweaks23
True, but it still makes the mainstream candidate bend in your direction if he wants to grab the few that are willing to compromise. If third parties take even a couple percentages in a close race it gives the main two parties reason to pause and consider reaching for those voters.
Still, its just a thing that bothers me when people say 'You are throwing your vote away' by voting for someone who has no viable chance to win. - foontala, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2@FredFredrickson
Intervene here or intervene there? Spend too much here or spend too much there? Less liberty here or less liberty there? Preempt here or preempt there? 700 bases here or 701 bases there?
You are the one wasting a vote!
- ConceptJunkie, on 06/30/2008, -11/+17> I think it's alarming that some people are forming a Cult of Personality around Obama
I think it's alarming that some people are apparently only realizing this now. It was obvious about 45 seconds after Obama's name hit the mainstream.
Basically, he's a shallow candidate for shallow people who want "change" but aren't particularly worried about the details.- jonahhorowitz, on 06/30/2008, -8/+0There are plenty of details. "Shallow" is a narrative pushed by the opposition. It's false. If you want the details go to www.barackobama.com and click on positions. You'll find plenty of details.
As much as I'm pissed over the FISA BS. I can't let this "shallow" BS continue to thrive. It's not like McCain has a lot of substiance. He's basically running on the platform of "I was tortured 40 years ago, therefore I deserve to be president". - TRScheel, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5I think it was Jon Stewart that showed the Youtube videos that Hillary's and Obama's campaigns had put out. Obama's video had gotten more views over Hillary's despite the fact that Obama's was literally a dozen or so people singing 'Change for hope, hope for change, changing for hope, etc' while Hillary's actually described policies in the song.
Take that however you want... just an odd occurence and one that should make most people step back and think. I know a lot of Democrats are pissed off because Bush 'stayed the course' but I see a lot of them doing it now. Its biased to say that, as there are a lot of Republicans doing the same with their candidate of choice, but regardless... its good to sometimes realize that the man/woman you wanted in the beginning might not be what you thought he/she was.
End point: Stop getting stuck on ego and actually consider who you are backing - AmaDaden, on 06/30/2008, -7/+2"Basically, he's a shallow candidate for shallow people who want "change" but aren't particularly worried about the details."
@ConceptJunkie It is true that in order to know more about Obama you need to actually research him because he does not say much in his speeches. So many people, like my self, have done the research and like him BECAUSE of what we found. Don't think just because the information is hard to get it does not exist.
- jonahhorowitz, on 06/30/2008, -8/+0There are plenty of details. "Shallow" is a narrative pushed by the opposition. It's false. If you want the details go to www.barackobama.com and click on positions. You'll find plenty of details.
- kingUssop, on 06/30/2008, -15/+10Yeah I'm sure he'll be the next Hitler. OGABOOGA BOOGA BOOGA CULT OF PERSONALITY, check your closet folks, the right wing paranoidosphere says to.
- Morfildor, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6What?
- skyz, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5i was alarmed months ago when merely asking if anyone had ever seen obama walk on water was enough to get you killed (at least symbolically on digg)
- SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -18/+68Mr. Obama also voted to re-authorize the "Patriot Act" via HR 3199. A "YES" vote to adopt a "conference report" that extends the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct "roving wiretaps" and 'access "certain business records" through December 31, 2009, and makes the remaining 14 provisions of the "Patriot Act" *permanent*. What *****. America has a ***** CONSTITUTION we don't need a fascist "Patriot Act" for the elite. Obama voted "YES" on HR 2360: the "Homeland Security Department FY 2006 Appropriations Act", a funding bill that appropriates **$34.55 billion** for the unconstitutional, Nazi-esque "Department of Homeland Security." For what? Get rid of this taxpayer funded waste already it's not doing us a single bit of good. Meanwhile, Americas borders and ports remain WIDE OPEN, unsecured and completely unprotected. Obama also voted "YES" on S 2248: "FISA Amendments Act of 2007" an amendment that states that the so-called 'Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" is the exclusive means by which surveillance can be conducted on **domestic** wire, oral, or electronic communications. Warrant-less spying on American citizens by the government is now LEGAL.
- lazerus9, on 06/29/2008, -39/+17..."Brokeback Obama"......The Sinclair Saga continues..... ignored by the MSM.
- SheilaNoya, on 06/30/2008, -9/+18Attack Obama on the issues, but stop dragging up your lame Sinclair story that has already been debunked as a total fraud. It only shows you lack any credibility.
- lazerus9, on 06/30/2008, -10/+7We shall see!, the truth will eventually come out, but your ignorance of the "Cabal" that has thrust a virtually unknown political neophyte before the American people to be the leader of this once great country tells me you have no idea of what you are talking about.
As far as attacking him on the issues, that would be difficult as he seems to stake out both sides of every issue arguing passionately with himself! - CoolHandLuke70, on 06/30/2008, -7/+8Where has it been debunked and who has debunked it? -- How was it debunked?
- lazerus9, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately, with regards to the Sinclair confession---Obama "IS" the issue!!
- lazerus9, on 06/30/2008, -10/+7We shall see!, the truth will eventually come out, but your ignorance of the "Cabal" that has thrust a virtually unknown political neophyte before the American people to be the leader of this once great country tells me you have no idea of what you are talking about.
- SheilaNoya, on 06/30/2008, -9/+18Attack Obama on the issues, but stop dragging up your lame Sinclair story that has already been debunked as a total fraud. It only shows you lack any credibility.
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/29/2008, -50/+38Obama has made it clear his real constituency is not the voters of America.
- revjustin2, on 06/30/2008, -3/+7What?
- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -29/+23how embarrassing for Obama supporters. Why do you "intelligent educated progressive democrats" believe the lies from another obvious puppet? ...... left/right is a scam!
- kemp34, on 06/30/2008, -4/+14Left/right is pure ignorance. Anyone reading this who is uneducated on the subject, please google "Nolan Chart."
- nedzeve, on 06/30/2008, -5/+4Ah, the Nolan chart -- it's 2-D instead of 1-D! Now that's sophisticated!
- Triskozko, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Left/right is not pure ignorance it's just half of the picture. It retains some meaning because most politicians fall on a narrow line on the continuum.
- chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -15/+7Frankly, this leftist has never supported Obama. He just isn't a leftist.
BTW, no one is surprised that right wingers want to deny that they're right wingers. After the utter failure of the right's agenda what else can they say?- nickymouse, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3I think your statement is wrong. Right wingers will proudly admit they are conservative views. HOWEVER, some of them if not many of them won't admit to being republican... They missed the republicans from the 80's and 90's.
The democratic parties dynamics are slowing changing as the more leftist views from leaders like Nancy Polosi are alienating Dixicrats voters. Hell you can create your own third party from moderate Christian conservatives and Dexicrats.
- nickymouse, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3I think your statement is wrong. Right wingers will proudly admit they are conservative views. HOWEVER, some of them if not many of them won't admit to being republican... They missed the republicans from the 80's and 90's.
- kemp34, on 06/30/2008, -4/+14Left/right is pure ignorance. Anyone reading this who is uneducated on the subject, please google "Nolan Chart."
- D4N747, on 06/30/2008, -26/+60I'll agree that Obama's support for FISA made it harder to have faith in him and that his actions are at times hard to follow, but I'll take him over McCain any day.
I have to say this, though. Yes, Digg, Ron Paul is an impressive candidate who believes in freedom and many rights that have not and likely will not fly in Washington for a long time, but his time came and (unfortunately, for some people) went a while ago. I think that it's time to let go of his bid for the presidency and move on to what is now the race for the presidency, while keeping in mind that Ron Paul is not gone. He may run for next term and, bar that, he is still a congressman, representing the few of us that choose to let him.- nedzeve, on 06/30/2008, -3/+4Come to think of it, how did Ron Paul vote on FISA?
- Tenbatsu404, on 06/30/2008, -1/+14Statement on HR 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments
20 June 2008
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.
Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.
The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.- nedzeve, on 06/30/2008, -7/+1Huh. Oddly, he abstained from voting. If he felt so strongly about it, why didn't he vote against it?
- tcbishop12, on 06/30/2008, -36/+55The FISA bill does not strip anyone of your 4th Amendment rights. It is a 1978 law enacted in the Carter administration. The violation and abuse of FISA strips you of your 4th amendment rights. I stand behind the Senator's decision, as do most Democrats in Congress who actually understand the issues involved. There's never been a flip flop on this issue. Wake the F up!
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/30/2008, -21/+9It's my understanding that Barak Obama supports immunity for the telecoms that broke the law. Am I right or am I wrong?
- goodnrg, on 06/30/2008, -10/+14You are wrong. He does not support that part of the bill.
- Technohamster, on 06/30/2008, -5/+10He says he doesn't like that part of the bill. He still voted for it.
- br0ck, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7"He says he doesn't like that part of the bill. He still voted for it. "
He didn't vote for it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
He said he'd support and participate in a filibuster of the telecom immunity portion of the act. - Gemfinder, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3@ br0ck: Thanks for the link.
I was having some doubts about this myself.
Sounds like I need to write a letter to one of my Senators, Gordon Smith. Oh wait! I can do better than that. I'll vote for the guy who's running to replace him.
- goodnrg, on 06/30/2008, -5/+24tcbishop12, I agree with your comment, with a caveat. The original 1978 FISA seemed to be fine, until the Bush administration decided that it wasn't and violated it. Many people think the amended FISA weakens some of the 4th amendment protections provided by the 1978 FISA. So yes, we are better off with new FISA than with the current situation where the administration is violating and ignoring the 1978 FISA, but with apparently weakened 4th amendment protections. Having said that, I look forward to hearing a longer statement from Obama on his position on the issue, his further actions on FISA, and his view of 4th amendment protections in the future.
- alwor, on 06/30/2008, -5/+9Wow, this was really educating! Hope you an tcbishop will keep spreading this, as most diggers still don't same to have the full overview,,,
- dalittle, on 06/30/2008, -3/+20The problem is with the Telecom Immunity Amendment that has been included with FISA. It lets the Telecom Industry get a free pass for any kind of criminal behavior under government supervision. You need to read the whole Bill.
- MindStalker, on 06/30/2008, -5/+6No, it offers strict guidlines for the future, it only offers limited immunity for the past. There was no other way to get the revised new guiderules in place without a bill that offered immunity for past issues, it would have never passed. So it issue was, keep stalling on FISA and keep allowing warrentless wiretapping, or pass the revised FISA stopping warrentless wiretapping but provide immunity for the past when the rules weren't so clear.
- MindStalker, on 06/30/2008, -5/+6No, it offers strict guidlines for the future, it only offers limited immunity for the past. There was no other way to get the revised new guiderules in place without a bill that offered immunity for past issues, it would have never passed. So it issue was, keep stalling on FISA and keep allowing warrentless wiretapping, or pass the revised FISA stopping warrentless wiretapping but provide immunity for the past when the rules weren't so clear.
- JNudda, on 06/30/2008, -6/+12To go farther, the FISA bill actually protects and follows the 4th amendment, which under the previous FISA bill was being abused. Also, the bill only protects telecoms from civil immunity, not criminal (see Friday's episode of Countdown).
- Morfildor, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8*****. Seriously who the are you kidding? Make all the excuses you want but any respectable politician would have voted against this garbage piece of legislation.
- syncomm, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7tcbishop12,
The FISA legislation was indeed created in 1978 -- however, it has been amended many times over, including at the request of the Bush administration in October 2001. It is by no means archaic. Even after they gave the President everything he asked for -- he still went ahead and refused to follow the law. That's precisely how we got to the 114 page bill in question "H.R. 6304." The retroactive immunity in this bill will prevent us from ever determining the extent and scope of the mass surveillance by quashing all litigation before there can be any discovery. Oh yeah, and it lets the whole thing continue to run with the blessing of Congress.
* It WILL allow bulk monitoring to continue unabated -- H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing. Yes tcbishop12, this violates the fourth amendment -- imagine if the government decided to search everyone's home until they found something illegal.
* Provides blanket civil immunity to those in the telecom industry that decided to play ball (not everyone did)
* It allows “reverse targeting,” a practice by which the government gets around FISA’s court order requirement by wiretapping an individual overseas when it is really interested in a person in the U.S. with whom that supposed foreign target is communicating.
* It contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying before any approval from the secret FISA court.
* It further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.
* It permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.
* Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.
Without trials the brave whistle-blowers like Mark Klein of AT&T will never be able to show evidence in court that the scope of this surveillance covered all communications traffic foreign _and_ domestic!
I don't care how you "dress up" Fascism or how happy you can make totalitarianism -- it violates the very core of America's charter. If "change" only means liking my dictator a little more, then count me out.
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/30/2008, -21/+9It's my understanding that Barak Obama supports immunity for the telecoms that broke the law. Am I right or am I wrong?
- yellowsnowcone, on 06/30/2008, -35/+35Here are the reasons why I don't support Obama:
1. No plan to fix Social Security or allow me to manage my retirement. He instead just wants to prolong its slow death.
2. Raising capital gains tax affects middle class stock and mutual fund investors.
3. He's against free trade, which would raise the cost of imported goods and make it more difficult to export US goods.
4. His plan on Iraq doesn't make sense: pull out the troops and leave the Iraqis to their own devices, but re-invade if they start killing each other enmasse.
5. Windfall tax for oil companies, which discriminates against industries and will only raise prices for consumers.
Note, I criticize his policies and not the man himself. He's a Democrat in the old style and I just don't believes his ideas have been fully debated.- KLBP, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9I dugg you up, not because I agree with you (I don't and I think 2, 3, 4 & 5 would be good things), but because you criticized policy instead of relied on character assassination.
- cambob76, on 06/30/2008, -6/+46. You own a pair of trucknuts.
- WileEPeyote, on 06/30/2008, -6/+61. There is no magic bullet that is going to fix Social Security. We have to get to a place where we are solvent before that can be fixed anyway.
2. Good. People should be paying taxes on money they are making.
3. Good. We have enough resources to make and purchase our own goods. Maybe it's time for a reality check for us Americans on the costs of goods.
4. It makes a lot more sense than the plan that got us into Iraq and it is really our only choice. We can either stay there for the next 50+ years or leave them the ***** alone.
5. I don't mind discriminating against industries. Industries don't have rights, individuals do. I'm sure the free market Gods will take care of the price increases...right...they do that.- Morfildor, on 06/30/2008, -6/+51. You have no clue what you're talking about.
2. You have no clue how a capital gains tax works.
3. You're totally missing the point.
4. No it doesn't actually.
5. Say that when oil is $6-7 dollars a gallon. - WileEPeyote, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1@Morfildor
1. Yes I do...nanna...nanna...boo...boo...How about an actual reply.
2. I understand how capital gains taxes work. It is money on capital (money) gains (income). Just because you make that money off of your existing money and don't go to a workplace to get it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taxed.
3. How so?
4. Did you just get out of a debate with a 3rd grader? I don't see anything beyond "uh-uh"
5. I will...
- Morfildor, on 06/30/2008, -6/+51. You have no clue what you're talking about.
- btschul, on 06/30/2008, -27/+21The sheep don't judge their master.
- Takfam, on 06/30/2008, -3/+4And the emo black sheep bitch about their master behind his back, but wouldn't dare say anything to his face, nor to the other sheep. Just sit there and bleat your sad emo black sheep call and hope that someone takes notice and gives you the attention you so desperately crave.
And damn me for feeding the troll. I won't take offense if this gets negged.- btschul, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Actually, I was referring to the way Obama supporters follow him blindly like sheep, and don't judge or pressure him. They just immortalize him and in their eyes he can do no wrong. I don't know where you got all that emo black sheep *****, mabye at hot topic? I bet you are listening to my chemical romance or some ***** right now.
- hierophantus, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3That's a good summary of every political and civil-liberties misstep since 9-11. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but I thought I'd offer an interpretation that didn't make you look like an irredeemable tool.
- Takfam, on 06/30/2008, -3/+4And the emo black sheep bitch about their master behind his back, but wouldn't dare say anything to his face, nor to the other sheep. Just sit there and bleat your sad emo black sheep call and hope that someone takes notice and gives you the attention you so desperately crave.
- coffee200am, on 06/30/2008, -25/+16Obama loves you and me. He even loves those that do not believe in him. You can ask him for forgiveness though. Just bow your head and say this prayer with me....
Obama, forgive me, for I have sinned against you.
I am evil, and I know that only you can wash my evil away.
I accept you as my personal President and ask that you protect me
from the non believers, Hilary supporters, Capitalism, Bush neocons,
US military, Global Warming, white supremacy, bitterness, guns and religion.
Amen.
There! Your all done!- CHANNELOCK, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2Amen
- NJank, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5that was lame. you're lame.
- jesusmurphy, on 06/30/2008, -20/+20I think that due to Obama's natural charisma, people have really convinced themselves that he's in their camp on various issues. This simply isn't true much of the time.
Obama is pro gay-rights, but not firmly for gay marriage. He said himself he supports "civil unions", with all the rights conferred on straight people, but that marriage was between a man and a woman. Strange that I have several gay friends that think he's strongly pro gay-marriage.
However, he is very principled, and is willing to admit his own flaws/mistakes. I am a strong Obama supporter obviously, and I think all Obama supporters need to take a more honest look at him. I think they'll find a complex candidate who doesn't necessarily agree with progressives on every issue, but is certainly worth voting for and supporting. I think he has what it takes to be an excellent president.
Ron Paul also never denounced or sent back contributions from white supremacist groups and neo-nazis. He's an interesting guy, but Ron Paul supporters *also* need to take an honest look at their candidate.- RedPhalanx, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5He (or rather his campaign manager, the late Kent Snyder) did denounce them, btw.
- jesusmurphy, on 06/30/2008, -3/+4He denounced them, but took their money.
- 0nslaught, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Ron Paul also denounced nazis himself on television.
- 0nslaught, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3So you want him to GIVE (back) Nazi's money? That helps people how? Best he spend it on promoting liberty than giving it to them for spending on some new rally.
- jesusmurphy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Well no, but he can certainly donate it to charity, which is typical if a candidate recieves money from a questionable source. Ron Paul used it to fuel his campaign, which I'm not saying is the worst crime in the world, but *does* send a certain message that I'm not sure he intended or wanted to sell.
- SpartanErik, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4Looks like the Obama supporters jumped on your post
- jesusmurphy, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2Either that or the Ron Paul-ers.
- altgeeky1, on 06/30/2008, -3/+5I disagree with the strong modding down of your post, so in fairness (even though I don't totally agree) I modded you up.
I know Obama is not Santa Claus.
Even when attacked on race, MULTIPLE religions, patriotism, etc. he doesn't villify his critics. Politicians of late tend to attack back (although, sometimes too late, in the case against the Swift Boat thugs). He stands up for himself without cutting up another piece of America.
Obama gets the progressive base, even if he doesn't give everything we want him to. It tells you how bad things are when a "progressive" wants nothing more in a candidate than charisma and an interest in halting our downward spiral. He knows that the way to strengthen our military is NOT to make college more expensive (a very harmful method of driving enlistment that the current regime uses).
-alt
It's a pity the GOP couldn't put forward McCain in 2000, when he was much more interesting (before his recent flip flops). I get the sense that the GOP got behind McCain for the same reason they sent Colin Powell to the United Nations... someone needs to walk the plank, and they might as well discredit the "centrist wing" of the party before they get any uppity ideas. McCain will fail, and the loud part of the GOP will say it's because he was TOO mainstream, and so the far right tightens their grip on the party...- KLBP, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2I liked your first sentence. I modded up a post somewhere above for a similar reason. I disagreed with the post, but it was a good post.
Good observations on McCain 2008, I have been wondering the same thing. I think, however, the situation is more complex than that.
Anyways you got a modd up from me.
- KLBP, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2I liked your first sentence. I modded up a post somewhere above for a similar reason. I disagreed with the post, but it was a good post.
- 0nslaught, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1So you want him to GIVE (back) Nazi's money? That helps people how? Best he spend it on promoting liberty than giving it to them for spending on some new rally.
- willywong, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Why should we inflict the horror of marriage on gay people? Haven't they suffered enough?
- RedPhalanx, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5He (or rather his campaign manager, the late Kent Snyder) did denounce them, btw.
- SQLserver, on 06/30/2008, -65/+79Obama is ROCK SOLID on the issues. No way in hell am I going to support McBomb or Theocratic Paul/Barr.
Here's the Reality, Libertarians:
--Your party doesn't stand a bloody chance. If you are insanely lucky you'll get 5% of the votes.
--Obama is a MUCH, MUCH better President then McCain.
--Conclusion: Vote for Obama to stop McCain.
The Reality is, you are the ones being duped. You quickly are grabbed by Paul/Barr by their promises to 'restore the constitution'.
You hear them talk about rights...
Funny how they talk about rights, when Paul and Barr wish to pass a FEDERAL amendment prohibiting a woman's rights to her own body.
Funny how they talk about rights, when Paul and Barr both are against the basic rights of Homosexuals due to their fundamentalism.
Funny how they talk about rights, when Paul does not even believe in EVOLUTION, and has publicly announced that he would support bills shoving 'alternative views'(AKA his RELIGION) down our children's throats.
Funny how they talk about rights, when both throw away everyone's rights to a government that helps the environment.
Funny how they talk about rights, when Barr voted for the Patriotic Act.
Funny how they talk about peace, when the most peaceful countries in our world are socialist.(Which according to their party, is intolerable)
Lets face it, Libertarians.
If power is given to the states, we will end up with a basic Theocracy in the southern US.
Especially when a libertarian president would support such a Theocracy.- ender7074, on 06/30/2008, -15/+16So that whole Constitution thing was wrong when it specifically laid out the powers of the federal government and left the rest to the states? Much better to turn us into a socialist cesspool run by a man who is anything but rock solid on any issue and will say anything to anyone to get a vote? Yes, that just sounds peachy.
- Hetman, on 06/30/2008, -9/+15Barr is an ***** and didnt is not a liberterian. He voted for the patriot act that means he is not a liberterian. It is funny that you guys are voting and are going to cause america to lose the 1st and 4th amendment. I mean freedom of the press is already gone. It has been bought and sold a long time ago. Obama attacks the 2nd amendment like he has personally been shot in the face by a gun. All it takes is one phone call out of the country and you are stripped of all your right. It pisses me off that your average American Citizen does not care about the constitution. It will be a sad day in America. But no one will complain because there will be no one to complain to.
- cathpah, on 06/30/2008, -3/+4wait wait....all it takes is one phone call out of the country and I'm stripped of my right? Which right am I losing?
- Hetman, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8All of them. Who determines who is a terrorist or not? Who watches the people determining if you are a terrorist or not? The patriot act gives to much power to the government. They can easily abuse it. They already have by imprisoning innocent people in gitmo. We need limited government, not more government.
- onetimer, on 06/30/2008, -14/+16Don't forget Paul lied about the founding fathers and the constitution:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Not only is there no such reference to god in the constitution (let alone many), but the majority of the founding fathers were DEISTS!
Of course, paul's religious nutbaggery is only confirmed by reading his sanctity of life FEDERAL BILL and the "We the people" act which tries to prevent the supreme court from even hearing issues regarding gay marriage and abortion.
It's amazing how digg was willing to overlook how big of a religious nut Paul is...- Morfildor, on 06/30/2008, -7/+6He's not running for President anymore, you can stop now.
- Bilabrin, on 06/30/2008, -8/+9Here you go again harping on the most tangential and irrelevant aspects of Dr. Pauls philosophy.
Bottom line:
Ron Paul is religious but he's not an evangelical nutbag who feels guided by his religion to push us closer to a theocracy as you imply. Your case and it's inferences are insincere so let's just pause a minute befre you throw the baby out with the bathwater for having a wart on it's toe.
The We the People Act which you keep harping on, thread after thread until, I suspect, the letters a,c,e,h,i,l,o,p,t, and w are worn off your keyboard, is, wether you like it or not, a states rights issue. PERIOD.
You fail. Deal with it. - shig, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1"...the majority of the founding fathers were DEISTS!"
Source?
George Washington - Anglican
John Adams - pre-transcendental Unitarian
Ben Franklin - Deist for roughly 3 years of his teenage life and none of his adult life.
Patrick Henry - Protestant minister, obviously not a Deist
Thomas Jefferson - liked Deism, but retained his own unique view of God with future rewards/punishments, God actively damning and blessing certain individuals, etc, but entertained the possibility more so than any of the others.
I'd also like to point out that all of these men (except George perhaps) wrote to Thomas Paine in response to "The Age Reason" to express how they either hated it, wished he would not publish it, or both in Franklin's case.
The best way to go about finding out whether or not a particular founding father was indeed a Deist, is to read what they wrote and compare it to Deist theology. You will be quite surprised. You'll come away thinking that if they were Deists they were also quite the bunch of liars, because most of them refer to such a believer as an "infidel" in their own writings. I think their Deism has much to due with Deists wanting them to be Deist, and so they read Deism into their work where no such references can be found.
- Morfildor, on 06/30/2008, -7/+6He's not running for President anymore, you can stop now.
- Akairenn, on 06/30/2008, -8/+28Sorry, I'd rather write in Ron Paul's name and be able to sleep at night. Trying to scare myself and others like me with the Boogeyman that is McCain ... really makes the Obama supporters look like more of the same. "OMG TERRAHISTS!" - that's different from "OMG MCCAIN!" how?
You're saying I should give up liberty and rights because of the 'threat' of a McCain presidency? Thanks, but no thanks. This country can collapse around me; the amber waves of grain can be consumed in fire. Should they be, I will sleep quite well at night, knowing I've done my duty to my country - by pointedly not voting for the mere lesser of two evils. As the tree of Liberty withers and dies, it is on your head, and the heads of all who parrot lines about 'electability' and 'Well, Candidate X is better than Candidate Y!'
As for the rest, I'd ask you for actual sources on your views - but first of all, lumping Barr in with Paul is... I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this lackluster attempt at propaganda. And as for Paul, just as I do when looking at Obama and McCain and the rest - I'll look at voting records over misquotes, misspoken words and media *****. I personally disagree with Paul on many points; yet he's easily one of the most inoffensive politicians there is when it comes to attacking freedom, and has a far better record in those matters than Obama.- onetimer, on 06/30/2008, -10/+5Since Paul has no plants to register as a write-in candidate, your vote will literally be meaningless. It would have the same effect as staying home, unless your act of voting was simply something for yourself.
- SQLserver, on 06/30/2008, -12/+4I'm surprised that you already can sleep in your bed at night.
Ron Paul thrives on fear, just another reason that he is JUST ANOTHER Republican. - cathpah, on 06/30/2008, -9/+3well, given all the other faults of Paul/Barr listed in the above comment....you don't feel right voting for the lesser of two evils, but you're totally cool voting for the lesser of 3 evils. ahhhh...that makes complete sense.
and by the way, stripping a women's rights away, or voting for the patriot act is WAY worse than anything obama has done/has vocalized intent to do. - saasphil, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Akairenn, good call. I respect your decision wholehearted, as it's only pragmatic to vote for who you really believe would be the best candidate possible. Will it accomplish anything? No, probably not - but that's the point of democracy anyway. I wouldn't feel comfortable pushing for a candidate that don't feel strong enough about (btw: Obama is a Christian, and McCain is not another four years of Bush, quit living in your caves, mooks)
SQLserver, bury yourself. Literally.
cathpah, I believe that comment about 'stripping a woman's rights away' is a mere personal trait about Rep. Paul. He doesn't believe in a federal ban on abortion, and would rather let the states decide. That's kind of his point of his political philosophy. - gofalcons, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Man, you can't MENTION Paul's name without onetimer showing up. It's kinda creepy actually. Watch this. RON PAUL. He'll respond again.
SQLserver, maybe if you stopped walking in lockstep with your party and listened to what he had to say, you'd realize that he doesn't thrive on fear. Well, that's only if you mean thriving on fear is having 90% of the things you've been warning people about for 20 years are actually coming true.
- cnot3, on 06/30/2008, -9/+9The only thing Obama is "ROCK SOLID" on is the degradation of our essential rights and freedoms. Any libertarian who votes for Obama OR McCain is not a libertarian. Here's an idea, vote for the candidate who appeals to your ideals the most, not which one everyone else thinks should/will win.
- jabberwolf, on 06/30/2008, -8/+1I'm pretty sure he believes in evolution. You were probably thinking about Huckabee in your rant.
- onetimer, on 06/30/2008, -6/+7Nope. DESPITE the fact he has a BS in Biology and went to medical school, he lets his dogmatic religious beliefs control his views:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g
- onetimer, on 06/30/2008, -6/+7Nope. DESPITE the fact he has a BS in Biology and went to medical school, he lets his dogmatic religious beliefs control his views:
- Harboggles, on 06/30/2008, -4/+5So my party not standing a chance denotes that I shouldn't vote for him?
Thats called the bandwagon effect and it's part of the reason we are in the rut we are in. People vote for who they believe will win, not based on an ideology or anything like that...- SQLserver, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2That, plus, Barr sucks.
- Tenbatsu404, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5I really ***** hate people WHO have to CAPITALIZE every OTHER word.
- Xenologer, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3CAPSLOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
- crowbar77, on 06/30/2008, -5/+6"Funny how they talk about rights, when Paul and Barr wish to pass a FEDERAL amendment prohibiting a woman's rights to her own body."
Not to get to far into the whole abortion debate, but the moment a baby is conceived its no longer just her body. No matter how you spin it, your still killing another human being.
"Funny how they talk about rights, when Paul does not even believe in EVOLUTION, and has publicly announced that he would support bills shoving 'alternative views'(AKA his RELIGION) down our children's throats."
As an atheist, aren't you shoving your believes down our throats? There is no solid proof for either theory otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.- SQLserver, on 06/30/2008, -4/+4Are you insane?
A. You assumed I was an atheist. I'm agnostic.
B. You assumed that Evolution has something to do with Religion. It doesn't.(Creationism does, though)
"There is no solid proof for either theory otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate."
Solid Proof?
Science has nothing to do with proof.
You cannot prove the universe was not created yesterday by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The reality is, NO SCIENTISTS are in debate. There is no debate. Those who claim there is are pushing a religious agenda, like Paul.(Who has said he wishes alternatives to be taught!)
Science is the way of finding the BEST EXPLANATION for our natural world.
The best Explanation, based on the Empirical evidence, observation, experimentation, and study, is by far Evolution. - foontala, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1@SQLServer
We've lost habeas corpus, we've lost the right to our privacy, people in the justice department "justify" torture, our dollar is falling to crap, the stock market fell over 400 points on Thursday and Friday, gas is $4.00 a gallon, social security is a joke, we are about to go into World War III with Iran and Russia, our country is run by foreigners who brainwash everyone with media propaganda campaigns, the whole world hates us, and we've printed 3+ trillion dollars for a war against a tactic; the war against which only promotes that tactic.
And all you care about is the theory of evolution??!!@?!??
AREAREHAGHAGHAGH!!@!#%@#^%@^#@#^@^
- SQLserver, on 06/30/2008, -4/+4Are you insane?
- Opiate, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5It's going to be funny when Obama completely ***** you over. It was nice knowing ya America..
- Bilabrin, on 06/30/2008, -2/+11"Funny how they talk about rights, when Paul and Barr both are against the basic rights of Homosexuals due to their fundamentalism."
Wrong, Ron Paul feels that Marriage should not be recognized by government at all, allowing people to do whatever they want regarding marriage without state interference:
Here's a quote.
"Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state. "
Try doing some research you parrot! - shig, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1"Conclusion: Vote for Obama to stop McCain."
I stopped here, because I assume the rest of the post was equally illogical and/or manipulative. - onlinetreason, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Everyone will complain when the new president sucks. The problem is congress people.
- Cyrock, on 06/30/2008, -22/+6Vote Obama or Vote for Bush-McClone. It is really THAT simple.
- tacroy, on 06/30/2008, -3/+7Rarely in life is anything THAT simple. In politics doubly so.
- slvrbullet87, on 06/30/2008, -6/+12Vote for John McCain or vote for the Terrorist Husein.
See i can say stupid ***** as well - akamurph, on 06/30/2008, -3/+7Wow, another obama sheeple... Just keep saying lies until you believe them. I guess if I keep saying Vote for McCain or Vote for the Muslim. Is is really THAT simple. Maybe soon I'll believe he really is a Muslim.
- insomniacal, on 06/30/2008, -8/+23Never thought I'd digg an article with Obama in the title, but here we go.
- phorty40, on 06/30/2008, -9/+44
Surely this is the first time the Huffington post made the front of Digg.- RedPhalanx, on 06/30/2008, -3/+19Yes, it's good to see some new stuff on Digg. I just learned about this webcomic called "xkdc" or something.
- ladon86, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5And I saw some really funny videogame review video thing, it looked like it was drawn in MS paint, lol.
- brianjlowry, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5I just saw two articles submitted by this guy Mr. Babyman. It looks like he might be an up-and-coming submitter.
- HellifIno, on 06/30/2008, -17/+3Shut up!
/personwhohasn'treadstoryORcomments
: D - jnava121, on 06/30/2008, -28/+34They are right Obama brings a whole new meaning to the word change...
CHANGE!!! -"ing his mind" 08 !!!!- noahhoward, on 06/30/2008, -5/+5I'm not sure I understand... are you saying we want someone who DOESN'T change his mind when he thinks he was wrong? It'd be great if Bush would change his mind on a couple of things but he's probably too scared to be labeled a flip-flopper.
- ConceptJunkie, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3Changing your mind to suit changing situations or information is good.
Obama changes his mind (actually he changes what he says, who know what's in his mind) depending on who he's talking to, or any other element of political expediency. He makes Kerry look like Bush in terms of flip-flopping. Not that his Cult will mind. They believe everything he says and does is perfect, regardless of what he says or does.
- ConceptJunkie, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3Changing your mind to suit changing situations or information is good.
- onlinetreason, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Obama is never held responsible. If McCain changed his mind you'd get pissed. So don't say that *****.
- noahhoward, on 06/30/2008, -5/+5I'm not sure I understand... are you saying we want someone who DOESN'T change his mind when he thinks he was wrong? It'd be great if Bush would change his mind on a couple of things but he's probably too scared to be labeled a flip-flopper.
- a2fan, on 06/30/2008, -21/+9The Huffington Post is harming the progressive movement.
- rex84, on 06/30/2008, -3/+6Socialism is harming the progressive movement.
- revjustin2, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Progress is harming movement in our society.
- onlinetreason, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1umm, Obama is.
- rex84, on 06/30/2008, -3/+6Socialism is harming the progressive movement.
- slvrbullet87, on 06/30/2008, -7/+18Did the huffington post just bash on digg? Am i dreaming or something
- ender7074, on 06/30/2008, -2/+0Im waiting for the news that the poles just shifted too.
- CHANNELOCK, on 06/30/2008, -26/+11Obama>Lying *****
McCain>Senile *****
What a choice.
Hillary don't look all that bad in hindsight.- noahhoward, on 06/30/2008, -5/+13You haven't been paying attention have you?
- nodehopper, on 06/30/2008, -3/+7YES! she still does look that bad as a Presidential Candidate.
- CHANNELOCK, on 06/30/2008, -4/+2Jeez ...write something negative against the Obama messiah and you get a dozen negative diggs.
I'm beginning to figure out the digg,it has its own censorship posse trolling the comments for any resistance - SpookyPig, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4> != =
- easy4lif, on 06/30/2008, -19/+8another worthless huffington post crap pile.
buried - rationalbeats, on 06/30/2008, -11/+24I have reminded him by stopping my monthly contributions.
- phorty40, on 06/30/2008, -7/+9"Stay the Course" followed the amazing "Mission Accomplished" and that was only 5+ years ago.
- FearFactory, on 06/30/2008, -0/+41All politicians must be kept in-line and pressured constantly. They don't deserve a break today or anytime.
- booyahbitch, on 06/30/2008, -18/+15Obama may not be perfect, but America needs a Democratic President for a few terms. We need our roads and bridges rebuilt...no republican will do that, they will focus on foreign policy and spend TRILLIONS of dollars ***** hadji out of his oil just so their 5 mile per gallon SUV driving constituents can brag about how they don't care about the price of gas, because they aren't paying any goddamn taxes!
- bunit03057, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6"We need our roads and bridges rebuilt" ummm.... that is mostly up to your local government. The president is not going to be the one to do that since he is not the king of the U.S. Write your local politicians if you think the roads are bad, cause they are great up here in NH, which is still a largely Republican state.
- TRScheel, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4I love how someone dugg you down without even a retort.
Yet, you are absolutely correct whether booyahbitch wants to realize it or not.
- TRScheel, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4I love how someone dugg you down without even a retort.
- tomasII, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6Class warefare again from the left. The rich in this country pay a much higher percentage of the taxes that are paid.
They also provide the jobs and the income....so stop bashing the rich or go get a job from a poor guy.- Xenologer, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Accusing the left of class warfare against THE RICH is ironic on a scale that strains credibility.
- shig, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Roads like the Trans-NAFTA corridor and the other NAFTA superhighways will be built right through your neighborhood.
You'll drive away with the feeling that, even though you didn't receive just compensation for the theft of your land by foreign corporations that put you on the streets to live out of you car, it was a "change".
Then you can drive around visiting all your former neighbors and explain to them how much we needed a Democrat, and just any ol' Democrat will do.
- bunit03057, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6"We need our roads and bridges rebuilt" ummm.... that is mostly up to your local government. The president is not going to be the one to do that since he is not the king of the U.S. Write your local politicians if you think the roads are bad, cause they are great up here in NH, which is still a largely Republican state.
- zacharytelschow, on 06/30/2008, -8/+14The entire tone of the article is as if what Obama says is law and gospel. Quite funny to me, really.
- booyahbitch, on 06/30/2008, -12/+3Oh, and one more thing... I change my mind about ***** all the time...why do these guys get criminalized over it during an election? I am talking about both parties here...who cares if someone changes their mind? If it is something that you supported them over, then change your goddamn mind too, or live with the fact that they no longer believe the way they did 4 years ago.
- dumbducky, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4It's a big deal because the last thing you want is for your president to do the opposite of what he said in his campaign.
- Defuser, on 06/30/2008, -4/+2Diggers don't believe in changing one's opinions. Because to do so would require an open mind, and the acquisition of new knowledge: two things Diggers hate above all else.
- johndavidjack, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2So you wouldn't mind if Obama decided to change his stance on Iraq once elected?
- Hetman, on 06/30/2008, -2/+21This is sad. It was only 60 years ago in this country that everone was granted Civil Rights under the constitution. Yet in that short period of time the democrats and the republicans decided that they should strip these freedoms away from everyone. And no one is doing anything to stop them, actually it seems to be the opposite. Everyone is justifying having there freedoms taken away. Guess what once they are gone the government is not going to give them back for any reason.
- WileEPeyote, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6It's because the politicians distract us with:
1. Abortion
2. Gay Marriage
3. Making Certain Corporations Have Economic Freedom (used to be Anit-Communism)
4. War
5. Prayer in Schools - onlinetreason, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Atleast someone said it.
- WileEPeyote, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6It's because the politicians distract us with:
- jakdracula, on 06/30/2008, -16/+4Wow! Someone posted something from the Huffington Post here on Digg! That never happens!
(buried as LAME)
Also:
The last thing, by the way, that we should do is to elect a muslim as President of the United States, someone who claims to love America yet, WILL NOT salute the flag, WILL NOT pledge allegience to our flag, and sat in a church listening to a 'pastor' that HATES America! Are you Freakin' kidding me?- yournamehere, on 06/30/2008, -4/+4so you don't believe in separation of church and state?
- dalittle, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4Sorry. Don't take political advice from anyone named Dracula. To many Republican Bloodsuckers have already f'd up the US.
- ConceptJunkie, on 06/30/2008, -3/+4No, unfortunately no one is kidding you. Politics has become that bad.
Obama may be no Muslim but he's as qualified to be President as he is to be a neurosurgeon.
- virtualball, on 06/30/2008, -4/+18So wait, do we like Obama now?
- TotalHalibut, on 06/30/2008, -0/+17Groupthink.
- virtualball, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1You were dugg up 14 times, so yes, I would agree with you :)
- tcpip4lyfe, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8You can if you want and that's fine. I personally don't.
- geekanarchy, on 06/30/2008, -3/+5I wouldn't mind hanging out with him; he seems like a nice enough guy. However, my vote for the White House will go to Vacancy.
- TotalHalibut, on 06/30/2008, -0/+17Groupthink.
- kolinkoolface2, on 06/30/2008, -8/+25the ***** is starting to hit the fan for obama on digg.
- TotalHalibut, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10So? It's not like Digg is influential.
- kolinkoolface2, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2just saying.
- SixOrSoPapers, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1I see two trends at play:
1) Obama is inevitably moving to the center, to the disappointment of the base.
2)
- TotalHalibut, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10So? It's not like Digg is influential.