|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
06-21-2008, 09:12 AM | #1 (permalink) | ||||||||
Banned
|
Obama & Dem Leaders Act Same As Bush: Lying Corporatist, Stealing Our Bill of Rights
So, people....as of yesterday, we are on our own. There is no "campaign for change", "campaign of unity"....just greedy, power groping, cynical politicians from both major parties, attempting to control us via a message of fear, as they consolidate our power, our protections from the excesses and abuses of our own government, from us....to them.
Obama and his party allies on capitol hill, yesterday demonstrated he [...and they are...] is willing to lie to us for the purpose of making his anticipated presidency as powerful, unaccountable, and as supportive of corporatism as Bush's presidency. My take on what happened is that, once Obama got what he wanted from supporters, confirmation that he would be the democratic nominee to run for US president in november, he and democratic congressional leaders decided to gamble on a strategy of using house republicans to grab executive power for Obama that will be in force during his entire, if he wins, first presidential term. Democrats knew that, if they gave republicans everything they demanded...almost guaranteed retroactive immunity for telecomms that accepted a letter of presidential authorization instead of search warrants signed by a judge to permit government spying on their voice and data customers and their billing records, as well as language that says, in effect, if the president says something is legal, then it is....and immunity for anyone aiding "an intelligence agency", republicans would have to vote for it. Democrats, gambling that Obama will be elected in november, by passing this horrible FISA "reform" bill, extend to Bush, from August, when present authorization for surveillance expires, to next January, a legalization of formerly illegal surveillance of calls and data of US persons. President Obama, however, will have the authority granted in the bill, for four years, since the bill does not sunset for 4-1/2 years. All it cost the democrats to do this was retroactive telecomm immunity, my political support, (and I hope the support of everyone disgusted by what Obama and the party's leaders have done....), more of our constitutional protections, and it gained them the support and the trust of their corporatist masters! Below are the criticisms of some of those who were supportive of Obama's candidacy.... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
IMO, Obama is the new George Bush...the language in his carefully worded statement confirms it...... Last edited by host; 06-21-2008 at 09:18 AM.. |
||||||||
06-21-2008, 09:40 AM | #3 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Host, he's talking about supporting FISA. Under the "Protect America Act", Bush's wiretaps would have still been illegal. And Obama said, in his quote, that he is going to try and get retroactive immunity removed from the Senate version.
|
06-21-2008, 10:15 AM | #5 (permalink) |
Banned
|
will, I know you were indifferent to the argument that the democrats are the only serious alternative to republican political ambitions, long before I was, so I'm sure you are reacting to the facts being reported, and to Obama's own words. Obama voted against the senate bill in february. Harry Reid selected the Rockefeller Cheney bill with telecomm immunity, instead of the bill drafted by a senate committee w/o telecomm immunity, to come to the floor for a vote. The bill passed with all republicans and 17 democrats voting for it. 29 democrats voted against it. Do you think the only thing wrong with the house bill is telecomm immunity? Do you think Obama is even serious about thinking he has any chance to remove telecomm immunity, given what Reid did in february and says now, plus the lopsided february vote? How serious does Obama sound negotiating, since he says he'll try to get the bill changed but if not....he'll vote for it anyway? Did his fear card rhetoric creep you out? Didn't the house dems simply have to offer the repubs the change to Fisa that would permit warrantless surveillance of foreign communication that originated and ended outside the US, but passed through a switch located in the US, as is claimed to be common routing, to achieve an honest and fair to the American people, Fisa modernization? Wasn't that the change that could be justified and, beyond that, wasn't the decent way for house dems and Obama to represent our best interests, to tell repubs to accept only that revision, or get nothing.....just house leaders sitting on their hands when it came to introduction of a Fisa reform bill that was not rooted in fear based power transfer to the executive or on telecomm lobbying pressure?
otto, please don't do this on this thread....do it somewhere else, 'kay? Last edited by host; 06-21-2008 at 10:20 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
06-21-2008, 10:41 AM | #6 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
I think the big thing wrong with the Bill is immunity, but I recognize it's hardly the only fault. What should be happening is FISA being upheld, but when in government or anywhere does something that should happen actually happen? We all knew this was coming eventually, and I'm massively disappointed in the House for voting it through. Just like I've been disappointed time and again with the House. It's a complete fucking mess. We might as well have a Republican House, really.
It passing in it's current form in the House does not mean it will pass in it's current form in the Senate. With Obama (the likely party leader for the next 5 years) saying specifically that he's going to try and remove immunity, there is a chance that he may take control of the bandwagon in the Senate. A small chance, yes, but a chance. "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." If this can really get picked up on by other Democratic Senators, there's that possibility that we won't get the House version passed and we can even get a reaffirmation of FISA, which is what we need so badly right now. BTW, if this passes without retroactive immunity, it can be used once Obama takes office to pursue criminal charges against Bush and his despicable cronies. |
06-21-2008, 12:18 PM | #7 (permalink) |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
host: is there anything you're in favor of? I used to feel a real kinship with your posts, but lately it's nothing but a bitchfest.
Obama ADMITS he's not crazy about the bill getting passed, that it's a compromise, that it's a lot better than things have been, and that he's not through working to get rid of the troubling aspects of it. I guess taking people at their word isn't something you have the luxury of when you're on a mission like yours, eh host? |
06-21-2008, 12:27 PM | #8 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
With McCain running, I'm feeling bitchy myself. And I'm concerned about the level of zealotism towards Obama. Don't get me wrong, he's a stronger candidate than Gore or Kerry ever could have been, but it's okay to admit that he makes mistakes. Moreover, it's okay to admit that many of the Democrats in the House and many in the Senate might as well be Republican, and that the Democratic majority is only a good thing for the left when they actually vote Democratic.
|
06-21-2008, 01:10 PM | #9 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
host....i think you are overstating your case for your objections, at least based on my understanding of the FISA amendments the House passed.
From the time FISA was enacted in 1978 through 2001, there was little if any objection to the law from presidents or Congress of either party....or from few if any advocacy groups. Then, from 2002-2006, Bush grossly abused and/or circumvented the law...claiming that the post 9/11 "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (AUMF) passed by Congress gave him the unilateral authority to do whatever he damn well pleased to whomever he damn well wanted. The first and most important thing these new amendments accomplish is to codify in no uncertain terms that FISA provides the sole legal authority to undertake wiretapping (or other electronic surveillance) on foreign nationals...a president can no longer claim that an AUMF gives him the authority to bypass FISA. It reaffirms and goes a bit further than the original act by requiring the DNI and the AG to certify in writing, under oath, and with supporting affidavits that for each (warrantless) wiretap of foreign nationals outside the country, that it will not include American citizens on the other end. Wiretaps of foreign nationals inside the US require a warrant and also cannot include US citizens on the other end w/o specific reasonable cause. It also reaffirms and expands prohibitions on reverse targeting..where a foreign national can be surveilled for the purpose wiretapping Americans. And it provides for greater Congressional oversight of the FISA warrant process than previously existed. The issue for many on the far left is the retroactive immunity for telecomms. Like you, I would prefer that it had been included, but I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. The fact is, the class actions suits against the telecomms would likely never have worked through the courts anyway - Bush would have asserted executive privilege or national security on requests for documents and the telecomms would have claimed that w/o documents from the gov, they would be restrained from conducting a reasonable defense. The latest amendments for the most part simply restore the orginal intent of FISA. Where it expands the coverage of FISA, it also expands accountability and oversight. Its not my preferred bill, but for the most part, it is an acceptable bill....thats how compromise works.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-21-2008 at 03:02 PM.. |
06-21-2008, 01:18 PM | #10 (permalink) |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
Here's what I didn't say above: The real world of politics requires compromise. Idealism is nice, but that's all it is. Does anyone think Kucinich is going to actually get any impeaching done? His idealism is inspiring and admirable, but it's not going to produce any results.
Those who blanched at the supposed sainthood of Obama are now screaming about how disappointed they are over this. Those of us who believe him to be a new kind of politician--but still a politician--don't have much trouble with it. |
06-21-2008, 01:20 PM | #11 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
Congressional Republicans in 06 (and likely in 08) lost in great numbers in part because of their unwillingness to compromise (particularly on the Iraq occupation) and as a result, they lost their majority. I dont want to see the same thing happen to the Democrats over the issue of retroactive immunity for the telecomms.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-21-2008 at 01:34 PM.. |
|
06-21-2008, 02:01 PM | #12 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
|
06-21-2008, 02:12 PM | #13 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
DC, you can't possibly support House Democrats voting yes on a bill that includes retroactive immunity. That, more than anything else, is why I have a problem with. The Democrats are compromising by allowing unethical and illegal legislation to pass. I can't possibly imagine an argument where that's acceptable.
We all want FISA back. Probably even Otto. |
06-21-2008, 02:38 PM | #14 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
will...I would prefer a bill w/o retroactive immunity....and despite all the shouting, it is not clear to me that the provision is illegal.
But in any case, IMO, the issue of immunity is a hollow shell for all practical purposes. As I said above, the class action civil suits against the telecomms would not likely have seen the light of day...they would have claimed that they could not exercise a defense w/o government docs and the gov would withhold the docs based on claims of vital "national security"....so what is accomplished. I would like to see Bush face a criminal trial after he leaves office and the possibility of five years in prson for each warrantless wiretap of an American citizen: Quote:
Perhaps loquitor knows if that could ever happen of if there are issues of some type of sovereign immunity that covers Bush after leaving office.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-21-2008 at 03:13 PM.. |
|
06-21-2008, 03:40 PM | #15 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Yeah, but for the Democratic base that immunity is the meat and potatoes of the bill. The other stuff really is immaterial because FISA is already passed and in effect, and it's fine in the form it took to try and combat future Nixons.
When they vote to approve the bill when it's gotta be crystal clear that their constituents do not want it, and more so it's clear that the bill is essentially a get out of jail free card (regardless of the possible difficulties in prosecuting the telecoms), they're compromising with the devil, not compromising for the sake of common good. And it's that kind of compromising that will likely lead to a GOP Senate soon and possibly even a House, which will severely limit Obama in cleaning up Bush's mess, which let's be honest, is why he'll be elected. To me, a non-Democrat, it seems like the same bullshit. Dems are rolling over because they're afraid of looking soft. Can you imagine how stupid someone has to be to think rolling over will make them appear strong? For too long the GOP has been the 'father' party and the Dems the 'mother'. As long as the media can make people afraid, the mother won't be who people turn to and that is exactly what the GOP wants. I'm sure you had a situation where you individuated from your father as a young man. Did you compromise or did you forge your own path? I'm sure you, like me, forged your own path in life and are stronger for it. The Dems need to do the same thing here. Instead of continuing to play the GOPs game, they need to prove to people like me and Host that they're not simply Republicans in blue ties but are actually real liberals and have real drive and, more than anything else, real fortitude and power. Until they do that they'll enjoy record low public popularity at the very least and be voted out on each cycle as people are forced to choose between the abusive husband or the victim wife. |
06-21-2008, 04:40 PM | #16 (permalink) | |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
I was about to write "I'd like to hear Steny Hoyer explain himself about the immunity issue", then thought: maybe I ought to google that.
Here's what I found: Quote:
|
|
06-21-2008, 04:46 PM | #17 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
I just reread FISA. It works just fine. It's punishing those who circumvent FISA that's the problem. I'm going to go ahead and take back what I said in post #2. FISA's not out of date or broken. This is an excuse to pander to idiots who actually think that the names of bills represent their meaning. \
Retroactive immunity will not protect America. It will protect private corporate interests. |
06-21-2008, 05:20 PM | #18 (permalink) | ||
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
06-22-2008, 05:45 AM | #19 (permalink) | ||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
"Take his word", when it comes to trusting him with our rights? Are you serious, have you bought in, "that deep"? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is ironic that an administration that claimed it wanted to "spread democracy", especially into "the middle east", cannot recognize that a vehement policy of determining personal rights status of "a free people", merely by where the US citizen or green card holder happens to be standing, inside the US, or somewhere else....rights in force sometimes, removed other times, contradicts the worth of the rights, by the example. (I was concerned to read that the "bill of rights" is relegated to a lesser status than the right of habeas, as a consequences of this mention....): Quote:
Our fucking borders are still open, unguarded, and porous, and our port secuirty is a sham. The government has not even demonstrated that it is seriously committed to securing these gaping holes. Obama, in his own statement, has played the same fear card to narrow our rights, as Bush himself has done. This is extremely disturbing to me, and it should be, to all of you, too..... Quote:
Just as serious a concern is the fact that neither Hoyer, Pelosi, or Obama has provided any detailed, sincere justification for way it was necessary to negotiate what they all described as this "compromise" in the first place, with a president who has a chronic, 30 percent approval rating, of a political party exposed as exploiting the 9/11 "fear card" incessantly, bankrupting it's own reputation and trust, since the attacks in NYC and DC. Their failure to level with us as to what motivated them to, on the surface, "cave in" to the demands of the politically crippled white house and republican congressional minority, if it wasn;t because of a political calculation to exploit the lockstep republican vote for this sellout legislation, to consolidate executive power in anticipation of a democractic sweep, in the elections just five months from now, what are we to think of them, but the worst? They are either, in rushing to do this now, cynically calculating, disingenuous, and totally disrespectful of their duty to defend our rights, not to negotiate away what are not theirs to give.....or they are what they appear on the surface to be.....incredibly weak and ineffective, not a good image for "reform" candidate Obama to wrap himself around, IMO. Last edited by host; 06-22-2008 at 07:31 AM.. |
||||||||
06-22-2008, 03:41 PM | #21 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
I would prefer to see the retroactive immunity provision removed, but its just not a deal breaker for me.
The most important issue is providing more safeguards, checks and balances, and oversight to prevent Bush and/or the next president from bypassing FISA or authorizing excessive wiretaps w/o warrants. Despite the complexity of the bill, I think it accomplishes that. If your issue with retroactive immunity for the telecomms is punitive rather than for the purpose of having the full truth about past actions brought to light...then its a dead deal. But if you are more concerned about the truth of what Bush did for four years, there is a relatively simple solution. Once the telecomms have retroactive immunity, both Judiciary Committees can convene oversight hearings on the bill and its intent to prevent past abuses and compel the telecomm officials to testify under oath. With immunity, they can no longer plead the 5th and Bush cant claim they are covered by executive privilege......and voila, the truth comes out. In fact, I would even encourage Obama to take this route. First, try to remove the retroactive immunity provision. If, and when that fails, introduce another amendment to make the retroactive immunity immediate and complete (no waiting for a court decision as is currently is proposed). Then call for immediate hearings after the bill is signed and bring the telecomm execs in to testify...with subpoenas if necessary.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-22-2008 at 03:48 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
06-22-2008, 03:50 PM | #22 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
That sounds a lot more practical. Personally, I am not interested in persecuting the telecoms. They seem to be pawns in this whole adventure.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
06-22-2008, 05:46 PM | #24 (permalink) | |||||||||||
Banned
|
dc_dux, and to a lesser extent, Charlatan....you're posting what I wouldn't have thought I'd be reading,, but Greenwald predicted it would hapen...
Do you know why roachboy uses the avatar he has selected, and how it compares to what is happening in this FISA "reform"/telecomm amnesty, controversy? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 06-22-2008 at 06:21 PM.. |
|||||||||||
06-23-2008, 08:43 AM | #26 (permalink) | ||||
Banned
|
ratbastid, in case you meant to post this on this thread...it's on topic, here...
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...59#post2473659 Quote:
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss! Quote:
It's a bad bill, and there was no need for this "compromise" at this time.... Quote:
Last edited by host; 06-23-2008 at 09:36 AM.. |
||||
06-23-2008, 09:25 AM | #27 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Democrats continue to show me how empty their words were, and how they were using rhetoric for political purposes and political grandstanding. Was Bush right along, or did something actually change in the Democratic Party collective mindset that would lead them to legitimately support telecoms immunity?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
06-23-2008, 09:56 AM | #28 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
I will readily admit to being glad that I didn't vote for anyone who supported that bill. Zoe Lofgren (Cal 16th), my Congresswoman, voted against it. She even recently introduced H.R. 4182: Executive Branch Prosecutions Act of 2007. I'm quite happy with her representation of myself and my community.
|
06-23-2008, 10:04 AM | #29 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
I think you are both missing one critical point ..... by most measures, there is no "the Democrats" or at least to the same extent as there is "the Republicans". Since 2006, with the election of more moderate/centrists, the Democrats have become less and less of a monolithic voting block....unllke the Republicans. The tent is bigger and the opinions and policy positions are more diverse....which is a blessing and a curse. One of Howard Deans' greatest under reported accomplishments has been the significant success since 2004 in "expanding the tent" of the Democratic party Most recent data show the Democratic party growing while the Republican party is shrinking. In 2000, voters identified with (or leaned towards) both parties at about an equal number - 40% each. In 2008, its more like 45% are selfd-identified Dems (or lean toward Dems) and 35% are self-identified Repubs (or lean towards Repub) This bigger tent presents opportunities and challenges for Obama, Pelois, Reid. I would agree that they haven't handled it as well as they could have. and no more so than on issues like the FISA reform and Iraq funding. But I would still rather be in that position than to return to being the minority party...and hopefully, with a larger majority after November, that balancing act might be just a bit easier. With that being said...I will withhold any further comment on the FISA amendments until the Senate votes later this week.... ...other than reaffirming my opinion that the House bill accomplished the most important goal for me....providing more safeguards to prevent the recurrence of abuses we saw from Bush/Cheney/Gonzales between 2001-2006
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-23-2008 at 10:15 AM.. |
|
06-23-2008, 10:05 AM | #30 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
I am amazed. I would have thought the "is it ground hog day" thread would have left an impression that this "reform" of FISA is a sham....information on that thread that would influence more to agree that the house dems and Obama's...actions, inactions, and statements are repugnant....to be exposed and condemned in no uncertain terms. The back of my neck is wet, and they're posting that it's raining, when it isn't. |
|
06-23-2008, 10:15 AM | #31 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
DC, if you were a Congressman when this bill was presented for voting, would you have voted in favor or against? Quote:
|
||
06-23-2008, 10:19 AM | #32 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Then, I became more shocked with the announcement that a bill was agreed on with Blunt and Bond, and quickly posted on Hoyer's web address.....rising to astonished when it was announced that it would be voted on in the house in less than a day after it was posted, with no hearings, and half an hour allotted for debate by non-leadership house members. My shiock grew when the defacto leader of the democratic party, Obama, did not release a statement before the house voted on the bill. Nothing could have prepared me for the statement Obama belatedly did issue....because it sounded just like something Bush would have said...see my last post.... I have a feeling, _dux, that you will find a way, no matter what happens in the senate, to make me look like the "hot headed reactionary", and Obama like the reasonable, stalwart, sincere, democratic presidential candidate. "Lumping me in" with ace, (presumably to make my well documented opinions seem indistinguishable from ace's rhetorical and predictably partisan ones...). in the intro of your last post, was no accident, was it? You can put lipstick on this, all you want, dc_dux, but wishing ain't gonna make it so...... Last edited by host; 06-23-2008 at 10:21 AM.. |
|
06-23-2008, 10:24 AM | #33 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
host...I meant no offense or compliment in "lumping you in with ace"....just saving space since you both have referred to "the Democrats" as if it were a singular voice with a singular opinion.
Will...I would have voted against the bill in the House...but I probably wound not be representing a southern or midwestern district with a diversity of voters and opinion...most of which is probably not very progressive. I would also not strong arm my colleagues in the House to vote my way, but I would encourage them to vote their conscience or in the manner that they believe best represents the opinions of their constituents.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
06-23-2008, 10:27 AM | #34 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Here something else to chew on while we wait for the Senate on the FISA bill. Again thinking about the principled reason people objected to "illegal wiretaps", imbedded in the housing bailout legislation is a national fingerprint registry. People involved in the mortgage industry and some involved in the real estate industry will have to give their finger prints just for the privilege of doing their business and no evidnece they have broken any laws.
Quote:
I understand examining phone records of people communicating with known terrorist, but here I think government is taking a step too far. Should we expect more of the same from Washington with a Democrat in the WH and Democrats in control of Congress? Quote:
The other point I often make is that the Democrats are basically full of it. I know we will never agree on national defense issues or domestic policy issues.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 06-23-2008 at 10:33 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||
06-23-2008, 10:37 AM | #35 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
dc_dux, thank you for your last post. Believe it or not....I do have mixed emotions about posting such strong objections against the candidate who I believe I have no choice but to vote for....as the best hope for maintaining the supreme court as a branch that is not, as was shown in the habeas ruling, last week, hell bent on ruling itself into irrelevancy, with a non (anti?)-judicial philosophy that defers predictably to the judgment of the executive and legislative. I think Roberts made the argument, last week, that there is no longer a justification to keep his court open and funded.
Quote:
It follows that I want the candidate who I vote for, to win, but not at any cost, although my effort in this thread makes me feel like I'm sawing through the tree branch I am standing on..... Quote:
Ironically, the Obama defenders here, and defenders of the democratic leadership and of the bill they drafted and rushed through the house....are generally regarded as much more "reasonable" than I am. I think they think they are, too! Last edited by host; 06-23-2008 at 10:48 AM.. |
||
06-23-2008, 10:39 AM | #36 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Republicans have talking points, and so do Democrats. Democrats have been unified, on the surface it seems more so now than in the past. It is my belief that Democrats in Congress have not been acting and speaking independently. Generally, I think Democrats in Congress do as they are instructed - by party leadership.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
06-23-2008, 10:41 AM | #37 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
What happens when conscience meets constituency? By conscience I don't mean ideology, but rather a more basic sense of right and wrong. Clearly, despite how simple or difficult it would be to prosecute telecoms, it would be wrong to grand any retroactive immunity for organizations that aided in breaking the law. I cannot imagine a sense of morality that would view that as right, only as either excusable as a necessary evil or as you have said that it's irrelevant in that one cannot prosecute the telecoms regardless of the provision.
I don't see that as compromise, but rather surrender. Again. The Aceventuras of the world would likely suggest that the Democrats are weak, which simply gives them a string to pull at. Host and I would see the other side of the coin: those whom we have trusted and voted in the office to take a stand are compromising with tyranny. I don't intend to be melodramatic or wax hyperbole, but really there are times when compromise is appropriate and times when it is not. Between 2006 and now, we have expected the Democratic House and narrowly Democratic Senate to fulfill campaign promises for which the constituents voted them to office. We want an end to the war, we want economic stability, we want an end to runaway spending on military, we want and end of the gathering of power to the executive, we want actual protection from that which endangers us, and we want our rights restored. Unfortunately, this recent bill exemplifies the inconsistency of the steps forward being made. Yes, there have been some victories, but there has been squandered opportunity after squandered opportunity to relentlessly fight against Bush and his policies. |
06-23-2008, 10:53 AM | #38 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
06-23-2008, 11:03 AM | #40 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
I predict that ace is fine with his calling records, and maybe his internet search logs being given by his phone or ISP provider to the government, just for the asking, legal requirements for probable cause and a judge approved warrant, waived, in secret, by the executive.... Last edited by host; 06-23-2008 at 11:12 AM.. |
||
Tags |
act, bill, bush, corporatist, dem, leaders, lying, obama, rights, stealing |
|
|