Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
An Open Letter To Senator Obama: Vote NO On Telecom Immunity
realitycatcher-alapoet.blogspo… — The people who support you are speaking loudly and clearly. I believe you will hear them and will uphold your promise to oppose any FISA bill which includes immunity for for the telecommunications companies which unlawfully went along with President George W. Bush's program of warrantless wiretapping of ordinary American citizens.
alapoet- 2280 diggs
- digg it
- alapoet, on 06/30/2008, -4/+144It's time to ask Obama to stand with us against telecom immunity in FISA. There is a group of Obama supporters opposed to telecom immunity, headquartered on the MyBarackObama.com website, which in just four days has about 4,000 members. More are joining every minute.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama- ...
Let's make a stand together for freedom!- pensivewombat, on 06/30/2008, -4/+5I'm a little confused on this issue. Yes, the telecom corporations should have refused to comply with the government's orders because they were illegal. That said, shouldn't the diggers rancor be focused on those who ordered personal records and illegal surveillance rather than with the people who simply followed orders?
I think immunity (and not that it's only immunity from civil couts, not criminal investigation). If offering immunity to the telecoms will free them to disclose the records of what they were asked to do we will have a better idea of who is really to blame in all of this. I don't care if some people who made bad decisions get off relatively lightly as long as we can make this process transparent and stop illegal surveillance at an institutional level.
I don't want to appear as though I'm just trying to innoculate Obama, but the rancor of the far left (and i'm the leftiest of the lefties) seems misplaced on this one.- sapped, on 06/30/2008, -0/+15My reasoning on the issue is as follows; (and I am open to discussion)
I simply don't trust the government. Full stop. By removing the immunity we are forcing the telecom companies to be held liable for what they did as well as for future actions.
This means that the next time the government comes knocking on their doors to do something illegal, they *might* think twice about complying so easily - mummbleswers, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8If I'm understanding you correctly I think Obama has the same point. He wants accountability for who made the companies break the law in the first place (GW and his henchmen). This bill also says that you cannot have civil suits, from my understanding criminal charges are not off the table with this bill. And don't get me wrong, I was pretty f'in pissed about this, but I realize Obama is compromising so that he wont waste a vote just to have the republicans say he's soft on terror. I say waste a vote because no matter how he votes, this thing is going to pass. And if he voted no, it would still pass and McCain would start with the whole "he doesn't care about our safety" argument; which btw is the only one McCain seems to win with. It's also a chance for Obama to show he can move toward the center to compromise on issues, which is the latest talking point for the McCain camp as well - they claim he's an extreme leftist who cannot work with republicans on anything. Him voting yes on this bill takes away from both of those arguments (he's soft on terror, and can't move to the center) right when they are being made the most. He knows what he's doing, and I hope people don't let this issue cloud all the reasons they were not going to vote for McCain. If he's going to be President of the nation, and not just President of the Democrats, we're going to see a whole lot more compromising coming from him to try and bridge the gap. (Same deal, open to discussion, I could be wrong on some of this stuff, who knows.)
- vinod1978, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1@sapped/mummbleswers - In my opinion Obama didn't express the reason for his change of mind clearly enough, and politically that hurt him. We've seen this happen before when he waited far too long before he gave his "race" speech after the Rev. Wright shenanigan, and even when decided not to accept public financing. In both cases he had very good reasons for his decisions, yet his campaign took a "don't discuss" attitude towards these issues, and I think that is why we don't see him leading more heavily in polls.
To get away from the political discussion, and get back to a constitution one I think that whether or not his voted would have mattered is irrelevant. He is being watched like a hawk, and any decision he makes is inevitably front page news and I think that any foreign policy insecurities that the McCain camp throws at Obama falls on deaf ears. Clark said it best on Face the Nation - yes, he is a PoW, and he is in committees that discuss foreign policy, but we've seen McCain talk about foreign policy issues and most of America does NOT agree with him. I think that Obama did not make both the right political or constitutional decision on his last vote regarding the FIFSA bill but I also think had his campaign discussed his discussion in a more open way we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. - mummbleswers, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3@Vinod - I wasn't talking about foreign policy experience falling on deaf ears, I was talking about the "soft on terror" claim McCain's camp will make if Obama votes no. And that clearly resonates with voters, you think GW got elected twice for anything other than terror? It's also the only subject Obama gets beat on in recent polls. And how clearly he explains it is subjective, but I don't think there is any way in hell he's gonna say "Well I'm soft on terror, and need to appeal to the center more." Just not gonna happen.
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2@mummbleswers- "He wants accountability for who made the companies break the law in the first place (GW and his henchmen)"
Um...he does? Last time I checked, he isn't doing a damn thing to hold them accountable. - pensivewombat, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1@10GunSalute: Yes he is, he's running for president.
- sapped, on 06/30/2008, -0/+15My reasoning on the issue is as follows; (and I am open to discussion)
- schneidafunk, on 06/30/2008, -3/+7make that 4000 + 1 members... just joined, thanks for the link.
- Gemfinder, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Nope, it's 4000. I left the group this morning.
Got very tired, very quickly, of the fierce rhetoric flying around the VERY active listserv.
Caveat to those who want to join: don your asbestos underwear, and be prepared to do a lot of shouting. Your in-box will read "140" within an hour of joining.
- Gemfinder, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Nope, it's 4000. I left the group this morning.
- yossarian24, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2These open letters confuse me. I support the cause, but this should just be called an essay, its not like Barack is going to get this "letter."
- FrankHope, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8I was a member of MyBO until I got kicked off for posting some pretty mild criticism of AIPAC and the Israel Lobby. I'm very surprised the admins over there allowed a group like this to form. 4000 members is HUGE. Most groups that are centered around a single issue have 100-200 members at most. This is a very encouraging sign.
All politicians need to be reminded frequently of who they are working for. Obama is no different. Hey Barack, are you listening!?!?!? - winnestow, on 07/01/2008, -5/+7obama doesn't stand for freedom
- mystcnurse, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1or anything else for that matter... "hey, what do I have to do to become the first black president of the US"? He, like King George, would lick Cheney's ***** if that is what it takes.
- rz8472, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2If you visit barackobama.com even today, are numerous comments over expressing disappointment over his FISA vote are popping up even there. As someone who still is going to vote for him in November (hey, look at the alternatives...) but am very disappointed at him atm, I wouldn't keep my hopes up. He's clearly playing towards some nonexistent center in order to try to get more votes, although the not-so-secret secret in politics is that to do so, you stick with your convictions. Just look where it got Russ Feingold - 16 years and counting in a swing state.
As for other issues, there's some good news and some bad news - Obama snubbed the DLC http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Not_a_ ... but also threw Wes Clark under the bus as well http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_ ... - WallyAnti, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I'm part of that group now. Lets see if it makes a difference. Some folks at Wired have taken notice as I had this on my iGoogle this evening:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/telecom-a ...
Encouraging stuff. I'm actually excited that there may be hope for Obama yet. - Vonauda, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Come on now. This bill would still allow him to pursue criminal cases against the companies.
Buried because of people who spread spin that they do not completely understand. - kosser, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2watch how your savior fails you....i bet this will be forgotten when he does nothing. or even better yet allows it to happen. people will still believe he has your interests at heart.
- allnone, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1So vote this way and possibly lose a few million voters, because a few thousand don't want him to do it? He has to get in the damn White House first and listening to these people won't do that. Just like Ron Paul never had a real chance, you all want to turn Obama into the candidate without a shot in hell.
I don't agree with it, but I understand why he's doing it and he shouldn't vote NO, because it will hurt him. I know people now, that would ditch him if he did this. Digg.com doesn't = the average voter. - Ryan166, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1FOR FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- logdesigner, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2This will work for sure. Obama will do anything that the American people feel is right. Oh damn, I am missing American Idol.
- mystcnurse, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but Barack doesn't stand for anything except a bunch of ***** promises (health care, free food, blah, blah, blah) that he can't possibly keep. He can't even keep what he has promised straight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kFrFIFizkU
I wouldn't put too much faith in your savior. He's an AIPAC NWO PIG just like the rest of them - Republicans AND Democrats. And you are nothing but a "useless eater".
- pensivewombat, on 06/30/2008, -4/+5I'm a little confused on this issue. Yes, the telecom corporations should have refused to comply with the government's orders because they were illegal. That said, shouldn't the diggers rancor be focused on those who ordered personal records and illegal surveillance rather than with the people who simply followed orders?
- VKMO, on 06/30/2008, -1/+51FTA:
"We must stand, tall and united, against those who seek to turn the United States into a surveillance society. We must stand up and say 'NO!' to those who would turn us into a nation of fearful, isolated citizens, fearing each other, fearing the government, fearing the massive technological complex which has been turned to the ignoble end of monitoring our every word in some misguided attempt to provide an illusory security at the very real cost of our highest ideals."- sonnybobiche, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3The best part is that if he does cave and drop his support for FISA, he's a spineless follower that bends in whatever direction the mob sways. If he doesn't, he's a giant douche that wants the government wiretapping civilians without a warrant.
There's no winning on this issue, unless he manages to somehow gab his way out of it.- AKBryant54, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1It's not "caving" if you're talking about listening to the opinions of those who helped get you elected.
- MickJT, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0.. and it's not caving if he was going to do it anyway.
- sonnybobiche, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3The best part is that if he does cave and drop his support for FISA, he's a spineless follower that bends in whatever direction the mob sways. If he doesn't, he's a giant douche that wants the government wiretapping civilians without a warrant.
- onyxcoltrane, on 06/30/2008, -2/+30Sign the petition at: http://www.petitiononline.com/bo90210/petition.htm ...
- radiantstorm, on 06/30/2008, -3/+42The elites want the U.S. to look like China. This has got to stop!
- FrankHope, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9That's exactly right. China is the model the elite have planned for the future of America. That's why you hear so little criticism of China these days. The model is totalitarianism with a little capitalism thrown in, fascsim with a little consumerism to keep the rabble happy. And if there is a disturbance then send in the army to crush it. A constant stream of propaganda denying the truth. Patriotic retraining for those who protest. Jail for anyone speaking out on the internet. But big malls to keep all the shoppers happy, if you're one of the lucky ones that can afford it.
- Ryan166, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2LOLCAT IZ LISTENIN 2 UR CELL FONE CALLS
- Surferess, on 06/30/2008, -25/+16I think we can count on Obama to oppose FISA, don't you?
- tarheelcoxn, on 06/30/2008, -4/+28You obviously didn't see his public statement in support of the recent "compromise" bill in the House. There is a real risk that he will vote for a bill that caves to every request the White House made, and there's a very real chance he'll try to paint the bill as not including immunity for telecoms when it effectively does.
- UtahPirate, on 06/30/2008, -5/+7And you obviously haven't actually *read* the amendments.
Why not read it, instead of repeating what others tell you? - Gemfinder, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Here's a link:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
- UtahPirate, on 06/30/2008, -5/+7And you obviously haven't actually *read* the amendments.
- tarheelcoxn, on 06/30/2008, -4/+28You obviously didn't see his public statement in support of the recent "compromise" bill in the House. There is a real risk that he will vote for a bill that caves to every request the White House made, and there's a very real chance he'll try to paint the bill as not including immunity for telecoms when it effectively does.
- chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -19/+8Another Democrat isn't going to change anything. You will have to vote for actual leftists to make a change. Center-right Democrats like Obama aren't going to do it.
Vote left or nothing will change.- SocialPoison, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5I can understand the sky is falling end of the world mentality... but calling Obama center-right is way off path. He's one of the more liberal guys hanging out with the Dems right now...
- chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4OK, left of the Republicans doesn't make you "left."
So, what are some of Obama's policies that make him "liberal?" - solistus, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7Just because he's liberal *for a mainstream US politician* doesn't mean he's a leftist.
Obama is opposed to NAFTA but only wants to reform it. He's opposed to telecom immunity but he'll still vote for the FISA bill even if he can't remove that clause. He supports federal funding for health coverage, but not a universal and single-payer system. He hasn't even discussed things like fundamental reform of our tax system, any serious new regulations for industry, etc. He's the best choice we have, but he's no leftist. Center-right is what he would be in most European democracies. - FrankHope, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2He's not liberal according to his voting record.
- chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4OK, left of the Republicans doesn't make you "left."
- kaelyiesta, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6You've been had by the two party system, Chico. Neither side(speaking generally) has we the peoples interests in mind. Even if you support the ideals of socialism(I won't argue that topic here), you make the mistake of thinking that there are many politicians in the house/senate that actually fight for those ideals. At best, they only use those philosophies as a tool to help themselves.
- chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3I don't support the two party system. The two parties are both right of center. Nothing will change if we vote for them. There is only one socialist in the Congress, Bernie Sanders.
That was my point. - solistus, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1And even Bernie has to caucus with the Democrats and support their candidates for other offices in VT to get a seat in Senate. Before he started doing that, he was stuck in the House. And this is in arguably the most liberal state in the nation.
The two party system leaves no room for authentic politics. Any party stupid enough to stand for something gets crushed when the other party decides to 'play the game.'
- chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3I don't support the two party system. The two parties are both right of center. Nothing will change if we vote for them. There is only one socialist in the Congress, Bernie Sanders.
- untzboy, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2you are a poophead.
- chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Oh crap! I never thought of that aspect. I guess I'll just vote for another round of the same two right wing parties.
Thanks for straightening me out.
- chicofaraby, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Oh crap! I never thought of that aspect. I guess I'll just vote for another round of the same two right wing parties.
- shig, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Where is this Communist Party candidate that is going to magically appear on my ballot? Who is he? Are you just campaigning for the ultra-left out of principle, alone?
- SocialPoison, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5I can understand the sky is falling end of the world mentality... but calling Obama center-right is way off path. He's one of the more liberal guys hanging out with the Dems right now...
- dave122, on 06/30/2008, -21/+74Perhaps people are going to start to realize that even though he says the word 'change' a lot, Obama is just more of the same.
- JackOCat, on 06/30/2008, -7/+6yep so don't vote for him so McCain can win. That will show us.
- mummbleswers, on 06/30/2008, -3/+4I've recently heard talking points coming from the right saying he is "the most liberal member of the senate." I think someone on here even said that. So what's the right's position? He's super liberal, or he's "more of the same?" I'm confused.
- WallyAnti, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4I wont vote for Obama if he supports this. I also will encourage others to vote for someone else. This is a very good test for what is in store.
- iamnotrich, on 06/30/2008, -19/+13Maybe rev. Right was right he is a politician.
- moxley, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5OF COURSE HE IS A POLITICIAN!!!
You don't get elected senator without being a politician.
He may be better than most, but he is a politician, without a doubt and with all that that entails, including disingenuousness. - solistus, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3No *****, he's a politician.
Also, the guy's name is Wright, not Right.
- moxley, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5OF COURSE HE IS A POLITICIAN!!!
- Barackalypse, on 06/30/2008, -12/+41Where were you guys when he was voting to re-authorize the Patriot Act and do you really think his vote on this is going to be any better? Oh, I'm sure he'll deliver a nice speech about how it was flawed but it still represented our best chance to achieve something or other. I'm hoping he votes for this law and maybe this time the rabid Obama supporters will actually take notice or something he does instead of just what he says.
- cabdirazzaq, on 06/30/2008, -5/+7To all those digging him up for this (albeit accurate comment), notice the picture with the monkey? (symbolizing Obama) Barackalypse is nothing but a disgusting racist, islamophopic and piece of *****.
- Barackalypse, on 06/30/2008, -7/+2That, or Curious George was my favorite childhood book character. I suppose I could have used Paddington Bear, but frankly that just doesn't piss you liberals off as much. That's actually what the monkey symbolizes, irrational and misplaced liberal outrage, not Barack Obama. I chose the avatar after the hysteria over the bar owner that put it on a tshirt.
Also, I don't see how a monkey avatar makes me Islamophobic, aren't you guys always reminding us that Barack Hussein Obama is not a Muslim?
- Barackalypse, on 06/30/2008, -7/+2That, or Curious George was my favorite childhood book character. I suppose I could have used Paddington Bear, but frankly that just doesn't piss you liberals off as much. That's actually what the monkey symbolizes, irrational and misplaced liberal outrage, not Barack Obama. I chose the avatar after the hysteria over the bar owner that put it on a tshirt.
- cabdirazzaq, on 06/30/2008, -5/+7To all those digging him up for this (albeit accurate comment), notice the picture with the monkey? (symbolizing Obama) Barackalypse is nothing but a disgusting racist, islamophopic and piece of *****.
- Futile, on 06/30/2008, -2/+47Money speaks: tell him there won't be any more campaign donations unless he opposes FISA. He's already committed to not taking money from lobbyists so your donations are extremely important.
- untzboy, on 06/30/2008, -5/+1And if that doesn't work.... well, wow.
We need a fallback plan if this whole Obama plan doesn't work out.- letherial, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3the mcain plan?
errr wait, thats worse then the obama plan
- letherial, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3the mcain plan?
- wetwillie, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Exactly! I donated for his primary election and with his current attitude towards the FISA legislation and the condemning of Gen Westley Clark I'm holding on to my money.
- WallyAnti, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Wait... I thought he was taking money from lobbyists again... I'm confused?
- untzboy, on 06/30/2008, -5/+1And if that doesn't work.... well, wow.
- JarJar420, on 06/30/2008, -19/+4Yousa think he will vote no? Meesa bet 2 dozen clams that he will vote for it. Just Meesa twoosa cents.
- 1gunners4, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5I want to hit you.
- azaraa09, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3JarJar420, did you really sit down and think of a comment-style gimmick and matching name to use on Digg (one of the most annoying I can think of, even)?
*looks at previous comments*
My God... you did... you really did...
- charm803, on 06/30/2008, -3/+21What's interesting about this election is that more and more people are going to be holding these politicians responsible!
I am an Obama supporter, but I admit that this did not sit well with me and I hope all his millions of supporters can make it loud and make it clear and hopefully he will see donations drop off if he doesn't oppose it.
I think that by not taking public funding, BUT by not doing what the people want, it can hurt him financially.
Let's make our voices heard and keep holding these politicians responsible!!!!!! - dystra, on 06/30/2008, -2/+26How many chances are you going to give him on this telecom immunity stuff?
- TheInformer, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10How many chances has he gotten already for the things he's done? The national media will turn a blind eye, and his supporters will believe every word he says.
- untzboy, on 06/30/2008, -3/+6Until he gets it right. He's the only one who will listen.
- NorthMass, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2He votes for the Patriot Act, votes to reauthorize the war in Iraq twice, and now wants to vote yes on this FISA bill. He obviously hasn't been listening to you guys up till this point, what makes you think he will magically start now?
- rowjimmy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1i bet kucinich voted no.
- TheInformer, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10How many chances has he gotten already for the things he's done? The national media will turn a blind eye, and his supporters will believe every word he says.
- cabdirazzaq, on 06/30/2008, -18/+12Let me see if I got this right. You like Obama, therefor you wish for him to de facto CHANGE his position; in contrast Ron Paul supporters like Ron Paul BECAUSE of his positions.
- Loonacy, on 06/30/2008, -10/+14Or to rephrase: Obama supporters question his positions on certain issues, while Ron Paul supporters don't question Ron Paul at all.
- untzboy, on 06/30/2008, -7/+3Uh.... no one's perfect?
I have one thing against Ron Paul, and that is his headstrong manner. Just say, Ron Paul wanted to end something, like some sort of process, as he would like to do. What if, say, he was on the wrong side? Who here could possibly persuade him otherwise?
And, just for the record, I dugg you up. - pensivewombat, on 06/30/2008, -8/+8Positions like eliminating public education, the single greatest accomplishment of the civilized world?
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/30/2008, -7/+6Public education in the US is mediocre at best and getting worse with each passing year. Witness the clueless young bastards that inhabit digg.
- kanvas, on 06/30/2008, -5/+3I get your point, but I personally like Ron Paul *in spite* of some of his positions - I like him because he has honor and integrity. He stands up to smug journalists and politicians and defends his beliefs no matter what they might do to him. Such balls haven't been seen since Teddy Roosevelt.
- KyleGoetz, on 06/30/2008, -7/+4You know, other people have stood up and shouted NO before, and given the finger to the media. People like Ted Stevens, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, etc.
Standing up to smug journalists does not necessarily reflect anything close to a decent human spirit. - Franswahili, on 06/30/2008, -6/+2Oh please, the media is on the same team as Bush and Co.
Ron Paul handles them well despite playing for the good guys. If Obama supporters had spent half as much time researching their candidate as they did smearing Ron Paul, we wouldn't be having yet another lesser of two evils election. But rest assured, Dem or Repubs will not fix America-- THEY BROKE IT
- KyleGoetz, on 06/30/2008, -7/+4You know, other people have stood up and shouted NO before, and given the finger to the media. People like Ted Stevens, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, etc.
- onetimer, on 06/30/2008, -4/+7"You like Obama, therefor you wish for him to de facto CHANGE his position; in contrast Ron Paul supporters like Ron Paul BECAUSE of his positions."
I hope that brush didn't hit you in the ass.
Some of us dislike both Obama *and* Paul because of some of their positions...
- christor, on 06/30/2008, -3/+19It isn't enough that he vote no. He must assemble a coalition sufficient to ensure the bill doesn't pass - whether that's through filibuster or other parliamentary means. He is now the leader of the democratic party. And he has the potential to be a truly great leader - one who can change minds and get things done rather than being led around by the leash of the 24 hour news cycle. Voting no on this is an empty gesture if the bill passes.
- ender7074, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Aint gonna happen.
- shig, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I think you nailed the strategy.
If he does vote no to the bill, he's going to immediately shake hands and give a pat on the back to everyone that voted yes. He will not form any kind of coalition to defeat the bill, but avoid the backlash of his supporters.
If he votes yes, then he'll explain the great "compromise", the victory of "unity", the end of the politics of "division", and how this is going to "change" America for the better.
- Kikinou, on 06/30/2008, -13/+7Wow, I'm surprised! You mean he isn't JFK, MLK, and Santa Claus all wrapped into one? Whodathunkit! No better than Clinton.
- ender7074, on 06/30/2008, -9/+20So what will you Obamanations do when he ignores this?
- KyleGoetz, on 06/30/2008, -4/+8I'll realize there isn't a politician who represents me 100%, and judge between the available choices and vote accordingly. What will you do differently?
- NorthMass, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Ralph Nader. Libertarians, Greens, and Chuck Baldwin represent you 100%, vote for one of them.
- Asheis, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1when the choice is between candidates.. one that generally gets my side (say, 70%?) and one that I oppose in every way (say.. 20%?) and one that negates my vote, but whose position I agree with on every level (100%!), who should I vote for?
Easy, the one who most fits my ideals, and will do a better job than the other one. Remember, you might be all high and mighty and make a "statement" by voting for the greens, libertarians, nader, etc, but it's still a BI-partisan election (and while I agree that the system is terrible, we need to play it to win anything) and voting for a "third party" hurts you and your fellow countrymen far more than voting for someone you're just a bit less compatible with.
I've said this many times. I'm voting Obama (even though my ideals come closer to Nader) because I feel that McCain would be a worse president than bush. I may not agree with everything he does.. but look at the alternative.
- cheezintern, on 06/30/2008, -2/+9I'll probably reconsider who I'm voting for, and after looking at the choices again, still vote for him, as the lesser of two evils.
- Infidelcastr0, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4With a heavy heart I will vote for the lesser of two evils as I have in the past and continue being a curmudgeon.
We get it, Obama isn't Jesus Q. Hero, but that doesn't make McCain any less evil or more liberal. - WallyAnti, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4I'll actually vote for someone who I consider to be moral. In other words someone who has no chance of winning.
- MrFunStuff, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I hear the lesser of to evils so I am going to vote for Obama bit a lot. SO let me ask you guys a ? why would you help a politician that does not want to fight for your constitutional rights become president. McCain is not the same as Obama , example Obama does not sound illiterate. Be that as it may the puppet master of these politician are the same apac, and other industrial complex goons. I could never bring my self to vote for Obama or McCain it would be like voting for there puppet masters.
- KyleGoetz, on 06/30/2008, -4/+8I'll realize there isn't a politician who represents me 100%, and judge between the available choices and vote accordingly. What will you do differently?
- roadtripguy, on 06/30/2008, -2/+48If Obama doesn't vote against this, he's telling you that it's ok to break the law and spy on innocent Americans behind their backs...keep that in mind. I'll admit, he's a much better choice than McCain and I'm glad Clinton didn't get the nomination, but regardless he MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR SUPPORTING FISA. Damnit people, spread the word LOUDLY.
- NorthMass, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4The only way to hold him accountable is to vote for a 3rd party candidate or Ralph Nader. Votes are all that matters my friend, if Bob Barr gets like 11% in the election that would show Washington that people are pissed and want change, and if somehow a miracle happened were Bob Barr/Nader/someone else won then that would just be dandy =).
- tehsilentcircus, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1I'm sorry, but a vote for the 3rd party is essentially a vote for mccain. 3rd party stands no chance in this election and that is just the way it is, don't be naive. Obama may not be the best choice but if we wanna at least get things going in the right direction we will not allow mccain to be voted in. If someone is voting for mccain at this point, their mind will never be changed. Someone who would vote for 3rd party would never have voted for mccain in the first place.
A lot of bad things have happened in the past 8 years, and a lot more will happen in 4, maybe 8, if mccain is elected. Why even risk it. Sending a message, or however u wanna put it, is too little too late at this point and not a good excuse to let this ***** (the past 8 years) continue.
- tehsilentcircus, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1I'm sorry, but a vote for the 3rd party is essentially a vote for mccain. 3rd party stands no chance in this election and that is just the way it is, don't be naive. Obama may not be the best choice but if we wanna at least get things going in the right direction we will not allow mccain to be voted in. If someone is voting for mccain at this point, their mind will never be changed. Someone who would vote for 3rd party would never have voted for mccain in the first place.
- NorthMass, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4The only way to hold him accountable is to vote for a 3rd party candidate or Ralph Nader. Votes are all that matters my friend, if Bob Barr gets like 11% in the election that would show Washington that people are pissed and want change, and if somehow a miracle happened were Bob Barr/Nader/someone else won then that would just be dandy =).
- Enuratique, on 06/30/2008, -4/+12I agree that Obama better start putting some money where his mouth is in regards to his "Change" mantra. So far he hasn't done much to back that up. Unfortunately, this is politics as usual. If I am to be optimistic, he's just playing the game to win and all the "moderate" Obama we're seeing now is just that - a bait and switch. If his campaign against Hillary shows anything he knows what it takes to win. And right now, if he votes NO against this, it will just give the GOP more asinine talking points such as "See - Obama is making it easy for those darn turrurists to plan attacks on us Americans. Clearly he is one of them, hurrrrrr". I'd like to think that someone who has a constitutional law degree would quickly see how blasphemous this FISA bill is.
Unfortunately he can't just rely on the intelligence of the average American. He knows he's got most registered Democrats on his side. So while we'd all like to think any attacks such as the one above would be quickly dismissed with Obama proudly exclaiming "This bill erodes so much of our freedom, don't you people realize that? Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither, etc et al." Sadly, the people he needs to convince to really make this a landslide still believe that he's a secret muslim terrorist despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.- Franswahili, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4What's 'moderate' about telecom immunity?
- Stormwern, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1"Obama better start putting some money where his mouth is in regards to his "Change" mantra. So far he hasn't done much to back that up."
Yes he has. He has run an astonishingly successful campaign without special interest money, and has barely campaigned dirty at all. Those accomplishments will be just as genuine whatever else he does, and regardless of wether you are too pissed to admit it at the time.- NorthMass, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2His campaign wouldn't of done anything if he didn't get so much MSM attention. Kucinich would be the Democratic nominee with Gravel as his running mate running against Ron Paul if all the candidates got equal representation.
- sirellyn, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I would digg you 10 times for that comment if I could.
- okiemike, on 06/30/2008, -9/+4How about the other side to this. If you ran a telecom and were approached by the government to 'help' them do some spying that may or may not have been legal, who here thinks they should now be liable? Imagine a police officer coming to you in the street and grabbing you out of your car to chase down a suspect. He then runs someone over with your car. Is it you that should get arrested for it? I know the example sucks, just saying that if YOU were approached by some FBI agents and they tell you or ask you to do something, how the hell are you going to be responsible for whatever you are asked to do? Is this not something that the officer should be liable regardless?
- letherial, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2If a cop asks me to break into a house to search for drugs...im not doing it, if did, id execpt a lawsuit at the least
- shig, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4They're asking you to do something illegal, or to become an accomplice in their illegal activities. I don't care what kind of medallion they happen to carry, they are criminals. Not peace officers or someone you think would deserve respect or your acquiescence, but Stasi, scum, filth, destroyers of liberty.
Does that answer your question?
If a cop wants to enter my car without a warrant, I'm dialing 911. - gn84, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0The telecoms can use that as a legal defense and try to shift liability onto the government agency that made the request. Congress and the President should not grant what amounts to ex post facto immunity.
- JimNtexas, on 06/30/2008, -9/+10Now that Obama sees the real possibility that he might actually be President he realizing that he needs to be able collect military intelligence to 'connect the dots' prior to the next 9/11 type plot.
He understands he has to throw his BDS nutroots idiot followers under the bus (along with his grandmother) to save his political skin should he win the election (not likely, but possible).
So how is the air down there under Obama's muffler?- moxley, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3*****. Anyone who can "connect the dots" knows what did and didn;t happen on 9/11.
He either is part of the machine, or he isn't. I think he probably is. - shig, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Bush just signed a bill giving 400 million dollars to Wahhabi (al-CIAda) sects for a covert war against Iran.
Do I need a military strategist to tell me I'm going to get what I paid for?
- moxley, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3*****. Anyone who can "connect the dots" knows what did and didn;t happen on 9/11.
- DiggGeek24, on 06/30/2008, -16/+13Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing
Why does Obama want 90,000 more troops.
Obama voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act
Voted in favor of FISA
Dont let his smooth talking fool you he is no better than McCain I remember a man that was very popular that was a smooth talker and talked about change and making the country powerful again his name was Hitler.
And no im not Bush or McCain supporter I protested the war.- UtahPirate, on 06/30/2008, -4/+2These are still being re-hashed? Sheez... Okay, so that you can figure out what's happening with this:
90,000 more troops for what purpose? There are peacetime activities as well as wartime activities that require attention in order to maintain the safety of the troops we already have in the field, as well as relief and other efforts that require troop activities. Also of interest: which branch(es), and for what duration?
Voted to re-authorize because Schoolmarm Bush told Congress they'd have to stay after the session if they didn't. So, he voted to keep the Patriot Act so he could go home, but severely weakened it in the process, limiting the government's ability to snoop into library records and see who's checking what out, rather than allowing it wholesale (as the previous USA-PATRIOT Act did).
Has been forced to vote again, for other reasons than mere politics. And I'm sorry, but comparing Obama to Hitler is like comparing Moses to Lucifer, or George Washington to Ivan the Terrible. Such comparisons don't really make sense, and only show your lack of education on things. You're listening to half the message, sure that you've picked the right side, instead of allowing the truth to prevail. This is called "propaganda" and is the tool of politicians. My suggestion, DiggGeek24: leave the propaganda to those who know how to use it. :-)- DiggGeek24, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3"90,000 more troops for what purpose? There are peacetime activities as well as wartime activities that require attention in order to maintain the safety of the troops we already have in the field, as well as relief and other efforts that require troop activities. Also of interest: which branch(es), and for what duration?"
Sure peacetime activities more like extra troops for war with Iran.
"Voted to re-authorize because Schoolmarm Bush told Congress they'd have to stay after the session if they didn't. So, he voted to keep the Patriot Act so he could go home, but severely weakened it in the process, limiting the government's ability to snoop into library records and see who's checking what out, rather than allowing it wholesale (as the previous USA-PATRIOT Act did)."
So he limits our freedom so he can go home sounds like a great leader.
- DiggGeek24, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3"90,000 more troops for what purpose? There are peacetime activities as well as wartime activities that require attention in order to maintain the safety of the troops we already have in the field, as well as relief and other efforts that require troop activities. Also of interest: which branch(es), and for what duration?"
- KyleGoetz, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3He couldn't have voted for FISA. That's a bill passed in 1978. You may be talking about an amendment to FISA known as the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, but I can't be sure since you said something so ridiculously uninformed.
- phathead, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Listen to this guy...he's the most fascinating kind of Obama supporter. One that is informed...good Marxist.
- wanderingbent, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2 Mr. OBAMA: "Mr. President, 4 years ago, following one of the most devastating attacks in our Nation's history, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our Nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world--terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th.
We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion. Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an ``either- or'' type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.
Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.
This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe.
In this compromise:
* We strengthened judicial review of both national security letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.
* We established hard-time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.
* We protected most libraries from being subject to national security letters.
* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.
* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches. The compromise is far from perfect. " - soccaparker, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Wait a second... did you actually just compare Obama to Hitler?
- UtahPirate, on 06/30/2008, -4/+2These are still being re-hashed? Sheez... Okay, so that you can figure out what's happening with this:
- jrattner1, on 06/30/2008, -9/+4I'm really getting sick of everybody writing an "Open Letter to: _________". This isn't 1976, and you aren't Bill Gates writing to tell hobbyists to stop pirating his software.....
Try a new clause for a change- UtahPirate, on 06/30/2008, -3/+2Well said, sir!
- stevenharrell, on 06/30/2008, -1/+17If Obama had any true backbone or integrity, it wouldn't require a petition to sway him, he would take the position of the people by default. It's time we begin looking beyond his rhetoric.
- Altotus, on 06/30/2008, -5/+11Um... If he doesn't vote no on telecom immunity, what are you gonna do? Vote for someone else? The "major" "electable" candidates are long since bought and paid for by the same people. They have two different flavors of rhetoric, but ultimately they both answer to the same masters (and they aren't "we the people").
- polyGone, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2You're getting dugg down, but you're correct.
- fancypantscz, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3As it has been said before:
If Obama votes yes to Retroactive Telecom Immunity he can kiss goodbye to my donation that he is banking on this fall.
I don't care if I'm writing in Jessy ***** Ventura in November, I will never vote for the lesser evil. I believe in the democratic experiment but will never fall for the trap of our two party system lays for us every election cycle.
I only vote for those who represent my own best interests.
If everyone else in the county is too spineless or stupid to do so, then there are more problems here than any president is able to fix.
The lesser evil is still evil and I want no part in that.- mummbleswers, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I'm neither spineless or stupid (at least in my opinion) and I'm voting Obama no matter what. I completely see where you're coming from, but Republicans don't feel like that and you would probably end up helping McCain in the long run.
- jerbaker, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2"If he doesn't vote no on telecom immunity, what are you gonna do? Vote for someone else?"
That's the plan. I helped Al Gore lose in 2000, I helped John Kerry lose in 2004, and I'll help Obama lose in 2008 by voting for Nader if the Democratic Party insists on having their candidates play the part of Republican-light.- rawheadrex, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Then you must be really proud of the ***** you put us through the last 8 years by helping Bush get elected. Bravo.
- mummbleswers, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Where the hell have you been for the last eight years? What else has to happen for you to think that's a bad idea? And totally un-related, but you wouldn't be from Texas would you? Your name sounds like someone I went to hight school with.
- jerbaker, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1"Then you must be really proud of the ***** you put us through the last 8 years by helping Bush get elected."
Why are you blaming me for the Democrats running center-right candidates? Have you ever heard of investment? That's where you pay a price now for a payoff later. By helping defeat the DLC's notion of a centrist Democratic Party, I am investing in the future.
- luke374, on 06/30/2008, -1/+24If he votes for this he officially loses my vote in November. If the phone companies did nothing wrong, than a court will absolve them. There's no ***** reason we should protect them from having to prove themselves in a court.
- letherial, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1and give it to mcain who will vote for it and support it fully...
something wrong with your logic, ill be disapointed to, but it doesnt mean im going to vote for mcsame- NorthMass, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2You know there are more than two choices. Before you give me that old "they can't win" BS rhetoric, let me ask you. If Ghandi was polling 10% and Hitler was polling 90%, who would you vote for?
- mjantz, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Only one thing, Obama ain't Hitler. And nader is an egomaniac. And a vote for him helps the republicans.
And ron paul is a ***** nut. - kday, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2"And ron paul is a ***** nut."
I find everyone else a nut. In my eyes, Ron Paul is the only sane one. He is honest, consistent, and cares about his country over political gain. - NorthMass, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0I wasn't saying Obama is Hitler, I was just trying to make a point that you shouldn't vote for someone based on their chances of winning, you should base it off of their character.
- letherial, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0i see where your going, and if reality was that simple i would
execpt...the choice between obama and mcain is a very real big differnce. a vote for a 3rd party could affect this nation for years by putting a major canditate in office.
the two party system sucks, i dont defend it, wont defend it. i personaly would vote for libertarin if i realy thought one of them could win, but they cant, they wont and untill a campiagn comes out that has true momentem i wont vote for a 3rd party.
now i know what your going to say..about how it will never happen if nobody ever votes for these people, and maybe in other elections id take your argument seriously, but this time.....its just to damn important and i dont want to see a 3rd bush term in there.
- letherial, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1and give it to mcain who will vote for it and support it fully...
- cheezintern, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5How about an open letter to any of the few remaining pro-American-people politicians left in the senate and congress?
- Aikidi, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5why are people begging and pleading with Obama to be a patriot? he voted for the renewal of the patriot act. If the public wasn't making this an issue, he'd completely go for immunities without even blinking. How can he support the patriot act and want to protect individual freedom. Its absurd.
- DiggGeek24, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7Obama voted yes on Telecom Immunity so I vote not to Obama.
- FelixA9, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1Wow. I didn't think it was possible but an Obamabot gets deprogrammed. Good for you.
- netsql, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8Good idea.
So far "change" = more of the same. In that case, bye O. - 140Suffolk, on 06/30/2008, -12/+3
Can any of you provide the name of any American who was spied on? One person who's NOT a terrorist whose privacy was violated? Seriously. One wounded party.
Right now, jihadis that are smarter than you, are trying to figure out how to get a nuclear weapon. And how to sneak it into the U.S. Right now. Will Obama's charm win them over?
And if we can't make them uncomfortable when we interrogate them, and we can't tap their phone calls even if they originate outside the U.S. --- how are we going to stop them?- solistus, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8Of course we can't name the Americans who've been spied on. IT'S A SECRET PROGRAM, dumbass. Even the FISA courts can't name who's been tapped, which is the problem. No independent oversight leads to horrific abuses of power.
Do you honestly think that warrantless wiretapping is going to stop some otherwise unstoppable attack? What happens when we allow telecom immunity for wiretapping and we get attacked anyway? Will it be time for CCTVs across the country, like London? What about when THAT works?
Until we address the root causes of violent extremism, we WILL be vulnerable to attack. No matter how many of liberties we give up, no matter how much of our soul we sell to stay safe, we will still be vulnerable. There is no way for any government, no matter how powerful or intrusive, to keep tabs on every single person on the planet who may want to do us harm. Ask Stalin how well trying to do so tends to work out. I'm not saying we should have no security, but if "the turrists are gonna get us" is justification for this, what ISN'T it justification for? I bet if we started summarily executing people for expressing radical or dissident ideas, we could stop a few potential terrorists, too. Would you support that? If not, then you have to stop using the terrorism excuse for everything and come up with a specific justification for why the security value of this practice outweighs the harm it does. Most security experts are baffled as to what this security value even is, given that FISA warrants are not hard to get in cases where there is a shred of actual evidence, even if it's just intercepted radio chatter or whatnot.
At any rate, even if you believe that warrantless wiretapping is a good idea, it was blatantly illegal when some of the telecoms agreed to do it. Granting them immunity after they knowingly broke the law is a terrible legal precedent to set. Companies should know that, just because someone in high office asks them to do something illegal, it's still illegal and they will still pay the costs. Giving people and corps a carte blanche to be party to crimes against the American people is intolerable. - BlacklabelSAR, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1You, 140Suffolk, are a mother-***** coward.
- 140Suffolk, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1solistus -- So you're confirming that, as far as you know, NO American has been harmed by the wire-tapping of calls that originated outside the US. Just checking. And do I think wiretapping could stop an attack? Of course. The FBI wiretaps organized crime. Why not foreign terrorists? Or don't you think it's more serious?
But I see you're one of those concerned about "...the root causes of violent extremism..."
Why don't you say violent Islam? Wouldn't that be more accurate?
Did you know that there have been 11,000+ Islamic jihadi attacks worldwide since Sept 11? When a video store owner in Thailand is beheaded, is that because of the evil-imperialist USA? A 17-year-old Hassidic Jew is beaten into a coma by Muslim immigrants in Paris last week. How about that? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attac ...
Islam has been doing this for 1,400 years. Did you know that the very first war the USA had to fight was with jihadi pirates? The Barbary Wars. The Barbary pirates said back then, the same thing that the jihadis say now. Our religion tells us to attack you.
@BlacklabelSAR Yes, I am afraid of a-bombs. But you are inarticulate. Which is worse?- fancypantscz, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5http://www.alternet.org/rights/35807/
FTL:
In August 2004, as a routine court procedure, the FBI provided the lawyers and defendants with documents relating to the trial. The FBI's lawyers accidentally released a document that showed the government had used logs of conversations between the lawyers and their clients, Soliman al-Buthi and the organization, to categorize Al-Haramain as a terrorist group. The catch is that the logs were obtained without a warrant.
Al-Haramain was most certainly harmed by this litigation that should have been thrown out of court.
There is only one group of people who can actually PREVENT 'violent Islam' from harming the innocent and those are the individuals who would otherwise follow those abhorrent teachings but for some reason or another choose not to. Non-violent Islam is going to defeat 'violent Islam' not America and certainly not some shoddy legislation that violates my civil liberties and the rule of law.
Terrorism is murder and our forefathers gave us a system to work within to deal with it when it happens in the country. Now if you hold some religions convictions that leads you to believe that murder in the name of Islam somehow warrants action outside that system then you get the public support and the votes to change the constitution. You don't have president Bush stranglehold the congress into passing legislation in order to stop litigation already in the courts so that Telecoms don't have to spill the beans about all the crimes Bush actually committed and say that is about preventing terrorism. That is called a disregard for the rule of law and that is deranged.
The so called war on terror is self defeating. And in the hands of the amazing incompetency that is the Bush administration it has wrought havoc on all it touches. Look what it has done to Afghanistan. Look what has happened to the people of Iraq. Now you want the war on terror to reshape the functioning of American democracy? You are insane.
When America is fascist police state do you really think anyone will take solace in who how safe we are from terrorists? - 140Suffolk, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1From Wikipedia:
"Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation was a charity foundation, based in Saudi Arabia, alleged to be a front for the international terrorist organization al-Qaeda. Although all charges were dropped by a federal judge, it is now banned worldwide by United Nations Security Council Committee 1267[1]."
So Al-Haramain was harmed? Good. They're stinking terrorists. Why don't you learn to use Google?
Our war with violent Islam is like our war with violent imperialist Japan. Japan didn't stop 'til we MADE them stop. And change. Germany had ambitions to take over the world. They didn't stop until we MADE them stop. We didn't wait for non-violent Nazis. And we can't wait for "non-violent" Islam either.
We brought havoc to Afghanistan? So you think we should have allowed AQ and the Taliban to remain untouched after they murdered 3,000 Americans? You think we were wrong to go into Afghanistan?
Terrorism is NOT murder. Terrorism is WAR. And yes, our forefathers DID give us a system to deal with acts of war. It's called the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.
BTW, the very first war the newly birthed USA fought was with jihadi pirates. The Barbary Wars. And the jihadis then said the same things they say now. We attack you because our religion says we must.
You're reading too much Chomsky and Zinn. - fancypantscz, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2I have not read any of Chomsky's books and I don't even know who Zinn is but I think I demonstrated my Google skills by finding that article about Al-Haramain that I read a while back.
I have an honest question though. How do you know Al-Haramain is a terrorist organization?
The fact that you find so many parallels between imperialist Japan and Nazi Germany of the WWII era and today's militant Islam again makes me question your sanity. Now I don't know much of the specifics of these groups but there are some pretty simple and general common sense observations that allow me to differentiate between the actual threat posed to me by 'violent Islam' and the threat posed to a similar person in first half of the 20th century by imperialist Japan and Nazi Germany.
1) Germany and Japan were developed first class nation states with with millions of highly productive citizens and 'Violent Islam' is not.
2) Germany and Japan had formidable armies on the same order of magnitude as our own and 'violent Islam' does not.
3) Hitler and the Emperor were singular leaders that had consolidated all power and were virtually unopposed within their respective nations and 'violent Islam' does not.
4) Japan and Germany built massive infrastructure to support an army, a navy, and an air force, executed operations involving tens of thousands of trained soldiers operating state of the art equipment and backed by sound financial institutions. 'Violent Islam's' most successful mission ever was the donation financed hijacking of passenger airliners with box cutters that ended in their own suicide. It was an act only a president bent on politically manipulating his own ignorant citizens would happily promote as an act of war. It was in fact a deadly act of terror and a hideous crime but certainly not an act of war.
"So you think we should have allowed AQ and the Taliban to remain untouched after they murdered 3,000 Americans?"
No *****, I think we should have eliminated their ability to be a threat. Something the incompetently lead war on terror has yet to even come close to achieving (your own fears are a testament to that) and sadly never will.
But beyond all that, what the ***** makes you think Retroactive Immunity for AT&T and Verizon will make anyone any safer from a group of terrorists smart and determined enough to successfully procure and deploy a functioning weapon of mass destruction?
There are only two ways to actually prevent terror attacks: one is to make terrorism an unattractive tactic among violent Muslims and the other is to promote non-violent Islam. I fail to see how warrentless wiretaps of Americans help to achieve either of these goals.
Provoking fear among the innocent by sensationalizing the horror of terrorism and acting as if your at war on Islam play directly into the hands of Jihadi and will only provoke further terrorism. That is part of the reason why the so called war on terror has been such a failure. - 140Suffolk, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1 Al-Haramain is a terrorist organization because there are multiple demonstrated links between the group and other terrorist groups. Some of the money they collected went directly to support terrorist violence. I've seen hidden camera stories about what goes on in these fund raising events. The pamphlets talk about helping orphans. But on the screens they play videos of kaffiyaed soldiers. Obviously, the message to the Muslim attendees is -- the money you give will go to buy weapons for the mujahadeen. Terrorists.
The fact that you miss the parallels between our wars with other groups with world conquest ambitions make me question YOUR sanity. Of course there are differences. Big differences.
The way to make terrorism unattractive is to kill terrorists. Not fighting back is what plays into their hands.
- fancypantscz, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5http://www.alternet.org/rights/35807/
- solistus, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8Of course we can't name the Americans who've been spied on. IT'S A SECRET PROGRAM, dumbass. Even the FISA courts can't name who's been tapped, which is the problem. No independent oversight leads to horrific abuses of power.
- BillDoE, on 06/30/2008, -1/+11There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams, Journal, 1772 - mummbleswers, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6I'm getting the impression some people are getting their first taste of real politics here and are realizing how much it sucks. Liberals give him ***** b/c he's moving to the center. The right will give him ***** for being soft on terror - He can't win on this issue. And people keep acting like they're going to drop support for him which means McCain will get the advantage; and you think you're being spied on now? McCain will not only keep this stuff going, he's probably going to bring up more of it once he bombs Iran.
- jerbaker, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1It doesn't matter. The point is to teach the Democrats a lesson. If it takes ten elections I don't care. As long as they continue to run mini-Republicans, I will work to defeat them. The point isn't who wins, it's not letting the Democrats win by selling out their base. It's only icing on the cake that Republicans dig themselves into deep holes when they're allowed to run amok.
- mummbleswers, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1I've had enough lessons from George Bush. But am I understanding you correctly? Democrats run mini-Republicans, so you want to defeat them by letting REAL Republicans into office? Is that really your logic? You're willing to risk (well ten elections, so 40 years of ***** ups) that much destruction so that you can "teach a lesson" to Democrats like they are little children? I have to deal with 40 years of corporate take-over and unnecessary wars so that you can teach them a lesson by voting for what you are trying to stand against? At least vote Ron Paul if that's the case. I could be completely missing your point, but the logic seems to make absolutely no sense to me.
- jerbaker, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1"I have to deal with 40 years of corporate take-over and unnecessary wars so that you can teach them a lesson by voting for what you are trying to stand against?"
Do you think you're not going to get that with a centrist Democrat? That's where they've got you fooled. Stop voting for the least bad candidate. Remember that it was Bill Clinton who got us NAFTA and a stagnant wage growth in this country. He also increased poverty by signing the Republican welfare reform bill into law. Don't fool yourself for a damn second that they won't turn around and sell you out at the drop of a hat.
I could never vote Libertarian. I don't believe that fictitious entities able to escape legal liability (corporations) should have equal rights to living human beings.
- jerbaker, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1It doesn't matter. The point is to teach the Democrats a lesson. If it takes ten elections I don't care. As long as they continue to run mini-Republicans, I will work to defeat them. The point isn't who wins, it's not letting the Democrats win by selling out their base. It's only icing on the cake that Republicans dig themselves into deep holes when they're allowed to run amok.
- setec, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10Wow, I guess he isn't as perfect as you all thought.
- CHANNELOCK, on 07/01/2008, -6/+0All it would take would be one more terrorist attack from Jihadist or rogue CIA cells to make you all cave in,its going to happen again and all the talk and posturing about Freedom and Rights will seem so naive a few years from now.
Maybe Obama sees the writing on the wall and figures its going to happen and he doesn't want to be vulnerable to personal attack about why he let this happen..he wants two terms and is aping McCain in his tough guy stance to placate the neo-cons,military,banking capitalist and Israel.
Hes covering all bets,hes a survivalist... just look at his recent history of jettisoning baggage
The Rightest want McCain but figure hes to senile to win and are now betting on Obama
Americas in Iraq for a generation and probably in Iran two years from now- JCPahl, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2If you prefer safety over freedom, you are a coward. The world never has been and never will be a safe place, but tyranny has been an ever-present danger for as long as humans have congregated.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1Here's Orwell's 1984 in 110 minutes.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=1984&hl=en&s ... - LilFotherMucker, on 07/01/2008, -4/+4Where are the links to open letters to 99 other senators?
- Sfenton, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2They aren't running for president except for McCain.
- LilFotherMucker, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1So their vote doesn't count?
- Sfenton, on 07/01/2008, -3/+5The more and more I read about Obama and his policies concering the best for American's and the world, the more I dislike him.
- DarkReign16, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Repeal FISA while you're at it.
- HunterTJ, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Shouldn't your beef be with the Bush administration who legitimized the wiretapping. The telecom companies didn't exactly have a choice but to comply with the law of the land.
Your proposal sets a dangerous precedent of telling corporations that they can and should pick and choose which laws to follow. I know you are trying to fight for justice, but you really ought to consider the implications of what you are asking for.
The government is responsible for this reprehensible surveillance. Corporations do what they're told.- anath47, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Actually, the law of the land states that they *weren't* to hand over the info in the first place.
- jerbaker, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1"Corporations do what they're told."
That's why allowing lawsuits to go forward is important. If they lose some multimillion dollar lawsuits, they'll think about it hard next time the government says, "pssst, we want to violate the Constitutional rights of some American citizens and we want you to help."
- TastyWheat, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3It looks like he cares more about what his peers think than what you think. Go ahead and sign the petition. Maybe he'll change his vote to "present".
- MrViklund, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Well he did. So here you have it.
YOUR democratic nominee that supports immunity for the telcos. It should not require an OPEN letter for someone to understand that this is a bad idea. - gofalcons, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4Good luck with getting him to vote no on telecom immunity. Obama is just a corporate flunky running a feel good campaign. You're starting to see his true colors now and he'll continue to disappoint the people who just saw a blank slate and wrote their wish list on it.1
- anath47, on 07/01/2008, -6/+2That's cute guys, you really think he's campaigning AND serving as our Illinois senator?
Take a look at his voting record and see how many votes he's missed out on the road campaigning for a better job than the one we elected him for.
I'm personally offended that my tax dollars are still paying his salary as I don't feel he's doing the job we're paying him for.- joeanon, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Sorry, but you're an idiot. What's he supposed to do ? You are a whining brat asking for everything and getting nothing content to revel in your own half witted critiques. Is Illinios going to solve the energy crisis.. if not shut and up and sit down and be part of something bigger than you own ego for once in your life
Don't suggest things that are impossible. This is historically the way it goes and it's the first year the Dems have out raised the GOP in who knows when.
The biggest problem is you idiots want change now after 40 years of riding the consumption train.
Obama's up against the most monopolistic and power media on earth. He is going to have to skirt the truth at times, win office, and then push his agenda.
He is not in the position right now, nor does he seem to have the ideas or motivation for the people to rally against all the forces that would want him to lose.
He will play it safe, not try to go for the gold. He voted for the Patriot Act twice... so what's his angle on that ? He is no FDR or even JFK. He is a constitutional law expert that supports the Patriot Act.
You figure it out ... I think he panders when he feels the pressure, too bad, but still likely good enough to beat McCain.. especially with Bob Barr's help. - jerbaker, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1:I'm personally offended that my tax dollars are still paying his salary as I don't feel he's doing the job we're paying him for."
Gimme a break. You didn't vote for him in Illinois, and you're not going to vote for him in November. The only thing more annoying than a neocon is one who tries to pretend he isn't.- rowjimmy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1even if he didn't vote for him, his tax dollars still pay his salary... just saying.
- joeanon, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Sorry, but you're an idiot. What's he supposed to do ? You are a whining brat asking for everything and getting nothing content to revel in your own half witted critiques. Is Illinios going to solve the energy crisis.. if not shut and up and sit down and be part of something bigger than you own ego for once in your life
- Dimbleby, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4Joined!
- patch6, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7Asking a high-level politician to honor campaign promises that aren't in favor of special interests? In this age?
You'd have better luck finding a unicorn.- HerbertWest, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Ha! Nice play of the unicorn card.
- joeanon, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3He has let himself, as all dems have let themselves, be pushed to the right by the radical element of the GOP relabeling everyone and defining conservatism. It's backfiring, but not fast enough to stop trillions of dollars of damage.
Here is the speech Obama should be giving and the type of sentiment he should back our freedoms with a realistic disclosure of secrecy and a solid definition of wartime.
The simple fact is media must be broken back apart, it cannot operate consolidated without being a national security risk.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6425528413 ... - Hermmunster, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I believe he said he would fight it or attempt to repeal it if it was voted in.
- jerbaker, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Not exactly. He said he'd try to get it removed, but that he'd vote for the compromise regardless. I think he will be committing political suicide if he votes for it.
- JiveDadson, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Why should we believe any promise he makes?
We are so screwed.
- HerbertWest, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1People I don't know how to tell you this...but, the government.....and nobody else.....cares about what you are saying on the phone.
I know it's hard to believe! All of our cell phone conversations are so important! Here's a transcript of one I was having yesterday at around 11:30am:
Me "Hello?"
Other person "What up dog?"
Me "I'm waiting in line to get me some tacos."
Other person "Are you over at that new place by the highway?"
Me "Yeah, their tacos are really good."
Just imagine what the government/phone companies could do with info like that! The line for the good tacos would be miles long!
Oh and as a side note, In Orwell's 1984 a person had to be a member of at least the Outer Part to be spied upon. The vast majority of the people (85%) were Proles and the government had no interest in spying on them. Has anyone besides me actually ever read this book!lol The real message of the book (well one of them) is how we can convince ourselves to really believe as fact, what we know to not be true.
Like voting for either one of these sorry ass jokers is a good idea.lol - Qtip42, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3I like the idea you guys are presenting here but obama will ignore you. He cannot go against the wishes of his owners/masters. Nobody's complaining about his AIPAC alliance either, I see that as a bigger issue... When he completely ignores this "open letter" and votes for the compromise, I hope all obama supporters understand what they brought upon this country.
-
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by