What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
197 Comments
- alapoet, on 06/30/2008, -4/+143It's time to ask Obama to stand with us against telecom immunity in FISA. There is a group of Obama supporters opposed to telecom immunity, headquartered on the MyBarackObama.com website, which in just four days has about 4,000 members. More are joining every minute.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama- ...
Let's make a stand together for freedom! - dave122, on 06/30/2008, -21/+74Perhaps people are going to start to realize that even though he says the word 'change' a lot, Obama is just more of the same.
- VKMO, on 06/30/2008, -1/+51FTA:
"We must stand, tall and united, against those who seek to turn the United States into a surveillance society. We must stand up and say 'NO!' to those who would turn us into a nation of fearful, isolated citizens, fearing each other, fearing the government, fearing the massive technological complex which has been turned to the ignoble end of monitoring our every word in some misguided attempt to provide an illusory security at the very real cost of our highest ideals." - roadtripguy, on 06/30/2008, -2/+48If Obama doesn't vote against this, he's telling you that it's ok to break the law and spy on innocent Americans behind their backs...keep that in mind. I'll admit, he's a much better choice than McCain and I'm glad Clinton didn't get the nomination, but regardless he MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR SUPPORTING FISA. Damnit people, spread the word LOUDLY.
- Futile, on 06/30/2008, -2/+47Money speaks: tell him there won't be any more campaign donations unless he opposes FISA. He's already committed to not taking money from lobbyists so your donations are extremely important.
- radiantstorm, on 06/30/2008, -3/+42The elites want the U.S. to look like China. This has got to stop!
- onyxcoltrane, on 06/30/2008, -2/+30Sign the petition at: http://www.petitiononline.com/bo90210/petition.htm ...
- Barackalypse, on 06/30/2008, -12/+41Where were you guys when he was voting to re-authorize the Patriot Act and do you really think his vote on this is going to be any better? Oh, I'm sure he'll deliver a nice speech about how it was flawed but it still represented our best chance to achieve something or other. I'm hoping he votes for this law and maybe this time the rabid Obama supporters will actually take notice or something he does instead of just what he says.
- dystra, on 06/30/2008, -2/+26How many chances are you going to give him on this telecom immunity stuff?
- luke374, on 06/30/2008, -1/+24If he votes for this he officially loses my vote in November. If the phone companies did nothing wrong, than a court will absolve them. There's no ***** reason we should protect them from having to prove themselves in a court.
- tarheelcoxn, on 06/30/2008, -4/+28You obviously didn't see his public statement in support of the recent "compromise" bill in the House. There is a real risk that he will vote for a bill that caves to every request the White House made, and there's a very real chance he'll try to paint the bill as not including immunity for telecoms when it effectively does.
- charm803, on 06/30/2008, -3/+21What's interesting about this election is that more and more people are going to be holding these politicians responsible!
I am an Obama supporter, but I admit that this did not sit well with me and I hope all his millions of supporters can make it loud and make it clear and hopefully he will see donations drop off if he doesn't oppose it.
I think that by not taking public funding, BUT by not doing what the people want, it can hurt him financially.
Let's make our voices heard and keep holding these politicians responsible!!!!!! - inactive, on 06/30/2008, -1/+17If Obama had any true backbone or integrity, it wouldn't require a petition to sway him, he would take the position of the people by default. It's time we begin looking beyond his rhetoric.
- christor, on 06/30/2008, -3/+19It isn't enough that he vote no. He must assemble a coalition sufficient to ensure the bill doesn't pass - whether that's through filibuster or other parliamentary means. He is now the leader of the democratic party. And he has the potential to be a truly great leader - one who can change minds and get things done rather than being led around by the leash of the 24 hour news cycle. Voting no on this is an empty gesture if the bill passes.
- sapped, on 06/30/2008, -0/+15My reasoning on the issue is as follows; (and I am open to discussion)
I simply don't trust the government. Full stop. By removing the immunity we are forcing the telecom companies to be held liable for what they did as well as for future actions.
This means that the next time the government comes knocking on their doors to do something illegal, they *might* think twice about complying so easily - ender7074, on 06/30/2008, -9/+20So what will you Obamanations do when he ignores this?
- BillDoE, on 06/30/2008, -1/+11There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams, Journal, 1772 - SocialPoison, on 06/30/2008, -0/+9[Citation Needed]
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9That's exactly right. China is the model the elite have planned for the future of America. That's why you hear so little criticism of China these days. The model is totalitarianism with a little capitalism thrown in, fascsim with a little consumerism to keep the rabble happy. And if there is a disturbance then send in the army to crush it. A constant stream of propaganda denying the truth. Patriotic retraining for those who protest. Jail for anyone speaking out on the internet. But big malls to keep all the shoppers happy, if you're one of the lucky ones that can afford it.
- TheInformer, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10How many chances has he gotten already for the things he's done? The national media will turn a blind eye, and his supporters will believe every word he says.
- Enuratique, on 06/30/2008, -4/+12I agree that Obama better start putting some money where his mouth is in regards to his "Change" mantra. So far he hasn't done much to back that up. Unfortunately, this is politics as usual. If I am to be optimistic, he's just playing the game to win and all the "moderate" Obama we're seeing now is just that - a bait and switch. If his campaign against Hillary shows anything he knows what it takes to win. And right now, if he votes NO against this, it will just give the GOP more asinine talking points such as "See - Obama is making it easy for those darn turrurists to plan attacks on us Americans. Clearly he is one of them, hurrrrrr". I'd like to think that someone who has a constitutional law degree would quickly see how blasphemous this FISA bill is.
Unfortunately he can't just rely on the intelligence of the average American. He knows he's got most registered Democrats on his side. So while we'd all like to think any attacks such as the one above would be quickly dismissed with Obama proudly exclaiming "This bill erodes so much of our freedom, don't you people realize that? Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither, etc et al." Sadly, the people he needs to convince to really make this a landslide still believe that he's a secret muslim terrorist despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. - setec, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10Wow, I guess he isn't as perfect as you all thought.
- solistus, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8Of course we can't name the Americans who've been spied on. IT'S A SECRET PROGRAM, dumbass. Even the FISA courts can't name who's been tapped, which is the problem. No independent oversight leads to horrific abuses of power.
Do you honestly think that warrantless wiretapping is going to stop some otherwise unstoppable attack? What happens when we allow telecom immunity for wiretapping and we get attacked anyway? Will it be time for CCTVs across the country, like London? What about when THAT works?
Until we address the root causes of violent extremism, we WILL be vulnerable to attack. No matter how many of liberties we give up, no matter how much of our soul we sell to stay safe, we will still be vulnerable. There is no way for any government, no matter how powerful or intrusive, to keep tabs on every single person on the planet who may want to do us harm. Ask Stalin how well trying to do so tends to work out. I'm not saying we should have no security, but if "the turrists are gonna get us" is justification for this, what ISN'T it justification for? I bet if we started summarily executing people for expressing radical or dissident ideas, we could stop a few potential terrorists, too. Would you support that? If not, then you have to stop using the terrorism excuse for everything and come up with a specific justification for why the security value of this practice outweighs the harm it does. Most security experts are baffled as to what this security value even is, given that FISA warrants are not hard to get in cases where there is a shred of actual evidence, even if it's just intercepted radio chatter or whatnot.
At any rate, even if you believe that warrantless wiretapping is a good idea, it was blatantly illegal when some of the telecoms agreed to do it. Granting them immunity after they knowingly broke the law is a terrible legal precedent to set. Companies should know that, just because someone in high office asks them to do something illegal, it's still illegal and they will still pay the costs. Giving people and corps a carte blanche to be party to crimes against the American people is intolerable. - cheezintern, on 06/30/2008, -2/+9I'll probably reconsider who I'm voting for, and after looking at the choices again, still vote for him, as the lesser of two evils.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8I was a member of MyBO until I got kicked off for posting some pretty mild criticism of AIPAC and the Israel Lobby. I'm very surprised the admins over there allowed a group like this to form. 4000 members is HUGE. Most groups that are centered around a single issue have 100-200 members at most. This is a very encouraging sign.
All politicians need to be reminded frequently of who they are working for. Obama is no different. Hey Barack, are you listening!?!?!? - solistus, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7Just because he's liberal *for a mainstream US politician* doesn't mean he's a leftist.
Obama is opposed to NAFTA but only wants to reform it. He's opposed to telecom immunity but he'll still vote for the FISA bill even if he can't remove that clause. He supports federal funding for health coverage, but not a universal and single-payer system. He hasn't even discussed things like fundamental reform of our tax system, any serious new regulations for industry, etc. He's the best choice we have, but he's no leftist. Center-right is what he would be in most European democracies. - kaelyiesta, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6You've been had by the two party system, Chico. Neither side(speaking generally) has we the peoples interests in mind. Even if you support the ideals of socialism(I won't argue that topic here), you make the mistake of thinking that there are many politicians in the house/senate that actually fight for those ideals. At best, they only use those philosophies as a tool to help themselves.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8If I'm understanding you correctly I think Obama has the same point. He wants accountability for who made the companies break the law in the first place (GW and his henchmen). This bill also says that you cannot have civil suits, from my understanding criminal charges are not off the table with this bill. And don't get me wrong, I was pretty f'in pissed about this, but I realize Obama is compromising so that he wont waste a vote just to have the republicans say he's soft on terror. I say waste a vote because no matter how he votes, this thing is going to pass. And if he voted no, it would still pass and McCain would start with the whole "he doesn't care about our safety" argument; which btw is the only one McCain seems to win with. It's also a chance for Obama to show he can move toward the center to compromise on issues, which is the latest talking point for the McCain camp as well - they claim he's an extreme leftist who cannot work with republicans on anything. Him voting yes on this bill takes away from both of those arguments (he's soft on terror, and can't move to the center) right when they are being made the most. He knows what he's doing, and I hope people don't let this issue cloud all the reasons they were not going to vote for McCain. If he's going to be President of the nation, and not just President of the Democrats, we're going to see a whole lot more compromising coming from him to try and bridge the gap. (Same deal, open to discussion, I could be wrong on some of this stuff, who knows.)
- netsql, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8Good idea.
So far "change" = more of the same. In that case, bye O. - patch6, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7Asking a high-level politician to honor campaign promises that aren't in favor of special interests? In this age?
You'd have better luck finding a unicorn. - Altotus, on 06/30/2008, -5/+11Um... If he doesn't vote no on telecom immunity, what are you gonna do? Vote for someone else? The "major" "electable" candidates are long since bought and paid for by the same people. They have two different flavors of rhetoric, but ultimately they both answer to the same masters (and they aren't "we the people").
- 1gunners4, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5I want to hit you.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7Obama voted yes on Telecom Immunity so I vote not to Obama.
- wetwillie, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Exactly! I donated for his primary election and with his current attitude towards the FISA legislation and the condemning of Gen Westley Clark I'm holding on to my money.
- fancypantscz, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5http://www.alternet.org/rights/35807/
FTL:
In August 2004, as a routine court procedure, the FBI provided the lawyers and defendants with documents relating to the trial. The FBI's lawyers accidentally released a document that showed the government had used logs of conversations between the lawyers and their clients, Soliman al-Buthi and the organization, to categorize Al-Haramain as a terrorist group. The catch is that the logs were obtained without a warrant.
Al-Haramain was most certainly harmed by this litigation that should have been thrown out of court.
There is only one group of people who can actually PREVENT 'violent Islam' from harming the innocent and those are the individuals who would otherwise follow those abhorrent teachings but for some reason or another choose not to. Non-violent Islam is going to defeat 'violent Islam' not America and certainly not some shoddy legislation that violates my civil liberties and the rule of law.
Terrorism is murder and our forefathers gave us a system to work within to deal with it when it happens in the country. Now if you hold some religions convictions that leads you to believe that murder in the name of Islam somehow warrants action outside that system then you get the public support and the votes to change the constitution. You don't have president Bush stranglehold the congress into passing legislation in order to stop litigation already in the courts so that Telecoms don't have to spill the beans about all the crimes Bush actually committed and say that is about preventing terrorism. That is called a disregard for the rule of law and that is deranged.
The so called war on terror is self defeating. And in the hands of the amazing incompetency that is the Bush administration it has wrought havoc on all it touches. Look what it has done to Afghanistan. Look what has happened to the people of Iraq. Now you want the war on terror to reshape the functioning of American democracy? You are insane.
When America is fascist police state do you really think anyone will take solace in who how safe we are from terrorists? - jmbarbera, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Make your thoughts known here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2
Select Making a comment from the drop down list.
I don't know how much effect it will have, but it's worth a shot. - shig, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4They're asking you to do something illegal, or to become an accomplice in their illegal activities. I don't care what kind of medallion they happen to carry, they are criminals. Not peace officers or someone you think would deserve respect or your acquiescence, but Stasi, scum, filth, destroyers of liberty.
Does that answer your question?
If a cop wants to enter my car without a warrant, I'm dialing 911. - Infidelcastr0, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4With a heavy heart I will vote for the lesser of two evils as I have in the past and continue being a curmudgeon.
We get it, Obama isn't Jesus Q. Hero, but that doesn't make McCain any less evil or more liberal. - WallyAnti, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4I'll actually vote for someone who I consider to be moral. In other words someone who has no chance of winning.
- schneidafunk, on 06/30/2008, -3/+7make that 4000 + 1 members... just joined, thanks for the link.
- Aikidi, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5why are people begging and pleading with Obama to be a patriot? he voted for the renewal of the patriot act. If the public wasn't making this an issue, he'd completely go for immunities without even blinking. How can he support the patriot act and want to protect individual freedom. Its absurd.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Only one thing, Obama ain't Hitler. And nader is an egomaniac. And a vote for him helps the republicans.
And ron paul is a ***** nut. - inactive, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6I'm getting the impression some people are getting their first taste of real politics here and are realizing how much it sucks. Liberals give him ***** b/c he's moving to the center. The right will give him ***** for being soft on terror - He can't win on this issue. And people keep acting like they're going to drop support for him which means McCain will get the advantage; and you think you're being spied on now? McCain will not only keep this stuff going, he's probably going to bring up more of it once he bombs Iran.
- Loonacy, on 06/30/2008, -10/+14Or to rephrase: Obama supporters question his positions on certain issues, while Ron Paul supporters don't question Ron Paul at all.
- KyleGoetz, on 06/30/2008, -4/+8I'll realize there isn't a politician who represents me 100%, and judge between the available choices and vote accordingly. What will you do differently?
- Franswahili, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4What's 'moderate' about telecom immunity?
- NorthMass, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4The only way to hold him accountable is to vote for a 3rd party candidate or Ralph Nader. Votes are all that matters my friend, if Bob Barr gets like 11% in the election that would show Washington that people are pissed and want change, and if somehow a miracle happened were Bob Barr/Nader/someone else won then that would just be dandy =).
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3"90,000 more troops for what purpose? There are peacetime activities as well as wartime activities that require attention in order to maintain the safety of the troops we already have in the field, as well as relief and other efforts that require troop activities. Also of interest: which branch(es), and for what duration?"
Sure peacetime activities more like extra troops for war with Iran.
"Voted to re-authorize because Schoolmarm Bush told Congress they'd have to stay after the session if they didn't. So, he voted to keep the Patriot Act so he could go home, but severely weakened it in the process, limiting the government's ability to snoop into library records and see who's checking what out, rather than allowing it wholesale (as the previous USA-PATRIOT Act did)."
So he limits our freedom so he can go home sounds like a great leader. -
Show 51 - 100 of 205 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is