 |
|
Civil liberties proponents quickly blasted the deal.
“The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation,” said Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act in 2001. “The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home.”
Despite that desire for expanded spying powers, the president threatened to veto any bill that did not give amnesty to the telecoms that helped with program, which has been declared illegal by a secretive U.S. surveillance court.
Under the proposal, the intelligence community will be able to issue broad orders to U.S. ISPs, phone companies and online communications services like Hotmail and Skype to turn over all communications that are reasonably believed to involve a non-American who is outside the country. The spy agencies will not have to name their targets or get prior court approval for the surveillance.
To be fair, many Repubs approved as well. How much more damage can this President and his (Dem majority) Congress do to the U.S. Constitution before it’s time to leave? [The article has the bill in .pdf format.]
Just wait until we have a Dem POTUS (Obama) and a Dem Congress. Maybe things can get back to the same quality as when Bill was president. In retrospect, man, that guy was good.
ROTFLMAO
It’s clearly time to position the Democrats to suck as much as the Republicans. The GOP has set the low point – the strategy now is to position themselves as sucking less.
#34 – TomB
>>ROTFLMAO
If you laugh your ass off, will there be anything left of you?
36-> Dignity.
I don’t get it.
I apologize for my ignorance but of what use is this so-called ‘majority’ if the President can veto anything and everything sent to him?
Along the same lines, of what use is this ‘majority’ if it can’t override that veto?
I feel I’m missing something here.
How is it even possible for the Democrats to effect change, if they can’t override a veto? Isn’t it a stalemate?
Thanks in advance for any civics lessons offered.
#37 – TommieB
>>Dignity.
You better grow a new organ before you laugh your ass off then.
Any “dignity” that can be salvaged by supporting the Repugs is going to be a pretty rare commodity.
Haw!
39->
Now I’m really laughing. You think I support the repugs? You sheep.
>>You sheep.
That’s “sheeple” to you, son.
#24–KD==you say: “Headline quoted, lifted, paraphrased, doesn’t matter to me. It got your attention…..” /// Well, I hope you just answered too quickly and really meant to say “It was close enough especially given the Dem Leadership had to agree.”
Otherwise you are just a whore.
#24 KD
Yes, it got my attention..at least long enough to see it was a flat out lie. What is the old marketing saying? “It’s easy to get people to try something once, but if the product doesn’t live up to it’s promise, they won’t be back.”
I suggest that even in the short time I’ve been around, the headlines here are getting more trolly all the time…equal opportunity trolly mind you…bound to upset right/left/believer/atheist alike, but trolly. Does this blog really need to do that? Does the headline really have to lie about the essence of the content in order to get views here? Don’t you think that people coming here would have looked anyway and the right would have been happy to make that distortion for you in the comments? There seem no small number of them around quite willing to twist anything without editorial help and assistance. I tend to look at everything…and only comment if it matters to me and if someone hasn’t already made any point I might have, but better..^_^
You’d be better off invoking my name in your post titles than lying. Just look at the hit counts.
# 40 – TomB
Thanks for all the vague links, I guess. Oh well, it’s Sunday and obviously I don’t have anything else to do.
I’m well aware the Dems are pretty much the exact same Party as the Repugs, only with a different name. I’m strictly apolitical.
To clarify my question:
If they wanted to, how do the Dems make changes when apparently the system is set up to make it impossible for them to do so and how can anyone (or, in this case everyone) criticize them for therefore not accomplishing the impossible?
James Hill hehe. What was your hit count again?
#46 They can’t make every change they want, but that doesn’t mean they have to provide the changes the other side wants. George Bush’s veto means nothing if the Democrats don’t pass telecom immunity. I haven’t followed the particulars of this bill, but most likely there is some new powers that did not formally exist in law before.
I am truly saddened that the Democrats have caved in to the Republican threat on this. There is no excuse.
Would someone clarify for me, why is this a bad thing for the Democrats to do? Mustard is saying Obama hasn’t flip-flopped on the issue. So was Obama always wrong about this, since I thought he had taken the party line here?
#45, James,
Just look at the hit counts.
Mother after you to take the garbage out again? Geeze, if you would just get out of the basement without being repeatedly told she would hit you so much.
If the democratic leadership (Reid, Pelosi, and that snake Rockefeller) had not allowed this stupid, unconstitutional, post-facto bill to hit the floor, it would not have been voted on and approved.
This is clearly their fault. I’m not going to blame the D’s that voted against it, and they have a long go to match the R’s in this matter; after all, wasn’t it Specter that complained that the MCA evicerated the bill of rights, then proceeded to vote for it? But still, this is clearly the fault of the D leadership.
# 47- MikeN
Apparently they can’t make any changes unless the President agrees. So, no change is their fault?
True but that’s another issue entirely. Since they expect the next President will be one of their own, of course they aren’t going to obstruct any new powers or harm any corporate financial donors.
You would think that if the House and Senate Democrats felt that Obama’s election was imminent, that they would have forced a stronger bill or publicly trounced this one. Wouldn’t implicating telecoms complicit with the current administration do more to solidify their position than to agree to such a bill? The timing of this concession is incredibly odd. Are that many of the House and Senate Democrats really at risk of losing their re-election campaign that they would change their tune so close to an apparent Democratic President? It makes you wonder how many of the Congressional Democrats actually believe that obama will win.
#54 – “It makes you wonder how many of the Congressional Democrats actually believe that obama will win.”
Privately, not many do.
#43 bobbo said,
“#24–KD==you say: “Headline quoted, lifted, paraphrased, doesn’t matter to me. It got your attention…..” /// Well, I hope you just answered too quickly and really meant to say “It was close enough especially given the Dem Leadership had to agree.”
Otherwise you are just a whore”
My initial response was, “And you’re a customer. Thanks for p(l)aying.”
But hey, it’s a DU ephemeral post and the goal was to get people to read the article. Does calling me a “whore” make you feel better? I thought you to be more erudite.
Seriously, if you’d like to offer a better headline to get this crowd arguing, submit it here. All serious suggestions are welcome.
#56–KD==yes, I felt proud of myself, but only for a few minutes. I insulted whores which was not my intent. I should have said dishonest lazy whore. I think that would have caught more of my displeasure.
Now, I think I’ve done it again, and a few minutes after I post this comment, I will figure out some other modifier that should have been used? So, I’ll wait a few minutes and read this again.
Meanwhile, speaking of erudition, Thanks. Its what I also look to you for, so we have disappointed each other. Why pimp your audience just because we are whore mongers? Why not elevate us? You have the skills to do both-to interest and inform.
“Dem Leaders violate Party’s Faithful”==catchy and true?????
Hey–most negative comments have a grain of truth. We could, and can in the future, both be better at what we do, in all aspects of our lives. What hope is there otherwise-become Republican?
Darn–I guess I have to post to find out what I could’ve said better. Keep the good stuff coming==and vote all incumbents OUT, OUT, OUT!!!!!!
#57 – Bobbo
http://tinyurl.com/584xde
Bobbo,
““Dem Leaders violate Party’s Faithful”==catchy and true?????”
Not bad, but would you read it? Where’s the tie to the Spook Alert? Nothing about the article content, just a headline about some dems and the party faithful.
And calling me a whore and then implying you insulted whores certainly shows me your talents. You’ll have to do better than that. Geez, even James Hill and Rodney Dangerfield can do better than that.
Your insults, by the way, are against comment guidelines, but I’ll let ’em stand.
Arguing about a headline, I’m not wasting another second of my life on this one.
#59–KD==I do read everything here. Not all the linked articles, and not all the comments, but all the OT’s.
I did think of the better line, but it is actually just a restatement of what I originally said. Perfection is not expected, its only the highest goal. Your real error is not in faltering in the first place, but in posting that you didn’t care, or worse implying that you did it on purpose and will continue to do so just to get people to read it?
At #18 all I said was the headline was misleading. That actually is bad as I have found myself having to reread articles to make sure I didn’t miss something to make it consistent with the setup. I didn’t get aggravated until your justification at #24 and even then I asked if it was a misstatement==so I tried to meet you half way.
Lazy dishonest Whore may be on the strong side, what is the blog worthy term for someone who intentionally misleads and when questioned about it, justifies it?
While the truth and the import of our positions may be subject to interpretation and reflection, I detect some humor in your response, as I hope you do in mine.
How about I take your position? I did the same thing to you that you did to me? Just to get your attention?
#52, sure they can make changes. Not everything is permanent. They didn’t have to fund the Iraq War. They didn’t have to pass any changes to the law. Let’s take net neutrality as an example. Here, to have net neutrality you would have to pass a law to implement it, and the President would have to sign it. So for that, they can’t force the change. Now consider telecom immunity. If they had just not passed this bill, there would be no telecom immunity. So here the Democrats are at fault for having telecom immunity.
If they wanted to, how do the Dems make changes when apparently the system is set up to make it impossible for them to do so and how can anyone (or, in this case everyone) criticize them for therefore not accomplishing the impossible?
Seriously, it may be too late. Both sides have so many different pet projects dependent on each other, it is going to take someone without ties to either party to get any real changes through.
If Obama wins, the craps are going to have to deal with the pugs — which means keeping the war going if they want their social programs. If the craps don’t deal, no spending bill will make it to him to sign that has enough money in it support said projects.
If McCain wins, the craps are STILL going to have deal with the pugs if they want to look like heroes to their constituents. “See, we’re getting things done for you. We’re the Compromisers! Just wait until 2012!”
In either case, both sides have too many pet projects that need funding. I don’t see any change happening if a Republicrat wins.
What we need is someone in who can look both parties in the eye and say, “So what if you don’t like it. Override me.” And then the poo-poo will really hit the fan. Pugs and Craps, Cats and Dogs, all living together. And I am curious how many laws the Supreme Court will overturn from a combined Republicrat Congress.
#61–Mike==the democrats are not at fault. See the vote total at #5. “The Democrats” as a party voted against this proposal that was allowed by the Democratic Leadership and passed by a minority of the Regpugs and ALL the Republicans except one.
House leadership who are democrats and the republican party, and Bush, are responsible for this law.===and the Sup Ct 3 years from now if a suit is brought which I don’t expect.
Substantively, I don’t even care, I’m fine with warrantless monitoring, until they come to take me away. Just parsing the language.
The Dem leadership comes from a vote of the Democrat Party. For them to act against the wishes of the majority of their members also reflects on the party. At least in the Senate, the minority has some power to force votes.