digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA

cbsnews.com — Obama issued a statement in support of the House's update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but said he would try to strip a provision granting immunity to telecommunication companies. The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • lateralus, on 06/21/2008, -42/+88I just don't think Hilary would've made this stand.
    • LadyAmerica, on 06/21/2008, -40/+5I agree, I think she would rather defend the US. (I'm NOT a Hillary-supporter, by the way.)
      • chicofaraby, on 06/22/2008, -2/+13"she would rather defend the US"

        From whom?
        • Murdats, on 06/22/2008, -3/+14from the evil population who keeps harassing the telco companies into following pointless laws.
        • JoeVet, on 06/22/2008, -1/+15Haven't you been watching the news.....boogeymen are everywhere. You shouldn't leave your house and never ever get on a plane again. All citizens should be stopped and interrogated just in case. Its your patriotic duty to spy on your neighbor and report suspicious activity. Hide and cower under your bedsheets....the boogeyman is coming! /s
        • LadyAmerica, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1From whom? Al Quaeda, Iran, and their fellow-jihadists. DUH!
    • Vigilo, on 06/22/2008, -65/+74Obama knows his support for FISA has killed his reputation and has exposed him and this is damage control. All deception i'm afraid. His credibility as a change candidate is over he is just another corporate puppet. He can say he'll do this but he can't do it himself so its dead in the water and he knows it.

      Its called LIP SERVICE.
      • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -19/+49You retard this quote is from the same ***** speech! How is this lip service? He NEVER intended to allow the immunity clauses. How the hell were you even dugg up?
        • pwnerofnoobs, on 06/22/2008, -12/+3Sorry I was high.
        • mnocket, on 06/22/2008, -11/+26How is this lip service?? Simple explanation. Read the last sentence of the article..... "Probably we can't take that out of the bill, but I'm going to try," Reid told "Political Capital with Al Hunt." Like Reid, Obama knows damn well that he can't strip out the immunity provision and he voted for the bill anyway. His promise to "work" in the senate to try to remove the immunity provision is an attempt to appease his supporters knowing full well that it ain't gonna happen. This is what we call lip service. Kind of like his pre-nomination pledge to do everything he could to work with his republican opponent to commit to public financing of the election. Pure lip service. Once nominated, he quickly switched to private financing and pointed to a failed meeting with a McCain Representative as the reason. I guess in Obama's mind, everything he can do = one meeting. Sorry, your guy is just as disingenuous as every other politician.
        • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -9/+10So let me get this straight... because someone else doesn't think it can be done, Obama is a liar? Right, got it, buried.
        • carve, on 06/22/2008, -4/+7Then why did he vote to allow it?
        • Nikon87, on 06/22/2008, -3/+4I think the biggest problem with Obama supporters is that they want change and they believe in it, but they don't explain how to make it feasible. It doesn't matter what Obama believes, it's what he'll do.
        • chuckDontSurf, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6I think you meant "how is this *damange control*?", since it's from the same speech.
        • aedenp, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4The Senate hasn't voted yet, Carve. It passed in the House, and will be voted upon in the Senate in the coming week.

          RTFA.
    • PabloMac, on 06/22/2008, -6/+49Nobody would bother to read an article with a title starting with: "Hillary: I'll Fight To Strip..."
      • JoeVet, on 06/22/2008, -23/+4I would....she's always been hot!
        • Technohamster, on 06/22/2008, -4/+1I think Obama's kind of hot, for a dude.

          What does that make me? >_>
        • chuckDontSurf, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6Gay.
        • SwedishNinja, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5Jungle fever sufferer.
    • NVMojo, on 06/22/2008, -4/+2LOL! Have you looked at her past behavior on this?

      Give me a break.
    • digitalhair, on 06/22/2008, -2/+27"The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies."
      ...
      AGAIN, this is the real source of the controversy. Why are people falling for the ***** assumption that impeaching Bush and Cheney would be "political theater" that would "waste taxpayer dollars" when every day that goes by the costs of this war far exceed the cost of an act of impeachment?

      At least it would rob them of the time necessary to pass more expansive transgressions against our constitutional rights.

      Impeach!

      I don't care what the politics of this bill are, we cannot accept from our representatives anything but an ANGRY response of intolerance as a reaction to the coupling of telecom immunity and more expansive spying powers...

      What happened to Chris Dodd's filibustering this time???

      No taxation without representation!
      • brycelb, on 06/22/2008, -5/+4First off, impeachment is ALWAYS political theater. It is kind of the point. All you have to do is look back to Clinton to see this. What exactly happened to Bill after he was impeached, NOTHING, hence the political theater reference. Now, are you also suggesting that when the president is using his veto power that because you don't like it he should be impeached. That is juvenile at best. I think you have a bunch of reading to do. Feel free to disagree with the bill but lets try and have a touch of common sense mixed in.
        • psion01, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Do you remember a fellow named Richard M. Nixon?
        • nan0bug00, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1You mean that guy who resigned before he could be impeached? The one who was promptly pardoned shortly thereafter? That guy?
      • SwedishNinja, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Right. Because the Democrats are just going to decide to end the war.


        LOL
    • DogofFire, on 06/23/2008, -0/+5
      To Diggers: The corporate media filtering of reality has lead us all to focus narrowly on telecom immunity, when the bigger issue is that the bill LEGALIZES future warrantless and oversight-less wiretapping! From the ACLU:

      http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res200 ...

      H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (6/19/2008)

      The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies. Most importantly:
      • 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.
      • H.R. 6304 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.
      • H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.
      • H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.
      • H.R. 6304 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.
      • H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.
      • 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.

  • gonzoblair, on 06/21/2008, -57/+66Good and logical position to take. It's a tricky choice to make, but he seems to be making the right one. Hopefully this article will calm down some of his fairweather "zomg Obama is a lying douchebag spineless betrayer who betrayed me" Internet supporters.
    • culbeda, on 06/21/2008, -20/+25Until he's ready to eliminate all wiretapping entirely, eliminate the Fed, implement a flat tax and make it legal to do just about anything to any one at any time, you're still going to have to suffer their ilk demeaning Obama. They'll ignore that he shut down PAC contributions immediately. They'll ignore the fact that he co-sponsored a bill to increase the transparency of government spending. They'll ignore the fact that the guy is a genuine class act and tell you he isn't really for change because he doesn't share every radical belief they do. He's making some of the initial steps required to help repair a broken system, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for McCain.

      P.S. Did you know that Ron Paul named his kid "Rand"? As a moderate, this makes him seem even more dogmatic and disturbing in my eyes.
      • majestichazard, on 06/21/2008, -4/+12I don't get it. What's wrong with the name Rand? It's a little unusual, yeah, but I wouldn't say disturbing.
        And hopefully you're right about Obama anyway.
        • MoofTheStoof, on 06/22/2008, -10/+17Glorifying Ayn Rand in any way is disturbing. You have to take an active part in helping people other than yourself in order to make a better society for ALL (including yourself) to benefit from. I'm not talking carrying somebody else's load, I'm talking about shared burdens. She would have us working only for ourselves and against all others and then call whatever anarchy that resulted a healthy culture. She would demand of Government those things she couldn't possibly have on her own (police, military) and yet offer nothing in return to fund them. Liberals understand that individual liberty can coexist with social justice. Libertarians/Anarchists can't see past their own self-interest.
        • enchanterku, on 06/22/2008, -11/+5And why shouldn't I have a healthy amount of self-interest? I have to disagree with you- I think that Ayn Rand had some interesting ideas that, when applied with a sense of society, might result in a much more respectable country than our current one.

          Furthermore, I believe that her idea was not 'working... against all others'. Her idea was more that everyone should be selfish in the sense that they do everything they can to the best of their ability, taking pride in what they do, and realizing their own self-worth. If everybody was actively working towards some goal, whatever it is that they are good at, I feel that society would be much more productive.
        • Wartyboskfapped, on 06/22/2008, -3/+9Moof is right. Altruism is one of the most important traits that have helped humanity survive thus far, it is an evolutionary advantage that has proven itself time and again. Objectivism is a crock of cancerous *****.
        • anothrnbdy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Did anyone else think of Rand from Wheel of Time first?
        • Jeral, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2@anothrnbdy

          Yes, yes I did think of Rand al'Thor.
      • pintomp3, on 06/22/2008, -7/+13ron paul was also too busy giving a speech to vote against the bill. he only makes time for important things like this:
        http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110 ...
        • zephyr42, on 06/22/2008, -4/+6Troll go away, Ron paul has missed far fewer votes than Obama and McCain, go take your anti-liberty and leave
      • Clark3934, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1His name is Randall... which was shortened by his friends to Rand.

        What the hell is wrong with Randall?
      • chillypacman, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Ron Paul is just a ***** crazy religious lunatic, trying to give rleigious institutions a free pass on the supreme court and giving state governments unquestioned power is pretty evil, sure it's adifferent kind of evil but evil none the less.
      • zardoz73, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1You lost me at "flat tax". No actually, at "eliminate the Fed". Sure, what could possibly go wrong?
    • godd4242, on 06/22/2008, -12/+33Yeah, I'm glad this article exists at least. That goddamn WashingtonPost piece doesn't even mention this important little tidbit, and all the Ron Paul supporters are trying to ***** smear ***** on him now,. It's pathetic kind of. They're just going around ignoring the facts the same way they yell at other people for ignoring facts.

      I have to admit, this election cylce hasn't just disillusioned me about politics, or Obama or McCain or Democrats or Republicans. It's really just made me realize everyone is a ***** idiot.
      • Qtip42, on 06/22/2008, -17/+12So when it's staring you in the face that your candidate just helped strip you of your freedoms, you can't man up and admit that obama is no different than other politicians? Instead you point blame at Ron Paul supporters who have done nothing but point out (no need to smear, it's in big bright neon letters) Obama's flip flopping say-one-thing-do-another trend?

        I will admit when I disagree with paul but he has never voted in a way different than what he has told his supporters.

        I'm glad you're an idiot with everyone.
      • insomniac8400, on 06/22/2008, -5/+3I cannot understand how a Ron Paul supported attacks Obama, he is the most conservative man still in the race. A lot of bad things will happen/continue if McCain were to get elected.
        • WilliamDavis, on 06/22/2008, -4/+6A lot of bad things will happen either way. Obama still supports spying on americans who communicate overseas. Obama should absolutely be held accountable for some of his BS positions. "Better than McCain" is a pretty poor standard.
        • insomniac8400, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Not at all. It is a very important standard. Obama means we can start dismantling this large government expansion that has occurred over the last 8 years. McCain just means more big government expansion.
      • shawn1122, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5Amen to that, brother. People will always see what they want to see, it applies to all of us. That's why its so difficult to get a good piece of unbiased news from the MSM.

        The group think effect of Digg isn't helping either. I came here only a slight supporter of Obama. Within weeks that slight support has turned into something extreme and unhealthy because of reading stuff here. It's too bad really, but none of us can really shield ourselves from it. When we see something bad about someone we like we say "ok, whatever" and ignore it. When we see something good, we go on the mountain tops and announce it to the world. This is the definition of ignorance, and it takes a conscious effort to prevent yourself from doing this.

        Sometimes I wish Digg was more moderate, but I understand we are just a bunch of people here. Some Ron Paul supporters, some Obama supporters, everyone getting angry at each other. I just hope that the people here realize Obama is still a step up from McCain. No, he's not perfect, but he's definitely a step up.

        Of course, Ron Paul supporters should vote for Paul, if they really believe in his message that strongly. Realistically though, those votes will just increase the chance of McCain being competitive with Obama in the polls. A vote for Obama will keep McCain out of office, and I think that is something we can all agree on. I know there are other candidates, but lets be realistic, they aren't going to make a difference. The average person probably doesn't even know they exist.
      • trispear, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Besides your generalization of RP fans, I'd say the majority of attacks started from the Obama supporters on Ron Paul last year already.

        That we point out flaws in your candidate's position is not cause for a hissy fit.
      • Dugout21, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1I sadly couldn't agree more. But you forgot to add another point: Every candidate is a ***** idiot.
      • chillypacman, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I find paultards to be more obssessed with Obama than even idiots who blindlyfollow obama.

        Everytime there's a pro-ron paul story or worse, an anti-obama story you are GARANTEED to see some attack on Obama or Ron Paul in th elatter case, with pro-obama stories that seldom happens.
    • sleepyjjk, on 06/22/2008, -11/+23I hope that diggers get some more sense to them. It is extremely hard to be on principles all the time, especially on bills and such. And on a bill like this, it will be hard to persuade extreme changes right away, especially since he is not president now and does not yet possess the political power to do so.

      He's going for a compromise, he's trying to slowly end Bush's power. He can't suddenly be against it and change everything. No, he has to do it in steps, and this is one small step that I hope most people can agree on. Giving telecoms immunities isn't right, and we all know that.

      Now, digg me down if you want. Tell me that Obama is the same as every other politican, but honestly, I don't think so and really hope not. Look at all he's done so far - such as only taking money from his supporters and not lobbyists. Trying to make education better, helping out the flood victims (much more responsive than Bush and Katrina), and so on. Don't discard everything for something that you may not have looked into much.
      • Qtip42, on 06/22/2008, -13/+10It's ok to lie to the american people in other words? as long as it's in reasonable size bites so they won't come down on you all at the same time?

        If politicians can lie, so you can you! The more you know! *duhn dumm dummm*
      • macfan93, on 06/22/2008, -3/+9I take back my previous comment about losing faith. No candidate can represent every single one of your views. He has done so much good, it would be silly to throw away a vote over this.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 06/22/2008, -3/+5Obama, for all his eloquence and brilliance, is first of all confined by the limitations his party imposes on him. I would like Obama much more if he was an independent. The Democrats are simply OWNED by the globalist bankers and big business, and that's not to say the pubs arent too. An Obama administration is going to be Very similar to the Clinton administration in my opinion. That's not bad, but there will be no CHANGE other than the fact that our president finally wont be a frickin ignoramus.

        4 years ago I would've loved Obama. In fact I remember watching his speech in 04 at the Dem convention and wishing he could replace Kerry right then and there. The Democrats in the last 4 years have proved what a spineless, weak party they are and how SIMILAR they actually are to the Republicans. Now that I understand the whole situation much better I kind of worry about our country taking a more socialist, globalist approach, although I still support the Dems more than the currently-just-plain-stupid republican platform.

        So actually, I've looked into this a lot, and have found nothing to make me think Obama is going to do anything different. We are all gonna drink our Pabst and celebrate the day he gets elected, and a year later we will be bitching about him on digg.
      • digitalhair, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3"The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies."
        ...
        AGAIN, this is the real source of the controversy. Why are people falling for the ***** assumption that impeaching Bush and Cheney would be "political theater" that would "waste taxpayer dollars" when every day that goes by the costs of this war far exceed the cost of an act of impeachment?

        At least it would rob them of the time necessary to pass more expansive transgressions against our constitutional rights.

        Impeach!

        I don't care what the politics of this bill are, we cannot accept from our representatives anything but an ANGRY response of intolerance as a reaction to the coupling of telecom immunity and more expansive spying powers...

        What happened to Chris Dodd's filibustering this time???

        No taxation without representation!

    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/22/2008, -8/+17Obama never lied to anyone, it's just that everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon instead of taking the time to really research the man and his background. He's a typical "Third Way" run of the mill Clintonian Democrat, which is a respectable position in my opinion, but still the same. old. *****. that we;ve always been getting.
      It's kinda funny how everyone always makes it seem like Republicans are evil conspirators, but then you hear about Obama and Hillary going to the Bilderberger conference and then you realize that the party you supported all along is as guilty as anyone of serving the rich and powerful first.
      So, don't give me your "Ron Paul smear campaigners" ***** when he is the only candidate that comes up absolutely clean and respectable no matter how far you dig into his background.
      • superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -4/+5Sorry, but there is nothing Clintonian at all about Obama except for the triangulation aspect - and wasn't that rather the least favorite aspect of the Clintons to start with?

        Otherwise his policies are nowhere near as centrist as Clinton's were.
    • paradexes, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3I think the spin put on the articles originally got people angry, and with good reason. This is a sore topic for alot of people. I think most will come around. Honestly the nice thing is that if this is political theater, to make Obama look good, then it is damn well played. (lets hope) if Telecoms get their way, then this was political theater anyway, just to show that he said, "I tried, what could I do?" All this tells me is that he won't be able to handle Congress the way Bush has. If there is any one thing he has done well consistently is manipulate and play congress to his tune.

      If Obama can't make a change happen being the leader of the Democratic party now, then this really starts to reflect badly on him. All in all tho I will still pick him over McCain.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5btw, it is just plain stupid to complain about so called political "fairweather supporters"

      the frickin point is to vote based on what you know about the candidate, not PICK A CANDIDATE A YEAR IN ADVANCE AND BLIND YOURSELF TO EVERYTHING FROM THEN ON.
    • carve, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5That is what makes America great- you can say one thing, and then go and do the opposite.

      Actions speak louder than words. He let the genie out, and that is a hell of a lot easier than putting it back in. You can't un-grant immunity- simple as that. Ironically, it is unconstitutional (you can't pass a new law and charge someone with a crime ex-post-facto)

      Now we have the precedent that if the president (emperor?) asks you to break the law, that is A-OK, particularly if you're getting paid a lot. THE GOVERNMENT, OF ALL ENTITIES, IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW.
      • trispear, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0I may be wrong, but isn't this about immunity from civil lawsuits and not criminal prosecutions?
    • flink405, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1@gonzoblair: Sounds like the standard spin of a paid Obama blogger on any negative comment against Obama...only say positive "blah,blah, blah" things about Obama, but nothing relating to the subject.
  • barackoblogger, on 06/21/2008, -28/+23this is so complicated. Can the avg. American understand this?
    • LadyAmerica, on 06/21/2008, -30/+15Well, I guess the mind-numbed Obamabots couldn't understand this.

      So they'll just obey Obamagod, Kos, HuffPo, MoveOn, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, CPUSA, etc., etc.
    • renpatel, on 06/22/2008, -12/+30Yes. Very simple.
      Bush broke the law.

      Obama doesn't want a bill that would forgive him and the companies that broke the law.
      • NonServium, on 06/22/2008, -4/+18Not quite. To be accurate, it goes...

        Bush broke the law.
        Obama CLAIMS he will fight a bill that would forgive Bush and the companies that broke the law.

        It's a very important distinction.
        • vuke69, on 06/22/2008, -1/+16You forgot the part where, after his half-hearted "fight" against a provision in the bill, he votes for it anyhow.
        • digitalhair, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7yeah, what happened to the filibuster?
        • person425, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4@digitalhair

          The people pushing the bill have a filibuster proof majority (3/5)
        • digitalhair, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1thanks... wait, wtf?
      • mnocket, on 06/22/2008, -3/+7Let's be honest. Obama doesn't want a bill that would forgive him and the companies that broke the law - but he voted for it anyway. Then to appease his supporters he made a lame promise to "work" in the senate to try to undo the immunity provision in the bill he just voted to approve. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acknowledges that this isn't likely to happen (read the last sentence in the article). This is a new spin on "I voted for it before I voted against it". With Obama you get - I voted for it while speaking against it.
      • superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7If Obama didn't want that he wouldn't vote for it. But instead, after "trying" to take part of it out, he'll vote for it anyway.

        Nice spin but your argument still seems a little woozy from it.
        • person425, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3He has done what he can to make the immunity as weak as possible. As it exists now, immunity will only be granted if you can prove that after 9/11, the office of the president specifically requested that the telecom company break the law. I would like to see telecoms burn more than that, but it is much better than the blanket immunity that was proposed before.
    • JoeVet, on 06/22/2008, -9/+13The average American voted for Bush twice and think he is a great leader. Americans are idiots who refuse to learn from their mistakes. They have erected a museum to their stupidity down in Kentucky. So no, the average American has never read or could even comprehend this legislation.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/22/2008, -12/+7No but i bet you can because you are a Barack Obama supporter as your name shows, and therefore you are brilliant and enlightened! The funny thing is that you probably hate people calling liberals elitist and then you go act like an elitist idiot. WOOO!!! Put down Americans to make your self feel better!! That will really help Obama get votes!
      You are a perfect example of what this Obama mania is all about. It's all about the Pride of people like you more than choosing the next leader of our country, and that's just awful.

      It's clearly more important that you put down Americans for your own self satisfaction instead of actually trying to reach out to Americans who might not be voting for Obama...and people dugg you up. Wow.
    • matrixbandit, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5Actually, even though any rational person can already see that the law was broken both by the Bush administration and by the telcom companies, legally that is all speculation until due process has been followed, I.E. until we get our day in a court of law to decide whether or not what was done was in violation of the law. Hell, right now we've only scraped the surface of what went on during that time period.

      If telcom immunity passes both houses, it will never go to court and we will never know just how much we were violated. AND we will clearly continue to be violated because it will have been shown that the laws of our forefathers mean nothing and there is no one left in this country with the strength to ensure the survival of those laws.
      • LadyAmerica, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1You don't know how much you were violated?
        Maybe tnat's because you WEREN'T "violated" at all.
        • matrixbandit, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Wow, tnat's a really good point. You're probably right. ***** it, let's just hope for the best while we bury our heads in the comfortable warm sand. I'm sure everything is fine and there's nothing to worry about.
    • krnldmp, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3If the average American doesn't force themselves to understand this the pile of nonsensical ***** they'll have to understand in the future will get unmanageably large for anyone. That's pretty much how we got here in the first place. The United States citizenry did not replace the executive branch at the FIRST SIGN of abhorrent disregard for law and have thereby opened the door to a Much larger cleanup job for themselves.
  • rockstar555y, on 06/21/2008, -29/+24This is a courageous stance. I was starting to get disillusioned by this man. But he has gained some of my respect in the recent 2 weeks.
    • Qtip42, on 06/22/2008, -13/+11He should have gained your respect in the first year of campaigning. The last two weeks he has proven himself to flip flop on yet another critical issue. Making him no better than Mccain. You are lying to yourself.
    • Vigilo, on 06/22/2008, -7/+10OMG He is telling you what you want to hear. He can't take immunity out of it he can just say it he doesn't have the power to remove anything!
      • ElAssoWipo, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Yeah but in the pretend world of an election year, presidents are kings.

        Otherwise he wouldn't have much to say about anything.
      • JoeVet, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3As only one senator he does not have the power to remove anything. He can only take a stand. As president he'll have more leverage. Do you know how our government works?
        • digitalhair, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2couldn't he have filibustered the bill?

          isn't that what Chris Dodd did last time?
  • barackoblogger, on 06/21/2008, -39/+33I think people have a misconception about Obama. He is not a radical. He is an incrementalist, and will bring about change in unexpected ways and in ways that aren't threatening to people.
    • Qtip42, on 06/22/2008, -9/+37You can try to defend it all you want but no matter how eloquent his speech, it doesn't get him off the hook. We have rights, stripping our rights and freedoms IS threatening. To come out and say sorry afterwards doesn't cut it. He will not get my vote for any reason. Neither will his twin mccain.
      • gnotDigger, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3If the FISA courts were not being illegally circumvented, this would never have been made an issue. The fact that you can be, will be, and quite likely are being spied on is just an inevitable byproduct of the information revolution. All rights to privacy aside, this is the reality of the situation. Someone will be spying on you... who do you want it to be? Would you rather it be contacts from overseas, people circumventing the law within the country, or people following the law from within the country. Reducing our government's capabilities to spy would only enable people OUTSIDE of the government to engage in espionage. The fact that people from within our government were not getting warrants to spy is the only thing troubling about this matter.
      • petrodollar, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3You don't have a right against gov't wiretapping. You just don't. The issue was never whether such wiretapping was constitutional, but whether it violated FISA.
        • b-dizzle, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3True, but you should have a right against warrantless wiretapping.
      • Technohamster, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2But he's not stripped rights away, you've never had these rights, American's lost them in like the 70's.
    • PabloMac, on 06/22/2008, -3/+5Sounds insidious.
    • TJATL, on 06/22/2008, -14/+7He's an incrementalist and not a radical? *****. Forcing me to pay for someone else's healthcare, increasing my tax burden, refusing to drill for a short term solution while we invest and explore a long term solution, and every other socialist idea he boasts about on his website DOES THREATEN a lot of LIBERTY and FREEDOM loving individuals.
      • JoeVet, on 06/22/2008, -2/+8Man, you've swollowed the entire ball of wax there haven't you. You should read some nonbiased information about your stands. We could reduce health care by a considerable amount by removing the vast layers of bookkeepers and middle men and profiteers. We could save so much as to pay for care for all Americans without raising and likely lowering costs to everyone. drilling will result in 1-2 cents reduction in 2012....hardly worth the effort. And the biggest threat to Liberty and Freedom is your neo-con religious agenda. Quit swolling the Drudge Report B.S. and do some checking yourself for a change.
        • Muyoso, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1Shows what you know Joevet, Drudge is one of Obamas biggest supporters.
      • xexx, on 06/22/2008, -2/+6As opposed to forcing us to pay for an illegal war, increasing my debt by massive proportions, and refusing to invest anything worthwhile in alternative energy which our future is actually dependent on? I think any sane person knows what's more harmful to our liberty and the freedom loving individuals.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/22/2008, -5/+3where was your "incrementalist" ***** the past 6 months when you were all "he's the second coming" huh? He hasnt proposed any kind of change...in fact he;s got a republican sounding stance towards the Middle East...he just SPEAKS about it more eloquently.
      It's just ludicrous that people honestly think hes gonna change everything.
    • superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3Voting for an incrementalist is not voting for Change with a big "C". If he were truly an incrementalist Change would not be his core message.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2The bottom line is that this was a chance to show that he truly is for change, and will speak out against the politics of the last eight years. And he blew it. You do understand the implications of the bill, right? To quote Gleen Greenwald from Salon: "In the U.S. now, thanks to the Democratic Congress, we'll have a new law based on the premise that the President has the power to order private actors to break the law, and when he issues such an order, the private actors will be protected from liability of any kind on the ground that the Leader told them to do it -- the very theory that the Nuremberg Trial rejected."
      And just for the record, I've never been and still am not a RP supporter.
  • LadyAmerica, on 06/21/2008, -67/+11Obama will be great for our jihadist enemies but fatal for America...

    Make our telecoms face leftist law suits when they act in US interests!
    Make sure telecoms won't/can't cooperate with our intel efforts!
    Make sure jihadists/terrorists can communicate without fear of detection!
    Make sure our enemies can attack us with no warning!
    Make sure we lose the war against the global jihad!

    Well, what woud you expect from Barak HUSSAIN Obama?
    • culbeda, on 06/21/2008, -8/+16What an incredibly ill-informed and xenophobic comment. Consider yourself blocked.
    • ChristPissed, on 06/21/2008, -8/+10You are a most ignorant and dishonest *****.
      One of the zionist internet megaphonies I suspect.
      How's the weather in Tel Aviv right now?
    • HiCaP, on 06/22/2008, -12/+5 Come on LadyAmerica, you gotta know the left-tards just want to get back
      in the studio and sing, We Are The World
    • sleepyjjk, on 06/22/2008, -3/+13Why do people still mention his middle name like he's a terrorist or evil?

      Can't we at least live past this stupid prejudice? I thought we lived in more civilized times.

      Yes, I think we should criticize our politicians whenever it's correct to do so and keep them honest, but I honestly don't believe we should become so bad where we criticize their names. Who cares? Talk about the issues and actions, not the superficial not-important stuff.
    • brstilson, on 06/22/2008, -2/+12So it's leftist to obey the constitution now?

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Constitution of the United States of America, Bill of Rights, Amendment IV

      That is the law. No ifs, ands, or buts. There is no circumstance, EVER, where this does not apply. Those companies broke the highest law of our nation. ANY exceptions are completely, 100% unacceptable. Terrorism is essentially the same excuse the Nazis, the Fascists, and the Communists used when they stripped their citizens of freedoms like this. Why is it that right-wingers will cling to the 2nd amendment so tightly, yet reject the 1st and 4th?
    • JoeVet, on 06/22/2008, -4/+6Bet you Neo-con idiots are just so happy about his name, aren't you. For without being able to falsely equate him with terrorist you would have nothing except his color which the American people have told you is off limits. So rant about his name and his lapel pin and attack his wife because that is all you can do. On the issues you lose. America does not want Bush III.
    • EightBitFury, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5Wow. If you're going to mindlessly attack him by using something as stupid as his middle name, at least spell his middle name right. More importantly, you should probably learn to spell his first name right too.
    • triad203, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5You spelled Hussein wrong, you ignorant troll.
    • JigoroKano, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7Shut up you *****.
      • LadyAmerica, on 06/22/2008, -4/+1How dare you try to deny my right of free speech, you fascist!
        • JigoroKano, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Go plaster on some more makeup you trollop.
        • halliburke, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Jigoro, with your foul language, you do a disservice to yourself and your position.
      • JigoroKano, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1There’s people here who don’t respect that kind of language sir.
      • pagno, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1He is a *****! He thinks its OK for the 4th Amendment to be overturned, therefore, he is a ***** and needs to GET THE ***** OUT OF MY COUNTRY!
    • LadyAmerica, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1Of all the hate-filled, cursing, filth-mouthed vitriol against my post, not ONE of you (except, perhaps, Brilston) even ATTEMPTED to refute my contention that Obama will be great for our jihadist enemies but fatal for America...
      Because he will...
      Make our telecoms face leftist law suits when they act in US interests!
      Make sure telecoms won't/can't cooperate with our intel efforts!
      Make sure jihadists/terrorists can communicate without fear of detection!
      Make sure our enemies can attack us with no warning!
      Make sure we lose the war against the global jihad!

      No, you mind-nummed Obamabots just keep on bowing to your Obamagod. Follow-the-leader is a KIDS' game, not for thinking adults!
      • EightBitFury, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Maybe if you could show which of his policies would do all the things you said, we could properly refute you. Right now all you are doing is making claims without backing them up with any evidence, and it's kinda hard to refute evidence that you don't have.
  • girwen, on 06/21/2008, -14/+105I just don't understand why the emperor keeps getting the democratic leadership and at least 41 senator wimps to cave in with the veto threat. If he wants continuing funding for his illegal war, or if he wants to make his illegal wiretaps legal he cannot veto the legislation they send him and then say the congress did bad and abandoned the troops or denied him the tools to fight terrorism. If your 6 year old kid throws a tantrum because he wants a bottle of dom perignon for his lunchbox do you give it to him? But when the emperor throws a tantrum, Harry and Nancy bow down and pay homage by giving the emperor whatever he wants.
    • superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -13/+3Pro Tip: The reason that all these elected officials go along with the President (who, you might be interested in a slight civics lesson is himself elected!) might just be because it's a good idea! That's why you send elected representatives, because they know more than you about running government and what laws actually say.

      It's pretty hilarious to proclaim on one hand that Obama is certainly the next president and then on the other proclaim Bush Emperor and Tyrant. If you had any concepts what those words meant you'd realize both those concepts cannot be true...
      • dafragsta, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4You are ***** dumbass. Of course Bush isn't an emperor or tyrant in title. He is by declaration of the majority of Americans. His certificate will come in the mail when he's doing time at a federal PMITA prison for his crimes. Bush is an Enron, Carlisle Group, NWO good ol' boy and the writing is on the walls. Anyone who has ever worked with him, including the highly esteemed Colon Powell has characterized him as a dim witted bully.
      • caramba420, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4What would a tyrant do that Bush wouldn't?
        Start a war of aggression?
        Open secret torture prisons?
        Detain people without charges indefinitely?
        Create a rogue paramilitary groups with no accountability to anyone? (hint: Blackwater)
        Spy on his own citizens without any respect of due process?
        Fix elections?
        Create a propaganda machine with the expressed intent of stirring everyone into a nationalist fervor?
        Push for near unlimited power of the executive branch?
        Show utter disregard for the lives of his citizenry? (Let the Katrina victims eat cake)
        Appear on television in a military uniform? (Even Eisenhower never did this)
      • sa9e, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1Don't expect Democrats to respect the results of elections unless a Democrat wins. *That* is Democracy.
    • prahareturns, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Yet we will continue to re-elect them despite the lack of results.
    • cnot3, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the old Republic have been swept away. Fear will keep the local systems in line.
    • g00dETH3R, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2*****.. how hard is it to work out that both parties work for the same people. The average American voter reminds me of a battered wife that stays with her husband. The politicians vote against the peoples interest time and time again yet you still vote them in.
  • noahhoward, on 06/21/2008, -27/+34Will this make it to the front page after the horrendous misquote that made it earlier?
    • Chemistry003, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3It still says hes planning on voting for it, even if he doesn't strip it of the Immunity provision.

      i just hope he can do something, this day and age i don't trust the government with anything, and this tramples our 4th amendment right, telecoms need to be held accountable, and that's what we need now, someone who can be accountable.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5The earlier article wasn't a misquote; it contained an omission. And it doesn't matter anyway; all Obama's saying is that he'll 'try' to remove the immunity from the bill. Yeah, BFD. I think I'll 'try' to find a solution for peace in the middle east; I'll let you know how that goes.
      And let's see how he votes on it after he can't get the immunity removed.
  • ZenMojo, on 06/21/2008, -21/+13Uh oh, now what are the anti-Obama people going to do? (Oh, right, now he's weak on terrorism again.)
  • udjet, on 06/21/2008, -19/+14I really hope this gets front page to offset the horrible article by the Washington Post. They make it sound like he fully supports the bill as it sits right now, because they don't post the full quote about stripping telecom immunity. Sure there needs to be a program in place, but it needs proper checks and balances. Also, there is no room for someone (Bush) to circumvent the process.
    • angryfirelord, on 06/22/2008, -4/+10Usually when you vote yes on a bill, it means you support it. If he's against it, then he should vote against it. I don't see how much clearer that can be.

      You can talk all you want, but actions speak louder than words.
      • godd4242, on 06/22/2008, -4/+5The idea is to get it to the Senate, where he can modify the retroactive immunity clause. Fascinatingly, he can't edit legislation thats in the House. You know, because he's a Senator. Kind of "out of bounds." But be an idiot, see if I care. I'm moving to goddamn Scotland.
        • an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Yeah the fact that he's the leader of the Democratic Party means he had no part in its formulation, smartass.
          This bill would have not been introduced without his go ahead.
          His silence prior to the bill was telling as well.
          The bill is also disturbing without the amnesty clause.
          Here- read a little:
          http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/ ...
      • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Yeah I completely forgot everything is black and white, all or nothing.
        • purplelantern, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2When it comes to voting, yes it is black and white. You can't give 3/4 of a vote, can you?
        • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2I'm not talking about voting, I'm talking about the bill.
        • SixOrSoPapers, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1@purplelantern

          No, you cannot, but you can agree with 3/4 of the content in the piece of legislation you are voting on, and disagree with the other 1/4. It happens all of the time, and politically, it is lose-lose for those casting the vote, because the vote will always be twisted by opponents.
  • renpatel, on 06/22/2008, -12/+63Earlier today, there was a digg post on how he was for telecom immunity. Someone is lying!
    • brokenspatula, on 06/22/2008, -20/+15HIS NAME IS OBAMA
    • chanop, on 06/22/2008, -1/+9Earliers there was an article on him trying to strip immunity from tele.................. Hey! Wait a ***** minute!!! It's allready top 10 on front page..

      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_I_ll_Fight ...
    • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -2/+13No there wasn't earlier there was an article with only half the quote, he has never been for telecom immunity.
      • mnocket, on 06/22/2008, -4/+5Of course that didn't stop him from voting for a bill that includes it. Obama = listen to what I say, not what I do.
    • SzaszMan, on 06/22/2008, -4/+11Um, yeah, he saying he will vote for the bill, and he will "try" to strip the telecom immunity from it. He's trying to have it both ways.
      • insomniac8400, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3It's a very popular bill, so he can't guarantee anything. All he can do is try.
        • SzaszMan, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4He can guarantee his "no" vote on it, particularly if he fails to get telecom immunity stripped from the bill.
        • insomniac8400, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Yes, but one a no vote doesn't change the outcome. Yes, he should vote no. But again that is just trying. Since you need more than one vote to stop it.
      • BevansDesign, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Can someone explain to me why people are still allowed to bundle huge bills like this? Why does every "fix X" bill need to have several "break A, B, and C" provisions attached?

        You vote on X, you vote on A, you vote on B, you vote on C. Sure seems simple to me.

        Stupid government.
        • nedzeve, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1So you're saying the nation's problems may be more complicated than "digg"/"bury"? Imagine that.
    • Izult, on 06/22/2008, -0/+8I think what it comes down to is what he does when it actually comes to a vote. He'll either stick to his word and fight against immunity, cave with the rest, or he won't vote at all. If his supporters are smart they'll examine what he says he'll do with what he actually does.

      http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/2 ...

      is the article that has quite a few obama supporters considering if he really is their man. Mainly because of this quote.

      ""Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129"

      the rest of the quote that the blog failed to include states "[The bill] does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

      So while he's going to eliminate the retroactive immunity it would appear that in the coming months after this passes telecoms would enjoy immunity for any further illegal activity which is the compromise he supports. So yeah, people have a right to be pissed because once again we've got a candidate who does nothing but double speak.
    • monoa, on 06/23/2008, -3/+3I suspect he's for telecom immunity in the same way he's a closet Muslim, he hates white people and the 'fist bump' was a 'terrorist jab'.
  • jameskong15, on 06/22/2008, -21/+100So he will fight to strip immunity from the bill, but "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise [which includes immunity]." Contradiction we can believe in.
    • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -11/+6I don't know what we can to do explain it to you if you're having that much trouble understanding.
      • jameskong15, on 06/22/2008, -1/+9You don't need to explain anything to me, the statement itself tells it all.
        • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -5/+1And yet you're still having so much trouble with it.
        • jameskong15, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Why would I have trouble understanding what the statement itself says? The words are right there.
      • byrdgang, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5It is important to know that his "fight," by Harry Reid's own admission, will likely fail. Obama will then say that he at least tried. Not good enough.
  • angryfirelord, on 06/22/2008, -22/+161Translation: "While I do really support the bill, I'm going to sit on my hands and talk about how much I dislike it, but when voting time comes I'm still going to vote for it."
    • SzaszMan, on 06/22/2008, -3/+10Eeeeeeeexactly.
    • kymike, on 06/22/2008, -3/+5It's called politics: It would be political suicide to go against the bill at this point. Wait until Obama is President, then see what he does. Can't possibly be worse than what we have now.
      • mrgreg, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2"Political Suicide?" Please. Russ Feingold has been voting against every single Bush-backed ***** bill for nearly his entire term, and he's gained more support, not lost it.

        Obama voting for this is not "Change We Can Believe In," it's "Compromise We Can Believe in." He's doing exactly the same thing the Dems did in 06, campaigning on change but doing nothing when push comes to shove.
  • jaymzdean, on 06/22/2008, -57/+64Obama will break every promise he's making to his supporters.
    I guarantee it.
    • moblin7, on 06/22/2008, -3/+13Where have I seen this before?
      http://tiny.cc/M6AG4
      Ah, that's where.
    • Beatmiser, on 06/22/2008, -4/+19Well thank God we have your guarantee... I was on the fence until we got your official status.
    • provost, on 06/22/2008, -5/+11who the hell are you? you are a nobody. I guess you can guarantee it because you have been following obama's career daily and have some sort of evidence to back it up that gives you higher odds and greater probability that you are right?

      whip it out or stfu.
    • carve, on 06/22/2008, -2/+6I was reading something from Ayn Rand in 1962, talking about how when their is an unpopular president, often candidates will run on an ambigous platform of nondescript "change" and "hope", without being specific of what they mean. The article read like it was written yesterday.
      • person425, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3When I started supporting Obama, he was getting massive criticism for being too detailed about his plans when he gave talks. He was a professor, and loves to dig deep into details of any issue, but around summer of 2007, he started giving broader speeches, and encouraging people to visit his website for the low level details. This allowed him to get more of his message across during a speech, as well as getting people involved with the campaign on his website.
      • mahsah, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2In before you get dugg down for mentioning Ayn Rand.
    • trispear, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3It's even easier. Don't make promises, just talk about generalities. He's promising "combat troops" out of Iraq, but why "combat troops" and not just "troops"? Is this supposed to be some distinction - perhaps there will be some supply, nation-building, or peacekeeping troops left behind? A lot of them?

      Time will tell.
    • LordRedSnake, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I hope he breaks the promises on renegotiating NAFTA and all the protectionist and anti-capitalist rhetoric he was spouting towards the end of his primary campaign. He seemed post-partisan at first and then tacked sharply to the left, began to equivocate in his answers and offered parsed remarks.
  • GhostyBoy, on 06/22/2008, -21/+130He's caving on civil liberties privacy and you are trying to spin it because he says he will *try* to get rid of the immunity.

    Basically his words say "change" but his actions say "just messin' with you".
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/22/2008, -3/+16the last 4 comments here just got really good. i was gettin tired of all the pro-bama spinning up till now. its good to see people beginning to question him, or maybe it's that the people questioning him arent getting dugg down to hell anymore.
    • carve, on 06/22/2008, -3/+6That is the thing- he says "change" without explaining what he means. Curtailing our civil liberties and blatantly gutting the constitution IS change. Words have meanings, and people need Obama to explain what he really means and plans to do.

      He may claim he'll TRY to get rid of immunity, but he supported granting it in the most active way possible: BY VOTING FOR IT!
      • person425, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1The point of everything that Obama has been trying to do with respect to FISA is to minimize the immunity provision. Currently for a telecom company to get immunity, the need to rat out the whitehouse with documented proof that the office of the president specifically told them to do something illegal.

        I want these assholes in the telecom companies driven into the ground as hard as anyone, and if this new FISA is passed, this process can begin.
    • river53, on 06/22/2008, -4/+5Obama is just another slick spin doctor for the Corporate State of America - he is good and somewhat charismatic - at least certainly more so than McCain.

      The somewhat sacred OATH elected people take demands more than being charismatic and dishing out false hope.

      Ron Paul is the one that points to the Constitution and the Inalienable Rights of the People and that is getting my vote.

      People today are getting tromped on and their liberties removed faster than I have observed since the late 1960s and it was bad then in my opinion.



      • vtnerd, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1All true (I wasn't around in the 60's, but the other things I agree with ;D). Ron Paul write-in is the only responsible way to vote. He won't win b/c Americans are too stupid to vote for something other than D or R, but I don't believe in this ***** about electing the lesser of two evils. Until the US gets a multiparty system or people grown some brains and stop voting D and R for the hell of it, we will be stuck with ***** candidates who promise everything and deliver nothing.

        And now the rest of you may digg me down for raining on your parade of stupidity that will end with the election of another jackass who fails to act in the best interests of the citizens of the US, again.
  • metaliq, on 06/22/2008, -13/+7Taking a strong stance one way or another, at this point, isn't going to change anything. The white house said they'd veto the bill if it voided the immunity.

    So of course he is going to attempt to compromise. It's not so possible to make any time of stance in the senate without the possibility of it working.

    So people shouldn't be bashing this decision. Granted, if the world were perfect, it would different. But it isn't. So understand the rationale behind it.
    • SzaszMan, on 06/22/2008, -1/+7"The white house said they'd veto the bill if it voided the immunity."

      So what? There is a perfectly functional wiretapping law in existence already - the original FISA law - that has been updated multiple times, I believe as recently as the Clinton administration. But Bush broke the law, and now congress is stepping in to retroactively legalize Bush's lawbreaking.

      If Bush vetoed this bill and no new legislation was introduced, we would simply revert back to the original FISA law, which is a ***** excellent idea in my opinion. Why congress is falling all over themselves to give away the last vestiges of power they and the judiciary have over the president is beyond me. It's cowardly, it's ridiculous, and Obama should be ashamed of himself.
    • DaDrake, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2The FACT is Pelosi sent a strong message to democrats to support the bill and Obama decided to go with the party. There has been other telecom bills in the past without immunity (when bush demanded it) and he didn't veto it. So, I think your making up *****.
  • jontalisman, on 06/22/2008, -27/+44Then why the ***** did he vote for it??? Damage control scheme now on overdrive, eh Barry?
    • byrdgang, on 06/22/2008, -0/+11He didn't vote for it, but he plans to do so next week.
      • SixOrSoPapers, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4Obama *wants* to change it to strip the objectionable content, and vote for that. Of course, Senators don't always get what they want.
      • jontalisman, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Okay, so he's planning on voting for it. Not a big difference, imo, as the resulting damage to privacy will be the same.
    • SixOrSoPapers, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7Why are people digging up jontalisman's comment? He hasn't voted for it - no senator has. I've been seeing too much outrage from ill-informed people here lately. There are too many legitimate things to get upset with in politics, let's not waste our time on strawmen and rumors.
  • singletask, on 06/22/2008, -9/+60H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (6/19/2008)

    The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies. Most importantly:

    • 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.

    • H.R. 6304 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.

    • H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

    • H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

    • H.R. 6304 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.

    • H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

    • 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.

    • Chemistry003, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0Is there a way to make this case go to the supreme court so they can find it unconstitutional?

      They did it for the MCA... why not FISA?
    • Kaethre, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3And from all this stems my problem with Obama's stance. He's only talking about nixing the telecom immunity, when there are all these other problems with the bill.
    • principle, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3All major email providers have moved their email servers offshore. Now, with passing of this bill all emails to or from these email providers will be legally intercepted.
  • singletask, on 06/22/2008, -14/+6http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res200 ...

    H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (6/19/2008)

    The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies. Most importantly:

    • 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.

    • H.R. 6304 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.

    • H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

    • H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

    • H.R. 6304 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.

    • H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

    • 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.

    • Kewlduderules, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3I am not sure why you are being voted down but this is definitely important information. It helped me to understand why this legislation is such B.S.

      Thanks!!!

      • singletask, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Maybe because of my accidental long duplicate post. Sorry everyone.
    • digitronix, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Buried as duplicate post. Dugg the previous post, though :)
  • rationalbeats, on 06/22/2008, -28/+51Obama should reconsider not taking federal money for the election. My donations have stopped, and I suggest every one else stop donating to a man who wishes to gut the 4th Amendment.
    • Qchan, on 06/22/2008, -12/+11How come every time I hear about this bill and Obama, there's somebody saying Obama is one of the worst people they've ever heard of. No one seems to realize what exactly is going on.

      1) A special "someone" threatened to veto any bill that wouldn't give the telecoms immunity. How the heck can he get passed that?

      2) The main purpose of him voting for the bill was to effectively get rid of the warantless wiretapping.

      Now, if you do the math, how can Obama win in this situation? That special someone refuses to allow any bill that will get rid of the warantless wiretapping without giving the telecoms immunity. If you ask me, Obama did the right thing and renewed a portion of our civil liberties. He even promised to get rid of the provision he was forced to agree with. It was a very smart move if you ask me.

      I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at some of the responses. Most of the people on Digg are libertarians.
      • gonzoblair, on 06/22/2008, -7/+6Obama is the antichrist because his position is too complicated for my ADD addled brain to grasp. McCain 2008!!!
      • Muyoso, on 06/22/2008, -1/+12Um, are you serious? The right thing for Obama to do is to vote AGAINST the bill, and not give a ***** what Bush does with it. If Bush threatened to veto any bill that didn't include appropriations for an attack on Iran, you are saying that Obama should just vote for the bill, because whats the point???
      • Qchan, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1Yeah. He votes against the bill and then what? Nothing happens. They'd still have warantless wiretapping and we wouldn't have moved an inch. Something is a lot better than nothing.
      • byrdgang, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5How could Obama stand up to President Bush? Easy: do the same thing the likes of Russ Feingold are doing. The difference between Feingold and Obama is that Feingold is principled.

        What you said about Digg and libertarians is patently untrue. The most highly favored politician on Digg is Obama (even more so than Paul). Also, Feingold, who is very liberal but not a libertarian, did the right thing.

        We don't need someone to play the middle ground with our rights.
    • ADVIZR, on 06/22/2008, -6/+14"My donations have stopped, "

      Gee, I can totally relate to everything you say. I mean, it's not like you're a McCain operative or anything. Thanks for showing me the light.

      Anyway, back to reality: Obama's decision to not be supported by federal dollars -- unlike McCain -- was the right decision. Obama has the support of actual people, through small donations not tied to big lobbyists; whereas, the whole of McCain and the GOP is corporate-controlled and has no interest in the people (unless you consider exploitation an "interest in the people").
      • rationalbeats, on 06/22/2008, -5/+4I hate McCain you ***** idiot.

        And I have donated several hundred to Obama over the last few months and was planning on donating several hundred more. But not anymore.

        So ***** you pal, I am glad to see you do not hold any principles and are just a shallow apologist.

        You're a disgrace to our democracy.
        • ADVIZR, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5If you actually were such a supporter and donated, you'd understand that having the ability to not use federal funds is a very positive and impressive move. He has the support of the people. The fact that you don't understand this is quite odd, considering you've donated "several hundred" as you say. So excuse me for not quite taking you seriously.
        • rationalbeats, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.
        • crowbar77, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1@ADVIZR

          Stop trying to change the subject, so he doesn't accept federal funds... The fact is he doesn't need to anymore, like you said tons of people are donating and most of that comes from his charisma, not his platform. This is purely a political move, had he done this a year ago than it would have been impressive.
      • digitronix, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1We'll see how Obama really feels about public support, when his private donators abandon him.
    • byrdgang, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5rationalbeats, thank you for your honesty with yourself and for having the balls to act upon that honesty (many Obama supporters will dismiss this as some mediocre issue not worth getting upset over).
    • antoniamart, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1The Fourth Amendment has already been gutted. Unfortunately, the next president will have more powers than any other president in history. So who would you rather hand those powers over to?
      • vtnerd, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1....not someone who voted to gut those powers in the first place.
    • BillE3, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1BHO could care less about the federal funds. He probably does care about the extra scrutiny that comes with the federal money. As it is he has no reason to show how much money has come from contributors outside our borders. With the incredible amount of money coming in it is hard to believe it is only the voters supporting him. If so they must be amazingly wealthy. Even Hillary could not begin to get close to the money BHO collected with all of Bills help.
  • godd4242, on 06/22/2008, -9/+5Good.
  • PUNJABISINGH, on 06/22/2008, -12/+6its still comes down to witch puppet i like better.
    • Izult, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1it doesn't have to though. you can vote for a 3rd party candidate, in fact i would encourage you to. The Democrats and republicans have lied to us so long that we believe them when they tell us that we can only vote for their candidates and if we don't it's a "wasted vote". It's *****. We can vote for whoever we want to. Want a revolution? Vote 3rd party.
    • NinjaJoey, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Witch puppets are scary.
  • PosedMagnet, on 06/22/2008, -15/+44Notice the "3" in the URL?

    Means it was submitted 3 ***** TIMES.

    Now look a the #2 top story.

    What's wrong with people?
    • Typhoon2009, on 06/22/2008, -5/+6I've actually never noticed that. +1 for enlightening me (and I'd give another +1 for being observational if I could).
    • ligyron, on 06/22/2008, -5/+3Maybe someday you will understand human behavior and live a productive and happy life.
    • noseeme, on 06/22/2008, -3/+12This is Digg. If you want to find people with a memory longer than 2 hours, go to reddit.
  • jedisushi, on 06/22/2008, -7/+9Okay, if you look to the right on the front page of Digg, you will see this exact same story in "Top in All Topics." Even the title is exactly the same. I'm all for Obama, and I'm all for getting important content out there...but this is maybe just a little lame, is it not?
    • HappyScrappy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3It's not an Obama thing. People just love to submit their dupes to Digg. I don't know what justification they use when doing it, but they do it on all topics.
  • PodJumper, on 06/22/2008, -7/+2yes, Yes, YES!!! Can I have a towel please.
  • setrajonas, on 06/22/2008, -9/+31Too bad the title leaves out the part that said he would still vote for the bill, even if immunity wasn't removed. Not to mention that the bill as a whole is a ***** disaster, apart from telecom immunity.
  • Polarize, on 06/22/2008, -22/+42Barack Obama '08. Change you can believe in... if you're a delusional moron.

    Sit out 2008 if you must, folks. At least you won't feel stupid afterward for participating in a complete farce implemented simply to temporarily soothe you, like milk for a calf, only to be slaughtered at a later date. Politicians are all one and the same, aside from Paul.

    Also, some of us have unchecked "Election '08" from our preferences because we are sick of seeing this regurgitated garbage.

    Way to be a *****, jantik.
    • Livebold, on 06/22/2008, -4/+7Ron Paul was the only choice. But don't worry. The revolution might have been delayed, but it's just pausing to rebuild. The sheep won't sleep forever. They will awaken, one by one.
      • Polarize, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3I severely doubt the ability of Americans to make an intelligent decision regarding their presidency. If eight years of a tyrannical George W. Bush (who's presidency and intellect cannot be degraded thoroughly enough) is not enough to jolt up the fat asses of Americans, what is?

        A nuclear explosion? An extreme communicable medical epidemic?

        Bush has already inflicted irrecoverable harm on the U.S. Anything more staggering would be its immediate crucifixion.

        There is no hope for America, only a way down, in my opinion.
    • byrdgang, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6I am a Paul supporter, but let's say this much: he is not the only principled politician. There are a few, handful politicians who will stick to what they believe in (think Feingold, Kucinich, etc.). Regardless of how you feel about Feingold and Kucinich, they vote consistently and they don't try to go for the biggest base.
  • krnldmp, on 06/22/2008, -10/+5"The White house", being a building, hasn't threatened to veto anything. George W. Bush did. Getting rid of this 18th century method of isolating and shielding those responsible in federal government by a simple manner of speaking is a first step toward accountable government in the 21st century. Remember that.
  • TheInformer, on 06/22/2008, -14/+26I think this release by Obama's camp can be summed up in two words:

    Damage Control
    • triad203, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6IT WAS PART OF THE SAME SPEECH! It's just the rest of the statement.
  • Livebold, on 06/22/2008, -18/+27so, which is it obama? You're becoming more of a flip-flopper than kerry and more of a liar than bush.

    God save us all.
  • AgainstObama, on 06/22/2008, -15/+20Haha. Obamessiah is trying to cover himself now with the left. You people should realize he is the same as any other politician.

    • triad203, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Yeah, you really have a lot of standing on the issue considering your handle.
      • Rabbittt, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Handle? I haven't heard it called that since the 80's.. You're showing your age! Er, guess I just did, too.. :P
  • Pyehole, on 06/22/2008, -8/+13Still not good enough.
  • emeralddragon, on 06/22/2008, -12/+10Yeah, votes for it then says he would vote against it. Sounds like a flip-flopper to me! It's John Kerry all over again.
  • LoveWidescreen, on 06/22/2008, -15/+25Oh, I see.

    Less than 24 hours ago, the news came out that he supports FISA and everyone on Digg had a fit. But, now ... Oh, wait! Hold on! He would fight to get the telecom immunity removed, which was one of the biggest issues that Digg users had with 24 hours ago, and now -- NOW! -- oh, he's so courageous! Oh, this is such a brave stand to take! Oh, yes, he really is for change! Oh, this is such a good and logical position!

    The hypocrisy on Digg is unbelievable.
    • HappyScrappy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+9Rest assured there are plenty of people (such as myself) who are still pissed about this. Look at my history.

      Sometimes, you think you see hypocrisy, but it's really just that you see the actions of different groups and conflate them with each other.
      • byrdgang, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5He supports the FISA legislation provided that the immunity part is taken out. If it is not taken out, he will still vote for it. He only said that he would try to get the immunity part out. Harry Reid said he is also going to try, but that it is unlikely they will succeed. This gives Obama the opportunity to say that he tried...well, trying is not enough.

        Yes, the immunity part is the worst, but it's not like the rest of the bill is much better.

        My criticism of Obama on this has been consistent. I called him a douchebag from the beginning for supporting it, regardless of what middle ground he takes. I will not accept a single part of the bill.
        • HappyScrappy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2I dunno if I'm calling him a douchebag, but otherwise I agree. He shouldn't be voting for the bill. He especially shouldn't be making some weaksauce excuse for his actions.
      • an0nymous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1I'm with you. I answered in the last thread every single apologist I saw.
        I explained that there were multiple unconstitutional elements to the bill. I described the objections of the aclu and the EFF.
        I mentioned that the bill was being fast-tracked without any objection, that as a party leader this is obama's legislation, that his statement was spin.
        Look at my comment history.
        And here we are again.
        sigh. Look. You hate me. I'm running down your idol blah blah blah just do me one thing if you see this. Read this article:
        http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/ ...
        and remember this. I'll vote for the guy. But I'll never trust him again.
    • MavRevMatt, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3But it has Obama in the title!
    • zebco, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1The Digg collective mind has fallen to schizophrenia. These ***** people don't know enough about politics to support the 'right' thing if it slapped them in the face. They are indeed like the wind, they come and go depending on what the other diggers think. Which, not surprisingly, is the exact same way the average American feels and votes.
  • 404digg, on 06/22/2008, -9/+9He's the best candidate so far. However, I am always a critic when it comes to politicians. Ergo, I will endorse Obama only when he starts legislating (or, vetoing) and remain consistent with his rhetoric. Don't get me wrong, I love his ideals-but I love my ideals more.
    • MillionsLivio, on 06/22/2008, -1/+8Best candidate? No, that goes to Paul; Obama is simply the lesser of the evils between him and McCain.
    • Izult, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2he's the best candidate? No he's the "best" one that the media wants us to pick from. We have more options than Democrat and Republican all it takes is a little effort to find out who they are and what they stand for. Why choose between the lesser of two evils when you can have an actual choice?
      • vtnerd, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Because Americans are a bunch of stupid ***** sheeple? Because Americans are too stupid to get their news somewhere besides the MSM?

        I've never voted for a D or R candidate in my life and I probably never will. The good ones like Paul don't get the nomination and the ***** ones aren't worth voting for, period. Paul write-in is the only responsible vote even though it will do us no good.
  • 919kwjc, on 06/22/2008, -18/+17Once again Barry Obama proves that he is not to be trusted. Folks, we can't elect a guy with hardly any experience, a shoddy voting record, and no core values just because he talks well in front of a teleprompter. Think about it folks, this guy is a pawn and will cause serious harm to this nation.
    • acroyear2, on 06/22/2008, -4/+9Most of what you said there is *****. No core values? shoddy record? voted most liberal. if you're liberal its not too shoddy. considering that he writes his own or most speeches (along with his speech writer), i could care less if he has a teleprompter. hardly any experience? thank god. politics is the profession where you get worse the longer you're in there.

      but, we all should be disappointed in him and the dems bending over backwards for the thugs again.
      • eth3l, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3HAve you seen his recent ads? His core values are family and God - suck on that Leftie pinko commies! He's moving to the center folks and your apologies for him are not going to last through November.
        • acroyear2, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5You are so... i don't know what to say. one day you'll reflect on how naive and dumb you're statements are...

          I'm humoring you but anyway, a lot of democrats and liberals love and have respect for family and god.


          Now, go away.
      • Izult, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3OMG HE WRITES HIS OWN SPEECHES!! in that case i must really vote for him because a president who writes his own speeches can obviously be trusted.

        Missed Vote Percentage:

        Obama - 42.7% (253 votes missed)
        McCain - 61.0% (361 votes missed)
        Paul - 26.8% (429 votes missed)

        So um.. yeah, shoddy voting record, especially for a Jr. Senator who's still wet behind the ears.
        • acroyear2, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1The amount of votes missed isn't the only factor you look at if you're going to characterize their record as "shoddy". Obviously 42% is disappointing though.

          Additionally, you brought up the issue of his speeches in your original remark. Apparently his ability to speak well with a teleprompter is important enough to you to bring it up.

          Also if you may be one of the few who regard the role of politician as an admirable sport. I don't believe the longer you spend in that machine the "better" you get. The longer you're there, the more corrupt, pandering, and entrenched in the powers that be, you become.
        • Izult, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1actually the remark about his speeches was aimed at you specifically mocking your comment about how his writing his own speeches equates him as being a good leader. That loud wooshing noise over your head didn't even get your attention did it? The original teleprompter remark didn't even come from me. Maybe ask hooked on phonics for their money back?
    • HappyScrappy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+8What is a shoddy voting record?
      • 919kwjc, on 06/22/2008, -4/+5How about voting 'Present' over 100 times?
        Let John Edwards explain it to you in this clip
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=RD3CWIh-UP0
        • HappyScrappy, on 06/22/2008, -1/+8Thanks for the clip. He explains it pretty well.

          He voted 4,000 times, 100 times he voted "present" to indicate he had problems with a bill but felt it could be worthwhile with more work. It's a convention in Illinois.

          Seems reasonable to me.
    • eth3l, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2Amazing this is not in negative Diggs. Totally agree with you.
    • Ne007, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6Yeh...and you probably voted for Bush 2 consecutive times also....
    • zebco, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Fellow Americans, folks, friends, Fellow Americans, folks, friends, fellow Americans, folks, friends, fellow Americans, folks, friends....
      IS THIS ***** McCain????!!!
      McCain is on DIGG, everyone! I found him! I found him!!!!
  • TinternAbbot, on 06/22/2008, -7/+5FISA doesn't seem very worthwhile without telecom.
  • lexington86, on 06/22/2008, -6/+33So what. Doesn't change the fact that he still supports the rest of FISA, which is a pretty big slap in the face of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.
    • eth3l, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Should be a slap in the face to all the Obamaites out there who so proudly boast how he is a different politician! Different from Washington ... Hes a Chicago politician (they are dirtier)
  • acroyear2, on 06/22/2008, -10/+24I unfortunately don't believe Obama.
  • taosbob, on 06/22/2008, -5/+21So in the end he intends to vote for a bill that will take away constitutionally-mandated rights. So much for all those years teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago! So much for his Harvard Law School education!
    • nedzeve, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1If the bill were unconstitutional, the supreme court would rule it as such were it to be challenged in court once it became law.
  • vandernderyid, on 06/22/2008, -9/+38Obama will pass this thing even if it has immunity.

    Buried for misleading headline.
  • hrhs556x, on 06/22/2008, -16/+14Obama article! Go Digg Sheep Go!
    • zebco, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1Oh, so the people who are putting what little faith they have in the only presidential nominee who isn't ***** crazy are sheep? And I suppose you're a strong, lone wolf.
      Good luck with that. I'm sure you're making changes in America daily with your smug, uneducated comments. You're changing the world. Really. No...you are. Seriously. This is the way the American revolution started, right? A bunch of lazy people sitting around making internet comments chiding the other side for being sheep?
      OK, just making sure we're on the same page.
  • ghosthacked, on 06/22/2008, -7/+5So _now_ obama's interested on what goes on in congress...
    So will a present vote qualify as 'fighting' for the rest of you?
  • monkeyrun, on 06/22/2008, -12/+16Obamabots assemble! Start ..... SPINNING!
  • AndrewDB, on 06/22/2008, -5/+9http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_I_ll_Fight ...

    Not even two pages back.
  • mayra1201, on 06/22/2008, -6/+8seriously, wasn't this posted already? it's a couple pages back. exact same title, people.
    • monkeyrun, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3Obamabots are too eager to tell people about their version of reality.
      • gmdmartyr, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1You got that one right, monkeyrun! Isn't it funny when you see right thru people! Shows their moronism.
  • katorga, on 06/22/2008, -7/+6This is nothing more than an attempt to shift responsibility for ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT ACTIONS to a private company.
    • krnldmp, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Its even more than that. Its a surprisingly successful attempt to Dissipate responsibility of a private company to obey the law even if the government says it will pay you to break it.
      • krnldmp, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3I think its extremely important to understand how shady this whole thing is, too. George Bush's government is trying to change the law AFTER it broke it.
        • krnldmp, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3And its more than that, too. This administration has been following a clear pattern of activity similar to this. Getting by on a confusing facade of stupidity and ridiculum, these bastards have been able to coldly calculate the response of the American public after doing things that are Totally illegal and essentially saying, "See you're still alive, everything must be okay!", while they ram through legislation that strips you of your rights and redistributes your wealth sharply upward of you and maybe even beyond your country while they gain legal clearance to do to you again in the future what the American Public was actually too deef and dooumb to prosecute them for along the way... And Obama, by not uttering a single word other than IMPEACH, is greasing your anus for some more.
  • choochee, on 06/22/2008, -13/+7I don't believe Obama. I'm still voting for Nader -- even if it elects McCain to the White House.
    • gravityPersists, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2You might as well vote McCain then.
      • vtnerd, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1That kind of thinking is why we only have horrible, horrible candidates for the presidency of the US.

        Please don't reproduce.
  • ryannerd, on 06/22/2008, -8/+18The Spin Doctor is In!!!!!
  • cipher64, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5There should be some provision in the voting system that if the voter turnout is below a certain percentage the vote becomes invalid. I mean what the hell are you going to do when your only two choices are candidates both of whom you d