digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left

blog.washingtonpost.com — Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • brad3378, on 06/21/2008, -47/+67I wonder what Hillary's stance would have been.
    • Pssdoff, on 06/21/2008, -21/+125I'd bet exactly the same as Obama. Obama didn't write the FISA Legislation, he only supports it like a good minion shill should.
      • known, on 06/21/2008, -1/+40Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power --Abraham Lincoln
      • br0ck, on 06/22/2008, -3/+8Obama has been fighting telecom immunity since the beginning and this time around he has vowed to strip that provision from the act, "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., 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 when the bill comes to a vote in the Senate next week." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/h ...
        • ChrisSennRox, on 06/22/2008, -7/+8

          If anyone actually read his response, he had this too say about the new bill:

          "It 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."

          He supports this bill, which reepowers FISA (WHICH IS GOOD!)!!

          When it goes to the Senate, he is going to remove that provision about telecom immunity.

          The author of this post is being rather shady about not giving the full response that Obama gave.
        • etherreal, on 06/22/2008, -0/+14No, FISA is not good, and he said he would vote for it even if the provision did not get stripped.
    • theorwells, on 06/21/2008, -3/+44Actually, Senator Clinton will get the chance to vote as will the rest of the Senate on this issue---and then we will know for the RECORD where she stands (and where Our OWN Senators stand as well).
      • CoolHandLuke70, on 06/21/2008, -4/+41That is if she does not skip the vote
        • ZenMojo, on 06/21/2008, -3/+24For the second time this year.
        • coolkatz321, on 06/21/2008, -3/+27Obama has skipped plenty of votes this year too, including the windfall taxes on oil companies (as did Clinton, Byrd, and Kennedy)
    • an0nymous, on 06/21/2008, -2/+17She's made no public statement regarding the issue. None at all.
      sigh.
      • barbiesnow, on 06/21/2008, -2/+7I read that she is voting against it...
        • plimpton777, on 06/21/2008, -3/+15Yeah, why not, it's not like it's going to lose her the nomination.
        • 4321234, on 06/21/2008, -5/+12A low crouch.
          To avoid sniper fire.
      • ZenMojo, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6Considering that the previous FISA bill with even MORE concessions to Republicans got a "yes" vote from McCain, a "no" vote from Obama, and a "no vote" from Clinton (even though she was in Washington D.C. and could have voted), this would be an interesting opportunity for her to cynically tack to the left for 2012/16.
    • dinostabOMG, on 06/21/2008, -9/+48This is what happens when we put all our eggs in two baskets. Clinton vs. Obama was hardly, hardly a choice at all (as they differed so measurably little), and at this point it will be very hard for Obama to do anything to make him a worse choice than McCain. That's why our elections are such a joke - two parties are hardly enough to keep each other honest. So, Obama is full of ***** like all the other mainstream politicians; what are you going to do about it, vote for McCain?
      • Izult, on 06/21/2008, -2/+20both parties have us convinced that we must vote for their candidates and only for their candidates. Enough people vote for a 3rd party candidates this year changes we want will eventually be forced through. of course that's assuming that the votes aren't hacked or otherwise manipulated.

        We keep saying we want our country back but as long as we continue to vote party lines, straight tickets, and believe all this ***** they keep shoving down our throats about how our country is supposed to be it will never happen. Our representative republic is on it's death bed and we're the ones letting it die by continuing to not hold any of our elected officials responsible for the mistakes they make.
        • ISIfunded911, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6Millions of naive people have once more been fooled, this time by an empty "mister change" marketing campaign.
          But they can still vote for Ralph Nader, a wise honest man who has been fighting against corporations for real important changes for decades! He is an awful orator, but he is the real deal, unlike Obama who merely is one more CFR/Bilderberg puppet who talks so well he hypnotizes people...like a snake with its prey.
      • paradexes, on 06/21/2008, -0/+14Vote for that third unknown guy that tends to show up on ballots.
        • Erich100, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3We would be safer to throw a dart at a huge dart board with the names of every American of age to pick our President than to pick from the list provided to us.
      • earthforce1, on 06/21/2008, -2/+14Actually, I think to make a real statement, a lot of people need to vote Libertarian. The US badly needs a 3rd major party to save it as a democracy.
      • Aikidi, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2mere weeks after the primaries we realize that it didnt matter either way.
    • MrXfromPlanetX, on 06/21/2008, -4/+44Hillary voted for the Reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and so did Obama. Check it out
      http://mrxfromplanetx.com/2008/01/01/obama-patriot ... I have links to the voting record for the bill on this page.

      If Dems wanted someone who had conviction, they should have voted for Dennis Kucinich instead of who the corporate media told them to vote for.

      If someone's a Dem at this point, they should vote for Ralph Nader, and the Ron Paul supporters have Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin to choose from. It's too bad Chuck and Bob can't team up so they don't split the vote.
      • zwaldowski, on 06/21/2008, -14/+2Stop it. Just, stop it. This is exactly what lost Al Gore the 2000 election, and people like you are going to give us 8 more years of McBush.
        • americajones, on 06/21/2008, -2/+8Al Gore lost because of the Supreme Court overstepping their bounds, a bunch of "hanging chads," and a bunch of people who voted for George Bush. Why didn't Gore call for massive demonstrations?
        • Zarchon, on 06/21/2008, -5/+2You need to stop riding that dead horse americanjones. The Supreme Court was more liberal than conservative at the time. You people n the left wanted to have someone GUESS at which candidate a person voted for. These chad problems have been around for many elections and when the left determined that they could steal a few votes and possibly an election, they cried foul. So you don;t think Bush won in 2000 because of hanging chads but he won with a much larger percent of the vote in 2004 thus proving that Bush is what the majority wanted. Just because you, and the present majority don't want him now doesn't mean he didn't win his two elections honestly.
        • jerbaker, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6No. Al Gore trying to prove how centrist he was is what cost him the election. I voted for Nader, and proudly in 2000 and 2004. The DLC has to be taught a lesson that you cannot alienate your core support by selling out your principles just to win.
      • br0ck, on 06/22/2008, -6/+3Actually, Obama acted more than almost anyone in the Senate or the House to combat civil rights issues in the Patriot Act!
        Obama voted against the original re-authorization: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
        Obama then helped write and co-sponsored the SAFE act which the EFF said would fix the most troublesome of problems with the Patriot Act including roving wiretaps, limit sneak & peek, and numerous other things that you can read about at the EFF site: http://w2.eff.org/patriot/safe_act_analysis.php
        Obama joined a senate group to demand fixes to all Patriot act civil rights violations (listed at the following link), and they did fix as many of the problems as they could in a 50-50 senate: http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/060106patr ...
        Russ Feingold then proposed a bill to restore more rights. --- "A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes." --- Obama voted to keep it alive for Senate floor debate while Clinton voted to kill it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
        Since the House had killed all the fixes, the Republican senators decided to try pushing through a much worse Patriot Act reauthorization which was guaranteed to make it through the House. The Democrats in the Senate decided to try a diluted version of their fixes (which included several of Obama's SAFE provisions) in the form of a hobbled Patriot reauthorization compromise that could make it through the Republican House. Obama then gave an impassioned plea to fix all the problems, but was ultimately forced to go with the hobbled version or the nation would end up with the much worse version with no fixes. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statem ...
        Even more info: http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fa ...
      • SilverStandard, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Bob Barr is a flip flopper.
    • ljkelley, on 06/21/2008, -9/+7For the record I have always supported Hillary based on the fact that we know what Bill and Hillary stand for and what they have tried to acheive both in his presidency and afterwards. I don't agree with her on everything, and it will be interesting to see where she votes (and Yes, I am against this legislation) but my point the whole primary season was to warn people of this possible 'change' and no to beleive empty rhetoric out of a candidate. I just honestly do feel sorry that so many people he 'inspired' will have their dreams crushed.

      Join with me and vote for a 3rd party, WE NEED MORE THAN 2 PARTIES!!
      • Ravatar, on 06/22/2008, -4/+2Know who joins 3rd party? Democrats.


        Know what that means in November? President McCain.


        ***** you.
        • ISIfunded911, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2McCain and Obama are CFR puppets. Their marketing is different, but in the end they will do what they are ordered to do.
          You are afraid, but for the wrong reason. You should be afraid of electing a puppet, any puppet.
          Logically, you should support Ralph Nader, who is not a puppet.
        • Ravatar, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1No thanks.
    • bigolddiane, on 06/21/2008, -11/+3What were the Hous Dems thinking? They've put Obama in a spot. Vote for the bill and he angers the Left. Vote against it, he's weak on terror.
      • jerbaker, on 06/21/2008, -1/+9No, vote for the bill and you're a corporate sell-out. Vote against it and Republicans will call you soft on terror, but they can't call you unprincipled. I hope he grows a spine. I don't want to throw my vote to Nader ... for the third time.
        • ISIfunded911, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2You should be proud to vote for the right man, and not for a puppet sold by clever soulless marketers.
    • ChrisSennRox, on 06/22/2008, -8/+5

      If anyone actually read his response, he had this too say about the new bill:

      "It 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."

      He supports this bill, which reepowers FISA (WHICH IS GOOD!)!!

      When it goes to the Senate, he is going to remove that provision about telecom immunity.

      The author of this post is being rather shady about not giving the full response that Obama gave.
      • Ravatar, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1He's not going to remove immunity. Republicans support it with everything they've got. Democrats are split down the middle. There's no possible way he's going to be able to get that provision thrown out. It's the centerpiece of the whole bill.
    • poxonyou, on 06/22/2008, -6/+5Chill out. The guy has to be extremely careful atm as he's still trying to get elected.
      The truth is he doesn't support it, but for whatever political reasons, has to play along. He said he plans to strip telecom immunity, etc, assuming he gets elected. Yeah, he could have been more hardcore about it and flat-out said no (likewise, he could have joined the many other Democrats in fully supporting it as is), but there is a bigger problem here for Democrats, the party he belongs to and needs support from to get elected.

      Top Democrats, like Pelosi, are supporting this because they fear they will be held just as accountable as the Republicans since they were spineless fools and went along. I hope to god they all get the justice they deserve for selling out our rights for their own careers.

      Another thing to consider is Republicans could use this as a means to engulf the Obama presidency in scandals, taking down some of their own (well, much of the Bush admin will be in retirement anyway) in order to take down top Democrats like Pelosi.

      As another poster mentioned below, Obama is closer to Feingold in supporting our rights than he is to the spineless crew, like Pelosi and Reid.
      • 0nslaught, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1So politics as usual. And as usual, candidates have to hide how great they are until after they get elected, so they can shock us all with how great they are and how much we underestimated them! That's how it usually works, right? -_- I know, I know, the election will be different this time!
        • poxonyou, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1He's not hiding anything..He flatly said he will work to strip telecom immunity in the Senate version of the bill. He is a SENATOR and doesn't have magic power to control what happens in the Congress.
        • 0nslaught, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1He has control over his own vote.. Let me repeat this post from dailykos which is working to get Obama elected. Recommended by 9 other members at the time, by the way.

          "False choices (9+ / 0-)

          why do people pass off dime store cynicism as uber-sophisticated pragmatism?

          "Realistically"...all he had to do was have .00001% of the courage of Russ Feingold...all he had to do was speak about principles, about the rule of law, and about accountability....

          All he had to say was: "I will not condone criminal acts. I will not EVER compromise the rights of Americans. I will fight this act of cowardice."

          That's it. In 15 secs he has "branded" himself as a leader and a man of principle, AND he has actually been a leader and a man of principle...if we weren't so in love with failure, we'd see that.

          The bill would probably pass anyways, but He would be on record as a fighter and an uncompromising leader....people of all parties would love him for it.

          The cowardly Dems and their oh-so-sophisticated-pragmatist-apologists would still get the defeat they wanted and deserved.

          But Barack would come out transformed, as if he walked through fire. And his words would have the strength of ACTION.

          His words would have Meaning in a way that people would immediately understand. In a way that no negative ad could tarnish.

          "I fought for your rights. I fought for the rule of law. [ now pointing to McCain on his right] He DID NOT."

          Game Over.

          No one in this country knows what it is like for a Politician to take a stand on the rule of Law above political expediency (oops...I meant "pragmatisim"). BECAUSE THEY NEVER DO. (unless it is Russ Feingold who the media ignores...oh how I love that man!)

          This was a chance 'to walk the walk' with the Country watching, and to wake up defeatist (opps...I meant "pragmitist") Dems from their god damn slumber.

          Instead....just months of months of threads about great it is that we "kept our powder dry."

          yawn....wake me when something truly Audacious happens....sometime in the year 2067....until then, party on you swanky pragmatists...

          Barack Obama is a Coward. FISA"
      • ISIfunded911, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Blah blah blah.
        Nader is much clearer. We know where he really stands. His actions prove it very clearly.
    • metaliq, on 06/22/2008, -4/+2This is a very biased article and is not showing the entire picture.

      Read on:
      http://digg.com/politics/Obama_I_ll_Fight_To_Strip ...
    • banjom, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Who cares? She's out of the race.
      • TheInformer, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE. The mantra. Repeated over and over. Ad nauseum.

        As time has progressed, are we truly seeing CHANGE or more of the same, from the unnamed candidate?
    • tyywebb, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5CTHULHU '08
      "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
    • nedzeve, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2Who cares. She's a woman and I would never have voted for her.
  • avengingturnip, on 06/21/2008, -36/+452The 'change' candidate?
    • NoStoppingUs, on 06/21/2008, -34/+126well...

      yes. you see, he changes his positions quite often, so technically he IS the 'change' candidate..

      heres a nice little collection of obama flip flops. it's incredible that his sheepish followers havent caught on to his game..

      http://massdiscussion.blogspot.com/2008/06/collect ...
      • insomniac8400, on 06/21/2008, -16/+7The only thing on that list is really a substantial change is his voting for the FISA bill, but considering bush and his cohorts got immunity 2 years ago, a lot of people think that is when this issue was closed. The cuban thing is pandering. And considering the EU is dropping embargos, it is pretty much guaranteed that Obama will to. He would have been an idiot to take the government funding caps, he has so many supporters why would he force them to donate to 3rd party smear groups? A lot of people already hate McCain, they don't need to see 3rd party smear ads to be convinced. But what will benefit Obama is 1st party positive ads about himself. He gets to do that with true public funding.
      • ZenMojo, on 06/21/2008, -18/+7Public financing wasn't a flip-flop. He said he would "pursue an agreement" and repeatedly reserved the option to opt out if the Republicans refused to withdraw 527s. The Republicans proceeded to air three ads during the primary through 527s attacking him before the first Democrat-funded 527 even came out.

        Last week, his counsel met with John McCain's counsel around the time of Tim Russert's funeral and John McCain's counsel told him that there was nothing to discuss on public financing. John McCain's counsel tells a different story, and while he won't say what they discussed he enforces that it had nothing to do with public financing.

        Mayhaps John McCain's lawyer is full of *****. But lawyers never lie, now do they?

        Nonetheless, it is important to remember that John McCain is FORCED to go into public financing. While there is no quorum to clear him of his obligations for using taxpayer money as collateral on a loan back in 2007, John McCain is facing a prison sentence of up to 5 years for fraud according to FEC regulations if he doesn't take public financing.

        In short, Obama said he would take public financing if the Republicans didn't try to play through 527s. McCain had to take public financing anyway or be thrown in the slammer for 5 years, so he had no interest in reining in his attack dogs. Therefore, Obama decided to opt out of public financing.

        While the media is obsessed with this story because it tarnishes the silver halo around Obama, it requires a lot of historical amnesia of the events covered in the last 6 months and clever editing of Barack Obama's questionnaire, even outright dismissal of the actual words in it.
        • misguidedmonkey, on 06/21/2008, -9/+9You're a ***** sad piece of *****. Why can't you agree that Obama is just a ***** puppet that's bought and paid for? He's not perfect. Get your tongue out of his cornbread hole and accept that he's a crooked politician. CHANGE doesn't describe Obama's agenda. This word "change" was pushed by his campaign advisers and it stuck as his slogan. And you ***** ***** fell for it. He's a ***** empty suit like all the other top tier candidates.
        • Spudster, on 06/21/2008, -1/+4Actually it's pretty well acknowledged that Obama did NOT try to get a public financing agreement with McCain.

          Additionally, the threats of 527's against Obama this year is so far low. There has not been one serious presidential campaign 527 set up to attack Obama yet.
      • wreckosaurus, on 06/21/2008, -20/+5obama changes his positions quite often? that's really funny coming from a mccain supporter
      • Spudster, on 06/21/2008, -5/+3The Canadian flip flop with Nafta is wrong actually. After much research, it was found that it was actually CLINTON'S staffer who notified the embassy, not Obama.
      • CaptZomborg, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2I understand all political candidates are going to change their minds about things on a regular basis (except Ron Paul).

        The problem is when it's TOO regular. Like McCain saying two different things in a matter of days.

        My choices are basically between Obama and McCain. And I'm not voting for a fear mongering biggot who has almost racked up more McCain-isms than Bush has Bush-isms.
    • angryfirelord, on 06/21/2008, -18/+54Yes, change as in, "I'm going to lose all of that change in my pocket because now I have to pay for a 28% capital gains tax!"
      • ZenMojo, on 06/21/2008, -25/+7Considering McCain's tax plan puts 400 grand in his pocket as soon as it's passed, I wonder why so few Diggers question that man's motivations. Oh, right, because they're greedy bastards, too.
      • foxfire1311, on 06/21/2008, -4/+30Why is there something wrong with wanting to keep the money I earn?
        • fromonesource, on 06/21/2008, -3/+29nothing at all, the communist collectivists just want to make you feel bad about it
        • fokov, on 06/21/2008, -6/+25Nothing. They are just mad because they dont' have the money nor the skill to invest and make money. That's why they want more of your money for their health care because they are too lazy to get a job or get educated. ***** socialists.
        • Spudster, on 06/21/2008, -14/+7There is something wrong to it when you are demanding your money back when that money goes to excellent services for the general public.

          It's not bloody communist to want public education and health care for every single person regardless of condition. Get over your selfishness.
        • 0nslaught, on 06/21/2008, -2/+16"Why you’re always broke: 40% of your money goes to taxes"
          http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/10/11/why-you ...

          CBS News: Pentagon Loses Trillions of Dollars
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlnQTcLHaMM

          Not wanting the government to take about half of your income as it squanders trillions of dollars is not wrong.
        • sanman, on 06/22/2008, -1/+14"Why is there something wrong with wanting to keep the money I earn?"

          foxfire, it's because the socialists have a saying -- "what's mine is mine, but what's yours we share"
      • br0ck, on 06/22/2008, -9/+1Are you really profiting more than $500,000 (or 250k if single) from the sale of your house this year? That's how much a couple can earn on a home sale before capital gains tax kicks in as long as you've lived there more than 2 years. Also, you have to be making more than $250,000 per year for the proposed capital gains changes to affect you. http://www.doityourself.com/stry/capitalgainstax
        • Dragular, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3What if I did? Am I less of a person for making more than you now? Conservative radio has a bad habit of calling this class warfare but let's call it what it is: jealousy.
    • junkwheel, on 06/21/2008, -37/+6More of a change candidate than anybody else by a million miles.
      • an0nymous, on 06/21/2008, -3/+13As little as that means.
      • lexington86, on 06/21/2008, -4/+21Perhaps you should take an objective look at Dr. Ron Paul...?
        • Syphon8, on 06/21/2008, -13/+6Perhaps you should.
        • junkwheel, on 06/21/2008, -11/+2If you want to get into power in the US on: Abolish income tax, Abolish the IRS, Abolish the current monetary policy, Abolish all military presences around the world, no intervening worldwide regardless.....

          Then you are going to need your own army. A revolution. And a revolution is not a t-shirt.

          Absolutely can not happen, will not happen. It is absolutely absurd to think otherwise. Sad but true.

          He is one of very few people speaking the truth on monetary policy and he is right on that absolutely. He also seems like a 100% genuine guy. Very rare in politics of course. Aside from the fact that he can't get into power without his own army, some of his stances do not fit today. No military bases in other countries and a non-intervention policy would isolate America on the international stage. Sad but true. His stance would be isolationist and I know he denies this but it would be. Sad but true.

          We live in a very different world from the days of the founding fathers. Today, the only way for the founding fathers vision of America to work would be if no other countries existed.
        • caferrell, on 06/21/2008, -2/+13Dr. Paul is a remarkable man. After twenty years in Washington he is still uncorrupted. His vision of freedom has awakened a new generation and change may come, BUT we have to get out of the two party paradigm. The game is rigged.

          Dr. Paul is not running, so we all need to vote Libertarian. Enough votes and we can perhaps break through the enslaving and false, two party dichotomy
        • jgtg32a, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1@Syphon8

          I didn't like him at first because I have a natural distrust of people who speak energetically, sounds weird but its a blessing.

          He's a bit crazy but I like most of what he says.
          Maybe you should think long and hard about what you actually believe in.
    • lexington86, on 06/21/2008, -17/+93Anyone who thinks Obama represents change is living in a dream world, and stories like this are pretty clear evidence.
      • 4321234, on 06/21/2008, -12/+1.
      • Spudster, on 06/21/2008, -0/+14I was more disappointed by his marijuana decriminalization flip flop he committed awhile before winning the nomination. I must say it's funny to see his left wing base is already revolting. That sure took a long time!
      • BESTenemy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+14Obama is a political opportunist. His voting record is far from flawless.
    • alphaterminus, on 06/21/2008, -16/+84My letter to Mr. Obama that I sent today:

      I am a Republican who voted for Ron Paul in the Iowa Caucuses. I switched my support to you when Dr. Paul withdrew, and was planning to actively campaign and to donate to your campaign. Your decision to support the current FISA Legislation has now made my vote for you virtually impossible. I cannot support another tyrant.
      • dksupremacy, on 06/21/2008, -23/+67The really funny part is that if everyone on Digg could read and/or wasn't so damn ignorant they'd see that Obama hasn't changed his stance.

        Obama supports wiretapping in cases backed by evidence when a warrant is issued by a judge, as is allowed by FISA. There's nothing wrong with this as long as their is oversight.

        Obama does NOT support retroactive immunity. He said the House version of the bill was an improvement over the Protect America Act because it restores FISA and does not allow warrantless wiretapping which is what we all want. The House version of the bill includes retroactive immunity, so Obama said (in the same quote that got everyone in a ***** furor) that he's going to try his hardest to get immunity removed from the Senate version of the bill.

        Have none of you learned how bills are made? It's very common for the House and Senate to pass different versions of a bill. The different versions are sent to a Committee where a compromise is worked out and then both houses vote on the compromise bill. Obama is going to try to remove retroactive immunity from the Senate version and have it kept that way in the compromise version.

        Are you all incredibly daft, or do you not even support legal, with-warrant wiretapping?
        • Snuff99, on 06/21/2008, -9/+31One of the few who researches before running his mouth, you are becoming a rare breed here on digg.com
        • chuckDontSurf, on 06/21/2008, -9/+23"so Obama said (in the same quote that got everyone in a ***** furor) that he's going to try his hardest to get immunity removed from the Senate version of the bill."
          Oh, I feel much better now. Yep, he'll give it the ol' college try, and if it doesn't work (which it won't), well, he fought the good fight. ***** that. He should have spoken out against it while it was still in the House. Do you honestly believe for one second that he's going to 1) get that provision removed, or 2) even try that hard to do it?
        • Gutterpunk, on 06/21/2008, -16/+10You sir has no business on Digg!

          Really, every time I read Digg Americans flip-flop on their support of a candidate, using as pretext that the candidate is a flip-flopper.

          The guy come out to comment on a bill that he didn't have any power to do anything about, trying to find a freaking compromise that would make the bill fall within your constitution and rules of laws, and he is treated as the Anti-Christ and the sole responsible for the whole mess. Why the heck would anyone want yo govern such a country of whiner is beyond me...
        • Snuff99, on 06/21/2008, -8/+8@Gutterpunk You sir have spoken with such an intense truth, it frightens me to my core.

          Everything is not black or white! Compromise is the only solution at times, digg.com seems to have no clue of this fact.
        • Muyoso, on 06/22/2008, -3/+9So are we going to here during the debates "Well i TRIED to get that provision removed, but it wasn't and I voted for it anyway"? He will try to get it removed by making a speech denouncing it. Then he will vote for the bill. This is even more egregious than him OUTRIGHT lying about the public financing, which he made a signed pledge to do, and then after he didnt, blamed it on McCain for all sorts of reasons that aren't true, such as 527's (democrats have outspent republicans a ***** in the last couple elections), McCain raising too much money (McCain has raised a fraction of what Obama has), and McCain being funded by lobbyists (McCain has received less than 1% of his money from lobbyists and Obama has received double digit amounts more money from fortune 500 company "employees" than McCain has).

          He is a downright liar that will do anything to win. Look at how he got the state representative job in Illinois if you want any indication as to how far he will go. Somehow the dems ran a candidate more power hungry than the Clintons.
        • Aikidi, on 06/22/2008, -4/+3how dare you point this out. I'm too busy throwing obama under the bus to care about some little technicality like "he doesn't support retroactive immunity" pshaw i say! pshaw!
        • poxonyou, on 06/22/2008, -4/+4dksupremacy and gutterpunk are exactly right. Though, I'd say the loudest voices here saying, "See, based on this headline I read, he's a tyrant like George Bush. They're all the same. TOLD YOU SO!" are mostly the Ron Paul crew who will are quick to slam anyone who isn't as perfect as RP.

          Chuckdontsurf: what else do you expect him to do? Organize a protest, rush into Congress and burn the bill? He could have easily said he completely supports it. He'd be in good company to do so. He's fighting against much stronger forces who support immunity, both Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate, than the libertarian-minded public opinion. He didn't make the bill. He isn't president yet. He disapproves of the bill as it is and will fight to change it in the Senate. He can't do much else. He knows people will have their eye on him when it comes to the senate; he has little reason to make a promise he does not intend to fulfill. Like I said before, many top Democrats support it, most of the public have no idea what's going on, they'll be busy watching The Love Guru.
        • poxonyou, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5Muyoso: Wow, you are really lucky to have the gift of predicting the future. Can you tell us who will be elected president? Will there be a war with Iran soon? What will Obama eat for dinner tomorrow? I eagerly await Obama's bill denouncing press conference and subsequent "Yes" vote.
        • chuckDontSurf, on 06/22/2008, -1/+7@ poxonyoupoxonyou :If you'd read my post, you'd see that I expected him to speak out against it when it was still in the House.

          "He could have easily said he completely supports it."
          Yeah, he also could have easily said that he doesn't support it, and he won't vote for it when it gets to the Senate. He's the DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY; you don't think it's important that he show some goddamn leadership?? Obviously him speaking out against it carries a lot more weight than Senator Joey Joe-Joe Jr (D) from BFE, and just might even bring it the attention of the "Love Guru" going public.

          "He disapproves of the bill as it is and will fight to change it in the Senate."
          Yeah, let's see how he votes when his "fight" fails to get the immunity removed.

          "he has little reason to make a promise he does not intend to fulfill."
          But what has he promised? "To try." Well whoop-de-*****. Do I have quote Yoda for your ass? "To try" is ***** lip service, because he knows he won't be able to do anything.
        • 4ZERO1, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Well said, at least someone here has a clue.
      • burnedtubes, on 06/21/2008, -1/+18I am of the same mindset as well. I was going to write a similar letter. Our whole political system is just one big corporation now. What happened to our Republic?
        • ubrikkean, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5From what I hear, the political system has been one big corporation for a good century... but I'm still pissed about it, just like you.
        • BESTenemy, on 06/22/2008, -2/+6 Our Republic got infiltrated by European bankers in the 1800's. Many incarnations later, the central bank, that our forefathers were opposed to, was established under the name of "Federal Reserve". The issuer of the currency holds more power than the government and our FED is a non-governmental organization. It's a private delegation of bankers that serve no one but themselves. The collapse of our country has been engineered through segregation of power and its overextension - something our founders warned us about.

          Our constitution today is just as valid as ever. If only people took a moment to read and understand it.
      • Chaos12, on 06/21/2008, -12/+1Aren't you significant?
      • alphaterminus, on 06/21/2008, -6/+11Here is another look at it (I should have learned my lesson not to trust just one source): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/21/obama-no- ...

        I still am pissed off though. I don't want to feel like I'm voting for the less of two evils. True he's not as evil as McCain but god damn it!
        • germ5150, on 06/21/2008, -3/+9It is pretty funny that you have to use a propaganda site like the Huffington roast to find info backing what you want to believe.
        • Purin, on 06/21/2008, -1/+7Every day I try to bury at least one article from that ***** hole of a website.
      • noahhoward, on 06/21/2008, -8/+7Again it is wise to look at more sources, this is a deliberate attempt to skew the truth by the Washington Post. The full qoute via CBS:

        Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."

        "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.

        "[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."

        http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/h ...
        • fokov, on 06/21/2008, -0/+7So as long as he has the power it is OK. What about the next President? And the Next? The simplest way to stop it is to now allow it to become a law.
        • jameskong15, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5So does he support the compromise or will he fight to get immunity gone? If he fails to get immunity gone is he going to just vote for it?
      • SilverStandard, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Wait, you supported Obama when Ron Paul dropped out? You know Ron Paul officially dropped out only last week, and not months ago as MSM falsely reported?
    • Tripacer9999, on 06/21/2008, -9/+21what the *****, the republicans came out of nowhere and slapped the ***** out of us
      • jerbaker, on 06/21/2008, -8/+3WTF are you talking about? Slapped the ***** out of who? The Republicans can't even lead their way out of a wet paper bag. They have nothing either.
      • MaskedSlacker, on 06/22/2008, -2/+6No, the House Democrats fought to give this to the Republicans.
      • JettaMan, on 06/22/2008, -2/+8What do you mean? I think Obama is just letting people down with his slick politician ways. This doesn't seem to be a Rep-Dem thing. Hell, I don't like Obama but I certainly don't like McCain either. That's just the kind of election year it is.
    • merm, on 06/21/2008, -7/+39I am deeply disappointed in this reversal. I have been a HUGE supporter of Obama, but this bill is absolutely WRONG. I have lost a lot of respect for him today :(
      • Muyoso, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5Look at his change in stance on public financing and the lies he told to try and make it alright with dems in that speech afterwards if you want to really lose a lot of respect for him.
    • Jareth86, on 06/21/2008, -5/+26God damnit. I knew he might try to play to the right once he got the nomination, but I was hoping he'd pick some stupid meaningless issue like flag burning or "under god" in the pledge. To absolutely ***** our country over for political gain... I think I'm going to have to seriously re-evaluate who I'm going to vote for now...
      • avengingturnip, on 06/21/2008, -8/+7You can be fairly sure that this was part of the deal he made when he and Hillary got together with the party bosses to negotiate her conceding the race to him.
    • culbeda, on 06/21/2008, -18/+11I see that it is clearly Pro-Paul, mock-Barak day on Digg, but can anyone explain to me why this gets so much traction on Digg and Reddit why the story about him fighting telco immunity is completely ignored? (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/h ...

      Or, if you prefer a pre-submitted Digg article on the topic:
      http://digg.com/politics/Obama_I_ll_Fight_To_Strip ...
      • nicktx, on 06/21/2008, -5/+1What's Reddit? Besides, I don't know why this would be a pro-Paul day. Ron Paul didn't have enough gut to vote Nay, he abstained.
      • jerbaker, on 06/22/2008, -4/+2Because they're angry that the democratic process eliminated their candidate. Now it's time for their juvenile payback.
    • noahhoward, on 06/21/2008, -14/+5Again it is wise to look at more sources, this is a deliberate attempt to skew the truth by the Washington Post. The full qoute via CBS:

      Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."

      "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.

      "[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."

      http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/h ...
      • jameskong15, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1All I read from that is, "I support this compromise that includes immunity, but I will try to get immunity out. If I can't get immunity out then I will still support it because 'providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay' and 'as president, I will carefully monitor the program'."

        Change indeed.
        • noahhoward, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2You have a better solution I take it? The FISA bill is important, it overturns some civil rights violations and lets our intel services do their work.
        • jameskong15, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2@noah

          So your argument is that because I have not presented another option that this one is acceptable? Lol...

          Or is your argument that we should let immunity slide because the bill is so important in relation to civil rights violations and lets our intel services do their work? Because I don't see any proof that either claim is true or why these two items are worth more today than immunity for the telcos.
    • Disregard, on 06/21/2008, -4/+18Changing the color of the puppet keeps the children attentive.
    • Nanobe, on 06/21/2008, -11/+4Um... has anyone here actually read his statement? The article seems to have missed the part where he said he would do everything he could to remove the telecom immunity provision from the bill.

      Also, this bill reaffirms some civil rights that had been undermined by previous laws and actions, and that's why Obama is in favor of most of the bill. It specifically clarifies that U.S. citizens cannot be wiretapped without a court-issued warrant. I'd think you guys would consider that a good thing.
      • 0nslaught, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5I can tell him how to "tryyyyyyy" to fight it. It's called voting no, getting others to join him, and then explaining why he voted no.

        "There is no try." --A wise small person.

        Besides, are you telling me he couldn't have gotten millions of people to rally behind him in rejecting this bill? I find that hard to believe. The candidate of change is going to lose all of his supporters over not backing a 'Bush' bill? It seems to be doing the opposite. I don't buy it.

        I have to say I'm surprised by this move, at least it happening so early. It just seems hard to believe it is all because "But the Bush supporters are gonna get me!!" And I'm hardly alone in this. I see it all over DailyKos and other sites where he has their support. The whole "I'm going to keep a real close eye on it after I become President!" isn't reassuring either.
      • 0nslaught, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3"The Democratic leadership and Obama say that the bill somehow "restores" FISA or reemphasizes its central role, but FISA actually already has that clause."

        http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/well-thatll-sho ...
      • MaskedSlacker, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2The clarification that US citizens cannot be wiretapped without a warrant was not needed. It was already in the existing law. Everyone knew that it was already in the existing law.
    • tnoy, on 06/21/2008, -4/+24Welcome to the sound of a few million people realizing that he isn't going to change anything.
      • Muyoso, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4You win post of the thread. I smiled and dugg you up.
    • dnes, on 06/22/2008, -7/+5http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/h ...

      Digg me down anyways.
      • paranoiabacon, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3Why the ***** are you digging him down? This IS important. The original article left the impression that he supported the whole thing... but telecom immunity is the big ticket item here and if Obama's at least willing to take a stand against that, all the more power to him. Doesn't absolve him of ALL of the negative juju that he's creating on the left by supporting this, but at the very least it shows that he's not a complete pushover and he's willing to fight for what he thinks matters on this issue.
    • Andysan, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7Apparently there is plenty of room under the Obama bus for all the "useful fools" who got him nominated. Wake up!
    • seomike, on 06/22/2008, -3/+5status quo
  • cyndezu, on 06/21/2008, -21/+236Obama missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the "Potomac Primaries," but issued a statement that day declaring "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."

    talk about "CHANGE"
    • JKap, on 06/21/2008, -3/+47Talk about doublethink and doublespeak.
    • pintomp3, on 06/21/2008, -13/+14ron paul missed the vote this week:
      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h200 ...
      • barbiesnow, on 06/21/2008, -4/+13Yes, he changed after he won the nomination...I am so very disappointed....
      • 0nslaught, on 06/21/2008, -7/+25"Jesse Benton was quoted: Dr. Paul missed the vote today because he had a longstanding commitment to speak at the Montana GOP Convention today."
        http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=56#comme ...

        "And judging by his Statement on H.R. 3773 - FISA Amendments Act of 2008, he would have voted a resounding "nay"."
        http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr03 ...

        The Emerging Surveillance State
        Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.
        http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1064
        • pintomp3, on 06/21/2008, -13/+14shouldn't the "defender of the constitution" be doing his job and be present for important bills like this? kucinich voted against it.
        • 0nslaught, on 06/21/2008, -4/+15Yeah, another speech about the Constitution in front of these crooks on top of the last 42,000 would have made all the difference. He's having more success talking about the Constitution while not in the presence of these criminals who have demonstrated beyond all doubt that they have no interest in it. He seems to be upholding his oath to defend the Constitution.
        • an0nymous, on 06/21/2008, -5/+21This bill was a surprise to almost everyone except the people who had put in the fix. The bill was voted on within 24 hours of being released. I am willing to bet Ron Paul was not among those who conspired to allow this to happen.
          Say what you will about the man's policies, he's consistent and honest and ***** the consequences.

          Oh by the way? Look for a repeat performance next week in the Senate. There wasn't even an objection when the bill was added to the Senate Agenda after hours.

          We've been sold out.
    • InetRoadkill, on 06/21/2008, -0/+41Obama has promised to support a filibuster, but gave no indication that he would join the filibuster. I'm taking that as "I'm going to sit on the sidelines and cheer because I don't want to get my hands dirty." What a cop-out. He's says he's against the bill, but he's going to vote for it despite clear constitutional problems and public outrage.

      I would have been impressed if he took charge and led the filibuster effort against this ***** legislation, but I guess that's too much to ask. This was Obama's first test as a leader and he has failed miserably. Same old ***** politics with different wrapper. God help us.

      • MaskedSlacker, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7Well see to fillibuster he'd have to actually show up. And keep talking.

        Like the guy who used to fillibuster by talking about how to schuck oysters for days without stopping.
    • InfiniteNothing, on 06/21/2008, -12/+3To be fair, the bill has changed.
    • Stormwern, on 06/21/2008, -2/+3This is indeed a bit unnerving. Not much worse than what mccain sais every week, but still.
    • wheninva1, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1That's completely misleading. Obama was there and voted for the Dodd/Feingold amendments that would strip telecom immunity from the FISA bill, but after the amendments failed and it was clear the bill would pass with immunity, he left.
  • Robjayne, on 06/21/2008, -32/+295The lesser of two evils ! Like choosing between gonorrhea and syphilis.
    • avengingturnip, on 06/21/2008, -6/+18That made me laugh.
    • plimpton777, on 06/21/2008, -31/+26And Ron Paul is Viagra. Freedom may persist up to 4 years after electing Ron Paul.
      • chicofaraby, on 06/21/2008, -25/+17"Ron Paul is Viagra"

        Popular with bitter old white men.
      • heucuva, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6If you experience freedom lasting more than 4 hours, please contact a dictator immediately.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/21/2008, -5/+2Then again, if you don't choose someone's going to give you one or the other no matter what you say. So the choice is genital warts and seepage or a brain like Swiss cheese.
    • GoKings, on 06/21/2008, -6/+30Like choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich...
      • aladrin, on 06/21/2008, -1/+8Wow, some people aren't up on their South Park quotes. Shame this is getting dugg down, because it's quite appropriate.
        • jgtg32a, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2It will always be appropriate during the election season.
        • AutoTom, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1the term is burried
      • djholybolt, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4but.. i don't want to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich..

        *looks around for diddy*
      • KingWilson, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5VOTE OR DIE..........BITCH
    • pintomp3, on 06/21/2008, -6/+15it's more like choosing between a whore and a really old whore.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 06/21/2008, -1/+9Oh that's simple. Gonorrhea, hands down...
    • superkendall, on 06/21/2008, -4/+7But are you sure he's the lesser? If he's changed on this...

      At least McCain has sworn off earmarks, and actually followed by not having any earmarks last year. Look at what Obama spent - while just a congressman!
      • sfelton, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2Earmarks aren't all bad. Him not having any earmarks has screwed over Arizona so that we don't get as much funding for things that we need.

        I know that Obama has spent a lot, but is it better to spend some then not at all?
        • superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Things you "need" that EVRYONE IN THE US HAS TO PAY FOR? Like what?

          What makes you "need" them so bad, Arizona cannot pay for them?

          And don't forget, we're talking earmarks here - things like roads and such where federal funding makes more sense, are not funded by earmarks.
      • JettaMan, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4It's better to vote for no one or file a protest vote of some sort rather than going for the "lesser of two evils" otherwise it gives them the illusion that they deserve to mis-rule us.
      • XxtraLarGe, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4McCain doesn't need any earmarks, he can get his crony Arizona congressmen to get them instead, so it looks like his hands are clean. At least Ron Paul admitted that he was trying to get some of his constituents' money back for them.
        • superkendall, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1You need to talk it over with the guy who claims Arizona is not getting what it needs in the way of capricious federal money, you seem to be in total disagreement.

          I'll only note that the concept of stealing more and more of my money, and then having a free for all at the federal level to see who can grab the most of it - is damn sickening.

    • jamessavik, on 06/21/2008, -2/+5Funny- they are both itchy rashes.
    • kvanderslice, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1awesome.
  • cashman57, on 06/21/2008, -30/+158Does anyone now believe there's a difference between the two candidates the D&R gang pushed forth and the current occupant of 1600 Penn. Ave.?
    OBushma or McSame is not much of a choice.
    • JDenigma, on 06/21/2008, -4/+38I think the fact that they're not showing up in this thread and aren't digging this, answers that for you. People by nature so often are such flaming hypocrites. It's disgusting and amusing at the same time. We haven't seen them yet come out of the woodworks to spew forth any bile with their rationalizations and excuses. Well, as they say, sometimes silence can mean acceptance. Obama practically is treated like a rock star and some deity to be worshiped by these people. He can't do anything wrong with. It seems to be worse than the sweeping allegations they made about those of us who are Ron Paul supporters as being Ronbots and mindless supporters. People never cease to amaze me. I lose more and more faith in humanity by the day and become more cynical and jaded of people in general.
      • caferrell, on 06/21/2008, -1/+29Brother Cashman, there is no longer any hope of good government in the Republican/Democrat autocracy.

        The whole apparatus is contaminated from beginning to end. There are the odd exceptions, but they are always marginalized by the Media and the rest of their party. Look what happened to Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

        The fact that Obama was embraced by the Media and the party money-men and administration was clear enough evidence that he is part of the club. You don't get the kind of attention and press that he has received without agreeing to the elite's agenda.

        If we truly hope to save the future, if we dream of change to restore a just and peaceful Republic we must look outside the two parties.
        • sw33tsarin, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3Don't forget Gravel. That man is also fantastic.
      • Robjayne, on 06/21/2008, -0/+10 Well said, I feel the same way in regards to the electorate. People are no better than corporations fighting over their slice of the pie (our money).
      • waylander632, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1"I lose more and more faith in humanity by the day and become more cynical and jaded of people in general."

        If you pin your hopes on a faulty system, you will get let down. I am starting to realize that we can't expect a quick fix, and all the people who say if we only do X everything will be fine are wrong. Look at politics; you have liberals, conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, theocrats, fascists, etc. and they all say if we just do things our way, everything will be fine- but they are all wrong. The world's problems are complicated and there is no magical solution. That doesn't mean we should lose all faith in humanity.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/21/2008, -17/+4Yes. There is a difference. Where the ***** have you been?
    • laserdog, on 06/21/2008, -5/+8Name something McCain and Obama agree on.

      Because, you know there are these people out there who preach the apathy that "all candidates are the same", but the just do it so they don't have to actually take the time to research any of the candidates.

      But I'm sure you're the 10% who has truly researched the options and has come to apathy as the only logical conclusion, and not just as the lazyman's way of participating in discussions they know nothing about.
      • psion01, on 06/21/2008, -0/+19Telecomm Immunity, apparently.
        • rlbond86, on 06/21/2008, -3/+1He said he would do everything in his power to remove that clause.
        • jameskong15, on 06/22/2008, -1/+8@rlbond

          But he also said he would support it because "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay."
      • PiGuy, on 06/21/2008, -0/+9Illegal Immigration
      • noprtyaff, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2The global warming hoax.
      • JohnFromChicago, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Obama and McCain are pretty much in agreement on Middle East policy. Both want to draw down troops in Iraq as soon as we can secure the country and train the Iraqi army - at least 12-18 months or more before reductions in troop levels, and gradual at that. If Obama does what he says he'll do, we'll still have troops in Iraq by the end of his first term. McCain promises the same thing only he's more honest about the reality that there will be bases and some personnel there for many years. They both agree on a first strike attack on Iran, and invading Pakistan territories to go after Al Qaeda if the Pakistani's don't do what we tell them to do. Change? The only thing that will change is the name on the door at the oval office.
    • superkendall, on 06/21/2008, -4/+9Oh, there's a huge difference - if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist!

      And of course McCain actually had $0 worth of earmarks last year while Obama happily went along with the rest of the pigs in congress and spent away. That's Democrats AND Republicans porking up.

      At least with McCain, there's a fair number of pure liberals and conservatives that really dislike him. That's as it should be.

    • expatcatalyst, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2http://expat.catalyst.googlepages.com/chooselibert ...
    • JesseOnDigg, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2yeah, i do.
  • JKap, on 06/21/2008, -32/+94O-bomb-a/McAIPAC '08!
    • cyndezu, on 06/21/2008, -1/+16o bomb a aipac/ boom boom Mc aipac
      one just LOOKS different from the other
    • ZenMojo, on 06/21/2008, -11/+5There are no shades of gray in politics, are there on this board. There are good guys and bad guys and bad guys are good guys if you like them and good guys are bad guys if you dislike them, and if you have a good reason to dislike the guy you think is good, you negotiate around it, and if you have a good reason to like the guy you think is bad, you shrug it off.

      No one is frightened that Obama supports FISA. He clearly stated that he was against the immunity provision. This is how the man worked in Illinois. We know his record: bipartisan compromise. Usually he votes against stuff like this, but if backed into a corner he'll vote with protest. So I wouldn't be surprised if he votes no, nor would I be surprised if he votes yes, with stated protest. That puts him to the Left of McCain and Clinton and Edwards on the issue and to the Right of Dodd on the issue.

      And you can go through an entire list of issues to choose the BEST candidate for office or you can demonize people as "politicians" for negotiating a minefield.

      For instance, it takes a lot of balls to support gay civil unions at all when gay people are only 1/10th of the electorate. To give them full federal benefits takes even more testicular fortitude, but of the top three Democratic candidates Obama was one of two who supported the former and the only candidate who supported the latter.

      Not that anyone cares because he's "just a politician."

      Of the top three Democratic candidates, he's the only one who has always been against torture AND for the preservation of habeas corpus. McCain and Clinton were against them at some point this primary season and Edwards was silent on habeas corpus.

      No, Obama's not perfect. No one believed that he was. That's naive to say the least. But he's better than anyone you've got, and if you're saying ***** like "he's lost my vote" then you really weren't going to vote for him in the first place because the alternatives for the last 7 months have been laughable.
      • dnes, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1I don't understand why you're being dugg down.
      • dnes, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1I don't understand why you're being dugg down.
    • riseabove, on 06/21/2008, -4/+5believe it, mccain will be A LOT worse.
    • crypt, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2I misread it as McPAIN first ;)
    • DestroyFascism, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Actually its Mc *****...
  • mkauai, on 06/21/2008, -53/+201My Friends, We live in the greatest country in the world. Yes, we can change that, and I hope you join in - McBomba08

    If people want "real" change visit:
    www.campaignforliberty.org
    Be a Part of It
    www.r3vmarch.com
    • freedomwv, on 06/21/2008, -5/+30A fellow pat! Spread the good word my friend!
    • ironhide, on 06/21/2008, -35/+13Spare me. Paul couldn't even be bothered to vote for or against the bill. Dereliction of duty? Fear of commtment? Fence straddler?

      Here's the house voting record.
      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml

      • 0nslaught, on 06/21/2008, -8/+20Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

        "Jesse Benton was quoted: Dr. Paul missed the vote today because he had a longstanding commitment to speak at the Montana GOP Convention today."
        http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=56#comme ...

        "And judging by his Statement on H.R. 3773 - FISA Amendments Act of 2008, he would have voted a resounding "nay"."
        http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr03 ...

        The Emerging Surveillance State
        Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.
        http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1064
        • ZenMojo, on 06/21/2008, -7/+5And yet Kucinich was there.

          Fine, whatever. These same people would bash Ron Paul for not believing in evolution and mock him as a religious nut...
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g

          But he's a Libertarian, so it's okay.

          These same people would be rolling their eyes at his belief in legislating religion:
          "The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." -- Ron Paul.

          http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.ht ...

          Yes, he wrote that. It's on his personal house of representatives webpage.

          Here's my favorite part:

          "Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion..."

          Except God is never once mentioned in The Constitution. But we're both Texans, so I understand how he can get confused ... on just about anything involving religion or history.

          ...but he's a Libertarian, so it's okay.

          Somewhere in between the Massive Information Voters and the Low Information Voters needs to be a classification of Selective Information Voters, ones who choose to acknowledge what they want to hear in order to make a decision on whom to vote for.

          Ron Paul, the real Ron Paul, is a Small Government, Big God Texas Republican of the first order, not a Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. It's why he supports giving federal tax dollars to home school kids but not to low-income kids in D.C.

          Not that the Libertarians are ones to talk. Really? Bob Barr is your candidate for president? The guy who spent billions to impeach Clinton because he got head in the White House and was at the forefront of the War On Drugs?

          Yeah, as soon as you people can tell the difference between a Republican and a Libertarian, then you can start talking crap.
    • Jareth86, on 06/21/2008, -13/+3Wait, so we have too choose between O-fisa, Mc-neocon, and the only alternative is Ron "lets privatize everything" Paul? Jesus, we really are *****.
      • fokov, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Unless something has changed, Paul isn't running for President anymore.
    • The_Wallbanger, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3That's a very famous fake quote.

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/change.asp
      • XxtraLarGe, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2So what you're saying is Obama never said the U.S. is the greatest country in the world?
    • expatcatalyst, on 06/21/2008, -3/+2http://expat.catalyst.googlepages.com/chooselibert ...
    • JettaMan, on 06/22/2008, -1/+8Real change is coming. Ron Paul is going to clean all the neocons out of the Republican Party, then he's going to sweep America off its feet. Good time are ahead, but first there are going to be some battles.
      • Jareth86, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1Ron Paul is Godot?
      • ProfessorFoo, on 06/22/2008, -4/+2Crazy Ron Paul fanatics like you are the reason I'm not going to ever vote for him. I'm sick and tired of all this BS about Ron Paul being a synonym for god. There are problems with him just as there are with anybody else.
        • JettaMan, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Someone who would vote based on anything but a man and his policies are idiots in my book. And you are an idiot. Who supports Ron Paul has nothing to do with who he is. Frankly a lot of people who support Obama are flaky. And same with McCain. It doesn't affect how I feel one bit.
    • Inohavehalos, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Ron paul believes the earth is 6000 years old. Why would you want a lunatic in office?
  • JDenigma, on 06/21/2008, -20/+103"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,"

    Just watch, some idiot will probably come here and use that statement to try to put a nice sugar coated spin on things to make it look good for him. Oh they'll say, he's being such a fine compromising statesman in walking that fine line. His words defending his compromise were oh so beautiful. Once he gets in, like he said, he'll keep an eye on it. We can TRUST him!
    • m2garand, on 06/21/2008, -4/+33Oh come on JDemigma, when has a government abused its power? /s
    • barbiesnow, on 06/21/2008, -3/+18It is capitualation...pure and simple...and another breakdown of our Constitution...
    • Findeton, on 06/21/2008, -2/+7I hope that's just irony or sarcasm.
    • userperson, on 06/21/2008, -0/+8(suspending the trust questions for a moment)
      That pledge is going to be worthless if you aren't elected, but your vote will still count.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/21/2008, -4/+18You forgot the rest of the quote.

      "[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."

      That seems like a pretty egregious omission on your part.
      • jameskong15, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4So he says he will support the compromise (which includes immunity), but then says he will work to remove immunity? So does he support it only if he fails to get it out or what?
    • byrdgang, on 06/21/2008, -1/+12"I will carefully monitor the program"

      Excuse me? We're supposed to trust that you will carefully monitor it? GTFO.
    • d17182, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3I think he went on to say "I love democracy. I love the republic. The power you give me I will lay down once this crisis has abated." Oh no, wait, that was Senator Palpatine.
  • kuantan97, on 06/21/2008, -63/+268This is no surprise at all. The first time I saw this man back in '06 I knew he was a scam artist. I also knew that many suckers would be seduced by his eloquence. Can't wait to see how the Obama brigade tortures this ominous news into "change we can believe in."

    Americans had their chance with Ron Paul. They blew it.
    • chicofaraby, on 06/21/2008, -35/+13Ron Paul is just another Republican. Just like Obama is just another Democrat. Get real, the only real change would be a vote for the left. Another Democrat or Republican isn't change.
      • plimpton777, on 06/21/2008, -9/+20It's shocking to me that you actually fit your entire head up your ass.
        • chicofaraby, on 06/21/2008, -21/+8Paul is a Republican. He voted with the George Bush Republicans over 75% of the time.

          It's only a fact.
        • kuantan97, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3"He voted with the George Bush Republicans over 75% of the time.

          It's only a fact."

          Proof? Context?
    • pintomp3, on 06/21/2008, -25/+15ron paul blew it too. he didn't vote:
      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h200 ...
      • 0nslaught, on 06/21/2008, -6/+23"Jesse Benton was quoted: Dr. Paul missed the vote today because he had a longstanding commitment to speak at the Montana GOP Convention today."
        http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=56#comme ...

        "And judging by his Statement on H.R. 3773 - FISA Amendments Act of 2008, he would have voted a resounding "nay"."
        http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr03 ...

        The Emerging Surveillance State
        Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.
        http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1064
      • Izult, on 06/21/2008, -1/+9jesus christ you really are that retarded aren't you?
        • MikeFallopian, on 06/21/2008, -5/+1Clearly, a GOP speaking engagement is more important than voting on a hugely important House bill.
        • michaelzhao, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Missed Vote Percentage:

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

          'nuff said...
      • david76, on 06/21/2008, -6/+2Intending to vote doesn't count for much.
      • fokov, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4His nickname is Dr. NO. Gee, I wonder how he would have voted.
    • ProfessorSYM, on 06/21/2008, -24/+30Wrong, you had your chance to convince the Republican Party that Ron Paul was the candidate for America.

      YOU blew it.
      • TonyLocNE, on 06/21/2008, -4/+19Gee, let's look to see who helped perpetuate the lies and slander against Ron Paul? The Neoconservatives were one group, but I do remember an overwhelming amount of anti-liberty/anti-Paul articles being submitted by the Obamanistas months ago... With your help, you destroyed America's only chance for true freedom and democracy.

        so no, YOU blew it.
        • imashmuck, on 06/21/2008, -2/+11lol. If you think Digg is going to put a guy into the White House single handedly, you are sadly mistaken.
        • chrispr, on 06/21/2008, -3/+2NO U
          NO U!
        • koko775, on 06/22/2008, -5/+4You're right. All Obama supporters have exactly the same opinions. Some Obama supporters were anti-Ron Paul, thus Obama supporters in general were anti-Ron Paul.

          IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW! WE BLEW IT!

          ...or, you're full of fallacies. I don't remember ever hating Ron Paul or trying to silence him in any way. I was just as upset as you when I saw the media unfairly putting him on the sidelines of the presidential race.
        • tyywebb, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1IF ONLY WE TRIED HARDER! *SOB*
    • cv6nick, on 06/21/2008, -3/+36Ron Paul was speaking at the Montana convention at the time of the vote.
      • pintomp3, on 06/21/2008, -9/+7somehow he manages to make time for stuff like this:
        http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110 ...
        • Ravatar, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3Wish I could digg you up a million times.

          How is that small government?
        • Tommyhawk, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2How is it not small government?
      • chicofaraby, on 06/21/2008, -11/+3So giving a meaningless speech was more important to him than this vote. OK.
      • RyeBrye, on 06/21/2008, -7/+6I wonder how speaking to people in Montana better serves the people of the Texas 14th District than actually doing his job and voting against something he is so vocally opposed to.
      • michaelzhao, on 06/22/2008, -1/+11Before you Obamatards start bitching about Ron Paul missing votes... reality is a bitch...

        Missed Vote Percentage:

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

        'nuff said...
        • nedzeve, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Yeah it is
        • Ravatar, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Not sure how missing more votes is really that much better..but okay. All it takes is missing a few CRITICAL votes for those numbers to be totally irrelevant.
    • Nosferotu, on 06/21/2008, -18/+7Ron Paul is a nut job. Get over it.
      • trackerbishop, on 06/21/2008, -1/+3how is he a nutjob?

        how much is centcom paying you
    • jamessavik, on 06/21/2008, -12/+2Take heart Paul supporters!

      This was Ron Paul's first run out of the gate.

      Many of our best presidents didn't win on their first go round.

      Keep the faith and run harder next time.
      • MaskedSlacker, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Uh, Ron Paul has run for president at least once before (twice I believe) as the Libertarian party candidate.
    • DeepFriedFetus, on 06/21/2008, -2/+19They didn't blow it. Hundreds of thousands of people are joining the Campaign for Liberty and making a stand against fascism and Big Government everywhere. Ron Paul isn't going anywhere, and the Campaign for Liberty will echo in politics for years to come.
      • jerbaker, on 06/22/2008, -9/+3Are serious? When will you guys learn that when you take the rules out of the game, a better game doesn't break out spontaneously. Removing the rules from the economic game serves only to allow the monied classes to finish off the crumbs they have been prevented from embezzling. Get real. Bunch of crooks and liards.
        • 0nslaught, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Yeah, that's why the 'corporate' media campaigned so hard for Ron Paul, being their dream candidate and all...
        • DeepFriedFetus, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3It's too bad you hate freedom. You're missing out.
        • tyywebb, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Hatin' on are freedums?? GTFO terrerists!!!
    • chillypacman, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2actually you paultards blew it, by spamming websites instead of actually pulling up your pants and dong something...
      • kuantan97, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Does that logic apply to Obombanation, who rode legions of idiotic, didn't-do-their-homework-before-getting-a- hard-on, lemming spammers all the way to the democratic coronation?
        • Ravatar, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I don't know, whose the democratic nominee?
  • freedomwv, on 06/21/2008, -19/+79Come on Bush broke the damn law and those telecommunications companies help him break the law. Obama and McCain are both sorry bags of dog *****!
    • noahhoward, on 06/21/2008, -6/+3This is a deliberate attempt to skew the truth by the Washington Post. The full qoute via CBS:

      Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."

      "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.

      "[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."

      http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/h ...
  • cyndezu, on 06/21/2008, -41/+179The only "CHANGE" in America is here.
    http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
    • chicofaraby, on 06/21/2008, -33/+10Yeah, another Republican sounds like "change."
      • plimpton777, on 06/21/2008, -3/+11You're a moron.
        • NinjaJoey, on 06/21/2008, -3/+2Ron Paul has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 75.9% of the time during the current Congress.

          Hmm...
      • BlakeEM, on 06/21/2008, -4/+18In case you haven't noticed Obama is far closer to Bush then Ron Paul. How ignorant do you have to be to judge people only on the party they are in without thinking they may be in it to change the party for the better? I guess you just prefer to bitch.
        • chicofaraby, on 06/21/2008, -12/+8Republican Ron Paul voted with the George Bush Republicans over 75% of the time.

          It's only a fact.
        • BlakeEM, on 06/21/2008, -3/+14Like what? Patriot act, always against it 100%. This bill here, he's against it. War funding, always voted against it and always pushed to try to end the war. Always pushed to try to stop spending. You have no idea what you are talking about. http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ron_Paul_publicl ...
        • chicofaraby, on 06/21/2008, -8/+5"You have no idea what you are talking about."

          http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/member ...

          "Ron Paul has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 75.9% of the time during the current Congress."

          Sucks to be you.
        • anthonyy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2So what if he votes with the majority of his republican in congress? Throwing around intimidating numbers doesn't matter for *****. A majority of the bills that Ron Paul has voted for, everyone Congress has also voted for, including the democrats. These are bills like education bills, and countless other bills that don't get mentioned in the news.

          What matters is that he votes against his party in bills that DO MATTER. Like the PATRIOT Act, the War on Iraq, and the National ID Initiative. In fact, I think it's great that almost 1 in 4 times Ron Paul votes differently. More than half of the bills

          The whole lot of democrats that have continued to vote along with republicans for war spending bills, and supporting FISA. Everyone needs to see through the ***** in this country and realize that Obama's not a god. "Change" doesn't come through the 2 broken party system. The actual candidates that actually want to bring real change, like Mike Gravel (who tried to go for the Libertarian nomination), Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul are all shunned by the media, and that is a sad fact. As much as all the hype the press is making, this story is just one example of the "change" he believes in. I'm sorry to say that's just wishful thinking for people.

          It's already stupid how so many people on digg have jumped the boat from Ron Paul to Barack Obama without even considering each of their vastly different platforms and views.
    • pintomp3, on 06/21/2008, -16/+5why did he bother to show up to vote against it then?
      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h200 ...
      • 0nslaught, on 06/21/2008, -3/+10This has been answered repeatedly. Perhaps you missed it the other three times, or so, that it was posted, but here it is again.

        "Jesse Benton was quoted: Dr. Paul missed the vote today because he had a longstanding commitment to speak at the Montana GOP Convention today."
        http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=56#comme ...

        "And judging by his Statement on H.R. 3773 - FISA Amendments Act of 2008, he would have voted a resounding "nay"."
        http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr03 ...

        The Emerging Surveillance State
        Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.
        http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1064
        • ZenMojo, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2It's also been debunked repeatedly. Obama made the same statements on the Senate version of that bill, but now Ron Paul is conspicuously silent and absent....
        • wishninja, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I am a Paul supporter and have joined and donated to both paul and and the campaign for liberty. I am pissed that Ron Paul did not show up for this vote. ***** the Montana neo-cons! This was important to the nation, and for me to know that Ron Paul is against this. I know he is not my Rep. he works for texas but damn this sucks.
      • n00854180t, on 06/21/2008, -5/+1I don't see his name on there, for Aye, Nay, or no vote. So, I assume he's voting Aye, since he apparently is some sort of stand in sugared words version of McCain.
    • MikeFallopian, on 06/21/2008, -16/+8This is a thread about the FISA bill. The one Ron Paul didn't bother showing up to vote against. Spam elsewhere, please.
    • Thinbev, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5Amen!
    • jerbaker, on 06/22/2008, -8/+2Change for the worse isn't good. I agree that it's the only real change being offered, but handing America to corporate robber barons isn't the kind of change I'm thinking of when I think about change.
    • tfarris, on 06/22/2008, -1/+7AGREED!!!!!!!!!!! The only man in politics who has integrity and stands for what this country is all about.
    • ProfessorFoo, on 06/22/2008, -4/+1Yeah, a change to over turn Roe vs Wade, destroy the separation of church and state, build a wall bordering Mexico, and to destroy our public schools.
  • FrankHope, on 06/21/2008, -21/+181
    THE OLD OBAMA: "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."

    THE NEW AND IMPROVED OBAMA: "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."

    That's new as in neo, as in Bush-lite. Don't you just love that watered down taste!
    • crowbar77, on 06/21/2008, -5/+20Are you kidding me, he's one ***** guy. How the hell does he think he'll have time to monitor any of these programs.
      • plimpton777, on 06/21/2008, -3/+17He'll monitor his poll numbers, I'm sure. He's revealed himself to just be Clinton with a tan.
      • dnes, on 06/22/2008, -4/+2Well, gee, I dunno, maybe his administration will do it?
    • barbiesnow, on 06/21/2008, -1/+11Yes, he was probably shown some propaganda when he attended the NSC meeting...becoming a part of the system,he vowed to change..boy was I taken in...
    • tobsterius, on 06/21/2008, -3/+10I think he just lost my vote...
      • nofrickenway, on 06/21/2008, -2/+0OH! I thought the title meant

        Obama Supports FISA Legislation, No one is mad any more.

        /sar
    • noahhoward, on 06/21/2008, -8/+10The REAL Obama the full qoute via CBS:

      Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."

      "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.

      "[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."

      http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/h ...
      • jameskong15, on 06/22/2008, -1/+10So he supports the compromise which includes immunity, but will work to get immunity out? What happens when he can't get immunity out again? Does he still think that, "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay"?
    • heucuva, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Speaking of "watered down": it reminds me of beer. If I were forced to choose a beer from a myriad of alternatives, but the only beer to be served was by consensus vote, I'd rather have something newer and watered down (Rolling Rock; Obama) than something so badly brewed and out-dated that it tasted like regurgitated elephant urine (Michelob; McCain).

      I suppose I could survive on either, but I'd really rather have the bland beer.
    • cronian, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2Obama now knows he will pretty likely be the next president. Who does he want to spy on? Imagine what Obama will be able to do with blackmail material on all the Republicans. Also, the bill doesn't grant immunity for criminal penalties, so Obama can threaten the telecoms with prosecution if they don't comp